SECT. I.

IT was the challenge of St. Augustine toDe unit. Eccles. c. 6. the Donatists, who (as the Church of Rome does at this day) inclos'd the Ca­tholick Church within their own circuits: [Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands, but where Donatus is Co-heir. Read this to [...] out of the Law and the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel it self, or out of the Letters of the Apostles. Read it thence and we believe it.] Plainly directing us to the Fountains of our Faith, the Old and New [Page 5] Testament, the words of Christ, and the words of the Apostles. For nothing else can be the foundation of our Faith, what­soever came in after these, foris est, it be­longs not unto ChristEcclesia ex sacris & canonicis Scripturis [...] est, [...] ex illis ostendi non potest, Ecclesia non est, S. Aug. de uni. Eccles. c. 4. &c. 3. [...] Eccle­siam, ibi decernamus causam nostram..

To these we also add, not as Authors or Finishers, but as helpers of our Faith, and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical, the Sen­timents and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God, in the Ages next after the Apostles. Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private opinion, even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr; but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire, and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole Faith, [...], the form of Doctrine, and sound words, which was at first delivered to the Saints, and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation; and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosom of Christ, and seal'd the true faith with their lives and with their deaths, and by both, gave testimony unto Jesus, and had from him the testimony of his Spirit.

AND this method of procedure we now choose, not only because to them that know well how to use it, to the Sober and the [Page 6] Moderate, the Peaceable and the Wise, it is the best, the most certain, visible and tangible, most humble and satisfactory, but also because the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformity to Antiquity. Indeed the present Roman Do­ctrines, which are in difference, were invi­sible and unheard of in the first and best an­tiquity, and with how ill success their quo­tations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages, every enquiring Man may easily discern. But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages; where secular interest did more prevail, and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous, full of controversie, and ambiguous senses, sitted to their own times and questions, full of proper opinions, and such variety of say­ings, that both sides eternally and incon­futably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively. Now although things being thus, it will be impossible for them to con­clude from the sayings of a number of Fa­thers, that their doctrine, which they would prove thence, was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church; because any number that is less than all, does not prove a Catholick consent; yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alleged by us to the contrary, will certainly prove that what many of them (suppose it) do affirm, and which but two or three as good Catholicks [Page 7] as the other do deny, was not then matter of faith or a Doctrine of the Church; for if it had, these had been Hereticks accoun­ted, and not have remain'd in the Commu­nion of the Church. But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it; yet we shall have no need to make use of it; since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are in­dubitably more than Conquerors; but even in the succeeding Ages, we have the advan­tage both numero, pondere & mensurâ, in number, weight and measure.

WE do easily acknowledge that to dis­pute these questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them; but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions, and from thence can never be confuted; but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures, and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Sal­vation: and therefore if we sind any Do­ctrine now taught, which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation, we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith, and which ought not to be impos'd upon con­sciences. They were wise unto salvation, and fully instructed to every good work; and therefore the faith which they profess'd and [Page 8] deriv'd from Scripture, we profess also; and in the same faith, we hope to be sav'd [...] as they. But for the new Doctors; we understand them not, we know them not: Our faith is the same from the beginning, and cannot become new.

BUT because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us, and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances, and little images of things instead of solid argu­ments; we shall take from them their ar­mour in which they trusted, and choose this sword of Goliah to combat their er­rors; for non est alter talis; It is not easie to find a better than the word of God, expoun­ded by the prime and best Antiquity.

THE first thing therefore we are to ad­vertise is, that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick, and divert them to Propositions of their own, new and unheard of in the first ages of the Christian Church.

FOR the Religion of our Church is there­fore certainly Primitive and Apostolick, be­cause it teaches us to believe the whole Scri­ptures of the Old and New Testament, and nothing else as matter of faith; and there­fore unless there can be new Scriptures, we can have no new matters of belief, no new articles of faith. Whatsoever we cannot [Page 9] prove from thence, we disclaim it, as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour. We also do believe the Apostles Creed, the Nicene, with the additions of Constantinople, and that which is commonly called, the Symbol of Saint Athanasius: and the four first General Councils are so intirely admit­ted by us, that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us: and in pursuance of these, it is command­ed by our Church that the Clergy shall ne­ver teach any thing as matter of Faith reli­giously to be observed, but that which is agree­able to the Old and New Testament, and col­lected out of the same Doctrine by the An­cient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church Lib. Can­discip. This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church, they ad­mittedEccl. Angl. & injunct. all into their Communion, that were of this faith; they condemned no Man thatRegin. Elis. A. D. 1571 Can. de [...]. did not condemn these; they gave letters communicatory by no other cognisance, and all were Brethren who spake this voice. [Hanc legem sequentes, Christianorum Catho­licorum nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes, vesanosque judicantes [...] dog­matis infamiam sustinere] said the Empe­rors,Dat. 3. Ca­len. Mart. [...]. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Chri­stians and Catholicks, viz. all they who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, [Page 10] one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity; which indeed was the summ of what was decreed in explication of the A­postles Creed in the four first General Councils.

AND what faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace, the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion, or the [...] basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter, than the measures which the Ho­ly Primitive Church did hold, and we after them? That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adaequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief: The way which they thought sufficient to go to Hea­ven in, is the way which we walk: what they did not teach, we do not publish and impose; into this faith entirely and into no other, as they did theirs; so we baptize our Catechumens: The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd, we use also, and we use no other: and in short, we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes, except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion, and in which we shall prove that they have innovated. So that by their confession, all the Doctrine, which we teach the People, as matter of Faith, must be confessed to be Ancient, Pri­mitive and Apostolick, or else theirs is not so: for ours is the same, and we both have [Page 11] received this faith from the fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition; not they from us, or we from them, but both of us from Christ and his Apostles. And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primi­tive; it is so, confessedly: But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first ages, which were no part of their faith, which were never put into their Creeds, which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils, rever'd in all Christen­dom, and entertain'd every where with great Religion and veneration, even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical writings.

OF this sort, because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many, and hath adopted them into their late Creed, and imposes them up­on the People, not only without, but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God; laying heavy burdens on Mens consciences, and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions; arrogating to themselves a do­minion over our faith, and prescribing a me­thod of Salvation which Christ and his Apo­stles never taught; corrupting the faith of the Church of God, and teaching for Do­ctrines the Commandments of Men; and last­ly, having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ, who alone is the Author and Finish­er of our faith, and hath perfected it in the [Page 12] revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures; therefore it is, that we esteem our selves ob­lig'd to warn the People of their danger, and to depart from it, and call upon them to stand upon the ways, and ask after the old paths, and walk in them; lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them, who remove the Ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us.

NOW that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primi­tive and Apostolick, appears in this; That in the Church of Rome, there is pretence made to a power, not only of declaring new articles of faith, but of making new Symbols or Creeds, and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation. Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the Tenth against Martin Luther, in which, amongst other things, he is condemn'd for saying, [It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Ar­ticles of Faith.] We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Quod sit metrum, & regula, ac scientia [...]. [...] de Ec­clesia, l. 2. c. [...]., Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Novum Symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat, quia est caput sidei Christiane, cujus authoritate omnia quae ad fidem spectant [...] & roborantur. q. 59. a. 1. & art. 2. sicut potest novum symbo­lum condere, ita potest novos articulos supra alios multiplicare., Petrus de Ancorano Papa potest facere novos articulos fidei, id est, quod modo credi oporteat, cum sic [...] non oporteret. In cap. cum Christus. de [...]. n. 2., and the Fa­mous Abbot of Panormo Papa potest inducere novum articulum [...]. In idem., that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds, but new Ar­ticles [Page 13] of Faith; that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd, which before never was necessary; that he is the measure and rule, and the very notice of all credibilities; That the Canon Law is the Divine law; and whatever law the Pope promulges, God, whose Vicar he is, is understood to be the promulger. That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope; and that in his ar­bitration Religion does consist: which are the very words of Hostiensis Super 2. Decret. de jurejur. c. nimis. n. 1., and Ferdi­nandus ab Inciso Apud Pe­trum [...]. 2. instit. per. ca. 69., who were Casuists and Doctors of Law, of great authority amongst them and renown. The thing it self, is not of dubious disputation amongst them, but actually practis'd in the greatest instances, as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the Fourth at the end of the Council of Trent; by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future, but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed, and they are corroborated by the same de­cretory clauses that are used in the Creed of Athanasius: that this is the true Catholick Faith; and that without this no Man can be saved.

NOW since it cannot be imagined that this power, to which they pretend, should never have been reduc'd to act; and that it is not credible they should publish so invidu­ous and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose, and to serve no end; it may without further [Page 14] evidence be believed by all discerning per­sons, that they have need of this Doctrine, or it would not have been taught, and that consequently without more a-doe, it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new Faith; and that they can therefore in no sense be Apostolical, unless their being Roman makes them so.

To this may be added another conside­ration, not much less material, that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be over­thrown by the Fathers, though not by Scri­pture; they have also many gripes of con­science concerning the Fathers themselves, that they are not right on their side; and of this, they have given but too much de­monstration by their Expurgatory Indices. The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head, shews where his danger is, and by what he can most readily be destroyed. But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers writings, their thrusting in that which was spurious, and, like Pharaoh, killing the legitimate Sons of Israel Jobannes Clemens a­liquot fo­lia Theodo­retilacera­vit & ab­jecit in fo­cum, in quibus contra transubstantiationem praeclare disseruit. Et cum non it a pridem Originem excuderent, totum illud caput sextum Jo­bannis & quod commentabatur Origines omiserunt, & mutilum edi­derunt librum propter candem causam.; though in this, they have done very much of their work, and made the Testimo­nies of the Fathers to be a record infi­nitely worse, than of themselves uncorrup­ted, [Page 15] they would have been (of which divers Learned Persons have made publick com­plaint and demonstration) they have at last fallen to a new trade, which hath caus'd more dis-reputation to them, than they have gain'd advantage, and they have vir­tually confess'd, that in many things, the Fathers are against them.

FOR first, the King of Spain gave a com­mission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catho­lick Authors; but with this clause, iique ipsi privatim, nullisque consciis apud se indi­cem expurgatorium habebunt, quem eundem neque aliis communicabunt, neque ejus exem­plum ulli dabunt: that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately, neither im­parting that Index, nor giving a copy of it to any. But it happened, by the Divine providence, so ordering it, that about thir­teen years after, a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius, and since it came abroad against their wills, they find it necessary now to own it, and they have Printed it themselves. Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In St. Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil, these words, [The Church is not built upon the Man, but the Faith] are commanded to be blotted out: and these [There is no merit, but what is given us by Christ,] and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost, and the former words are in his [Page 16] first homily upon that of St. John, Ye [...] my friends, &c.] The like they have done to him in many other places, and to S. Am­brose, and to St. Austin, and to them all Sixtus Senensis epist. de­dicat. ad. Pium Quin. laudat [...] in [...] verba, Ex­purgari & emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scripto­rum, ac praecipuè veterum [...] scripta., insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Cor­rector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius, that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of S. Am­brose in that Edition of his Works, which was Printed at Lyons, 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's book [In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors, and extenuate and excuse them, and finding out some commentary, we feign some convenient sense when they are oppos'd in di­sputations] they do indeed practise, but esteem it not sufficient; for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions. Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors; insomuch that out of one of Froben's indices they have com­manded these words to be blotted [The use of Images forbidden] The Eucharist no sacrifice, but the memory of a sacrifice] Works, although they do not justifie, yet are necessary to Salvation] Marriage is granted to all that will not contain] Venial sins damn] The dead Saints, after this life cannot help us] nay out of the Index of St. Austin's [Page 17] Works by [...] Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur [Dele, Index ex­purgator. Madr. 1612. in Indice li­bror. ex­purgato­rum, pag. 39. Solus Deus adorandus] that God alone is to be worshipped, is commanded to be blotted out, as being a dangerous Doctrine. These instances may serve instead of multitudes, which might be brought of their corrupting the witnesses and razing the records of an­tiquity, that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily re­prov'd. Now if the Fathers were not against them, what need these arts? Why should they use them thus? Their own ex­purgatory indices are infinite testimony against them, both that they do so, and that they need it.

But besides these things, we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect, some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England, and make it evident that they are indeed new, and brought into the Church, first by way of opinion, and afterwards by power, and at last, by their own authority decreed into Laws and Ar­ticles.

SECT. II.

FIRST, we allege, that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty, and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church; and we prove it, first, by the words of the Apostle, saying, If we, or an Angel Gal. 1. 8. from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel (viz. in whole or in part, for there is the same reason of them both) than that which we have preached, let him be Anathe­ma: and secondly, by the sentence of the Fa­thers in the third General Council, that at Ephesus. [That it should not be lawful for Part. 2. act. 6. c. 7. any Man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council: and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any Per­sons willing to be converted from Paganism, Judaism, or Heresie, if they were Bishops or Clerks, they should be depos'd, if Lay-men, they should be accursed.] And yet in the Church of Rome Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon; Bromyard complain'd of it long [Page 19] since, and the mischief encreases daily. They have now a new Article of Faith, ready for the stamp, which may very shortly be­come necessary to salvation; we mean that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Whether the Pope be above a Council or no; we are not sure, whether it be an article of faith amongst them or not: It is very near one if it be not. Bel­larmine would [...] have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of Pope Martin the fifth, declar'd for theDe potest. Eccles. Concil. [...]. Pope's Supremacy. But John Gerson, who was at the Council, says, that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advanc'd the Pope; and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope, which afterwards moderate Men durst not speak; but yet some others spoke them so confidently before it, that he that should then have spoken to the contra­ry would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie: and that these Men continued the same pretensions even after the Council. But the Council of Basil decreed for the Council against the Pope; and the Coun­cil of Lateran under Leo the tenth, de­creed for the Pope against the Council. So that it is cross and pile; and whether for a peny, when it can be done; it is now a known case it shall become an Article of Faith. But ofr the present it is a proba­tionary Article, and according to Bellar­mine's [Page 20] expression, is ferè de fide, it is almostDe Concil. author l 2. c. 17. S. 1. an Article of Faith; they want a little age, and then they may go alone. But the Coun­cil of Trent hath produc'd a strange new Ar­ticle; Sess. 21. c. 4. but it is sine controversiâ credendum, it must be believ'd, and must not be con­troverted: that although the Ancient Fa­thers did give the Communion [...] Infants, yet they did not believe it necessary to Salvation. Now this being a matter of fact whether they did or did not believe it, every man that reads their writings can be able to in­form himself: and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council, and determin'd against evident truth (it being notorious, that divers of the Fathers did say it is necessary to salvation;) the decree it self is beyond all bounds of mo­desty, and a strange pretension of Empire over the Christian belief. But we proceed to other instances.

SECT. III.

THE Roman Doctrine of Indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and [Page 21] Reformation of the Western Churches, begun by the Preachings of Martin Luther and others; and besides that it grew to that in­tolerable abuse, that it became a shame to it self and a reproach to Christendom, it was also so very an Innovation, that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we Part. 1. Sum. tit. 10. c. 3. have nothing expresly, either in the Scriptures, or in the sayings of the Antient Doctors: and the same is affirmed by Sylvester Prierias. Bishop Fisher of Rochester says, that in theIn art 18. [...]. beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences; and that they began after the people were a-while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory; and many of the School-men confess that the use of Indul­gences began in the time of Pope Alexander the third, towards the end of the 12th. Century: but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the VIII. who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England, 1300 years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept we are assur'd by Crantzius. This Pope Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit, ut leo, [...] ut canis, de eo [...] dictum. lived and died with very great infamy, and therefore was not likely from himself to transfer much honour and reputation to the new institution. But that about this time indulgences began, is more than probable; much before, it is certain they were not. For in the whole Canon-Law written by Gratian, and in the sentences of Peter Lom­bard there is nothing spoken of Indulgences: [Page 22] Now because they liv'd in the time of Pope Alexander III. if he had introduc'd them, and much rather if they had been as antient as S. Gregory (as some vainly and weakly pretend, from no greater authority than their own Legends) it is probable that these great Men writing Bodies of Divinity and Law, would have made mention of so con­siderable a point, and so great a part of the Roman Religion, as things are now order'd. If they had been Doctrines of the Church then, as they are now, it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses.

Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church, we think it fit to acquaint them, that in the Primitive Church, when the Bishops impos'd severeTertul. 1. ad Martyr. c. 1. S. Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 15. [...] [...] 11. Concil. Nicen. 1. can. 12. Conc. [...]. c. 5. Concil. Laodicen. c. 2. S. Basil. in Ep. canonicis habentur in Nomocanone Photii, can. 73. penances, and that they were almost quite per­form'd, and a great cause of pity intervened, or dan­ger of death, or an excellent repentance, or that the Martyrs interceded, the Bishop did some­times indulge the Penitent, and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance; and according to the example of S. Paul, in the case of the incestuous Corinthian, gave them ease, lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow. But the Ro­man Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly [Page 23] another thing; nothing of it but the abused name remains. For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christs merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants: and (for fear Christ should not have enough) the Saints have a surplusage of merits, Communis opinio D. D. tan Theologorum, quam Ca­nonicorum, quod sunt ex abun­dantia meritorum quae ultra mensuram demeritorum suo­rum sancti sustinuerunt, & Christi, Sum. Angel. v. In­dulg. 9. or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend, or them­selves do need: and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure, a kind of poor-mans box; and out of this, a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor Souls in Purgatory; who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins, or perform all their penances which were imposed, or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paid to God for the temporal pains re­served upon them, after he had forgiven them the guilt of their [...] sins, are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of hell, excepting only that they are not eternal. Lib. 1. de indulgent. c. 2. & 3. That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences, we appeal to Bellarmine.

Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences, the first stone of it was laid by Pope [...] VI. in his extravagant Vni­genitus, de poenitentiis & remissionibus, [Page 24] A. D. 1350. This constitution was pub­lished Fifty years after the first Jubilee, and was a new device to bring in customers to Rome at the second Jubilee, which was kept in Rome in this Popes time. What ends of profit and interest it serv'd, we are not much concern'd to enquire; but this we know, that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine, for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis In 4. l sen. dist. 19 q. 2. and Durandus Ib dist. 20 q. 3. not long before this extrava­gant; and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany, rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences, made Leo the Tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it.

BUT as to the thing it self: it is so wholly new, so merely devis'd and forged by themselves, so newly created out of no­thing, from great mistakes of Scripture, and dreams of shadows from antiquity; that we are to admonish our charges, that they can­not reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them, any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers, which were born but yesterday. That which is not cannot be numbred, and that which was not could not be confuted. But the perfect si­lence of antiquity in this whole matter, is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later laboratories of Rome. For as Durandus said, the HolyVbi supra. [Page 25] Fathers, Ambrose Hilary, Hierom, Augu­stine speak nothing of Indulgences. And whereas it is said that S. Gregory DC. years after Christ, gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations; Magister Angularis who lived about 200. years since, says, he never read of any such any where; and it is certain there is no such thing in the writings of S. Gregory, nor in any history of that age or any other that is Authentick: and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman writers, but a Legend of Ledge­rus brought to us the other day by Surius: which is so ridiculous and weak, that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story; and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences, and Altisiodorensis for story and record. And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punish­ment, reserv'd by God after the sin is par­doned, were given by Christ to his Church, that no one of the antient Doctors should tell any thing of it: insomuch that there is no one Writer of Authority and credit, not the more antient Doctors we have named, nor those who were much later, Rupertus Tuitiensis, Anselm or S. Bernard ever took notice of it; but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about MCC. years after Christ: and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian VI. that to him that read­eth the Decretals it plainly appears, that [Page 26] an indulgence is nothing [...] but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed; and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adays pretended.

TRUE it is, that the Canonical [...] were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations; and the an­cient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose, that the In­dulgence was more than the Imposition, and began not to be an act of mercy but remis­ness, an absolution without amends: It became a trumpet, and a levy for the Holy War, in Pope Urban the Second's time; for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight a­gainst the Saracens: and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences: for concerning the value of indulgences, the complaint is both old andIn lib. 4. sent. doubtful, said Pope Adrian; and he cites a famous gloss, which tells of four Opini­ons all Catholick, and yet vastly differingVerb. In­dulgentia. in this particular: but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indul­gences: No man could then tell; and the point was but in the infancy, and since that, they have made it what they please: but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine, and they have devised new propositions, as well as they can, to make sense of it; and yet it is a very strange thing; a solution, not an ab­solution [Page 27] (it is the distinction of Bellarmine) that is, the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this world, or in the world to come; and in the end, it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer: a [...] of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture, or Catholick Tradition; and not only so, but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins, that Christ and his Apostles taught not; a way destructive of the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus: it brought into the Church, false and fantastick hopes, a hope that will make men asham'd; a [...] that does not glo­risie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ; a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ; a practice that sup­poses a new bunch of Keys given to the Church, besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven; a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints, and advances the opi­nion of their works beyond the measures of Christ, who taught us, That when we have done all that is Vt quid non praevides tibi in die judicii, quando nemo [...] per alium excusari, vel defendi; sed unusquisque sufficiens [...] sibi ipsi: Tho. [...] l. 1. de imit. c. 24. commanded, we are unprofi­table servants, and there­fore certainly cannot super­crogate, or do more than what is infinitely recom­penc'd by the Kingdom of Glory, to which all our doings and all our [Page 28] sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd, espe­cially, since the greatest. Saint cannot but say with David, Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified; It is a practice that hath turn'd penances into a Fair, and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard, and the labours of Love into the labours of pilgrimages, su­perstitious and useless wandrings from place to place; and Religion into vanity, and our hope in God to a confidence in man, and our fears of hell to be a meer scar-crow to rich and confident sinners: and at last, it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady, the Wife of France s­chetto Cibo bastard Son of Pope Innocent viii. and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters, at Dice and Cards, and men did vile actions that they might win indulgences; by gaming making their way to heaven easier.

NOW although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences, because in their days it was not: yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practices. For besides that they teach a repentance wholly redu­cing us to a good life; a faith that intirely relies upon Christs merits and satisfactions; a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel, a service perfectly [Page 29] consisting in the works of a good conscience, a labour of love, a religion of justice and piety, and moral vertues: they do also ex­presly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions, which are now the earnings and price of indulgences, are not requir'd of us, and are not the way of sal­vation, as is to be seen in an Oration made by S. Gregory Nyssene wholly against pil­grimages to Jerusalem; in S. Chrysostom Homil. 1. in ep. ad Philom., S. Augustine Serm. de Martyrib. Serm. 1. de Advent., and S. Bernard: The sense of these Fathers is this, in the words of S. Augustine: God said not, Go to the East, and seek righteousness; sail to the West that you may rcceive indulgence. But indulge thy brother, and it shall be indulg'd to thee: you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins; if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart, there thou shalt find it. That is, All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESUS CHRIST, and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ, and perseverance in good works, and intire mor­tification of all our sins.

To conclude this particular: Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences, be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves, yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty, or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could in­quire into it. They never durst determine, whether they were Absolutions, or Compen­sations; [Page 30] whether they only take off the pe­nances actually impos'd by the Confessor, or potentially, and all that which might have been impos'd; whether all that may be paid in the Court of men; or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God. Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question, Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only, or of the Saints? For if of Saints, it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate, and being finite and limited, will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served; and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ, since they are an Ocean of infinity, and can supply more than all our needs, to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints? They cannot tell whether they may be gi­ven, if the Receiver do nothing, or give nothing for them: And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome, than by the Church of Rome, yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences, were so dange­rous to determine, so improbable, so un­reasonable, or at best so uncertain and in­vidious, that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena, the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines, and all the cases of Conscience quite alone, and slubber'd the whole matter both in the question of Indul­gences [Page 31] and Purgatory in general and recom­mendatory terms; affirming, that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church, and that the use is wholsome: And that all hard and subtil questions (viz.) concerning Pur­gatory, (which although (if it be at all) it is a fire, yet is the fuel of Indulgences, and maintains them wholly;) all that is suspe­cted to be false, and all that is uncertain; and whatsoever is curious and superstitious, scandalous, or for filthy lucre, be laid aside. And in the mean time, they tell us not what is, and what is not Superstitions; nor what is Scandalous, nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence; and they esta­blish no Doctrine, neither curious, nor in­curious, nor durst they decree the very foun­dation of this whole matter, The Churches Treasure: Neither durst they meddle with it, but left it as they found it, and continued in the abuses, and proceed in the practice, and set their Doctors, as well as they can, to defend all the new, and curious and scan­dalous questions, and to uphold the gainful trade. But however it be with them, the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct In­novation in the matter of Christian Religi­on, and that was it which we have under­taken to demonstrate.

SECT. IV.

THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mo­ther of Indulgences, and the fear of that hath introduc'd these: For the world hapned to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable, who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet, was advis'd for remedy to take the juice of Cotton: He feared a disease that was not, and look'd for a cure as ridiculous. But if the Parent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles; if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built, the Superstructures of Rome must fall; they can be no stronger than their Supporter. Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation,

1. We consider, That the Doctrines up­on [Page 33] which it is pretended reasonable, are all dubious, and disputable at the very best. Such are,

1. THEIR distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature.

2. THAT the taking away the guilt of sins, does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment; that is, That when a mans sin is pardoned, he may be punished without the guilt of that sin, as just­ly as with it; as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned: which is a Proposition, of which no wise man can make sense; but it is certain, that it is expresly against the Word of God, who promises upon our re­pentance, so to take away our sins, that he [...]. 18. 22. will remember them no more: And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon; for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way, but by curing our evil hearts, and taking away the punishment Neque ab iis quos sanas lente languor abscedit, sed il­lico quem restituis ex integro convalescit, quia consumma­tum est quod facis, & perfectum quod largiris. S. Cyprian de coe­na Domini: vel potius Arnol­dus. P. Gelasius de vincul. ana­them negat [...] deberi [...] si culpa corrigatur.. And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church, that they always made the pe­nances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution; and after absolution they never im­pos'd or oblig'd to punish­ment, unless it were to sick persons, of whose recovery they despaired not: of them in­deed, [Page 34] in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments, they expected they should perform what was enjoyn'd them formerly. But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul, and a foul stain to his reputati­on; we demand, in what does this stain consist? In the guilt, or in the punishment? If it be said that it consists in the punish­ment; then what does the guilt signifie, when the removing of it, does neither re­move the stain nor the punishment, which both remain and abide together? But if the stain and the guilt be all one, or always to­gether, then when the guilt is taken away, there can no stain remain; and if so, what need [...] gratiae finalis pec­catum veniale in ipsa dissolu­tione [...] & animoe. Hoc ab antiquis dictum est. Albert. Mag. in compend. Theolog. verit. l. 3. c. 13. is there any more of Purgatory? For since this is pretended to be ne­cessary, only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should en­ter into Heaven; if the guilt and the pain be re­moved, what uncleanness can there be left behind? Indeed Simon Magus (as [...] reports, Haeres. 20.) did teach, That after the death of the body there remained [...], a purgation of souls: But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor, themselves can best tell.

3. IT relies upon this also, That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions, which must regularly be [Page 35] paid here or hereafter, even by them who are pardon'd here: which if it were true, we were all undone.

4. THAT the Death of Christ, his Me­rits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye, nor (as it may happen) of a long time after. All which being Propositions new and uncertain, in­vented by the School Divines, and brought ex [...], to dress this opinion, and make it to seem reasonable; and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace, of the righteousness of Faith, and the infinite value of Christs Death, must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self, which but by these, cannot be supported. But to put it past suspition and conjectures;

Roffensis and Polydore Virgil affirm, ThatArt. 18. con. Luther Invent. re­rum. l. [...]. c. 1. who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very rarely any one of them, ever makes mention of Purgatory; and that the Latin Fathers did not all believe it, but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it: But for the Ca­tholick Church, it was but lately known to her.

BUT before we say any more in this Que­stion, we are to premonish, That there are Two great causes of their mistaken preten­sions in this Article from Antiquity.

THE first is, That the Antient Churches in their Offices, and the Fathers in [...] [Page 36] Writings, did teach and practise respective­ly, prayer for the dead. Now because the Church of Rome does so too, and more than so, relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory, and for the souls there detain'd, her Doctors vainly suppose, that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead, that they conclude for Purgatory; which vain conjecture is as false as it is un­reasonable: For it is true, the Fathers did pray for the dead, but how? That God would shew them mercy, and hasten the resur­rection, and give a blessed sentence in the great day. But then it is also to be remembred, that they made prayers, and offered for those, who by the confession of all sides, never were in Purgatory; even for the Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Apostles and Evan­gelists, for Martyrs and Confessors, and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary: So we find it in [...]. 75. Epiphanius, Cateches. mystag. 5. S. Cyril, and in the Canon of the Greeks, and so it is acknowledged by their ownDe [...], lib. 2. c. 35. Durantus; and in their Mass-book antiently they prayed for the soul of S. Leo: Of which because by their latter doctrines, they grew asham'd, they have chang'd the prayer for him, into a prayer to God by the inter­cession of S. Leo, in behalf of themselves; so by their new doctrine, making him anInnocent. P. de celeb. Miss. cap. cum Mar­tha. Intercessor for us, who by their old do­ctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him; of which Pope Inno­cent [Page 37] being ask'd a reason, makes a most pitiful excuse.

UPON what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed, and indeed generally for all, it is not now seasonable to discourse; but to say this only, that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckoned the Church of England never did con­demnApologia confessions [...] expresse approbat [...] illam [...], [...] dat ci pacatam [...], [...] resurrectionem. by any express Arti­cle, but left it in the middle, and by her practice de­clares her Faith of the Re­surrection of the dead, and her interest in the Communion of Saints, and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catho­lick Church, parts and members of the Body of Christ; but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory, and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it: And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead, infers the belief of [...], every man may satisfie himself, by seeing the Writings of the Fathers, where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls [...] of that imaginary place. Which thing is so certain, that in the very Roman Offices, we mean, the Vigils said for the dead, which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scri­pture, speaking of the miseries of this World, Repentance, and Reconciliation with God, the bliss after this life of them [Page 38] that die in Christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead; and in the Anthems, Versicles and Responses, there are prayers made re­commending to God the Soul of the newly defunct, praying, he may be freed from hell, and eternal death, that in the day of Judg­ment he be not judged and condemned accord­ing to his sins, but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection; but not one word of Purgatory, or its pains.

THE other cause of their mistake is, That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purga­tion after this life; but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment, and it is such a fire that destroys the Do­ctrine of the intermedial Purgatory. We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it; and so S. Ambrose follows him in the opinion (for it was no more;) so does S. Basil, S. Hilary, S. Hierom, and Lactantius, as their words plainly prove, as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis, affirm­ing, [...]. S. l. 5. Annot. [...]. Vide etiam [...] l. a. de Pur­gat. sect. c. 1. [...]. that all men, Christ only excepted, shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagra­tion at the day of Judgment; even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire. There was also another Doctrine very ge­nerally receiv'd by the Fathers, which great­ly destroys the Roman Purgatory: Sixtus Senensis says, and he says very true, that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Victorinus Mar­tyr, Prudentius, S. Chrysostom, Arethas, [Page 39] Euthymius andLib. 6. Bibl. Sanct. annol. 345. Bernardum excusandum arbitror ob [...] numerum illustrium Ecclesie Patrum. qui ante ipsum huic dogmati autboritatem suo testimonio visi sunt proebuisse; [...] ci­tatos, [...] S. Jacobum Apostolum, Irenaeum, Cle­mentem Romanum, Augusti­num, Thcodoretum, Oecu­menium, Theophylactum, & Johannem 22 pontif. Rom. quam sententiam non modo docuit, & [...], sed ab omnibus teneri mandavit, ut ait Adrianns P. in 4 lib. sent. in flne quoest. de sacram. con­firmationis. S. Bernard, did all affirm, that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are kept in se­cret receptacles, reserved unto the sentence of the great day, and that before then, no man receives ac­cording to his works done in this life. We do not in­terpose in this opinion to say that it is true or false, probable or improbable; for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of Faith or necessary belief, so far as we find. But we observe from hence, that if their opinion be true, then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false. If it be not true, yet the Roman Do­ctrine of Purgatory, which is inconsistent with this so generally received opinion of the Fathers, is at least new, no Catholick Doctrine, not believ'd in the Primitive Church; and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article, and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine.

BUT besides these things, it is certain, that the Doctrine of Purgatory, before the day of Judgment, in S. Augustin's time, was not the Doctrine of the Church; it was not the Catholick Doctrine; for himself [Page 40] did doubt of it: [Whether it be so or not, it Enchirid. c. 69 lib. 21. de ci­vit. Dei. c. 26. may be inquir'd, and possibly it may be found so, and possibly it may never:] so S. Augu­stine. In his time therefore it was no Do­ctrine of the Church, and it continued much longer in uncertainty; for in the time of Otho Frisingensis, who liv'd in the year [...]. 8. 1146. it was gotten no further than to aChron. cap. 26. Quidam asserunt: [some do asfirm, that there is a place of Purgatory after death.] And although it is not to be denied, but that many of the antient Doctors, had strange opinions concerning Purgations, and Fires, and Intermedial states, and common receptacles, and liberations of Souls and Spirits after this life; yet we can truly affirm it, and can never be convinc'd to err in this affirmation, that there is not any one of the Antients within five hundred years, whose opinion in this Article through­out, the Church of Rome at this day follows.

BUT the people of the Roman Communi­on have been principally led into a belief of Purgatory by their fear, and by their cre­dulity; they have been softned and [...] into this belief by perpetual tales and le­gends, by which they love to be abus'd. To this purpose, their Priests and Friers have made great use of the apparition of S. Hie­rom after death to Eusebius, commanding him to lay his sack upon the corps of three dead men, that they arising from death, might consess Purgatory, which formerly [Page 41] they had denied. The story is written in an Epistle imputed to S. Cyril; but the ill luck of it was, that S. Hierom out-liv'd S. Cyril, and wrote his life, and so confuted that story; but all is one for that, they be­lieve it never the less: But there are enough to help it out; and if they be not firmly true Haec descripsimus, ut tamen in iis nulla veluti Canoni­ca constituatur authoritas. l. de 8. quaest. Dulcitii. c. 1. Dist. 3 exem. 3. exempl. 60., yet if they be firmly believ'd, all is well enough. In the specu­lum exemplorum it is said, That a certain Priest in an ecstasie saw the soul of Constantinus Turri­tanus in the eves of his house tormented with frosts and cold rains, and afterwards climbing up to heaven upon a shining pillar. And a certain Monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like Pigs, and some Devils basting them with scalding lard; but a while after they were carried to a cool place, and so prov'd Purgatory. But Bishop Theobald Histor. standing upon a piece of ice to cool hisLomb. feet, was nearer Purgatory than he was aware, and was convinced of it, when he heard a poor soul telling him, that under that ice he was tormented: and that he should be deliver'd, if for thirty days con­tinual, he would say for him thirty Masses: and some such thing was seen by Conrade Legend. 185. and Uldric in a Pool of water: For the place of Purgatory was not yet resolv'd on, till S. Patrick had the key of it delivered to him; which when one Nicholas borrowed [Page 42] of him, he saw as strange and true things there, as ever Virgil dreamed of in his Pur­gatory, or Cicero in his dream of Scipio, or Plato in his Gorgias, or Phaedo, who in­deed are the surest Authors to prove Purga­tory. But because to preach false stories was forbidden by the Council of Trent, there are yet remaining more certain argu­ments, even revelations made by Angels, and the testimony of S. Odilio himself, who heard the Devil complain (and he had great reason surely) that the souls of dead men were daily snatch'd out of his hands, by the Alms and Prayers of the living; and the sister of S. Damianus being too much pleas'd with hearing of a Piper, told her brother, that she was to be tormented for fifteen days in Purgatory.

WE do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these Narra­tives; for if they did, they were not wise: But this we know, that by such stories, the People were brought into a belief of it; and having served their turn of them, the Master-builders used them as false arches and centries, taking them away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by Authority. But even the better sort of them do believe, or else they do worse, for they urge and cite the Dialogues of S. Gregory, the Oration of S. John Da­mascen de Defunctis, the Sermons of Saint Augustine upon the Feast of the Commemo­ration [Page 43] of All-souls (which nevertheless was instituted after S. Augustin's death) and divers other citations, which the Greeks in their Apology call [...], The Holds and the Castles, the corruptions and insinuations of Heretical persons. But in this they are the less to be blamed, because better arguments than they have, no men are tied to make use of.

BUT against this way of proceeding we think fit to admonish the people of our char­ges, that, besides that the Scriptures ex­preslyDcut. 18. 11, &c. forbid us to enquire of the dead for truth; the Holy Doctors of the Church,Isa. 8. 19. particularly, [...]. S. Athanasius, S. Chry­sost. Vide Mal­donat. in 16. cap. S. Lucae. I sidor. and Theophylact, deny that the souls of the dead ever do appear; and bring many reasons to prove, that it is unfitting they should; saying, if they did, it would be the cause of many errors, and the Devils under that pretence, might easily abuse the world with notices and revelations of their own: And because Christ would have us content with Moses and the Prophets, and especially to hear that Prophet, whom the Lord our God hath raised up amongst us, our Blessed Jesus, who never taught any such Doctrine to his Church.

BUT because we are now representing the Novelty of this Doctrine, and proving, that anciently it was not the Doctrine of the Church, nor at all esteemed a matter of faith, whether there was or was not any [Page 44] such place or state, we add this, That the Greek Church did always dissent from the Latines in this particular, since they had forg'd this new Doctrine in the laboratories of Rome; and in the Council of Basil, pub­lish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory. How afterwards they were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius, and by their necessity; how unwillingly they consented, how ambiguously they answered, how they protested against having that half consent put into the Instrument of Union; how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs, being obnoxious to the Pope; how a while after they dissolv'd that Union, and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine, are things so notoriously known, that they need no further declaration.

WE add this only, to make the convi­ction more manifest: We have thought sit to annex some few, but very clear testimo­nies of Antiquity, expresly destroying the new Ad Deme­trian. sect. 16. Doctrine of Purgatory. S. Cyprian saith, Quando istinc excessum fuerit, nullus jam lo­cus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effe­ctus: [When we are gone from hence, there is no place left for repentance, and no effect of satisfaction.] S. Dionysius calls the ex­tremityEccles. [...]. c. 7. of death, [...] The end of all our agonies, and affirms, That the Holy men of God rest in joy, and in never failing hopes, and are come to the end of their [Page 45] holy combates S. Justin Martyr affirms, That when the soul is departed from the body, [...], presently there is a separation Quaest. & respons. ad oribod. qu. 75. Justino imputat. made of the just and unjust: The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have de­serv'd; but the souls of the just into Paradise, where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels. S. Ambrose De bono mortis, cap. 4. saith, that Death is a haven of rest, and makes not our condition worse, but according as it finds eve­ry man, so it reserves him to the judgment that is to come. The same is affirm'd by In Psal. 2. S. Hilary, Hom. 22. S. Macarius, and divers o­thers; they speak but of two states after death, of the just and the unjust: These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgment of the great day; the other have their souls carried by Quires of An­gels into places of rest. S. Gregory Nazi­anzen Orat. 5. in Plagam grandinis, & orat. 42. in Pascha. De Eccles. dogmat. c. 79. expresly affirms, that after this life there is no purgation: For after Christ's as­cension into Heaven, the souls of all Saints are with Christ, saith Gennadius, and going from the body, they go to Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body, with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss; and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Ca­tholick Church: [In what place soever a In Eccles. c. 11. man is taken at his death, of light or dark­ness, of wickedness or vertue, [...], in the same order, and in the same degree; either in light with the just, and with Christ the great King; or in dark­ness [Page 46] with the unjust, and with the Prince of Darkness,] said Olimpiodorus. And lastly, we recite the words of S. Leo, one of the Popes of Rome, speaking of the PenitentsEpist. 59. who had not perform'd all their penances [But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord, being interrupted by any ob­stacles, falls from the gift of the present In­dulgence (viz. of Ecclesiastical Absoluti­on) and before he arrive at the appointed remedies (that is, before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions) ends his tem­poral life, that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd, when he is divested of his body, he cannot obtain.] He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory, what they paid not here; and of being cleansed there, who were not clean here: And how these words, or of any the pre­cedent, are reconcileable with the Do­ctrines of Purgatory, hath not yet entred into our imagination.

To conclude this particular, We com­plain greatly, that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain, and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false, is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent. But besides what hath been said, it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from Rev. 14. 13. henceforth, even so saith the Spirit, that they [Page 47] may rest from their labours. If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest, and are in no more affliction or labours, then the Do­ctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable: To these words we add the saying of Christ, and we relie upon it [He that heareth my word, and Joh. 5. 24. believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but pas­seth from death unto life.] If so, then not into the judgment of Purgatory: If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life, then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell. They that have eter­nal life, suffer no intermedial punishment, judgment or condemnation after death; for death and life are the whole progression, according to the Doctrine of Christ, and Him we choose to follow.

SECT. V.

THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apo­stolick, that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an opinion, and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine, and by what arts it was promoted, and by what persons it was introduc'd.

FOR all the world knows that by their own parties, byIn 4. lib. sont. d. 11. q. 3. Scotus, Ibid. q. 6. Ocham, Lect. 40. in can. missae. Biel, Fisher Bi­shop ofCap. I. contr. captiv. Babyl. Rochester, and di­vers others, whomDc Euchar. l. 3. cap. 23. sect. sccundo dicit. Bellar­mine calls most learned and most acute men, it was de­clared, that the Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible; that in the Scriptures there is no place so express (as without the Churches Declara­tion) to compel us to admit of Transub­stantiation, and therefore at least, it is to be suspected of novelty. But further, we know it was but a disputable question in the ninth and tenth ages after Christ; that it was not pretended to be an Article of faith till the Later an Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third, MCC. years and more [Page 49] after Christ; that since that pretendedVencre tum quidem multa in consultationem, nec decerni tamen quicquam aperte potuit. Platina in vita Innocen. III. determinati­on, divers of the chiefest teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it, than they were before, but still have publickly affirm'd, that the Article is not express'd in Scripture, particularly, Johannes de Basso­lis, CardinalApud Suar. Tom: 3. disp. 46. sect. 3. Cajetan, and Melchior Loc. com. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2. Ca­nus, besides those above reckon'd: And therefore, if it was not express'd in Scri­pture, it will be too clear, that they made their Articles of their own heads, for they could not declare it to be there, if it was not; and if it was there but obscurely, then it ought to be taught accordingly; and at most, it could be but a probable doctrine, and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past argument and probabi­lity, it is certain, that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly: so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine, or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive ages of the Church.

Now for this, we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome. Scotus says, that before the Lateran Coun­cil,L. [...]. [...] Euch. cap. 23. sect. [...] Sum. 1. 8. c. 20. Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith, as Bellarmine confesses; and Hen­riquez affirms, that Scotus says, it was not antient, insomuch that Bellarmine accuses [Page 50] him of ignorance, saying, he talk'd at that rate, because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the VII. nor that consent of Fathers which (to so little purpose) he had heap'd together. Rem Discurs. modest. p. 13. transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse qui­dem, said some of the English sesuits in Prison: The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Tran­substantiation; and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith, or a Catholick Doctrine, that they did not know whether it were true or no: And after he had collected the sentences of the Fathers in that Article, he confess'd, He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these, [If it be in­quir'd Lib. 4. sent. dist. 11. lit. a. what kind of conversion it is, whether it be formal or substantial, or of another kind? I am not able to define it: Only I know that it is not formal, because the same accidents remain, the same colour and taste. To some it seems to be substantial, saying, that so the substance is chang'd into the substance, that it is done essentially. To which the former authorities seem to consent. But to this sen­tence others oppose these things, If the sub­stance of bread and wine be substantially con­verted into the body and blood of Christ, then every day some substance is made the body or blood of Christ, which before was not the body; and to day something is Christ's body, which yesterday was not; and every day [Page 51] Christ's body is increased, and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the con­ception:] These are his words, which we have remark'd, not only for the arguments sake (though it be unanswerable) but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new, not the Doctrine of the Church: And this was written but about fiftyA D. M C L X. years before it was said to be decreed in the LateranA. D. MCC XV. Council, and therefore it made haste, in so short time to pass from a disputable opinion, to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council,A. D. MCCLXX secund. Buchol. sed secundum Volae­terranum MCCCXXXV. In lib. 4. sent. dist. 11. qu. 1. [...], propter tertium. Durandus, as good a Ca­tholick, and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome, publickly maintain'd, that even after consecration, the very matter of bread re­main'd; and although he says, that by rea­son of the Authority of the Church, it is not to be held, yet it is not only possible it should be so, but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christs body, and yet the matter of bread remain; and if this might be admitted, it would salve many difficul­ties, which arise from saying that the sub­stance of bread does not remain. But here his reason was overcome by authority, and he durst not affirm that of which alone [...] was able to give (as he thought) a reason­able account. But by this it appears, that the opinion was but then in the forge, and [Page 52] by all their understanding they could never accord it, but still the questions were un­certain, according to that old Distich,

And the opinion was not determined in the Lateran, as it is now held at Rome; but it is also plain, that it is a stranger to anti­quity. De Transubstantiatione panis in cor­pus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus De haeres. 1.8 Verbo [...]. mentio, said Alphonsus à Castro. There is seldom mention made in the antient writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christs body. We know the modesty and interest of the man; he would not have said it had been seldom, if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted; he might have said and justified it, There was no mention at all of this Article in the pri­mitive Church: and that it was a mere stranger to Antiquity, will not be denyed by any sober person, who considers, That it was with so much uneasiness entertained, even in the corruptest and most degenerous times, and argued and unsetled almost 1300 years after Christ.

And that it was so, will but too evident­ly appear by that stating and resolution of this question which we find in the CanonCap. Ego Berengari­us de Con­secrat. dist. 2. Law. For Berengarius was by P. Nicolaus, commanded to recant his error in these words, and to affirm, Verum corpus & san­guinem [Page 53] Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensuali­ter, non solùm in sacramento, sed in verita­te manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri: That the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually, not only in Sacrament, but in truth is handled by the Priests hands, and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful. Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and four­teen Bishops, and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy, France and Germany, yet at this day it is renounced by the Church of Rome, and unless it be well ex­pounded (says the Gloss) will lead into a heresie, greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce; and no interpre­tation can make it tolerable, but such an one, as is in another place of the Canon Law, statuimus, i. e. abrogamus; nothing but a plain denying it in the sense of Pope Nicolas. But however this may be, it is plain they understood it not, as it is now decreed. But as it hapned to the Pelagians in the be­ginning of their heresie, they spake rude­ly, ignorantly, and easily to be reprov'd; but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothe­sis, spake more warily, but yet different­ly from what they said at first; so it was and is in this question; at first they under­stood it not; it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense, to make any thing of [Page 54] it; but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is.

But that this Doctrine was not the do­ctrine of the first and best ages of the Church, these following testimonies do make evi­dent. The words of Tertullian are these. The bread being taken and distributed to his Adver. Disciples, Christ made it his body, saying, [...]. 1.4.0. 40. This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.

The same is affirmed by Justin Martyr. Contr. [...]. [...]. The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in re­membrance of his passion. Origen In dialog. cont. Mar­cion. [...] ex Maximo, tempore Commodi & S veri Imp. in Mat. 13. calls the bread and the chalice, the images of the body and blood of Christ: and again, That bread which is sanctified by the word of God, so far as belongs to the matter (or substance) of it goes into the belly, and is cast away in the secession or separation; which to affirm of the natural or glorified body of Christ, were greatly blasphemous: and therefore the bo­dy of Christ which the Communicants re­ceive, is not the body in a natural sense, but in a spiritual, which is not capable of any such accident, as the Elements are.

Eusebius says, that Christ gave to his Disci­plesDemonst. [...]. lib. I. cap. I. the Symbols of Divine Occonomy, com­manding the image and type of his own body to be made: & cap ult. and that the Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the New Testament, to make a memory of this sa­crifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood.

[Page 55]S. Macarius says, that in the Church is Homil. 27. offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and of his bloud, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explica­ted. For when they affirm, that in this Sacrament is offered the figure, the image, the antitype of Christ's body and bloud, al­though they speak perfectly against Tran­substantiation, yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christ's body and bloud; which we all believe as certainly, as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner.

THE same thing is also fully explicated by the good S. Ephrem, The body of Christ De sacris [...]. legibus a­pad Photi­um l. I. c. 229. received by the faithful, departs not from his sensible substance, and is undivided from a spiritual grace. For even baptism being whol­ly made spiritual, and being that which is the same, and proper, of the sensible substance, I mean, of water, saves, and that which is born, doth not perish.

S. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expreslyOrat. 2. in Pasch. in this Question, as if he had undertaken on purpose to confute the Article of Trent. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal sup­per, but still in figure, though more clear than in the old Law. For the Legal Passover (I will not be afraid to speak it) was a more ob­scure figure of a figure.

[Page 56] S. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically, that Ep ad Caef. cont. hae­res. Apol­linarii, cit. per Dama­scen. & per collect. sen­ten. Pp. cont. Seve­rianos, e­dit. per tur­rianum. before the bread is sanctified, we name it bread, but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of bread, but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body, although the nature of bread remains in it. And again: As thou eatest the body of the Lord: so they (the faithful in the old Testament) did eat Manna; as thou drinkest bloud, so they the water of the rock. For though the things which are made be sen­sible,Homil 23. [...] 1. Cor. yet they are given spiritually, not accord­ing to the consequence of Nature, but accord­ing to the grace of a gift, and with the body they also nourish the soul, leading unto faith.

To these very many more might be ad­ded; but instead of them, the words of St. Austin may suffice, as being an evident con­viction what was the doctrine of the pri­mitive Church in this question. This great Doctor brings in Christ thus speaking as to his Disciples, [You are not to eat this body In Psal. 98. which you see, or to drink that bloud which my crucifiers shall pour forth. I have commended to you a sacrament, which being spiritually un­derstood shall quicken you:] And again; Christ brought them to a banquet, in which he Cont Adi­mantium. cap. 12. commended to his Disciples the figure of his body and bloud] For he did not doubt to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body] and, That which by all men is called Lib. 10. cont. Faust. Manicb. a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice, in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption [Page 57] is celebrated by the sacrament of remembran­ces.]

BUT in this particular the Canon Law it self, andDe consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Qui manducant, & cap. Prima quidem, & cap. Non hoc [...], & cap. Vt quid paras. Sentent. l. 4. dist. 11. Dialog. 1. c. 8. the Master of the Sentences are the best witnesses; in both which collections there are divers testimonies brought, especially from S. Ambrose and S. Austin, which whosoever can reconcile with the doctrine of Transub­stantiation, may easily put the Hyaena and a Dog, a Pigeon and a Kite into couples, and make fire and water enter into natural and eternal friendships.

Theodoret and P. Gelasius speak more em­phatically, even to the nature of things, and the very philosophy of this Question. [Christ honour'd the symbols and the signs (saith Theodoret) which are seen with the title of his body and bloud, not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. Dial. 2. 0. 24. For neither do the mystical signs recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper sub­stance, figure and form, and may be seen and touch'd, &c. And for a testimony that shall be esteem'd infallible, we allege the words of Pope Gelasius, [Truly the sacra­ments of the body and bloud De duabus naturis contra Eutych. & Nestor [...] in dissert. de Missae & expositione verborum insli­tutionis [...] Domini. of Christ, which we receive, are a Divine thing; for that by them we are made parta­kers of the Divine nature; [Page 58] and yet it ceases not to be the substance or na­ture of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

NOW from these premises we are not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Roman Church, but we think it our duty to give our own people caution and admonition; 1. That they be not abus'd by the rhetorical words and high expressions alleged out of the Fathers, cal­ling the Sacrament, The body or the slesh of Christ. For we all believe it is so, and re­joyce in it. But the question is, after what manner it is so; whether after the manner of the slesh, or after the manner of spiritual grace, and sacramental consequence? We with the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers, affirm the latter. The Church of Rome against the words of Scripture, and the explication of ChristJoh. 6. 63., and the do­ctrine of the primitive Church, affirm the former. 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under a pretence of being Ancient; since, although the Roman errour hath been too long admitted, and is an­cient in respect of our days, yet it is an inno­vation in Christianity, and brought in by ignorance, power and superstition, very many Ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them, that they remember the words of Christ, when he explicates the doctrine of giving us his flesh for meat, and his bloud for Vbi suprae. [Page 59] drink, that he tells us, The flesh profiteth nothing, but the words which be speaks are spirit, and they are life.

4. THAT if those ancient and primitive Doctors above cited, say true, and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties, even af­ter they are blessed, and when they are re­ceiv'd, and that Christ's body and bloud are only present to faith and to the spirit, that then whoever tempts them to give Divine honour to these symbols or elements (as the Church of Rome does) tempts them to give to a creature the due and incommu­nicable propriety of God; and that then, this evil passes further than an errour in the understanding; for it carries them to a dan­gerous practice, which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry. To conclude,

THIS matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous, that we need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous questions which are sometimes handled by them concerning this Divine Mystery. As, if a Priest going by a Baker's shop, and say­ing with intention, Hoc est corpus meum, whether all the Bakers bread be turned into the body of Christ? Whether a Church mouse does eat her Maker? Whether a man by eating the consecrated symbols does break his fast? For if it be not bread and wine, he does not: and if it be Christ's [Page 60] body and bloud naturally and properly, it is not bread and wine. Whether it may be said, the Priest is in some sense the Creator of God himself? Whether his power be greater than the power of Angels and Arch­angels? For that it is so, is expresly affir­medGloria mundi 4. num. 6. by Cassenaeus. Whether (as a Bohemian Priest said) that a Priest before he say his first Mass, be the Son of God, but after­ward he is the Father of God and the Crea­tor of his body? But against this blasphe­my a book was written by John Huss, about the time of the Council of Constance. But these things are too bad, and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy chanels, but give only a general warning to all our Char­ges, to take heed of such persons, who from the proper consequences of their Articles, grow too bold and extravagant; and, of such doctrines, from whence these and many other evil Propositions [...], fre­quently do issue. As the tree is, such must be the fruit. But we hope it may be sufficient * to say, That what the Church of Rome tea­ches 1 of Transubstantiation, is absolutely im­possible, and implies contradictions very many, to the belief of which no faith can oblige us, and no reason can endure. For Christ's body being in heaven, glorious, spiritual and im­passible, cannot be broken. And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken, but that which cannot be broken, that is, the colour, the taste, and other accidents of the ele­ments; [Page 61] yet if they could be broken, since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christ's body and bloud, it is certain that on the Altar, Christ's body na­turally and properly cannot be broken. * And since they say that every consecrated 2 Wafer is Christ's whole body, and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer, therefore either this or that is not Christ's body, or else Christ hath two bodies, for there are two Wafers. * But when Christ instituted the 3 Sacrament, and said, This is my body which is broken: because at that time Christ's bo­dy was not broken naturally and properly, the very words of Institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not na­tural, but spiritual, that is, truly sacramental. * And all this is besides the plain. demon­strations 4 of sense, which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as be­fore consecration. * And after all, the na­tural 5 sense is such as our blessed Saviour re­prov'd in the men of Capernaum, and called them to a spiritual understanding; the na­tural sense being not only unreasonable and impossible; but also to no purpose of the spirit, or any ways perfective of the soul; as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article.

SECT. VI.

OUR next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us, is that of the half Commu­nion. For they deprive the people of the Chalice, and dismember the institution of Christ, and praevaricate his [...] law in this particular, and recede from the pra­ctice of the Apostles; and though they con­fess it was the practice of the primitive Church, yet they lay it aside, and cur so all them that say they do amiss in it; that is, they curse them who follow Christ, and his Apostles, and his Church, while themselves deny to follow them.

Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Con­stance. Concil. [Whereas in certain parts of the Contant. sess. 13. word some temerariously presume to affirm, [Page 63] that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine, and do every where communicate the Laity not only in bread but in wine also; ---- Hence it is, that the Coun­cil decrees and defines against this error, that although Christ instituted after supper, and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, yet this not­withstanding---- And although in the primi­tive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds] Here is the acknowledgment, both of Christs institu­tion in both kinds, and Christs ministring it in both kinds, and the practice of the primitive Church to give it in both kinds; yet the conclusion from these premisses is [We command under the pain of Excommu­nication, that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine.] The opposition is plain: Christs Testament or­dains it: The Church of Rome forbids it: It was the primitive custom to obey Christ in this: a later custom is by the Church of Rome introduced to the contrary. To say that the first practice and institution is necessary to be followed, is called Heretical: to refuse the latter subintroduc'd custom incurrs the sentence of Excommunication: and this they have pass'd not only into a law, but into an Article of Faith; and if this be not teach­ing for doctrines the Commandments of men, and worshipping God in vain with mens tra­ditions; [Page 64] then there is, and there was, and there can be no such thing in the world.

So that now the question is not, whether this doctrine and practice be an INNO­VATION, but whether it be not better it should be so? Whether it be not better to drink new wine than old? Whether it be not better to obey man than Christ, who is God blessed for ever? Whether a late custom be not to be preferr'd before the antient? a custom dissonant from the institution of Christ, before that which is wholly conso­nant to what Christ did and taught? This is such a bold affirmative of the Church of Rome, that nothing can suffice to rescue us from an amazement in the consideration of it: especially since, although the Institution it self, being the only warranty and au­thority for what we do, is of it self our rule and precept; (according to that of the Lawyer, Institutiones sunt praeceptiones [...] praefat. su­per Inflit. [...]. Mat. 26. 17. quibus instituuntur & docentur homines) yet besides this, Christ added preceptive words, Drink ye all of this: he spake it to all that received, who then also represented all them, who for ever after were to remember Christs death.

But concerning the doctrine of Antiquity in this point, although the Council of Con­stance confess the Question, yet since that time they have taken on them a new confi­dence, and affirm, that the half Communion was always more or less the practice of the most [Page 65] Antient times. We therefore think it fit to produce testimonies concurrent with the saying of the Council of Constance, such as are irrefragable, and of persons beyond exception Cassander affirms, That in the LatinConsult. [...]. 22. Church for above a thousand years, the body of Christ, and the blood of Christ were separately given, the body apart, and the blood apart, after the consecration of the mysteries. So Aquinas also affirms, [According to the an­tient Commen. in 6. Joh. lect. 7. custom of the Church, all men as they communicated in the body, so they communi­cated in the blood; which also to this day is kept in some Churches.] And therefore Pa­schasius De corp & sang. Dom. cap. 19. Ratbertus resolves it dogmatically, That neither the flesh without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communi­cated; because the Apostles all of them did drink of the chalice. And Salmeron beingTract. 35. forc'd by the evidence of the thing, ingenu­ously and openly confesses, That it was a general custom to communicate the Laity un­der both kinds.

It was so, and it was more: There was antiently a Law for it, Aut integra Sacra­ment Apud [...]. de [...]. dist. 2. cap, [...]. a percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, said Pope Gelasius. Either all or none, let them receive in both kinds, or in neither; and he gives this reason, Quia divisio uni­us & ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. The mystery is but one and the same, and therefore it cannot be divided without great sacrilege. The [Page 66] reason concludes as much of the Receiver as the Consecrator, and speaks of all in­definitely.

THUS it is acknow­ledged to have been inVide [...]. de Sacr. tract. 2. de Euchar. q. 18. De consecrat dist. 2. cap. Si. non sunt, & cap Quia passus, 7 cap. Prima [...], & cap. Tunc eis, & cap. [...]. the Latin Church, and thus we see it ought to have been: And for the Greek Church there is no question; for even to this day they communicate the people in the Chalice. But this case is so plain, and there are such clear testimonies out of the Fathers re­corded in their own Canon Law, that no­thing can obscure it; but to use too many words about it. We therefore do exhort our people to take care that they suffer not themselves to be robb'd of their portion of Christ, as he is pleased sacramentally and graciously to communicate himself unto us.

SECT. VII.

AS the Church of Rome does great in­jury to Christendom, in taking from the people what Christ gave them in the matter of the Sacrament; so she also de­prives them of very much of the benefit which they might receive by their holy prayers, if they were suffered to pray in publick in a Language they understand. But that's denyed to the common people, to their very great prejudice and injury.

CONCERNING which, although it is as possible to reconcile Adultery with the se­venth Commandment, as Service in a Lan­guage not understood, to the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corin­thians; and that therefore if we can sup­pose that the Apostolical age did follow the Apostolical rule, it must be concluded, that the practice of the Church of Rome is contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church: Yet besides this, we have thought fit to declare the plain sense and practice of the succeeding Ages in a few testimonies, but so pregnant, as not to be avoided.

Origen affirms, that the Grecians in their Lib. 8. con­tra Celsum. prayers use Greek, and the Romans the Ro­man language, and so every one according to [Page 68] his Tongue, prayeth unto God, and praiseth him as he is able. S. Chrysostom urging the precept of the Apostle for prayers in a Language understood by the hearer, af­firms that which is but reasonable, saying, If a man speaks in the Persian Tongue, and understands not what himself says, to himself he is a Barbarian, and there­fore so he is to him that understands no more than he does. And what profit can he receive, who hears a sound, and discerns it not? It were as good he were absent as present: For if he be the better to be there, because he sees what is done, and guesses at something in general, Affectus consequitur in­tellectum: ubi autem nullus earum rerum quae petuntur vel dicuntur habetur intellectus, aut [...] tantum, ibi exiguus assurgit affectus. Azor. Inst. moral. to. 1. lib. 9. c. 34. q. 8. and consents to him that ministers: It is true, this may be, but this therefore is so, because he under­stands something; but he is only so far benefited as he understands, and there­fore all that which is not understood, does him no more benefit that is present, than to him that is absent, and consents to the prayers in general, and to what is done for all faithful people. But [If indeed ye meet for the [...] of the Church, those things ought to be spoken which the hearers understand,] said S. Ambrose: And so it was in the primitive Church: blessings and all other things in the Church were done in the Vulgar tongue, saith In 1 Cor. 14. Lyra; [Page 69] Nay, not only the publick Prayers, but the whole Bible was anciently by many Transla­tions, made fit for the Peoples use. S. Hie­rom Epist ad Sophron. [...], that himself translated the Bible into the Dalmatian Tongue; and Sozom. l. 6. hist. cap. 37. Ulphilas a Bishop among the Goths, transla­ted it into the Gothick Tongue; and that it was translated into all Languages, we are told by Hom. 1. in 8. Joan. S. Chrysostom, De Doctr. Christ. c. 5. S. Austin, and Serm. 5. de Graecar. affect. curat. Theodoret.

BUT although what twenty Fathers say, can make a thing no more certain than if S. Paul had alone said it, yet both S. Paul and the Fathers are frequent to tell us, That a Service or Prayers in an unknown Tongue do not edisie: So Lib. Qui [...] var. Script. locis q. 278. S. Basil, In 1 Cor. hom. 35. S. Chrysostom, Super 1 Cor. 14. S. Am­brose, and Super Psal. 18. con. 2. S. Austin, and this is consented to by In 1 Cor. 14. A­quinas, Ibid. Lyra, and Liturg. cap. 28. Cas­sander: And besides that, these Doctors affirm, that in the primitive Church the Priest and Peo­ple joyn'd in their Prayers, and understood each other, and prayed in their Mother­tongue: We find a story (how true it is, let them look to it, but it is) told by Histor. Bohem. c. 13 Ae­neas Sylvius, who was afterwards Pope Pius the II. that when Cyrillus Bishop of the Mo­ravians, and Methodius had converted the [Page 70] Slavonians, Cyril being at Rome, desir'd leave to use the Language of that Nation in their Divine Offices. Concerning which when they were disputing, a voice was heard, as if from Heaven, Let every spirit praise the Lord, and every tongue [...] unto him: Upon which it was granted according to the Bishops desire. But now they are not so kind at Rome; and although the Fathers at Trent confess'd in their Decree, that the Mass contains in it great matter of erudi­tion and edification of the People, yet they did not think it fit, that it should be said in the vulgar Tongue: So that it is very good food, but it must be lock'd up; it is an ex­cellent Candle, but it must be put under a bushel: And now the Question is, Whether it be sit that the People pray so as to be edi­fied by it; or is it better that they be at the prayers when they shall not be edified? Whether it be not as good to have a dumb Priest to do Mass, as one that hath a tongue to say it? For he that hath no tongue, and he that hath none to be understood, [...] alike insignificant to me. Quid prodest locutionum De Doctr. Christ. lib. 4. cap. 10. integritas quam non sequitur intellectus [...]? cum loquendi nulla sit causa, si quod loquimur non intelligunt propter quos ut intelli­gant loquimur, said S. Austin: What does it avail that man speaks all, if the hearers under­stand none? [...] there is no cause why a man should speak at all, if they, for whose under­standing you do speak, understand it not. God [Page 71] understands the Priests thoughts when he speaks not, as well as when he speaks; he hears the prayer of the heart, and sees the word of the mind, and a dumb Priest can do all the ceremonies, and make the signs; and he that speaks aloud to them that under­stand him not, does no more. Now since there is no use of vocal prayer in publick, but that all together may [...] their de­sires, and stir up one another, and joyn in the expression of them to God; by this de­vice, a man who understands not what is said, can only pray with his lips; for the heart cannot pray but by desiring, and it cannot desire what it understands not. So that in this case, prayer cannot be an act of the soul: There is neither [...] nor un­derstanding, notice or desire: The heart says nothing, and asks for nothing, and therefore receives nothing. Solomon calls that the sacrifice of fools, when men consi­der not; and they who understand not what is said, cannot take it into consideration. But there needs no more to be said in so plain a case. We end this with the words of the Civil and Canon Law. Justinian the Emperour made a Law in these words, [We will and command, that all Bishops and Priests celebrate the sacred Oblation, and the Prayers thereunto added in holy Baptism, not in a low voice, but with a loud and clear voice, which may be heard by the faithful people; that is, be understood, for so it follows, that thereby [Page 72] the minds of the hearers may be raised up with Novel. 123 greater devotion to set forth the praises of the Lord God; for so the Apostle teacheth in the first to the Corinthians. It is true, that this Law was rased out of the Latine versions of Justinian. The fraud and design was tooDe [...] l 2. c. 13. [...]. [...]. palpable, but it prevail'd nothing; for it is acknowledged by Cassander and Bellarmine, and is in the Greek Copies of Holoander.

THE Canon Law is also most express from an Authority of no less than a Pope and a Genëral Council, as themselves e­steem; Innocent III. in the great Council of [...], above MCC years after Christ, in these words, [ [...] in most parts within Cap. 9. the same City and Diocess, the people of divers Tongues are mixt together, having under one and the same faith divers ceremonies and rites, we straitly charge and command, That the Bi­shops of such Cities and Dioceses provide men fit, who may celebrate Divine Service accord­ing to the diversity of ceremonies and langua­ges, and administer the Sacraments of the Church, instructing them both by word and by example.]

NOW if the words of the Apostle, and the practice of the primitive Church, the Sayings of the Fathers, and the Confessions of wise men among themselves; if the con­sent of Nations, and the piety of our fore­fathers; if right reason, and the necessity of the thing; if the needs of the ignorant, and the very inseparable conditions of holy [Page 73] prayers; if the Laws of Princes, and the Laws of the Church, which do require all our prayers to be said by them that under­stand what they say; if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the Peoples souls, as to con­sent they should understand what in particu­lar they are to ask of God, certainly there is a great pertinacy of opinion, and but a little charity to those precious souls, for whom Christ died, and for whom they must give account.

INDEED the old [...] Rites, and the Sooth-sayings of the Salian Priests, Vix Sa­cerdotibus Quintil l. 1. suis intellecta, sed quae mutari ve­tat Religio: were scarce understood by their Priests themselves, but their Religion for­bad to change them. Thus anciently did the Osseni Hereticks of whom Epiphanius tells, and the Heracleonitae of whom S. Au­stin Verb. [...]. Cap. 6. ad Quod vult [...]. gives account; they taught to pray with obscure words; and some others in Clemens Alexandrinus, suppos'd, that words spoken in a barbarous or unknown tongue, [...], are more powerful. The Jews also in their Synagogues at this day, read He­brew, which the people but rarely under­stand; and the Turks in their Mosques read Arabick, of which the people know nothing. But Christians never did so, till they of Rome resolved to refuse to do benefit to the souls of the people in this instance, or to bring them from intolerable ignorance.

SECT. VIII.

THE Church of Rome hath to very bad purposes introduc'd and impos'd upon Christendom the worship and veneration of Images, kissing them, pulling off their hats, kneeling, falling down and praying before them, which they call, giving them due honour and veneration. What external honour and veneration that is, which they call due, is express'd by the instances now reckon'd, which the Council of Trent in their Decree enumerate and establish. What the inward honour and worship is, which they intend to them, is intimated in the same Decree. By the Images they worship Christ and his Saints; and therefore by these Images they [Page 75] pass that honour to Christ and his Saints which is their due: that is, as their Doctors explain it, Latria or Divine worship to God and Christ. Hyperdulia or more than ser­vice, to the Blessed Virgin Mary; and ser­vice or doulia to other canoniz'd persons. So that upon the whole, the case is this: Whatever worship they give to God, and Christ and his Saints, they give it first to the image, and from the image they pass it unto Christ and Christ's servants. And therefore we need not to enquire what acti­ons they suppose to be fit or due. For what­soever is due to God, to Christ or his Saints, that worship they give to their respective Images: all the same in external semblance and ministery; as appears in all their great Churches, and publick actions, and proces­sions, and Temples and Festivals, and en­dowments, and censings, and pilgrimages, and prayers, and vows made to them.

NOW besides that these things are so like Idolatry, that they can no way be rea­sonably excused (of which we shall in the next Chapter give some account) besidesChap. 2. Sect. 12. that they are too like the religion of the Heathens, and so plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament, and are so infinitely unlike the simple and wise, the na­tural and holy, the pure and the spiritual religion of the Gospel; besides that they are so infinite a scandal to the Jews and Turks, and reproach Christianity it self [Page 76] amongst all strangers that live in their com­munion, and observe their rites: besides that they cannot pretend to be lawful, but with the laborious artifices of many Meta­physical notions and distinctions, which the people who most need them, do least under­stand; and that therefore the people wor­ship them without these distinctions, and directly put confidence in them; and that it is impossible that ignorant persons, who in all Christian countreys make up the biggest number, should do otherwise, when otherwise they cannot understand it; and besides that, the thing it self with or with­out distinctions, is a superstitious and for­bidden, an unlawful and unnatural worship of God, who will not be worshipped by an Image: we say that besides all this, This whole Doctrine and practice is an innova­tion in the Christian Church, not practis'd, not endured in the primitive ages; but expresly condemned by them, and this is our present undertaking to evince.

THE first notice we find of Images brought into Christian Religion, was by Simon Magus: indeed that was very An­tient, but very heretical and abominable: but that he brought some in to be worship­ped, we find in Lib. 1. h. [...] fabul. Theodoret, and ‖ S. Au­stin, Lib. 1. cap. 23. vide etiam Epiphan. to. 2. lib. 1. baeres. 27. & S. August. de [...]. [...]. S. Irenaeus tells, That the Gnosticks De [...]. [...]. or Carpocratians did make Images, and said, [Page 77] that the form of Christ as he was in the flesh, was made by Pilate; and these Ima­ges they worshipped, as did the Gentiles: These things they did, but against these things the Christians did zealously and piously declare: We have no Image in the world, said S. Clemens of Lib. 6. strom. & in parane­tico. Alexandria: It is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceitful art: For it is written, Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Hea­ven above, &c. And Origen wrote a justLib. 7. & 8. cont. Cels. Treatise against Celsus; in which he not only affirms, That Christians did not make or use Images in Religion, but that they ought not, and were by God forbidden to do so. To the same purpose also Lactan­tius discourses to the Emperor, and con­futes the pretences and little answers of the Heathen in that manner, that he leaves no pretence for Christians under another cover, to introduce the like abomination.

We are not ignorant, that those who were converted from Gentilism, and those who lov'd to imitate the customs of the Ro­man Princes and people, did soon introduce the Historical use of Images, and accord­ing to the manner of the world, did think it honourable to depict or make Images of those whom they had in great esteem; and that this being done by an esteem, relying on Religion, did by the weakness of men, and the importunity of the Tempter, quick­ly pass into inconvenience and superstiti­on; [Page 78] yet even in the time of Julian the Em­peror, S. Cyril denies, that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the Image, even of the Cross it self, which was one of the earliest temptations; and S. Epi­phanius Epist. ad Jo. Hieros. (it is a known story) tells, that when in the village of Bethel he saw a cloth picture, as it were of Christ, or some Saint in the Church, against the Authority of Scripture; He cut it in pieces, and advis'd that some poor man should be buried in it; affirming, that such Pictures are against Re­ligion, and unworthy of the Church of Christ. The Epistle was translated into Latin by S. Hierome; by which we may guess at his opinion in the question.

THE Council of Eliberis is very antient, and ofCan. 36. Placuit [...] in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur in paric­tibus depingatur. De morib. Eccles. l. 1. c. 34. Idem de fide & Symbolo. c. 7. & contr. Adi­mant. cap. 13. great fame; in which it is expresly forbidden, that what is worshipped, should be depicted on the walls; and that therefore Pictures ought not to be in Churches. S. Austin complaining, that he knew of many in the Church who were Worshippers of Pictures, calls them Superstitious; and adds, that the Church condemns such customs, and strives to correct them: and S. Gregory writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, says he would not have had him to break the Pictures and Images, which were there set for an historical use; but [Page 79] commends him for prohibiting any one to worship them, and enjoyns him still to forbid it. But Superstition by degrees creeping in, the Worship of Images was decreed in the seventh Synod, or the second Nicene. But the decrees of this Synod being by PopeAn. Dom. 764. Adrian sent to Charles the Great, he con­vocated a Synod of German and French Bi­shops at Francford, who discussed the Acts pass'd at Nice, and condemn'd them: And the Acts of this Synod, although they were diligently suppressed by the Popes arts, yet Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, Blondus, Adon, Aymonius and Regino, famous Histo­rians, tell us, That the Bishops of Franc­ford condemn'd the Synod of Nice, and commanded it should not be called a Gene­ral Council; and published a Book under the name of the Emperor, confuting that unchristian Assembly; and not long since, this Book, and the Acts of Francford were published by Bishop Tillius; by which, not only the infinite fraud of the Roman Doctors is discover'd, but the worship of Images is declar'd against and condemned.

A while after this, Ludovicus the son of Charlemain, sent Claudius a famous Preacher to Taurinum in Italy, where he preach'd against the worshipping of Images, and wrote an excellent book to that purpose. Against this book Jonas Bishop of Orleans, after the death of Ludovicus and Claudius, did write: In which he yet durst not assert [Page 80] the worship of them, but confuted it out of Origen; whose words he thus cites, [Ima­ges are neither to be esteemed by inward af­fection, nor worshipped with outward shew;] and out of Lactantius these, [Nothing is to be worshipped that is seen with mortal eyes: Let us adore, let us worship nothing, but the name alone of our only Parent, who is to be sought for in the Regions above, not here be­low:] And to the same purpose, he also alleges excellent words out of Fulgentius and S. Hierom; and though he would have Images retain'd, and therefore was angry at [...] who caus'd them to be taken down, yet he himself expresly affirms, that they ought not to be worshipped; and with­all adds, that though they kept the Images in their Churches for history and ornament, yet that in France the worshipping of them was had in great detestation. And though it is not to be denied, but that in the sequel of Jonas his book, he does something pre­varicate in this question; yet it is evident, that in France this Doctrine was not ac­counted Catholick for almost nine hundred years after Christ; and in Germany it wasLib. 2. in vita Isaaci Angeli, A. D. 1160. condemned for almost 1200 years, as we find in [...].

WE are not unskill'd in the devices of the Roman Writers, and with how much [...] they would excuse this whole matter, and palliate the crime imputed to them, and elude the Scriptures expresly condemn­ing [Page 81] this Superstition: But we know also, that the arts of Sophistry are not the ways of Salvation. And therefore we exhort our people to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the express Law of God in the second Commandment; and add also the exhortation of S. John, Little children, 1 Joh. 5. 21 keep your selves from Idols. To conclude, it is impossible but that it must be confessed, that the worship of Images was a thing unknown to the primitive Church; in the purest times of which, they would not allow the making of them; as (amongst divers others) appears in the Writings of Cle­mens Strom l. 6. & in Protrep. Alexandrinus, Lib. 2. c. 22. advers. Marcion. & [...] Idololater. c. 3. Tertullian, andLib. 4. cont. Celsum. Origen.

SECT. IX.

AS an Appendage to this, we greatly re­prove the custom of the Church of Rome, in picturing God the Father, and the most holy and undivided Trinity; [Page 82] which, besides that it ministers infinite scandal to all sober-minded men, and gives the new Arrians in Polonia, and Anti-Trini­tarians, great and ridiculous entertainment, exposing that sacred Mystery to derision and scandalous contempt: It is also (which at present we have undertaken particularly to remark) against the doctrine and pra­ctice of the primitive Catholick Church.

S. Clemens of Alexandria says, that in theStrom. [...] 1. Discipline of Moses, God was not to be represented in the shape of a Man, or of any other thing: and that Christians under­stood themselves to be bound by the same Law, we find it expresly taught by Origen Lib. 7. contra Celsum., Tertullian De corona militis., Eu­sebius Lib. 1. c. 5. [...]. Evang., Athanasius Orat. contra gentes., S. Hie­rom In c. 40. Isa., S. Austin De fide & symbol. c. 7., Theo­doret In Deut. q. 1., Damascen Lib. 4. de [...]. [...] c. 12., and the Synod of Constantinople, as it is reported in the 6. Action of the second Ni­cene Council. And certainly if there were not a strange spirit of contradiction or superstition or deflexion from the Christian Rule, greatly [...] in the Church of Rome, it were impossible that this practice should be so countenanc'd by them, and defended so, to no purpose, with so much scandal, and against the natural reason of mankind, and the very Law of Nature it self: For the Heathens were sufficiently by the light of [Page 83] Nature, taught to abominate all Pictures or Images of God.

They in their earliest ages had no Pictures, no Images of their Gods: Their Temples were filled with majesty, and a sacred fear; and the reason is given by Macrobius, Anti­quity Lib. 1. in somn. Scip. cap. 2. made no Image (viz. of God) because the supreme God, and the mind that is born of him, (that is, his Son, the eternal Word) as it is beyond the Soul, so it is above Nature, and therefore it is not lawful that Figments should come thither.

[...] Callistus relating the heresieLib. 18. [...]. 53. of the Armenians and Jacobites says, they made Images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, quod perquam ab sur dum est. Nothing is more absurd, than to make Pictures or Images of the Persons of the holy and adorable Trinity. And yet they do this in the Church of Rome. For in the windows of their Churches, even [...] Countrey-villa­ges where the danger cannot be denied to be great, and the scandal insupportable; nay, in their books of Devotion, in their very Mass-books and breviaries, in their Portui­ses and Manuals they picture the holy Tri­nity with three noses and four eyes, and three faces in a knot, to the great dishonour of God and scandal of Christianity it self. [Page 84] We add no more, (for the case is too evi­dently bad) but reprove the error with the words of their own Polydore Virgil: Since Lib. 2. de Invent. c. 23. the world began never was any thing more foolish than to picture God, who is present every where.

SECT. X.

THE last Instance of Innovations intro­duc'd in Doctrine and Practice by the Church of Rome, that we shall repre­sent, is that of the Popes Universal Bishop­rick. That is, not only that he is Bishop of Bishops, superiour to all and every one; but that his Bishoprick is a Plenitude of [Page 85] Power; and as for other Bishops, of his ful­ness they all receive, a part of the Ministery and sollicitude; and not only so, but that he only is a Bishop by immediate Divine Dispensation, and others receive from him whatsoever they have. For to this height many of them are come at last. Which Doctrine, although as it is in sins, where the carnal are most full of reproach, but the spiritual are of greatest malignity; so it happens in this Article. For though it be not so scandalous as their Idolatry, so ri­diculous as their Superstitions, so unrea­sonable as their Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, so easily reprov'd as their Half Communion, and Service in an unknown Tongue; yet it is of as dangerous and evil effect, and as false, and as certainly an In­novation, as any thing in their whole Con­jugation of Errours.

WHEN Christ founded his Church, he left it in the hands of his Apostles, with­out any prerogative given to one, or emi­nency above the rest, save only of priority and orderly precedency, which of it self was natural, necessary and incident. The Apostles govern'd all; their Authority was the sanction, and their Decrees and Wri­tings were the Laws of the Church. They exercis'd a common jurisdiction, and divi­ded it according to the needs and emergen­cies, and circumstances of the Church. In the Council of Jerusalem, S. Peter gave not [Page 86] the decisive sentence, but S. James, who was the Bishop of that See. Christ sent all his Apostles as his Father sent him; and therefore he gave to every one of them the whole power which he left behind; and to the Bishops congregated at Miletum, S. Paul Act. 20. 28 gave them caution to take care of the whole flock of God, and affirms to them all, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops: and in the whole New Testament, there is no act or sign of superiority, or that one A­postle exercised power over another: but to them whom Christ sent, he in common intrusted the Church of God: according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian, [The Epist de u­nit. [...]. & [...] caus. 24. qu. 1. other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power: and they are all shepherds, and the slock is one] and therefore it ought to be fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent.

THIS unity and identity of power with­out question and interruption did continue and descend to Bishops in the primitive Church, in which it was a known doctrine that the Bishops were successors of the A­postles: and what was not in the beginning, could not be in the descent, unless it were innovated and introduc'd by a new autho­rity. Christ gave ordinary power to none but the Apostles, and the power being to continue for ever in the Church, it was to be succeeded to, and by the same authority, [Page 87] even of Christ, it descended to them who were their successors, that is, to the Bishops, as all antiquity Iren. e. lib. 4. c. 43. 44. S. Cy­prian. lib. 1. cp. 6. & lib. 2. cp. 10. & lib. 4. cp. 9. S. Aembrese de dignit. sacerd. c. 1. S. Aeug. de baptism contra Donat l. 7 c. 43. & ibid. Clarus [...]. Idcmdeverb: Dom Ser. 24 Con. Rom. sub Sylvest. Const. Apost. l. 8. c ult. Anacl. P. ep. 2. Clc­mens P. ep. 1. S. Hieron. ep. 13. & ep. 54. Euthym. in Ps. 44. S. Gregor. in Evang. Hom. 26. [...] Heliodor. cp. 1. S. Chrysost. ser. Damascen de imaginibus. Orat. 2. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. dc laud. Basilii. does consent and teach: Not S. Peter alone, but every Apostle, and therefore every one who succeeds them in their ordinary power, may and must remember the words of S. Paul; We are Embas­sadors or Legates for Christ: Christ's Vicars, not the Pope's Delegates: and so all the Apostles are called in the Preface of the Mass; Quos operis tui Vicarios cidem contulisti prae­esse Pastores; they are Pastors of the Flock and Vicars of Christ; and so also they are in express terms called by S. Ambrose, andIn cpist. 1. [...] Corin. cap 3. & in cpist. ad Roman. c. 1. therefore it is a strange usurpation, that the Pope arrogates that to himself by Im­propriation, which is common to him with all the Bishops of Christendom.

THE consequent of this is, that by the law of Christ, one Bishop is not superior to another: Christ gave the power to all alike; he made no Head of the Bishops; he gave to none a supremacy of power or universality of jurisdiction. But this the Pope hath long challenged, and to bring his purposes to pass, hath for these Six hun­dred years by-gone invaded the rights of [Page 88] Bishops, and delegated matters of order and jurisdiction to Monks and Friers; inso­much that the power of Bishops was great­ly diminished at the erecting of the Cluniac and Cistercian Monks about the year ML: but about the year MCC, it was almost swallowed up by privileges granted to the Begging Friers, and there kept by the po­wer of the Pope: which power got one [...] step more above the Bishops, when they got it declared that the Pope is above a Council of Bishops: and at last it was [...] into a new doctrine by Cajetane (who for his prosperous invention was made a Cardinal) that all the whole Apostolick or Episcopal power is radical and inherent in the Pope, in whom is the fulness of the Ec­clesiastical authority; and that Bishops re­ceive their portion of it from him: and this was first boldly maintain'd in the Council of Trent by the Jesuits; and it is now the opinion of their Order: but it is also that which the Pope challenges in practice, when he pretends to a power over all Bishops, and that this power is deriv'd to him from Christ; when he calls himself the Univer­sal Bishop, and the Vicarial Head of the Church, the Churches Monarch, he from whom all Ecclesiastical Authority is derived, to whose sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject Extrav. Com. lib. 1. [...] 9 de [...]. r. & obed. cap. Vnam Sanctam..

[Page 89]NOW this is it which as it is productive of infinite mischiefs, so it is an Innovation and an absolute deflexion from the primi­tive Catholick Doctrine; and yet is the great ground-work and foundation of their Church. This we shall represent in these following testimonies. Pope Eleutherius Referente Archiepisc. Granatensi in Concil. Trid. in an Epistle to the Bishops of France says that Christ committed the Universal Church to the Bishops; and S. Ambrose says thatVbi supra. the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ, and is his substitute. But famous are the words of S. Cyprian, [The Church of Christ is one Lib. 4. ep 2. through the whole world, divided by him into many members, and the Bishoprick is but one, diffused in the agreeing plurality of many Bi­shops.] And again, [To every Pastor a por­tion of the flock is given, which let every one of them rule and govern.] By which words it is evident that the primitive Church un­derstood no Prelation of one and Subordi­nation of another, commanded by Christ, or by virtue of their Ordination; but only what was for orders sake introduc'd by Princes and consent of Prelates. And it was to this purpose very full which was said [...] Baro. tom. 6. A. D. 499. n. 36. by Pope Symmachus: As it is in the holy Trinity, whose power is one and undivided, (or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed, none is before or after other, none is greater or less than another) so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops, and there­fore why should the Canons of the ancient Bi­shops [Page 90] be violated by their Successors? Now these words being spoken against the inva­sion of the rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius, and the question being in the exercise of Jurisdiction, and about the in­stitution of Bishops, does fully declare that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the laws of Christ over any Bishop in the Catholick Church, and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him, than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese.

AND therefore all the Church of God, whenever they reckoned the several orders and degrees of Ministery in the Catholick Church, reckon the Bishop as the last and supreme, beyond whom there is no spiri­tual power but in Christ. For as the whole Dionys. A­reop de Ec­cles. hie­rarch. de sacer. per­fect. Hierarchy ends in Jesus, so does every parti­cular one in its own Bishop. Beyond the Bi­shop there is no step, till you rest in the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. Under him every Bishop is supreme in spirituals, and in all power which to any Bishop is given by Christ. S. Ignatius therefore ex­hortsEpist ad Smyrnens. & ad [...]. that all should obey their Bishop, and the Bishop obey Christ, as Christ obeyed his Father. There are no other intermedial degrees of Divine institution. But (as O­rigen teaches) The Apostles, and they who after them are ordain'd by God, that is, the Bishops, have the supreme place in the Church, and the Prophets have the se­cond [Page 91] place. The same also is taught by P. Gelasius Disc. 97. c. duo sunt., by S. Hierom [...]. Jerem. [...]. 7. & adver. Lu­cif., and Ful­gentius In Concil. Paris. l. 1. c. 3., and indeed by all the Fathers who spake any thing in this matter: In­somuch that when Bellarmine is in this question press'd out of the book of Nilus by the Authority of the Fathers standing against him, he answers, Papam Patres non habere in Ecclesiâ, sed Filios omnes; The Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church, for they are all his Sons.

NOW although we suppose this to be greatly sufficient to declare the Doctrine of the primitive Catholick Church, con­cerning the equality of power in all Bi­shops by Divine right: yet the Fathers have also expresly declared themselves, that one Bishop is not superiour to another, and ought not to judge another, or force another to obedience. They are the words of S. Cyprian to a Council of Bishops: [None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bi­shops, In Concil. Carthag. or by tyramical power drives his collegues to a necessity of obedience, since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power, hath his own choice, and cannot be judged by another, nor yet himself judge another; but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only and alone hath the power of setting us in the Government of his Church, and judg­ing of what we do.] This was spoken and [Page 92] intended against Pope Stephen, who did then begin dominari in clero, to lord it o­ver God's heritage, and to excommunicate his brethren, as Demetrius did in the time of the Apostles themselves: but they both found their reprovers. Demetrius was chastised by Saint John for this usurpati­on, and Stephen by S. Cyprian, and thisDe Bapt. contr. Do­natist. l. 3. c. 3. also was approv'd by S. Austin. We con­clude this particular with the words of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, who because the Patriarch of Constantinople called him­self Universal Bishop, said, It was a proud Lib. 4. cp. 76, 78, 31, 34, 38, 39. & lib. 6. [...]. 24. title, prophane, sacrilegious, and Antichri­stian: and therefore he little thought that his successors in the same See should so fiercely challenge that Antichristian title; much less did the then Bishop of Rome in those Ages challenge it as their own peculiar; for they had no mind to be, or to be esteemed Antichristian. Romano pontisici oblatum est, sed nullus unquam eo­rum hoc singularitatis nomen assumpsit. His predecessors (it seems) had been tempted with an offer of that title, but none ofLib. 4. ep. 32 Quis est iste, qui contra sta­tuta Evan­gelica, contra Canonum decreta, novum sibi usurpare nomen praesu­mit? Videatur Epistola S. Hieron, ad Evagrium, Concil. Chalced. action. 16. Concil. Nicen. can. 6. & can. 7. & Concil. C. P. can. 3. & Novel. Justin. 131. them ever assumed that name of singula­rity, as being against the law of the Gospel and the Canons of the Church.

[Page 93]NOW this being a matter of which Christ spake not one word to S. Peter, if it be a matter of Faith and Salvation, as it is now pretended, it is not imaginable he would have been so perfectly silent. But though he was silent of any intention to do this, yet S. Paul was not silent that Christ did otherwise; for he hath set in his Church primùm Apostolos; first of all, Apostles; not first S. Peter and secondarily Apostles; but all the Apostles were first. It is also evident that S. Peter did not carry himself so as to give the least overture or umbrage to make any one suspect he had any such pre­heminence; but he was (as S. Chrysostom truly says) [...], he did all things with the common consent,In act. A­post. [...]. 3. [...], nothing by special authority or principality: and if he had any such, it is more than probable that the Apostles who survived him, had suc­ceeded him in it, rather than the Bishop of Rome: and it being certain (as the BishopCanus loc. lib. 6. c. 8. p 235. of Canaries confesses) That there is in Scri­pture no revelation that the Bishop of RomeEd. Sal­mant. 1563. Con. [...]. l. 2. c. 34. Sent. l. 4. dist. 24. q. 2. art. 5. should succeed Peter in it, and we being there told that S. Pet. was at Antioch, but never that he was at Rome; it being confessed by some of their own parties, by Cardinal Cusanus, Soto, Driedo, Canus and Segovius, that this succession was not addicted to any particu­lar Church, nor that Christs institution ofDe. Eccl. dog. l. 4. c. 3 this does any other way appear; that it [Page 94] cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church: it being also cer­tain that there was no such thing known in the Primitive Church, but that the holy Fathers both of Africa and the East did op­pose Pope Victor and Pope Stephen, when they began to interpose with a presumptive Authority in the affairs of other Churches; and that the Bishops of the Church did treat with the Roman Bishop as with a brother, not as their superiour: and that the Gene­ral Council held at Chalcedon did give to the Bishops of C. P. equal rights and pre­eminence with the Bishops of Rome: and that the Greek Churches are at this day and have been a long time great opponents of this pretension of the Bishops of Rome: and after all this, since it is certain that Christ, who foreknows all things, did also know that there would be great disputes and challenges of this preeminence, did in­deedLuk 22. 25 [...]. 20. 26, 27. suppress it in his Apostles, and said not it should be otherwise in succession, and did not give any command to his Church to obey the Bishops of Rome as his Vicars, more than what he commanded concerning all Bishops; it must be certain that it can­not be necessary to salvation to do so, but that it is more than probable that he never intended any such thing, and that the Bi­shops of Rome have to the great prejudice of Christendom made a great schism, and usurped a title which is not their due, and [Page 95] challenged an Authority to which they have no right, and have set themselves above others who are their equals, and impose an Article of Faith of their own contriving, and have made great preparation for Anti­christ, if he ever get into that Seat, or be in already, and made it necessary for all of the Roman Communion to believe and obey him in all things.

SECT. XI.

THERE are very many more things in which the Church of Rome hath great­ly turn'd aside from the Doctrines of Scri­pture, and the practice of the Catholick Apostolick and primitive Church.

SUCH are these: The Invocation of Saints: the Insufficiency of Scriptures with­out Traditions of Faith unto Salvation: their absolving sinners before they have by Canonical penances and the fruits of a good life testified their repentance: their giving [Page 96] leave to simple Presbyters by Papal dispen­sation, to give Confirmation or chrism: selling Masses for Nine-pences: Circumge­station of the Eucharist to be ador'd: The dangerous Doctrine of the necessity of the Priests intention in collating Sacraments; by which device they have put it into the power of the Priest to damn whom he pleases of his own Parish: their affirming that the Mass is a proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead: private Masses, or the Lord's Supper without Communion; which is against the doctrine and practice of the Antient Church of Rome it self, and contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles, if we may believe Pope Calixtus, and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication. Peractâ consecratione omnes communicent, [...]. dist. 2. [...]. Peracta. Vi­dectiam ib. cap. In [...] & cap. Siquis. qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus; sic autem etiam Apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia. When the Conse­cration is finished let all Communicate that will not be thrust from the bounds of the Church; for so the Apostles appointed, and so the holy Church of Rome does hold. The same also was [...] by Pope Soter and Pope Martin in a Council of Bishops, and most severely enjoyn'd by the Canons of the Apostles as they are cited in the Canon Law.De cons dist. 1. c. Omnes sid. Omnes [...] qui [...] in solennitatibus sacris ad Ecclesiam & [...] Apostolo­rum & Evangelia audiant. Qui autem non [...] in [...]; dum Missa peragatur, nec Sanctam Communionem percipiunt, velut in­quietudines Ecclesiae commoventes convenit communione privari.

[Page 97]THERE are divers others; but we sup­pose that those Innovations which we have already noted, may be [...] to verifie this charge of Novelty. But we have done this the rather, because the Roman Emissa­ries endeavour to prevail amongst the igno­rant and prejudicate by boasting of Anti­quity; and calling their Religion, the Old Religion and the Catholick: so insnaring others by ignorant words in which is no truth; their Religion as it distinguishes from the Religion of the Church of Eng­land and Ireland, being neither the Old nor the Catholick Religion; but New and superinduc'd by arts known to all who with sincerity and diligence have look'd into their pretences.

BUT they have taught every Priest that can scarce understand his Breviary (of which in Ireland there are but too many) and very many of the people, to ask where our Religion was before Luther? Whereas it appears by the premises, that it is much more easie for us to shew our Religion be­fore Luther, than for them to shew theirs before Trent. And although they can shew too much practice of their Religion in the degenerate ages of the Church, yet we can and do clearly shew ours in the purest and first ages; and can and do draw lines point­ing to the times and places where the several rooms and stories of their Babel was build­ed, [Page 98] and where polished, and where furni­shed.

BUT when the Keepers of the [...] slept, and the [...] had sown tares, and they had choak'd the wheat, and almost destroy­ed it: when the world complain'd of the [...] errors in the Church, and being op­pressed by a violent power, durst not com­plain so much as they had cause: and when they who had cause to complain were yet themselves very much abused, and did not complain in all they might; when divers excellent persons, S. Bernard, Clemangis, Grosthead, Marsilius, Ocham, Alvarus, Ab­bat Joachim, Petrarch, Savanarola, Valla, Erasmus, Mantuan, Gerson, Ferus, Cassan­der, Andreas Fricius, Modrevius, Herman­nus Coloniensis, Wasseburgius Archdeacon of Verdun, Paulus Langius In Chron. [...]., Staphilus, Te­lesphorus de Cusentiâ, Doctor Talheymius, Francis Zabarel the Cardinal, and Pope Adrian himself, with many others; not to reckon Wiclef, Hus, Jerom of Prague, the Bohemians, and the poor men of Lions, whom they call'd [...], and confuted with fire and sword; when almost all Chri­stian Princes did complain heavily of the corrupt state of the Church and of Religi­on, and no remedy could be had, but the very intended remedy made things much worse; then it was that divers Christian Kingdoms, and particularly the Church of England,

Being asham'd of the errors, superstitions, heresies and impieties which had detur­pated the face of the Church; look'd into the glass of Scripture and pure Antiquity, and wash'd away those stains with which time, and inadvertency, and tyranny had besmear'd her; and being thus cleans'd and wash'd, is accus'd by the Roman parties of Novelty, and condemn'd because she re­fuses to run into the same excess of riot and de-ordination. But we cannot de­serve blame who return to our antient and first health, by preferring a New cure be­fore an Old sore.

SECT. 1.

OUR First instance is in their Do­ctrines of Repentance. For the Roman Doctors teach, that unless it be by accident, or in respect of some o­ther obligation, a sinner is not bound pre­sently to repent of his sin as soon as he hath [Page 102] committed it. Some time or other he must do it, and if he take care so to order his affairs that it be not wholly omitted, but so that it be done one time or other, he is not by the precept or grace of Repentance bound to do more. Scotus and his Scholars say that a sinner is bound, viz. by the pre­cept of the Church, to repent on Holy days, especially the great ones. But this is thought too severe by Soto and Medina, who teach that a sinner is bound to repent but once a year, that is, against Easter. These Do­ctors indeed do differ concerning the Churches sense; which according to the best of them is bad enough; full as bad as it is stated in the charge: but they agree in the worst part of it, viz. that though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy days, or at Easter; yet that by the Law of God they are not tied to so much, but only to repent in the danger or article of death. This is the express Doctrine taught in the Church of Rome by their fa­mousEnchir. c l. n. 31. Navar; and for this he quotes Pope Adrian and Cardinal Cajetan, and finally af­firms it to be the sense of all men. The same also is taught by Reginaldus, saying, It is Praxis fori [...]. l. 5. c. 2. sect. 4. n. 23. true, and the opinion of all men, that the time in which a sinner is bound by the com­mandment of God to be contrite for his sins, is the imminent article of natural or violent death.

[Page 103]WE shall not need to aggravate this sad story by the addition of other words to the same purpose in a worse degree; such as those words are of the same Reginaldus. There is no precept that a sinner should not persevere in enmity against God. There is no negative precept forbidding such a perseve­rance. These are the words of this man, but the proper and necessary consequent of that which they all teach, and to which they must consent. For since it is certain that he who hath sinn'd against God and his Conscience, is in a state of enmity, we say he therefore ought to repent presently, because until he hath repented he is an ene­my to God. This they confess, but they suppose it concludes nothing; for though they consider and confess this, yet they still saying, a man is not bound by God's Law to repent till the article of death, do con­sequently say the same thing that Reginal­dus does, and that a man is not bound to come out of that state of enmity till he be in those circumstances that it is very pro­bable if he does not then come out, he must stay in it for ever. It is something worse than this yet that Dom. à Soto in quart. sent. dist. 17. qu. 2. art. 6. concl. se­cunda. Sotus says, [even to resolve to de­fer our repentance, and to refuse to repent for a cer­tain time, is but a venial sin.] But Non est dubium quin id lici­tum sit. Cod de poeniten. tract. l. q. 6. p. 18. edit. Salmantic. A. D. 1553. Medina says it is none at all.

[Page 104]IF it be replied to this, that though God hath left it to a sinners liberty to repent when he please, yet the Church hath been more severe than God hath been, and ties a sinner to repent, by collateral positive laws; for having bound every one to confess at Easter, consequently she hath tied every one to repent at Easter, and so, by her laws, can lie in the sin without interrupti­on but twelve Months or thereabouts; yet there is a secret in this, which nevertheless themselves have been pleased to discover for the ease of tender consciences, viz. that the Church ordains but the means, the ex­teriour solemnity of it, and is satisfied if you obey her laws by a Ritual repentance, but the holiness and the inward repentance, which in charity we should have supposed to have been design'd by the law of Festi­vals,Reginald. lib. de contrit c. 2. cap 5. Non est id quod per proeceptum de ob­servatione Festorum injungitur, is not that which is enjoyned by the Church in her law of Holy-days. So that still sinners are left to the liberty which they say God gave; even to satisfie our selves with all the re­maining pleasures of that sin for a little while, even during our short mortal life; only we must be sure to repent at last.

WE shall not trouble our selves or our charges with confuting this impious Do­ctrine. For it is evident that this gives countenance and too much warranty to a [Page 105] wicked life; and that of it self is confuta­tion enough, and is that which we intend­ed to represent.

IF it be answered, that this is not the doctrine of their Church, but of some pri­vate Doctors; we must tell you, that, if by the Doctrine of their Church they mean such things only as are decreed in their Councils; it is to be considered, that but few things are determined in their Councils; nothing but articles of belief, and the practice of Sacraments re­lating to publick order: and if they will not be reproved for any thing but what we prove to be false in the articles of their simple belief, they take a liberty to say and to do what they list, and to corrupt all the World by their rules of con­science. But, that this is also the Doctrie of their Church their own men tell us. Com­munis omnium. It is the Doctrine of all their men; so they affirm, as we have cited their own words above: who also undertake to tell us in what sense their Church in­tends to tye sinners to actual repentance; not as soon as the sin is committed, but at certain seasons, and then also to no more of it, than the external and ritual part. So that if their Church be injuriously charg'd, themselves have done it, not we. And besides all this: it is hard to suppose or expect that the innumerable cases of [Page 106] conscience which a whole Trade of Law­yers and Divines amongst them have made, can be entred into the records of Councils and publick decrees. In these cases we are to consider, who teaches them? Their Gravest Doctors, in the face of the Sun, under the intuition of Authority in the publick conduct of souls, in their al­lowed Sermons, in their books licens'd by a curious and inquisitive authority, not pas­sing from them but by warranty from se­veral hands intrusted to examine them, ne fides Ecclesioe aliquid detrimenti patioetur; that nothing be publish'd but what is con­sonant to the Catholick faith. And there­fore these things cannot be esteem'd private opinionsNon illico ut bomo se reum sentit culp. e poenitentioe lege poe­nitcre conslringitur. Hoec pro­secto conclusio more & usu Ec­clesioe satis videtur constabilita. Dom. à Soto in quart sent, dist. 17. qu. 2. art 6.; especially, since if they be, yet they are the private opi­nions of them all, and that we understand to be publick enough: and are so their Doctrine, as what the Scribes and Pharisees taught their Disciples, though the whole Church of the Jews had not pass'd it in­to a law. So this is the Roman Doctrine; though not the Roman law. Which differ­ence we desire may be observed in many of the following instances, that this ob­jection may no more interpose for an e­scape, or an excuse. But we shall have occasion again to speak to it, upon new particulars.

[Page 107]BUT this, though it be infinitely into­lerable, yet it is but the beginning of sor­rows. For the guides of Souls in the Ro­man Church have prevaricated in all the parts of Repentance, most sadly and dan­gerously.

THE next things therefore that we shall remark are their Doctrines concerning Con­trition: which when it is genuine and true, that is, a true cordial sorrow for having sin'd against God; a sorrow proceeding from the love of God, and conversion to him, and ending in a dereliction of all our sins, and a walking in all righteousness, both the Psalms and the Prophets, the Old Testament and the New, the Greek Fathers and the Latin have allowed as sufficient for the pardon of our sins through faith in Je­sus Christ (as our Writers have often prov'd in their Sermons and books of Con­science) yet first, the Church of Rome does not allow it to be of any value, unless it be joyn'd with a desire to confess their sins to a Priest; saying, that a man by contrition is not reconcil'd to God, without their Sa­cramental or Ritual penance, actual or vo­tive; and this is decreed by the Council of Trent, which thing besides that it is againstSessio. 4. c. 4. Scripture, and the promises of the Gospel, and not only teaches for Doctrine the Com­mandments of Men, but evacuates the good­ness of God by their Traditions, and weakens and discourages the best repen­tance, [Page 108] and prefers repentance towards men, before that which the Scripture calls Repen­tance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

BUT the malignity of this Doctrine and its influence it hath on an evil life appears in the other corresponding part of this Do­crine. For as Contrition without their ritual and sacramental confession will not re­concile us to God: so Attrition (as they call it) or contrition imperfect, proceeding from fear of damnation, together with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner. Con­trition without it will not: attrition with it, will reconcile us; and therefore by this doctrine, which is expresly decreed at Trent, there is no necessity of Contrition at all; and attrition is as good to all intents and purposes of pardon: and a little re­pentance will prevail as well as the greatest, the imperfect as well as the perfect. So Gu­lielmusIn 4. sent. dist. 18. q. 1.de Rubeo explains this doctrine. He that confesses his sins, grieving but a little, obtains remission of his sins by the Sacrament of Penance ministred to him by the Priest ab­solving him. So that although God work­ing Contrition in a penitent, hath not done his work for him without the Priests abso­lution, in desire at least; yet if the Priest do his part, he hath done the work for the penitent, though God had not wrought that excellent grace of contrition in the pe­nitent.

[Page 109]BUT for the contrition it self; it is a good word, but of no severity or affright­ment by the Roman Doctrine: One contri­tion,Lib. 3. in­struct. sa­cerdot. c. 5. n. 4. Sum. qu. 16. art. 1.one act of it, though but little and re­miss, can blot out any, even the greatest sin (always understanding it in the sense of the Church, that is in the Sacrament of Pe­nance) saith Cardinal Tolet. A certain little inward grief of mind is requir'd to the perfection of Repentance, said Maldonat. And to [...] a grief in general for all our sins isDe contrit. num. 107. Quae­cun (que) intentio contra [...], in quocunque instanti sufficiet ad consequendam misericordi­am & remissionem. Ib. n. 106.sufficient; but it is not ne­cessary to grieve for any one sin more than another, said Franciscus de Victoriâ. The greatest sin and the smallest, as to this, are all alike; and as for the Contrition it self, any intention or degree whatsoever, in any instant whatsoever, is sufficient to obtain mercy and remission, said the same Author.

NOW let this be added to the former, and the sequel is this, That if a man live a wicked life for threescore or fourscore years together, yet if in the article of his death, sooner than which God hath not command­ed him to repent, he be a little sorrowful for his sins, then resolving for the present that he will do so no more; and though this sorrow hath in it no love of God, but only a fear of Hell, and a hope that God will pardon him, this, if the Priest ab­solves him, does instantly pass him into a [Page 110] state of salvation. The Priest with two fingers and a thumb can do his work for him; only he must be greatly dispos'd and prepar'd to receive it: Greatly, we say, according to the sense of the Roman Church; for he must be attrite, or it were better if he were contrite; one act of grief, a little one, and that not for one sin more than an­other, and this at the end of a long wicked life, at the time of our death, will make all sure.

UPON these terms, it is a wonder that all wicked men in the world are not Papists; where they may live so merrily, and die so securely, and are out of all danger, unless peradventure they die very suddenly, which because so very few do, the venture is esteem'd nothing, and it is a thousand to one on the sinners side.

SECT. II.

WE know it will be said, That the Roman Church enjoyns Confession, and imposes Penances, and these are a [Page 111] great restraint to sinners, and gather up what was scattered before. The reply is easie, but it is very sad. For,

1. FOR Confession: It is true, to them who are not us'd to it, as it is at the [...] time, and for that once it is as troublesom as for a bashful man to speak Orations in publick: But where it is so perpetual and universal, and done by companies and crouds, at a solemn set time, and when it may be done to any one besides the Parish­Priest, to a Friar that begs, or to a Monk in his Dorter, done in the ear, it may be, to a person that hath done worse, and therefore hath no awe upon me, but what his Order imprints, and his Vitiousness takes off; when we see Women and Boys, Princes and Prelates do the same every [...]: And as oftentimes they are never the better, so they are not at all asham'd; but men look upon it as a certain cure, like pulling [...] a mans clothes to go and wash in a river, and make it by use and habit, by considence and custom, to be no certain pain, and the wo­men blush or smile, weep or are unmov'd, as it happens under their veil, and the men under the boldness of their Sex: When we see that men and women confess to day, and sin to morrow, and are not [...] from their sin the more for it; because they know the worst of it, and have felt it often, and believe to be eas'd by it, certain it is that a little reason, and a little observation will [Page 112] suffice to conclude, that this practice of Confession hath in it no affrightment, not so much as the horrour of the sin it self hath to the Conscience. For they who com­mit sins confidently, will with less regret (it may be) confess it in this manner, where it is the fashion for every one to do it. And when all the world observes how loosly the Italians, Spaniards and French do live in their Carnivals, giving to themselves all li­berty and licence to do the vilest things at that time, not only because they are for a while to take their leave of them, but be­cause they are (as they suppose) to be so soon eas'd of their crimes by Confession, and the circular and never-failing hand of the Priest; they will have no reason to ad­mire the severity of Confession, which as it [...] most certainly intended as a deletory of sin, and might do its first intention, if it were equally manag'd; so now certainly it gives confidence to many men to sin, and to most men to neglect the greater and more effective parts of [...] repentance.

WE shall not need to observe how Con­fession is made a Minister of State, a Pick­lock of secrets, a Spy upon families, a Searcher of inclinations, a Betraying to temptations; for this is wholly by the sault of the Men, and not of the Doctrine; but even the Doctrine it self, as it is handled in the Church of Rome, is so far from bring­ing peace to the troubled Consciences, that [Page 113] it intromits more scruples and cases than it can resolve.

FOR besides, that it self is a question, and they have made it dangerous by pretending that it is by Divine Right and Institution, (for so some of the School­menVid. Biel. l. 4. dist. 17. q. 1. & Scotum ib. & Bona­vent. ib. n. 72. teach, and the Ca­nonists say the contrary,Melius dicitur cam insti­tutam fuisse à quadam univer­sali Ecclesiae traditione, quam ex novi vel veteris Tostamenti authoritate, & tamen negatur baec traditio esse universalis. Confessio non est necessaria a­pud Graecos, quia non emanavit ad illos traditionaliter. De poenit. dist. 5. in principio Gloss. ib. Vide etiam Panormitan, super [...] J. 5. cap. Quod autem c. Omnis utrius (que) sexus, sect. 18. extrav. Gloss. Maldo­natus fatetur omnes Canonistas in banc sententiam consensisse. Disp. de Saer. tom. 2. c. [...]. de confess. orig. and that it is only of hu­mane and positive Consti­tution) and by this diffe­rence in so great a point, have made the whole Oe­conomy of their repen­tance, which relies upon the supposed necessity of Confession, to fail, or to shake vehemently, and at the best, to be a foundation too uncertain to build the hopes of salvation on it; besides all this, we say, Their Rules and Doctrines of Confession, enjoyn some things that are of themselves dangerous, and lead into temptation. An instance of this is in that which is decreed in the CanonsSess. 4. can. 7. of Trent, that the Penitent must not only confess every mortal sin which after dili­gent inquiry he remembers, but even his very sinful thoughts in particular, and his [...] desires, and every circumstance which changes the kind of the sin, or (as some [Page 114] add) does notably increase it: and how this can be safely done, and who is suffici­ent for these things, and who can tell his circumstances without tempting his Con­fessor, or betraying, and defaming ano­ther person, (which is forbidden) and in what cases it may be done, or in what cases omitted; and whether the confession be [...] upon infinite other considerations, and whether it be to be repeated in whole or in part, and how often, and how much? these things are so uncertain, casual and contingent, and so many cases are multi­plied upon every one of these, and these so disputed and argued by their greatest Doctors, by Thomas, and Scotus, and all the Schoolmen, and by the Casuists, that as Beat us Rhenanus complains, it was truly observed by the famous John Geilerius, that according to their cases, enquiries and con­clusions, it is impossible for any man to make a right Confession. So that although the shame of private Confession be very to­lerable and easie, yet the cases and scruples which they have introduc'd, are neither easie nor tolerable, and though (as it is now used) there be but little in it, to restrain sin, yet there is very much danger of in­creasing it, and of receiving no benefit by it.

SECT. III.

BUT then for Penances and Satisfacti­ons of which they boast so much, as being so great restraints to sin, these as they are publickly handled, are nothing but words and ineffective sounds. For, first, if we consider what the Penances themselves are which are enjoyned; they are reduced from the antient Canonical Penances to pri­vate and arbitrary, from years to hours, from great severity to gentleness and slat­tery, from fasting and publick shame to the saying over their Beads, from Cordial to ritual, from smart to money, from hearti­ness and earnest to pageantry and theatri­cal Images of Penance; and if some Con­fessors happen to be severe, there are ways enough to be eased. For the Penitent may [Page 116] have leave to go to a gentler, or he may get Commutations, or he may get some­body elseEman. Sa. V. [...]. n. 10. Tol. l. 3. inslr. sa­ccrd. cap. 11. n. 6. to do them for him: and if his Penances be never so great, or never so little, yet it may be all supplied by Indul­gences; of which there are such store in the Lateran at Rome, that as Pope Boniface said, No man is able to number them; yet he confirm'd them all.

IN the Church of Sancta Maria de Popolo there are for every day in the year two thou­sand and eight hundred years of pardon, besides fourteen thousand and fourteen Ca­rentanes; which in one year amount to more than a Million: all which are confirm'd by the Pope Paschal I. Boniface VIII. and Gre­gory IX. In the Church of S. Vitus and Mo­destus there are for every day in the year seven thousand years and seven thousand Carentanes of pardon, and a pardon of a third part of all our sins besides; and the price of all this is but praying before an Altar in that Church. At the Sepulchre of Christ in Venice there is hung up a prayer of S. Augustine, with an Indulgence of four­score and two thousand years, granted by Boniface the VIII. (who was of all the Popes the most bountiful of the Churches treasure) and Benedict the XI. to him that shall say it, and that for every day toties quoties. The Divine pardon of Sica gave a plenary Indul­gence to every one that being confessed and [Page 117] communicated should pray there in the Franciscan Church of Sancta Maria de gli Angeli, and this pardon is ab omni poena & culpa. The English of that we easily un­derstand, but the meaning of it we do not, because they will not own that these Indul­gences do profit any one whose guilt is not taken away by the Sacrament of Penance. But this is not the only snare in which they have inextricably entangled themselves: but be it as they please for this; whatever it was, it was since inlarged by Sixtus IV. and Sixtus V. to all that shall wear S. Francis's Cord. The saying a few Pater nosters and Ave's before a privileg'd Altar can in innu­merable places procure vast portions of this Treasure; and to deliver a soul out of Pur­gatory, whom they list, is promised to many upon easie terms, even to the saying of their Beads over with an appendent Medal of the Pope's benediction. Every Priest at his third or fourth Mass is as sure (as may be) to deliver the souls of his Parents: And a thousand more such stories as these are to be seen every where and every day.

ONCE for all: There was a book printed at Paris by Francis Regnault, A. D. 1536. May 25. called The hours of the most blessed Virgin Mary, according to the use of Sarum; in which for the saying three short prayers written in Rome in a place called The Chapel of the holy Cross of seven Romans, are promi­sed [Page 118] fourscore and ten thousand years of pardon of deadly sin. Now the meaning of these things is very plain. By these devi­ces they serve themselves, and they do notTolct instr. sacerd. lib. 3. cap. 11. n. 6. serve God. They serve themselves by this Doctrine: For they teach that what Pe­nance is ordinarily imposed, does not take away all the punishment that is due; for they do not impose what was anciently en­joyn'd by the Penitential Canons, but some little thing instead of it: and it may be, that what was anciently enjoyned by the Penitential Canons, is not so much as God will exact, (for they suppose that he will forgive nothing but the guilt and the e­ternity; but he will exact all that can be demanded on this side Hell, even to the last farthing he must be paid some way or other, even when the guilt is taken a­way) but therefore to prevent any failing that way, they have given Indulgences e­nough to take off what was due by the old Canons, and what may be due by the severity of God; and if these fail, they may have recourse to the Priests, and they by their Masses can make supply: so that their Disciples are well, and the want of ancient Discipline shall do them no hurt.

BUT then how little they serve God's end by treating the sinner so gently, will be very evident. For by this means they have found out a way, that though it may be [Page 119] God will be more severe than the old Peni­tential Canons; and although these Canons were much more severe than men are now willing to suffer, yet neither for the one or the other shall they need to be troubled: they have found out an easier way to go to Heaven than so. An Indulgence will be no great charge, but that will take off all the supernumerary Penances which ought to have been imposed by the ancient Discipline of the Church, and may be required by God. A little alms to a Priest, a small oblation to a Church, a pilgrimage to the image or reliques of a Saint, wearing St. Francis's Cord, saying over the Beads with an hallowed Appendent, entering into a Fraternity, praying at a priviledg'd Altar, leaving a Legacy for a Soul-Mass, visiting a priviledg'd Cemetery, and twenty other devices will secure the sinner from suffering punishment here or hereafter, more than his friendly Priest is pleased gently to im­pose.

To them that ask, what should any one need to get so many hundred thousand years of pardon, as are ready to be had upon very [...] terms? They answer as be­fore; That whereas it may be for Perjury the ancient Canons enjoyned Penance all their life Vidc Con­cil. [...]. c 54. Bur­chard l. 19. Tertul. lib. de [...].; that will be supposed to be twenty or forty years, or suppose an hun­dred; if the man have been perjur'd a thou­sand times, and committed adultery so of­ten, [Page 120] and done innumerable other sins, for every one of which he deserves to suffer forty years penance, and how much more in the account of God he deserves, he knows not; if he be attrite, and confess'd so that the guilt is taken away, yet as much temporal punishment remains due as is not paid here: but the Indulgences of the Church will take off so much as it comes to, even of all that would be suffer'd in Purgatory. Now it is true, that Purgatory (at least as is believ'd) cannot last a hun­dred thousand years; but yet God may by the acerbity of the flames in twenty years equal the Canonical Penances of twenty thousand years: to prevent which, these Indulgences of so many thousand years are devised. A wise and thrifty Invention sure, and well contriv'd, and rightly applotted according to every mans need, and accord­ing as they suspect his Bill shall amount to.

THIS strange Invention, as strange as it is, will be own'd, for this is the account of it which we find in Bellarmine: and al­thoughDe Indul­gen l. 1. c. 9 sect. Existit [...]. Gerson and Dominicus à Soto are asham'd of these prodigious Indulgences, and suppose that the Pope's Quaestuaries did procure them, yet it must not be so dis­own'd; truth is truth, and it is notoriously so; and therefore a reason must be found out for it, and this is it which we have ac­counted. But the use we make of it is this; [Page 121] That since they have declar'd, that when sins are pardon'd so easily, yet the punish­ment remains so very great, and that so much must be suffered here or in Purgatory; it is strange that they should not only in effect pretend to shew more mercy than God does, or the primitive Church did; but that they should directly lay aside the pri­mitive Discipline, and while they declaim against their Adversaries for saying they are not necessary, yet at the same time they should devise tricks to take them quite a­way, so that neither Penances shall much smart here, nor Purgatory (which is a de­vice to make men be Mulata's, as the Spa­niard calls, half Christians, a device to make a man go to Heaven and to Hell too) shall not torment them hereafter. However it be, yet things are so ordered, that the noise of Penances need not trouble the greatest Criminal, unless he be so unfortunate as to live in no Countrey and near no Church, and without Priest, or friend, or money, or notice of any thing that is so loudly talk'd of in Christendom. If he be, he hath no help but one; he must live a holy and a se­vere life, which is the only great calamity which they are commanded to suffer in the Church of England: but if he be not, the case is plain, he may by these Doctrines take his ease.

SECT. IV.

WE doubt not but they who under­stand the proper sequel of these things, will not wonder that the Church of Rome should have a numerous company of Proselytes, made up of such as the begin­ings of David's Army were. But that we may undeceive them also, for to their souls we intend charity and relief by this Ad­dress, we have thought fit to add one Con­sideration more, and that is, That it is not fit that they should trust to this, or any thing of this, not only because there is no foundation of truth in these new devices, [Page 123] but because even the Roman Doctors them­selves, when they are pinch'd with an Ob­jection, let their hold go, and to escape, do in remarkable measures destroy their own new building.

THE case is this: To them who say, that if there were truth in these pretensi­ons, then all these, and the many millions of Indulgences more, and the many other ways of releasing souls out of Purgatory, the innumerable Masses said every day, the power of the Keys so largely imploy'd, would in a short time have emptied Purga­tory of all her sad inhabitants, or it may be very few would go thither, and they that unfortunately do, cannot stay long; and consequently, besides that this great soft­ness and easiness of procedure would give confidence to the greatest sinners, and the hopes of Purgatory would destroy the fears of Hell, and the certainty of doing well enough in an imperfect life, would make men careless of the more excellent: besides these things, there will need no continuation of Pensions to pray for persons dead many years ago: To them, I say, who talk to them at this rate, they have enough to an­swer.

DECEIVE not your selves, there are more things to be reckon'd for than so. For when you have deserved great punish­ments for great sins, and the Guilt is taken off by Absolution, and (you suppose) the [Page 124] Punishment by Indulgences or the Satisfa­ction of others; it may be so, and it may be not so.

• FOR 1. it is according as your Indul­gence is. Suppose it for forty years, or it may be an hundred, or a thousand, (and that is a great matter) yet peradventure according to the old penitential rate you have deserved the Penance of forty thou­sand years; or at least you may have done so by the more severe account of God: If the Penance of forty years be taken off by your Indulgence, it does as much of the work as was promised or intended; but you can feel little ease, if still there remains due the Penance of threescore thousand years. No man can tell the difference when what remains shall be so great as to sur­mount all the evils of this life; and the a­batement may be accounted by pen and ink, but will signifie little in the perception: it is like the casting out of a Devil out of a miserable Demoniack, when there still re­mains fifty more as bad as he that went away; the man will hardly find how much he is advanced in his cure.
• BUT 2. you have with much labour and some charge purchased to your self so many Quadragenes or Lents of pardon; that is, you have bought off the Penances of so ma­ny times forty days. It is well; but were you well advis'd? it may be your Quadra­genes are not Carenes, that is, are not a [Page 125] quitting the severest Penances of fasting so long in bread and water: for there is great difference in the manner of keeping a pe­nitential Lent, and it may be you have pur­chased but some lighter thing; and then if your demerit arise to so many Carenes, and you purchased but mere Quadragenes, with­out a minute and table of particulars, you may stay longer in Purgatory than you ex­pected.
• 3. BUT therefore your best way is to get a plenary Indulgence; and that may be had on reasonable terms: but take heed you do not think your self secure, for a plenary In­dulgence does not do all that it may be you require; for there is an Indulgence more full, and another most full, and it is not
  Vide Joan. de Turre­cremata in comment. dist. 1. de paenitent.
  agreed upon among the Doctors whether a plenary Indulgence is to be extended be­yond the taking off those Penances which were actually enjoyned by the Confessor, or how far they go further. And they that read Turrecremata, Navar, Cordubensis, Fabius Incarnatus, Petrus de Soto, Armilla aurea, Aquinas, Tolet, Cajetan, in their several accounts of Indulgences, will soon perceive that all this is but a handful of Smoke, when you hold it, you hold it not.
• 4. BUT further yet; all Indulgences are granted upon some inducement, and are not ex mero motu, or acts of mere grace without cause; and if the cause be not rea­sonable, they are invalid: and whether the [Page 126] cause be sufficient will be very hard to judge. And if there be for the Indulgence, yet if there be not a reasonable cause for the quan­tity of the Indulgence, you cannot tell how much you get: and the Preachers of Indul­gences ought not to declare how valid they are assertivè, that is, by any confidence; but opinativè or recitativè, they can only tell what is said, or what is their own opinion.
• 5. WHEN this difficulty is passed over, yet it may be the person is not capable of them; for if he be not in the state of Grace all is nothing; and if he be, yet if he does not perform the condition of the Indulgence actually, his mere endeavour or good desire is nothing. And when the conditions are actually done, it must be enquired whether in the time of doing them you were in cha­rity; whether you be so at least in the last day of finishing them: it is good to be cer­tain in this, lest all evaporate and come to nothing. But yet suppose this too, though the work you are to do as the condition of the Indulgence, be done so well that you lose not all the Indulgence, yet for every degree of Imperfection in that work you will lose a part of the Indulgence, and then it will be hard to tell whether you get half so much as you propounded to your self.
  [...]. Con­cil Tri­dcnt l. 1. pag. 20. Londin. edit.
  But here Pope Adrian troubles the whole affair again: for if the Indulgence be only given according to the worthiness of the work done, then that will avail of it self [Page 127] without any Grant from the Church; and then it is hugely questionable whether the Popes Authority be of any use in this whole matter.
• 6. BUT there is yet a greater heap of dangers and uncertainties; for you must be sure of the Authority of him that gives the Indulgence, and in this there are many doubtful Questions; but when they are over, yet it is worth enquiry, (for some Doctors are fearful in this point) whether the intromission of Venial sins, without which no man lives, does hinder the fruit of the Indulgence; for if it does, all the cost is lost.
• 7. WHEN an Indulgence is given, put case to abide forty days on certain conditi­ons, whether these forty days are to be taken collectively or distributively; for, be­cause it is confessed that the matter of In­dulgences is res odibilis, an hateful and an
  Fab. Incar­nat. scrut. [...]. de Indulgent.
  odious matter, it is not to be understood in the sense of favour, but of greatest se­verity; and therefore it is good to know beforehand what to trust to, to inquire how the Bull is penn'd, and what sense of Law every word does bear; for it may be any good mans case. If an Indulgence be grant­ed to a place for so many days in every year, it were sit you inquire for how many years that will last; for some Doctors say, That if a definite number of years be not set down, it is intended to last but twenty [Page 128] years. And therefore it is good to be wise early.
• 8. BUT it is yet of greater consideration: If you take out a Bull of Indulgence, re­lating to the Article of death, in case you recover that sickness in which you thought you should use it, you must consider, whe­ther you must not take out a new one for the next fit of sickness; or will the first, which stood for nothing, keep cold, and without any sensible errour serve when you shall in­deed die?
• 9. You must also enquire and be rightly inform'd, whether an Indulgence granted upon a certain Festival will be valid if the day be chang'd, (as they were all at once by the Gregorian Calendar) or if you go in­to another Countrey where the Feast is not kept the same day, as it happens in move­able Feasts, and on S. Bartholomew's-day, and some others.
• 10. WHEN your Lawyers have told you their opinion of all these Questions, and given it under their hands, it will concern you to inquire yet further, whether a suc­ceeding Pope have not or cannot revoke an Indulgence granted by his Predecessor; for
  [...] gravam. Germ. Idem face­re voluit Paulus quintus in Venetorum [...].
  this is often done in matters of favour and privileges; and the German Princes com­plain'd sadly of it, and it was complain'd in the Council of Lions, that Martin the Legate of Pope Innocent the VIII. revok'd and dissipated all former Grants: and it is [Page 129] an old Rule, Papa nunquam sibi lig at manus, The Pope never binds his own hands. But here some caution would do well.
• 11. IT is worthy inquiry, whether in the year of Jubilee all other Indulgences be suspended; for though some think they are not, yet Navar and Emanuel Sà affirm that they are; and if they chance to say true, (for no man knows whether they do or no) you may be at a loss that way. And when all this is done, yet
• 12. YOUR Indulgences will be of no avail to you in reserved cases, which are very many. A great many more very fine scruples might be mov'd, and are so; and therefore when you have gotten all the secu­rity you can by these, you are not safe at all. But therefore be sure still to get Masses to be said.

So that now the great Objection is an­swered; you need not fear that saying Mas­ses will ever be made unnecessary by the multitude of Indulgences: The Priest must still be imployed and entertained in subsidi­um, since there are so many ways of making the Indulgence good for nothing: And as for the fear of emptying Purgatory by the free and liberal use of the Keys, it is very needless; because the Pope cannot evacu­ate [...]. de indulgent. sect. [...]. edit. Barcinon. 1628. Purgatory, or give so many Indul­gences as to take out all souls from thence: [Page 130] And therefore if the Popes, and the Bishops, and the Legates, have been already too free, it may be there is so much in arrear, that the Treasure of the Church is spent, or the Church is in debt for souls; or else, though the Treasure be inexhaustible, yet so much of her Treasure ought not to be made use of, and therefore it may be that your souls shall be polt-pon'd, and must stay and take its turn God knows when. And therefore we cannot but commend the prudence ofApud Gen Sepulve­dam in vi­ta Egidii Albernotii Cardinal. Cardinal Albernotius, who by his last Will took order for fifty thousand Masses to be said for his soul; for he was a wise man, and lov'd to make all as sure as he could.

SECT. V.

[Page 131]BUT then to apply this to the Consci­ences of the poor people of the Roman Communion. Here is a great deal of Trea­sure of the Church pretended, and a great many favours granted, and much ease pro­mised, and the wealth of the Church boast­ed of, and the peoples mony gotten; and that this may be a perpetual spring, it is clear amongst their own Writers, that you are not sure of any good by all that is past, but you must get more security, or this may be nothing. But how easie were it for you now to conclude, that all this is but a meer cozenage, an art to get mony? but that's but the least of the evil, it is a certain way to deceive souls. For since there are so many thousands that trust to these things, and yet in the confession of your own Writers there are so many sallibilities in the whole, and in every part, why will you suffer your selves so weakly and vainly to be cozen'd out of your souls with promises that signifie nothing, and words without vertue, and treasures that make no man rich, and Indul­gences that give confidence to sin, but no ease to the pains which follow?

BESIDES all this, it is very considerable, that this whole affair is a state of tempta­tion; for they that have so many ways to escape, will not be so careful of the main stake, as the interest of it requires. He that hopes to be reliev'd by many others, will [Page 132] be tempted to neglect himself: There is an [...], an Unum necessarium, even that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. A little wisdom, and an easie ob­servation were enough to make allmen that love themselves, wisely to abstain from such diet which does not nourish, but fills the stomach with wind and imagination. But to return to the main inquiry:

WE desire that it be considered, how dangerously good life is undermined, by the Propositions collaterally taught by their Great Doctors, in this matter of Indul­gences; besides the main and direct danger and deception.

1. Venial sins preceeding or following the work enjoyned for getting Indulgences, hinder not their fruit: but if they intervene in the time of doing them, than they hinder. ByFab. Incar. ubi supra. this Proposition there is infinite uncertainty concerning the value of any Indulgence: for if venial sins be daily incursions, who can say that he is one day clean from them? And if he be not, he hath paid his price for that which profits not, and he is made to relie upon that which will not support him. But though this being taught, doth evacuate the Indulgence, yet it is not taught to prevent the sin; for before and after, if you com­mit venial sins, there is no great matter in it: The inconvenience is not great, and the remedy is easie; you are told of your secu­rity as to this point before-hand.

[Page 133]2. POPE Adrian taught a worse matter. He that will obtain indulgence for another, if Apud Pe­trum de So­to lect. de instit. [...]. de necessariis ad effectum indul. he does perform the work enjoyned, though himself be in deadly sin, yet for the other he prevails: as if a man could do more for an­other than he can do for himself; or as if God would regard the prayers of a vile and a wicked person when he intercedes for an­other, and at the same time, if he prays for himself, his prayer is an abomination. God first is intreated for our selves, and when we are more excellent persons, ad­mits us to intercede, and we shall prevail for others; but that a wicked person who is under actual guilt, and oblig'd himself to suffer all punishment, can ease and take off the punishment due to others by any exter­nally good work done ungratiously, is a piece of new Divinity without colour of reason or religion. Others in this are something less scandalous; and affirm, that though it be not necessary that when the Indulgence is granted, the man should be in the state of grace, yet it is necessary that at some time or other he should be; at any time (it seems) it will serve. For thus they turn Divinity and the care of souls into Mathematicks and Clock-work, and dispute minutes and periods with God, and are careful to tell their people how much liberty they may take, and how far they may venture, lest they should lose any thing of their sins pleasure, which they can possibly en­joy, [Page 134] and yet have hopes of being sav'd at last.

3. BUT there is worse yet. If a man willingly commits a sin in hope and expe­ctation of a Jubilee, and of the Indulgences afterwards to be granted, he does not lose the Indulgence, but shall receive it: which is expresly affirm'd by Na­var In [...]. de jubilaeo notab. 34. n 4. & 6. and Antonius Cordu­bensis Qu 37. de indulg. prop. 3., and Bellarmine Lib. 1. de indulg. c. 10. Sect. Alter a dubitatio., though he asks the question, denies it not. By which it is evident that the Roman Doctrines and Divinity teach contrary to God's way; who is most of all angry with them that turn his grace into wantonness, and sin, that grace may abound.

4. IF any man by reason of poverty, cannot give the prescrib'd Alms, he cannotScrutin. Sa­ccrd. ubi supra. receive the Indulgence. Now since it is sufficiently known, that in all or most of the Indulgences a clause is sure to be included, that something be offered to the Church, to the Altar, to a Religious House, &c. The consequent of this will be soon seen, that Indulgences are made for the rich, and the Treasures of the Church are to be di­spensed to them that have Treasures of their own, for Habenti dabitur. But then God help the poor; for them Purgatory is prepar'd, and they must burn: For the rich it is pretended, but the smell of fire will not pass upon them.

[Page 135]FROM these premises we suppose it but too evident, that the Roman Doctors pre­varicate in the whole Doctrine of Repen­tance, which indeed in Christ Jesus is the whole Oeconomy of Justification and Salva­tion; it is the hopes and staff of all the world, the remedy of all evils past, present, and to come. And if our physick be poi­son'd, if our staff be broken, if our hopes make us asham'd, how shall we appear be­fore Christ at his coming? But we say, that in all the parts of it their Doctrine is insi­nitely dangerous.

1. Contrition is sufficient if it be but one little act, and that in the very Article of Death; and before that time it is not ne­cessary by the Law of God, nay it is indeed sufficient; but it is also insufficient, for without Confession in act or desire it suffi­ces not. And though it be thus insuffici­ently sufficient, yet it is not necessary: For Attrition is also sufficient, if a Priest can be had, and then any little grief pro­ceeding out of the fear of Hell will do it, if the Priest do but absolve.

2. Confession might be made of excellent use, and is so among the pious Children of the Church of England; but by the Do­ctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome it is made, not the remedy of sins by pro­per energy, but the excuse, the alleviation, the considence, the ritual, external and sa­cramental remedy, and serves instead of [Page 136] the labours of a holy and a regular life; and yet is so intangled with innumerable and inextricable cases of conscience, orders, humane prescripts, and great and little ar­tifices, that scruples are more increased than sins are lessened.

3. FOR Satisfactions and Penances, which, if they were rightly order'd, and made instrumental to kill the desires of sin, or to punish the Criminal, or were proper­ly the fruits of repentance, that is, parts of a holy life, good works done in charity, and the habitual permanent grace of God, were so prevailing, as they do the work of God; yet when they are taken away, not only by the declension of primitive Discipline, but by new Doctrines and Indulgences, re­gular and offer'd Commutations for money, and superstitious practices, which are sins themselves, and increase the numbers and weights of the account, there is a great way made for the destruction of souls, and the discountenancing the necessity of holy life; but nothing for the advantage of ho­liness, or the becoming like to God.

AND now at last for a Cover to this Dish, we have thought fit to mind the World, and to give caution to all that mean to live godly in Christ Jesus, to what an insinite scandal and impiety this affair hath risen in the Church of Rome, we mean in the instance of their Taxa Camerae, seu Cancellariae Apostolicae, the Tax of the Apo­stolical [Page 137] Chamber or Chancery; a book pub­lickly printed, and expos'd to common sale; of which their own Espencaeus gives this ac­count,Digres. 2. ad cap 1. epist. ad Titum. That it is a book in which a man may learn more wickedness, than in all the Sum­maries of vices published in the World: And yet to them that will pay for it, there is to many given a Licence, to all an Absolu­tion for the greatest and most horrid sins. There is a price set down for his Absolution that hath kill'd his Father or his Mother, Brother, Sister, or Wife, or that hath lien with his Sister or his Mother. We desire all good Christians to excuse us for naming such horrid things;

But the Licences are printed at Paris in the year 1500. by Tossan Denis. Pope Innocent the VIII. either was Author or Inlarger of these Rules of this Chancery-tax, and there are Glosses upon them, in which the Scho­liast himself who made them, affirms, that he must for that time conceal some things to avoid scandal. But how far this impiety proceeded, and how little regard there is in it to piety, or the good of souls, is visible by that which Augustinus de Ancona teaches, [That the Pope ought not to give IndulgencesDe potest. Papae q 3. ad. 3.to them who have a desire of giving money, but cannot as to them who actually give. And whereas it may be objected, that then poor mens souls are in a worse condition than the rich; he answers, That as to the remission of [Page 138] the punishment acquir'd by the Indulgence, in such a case it is not inconvenient that the rich should be in a better condition than the poor.] For in that manner do they imitate God, who is no respecter of persons.

SECT. VI.

THESE Observations we conceive to be sufficient to deter every well mean­ing person from running into, or abiding in such temptations. Every false Proposition that leads to impiety, is a stock and foun­tain of temptations; and these which we have reckon'd in the matter of Repentance, having influence upon the whole life, are [Page 139] yet much greater, by corrupting the whole mass of Wisdom and Spiritual Propositi­ons.

THERE are indeed many others. We shall name some of them, but shall not need much to insist on them. Such as are,

1. THAT one Man may satisfie for ano­ther Sà aphor. verb. satisfa. num. 10. Serutin. Sacerd. tract. de Indulg. sect. penult. Suarcz. part. 4. in 3. disp. 38. sect. 9.. It is the general Doctrine of their Church: The Divines and Lawyers consent in it, and publickly own it: The effect of which is this, that some are made rich by it, and some are careless; But qui non sol­vit in aere, luat in corpore, is a Canonical rule; and though it was spoken in the mat­ter of publick penances, and so relates to the exterior Court, yet it is also practis'd and avowed in satisfactions or penances re­lating to the inward Court of Conscience, and penance Sacramental; and the rich man is made negligent in his duty, and is whip'd upon another man's back, and his purse only is the Penitent; and which is worst of all, here is a pretence of doing that, which is too near blasphemy but to say. For by this Doctrine, it is not to be said of Christ alone, that he was wounded for our transgressions, that he only satisfied for our sins; for in the Church of Rome it is done frequently, and pretended daily, that by another man's stripes we are healed.

[Page 140]2. THEY teach, That a habit of sin, is not a sin, distinct from those former actions by which the habit was contracted. The secret intention of which Proposition, and the malignity of it, consists in this, that it is not necessary for a man to repent spee­dily; and a man is not bound by repen­tance to interrupt the procedure of his im­piety, or to repent of his habit, but of the single acts that went before it. For as for those that come after, they are excus'd, if they be produc'd by a strong habit; and the greater the habit the less is the sin: But then as the repentance need not for that reason, be hasty and presently; so because it is only to be of single acts, the repentance it self need not be habitual, but it may be done in an instant; whereas to mortifie a habit of sin (which is the true and proper repentance) there is requir'd a longer time, and a procedure in the methods of a holy life. By this, and such like Propositions, and careless Sentences, they have brought it to that pass, that they reckon a single act of Contrition, at any time to be sufficient to take away the wickedness of a long life.

Now that this is the avow­edGranat. in materia de pec­catis tract. 8. desp. 1. sect. 1. F. Knot against Chillingworth in his Infidelity unmask'd, p. 105, 106, 107. &c. Doctrine of the Roman Guides of souls, will suffi­ciently appear in the Wri­tings of their chiefest, of which no learned man can be ignorant. The thing was of late openly [Page 141] and professedly disputed against us, and will not be denied. And that this Doctrine is infinitely destructive of the necessity of a good life, cannot be doubted of, when themselves do own the proper consequents of it, even the unnecessariness of present repentance, or before the danger of death; of which we have already given accounts. But the reason why we remark it here, is that which we now mentioned, because that by the Doctrine of vitious habits, having in them no malignity or sin but what is in the single preceding acts, there is an excuse made for millions of sins: For if by an evil habit the sinner is not made worse, and more hated by God, and his sinful acts made not only more, but more criminal; it will fol­low, that the sins are very much lessened: For they being not so voluntary in their exercise and distinct emanation, are not in present so malicious; and therefore he that hath gotten a habit of drunkenness or swear­ing, sins less in every act of drunkenness, or profane oath, than hethat acts them seldom, because by his habit he is more inclin'd, and his sins are almost natural, and less consi­dered, less chosen, and not disputed against; but pass by inadvertency, and an untroubled consent, easily and promptly, and almost naturally from that principle: So that by this means, and in such cases when things are come to this pass, they have gotten an imperfect warrant to sin a great deal, and a [Page 142] great while, without any new great inconve­nience: Which evil state of things ought to be infinitely avoided by all Christians that would be sav'd by all means; and there­fore all such Teachers, and all such Do­ctrines are carefully to be declin'd, who give so much easiness, not only to the re­medies, but to the sins themselves. But of this, we hope it may be sufficient to have given this short warning.

3. THE distinction of Mortal and Ve­nial sins, as it is taught in the Church of Rome, is a great cause of wickedness, and careless conversation. For although we do with all the antient Doctors admit of the distinction of sins Mortal and Venial; yet we also teach, That in their own nature, and in the rigor of the Divine Justice, every sin is damnable, and deserves God's anger, and that in the unregenerate they are so accounted, and that in Hell the damned suffer for small and great in a common mass of torment; yet by the Divine mercy and compassion, the smaller sins which come by surprize, or by invincible ignorance, or in­advertency, or unavoidable infirmity, shall not be imputed to those who love God, and delight not in the smallest sin, but use caution and prayers, watchfulness and reme­dies against them. But if any man delights in small sins, and heaps them into numbers, and by deliberation or licentiousness they grow numerous, or are in any sense chosen, [Page 143] or taken in by contempt of the Divine Law, they do put us from the favour of God, and will pass into severe accounts. And though sins are greater or less by comparison to each other, yet the smallest is a burthen too great for us, without the allowances of the Divine mercy.

BUT the Church of Rome teaches, that there is a whole kind of sins, which are ve­nial in their own nature; such, which if they were all together, all in the world con­joyn'd, could not equal one mortal sinBellar. l. 1. de amiss. gratiae, c. 13. sect. al­terum est. Et de Sa­cram. Euc. l. 4. c. 19. sect. re­spondeo., nor destroy charity, nor put us from the favour of God; such for which no man can pe­rish, Cap. 14. sect. adde postremo. De Purga­tor. l. 1. c. 11. sect. pro­batur ulti­mo. etiamsi nullum pactum esset de remissi­one, though God's merciful Covenant of Pardon did not intervene. And whereas Christ said, Of every idle word a man shall speak, he shall give account at the day of judgment; and, By your words ye shall be justified; and, By your words ye shall be con­demned: Bellarmine expresly affirms, It is not intelligible, how an idle word should in its own nature be worthy of the Eternal wrath of God and Eternal flames. Many other de­sperate words are spoken by the Roman Doctors in this Question, which we love not to aggravate, because the main thing is acknowledged by them all.

BUT now we appeal to the reason and Consciences of all men, Whether this Do­ctrine of sins Venial in their own nature, be not greatly destructive to a holy life? [Page 144] When it is plain, that they give rest to mens Consciences for one whole kind of sins; for such, which because they occur every day, in a very short time (if they be not interrupted by the grace of Repentance) will swell to a prodigious heap. But con­cerning these we are bidden to be quiet; for we are told, that all the heaps of these in the world cannot put us out of Gods fa­vour. Add to this, that it being in thou­sands of cases, impossible to tell which are, and which are not Venial in their own na­ture, and in their appendent circumstances, either the people are cozen'd by this Do­ctrine into an useless confidence; and for all this talking in their Schools, they must nevertheless do to Venial sins, as they do to Mortal, that is, mortifie them, fight against them, repent speedily of them, & keep them from running into mischief; and then all their kind Doctrines in this Article, signifie no comfort or ease, but all danger and diffi­culty, and useless dispute; or else, if really they mean, that this easiness of opi­nion be made use of, then the danger is imminent, and carelessness is introduc'd, and licentiousness in all little things is easily indulg'd; and mens souls are daily lessen'd without repair, and kept from growing towards Christian perfection, and from destroying the whole body of sin; and in short, despising little things, they pe­rish by little and little.

[Page 145]THIS Doctrine also is worse yet in the handling. For it hath infinite influence to the disparagement of holy life, not only by the uncertain, but as it must frequently happen, by the false determination of in­numerable cases of conscience. For it is a great matter both in the doing and the thing done, both in the caution and the repen­tance, whether such an action be a venial or a mortal sin. If it chance to be mortal, and your Confessor says it is venial, your soul is betrayed. And it is but a chance what they say in most cases; for they call what they please venial, and they have no certain rule to answer by; which appears too sadly in their innumerable differences which is amongst all their Casuists in say­ing what is, and what is not mortal; and of this there needs no greater proof than the reading the little Summaries made by their most leading guides of Consciences, Navar, Cajetane, Tolet, Emanuel Sà, and others; where one says such a thing is mor­tal, and two say it is venial.

AND lest any man should say or think, this is no great matter, we desire that it be considered that in venial sins there may be very much phantastick pleasure, and they that retain them do believe so; for they suppose the pleasure is great enough to out­weigh the intolerable pains of Purgatory; and that it is more eligible to be in Hell a while, than to cross their appetites in [Page 146] such small things. And however it happen in this particular, yet because the Doctors differ so infinitely and irreconcileably, in saying what is, and what is not Venial, whoever shall trust to their Doctrine, say­ing that such a sin is Venial; and to their Doctrine, that says it does not exclude from God's favour, may be these two Pro­positions be damned before he is aware.

WE omit to insist upon their express contradicting the words of our Blessed Sa­viour, who taught his Church expresly, That we must work in the day time; for the night cometh, and no man worketh: Let this be as true as it can in the matter of Repentance and Mortification, and working out our pardon for mortal sins; yet it is not true in Venial sins, if we may believe their greatin 4 [...]. [...]. 21. q. t. art. 2. S. Thomas, whom also Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 14. de Pur­gator. sect. est ergo opi­nio vera. fol­lows in it; for he affirms, That by the acts of Love and Patience in Purgatory, Venial sins are remitted; and that the acceptation of those [...], proceeding out of Charity, is a virtual kind of penance. But in this particular we follow not S. Thomas nor Bellarmine in the Church of England and Ireland; for we believe in Jesus Christ, and follow him: If men give themselves liberty as long as they are alive to commit one whole kind of sins, and hope to work it out after death by acts of Charity and Repentance, which they would not do in [Page 147] their life time; either they must take a course to sentence the words of Christ as savouring of Heresie, or else they will find themselves to have been at first deceived in their Proposition, and at last in their expectation. Their faith hath fail'd them here, and hereafter they will be asham'd of their hope.

SECT. VII.

THERE is a Proposition, which in­deed is new, but is now the general Doctrine of the Leading Men in the Church of Rome; and it is the foundation on which their Doctors of Conscience relie, in their [Page 148] decision of all cases in which there is a doubt or question made by themselves; and that is, That if an Opinion or Speculation be probable, it may in practice be safely followed: And if it be enquir'd, What is sufficient to make an opinion probable; the Answer isEmanuel Sà aphor. verb. Du­bium. Esco­bar. The. moral. easie, Sufficit opinio alicujus gravis Doctoris aut Bonorum exemplum: The opinion of any one grave Doctor is sufficient to make a matter probable; nay, the example and practice of good men, that is, men whoExa. 3. c. 3. de Consci­entia pro­babili, &c. are so reputed; if they have done it, you may do so too, and be safe. This is the great Rule of their Cases of Conscience.

AND now we ought not to be press'd with any ones saying, that such an opinion is but the private opinion of one or more of their Doctors. For although in matters of Faith this be not sufficient, to impute a Doctrine to a whole Church, which is but the private opinion of one or more; yet because we are now speaking of the infinite danger of souls in that communion, and the horrid Propositions by which their Disciples are conducted, to the disparagement of good life, it is sufficient to allege the pub­lick and allowed sayings of their Doctors; because these sayings are their Rule of li­ving: and because the particular Rules of Conscience, use not to be decreed in Coun­cils, we must derive them from the places where they grow, and where they are to be found.

[Page 149]BUT besides, you will say, That this is but the private opinion of some Doctors; and what then? Therefore it is not to be called the Doctrine of the Roman Church. True, we do not say, It is an Article of their Faith, but, a rule of manners: This is not indeed in any publick Decree; but we say, that although it be not, yet neither is the contrary. And if it be but a private opinion, yet, is it safe to follow it, or is it not safe? For that's the question, and there­in is the danger. If it be safe, then this is their rule, A private opinion of any one grave Doctor may be safely followed in the questi­ons of Vertue and Vice. But if it be not safe to follow it, and that this does not make an opinion probable, or the practice safe; Who says so? Does the Church? No; Does Dr. Cajus? or Dr. Sempronius say so? Yes: But these are not safe to follow; for they are but private Doctors: Or if it be safe to follow them, though they be no more, and the opinion no more but probable, then I may take the other side, and choose which I will, and do what I list in most cases, and yet be safe by the Doctrine of the Roman Casuists; which is the great line, and ge­neral measure of most mens lives; and that is it which we complain of. And we have reason; for they suffer their Casuists to determine all cases, severely and gently, strictly and loosly; that so they may en­tertain all spirits, and please all dispositi­ons, [Page 150] and govern them by their own inclina­tions, and as they list to be governed; by what may please them, not by that which profits them; that none may go away scan­daliz'd or [...] from their penitential chairs.

BUT upon this account, it is a sad rec­koning which can be made concerning souls in the Church of Rome. Suppose one great Doctor amongst them (as many of them do) shall say, it is lawful to kill a King whom the Pope declares Heretick. By the Do­ctrine of probability here is his warranty. And though the Church do not declare that Doctrine; that is, the Church doth not make it certain in Speculation, yet it may be safely done in practice: Here is enough to give peace of conscience to him that does it. Nay, if the contrary be more safe, yet if the other be but probable by reason or Authority, you may do the less safe, and refuse what is more. For that also is the opinion of some grave DoctorsEman. Sà, aphorism. Verb. Du­bium. Esco­bar. de con­scientia probabili.: If one Doctor says, it is safe to swear a thing as of our knowledge, which we do not know, but believe it is so, it is therefore probable that it is lawful to swear it, because a grave Doctor says it, and then it is safe enough to do so.

AND upon this account, who could findApud Nau­clerum. ge­nerat. 21. [...] 6. fault with Pope Constantine the IV. who when he was accus'd in the Lateran Council for holding the See Apostolick when he was not [Page 151] in Orders, justified himself by the example of Sergius Bishop of Ravenna, and Stephen Bishop of Naples. Here was exemplum bo­norum, honest men had done so before him, and therefore he was innocent. When it isDist. 82. Can. Pres­byter in glossa. observ'd by Cardinal Campegius, and Al­bertus Pighius did teach, That a Priest lives more holily and chastely that keeps a Con­cubine, than he that hath a married Wife; and then shall find in the3 Qu. 7. Lata Extravag de bigamis. Quia circa. Communi­ter dicitur quod Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet dist. 81. Maximianus, Glossa in Gratian. Pope's Law, That a Priest is not to be removed for fornication; who will not, or may not practically con­clude, that since by the Law of God, marriage is holy, and yet to some men, fornication is more lawful, and does not make a Priest irregular, that there­fore to keep a Concubine is very lawful; especially since abstracting from the consi­deration of a man's being in Orders or not, fornication it self is probably no sin at all? Sent. l. 4. dist. 33. For so says Durandus, Simple fornication of it self is not a deadly sin according to the Natural Law, and excluding all positive Law; and Martinus de Magistris says, toLib. de Temp. qu. 2. do [...]. believe simple fornication to be no deadly sin, is not heretical, because the testimonies of Scripture are not express. These are grave Doctors, and therefore the opinion is proba­ble, and the practice safe. Vide Dan. Tilen de Verbo non Scripto, l. 4. c. 8. When the good people of the Church of Rome hear it read, That P. Clement 8. in the Index of Prohibited [Page 152] books says, That the Bible publish'd in vulgar Tongues, ought not to be read and retain'd, no not so much as a compend of the History of the Bible; and Bellarmine says, that it is not necessary to salvation, to believe that there are any Scriptures at all written; and that Cardinal Hosius saith, Perhaps it had been better for the Church, if no Scriptures had been written: They cannot but say, that this Doctrine is probable, and think them­selves safe, when they walk without the light of Gods Word, and rely wholly upon the Pope, or their Priest, in what he is pleas'd to tell them; and that they are no way oblig'd to keep that Commandment of Christ, Search the Scriptures. Instruct. Sacerd l. 5. c. 6. n. 15. Cardinal Tolet says, That if a Nobleman be set upon, and may escape by going away, he is not tied to it, but may kill him that intends to strike him with a stick: That if a man be in a great Lib. 4. c. 13. n. 4. passion, and so transported, that he considers not what be says, if in that case he does bla­spheme, he does not always sin: That if a man Lib. 5. c. 10 n. 3. be beastly drunk, and then commit fornica­tion, that fornication is no sin: That if a man Lib. 5. c. 13. n. 10. desires carnal pollution, that he may be eas'd of his carnal temptations, or for his health, it were no sin: That it is lawful for a man to Lib. 5. c. 11. n. 5. expose his bastards to the Hospital to conceal his own shame. He says it out of Soto, and he from Thomas Aquinas: That if the times Lib. 8. c. 49. n. 4. be hard, or the Judge unequal, a man that cannot sell his wine at a due price, may law­fully [Page 153] make his Measures less than is ap­pointed; or mingle water with his wine, and sell it for pure, so he do not lie; and yet if he does, it is no mortal sin, nor obliges him to restitution. Emanuel Sà Aphor. tit. Debi­tum Con­jugale. 6. affirms, That if a man lie with his intended wife before Mar­riage, it is no sin, or a light one; nay, quin­etiam expedit si multum illa differatur, it is good to do so, if the benediction or publication of Marriage be much deferr'd: That Infants in their cradles may be made Priests, is the common opinion of Divines and Canonists, saith Tolet; and that in their Cradles theyLib. 1. c. 61. can be made Bishops, said the Archdeacon and the Provost; and though some say theIbid. contrary, yet the other is the more true, saith the Cardinal. Vasquez saith, That not De Adorat. l. 3. disp. 1. c. 2. only an Image of God, but any creature in the world, reasonable or unreasonable, may with­out danger be worshipped together with God, as his image: That we ought to adore the Re­liques Ibid. c. 5. sect. 33. of Saints, though under the form of Worms; and that it is no sin to worship a Ray of Light in which the Devil is invested, if a man supposes him to be Christ: And in the same manner, if he supposes it to be a piece of a Saint, which is not, he shall not want the merit of his Devotion. And to conclude, Pope Celestine the III. (as Alphonsus à Ca­stro reports himself to have seen a Decretal of his to that purpose) affirmed, That if one of the Married Couple fell into Heresie, the Marriage is dissolved, and that the other [Page 154] may marry another; and the Marriage isConcil. C. P. 6. can. 76. nefarious, and they are Irritae Nuptiae, the Espousals are void, if a Catholick and a He­retick marry together, said the Fathers of the Synod in Trullo. And though all of this be not own'd generally, yet if a Roman Ca­tholick marries a Wife that is or shall turn Heretick, he may leave her, and part bed and board, according to the Doctrine taught by theCap. sin. de conver. conjug. c. 2. de Divor­tiis. Canon Law it self, by the Lawyers and Divines, as appears inDe Matrim, part. 2. cap. 7. sect. 5. n. 4. Covaruvius, In sent. 4. d. 39. art. 1. concl. ult. Matthias Aquarius, andLib. 1. de Matrim. c. 14. sect. Secundo sine con­sensu. Bellarmine.

THESE Opinions are indeed very strange to us of the Church of England and Ireland, but no strangers in the Church of Rome, and, because they are taught by great Doctors, by Popes themselves, by Cardinals, and the Canon Law respectively, do at least become very probable, and therefore they may be believ'd and practis'd without dan­ger; according to the Doctrine of Proba­bility. And thus the most desperate things that ever were said by any, though before the Declaration of the Church they cannot become Articles of Faith, yet besides that they are Doctrines publickly allowed, they can also become Rules of practice, and se­curities to the consciences of their disciples.

[Page 155]To this we add, that which is usual in the Church of Rome, the Praxis Ecclesiae, the Practice of the Church. Thus if an In­dulgence be granted upon condition to visit such an Altar in a distant Church; the Nuns that are shut up, and Prisoners that cannot go abroad, if they address themselves to an Altar of their own with that intention, they shall obtain the Indulgence. Id enim confirmat Ecclesiae praxis, says Fabius; TheScrutin Sa­cerd. de In­dulg. practice of the Church in this case gives first a probability in speculation, and then a certainty in practice. This instance, though it be of no concern, yet we use it as a particular to shew the Principle upon which they go. But it is practicable in ma­ny things of greatest danger and concern. If the question be, Whether it be lawful to worship the Image of the Cross, or of Christ, with Divine worship? First, there is a Doctrine of S. Thomas for it, and Vas­quez, and many others; therefore it is pro­bable, and therefore is safe in practice; & sic est Ecclesiae praxis, the Church also pra­ctises so, as appears in their own Offices:Part. 3 q. 25. art. 4. Vide etiam Pontif cap. de benedi­ctione novae crucis. f. 163. And S. Thomas makes this use of it; Illi ex­hibemus cultum latriae in quo ponimus spem sa­lutis: sed in cruce Christi ponimus spem salu­tis. Cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux ave spes unica, Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis justi­tiam, Reis (que) dona veniam. Ergo Crux Christi est adoranda adoratione Latriae. We give Divine worship (says he) to that in which [Page 156] we put our hopes of salvation; but in the Cross we put our hopes of salvation; for so the Church sings, (it is the practice of the Church) Hail O Cross, our only hope in this time of suffering; increase righteousness to the godly, and give pardon to the guilty: therefore the Cross of Christ is to be ador'd with Divine Adoration.

BY this Principle you may embrace any Opinion of their Doctors safely, especial­ly if the practice of the Church do inter­vene, and you need not trouble your self with any further inquiry: and if an evil custom get amongst men, that very custom shall legitimate the action, if any of their grave Doctors allow it, or Good men use it; and Christ is not your Rule, but the Examples of them that live with you, or are in your eye and observation, that's your Rule. We hope we shall not need to say any more in this affair; the pointing out this rock may be warning enough to them that would not suffer shipwrack, to decline the danger that looks so formidably.

SECT. VIII.

AS these Evil Doctrines have general influence into Evil Life; so there are some others, which if they be pursued to their proper and natural issues; that is, if they be believ'd and practis'd, are enemies to the particular and specisick parts of Piety and Religion. Thus the very Prayers of the Faithful are, or may be, spoil'd by Doctrines publickly allowed, and prevail­ing in the Roman Church.

FOR 1. they teach, That prayers them­selves ex opere operato, or by the natural work it self, do prevail: For it is not essential to prayer for a man to think particularly of what he says; it is not necessary to think of the things signisied by the words: So Suarez De Orat. l. 3. c. 4. teaches. Nay, it is not necessary to the essence of Prayer, that he who prays should think de ipsa locutione, of the speaking it self. And indeed it is necessary that they [Page 158] should all teach so, or they cannot tolerably pretend to justifie their prayers in an un­known Tongue. But this is indeed their publick Doctrine: For prayers in the mouth of the man that says them are like the words Sum. part. 3. [...]. 23. of a Charmer, they prevail even when they are not understood, says Salmeron. Or as Antoninus, They are like a precious stone, of Vide ctiam Jacob. de Graffiis de orat. l. 2. Instruct. Sacer. c. 13 n. 5. & 6. as much value in the hand of an unskilful man, as of a Jeweller. And therefore Attention to, or Devotion in our prayers, is not ne­cessary: For the understanding of which, saith Cardinal Tolet, when it is said that you must say your prayers or offices attently, reverently and devoutly, you must know that Attention or Advertency to your pray­ers is manifold: 1. That you attend to the words, so that you speak them not too fast, or to begin the next verse of a Psalm, before he that recites with you hath done the former verse; and this attention is necessary. But 2. there is an attention which is by under­standing the sense, and that is not necessary. For if it were, very extremely few would do their duty, when so very few do at all un­derstand what they say. 3. There is an at­tention relating to the end of prayer, that is, that he that prays, considers that he is present before God, and speaks to him; and this in­deed is very prositable, but it is not necessary: No, not so much. So that by this Doctrine no attention is necessary, but to attend that the words be all said, and said right. But [Page 159] even this attention is not necessary that it should be actual, but it suffices to be virtual, that is, that he who says his office, intend to do so, and do not change his mind, although he does not attend: And he who does not change his mind, that is, unless observing himself not to attend, he still turn his mind to other things, he attends: meaning, he attends sufficiently, and as much as is necessary; though indeed speaking naturally and truly, he does not attend. If any man in the Church of Eng­land and Ireland, had published such Do­ctrine as this, he should quickly and de­servedly have felt the severity of the Eccle­siastical Rod; but in Rome it goes for good Catholick Doctrine.

NOW although upon this account De­votion is (it may be) good; and it is good to attend to the words of our prayer, and the sense of them; yet that it is not ne­cessary, is evidently consequent to this. ButIbid. n. 7. it is also expresly affirm'd by the same hand; There ought to be devotion, that our mind be inflam'd with the love of God, though if this be wanting, without contempt, it is no deadly sin. Ecclesiae satisfit per opus ex­ternum, Vbi supra. nec aliud jubet, saith Reginaldus: If ye do the outward work, the Church is satisfied, neither does she command any thing else. Good Doctrine this! And it is an excellent Church, that commands no­thing to him that prays, but to say so many words.

[Page 160]WELL! but after all this, if Devotion be necessary or not, if it be present or not, if the mind wander, or wander not, if you mind what you pray, or mind it not, there is an easie cure for all this: For Pope Leo granted remission of all negligences in their saying their offices and prayers to them, who after they have done, shall say this prayer, [To the Holy and Vndivided Tri­nity, To the Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ crucified; To the fruitfulness of the most Blessed, and most Glorious Virgin Mary, and to the Vniversity of all Saints, be Eter­nal praise, honour, vertue and glory, from every Creature; and to us remission of sins for ever and ever, Amen. Blessed are the bowels of the Virgin Mary, which bore the Son of the Eternal God; and blessed are the paps which suckled Christ our Lord: Pater noster. Ave Maria.] This prayer to this pur­pose,Vbi supra cap. 13. is set down by Navar, and Cardinal Tolet.

THIS is the summ of the Doctrine, concerning the manner of saying the Divine offices in the Church of Rome, in which greater care is taken to obey the Precept of the Church, than the Commandments of God: [For the Precept of hearing Mass is not, to intend the words, but to be present at the Sacrifice, though the words be not so much as heard, and they that think the contrary, think so without any probable reason] saith Tolet. It seems there was not so much asIbid. n. 6. [Page 161] the Authority of one grave Doctor to the contrary; for if there had, the contrary opinion might have been probable; but all agree upon this Doctrine, all that are con­siderable.

So that between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, the difference in this Article is plainly this, They pray with their lips, we with the heart; we pray with the understanding, they with the voice; we pray, and they say prayers. We sup­pose that we do not please God, if our hearts be absent; they say, it is enough if their bodies be present at their greatest solemnity of prayer, though they hear no­thing that is spoken, and understand as little. And which of these be the better way of serving God, may soon be deter­min'd, if we remember the complaint which God made of the Jews, This people draweth near me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. But we know, that we are commanded to ask in faith, which is seated in the understanding, and requires the con­currence of the will, and holy desires; which cannot be at all, but in the same de­gree in which we have a knowledge of what we ask. The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man prevails: But what our pray­ers want of this, they must needs want of blessing and prosperity. And if we lose the benefit of our prayers, we lose that great instrumentality by which Christians are re­ceptive [Page 162] of pardon, and strengthened in faith, and confirm'd in hope, and increase in charity, and are protected by Provi­dence, and are comforted in their sorrows, and derive help from God: Ye ask, and have not, because ye ask amiss; that is Saint James his rule. They that pray not as they ought, shall never obtain what they fain would.

HITHER is to be [...], their fond manner of prayer, consisting in vain repe­titions of Names, and little forms of words, The Psalter of our Lady, is an hundred and fifty Ave Maries, and at the end of every tenth, they drop in the Lord's Prayer, and this with the Creed at the end of the fifty, makes a perfect Rosary. This indeed is the main entertainment of the peoples Devo­tion; for which cause Mantuan called their Religion,

A Religion that numbers their murmurs by berries fil'd upon a string: This makes up so great a part of their Religion, that it may well be taken for one half of its de­sinition. But because so few do understand what they say, but all repeat, and stick to their numbers, it is evident they think to be heard for that. For that or nothing; [Page 163] for besides that, they neither do nor under­stand: And all that we shall now say to it is, That our Blessed Saviour reprov'd this way of Devotion, in the Practice and Do­ctrines of the Heathens: Very like to which is that which they call the Psalter of Jesus; in which are fifteen short Ejaculations, as [Have mercy on me *, Strengthen me *, Help me *, Comfort me, &c.] and with e­very one of these, the name of Jesus is to be said thirty times, that is in all, four hundred and fifty times. Now we are ig­norant how to distinguishObe [...] desine Deos uxor gratulando obtundere, nisi illos tuo ex ingenio judicas, ut nil [...] intelligere nisi idem di­ctum est centies. Heautont. act. 5. scen. 1. this from the [...], or vain repetition of the Gentiles; for they did just so, and Christ said; they did not do well; and that is all that we pretend to know of it. They thought to be heard the rather for so doing; and if the people of the Roman Church do not think so, there is no reason why they should do so. But with­out any further arguing about the business, they are not asham'd to own it. For the Author of the Preface to the Jesus Psalter, printed by Fouler at Antwerp, promises to the repetition of that sweet Name, Great aid against temptations, and a wonderful increase of grace.

SECT. IX.

BUT this mischief is gone further yet:Summa [...]. v. [...]. For as Cajetan affirms, Prayers ought to be well done; Saltem non malè; at least not ill. But besides, that what we have now remark'd is so, not well, that it is very ill; that which follows is directly bad, and most intolerable. For the Church of Rome in her publick and allowed offices, prays to [Page 165] dead men and women, who are, or whom they suppose to be beatified; and these they invocate as Preservers, Helpers, Guardians, Deliverers in their necessity; and they ex­presly call them, their Refuge, their Guard and Defence, their Life, and Health: Which is so formidable a Devotion, that we for them, and for our selves too, if we should imitate them, are to dread the words ofJer. 17. 5. Psal. 115. 9. & 146 3. & 118. 8. & 50, 15. Scripture, Cursed is the man that trusteth in man. We are commanded to call upon God in the time of trouble; and it is promised, that he will deliver us, and we shall glorifie Heb. 4. 16. Mat. 11. 28. John 6. [...]. him. We find no such command to call upon Saints; neither do we know who are Saints, excepting a very few; and in what present state they are, we cannot know, nor how our prayers can come to their knowledge; and yet if we did know all this, it cannot be endured at all, that Chri­stians, who are commanded to call upon God, and upon none else, and to make all our prayers through Jesus Christ, and ne­ver so much as warranted to make our pray­ers through Saints departed, should yet choose Saints for their particular Patrons, or at all relie upon them, and make prayers [...] them in such forms of words, which are only sit to be spoken to God; prayers which have no testimony, command, or promise in the Word of God, and therefore, which cannot be made in faith, or prudent hope.

[Page 166]NEITHER will it be enough to say, that they only desire the Saints to pray for them; for though that be of it self a mat­ter indifferent, if we were sure they do hear us when we pray, and that we should not by that means, secretly destroy our con­sidence in God, or lessen the honour of Christ our Advocate; of which because we cannot be sure, but much rather the con­trary, it is not a matter indifferent: Yet besides this, in the publick Offices of the Church of Rome, there are prayers to Saints made with confidence in them, with dero­gation to God's glory and prerogative, with diminution to the honour of Christ, with words in sound, and in all appearance the same with the highest that are usually ex­press'd in our prayers to God, and his Christ: And this is it we insist upon, and reprove, as being a direct destruction of our sole confidence in God, and too near to blasphemy, to be endured in the Devoti­ons of Christians. We make our words good by these Allegations;

1. WE shall not need here to describe out of their didactical writings, what kind of prayers, and what causes of confidence they teach towards the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all Saints: Only we shall recite a few words of Antoninus their great Divine, and [...] of Florence, It is necessary that [...]. part, 4 [...]. [...]. they to whom she converts her eyes, being an Advocate for them, shall be justified and sa­ved. [Page 167] And whereas it may be objected out1 Jo. c. 2. 1, 2. of John, that the Apostle says, If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. (He answers) That Christ is not our Advocate alone, but a Judge: and since the just is scarce secure, how shall a sinner go to him, as to an Advo­cate? Therefore God hath provided us of an Advocatess, who is gentle, and sweet, in whom nothing that is sharp is to be found. And to those words of St. Paul, Come boldly to the Throne of Grace: (He says) That Mary is the Throne of Christ, in whom he rested, to her therefore let us come with boldness, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in time of need; and adds, that Mary is called full of grace, because she is the means and cause of Grace, by transfusing grace to mankind;] and many other such dangerous Propositi­ons: Of which who please to be furtherBernardin. de bustis, de Concept. Mariae. 1. [...]. serm. 1. [...]. 2. satisfied (if he can endure the horror of reading blasphemous sayings) he may sind too great abundance in the Mariale of Ber­nardine, which is confirm'd by publick Au­thority, Jacobus Perez de Valentia In Cantic. Mar. Mag­nisicat., and in Ferdinand Quirinus de Salazar Comment. in 8. Pro­verb in vers. 19., who affirms, That the Virgin Mary by offering up Christ to God the Father, was worthy to have (after a certain manner) that the whole sal­vation and redemption of mankind should be ascrib'd to her; and that this was common to Christ and the blessed Virgin his Mother, that she did offer and give the price of our Re­demption [Page 168] truly and properly; and that she is deservedly call'd the Redeemer, the Repairer, the Mediator, the Author and cause of our salvation. Many more horrid blasphemies are in his notes upon that Chapter; & in his De­fence of the Immaculate Conception, pub­lished with the Privilege of Philip the III. of Spain, and by the Authority of his Or­der. But we insist not upon their Doctrines deliver'd by their great Writers, though every wise man knows that the Doctrines of their Church are delivered in large and indefinite terms, and descend not to mi­nute senses, but are left to be explicated by their Writers, and are so practis'd and understood by the people; and at the worst, the former Doctrine of Probability will make it safe enough: But we shall pro­duce the publick practice of their Church.

AND [...], it cannot be suppos'd, that they intend nothing but to desire their prayers; for they rely also on their merits, and hope to get their desires, and to pre­vail by them also: For so it is [...] by the Roman Catechism, Tit. de [...]. made by the De­cree of the Council of Trent, and published by the Popes command; [The Saints are therefore to be invocated, because they con­tinually make prayers for the health of man­kind, and God gives us many benefits by their [...] and favour: And it is lawful to have recourse to the favour or grace of the Saints, [Page 169] and to use their help; for they undertake the Patronage of us.] And the Council of Trent Sess. 9. does not only say it is good to fly to their prayers, but to their aid, and to their help; and that is indeed the principal, and the very meaning of the other. We pray that the Saints should intercede for us, id est, ut merit a eorum nobis suffr agentur; that is, that their Merits should help us, said the Master of the Sentences. At (que) id confirmat Eccle­siae praxis, to use their own so frequent ex­pression in many cases.

This Distich is in the Church of S. Lau­rence in Rome. This Church contains the pure bodies of Saints, from whom take care to re­quire that help be supplied to you. But the practice of the Church tells their secret meaning best. For besides what the Com­mon people are taught to do, as to pray to S. Gall for the health and fecundity of their Geese, to S. Wendeline for their Sheep, to S. Anthony for their Hogs, to S. Pelagius for their Oxen; and that several Trades have their peculiar Saints; and the Physicians are Patroniz'd by Cosmas and Damian, the Painters by S. Luke, the Potters by Goarus, the Huntsmen by Eustachius, the [Page 170] Harlots (for that also is a Trade at Rome) by S. Afra and S. Mary Magdalene; they do also rely upon peculiar Saints for the cure of several diseases; S. Sebastian and S. Roch have a special privilege to cure the Plague, S. Petronilla the Fever, S. John and S. Bennet the Abbot to cure all Poison, S. Apollonia the Tooch-ach, S. Otilia Sore eyes, S. Apollinaris the French Pox, (for it seems he hath lately got that imployment, since the discovery of the West Indies) S. Vincentius hath a special faculty in re­storing stollen goods, and S. Liberius (if he please) does [...] cure the Stone, and S. Felicitas (if she be heartily call'd upon) will give the teeming Mother a fine Boy. It were strange if nothing but Inter­cession by these Saints were intended, that they cannot as well pray for other things as these; or that they have no Commission to ask of these any thing else, or not so con­fidently; and that if they do ask, that S. Otilia shall not as much prevail to help a Fever as a Cataract; or that if S. Sebastian be called upon to pray for the help of a poor female sinner, who by sad diseases pays the price of her lust, he must go to S. Apollina­ris in behalf of his Client.

BUT if any of the Roman Doctors say, That they are not tied to defend the Super­stitions of the Vulgar, or the abused: They say true, they are not indeed, but rather to reprove them, as we do, and to declare [Page 171] against them; and the Council of Trent very goodly forbids all Superstitions in this Article, but yet tells us not what are Su­perstitions, and what not; and still the world goes on in the practice of the same intolerable follies, and every Nation hath a particular Guardian-Saint, and every City, every Family, and almost every House, and every Devouter person almost chuses his own Patron-Saint, whose Altars they more devoutly frequent, whose Image they more religiously worship, to whose Re­liques they more readily go in Pilgrimage, to whose Honour they say more Pater no­sters, whose Festival they more solemnly observe; spoiling their prayers, by their confidences in unknown persons, living in an unknown condition, and diminishing that affiance in God and our Lord Jesus Christ, by importune and frequent ad­dresses to them that cannot help.

BUT that these are not the faults of their people only, running wilfully into such follies, but the practice of their Church, and warranted and taught by their Guides, appears by the publick prayers themselves; such as these, O generous Mary, beauteous Ex cursu [...] beatae Ma­riae. above all, obtain pardon for us, apply grace unto us, prepare glory for us. Hail thou Rose, thou Virgin Mary, &c. Grant to us to use true wisdom, and with the elect to enjoy grace, that we may with melody praise thee; and do thou drive our sins away: O Virgin Mary [Page 172] give us joys. These, and divers others like these, are in the Anthem of our Lady. In the Rosary of our Lady this Hymn is to be said;

That is, [Thou Repairer and Saviour of the despairing Soul, the Dew-giver and Bestower of spiritual grace, heal my wounds, and give to the mind that prays to thee, the gifts of grace, that I may be chaste, modest, wise in heart, true in my sayings, hating evil, loving God in holy works:] and much more to the same purpose. There also the blessed Virgin Mary, after many glo­rious Appellatives, is prayed to in these words, [Joyn me to Christ, govern me al­ways, enlighten my heart, defend me al­ways from the snare of the enemy, deliver us from all evil, and from the pains of Hell.

[Page 173]SO that it is no wonder that Pope Leo Ad Reca­natenses de Lauretana imagine. a­pud Bem­bum. l. 8. [...]. 17. the X. calls her a Goddess, and Turcelin In epist. dedicat. [...] Lau­retan. the Jesuit, Divinae majestatis, potestatis (que) sociam. Huic olim [...], mortaliúm (que) principatum detulit. Ad hujus arbitrium (quoad hominum tutela postulat) terras, ma­ria, coelum, naturám (que) moderatur. Hàc annuente, & per hanc, divinos the sauros, & [...] dona largitur; the companion or partner of the Divine Majesty and Power. To her he long since gave the principality of all heavenly and mortal things. At her will (so far as the Guardianship of Men re­quires) he rules the Earth and Seas, Hea­ven and Nature: And she consenting, he gives Divine treasures and Celestial gifts. Nay, in the Mass-books penned 1538. and us'd in the Polonian Churches, they call the Blessed Virgin Mary, Viam ad vitam, totius Fol. 323, 324, 325. mundi gubernatricem, peccatorum cum Deo [...], fontem remissionis peccato­rum, lumen luminum; the way to life, the Governess of all the world, the Reconciler of sinners with God, the Fountain of Re­mission of sins, Light of Light, and at last salute her with an Ave universae Trinitatis Fol. 327. Vide epist. Andr. Dudithii [...]; Eccles. episc. edit. A. D. 1590. [...] loci & [...] nomine. Mater, Hail thou Mother of the whole Trinity.

WE do not pick out these only, as the most singular, or the worst forms; for such as these are very numerous, as is to be seen [Page 174] in their Breviaries, Missals, Hours of our Lady, Rosary of our Lady, the Latany of our Lady, called Litania Mariae, the Spe­culum Rosariorum, the Hymns of Saints, Por­tuises and Manuals. These only are the instances which amongst many others pre­sently occur. Two things only we shall add, instead of many more that might be represented.

THE first is, That in a Hymn which they (from what reason or Etymology we know not, neither are we [...]) call a Sequence, the Council of Constance did in­vocate the Blessed Virgin, in the same man­ner as Councils did use to invocate the Ho­ly Ghost; They call her the Mother of Grace, the remedy to the miserable, the foun­tain of mercy, and the light of the Church; Attributes proper to God and incommuni­cable; they sing her praises, and pray to her for graces, they sing to her with the heart, they call themselves her sons, they declare her to be their health and comfort in all doubts, and call on her for light from Heaven, and trust in her for the destruction of Heresies, and the repression of Schisms, and for the lasting Confederations of peace.

THE other thing we tell of, is, That there is a Psalter of our Lady, of great and antient account in the Church of Rome; it hath been several times printed at Venice, at Paris, at Leipsich; and the title is, [The Psalter of the Blessed Virgin, com­pil'd [Page 175] by the Seraphical Doctor S. Bona­venture, Bishop of Alba, and Presbyter Cardinal of the Holy Church of Rome.] But of the Book it self, the account is soon made; for it is nothing but the Psalms of David, an hundred and fifty in number are set down; alter'd indeed, to make as much of it as could be sense so reduc'd; In which the name of Lord is left out, and that of Lady put in; so that whatever David said of God and Christ, the same prayers, and the same praises they say of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and whether all that can be said without intolerable blasphemy, we suppose needs not much disputation.

THE same things, but in a less propor­tion and frequency, they say to other Saints.

O Mary Magdalen, hear our prayers, which are full of praises, and most clemently reconcile this company unto Christ: That the Fountain of Supreme Piety, who cleansed thee from thy sins, giving pardon, may cleanse us who are his servants and thine. [Page 176] These things are too bad already, we shall not aggravate them by any further Com­mentary; but apply the premises.

NOw therefore we desire it may be con­sidered, That there are as the effects of Christs death for us, three great products, which are the rule and measure of our prayers, and our confidence; 1. Christs me­rits. 2. His Satisfaction. 3. His Intercessi­on. By these three we come boldly to the Throne of Grace, and pray to God through Jesus Christ. But if we pray to God through the Saints too, and rely upon their 1. Merit. 2. Satisfaction. 3. And Inter­cession; Is it not plain that we make them equal with Christ, in kind, though not in degree? For it is [...] avowed and practis'd in the Church of Rome, to rely upon the Saints Intercession; and this in­tercessionVide specu­lim Rosa­rior. se­quentias; & Breviar. [...]. to be made valid by the Merits of the Saints: [We pray thee, O S. Jude the Apostle, that by thy Merits thou wouldst draw me from the custom of my sins, and snatch me from the power of the Devil, and advance me to the invisible powers;] and they say as much to others. And for their Satisfactions, the treasure of the Church for Indulgences is made up with them, and the satisactions of Christ: So that there is nothing remaining of the ho­nour due to Christ our Redeemer, and our Considence in him, but the same in every kind is by the Church of Rome imputed to [Page 177] the Saints: And therefore the very being and Oeconomy of Christianity, is destroyed by these prayers; and the people are not, cannot be good Christians in these devo­tions; and what hopes are laid up for them, who repent to no purpose, and pray with derogation to Christ's honour, is a matter of deepest consideration. And therefore we desire our charges not to be seduc'd by little tricks and artifices of useless and la­borious distinctions, and protestations a­gainst evidence of fact, and with fear and trembling to consider, what God said by the Prophet, My people have done two great Jer. 2. 13. evils, they have for saken me, fortem vivum, the strong and the living God; fontem vi­vum, so some copies read it, the living foun­tain, and have digged for themselves cisterns, that is, little phantastick helps, that hold no water, that give no refreshment; or, as S. Paul expresses it, they worship and invo­cate the creature [...] besides the Rom. 1. 25 Creator; so the word properly signifies, and so it is us'd by the Apostle in other 1 Cor. 3. 11. places. And at least let us remember those excellent words of S. Austin, Tutius & jucundius lo­quar Gal. 1. 8. 2 King. 17. Lib. 1. c. 2. de Visitati­one infir morum: ascrip. S. Au. ad meum Jesum, quam ad aliquem san­ctorum spirituum Dei; I can speak safer and more pleasantly or chearfully to my Lord Jesus, than to any of the Saints and Spirits of God. For that we have Commandment, for this we have none; for that we have ex­ample in Scriptures, for this we have none; [Page 178] there are many promises made to that, but to this there is none at all; and therefore we cannot in faith pray to them, or at all rely upon them for helps.

WHICH Consideration is greatly height­ned by that prostitution of Devotion usual in the Church of Rome, [...], to every Upstart, to every old and new Saint. And although they have a story among them­selves, That it is ominous for a Pope to Ca­nonize a Saint, and he never survives it above a twelve-month, as Pietre Mathieu observes in the instances of Clement the IV. and Adrian the VI. yet this hinders not, but that they are tempted to do it frequent­ly. But concerning the thing it self, the best we can say, is what Christ said of the Samaritans, They worship they know not what. John 4. 22. Such are S. Fingare, S. Anthony of [...], S. Christopher, Charles Bor­romaeus, Vide libr. de Sanctis Hiber ni­cis nuper Latinè edit. per D. Pi­cardum Parisiensem. Ignatius Loyola, Xa­verius, and many others; of whom Cardinal Bessarion Apud Bodin. in method. bi­stor. l. 4. Apud Aug. Triumphum de Ancona, q 14. ad. 4. & quaest. 17. ad. 4. verb. Harmannus. complain'd, that many of them were such persons whose life he could not approve; and such, concerning whom they knew nothing, but from their Parties, and by pretended Revelations made to particu­lar and hypochondriacal persons. It is a fa­mous saying of S. Gregory, That the bodies of many persons are worshipped on Earth, whose souls are tormented in Hell: and Au­gustinus [Page 179] gustinus Triumphus affirms, That all who are canonized by the Pope cannot be said to be in Heaven. And this matter is beyond di­spute; for Prateolus tells, that Herman, the Author of the Heresie of the Fratricelli, was for twenty years together after his death honoured for a Saint, but afterwards his body was taken up and burnt. But then since (as Ambrosius Catharinus and Vivaldus observe) if one Saint be call'd in question, then the rest may; what will become of the Devotions which are paid to such Saints which have been canonized within these last five Centuries? Concerning whom we can have but slender evidence that they are in Heaven at all. And therefore the CardinalLib. de Re­form. Ec­cles. of Cambray, Petrus de Alliaco, wishes that so many new Saints were not canoniz'd. They are indeed so many, that in the Church of Rome the Holy-days, which are called their Greater Doubles, are threescore and four, besides the Feasts of Christ and our Lady, and the Holy-days which they call Half double Festivals, together with the Sundays, are above one hundred and thirty. So that besides many Holy-days kept in particular places, there are in the whole year about two hundred Holy-days, if we may believe their own Gavantus; which, besides thatDe [...]. 7. 10. it is an intolerable burthen to the poor La­bourer, who must keep so many of them, that on the rest he can scarce earn his bread, they do also turn Religion into Superstition, [Page 180] and habituate the People to idleness, and disorderly Festivities, and impious celebra­tions of the day with unchristian merri­ments and licentiousness. We conclude this with those words of S. Paul, How shall Rom. 10. 14 we call on him on whom we have not believed? Christ said, Ye believe in God, believe also in me. But he never said, Ye have believed in me, believe also in my Saints. No: For there is but one Mediator between God and Tim. a. 5. man, the man Christ Jesus. And therefore we must come to God, not by Saints, but only by Jesus Christ our Lord.

SECT. X.

THERE is in the Church of Rome a horrible impiety taught and practised, which, so far as it goes, must needs destroy that part of holy life which consists in the holiness of our Prayers; and indeed is a Conjugation of Evils, of such evils, of which in the whole world a society of Chri­stians should be least suspected; we mean the infinite Superstitions and Incantations, or Charms us'd by their Priests in their [Page 181] Exorcising possessed persons, and conjuring of Devils.

THERE was an Ecclesiastical book cal­led Ordo Baptiz. andi cum modo Visitandi, printed at Venice, A. D. 1575. in which there were damnable and diabolical Charms, insomuch that the Spanish Inquisitors in their Expurgatory Index, printed at Madrid, A. D. 1612. commanded deleatur tota exorcismus Ne miretur lector eruditus quod [...] apud Inquisi­tores sit foeminini generis, for­tasse dispensatum fuit cum bo­nis viris in hoc articulo. An po­tius factum quia bonus Angelus nunquam, mali autem Genii [...] sub formae foeminina ap­paruere: quod notavit Trithe­mius. Luciferina, cujus initium est, Adesto Domine tui famuli; that all that Luciferian Exorcism be blotted out. But whoever looks into the Treasure of Exorcisms and horrible Conjurings (for that is the very title of the Book printed at Colein, A. D. 1608.) shall find many as horrid things, and not censur'd by any Inquisitors as yet, so far as we have ever read or heard. Nay, that very Luci­ferina, or Devilish Exorcism, is reprinted at Lyons, A. D. 1614. in the institutio baptizandi, which was restored by the De­cree of the Council of Trent: So that though it was forbidden in Spain, it was allowed in France. But as [...] as that are allowed every where in the Church of Rome: The most famous, and of most publick use are The Treasure of Exorcisms, of which we but now made mention; the Roman Ri­tual, The Manual of Exorcisms, printed at [Page 182] Antwerp, A. D. 1626. with Approbation of the Bishop, and privilege of the Arch­dukes; the Pastorals of several Churches, especially that of Ruraemund; and especially the Flagellum Daemonum, The Devils whip, by Father Hierom Mengus a Frier Minor; which the Clergy of Orleans did use in the Exorcising of Martha Brosser, A. D. 1599. the story whereof is in the Epistles of Car­dinal D'Ossat, and the History of the Ex­cellent [...]. 133. Thuanus.

NOW from these Books, especially this last, we shall represent their manner of cast­ing out Devils; and then speak a word to the thing it self.

Their manner and form is this,

First, They are to try the Devil by HolyPlagellum [...]. do cum. 3. water, Incense, Sulphur, Rue, which from thence, as we suppose, came to be called Herb of Grace, and especially S. Johns wort, which therefore they call Devils flight; Vide Rai­mun. Lul­lium. lib. 2. de quinta [...]. with which if they cannot cast the Devil out, yet they may do good to the Patient; for so Pope Alexander the first promis'd and commanded the Priests to use it for [...] sanctifying and pacifying the people, and driving away the snares of the Devil: And to this, it were well if the Exorcist would rail upon, mock and jeer the Devil; for he cannot endure a witty and a sharp taunt, and loves jeering and railing, no more than he loves holy water; and this was well tried of old against an Empuse that met Apollo­nius [Page 183] Tyanaeus at Mount Caucasus, against [...]. de [...] Apollonii. whom he rail'd, and exhorted his company to do so.

NEXT to this, the Exorcist may ask the Devil some questions; What is his name? How many of them there are? For what cause, and at what time he entered? and, for his own learning, by what persons he can be cast out? and by what Saint ad­jur'd? who are his particular enemies in Heaven? and who in Hell? by what words he can be most [...]? (for the Devils are such fools that they cannot keep their own counsel, nor choose but tell, and when they do, they always tell true:) He may also ask him by what Covenant, or what Charm he came there, and by what he is to be released? Then he may call Lucifer to help him, and to torment that Spirit (for so they oast out Devils, by Belzebub the Prince of the Devils;) and certainly Lucifer dares not but obey him. Next to this, the Exor­cist is cunningly to get out of the Devil, the confession of some Article of Faith, for the edification of the standers by (whom he may by this means convince of the truth of Tran­substantiation, the reality of Purgatory, or the value of Indulgences) and command him to knock his head three times against the ground, in adoration of the Holy Trinity. But let him take heed what Reliques he ap­ply to the Devil; for if the Reliques be [...], the Devil will be too hard for [Page 184] him. However, let the Exorcising Priest be sure to bless his Pottage, his Meat, his Ointment, his Herbs; and then also he may use some Schedules, or little rolls of Paper, containing in them holy words; but he must be sure to be exercis'd and skilful in all things that belong to the conjuring of the Devil: These are the preparatory docu­ments, which when he hath observ'd, then let him fall to his prayers.

NOW for the prayers, they also are publickly describ'd in their Offices before cited; and are as followeth,

The Priest ties his stole about the neck of the possessed with three knots, and says, O ye abominable Rebels against God, I conjure you Spirits, and adjure you, I call, I constrain, I call out, I contend and contest, where ever you are in this Man, by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost [then he makes three ✚] by the most powerful name of God, Heloy, the strong and admirable, I exorcise you, and adjure you, and command you, by the power I have, that you incontinently hear the words of my conjuring, and perceive your selves overcome, and command you not to depart without li­cence, and so I bind you with this stole of jucundity in the name of the Father ✚, Son ✚, and Holy Ghost ✚, Amen. Then he makes two and thirty crosses more, and calls over one and thirty names of God in false Hebrew, and base Greek, and some Latine, signifying the same names; and the two and thirtieth [Page 185] is by the sign of the Cross, praying God to de­liver them from their enemies. Then follow more prayers, and more adjurations, and more conjurations. (for they are greatly different you must know) and aspersions of holy water, and shewings of the Cross, and signings with it. Then they adjure the Devil (in case the names of God will not do it) by S. Mary, and S. Anne, by S. Michael, and S. Gabriel, by Raphael, and all Angels and Arch-angels, by the Patriarchs, and by the Prophets, and by his own infirmity, by the Apostles, and by the Martyrs; [and then after all this, if the Devil will not come out, he must tarry there still, till the next Exorcism; in which] The Exorcist must rail at the Devil, and say over again the Names of God, and then ask him questions, and read over the sequences of the Gospels; and after that tell him, that he hath power over him, for [...] can transubstantiate bread into Christ's body; and then conjure him again, and call him damn'd Devil, un­clean Spirit, and as bad as he can call him; and so pray to God to cast him out of the man's mouth and nose, lips and teeth, jaws and cheeks, eyes and forehead, eye-brows, and eye-lids, his feet, and his members, his mar­row, and his bones, and must reckon every part of his body [to which purpose, we sup­pose it would be well if the [...] were well skill'd in Laurentius, or Bauhinus his Anatomy] And if he will not go out yet, there is no help but he must choose, till the [Page 186] third Exorcism: In which besides many prayers and conjurations in other words to the same purpose, the Exorcist must speak louder [especially if it be a deaf Devil, for then indeed it is the more necessary] and tell the Devil his own, and threaten him terribly, and conjure him again, and say over him about some twenty or thirty names or titles of Christ, and forbid the Devil to go any whither, but to the centre of the world, and must damn him eternally to the Sulphurous flames of Hell, and to be tormented worse than Lucifer himself, for his daring to resist so many great Names; and if he will not now obey, let him take fire and brimstone, and make a fume, whether the possessed will or no, until the Devil tells you all his mind in what you ask him: [the Liver of Tobias his fish were a rare thing here, but that's not to be had for love or mony:] And after this he conjures him again by some of the names of God, and by the Merits, and all the good things which can be spoken or thought of the most Blessed Virgin, and by all her names and titles, which he must reckon, one and forty in number, together with her Epithets, making so many ✚, and by these he must cast him headlong into Hell.

BUT if the Devil be stubborn (for some of them are very disobedient) there is a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth Exorcism, and then he conjures the earth, the water, and the fire to make them of his party, and com­ands them not to harbour such villanous Spi­rits, [Page 187] and commands Hell to hear him, and [...] his word, and [...] all the Spirits in Hell to take that Spirit to themselves (for it may be they will understand their duty bet­ter than that stubborn Devil, that is broke loose from thence.) But if this chance to fail, there is yet left a remedy that will do it. He must make the picture of the Devil, and write his name over the head of it, and conjure the fire to burn it most horribly and hastily; [and if the picture be upon wood or paper, it is ten to one that may be done.] After all this stir, Sprinkle more holy water, and [...] Sulphur, Galbanum, Assa foetida, Aristolochia, Rue, St. Johns-wort; all which [...] distinctly blessed, the Exorcist must hold the Devils picture [...] the fire, and adjure the Devil to hear him; and then he must not spare him but tell him all his faults, and give him all his names, and Anathematize him, and curse not only him, but Lucifer too, and Beelzebub, and Satan, and Astaroth, and Behemot, and Beherit, and all together; [for indeed there is not one good natur'd Devil amongst them all;] and then pray once more, and so throw the Devils picture into the fire, and then insult in a long form of crowing over him, which is there set [...].

AND now after all, if he will not go out, there is a seventh Exorcism for him with new Ceremonies. He must shew him the [...] Host in the Pix, pointing at it with his finger, and then conjure him [...], [Page 188] and rail at him once more; to which purpose, there is a very fine form taken out of Prierius, and set down in the Flagellum Daemonum; and then let the Exorcist pronounce sentence against the Devil, and give him his oath, and then a commandment to go out of the se­veral parts of his body, always taking care that at no hand he remain in the upper parts; and then is the Devils Qu. to come out, if he have a mind to it (for that must be always suppos'd) and then follow the thanksgivings.

THIS is the manner of their devotion, describ'd for the use of their Exorcists; in which is such a heap of folly, madness, su­perstition, blasphemy, and ridiculous guises and playings with the Devil, that if any man amongst us should use such things, he would be in danger of being tried at the next Assizes for a Witch, or a Conjurer; however, certain it is, what ever the De­vil loses by pretending to obey the Exot­cist, he gains more by this horrible de­bauchery of Christianity. There needs no confutation of it, the impiety is visible and tangible; and it is sufficient to have told the story.

ONLY this we say, as to the thing it self:

THE casting out of Devils is a miracu­lous power, and given at first for the con­fimation of Christian Faith, as the gifts of Tongues and Healing were, and therefore [Page 189] we have reason to believe, that because it is not an ordinary power, the ordinary Exorcisms cast out no more Devils, than Extreme Unction cures sicknesses. We do not envy to any one, any grace of God, but wish it were more modestly pretended, un­less it could be more evidently prov'd. Origen condemned this whole procedure of conjuring Devils long since. Quaeret ali­quis si convenit vel Daemones adjurare. Qui Tract. 35. in Matth. aspicit Jesum imperantem Daemonibus, sed [...] potestatem dantem Discipulis super omnia daemonia, & ut infirmitates sanarent, dicet, quoniam non est secundùm Potestatem da­tam à salvatore adjurare Daemonia. Judai­cum enim est: If any one asks, Whether it be fit to adjure Devils? He that beholds Je­sus commanding over Devils, and also giving power to his Disciples over all un­clean spirits, and to heal diseases, will say, that to adjure Devils is not according to theIn illa ver­ba, [Qui credit in me majora faciet.] power given by our Blessed Saviour; For it is a Jewish trick: and S. Chrysostom spake soberly and truly, We poor Wretches cannot drive away the flies, much less Devils.

BUT then as to the manner of their Con­jurations and Exorcisms; this we say, If these things come from God, let them shew their warranty, and their books of Prece­dents: If they come not from God, they are so like the Inchantments of Balaam, the old Heathens, and the modern Magicians, that their Original is soon discovered.

[Page 190]BUT yet from what principle it comes, that they have made Exorcists an Ecclesi­astical Order, with special words and in­struments of collation; and that the words of Ordination giving them power only over possessed Christians, Catechumens or Bapti­zed, should by them be extended and ex­ercis'd upon all Infants, as if they were all possessed by the Devil; and not only so, but to bewitched Cattel, to Mice and Lo­custs, to Milk and Lettice, to Houses and Tempests; as if their Charms were Prophy­lactick, as well as Therapeutick; and could keep, as well as drive the Devil out, and prevent storms like the old [...] of whom Seneca makes mention: Of theseQuoest. nat. l. 4. c. 6. things we cannot guess at any probable principle, except they have deriv'd them from the Jewish Cabala, or the Exorcisms, which it is said Solomon us'd, when he had consented to Idolatry.

BUT these things are so unlike the wis­dom and simplicity, the purity and spiri­tuality of Christian devotion; are so per­fectly of their own devising, and wild ima­ginations; are so full of dirty superstitions, and ignorant fancies, that there are not in the world many things, whose sufferance and practice can more destroy the Beauty of Holiness, or reproach a Church, or Society of Christians.

SECT. XI.

TO put our trust and confidence in God only, and to use Ministeries of his own appointment and sanctification, is so essential a duty owing by us to God, that whoever trusts in any thing but God, is a breaker of the first Commandment; and he that invents instrumental supports of his own head, and puts a subordinate ministe­rial confidence in them, usurps the rights of God, and does not pursue the interests of true Religion, whose very essence and for­mality is to glorifie God in all his attributes, and to do good to man, and to advance the honour and Kingdom of Christ. Now how greatly the Church of Rome prevaricates in [Page 192] this great Soul of Religion, appears by too evident and notorious demonstration: For she hath invented Sacramentals of her own, without a Divine warrant, [...], saidCyril. Hie­ros. [...]. 4. S. Cyril. Concerning the holy and Divine mysteries of Faith or Religion, we ought to do nothing by chance, or of our own heads, nothing without the Authority of the Divine Scriptures: But the Church of Rome does otherwise; invents things of her own, and imputes spiritual effects to these Sacramentals; and promises not only tem­poral blessings and immunities, and bene­dictions, but the collation or increment of Spiritual graces, and remission of venial sins, and alleviation of pains due to mortal sins, to them who shall use these Sacramen­tals: Which because God did not insti­tute, and did not sanctisie, they use them without Faith, and rely upon them without a promise, and make themselves the foun­tains of these graces, and produce confi­dences, whose last resort is not upon God, who neither was the Author, nor is an Ap­prover of them.

OF this nature are Holy Water, the Paschal Wax, Oyl, Palm-boughs, Holy Bread (not Eucharistical) Hats, Agnus Dei's, Meddals, Swords, Bells, and Roses hallowed upon the Sunday called Laetare Jerusalem: such as Pope Pius the second [Page 193] to James the II. of Scotland, and Sixtus Bellarm. de cultu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 7 sect. secunda propositio, & sect. se­cund, ad [...]. Quintus to the Prince of Parma: Concern­ing which, their Doctrine is this, That the blood of Christ is by these applied unto us, that they do not only signifie, but produce spiritual effects, that they blot out venial sins, that they drive away Devils, that they cure diseases, and that though these things do not operate infallibly, as do the Sacra­ments, and that God hath made no express Covenant concerning them, yet by the de­votion of them that use them, and the pray­ers of the Church, they do prevail.

NOW though it be easie to say, and it is notoriously true in Theology, that the prayers of the Church can never prevail, but according to the grace which God hath promis'd; and either can only procure a blessing upon natural things, in order to their natural effects, or else an extraordi­nary supernatural effect, by vertue of a Di­vine promise; and that these things are pretended to work beyond their natural force, and yet God hath not promis'd to them a supernatural blessing (as themselves confess;) yet besides the falseness of the Doctrine, on which these superstitions do rely, it is also as evident, that these instru­mentalities produce an affiance and confi­dence in the Creature, and estrange mens hearts from the true Religion and trust in God, while they think themselves blessed in their own inventions, and in digging to [Page 194] themselves Cisterns of their own, and lea­ving the Fountain of Blessing and Eternal Life.

To this purpose the Roman Priesta abuse the People with Romantick stories out of the Dialogues of S. Gregory, and venerable Bede; making them believe, that S. Fortu­natus cur'd a Man's broken thigh with Holy Water, and that S. Malachias the Bishop of Down and Connor, cur'd a mad-man with the same medicine; and that Saint Hilarion cur'd many sick persons with Holy Bread and Oyl (which indeed is the most likely of them all, as being good food, and good medicine;) and although not so much as a Chicken is now a-days cur'd of the Pip by Holy Water, yet upon all occasions they use it, and the common people throw it upon Childrens Cradles, and sick Cows Horns, and upon them that are blasted; and if they recover by any means, it is im­puted to the Holy Water: And so the Sim­plicity of Christian Religion, the Glory of our Dependence on God, the Wise Order and [...] of Blessings in the Gospel, the Sacredness and Mysteriousness of Sacra­ments and Divine Institutions, are disor­der'd and dishonour'd: The Bishops and Priests inventing both the Word and the Element, institute a kind of Sacrament, in great derogation to the Supreme Preroga­tive of Christ; and men are taught to go in ways which Superstition hath invented, and Interest does support.

[Page 195]BUT there is yet one great instance more of this irreligion. Upon the Sacraments themselves they are taught to rely, with so little of Moral and Vertuous Dispositions, that the efficacy of one is made to lessen the necessity of the other; and the Sacra­ments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent vertue, that they are not so much made the instruments of Vertue, as the Sup­pletory; not so much to increase, as to make amends for the want of Grace: On which we shall not now insist; because it is suffici­ently remark'd in our reproof of the Roman Doctrines, in the matter of Repentance.

SECT. XII.

[Page 196]AFTER all this, if their Doctrines as they are explicated by their pra­ctice, and the Commentaries of their grea­test Doctors, do make their Disciples guilty of Idolatry, there is not any thing greater to deter men from them, than that danger to their Souls which is imminent over them, upon that acoount.

THEIR worshipping of Images we have already reprov'd upon the account of its novelty and innovation in Christian Re­ligion. But that it is against good life, a direct breach of the second Commandment, an Act of Idolatry, as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of, in relation to the second Commandment, is but too evident by the Doctrines of their own Leaders.

FOR if to give Divine honour to a Creature be Idolatry, then the Doctors of the Church of Rome teach their People to commit Idolatry: For they affirm, That the same worship which is given to the Pro­totype or Principal, the same is to be given to the Image of it. As we worship the Holy Trinity, and Christ, so we may worship the Images of the Trinity, and of Christ; that is, with Latria, or Divine honour. This is the constant sentence of the Divines, The I­mage is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship, with which we worship those whose Instit. mo­ral. par. 1. l. 9. c. 6. image it is, said Azorius, their great Master of Casuistical Theology. And this is the [Page 197] Doctrine of their great Saint Thomas, of Alexander of Ales, Bonaventure, Albertus, Richardus, Capreolus, Cajetan, Coster, Valen­tia, Vasquez, the Jesuits of Colein, Triers and Mentz, approving Coster's opinion.

NEITHER can this be eluded by say­ing, that though the same worship be given to the Image of Christ, as to Christ himself, yet it is not done in the same way; for it is terminatively to Christ or God, but relatively to the image, that is, to the image for God's or Christ's sake. For this is that we com­plain of, that they give the same worship to an image, which is due to God; for what cause soever it be done, it matters not, save only that the excuse makes it in some sense, the worse for the Apology. For to do a thing which God hath forbidden, and to say it is done for God's sake, is to say, that for his sake we displease him; for his sake we give that to a Creature, which is God's own propriety. But besides this, we af­firm, and it is of it self evident, that who­ever, Christian or Heathen, worships the image of any thing, cannot possibly worship that image terminatively, for the very be­ing of an image is relative; and therefore if the man understands but common sense, he must suppose and intend that worship to be relative, and a Heathen could not wor­ship an image with any other worship; and the second Commandment, forbidding to worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven [Page 198] and Earth, does only forbid that thing which is in Heaven to be worshipped by an image, that is, it forbids only a relative worship: For it is a contradiction to say, this is the image of God, and yet this is God; and therefore it must be also a contradiction, to worship an image with Divine worship terminatively, for then it must be that the image of a thing, is that thing whose image it is. And therefore these Doctors teach the same thing which they condemn in the Heathens.

BUT they go yet a little further: The Image of the Cross they worship with Di­vine honour; and therefore although this Divine worship is but relative, yet conse­quently, the Cross it self is worshipped ter­minatively by Divine adoration. For the Image of the Cross hath it relatively, and for the Crosses sake, therefore the Cross it self is the proper and full object of the Di­vine adoration. Now that they do and teach this, we charge upon them by unde­niable Records: For in the very Pontisical published by the Authority of Pope Clement the VIII. these words are found, The Legats Edit. Ro­man. p. 672. Cross must be on the right hand, because La­tria, or Divine honour is due to it. And if Divine honour relative be due to the Legates Cross, which is but the Image of Christ's Cross, then this Divine worship is termina­ted on Christ's Cross, which is certainly but a meer Creature. To this purpose are the [Page 199] words of Almain, The Images of the Trinity, and of the Cross, are to be ador'd with the worship of Latria; that is, Divine. Now if the Image of the Cross be the interme­dial, then the Cross it self, whose Image that is, must be the last object of this Di­vine worship; and if this be not Idolatry, it can never be told, what is the notion of the Word. But this passes also into other real effects: And well may the Cross it self be worshipped by Divine worship, when the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross; for so she does, says Aquinas, and makes one the argument of the other, and proves that the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross, that is, on the in­strument of Christ's Passion, by a hymn which she uses in her offices; but this thing we have remark'd above, upon another oc­casion. Now although things are brought to a very ill state, when Christians are so probably and apparently charg'd with Ido­latry, and that the excuses are too sine to be understood by them that need them; yet no excuse can acquit these things, when the most that is, or can be said is this, that al­though that which is God's due, is given to a Creature, yet it is given with some diffe­rence of intention, and metaphysical ab­straction, and separation; especially, since, if there can be Idolatry in the worshipping of an Image, it is certain, that a relative Divine worship is this Idolatry; for no man [Page 200] that worships an Image (in that considera­tion or formality) can make the Image the last Object: Either therefore the Hea­thens were not Idolaters in the worshipping of an Image, or else these men are. The Heathens did indeed infinitely more violate the first Commandment; but against the second, precisely and sepa­rately from the first, the transgression is alike.

THE same also is the case in their wor­shipping the consecrated Bread and Wine: Of which how far they will be excused be­sore God by their ignorant pretensions and suppositions, we know not; but they hope to save themselves harmless by saying, that they believe the Bread to be their Saviour, and that if they did not believe so, they would not do so. We believe that they say true; but we are afraid that this will no more excuse them, than it will excuse those who worship the Sun and Moon, and the Queen of Heaven, whom they would not worship, if they did not believe to have Divinity in them: And it may be observed, That they are very fond of that persuasion, by which they are led into this worship. The error might be some excuse, if it were probable, or if there were much temptation to it: But when they chuse this persuasion, and have nothing for it but a tropical expression of Scripture, which rather than not believe in the na­tural, [Page 201] useless, and impossible sense, they will desie all their own reason, and four of the five operations of their soul, Seeing, Smelling, Tasting and Feeling, and con­tradict the plain Doctrine of the [...] Church, before they can consent to believe this error, that Bread is chang'd into God, and the Priest can make his Maker: We have too much cause to fear, that the error is too gross to admit an excuse; and it is hard to suppose it invincible and involun­tary, because it is so hard, and so untem­pting, and so unnatural to admit the error. We do desire that God may find an excuse for it, and that they would not. But this we are most sure of, that they might, if they pleas'd, find many excuses, or rather just causes for not giving [...] honour to the Consecrated Elements; because there are so many contingencies in the whole con­duct of this affair, and we are so uncertain of the Priests intention, and we can never be made certain, that there is not in the whole order of causes any invalidity in the Consecration; and it is so impossible that any man should be sure that Here, and Now, and This Bread is Transubstantiated, and is really the Natural body of Christ; that it were fit to omit the giving Gods due to that which they do not know to be any thing but a piece of bread; and it cannot consist with holiness, and our duty to God, certainly to give Divine Worship to that [Page 202] thing, which though their doctrine wereNemini potest per fi­dem con­stare se re­cepisse vel minimum sacramentum. Estque hoc ita certum ex fide ac clarum est nos vivere. Nulla est via, qua citra revelationem nosse possumus intentionem ministrantis, vel evidenter, vel certo ex side. Andreas Vega, lib. 9. de [...]. c. 17. Non potest quis esse certus certitudine sidei se percipere verum Sacra­mentum: Cum Sacramentum sine intentione Ministri non conficiatur, & intentionem alterius nemo videre potest. Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 8. sect. Dicent. true, they cannot know certainly to have a Divine being.

SECT. XIII.

AND now we shall plainly represent to our Charges, how this whole mat­ter stands. The case is this, the Religion of a Christian consists in Faith, and Hope, Repentance and Charity, Divine Worship [Page 203] and Celebration of the Sacraments, and fi­nally in keeping the Commandments of God. Now in all these, both in Doctrines and Practices, the Church of Rome does dangerously err, and teaches men so to do.

THEY do injury to Faith, by creating new Articles, and enjoyning them as of necessity to salvation. * They spoil their Hope, by placing it upon Creatures, and devices of their own. * They greatly sin against Charity, by damning all that are not of their opinion, in things false or un­certain, right or wrong. * They break in pieces the salutary Doctrine of Repentance, making it to be consistent with a wicked life, and little or no amendment. * They worship they know not what, and pray to them that hear them not, and trust on that which helps them not. * And as for the Commandments, they leave one of them out of their Catechisms and Manuals, and while they contend earnestly against some Opponents for the possibility of keeping them all, they do not insist upon the Necessi­ty of keeping any in the course of their lives, till the danger or article of their death. * And concerning the Sacraments, they have egregiously prevaricated in two points. For not to mention their reckoning of seven Sacraments, which we only [...] to be an unnecessary, and unscholastical error; they take the one half of the princi­pal [Page 204] away from the Laity; and they insti­tute little Sacraments of their own, they invent Rites, and annex spiritual graces to them, what they please themselves, of their own heads, without a Divine Warrant or Institution: and, * At last persuade their people to that which can never be excus'd, at least, from Material Idolatry.

IF these things can consist with the duty of Christians, not only to eat what they worship, but to adore those things with Divine Worship, which are not God: To reconcile a wicked life with certain hopes and expectations of Heaven at last, and to place these hopes upon other things than God, and to damn all the World that are not Christians at this rate, then we have lost the true measures of Christianity; and the Doctrine and Discipline of Christ is not a Natural and Rational Religion; not a Religion that makes men holy, but a con­federacy under the conduct of a Sect, and it must rest in Forms and Ceremonies, and Devices of Mans Invention. And although we do not doubt, but that the goodness of God does so prevail over all the follies and malice of mankind, that there are in the Ro­man communion many very good Christi­ans, yet they are not such as they are Pa­pists, but by some thing that is higher, and before that, something that is of an abstract and more sublime consideration. And [Page 205] though the good people amongst them are what they are by the grace and goodness of God, yet by all or any of these opinions they are not so: But the very best suffer diminution, and alloy by these things; and very many more are wholly subverted and destroyed.

SECT. I.

THAT in the Church of Rome, it is publickly taught by their greatest Doctors, That it is lawful to lye, or deceive the question of the Magistrate, to [Page 208] conceal their name, and to tell a false one, to elude all examinations, and make them insignificant and toothless, cannot be doubt­ed by any man that knows how the English Priests have behav'd themselves in the times of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and the Blessed Martyr King Charles 1. [...] wrote in defence of it; and Father Barnes who wrote a Book against Lying and Equi­vocating, was suspected for a Heretick, and smarted severely under their hands.

To him that asks you again for what you have paid him already, you may safely say, you never had any thing of him, meaning so as to owe it him now. It is the Doctrine of Emanuel Sà and Sanchez; which we under­stand to be a great lye, and a great sin, it being at the best a deceiving of the Law, that you be not deceived by your Creditor; that is, a doing evil to prevent one; a sin, to prevent the losing of your mony.

IF a man asks his wife if she be an Adul­teress, though she be, yet she may say, she is not, if in her mind secretly she say [not with a Instruct. [...]. l. 4. c. 21, 22. purpose to tell you:] so Cardinal Tolet teaches. And if a man swears he will take such a one to his wife, being compelled to swear; he may secretly mean, [if hereafter she do please me.] And if a man swears to a Thief, that he will give him Twenty Crowns, he may secretly say, [If I please to do so,] andIn 3. Tom. 4. qu. 93. art. 5. [...]. 13. then he is not bound. And of this Doctrine Vasquez brags, as of a rare, though new in­vention, [Page 209] saying, it is gathered out of St. Au­stin, and Thomas Aquinas, who only found out the way of saying nothing in such cases and questions, ask'd by Judges; but this invention was drawn out by assiduous dis­putations. * He that promises to say anManual. c. 18. n 7. Ave Mary, and swears he will, or vows to do it, yet sins not mortally, though he does not do it, said the great Navar, and others whom he follows. * There is yet a further degree of this iniquity; not only in words, but in real actions; it is lawful to deceive or rob your Brother, when to do so is necessary for the preservation of your fame: For no man is bound to restore stollen goods, (that is) to cease from doing injury, with the peril of his credit. So Navar, and Cardi­nalApud To­let. in­struct. Sa­cerd. l. [...]. c. 27. Cajetan and Tolet teaches; who adds also, Hoc multi dicunt, quorum sententiam potest quis tutâ conscientiâ sequi. Many say the same thing; whose Doctrine any man may follow with a safe Conscience. Nay, to save a man's credit, an honest man that is asham'd to beg, may steal what is neces­sary for him, says Diana.

NOW by these Doctrines a man is taughtIn com­pend. p. [...] Lugduni, A. D. [...] how to be an honest Thief, and to keep what he is bound to restore; and by these we may not only deceive our Brother, but the Law; and not the Law only, but God also, even with an Oath, if the matter be but small: It never makes God angry with you; or puts you out of the state of grace. [Page 210] But if the matter be great, yet to prevent a great trouble to your self, you may con­ceal a truth, by saying that which is false; according to the general Doctrine of the late Casuists. So that a man is bound to keep truth and honesty, when it is for his turn; but not, if it be to his own hinderance; and [...] David was not in the right, but was something too nice in the resolu­tion of the like case in the fifteenth Psalm. Now although we do not affirm, that these particulars are the Doctrine of the whole Church of Rome, because little things, and of this nature, never are considered in their publick Articles of Confession; yet a man may do these vile things (for so we under­stand them to be) and find justifications and warranty, and shall not be affirghted with the terrors of damnation, nor the imposi­tion of penances: he may for all these things be a good Catholick, though it may be, not a very good Christian. But since these things are affirm'd by so many, the opinion is probable, and the practice safe, saith Cardinal Tolet. [...] supra.

BUT we shall instance in things of more publick concern, and Catholick Authority. No Contracts, Leagues, Societies, Promises, Vows, or Oaths, are a sufficient security to him that deals with one of the Church of Rome, if he shall please to make use of that liberty, which may and many times is, and always can be granted to him. For first, [Page 211] it is affirmed, and was practis'd by a whole Council of Bishops at Constance, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks; and John Hus, and Hierom of Prague, and Savanarola, felt the mischief of violation of publick faith; and the same thing was disputed fiercely at Worms, in the case of Luther, to whom Coesar had given a safe-conduct, and very many would have had it to be broken; but Coesar was a better Christian than the Ecclesiasticks and their party, and more a Gentleman. But that no scrupulous Princes may keep their words any more in such ca­ses, or think themselves tied to perform their safe-conducts given to Hereticks, there is a way found out by a new Catholick Do­ctrine; Becanus shall speak this point in­stead of the rest, [There are two distinct Theol. [...] la. Tribunals, and the Ecclesiastical is the Supe­rior; and therefore if a Secular Prince gives his Subjects a safe-conduct, he cannot extend it to the Superior Tribunal; nor by any secu­rity given, hinder the Bishop or the Pope to exercise their jurisdiction:] And upon the account of this, or the like Doctrine, the Pope and the other Ecclesiasticks did prevail at Constance, for the burning of their Pri­soners, to whom safe-conduct had been granted. But these things are sufficiently known by the complaints of the injur'd persons.

BUT not only to Hereticks, but to our friends also we may break our promises, if [Page 212] the Pope give us leave. It is a publick and an avowed Doctrine, That if a man have taken an Oath of a thing lawful and honest, and in his power, yet if it hinders him from doing a greater good, the Pope can dispense with his oath, and take off the Obligation. This is expresly [...] by one of the most moderate of them, Canus Bishop of the Ca­naries. Relect. de poenitent. But beyond dispute, and even with­out a dispensation, they all of them own it, That if a man have promised to a woman to marry her, and is betrothed to her, and hath sworn it, yet if he will before the con­summation, enter into a Monastery, his Oath shall not bind him, his promise is null; but his second promise, that shall stand. And he that denies this, is accursed by the Coun­cil [...]. 8. [...]. 6 of Trent.

NOT only husbands and wives espoused may break their vows and mutual obligati­on, against the will of one another; but in the Church of Rome children have leave gi­ven them to disobey their Parents, so they will but turn Friers: And this they might do, Girls at twelve, and Boys at the age of fourteen years; but the Council of Trent enlarged it to sixteen: But the thing was taught and decreed by Pope Clement the III.Cap. cum virum de regulari­bus. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 88. art. 9 Lib. 1. c. 101. and Thomas Aquinas did so, and then it was made lawful by him and his Scholars; though it was expresly against the Do­ctrine and Laws of the preceding ages of the Church, as appears in the Capitulars [Page 213] of Charles the Great. But thus did the Pha­risees teach their Children to Cry Corban, and neglect their Parents; to pretend Reli­gion, in prejudice of filial piety. In this particular Aerodius a French Lawyer, an excellently learned man, suffered sadly by the loss, and foreing of a hopeful Son from him, and he complain'd most excellently in a Book written on purpose upon this sub­ject.

BUT these mischiefs are Doctrinal, and accounted lawful: But in the matter of Marriages and Contracts, Promises and Vows, where a Doctrine fails, it can be supplied by the Pope's power: Which thing is avowed and own'd, without a co­ver: For when Pope Clement the V. con­demn'd the Order of Knights Templers, he disown'd any justice or right in doing it, but stuck to his power, Quanquam de jure Thom Wal­singham. non possumus, tamen ex plenitudine potestatis dictum ordinem reprobamus; that is, though by right we cannot do it, yet by the fulness of power we condemn the said Order: For he can dispense always, and in all things where there is cause, and in many things where there is no cause; sed sub majori pre­tio, under a greater price, said the tax of the Datary; where the price of the several dispensations, even in causà turpi, in base and filthy causes, are set down.

Nay the Pope can dispense suprà jus, contra [...]; above Law, and against Law and right, said Mosconius in his books of the Majesty Lib. 1. de Jummo [...]. vi­de [...] Terano: & [...] de concil du [...]. of the Militant Church: For the Popes Tri­bunal and Gods is but one; and therefore every reasonable creature is subject to the Popes Empire, said the same Author: And what Dispensations he usually gives, we are best inform'd by a gloss of their own upon the Canon Law, Not a mirabile, quod cum co qui peccat Dispensatur, cum illo autem [...]. quia circa extra de Bigamis. qui non peccat non Dispensatur: It is a won­derful thing that they should dispense with a Fornicator, but not with him who mar­ries after the death of his first wife. * They give Divorces for Marriages in the fourth degree, and give Dispensation to marry in the second. These things are a sufficient charge, and yet evidently so, and publick­ly owned.

WE need not aggravate this matter, byCap. [...] de [...]. [...] n. 20. what Panormitan and others do say, that the Pope hath power to dispense in all the Laws of God, except the Articles of Faith; and how much of this they own and practise, needs no greater instance, than that which Volaterran tells of Pope Innocent the VIII. [Page 215] that he gave the Norvegians a Dispensation, not only to communicate, but to consecrate in bread only.

As the Pope by his Dispensations un­dertakes to dissolve the Ordinances of God; so also the most solemn Contracts of men: Of which a very great instance was given by Pope Clement the VII. who dispensed with the Oath which Francis the I. of France solemnly swore to Charles the V. Empe­ror, after the Battel of Pavy, and gave him leave to be perjur'd. And one of the late Popes dispens'd with the Bastard Son of the Conde D' Olivarez, or rather, plainly dis­solv'd his marriage which he made and con­summated with Isabella D' Azueta, whom he had publickly married when he was but a mean person, the son of Donna Margue­rita Spinola, and under the name of Julian Valeazar. But when the Conde had declar'd him his son and heir, the Pope dissolv'd the first marriage, and gave him leave under the name of Henry Philip de Guzman, to marry D. Juana de Valesco, Daughter to the Constable of Castile.

AND now if it be considered, what in­fluence these Doctrines have upon Societies and Communities of men, they will need no further reproof than a meer enumeration of the mischiefs they produce. They by this means legitimate adulterous and incestuous marriages, and disannul lawful Contracts: They give leave to a Spouse to [Page 216] break his or her Vow and Promise; and to Children to disobey their Parents, and per­haps to break their Mothers heart, or to un­do a Family. No words can bind your faith, because you can be dispens'd with; and if you swear you will not procure a Dispensa­tion, you can as well be dispens'd with for that perjury as the other; and you cannot be tied so fast, but the Pope can unloose you. So that there is no certainty in your promise to God, or faith to men, in Judi­catories to Magistrates, or in Contracts with Merchants; in the duty of Children to their Parents, of Husbands to their Wives, or Wives to their contracted Hus­bands, of a Catholick to a Heretick; and last of all a Subject to his Prince cannot be bound so strictly, but if the Prince be not of the Popes persuasion, or be by him judg'd a Tyrant, his Subjects shall owe him no obedience. But this is of particular con­sideration, and reserv'd for the Third Section.

SECT. II.

[Page 217]THERE is yet another instance, by which the Church of Rome does in­tolerable prejudice to Governments and So­cieties: In which although the Impiety is not so apparent; yet the evil is more own'd, and notorious, and defended; and that is, the Exemption of their Clergy from the Ju­risdiction of Secular Princes and Magi­strates, both in their Estates and Persons: Not only in the matters of Simony, Here­sie, and Apostasie, but in matters of Theft, Perjury, Murther, Adultery, Blasphemy and Treason: In which cases they suffer not a Clergy man to be judged by the Se­cular power, until the Church hath quit him, and turn'd him over, and given them leave to proceed. This was verified in the Synod of Dalmatia, held by the Legates of Pope Innocent the III. and is now in theSi Impera­tor. dist. 96. &c. Eccle­sia S M. de constitut. Church of Rome, pretended to be by Divine Right: [For it cannot be proved, that Se­cular Princes are the Lawful Superiours and Judges of Clergy men, unless it can be prov'd, A D 1199 Can 5 de Clericis l. 1. c 30. sect. quarto ob­jiciunt. that the Sheep are better than the Shepherd, or Sons than the Fathers, or Temporals than Spirituals,] said Bellarmine: And there­fore it is a shame (says he) to see Princes contending with Bishops for precedency, orDe Offic. Christiani Prin. l. 1. c. 5. for Lands. For the truth is this, (what­ever the custom be) the Prince is the Bi­shops Subject, not the Bishop the Princes: For no man can serve two Masters, the [Page 218] Pope is their own Superiour, and therefore the Secular Prince cannot be. So both Bel­larmine [...]. de­fens. contra sect. Angl. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 15, 16, & 18. and [...] conclude this Doctrine out of Scripture.

AND although in this, as in all things else, when he finds it for the advantage of the Church, the Pope can dispense, and di­verse Popes of Rome did give power to the Common-wealth of Venice, to judge Clergy men, and punish them for great offen­ces; yet how ill this was taken by Paulus V. at their hands, and what stirs he made in Christendom concerning it, the World was witness; and it is to be read in the Hi­story of the Venetian Interdict, and not without great difficulty defended by Mar­cus Antonius Perogrinus, M. Antonius Othe­lius, and Joachim Scaynus of Padua, beside the Doctors of Venice.

NOW if it be considered, how great a part of mankind in the Roman Communion are Clergy men, and how great a portion of the Lands and Revenues in each King­dom they have; to pretend a Divine Right of Exemption of their Persons from Secu­lar Judicatories, and their Lands from Secu­lar burthens and charges of the Common­wealth, is to make Religion a very little friend to the Publick; and causes, that by how much there is more of Religion, by so much there is the less of Piety and Publick Duty. Princes have many times felt the evil, and are always subject to it, when so [Page 219] many thousand persons are in their King­doms, and yet Subjects to a Foreign Power. But we need not trouble our selves to reckon the evils consequent to this procedure, themselves have own'd them, even the very worst of things, [The Rebellion of a Clergy man against his Prince is not Treason, because he is not his Princes Subject.] It is expresly taught by Emanuel Sà; and because theAphor. ver. [...]. French-men in zeal to their own King, could not endure this Doctrine, these words were left out of the Edition of Paris, but still remain in the Editions of Antwerp and Collen. But the thing is a general Rule, [That all Ecclesiastical persons are free from Secular Jurisdiction in causes Criminal, whe­ther Civil or Ecclesiastical: and this Rule is so general, that it admits no exception; and so certain that it cannot be denied, unless you Defens. [...]. l. 4. c. 15. sect. 1. will contradict the principles of Faith:] So Father Suarez. And this is pretended to be allowed by Councils, Sacred Canons, and all the Doctors of Laws Humane and Divine; for so Bellarmine affirms. AgainstApol. p. 57. which, since it is a matter of Faith and Doctrine, which we now charge upon the Church of Rome, as an Enemy to publick Government, we shall think it sufficient to oppose against their Pretension, the plain and easie words of S. Paul, Let every soul Rom. 13. 1. be subject to the higher Powers. Every Soul,] That is, saith S. Chrysostom, whether heIn [...] lc­cum. be a Monk or an Evangelist, a Prophet or an Apostle.

[Page 220] [...] the like iniquity, when it is ex­tended to its utmost Commentary, which the Commenters of the Church of Rome put upon it, is, the Divine Right of the Seal of Confession; which they make so Sacred, to serve such ends as they have chosen, that it may not be broken up to save the lives of Princes, or of the whole Re­publick, saith Instruct. Sacerd. l. 3. c. 16. Tolet: No, not to save all the World, said De poenit. l. 2. c. 19. n. 5. Henriquez: Not to save an Innocent, not to keep the World from burning, or Religion from perver­sion, or all the Sacraments from demoli­tion. Indeed it is lawful, saith Apol. con. Reg. M. Brit. c. 13. Bellar­mine, if a Treason be known to a Priest in Confession, and he may in general words give notice to a pious and Catholick Prince, but not to a Heretick; and that was acutely and prudently said by him, said Father [...]. Father Binet is not so kind even to theCont. Reg. Ang. l. 9. c. 3. Catholick Princes; for he says, that it is better that all the Kings of the World should perish, than that the Seal of Confession should be so much as once broken; and this is the Catholick Doctrine, said Eudaemon Joannes in his Apology for Garnet: and for it he also quotes Suarez. But it is enough to haveCap. 13. nam'd this. How little care these men take of the lives of Princes, and the Publick In­terest; which they so greatly undervalue to every [...] fancy of their own, is but too evident by these Doctrines.

SECT. III.

THE last thing we shall remark for the instruction and caution of our Charges is not the least. The Doctrines of the Church of Rome are great enemies to the Dignity and Security, to the Powers and Lives of Princes: And this we shall briefly prove by setting down the Doctrines them­selves, and their consequent practices.

AND here we observe, That not only the whole Order of Jesuits is a great enemy to Monarchy, by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope, by making the Pope the Supreme Monarch of Christians; but they also teach, That it is a Catholick Do­ctrine, the Doctrine of the Church.

[Page 222]THE Pope hath a Supreme power ofDe sum. Pontif. l 5. c. 6. disposing the Temporal things of all Chri­stians in order to a Spiritual good, saith Bel­larmine. And Becanus discourses of this very largely in his book of the English Con­troversie, printed by Albin at Mentz, 1612. But because this book was ordered to be purged, (Vna litura potest) we shall not insist upon it; but there is as bad which was never censur'd. Bellarmine says, that theIbid. c. 7. Ecclesiastical Republick can command and compel the Temporal, which is indeed its Subject, to change the Administration, and to depose Princes, and to appoint others, when it cannot otherwise defend the Spiri­tual good: And Father Suarez says the same. The power of the Pope extends itDefens. Fid. Cath. l. [...]. c. 23. sect. 10. & [...]. 18. & 20. self to the coercion of Kings with Tempo­ral punishments, and depriving them of their Kingdoms, when necessity requires; nay, this power is more necessary over Princes than over Subjects. The same also is taught by Santarel in his book of Heresie and Schism, printed at Rome, 1626.

BUT the mischief of this Doctrine pro­ceeds a little further.

CARDINAL Tolet affirms, and our Coun­tryman [...]. [...]. in Angl fol. 336. Father Bridgewater commends the saying; That when a Prince is Excommu­nicate, before the Denunciation the Subjects are not absolved from their Oath of Allegi­ance, (as Cajet an says well;) yet when it is denounced, they are not only absolved from [Page 223] their Obedience, but are bound not to obey, unless the fear of death, or loss of goods ex­cuse them; which was the case of the English Catholicks in the time of Henry the VIII. And F. Creswel says, it is the sentence of all In Philo­pat. sect. 2. n. 160. & 162. Catholicks, that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Princes, if they have strength e­nough; and that to this they are tied by the Commandment of God, the most strict tie of Conscience, and the extreme danger of their souls. Nay, even before the sentence is declared, though the Subjects are not bound to it, yet lawfully they may denyTom. 3 disp. 1. q. 12. punct. 2. obedience to an Heretical Prince, said Gre­gory de Valentia.

IT were an endless labour to transcribe the horrible Doctrines which are preached in the Jesuits School, to the shaking off the Regal Power of such Princes which are not of the Roman Communion. The whole oe­conomyCont. Ba­rcl. c. 7. of it is well describ'd by Bellarmine, who affirms, That it does not belong to Monks, or other Ecclesiasticks, to commit Murthers, neither do the Popes use to proceed that way. But their manner is, first Fatherly to correct Princes, then by Ecclesiastical Censures to deprive them of the Communion, then to ab­solve their Subjects from the Oath of Allege­ance, and to deprive them of their Kingly Dig­nity. And what then? The Execution be­longs to others.] This is the way of the Popes, thus wisely and moderately to break Kings in pieces.

[Page 224]WE delight not to aggravate evil things. We therefore forbear to set down those horrid things spoken by Sà, Mariana, San­tarèl, Carolus Scribanius, and some others. It is enough that Suarez says, An Excom­municate Vbi supra. 1. 6. c. 6. sect. 24. King may with impunity be depos'd or kill'd by any one. This is the case of Kings and Princes by the Sentence of the chiefest Roman Doctors. And if it be ob­jected, that we are commanded to obey Kings, not to speak evil of them, not to curse them, no not in our heart: There is a way found out to answer these little things. For though the Apostle commands that we should be subject to higher powers, and obey Kings, and all that are in Authority: It is true, you must, and so you may well enough for all this; for the Pope can make that he who is a King shall be no King, and then you are disoblig'd: so Bellarmine. Cont. [...]. c. 7. And if after all this there remains any [...] of Conscience, it ought to be re­membred, that though even after a Prince is excommunicated, it should be of it self a sin to depose or kill the Prince; yet if the Pope commands you, it is no sin. For if the Pope should err by commanding sin, or for­bidding vertues, yet the Church were bound to believe that the vices were good, and the ver­tues evil; unless she would sin against her Conscience. They are the very words ofDe Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 5. Bellarmine.

[Page 225]BUT they add more particulars of the same Bran. The Sons of an Heretical Fa­ther are made sui juris, that is, free from their Fathers power. A Catholick Wife is not tied to pay her duty to an Heretical Hus­band, and the Servants are not bound to do service to such Masters. These are the Do­ctrines of their great Azorius; and as for Kings, he affirms, they may be depos'd for Heresie. But all this is only in the case of Heretical Princes: But what for others?

EVEN the Roman Catholick Princes are not free from this danger. All the World knows what the Pope did to King Chilperick of France: He depos'd him, and put Pipin in his place; and did what he could to have put Albert King of the Romans in the Throne of Philip sirnamed the Fair. They were the Popes of Rome who arm'd the Son against the Father, the Emperour Henry IV. and the Son fought against him, took him prisoner, shav'd him, and thrust him into a Monastery, where he died with grief and hunger. We will not speak of the Empe­rour Frederick, Henry the sixth, Emperour; the Duke of Savoy, against whom he cau­sed Charles the V. and Francis the I. of France, to take Arms; nor of Francis Dandalus, Duke of Venice, whom he bound with chains, and fed him as Dogs are fed, with bones and scraps under his Table: Our own Henry the II. and King John [Page 226] were great Instances of what Princes in their case may expect from that Religion. These were the piety of the Father of Christendom. But these were the product of the Do­ctrine which Clement the V. vented in the Council of Vienna, Omne jus Regum à se pendere: The rights of all Kings depend upon the Pope. And therefore [...] their Catholick Princes are at their [...], and they would if they durst use them [...]: If they do but favour Hereticks or Schismaticks, receive them or defend them; if the [...] be perjur'd, if he rashly break a League made with the See Aposto­lick, [...] he do not keep the peace promis'd to the Church, if he be sacrilegious, if he dissipate the goods of the Church, the PopeInstit. Mo­ral. part. 2. l. 10. c. 9. may depose him, said Azorius. And [...]; says, he may do it, in case the Prince or Emperour be insufficient, [...] he be wick­ed, if he be unprofitable, if he does not defend the Church. This is very much,Vbi supra. but yet there is something more; this may be done, if he impose new Gabels or Im­posts upon his Subjects, without the Pope's leave; for if they do not pretend to thisSee Mart. Vivaldus de bulla [...] Dominici. also, why does the Pope in Bulla Coenae Do­minici excommunicate all Princes that do it?

NOW if it be inquired, by what Au­thority the Pope does these things? It is answered, That the Pope hath a Supreme and Absolute Authority; both the Spiri­tual [Page 227] and the Temporal Power is in the Pope as Christ's Vicar, said Azorius and Santarel. The Church hath the right of a superiour Lord over the rights of Princes and their Temporalties; and that by her Jurisdiction she disposes of Temporals ut de suo peculio, as of her own proper goods, said our Coun­treyman Weston, Rector of the College at [...] Jur Ponti­ficii qu. 15. sect. 5 qu. 17 sect. 6. & qu. 27. sect. 7. Catal. glor. mundi part. 4. con­sid. 7. ex Zo. lcrico. Doway. Nay, the Pope hath power in om­nia, per omnia, super omnia, in all things, thorough all things, and over all things; and the sublimity and immensity of the Su­preme Bishop is so great, that no mortal man can comprehend it, said Cassenaeus; no man can express it, no man can think it: So that it is no wonder what Papirius Massonus said of Pope Boniface the VIII. that he owned himself not only as the Lord of France, Verb, [...]. 8. but of all the World.

NOW we are sure it will be said, That this is but the private opinion of some Do­ctors, not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. To this we reply: 1. It is not the private opinion of a few, but their publick Doctrine own'd, and offer'd to be justified to all the World, as appears in the pre­ceding testimonies. 2. It is the [...] of all the Jesuit Order, which is now the grea­test and most glorious in the Church of Rome, and the maintenance of it, is the subject matter of their new Vow of obedi­ence to the Pope, that is to advance his Grandeur. 3. Not only the Jesuits, but all [Page 228] the Canonists in the Church of Rome con­tend earnestly for these Doctrines. 4. This they do upon the Authority of the Decretals, their own Law De major. & obedicnt unam Sanctam. In extrav. Bonis. 8. concil. Lucr. sub Julio 2. In Extrav. Job. 22. cap. Cum inter nonnullos. In gloss. final. edit. Paris. 1503. concil. Viennens. sub Clem. 5., and the Decrees of Councils. 5. Not only the Jesuits, and Canonists, but others also of great note amongst them, earnestly contend sor these Doctrines; particularly Cassenaeus, Zodericus Vbi supra in Cassenaeo., the Archbishop of Florence Summ. 3. part. l. 22 c. 6. sect 4., Petrus de Monte In sua Monarchia quem citat Felinus in cap. Si quando, ubi per eum extrav. de rescript., St. Tho­mas Aquinas In tract. de Rege & Regno ad Regem Cypri., Bozius, Ba­ronius, and many others. 6. Themselves tell us it is a matter of Faith; F. Creswell In Philopair sect. 2. n. 160, 162. says, it is the sentence of all Catholicks; and they that do not admit these Doctrines, Father Rosweyd Lib. de side [...]. ser­vanda. calls them half Christians, Grinners, barking Royalists, and a new Sect of Catholicks; and Eudaemon Joannes In epist monitor. ad [...]. [...]. says, That without que­stion it is a Heresie in the judgment of all Catholicks. Now in such things which are not in their Creeds, and publick Confessi­ons, from whence should we know the Do­ctrines of their Church, but from their chief­est and most leading Doctors; who it is certain, would fain have all the World be­lieve it to be the Doctrine of their Church? And therefore as it is certain that any Ro­man Catholick may with allowance be of [Page 229] this opinion; so he will be esteemed the better and more zealous Catholick if he be; and if it were not for fear of Princes, who will not lose their Crowns for their foolish Doctrines, there is no peradventure but it would be declared to be de fide, a matter of faith, as divers of them of late, do not stick to say. And of this the Pope gives but too much evidence, since he will not take away the scandal, which is so greatly given to all Christian Kings and Republicks, by a pub­lick and a just condemnation of it. Nay, it is worse than thus; for Sixtus Quintus upon the XI. of September, A. D. 1589. in an Oration in a Conclave of Cardinals, did solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd Henry the III. of France. The Oration was printed at Paris by them that had re­bell'd against that Prince, and avouched for Authentick by Boucher, Decreil, and Ance­lein: And though some would fain have itIn resp ad Apolog. pro juram. side­lit. thought to be none of his, yet Bellarmine dares not deny it, but makes for it a crude, and a cold Apology.

NOW concerning this Article, it will not be necessary to declare the Sentence of the Church of England and Ireland; be­cause it is notorious to all the World; and is expresly oppos'd against this Roman Do­ctrine, by Laws, Articles, Consessions, Homilies, the Oath of Allegiance and Su­premacy, the Book of Christian Institution, and the many excellent Writings of King [Page 230] James of Blessed Memory, of our Bishops and other Learned persons against Bellar­mine, Parsons, Eudaemon Johannes, Creswel, and others: And nothing is more notori­ous than that the Church of England is most [...], most zealous for the right of Kings; and within these four and twenty years, she hath had many Martyrs, and very, very many Confessors in this cause.

IT is true, that the Church of Rome does recriminate in this point, and charges some Calvinists and Presbyterians with Doctrines which indeed they borrowed from Rome, [...] their Arguments, making use of their Expressions, and pursuing their Principles. But with them in this Article we have no­thing to do, but to reprove the men, and condemn their Doctrine, as we have done all along, by private Writings, and publick Instruments.

WE conclude these our reproofs with an Exhortation to our respective Charges, to all that desire to be sav'd in the day of the Lord Jesus, that they decline from these horrid Doctrines, which in their birth are new, in their growth are scandalous, in their proper consequents are insinitely dan­gerous to their souls, and hunt for their precious life: But therefore it is highly [...] that they also should perceive their own advantages, and give God praise, that they are immur'd from such infinite dangers, by the [...] Precepts, and holy Faith taught [Page 231] and commanded in the Church of England and Ireland; in which the Word of God is set before them as a Lantern to their feet, and a light unto their eyes; and the Sacra­ments are fully administred according to Christ's Institution, and Repentance is preach'd according to the measures of the Gospel, and Faith in Christ is propounded according to the rule of the Apostles, and the measures of the Churches Apostolical; and obedience to Kings is greatly and sacred­ly urg'd, and the Authority and Order of Bi­shops is preserv'd, against the usurpation of the Pope, and the invasion of Schismaticks and Aerians new and old; and Truth and Faith to all men is kept and preach'd to be necessary and inviolable, and the Command­ments are expounded with just severity, and without scruples; and holiness of life is urg'd upon all men, as indispensably necessary to salvation, and therefore without any allow­ances, tricks, and little artifices of escaping from it by easie and imperfect Doctrines; and every thing is practis'd which is useful to the saving of our souls; and Christ's Me­rits and Satisfaction are intirely relied upon for the pardon of our sins; and the necessity of good works is universally taught; and our prayers are holy, unblameable, edisying and understood; they are according to the mea­sures of the Word of God, and the practice of all Saints. In this Church the children are duly, carefully, and rightly baptiz'd, [Page 232] and the baptiz'd, in their due time are Confirm'd, and the Confirm'd are Communi­cated; and Penitents are absolv'd, and the Impenitents punished and discouraged; and Holy Marriage in all men is preferr'd be­fore unclean Concubinate in any; and No­thing is wanting that God and his Christ hath made necessary to salvation.

Behold we set before you Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing, Safety and Dan­ger. Choose which you will; but re­member that the Prophets who are a­mong you, have declar'd to you the way of salvation. Now the Lord give you understanding in all things, and re­veal even this also unto you.

Amen.