A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
Detect. 6. AND by this that hath been ſaid, you may ſee what to think of their glorying in their Unity, and accuſing our Diviſions. One of the principal arguments that they prevail by, is by telling the people into how many ſects we are divided, and that the Catholick Church is but one: but we are many: and here they will tell you of all the names they can reckon up, Presbyterians, Independants, Anabaptiſts, Antinomians, Arminians, Socinians, Quakers, and what not. And they will tell you that all this Diviſion comes by departing from the Roman Catholick Church; every man being left to be of what Religion his fancy leadeth him to, for want of an univerſal Judge of controverſies. And they will ask you what reaſon you have among all theſe Sects to believe one of them rather then another? So that they would perſwade you that there is no way for Unity but by turning to be Papiſts, that we may be united in the Pope of Rome.
To all this deceit (for it is no better) we give them our full anſwer in theſe Propoſitions. 1. It is not every kind of unity that is deſirable: but Unity with truth, and honeſty, and ſafety. Its eaſier to agree in evil then in good: for evil findeth more friendſhip with corrupted nature, and hath more ſervants in the world. The wicked are more agreed, and far more in number, of one mind, then the Godly are. The Mahometans are far more agreed; and that in a far greater number, then the Papiſts are. The Devils have ſome agreement in their way: They are all agreed to hate Chriſt and his members, and to ſeek night and day whom they may devour. It is eaſier to agree in a Papiſts work then in ours: To ceater carnally in a ſinfull (and oft a moſt wicked) man; to agree in certain forms and ceremonies, which fleſh and blood is glad to delude themſelves with, inſtead of the Life of faith and Love; its eaſie to agree in ſuch a carnal religion. To ſpare the labour and time of ſtudy and ſearching after truth, and to caſt their ſouls upon the faith of others, even the Pope or a Council, this is an eaſie thing for lazy ungodly men to agree in: But to make the Truth our Own, and get the Law of Chriſt written in our own hearts, and to live upon it, and walk in the light, and embrace all thoſe truths that are moſt againſt our fleſhly inclination and intereſt, this is not ſo eaſie for corrupted nature to agree upon.
2. Chriſt hath told us that it is a little flock to whom he gives the Kingdom, Luke 12. 32. and that the gate is ſtrait, and the way narrow that leads to life, and few there be that find it; and the gate is wide and the way broad that leads to deſtruction, and many there be that enter at it. And therefore it is no great wonder if error and ſin have the greater number.
3. And yet for all this I dare boldly ſay that there is a far more excellent Unity and Concord among the true Reformed Catholicks, then among the Papiſts, and that they do but cheat poor ſouls with the falfe pretence of unity. And this I ſhall make appear to you as followeth.
1. As I have ſaid before, they are utterly divided and diſagreed about that very power in which they ſhould unite, and which they pretend muſt agree them in all other things. One half of them are for the Soveraignty of a Pope, and the other of a General Council: and that as a point of faith. So that there is no poſſibility of Union with them, that are divided in the very point in which they invite us to Unite with them. If the eye be dark how ſhall the body ſee? If they cannot agree about that power that they ſay muſt agree them in all things elſe, what hope of an agreement with them?
But for our parts we are all agreed that Chriſt only is the head of the Church, and in him we all unite.
2. With us, they are uſually but here and there a ſtragling perſon, or ſome few half-witted ſelf-conceited Novices that fall off and diſagree from us in any thing that deſtroyeth ſalvation: But with the Papiſts, Princes are againſt Princes, and Nations againſt Nations, and which is much more, General Councils againſt General Councils, even in the Foundation of their faith. So that let the General Councils be never ſo full and learned, and juſtly called, yet if they be againſt the Popes Soveraignty over them, the other party call them but Conciliabula, falſe Councils and Conventicles. Of how great moment this difference is, let the learned Cajetane be a witneſs, who in his Oration in the Council at the Laterane, under Leo 10. inveighing againſt the Councils at Piſa, Conſtance and Baſil, makes one to be Babel, and the other Jeruſalem.
3. As I proved before, the Papiſts are divided into two ſeveral pretended Catholick Churches by making themſelves two Soveraigns: but ſo are not we: For we have but one Head Jeſus Chriſt. That they are two Churches (beſides what is ſaid) hear the words of Cajetane in the foreſaid Oration (in Bin. p. 552.) [This Novelty of Piſa, ſprung up at Conſtance, and vaniſhed. At Baſil it ſprung up again and is exploded: and if you be men, it will n…w alſo be repreſſed as it was under Eugenius the fourth. For it cometh not from heaven, and therefore will not be laſting. Nor doth it embrace the Principality of that One, who is in the Church triumphant, and preſerveth the Church militant; and which the Synod of Piſa ought to embrace if it came from heaven, and not, as it doth, to rely on the Government of a multitude. The Church of the Piſans therefore doth far differ from this Church of Chriſt. For one is the Church of believers: the other of Cavillers: One of the houſhold of God; the other of the Errone us: One (is the Church) of Chriſtian men: the other of ſuch as fear not to tear the coat of Chriſt, and divide the myſtical members of Chriſt from his myſtical body.] This was ſpoken in Council with applauſe. And can there yet be greater diviſions then theſe?
4. They have been utterly divided about the very power of chooſing their Pope, in whom they muſt unite. In one age the People choſe him: In another the Clergy choſe him; ſometime both together: For a long time the Emperours choſe him: At laſt only the Cardinals choſe him. And ſometime a General Council hath choſen him. Our Catholick Church hath no ſuch uncertain Head, but one thats the ſame yeſterday to day and for ever.
5. They have often had two or three Popes at once, and one part of the Church hath followed one, and another the other: yea (as is ſaid for forty years together, none knew the true Pope) ſaith Cajetane ubi ſup. [Of the Schiſm of that time there were three ſo accounted Popes, that none of them might be eſteemed the Succeſſor of Peter either certain, or without ambiguity.] For many ages one part hath been running after one, and the other after the other, or ſtriving about them. But we are all agreed in our Head without Controverſie.
6. They have killed multitudes of perſons in their diviſions about the choice of their Pope (as in Damaſus choice) And they have had many bloody wars to the dividing of the Church about their Popes and between Pope and Pope. This was their Unity. It would make a Chriſtian aſhamed and grieved to read of the lamentable wars and diviſions of Chriſtendom, either between or about their Popes.
7. Their Popes and Chriſtian Emperor, Kings and Princes, have been in yet longer and more grievous wars.
8. They have ſet Princes againſt Princes, and Nations againſt Nations in wars about the Cauſes of the Popes for many ages together: and it is too ſeldom otherwiſe.
9. They have ſet Kings and their own ſubjects together in wars, as England and almoſt all Chriſtendom hath known by ſad experience.
10. They have Excommunicated Princes, and encouraged their ſubjects to expell them, and to murder them: hence were the inhumane murders of Henry the third, and Henry the fourth, Kings of France; and the Powder Plot, and may Treaſons in England: This is their Unity.
11. They center and unite the Church in an impotent, inſufficient Head, that is not able to do the Office of a Head, to the hundredth part of the Church, and therefore cannot poſſibly preſerve unity. But our Head is all-ſufficient.
12. They ſet up not only a Controverted head, which all the Churches never agreed to, nor ever will do, but alſo a falſe uſurping Head, which the Churches dare not and ought not to unite in. Whereas Jeſus Chriſt is beyond controverſie the juſt and lawfull Head of the Church.
13. Your Agreement and Unity is with none but your own ſect: and is this ſo great a matter to boaſt off? you divide your ſelves from moſt of the Catholick Church, and caſt them off as Hereticks, or Schiſmaticks; and then boaſt of a Unity among your ſelves. And ſo may the Quakers, the Anabaptiſts, the Socinians, as well as you: Or if you magnifie your Unity from the greatneſs of your number that agree, the Greek Church alſo is numerous: and yet in this we far exceed you. For the true Catholick is in Union with all the Members of Chriſt on earth. We lay our Unity on the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity, and ſo are united with all true Chriſtians in the world: even with many of them that reproach us: when you laying your Unity on I know not how many doubtfull points, yea, on you know not what your ſelves, can extend it no further then to your ſect. Which is the more notable and glorious Unity? to be United to the truly Catholick body, containing all true Chriſtians in the world, or to be at Unity with a ſect, which is the leſſer and more corrupted part of the Church?
14. With what face can Papiſts glory in their Unity, that are the greateſt Dividers of the Church on earth? Who is it that condemneth the greateſt part of the Church, and proſecuteth that condemnation with fire and ſword, or ſo much vehemence, as the Papiſts do? when they have moſt audaciouſly divided themſelves from all others, and arrogated the title of Catholicks to themſelves, they call this abominable Schiſm by the name of Unity. If you ſay that the Reformers have divided themſelves from all others too: I anſwer, not as from Hereticks, or no members of the ſame body with us, as you do: but only as from unſound miſtaken Brethren: And therefore properly we are not divided from them, but only from their miſtakes. We think it not lawfull to join with the deareſt Brethren in ſinning, or in that worſhip (by perſonal local communion) where we cannot keep our innocency: But yet we hold the unity of the Spirit with them in the bond of Peace: and are one with them in all the ſubſtance of Chriſtianity, and holy worſhip. Even where diſtance of place, or circumſtantiall differences keep us from Communion in the ſame Aſſemblies: yet our ſeveral Aſſemblies have communion in faith, and Love, and the ſubſtance of worſhip as to the kind, ſo that our diviſion from other Chriſtians is nothing to the Papiſts.
15. But yet when any differ from us in any point Eſſential to our Religion (that is, to Chriſtianity,) they are none of us, nor owned by us; and therefore you cannot ſay that we are at difference among our ſelves, becauſe ſome Apoſtates have faln off from us. You will not allow us to ſay you have many ſects, becauſe ſome of you have turned Socinians, or becauſe thouſands of yours have turned to the Reformers, in the dayes of Luther, Calvin, &c. And why then ſhould thoſe ſects be numbred with us that are not of us, but went out from us? If men turn Infidels, Seekers, Quakers, Socinians, &c. they are not of us no more then of you. If you ſay that we bred them: I anſwer, no more than you breed them, when they turn to the ſame ſects from you: Nor no more then you bred the Lutherans, far better men. They went out from you, and yet you bred them not: But on the other ſide, you cheriſh thoſe as part of your Church, which differ from you in your fundamentals; ſo that the Pope dare not unchurch or diſown them (as the French, &c.) but ſo do not we.
16. Our Unity is in Poſitives, and theirs is in Negatives: Ours is a Unity in faith; and theirs is in not believing the contrary: And ſo dead men, may have a fuller Unity in the grave then the Papiſts have.
17. Our Union is Divine, having a Divine Head and Center, and Divine Doctrine and Law in which we agree. But the Papiſts is humane, having a carnal Head and Center, and Humane Decrees and Canons for its matter and Rule.
18. They have not ſo ſure a means of retaining men in their unity as we have: Let experience be Judge of this: For where one hath forſaken our Unity and Communion, I ſuppoſe hundreds, if not thouſands, have forſaken theirs, as France, Belgia, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Tranſilvania, England, Scotland, Ireland, &c. can witneſs: and if themſelves might be believed, the Greek Church, and all, or almoſt all the Chriſtians elſe in the world have gone from their unity. And yet will they glory in the effectualneſs of their means of unity? Why then did they not retain all theſe Nations in their unity?
19. Moreover, indeed they have very little Religious unity at all among them; for its force and terror that keeps men in their Church: And who can tell under ſuch violence how many ſtick to them in Conſcience and willingly? He that will forſake their Religion in Spain, muſt be tormented and burnt at a ſtake, and in other Countreys where they have full power, he muſt be at leaſt undone. So that 1. Theirs is a unity of bodies more then of minds: 2. And their union is not procured by the Pope as Pope; but by the temporal ſword, which the Pope hath uſurped over ſome countreys, and which deluded Princes uſe by his perſwaſion in other Countreys. What a jugling deceit then is this, to perſwade poor ſouls, that the only way to unity is to Center in the Pope of Rome, and that this is the moſt effectual means of ending differences! when in the mean they make ſo little uſe of it, and place ſo little confidence in it themſelves, but uphold their unity by the Magiſtrates ſword? And if this be the way, we have Magiſtrates among us as well as they, that can as effectually compell men to unity, as far as their Judgements tell them it is fit: And beſides this force, it is the riches and preferment of their Clergy, with their immunity from ſecular power, & the like, that is the means of their unity. But it is the light of holy Scripture opened by a faithfull Miniſtry, and countenanced by Chriſtian Magiſtracy without tyranny, that is our means of unity.
If the Papal Headſhip be ſo effectuall a means of unity as they pretend, and if they are ſo much of a mind as they ſay, let them give us leave but to preach one 12. moneths in Spain and Italy if they dare: or let them give men leave without fire and ſword to chooſe their Religion.
20. And yet beſides all this, and after all this tyranny, they have more difference among themſelves then we have, or then all the Chriſtians that I hear of in the world. And to hide the Infamy of their differences, they tolerate them, and extenuate them. For differences in Diſcipline, and order of Worſhip they allow abundance of ſects called Orders, that men and women may chooſe which they pleaſe. And the voluminous differences of their Schoolmen, Caſuiſts and Commentators, they ſay are not in matters of faith. But call them what you will, they are many of them greater differences then are with us. I pray read over the Janſenians Myſterie of Jeſuitiſm, and take notice of the differences between the Jeſuites and them in Caſe- Divinity, and judge whether they be ſmall. And let it not offend your ears if I recite ſome of their Differences in that Papiſts own words, as he cites the Jeſuites, and tells you where to find what he ſaith.
Pag. 89. Filintius the Jeſuite holds, that if a man have purpoſely wearied himſelf with ſatisfying a whore, that he might be diſpenſed with from faſting on a faſting day, he is not obliged to faſt, But the Janſenians think otherwiſe.
Baſilius Pontius & Bunny the Jeſuites teach, that a man may ſeek an opportunity of ſinning primò & per ſe, when the ſpiritual or temporal concernment of our ſelves or our neighbours inclineth him thereto, But the Janſeniſts think the contrary: Pag. 91.
Eman. Sa the Jeſuite holds, that [a man do what he conceives lawfull according to a probable opinion, though the contrary be the more certain: and for this the Opinion of one grave Doctor is ſufficient.] And Filintius the Jeſuite held [that it is lawfull to follow the leſs probable opinion, though it be the leſs certain, and that this is the common opinion of modern authors] Pag. 95. And yet the Janſeniſts are againſt it.
Layman the Jeſuite holds, that [If it be more favourable to them that ask advice of him, and more deſired, it is Prudence to give them ſuch advice as is held probable by ſome knowing perſon, though he himſelf be convinced that it is abſolutely falſe.] But the Janſeniſts are againſt this. Pag. 96.
Bunney the Jeſuite holds [that when the patient follows a probable opinion, the confeſſor is bound to abſolve him, though his judgement be contrary to that of the penitent: and that he ſins mortally if he deny him abſolution] Myſter. of Jeſuit. pag. 97. But the Janſeniſts deny this.
Father Reginaldus and Cellot hold, that [the modern Caſuiſts in queſtions of Morality are to be preferred before the antient Fathers, though they were nearer the Apoſiles times] Pag. 98. But the Janſeniſts think otherwiſe.
Pope Gregory the fourteenth declareth Murderers unworthy to have Sanctuary in Churches. But the Jeſuits and Janſeniſts agree not who are the Murtherers. The 29 Jeſuites in their Praxis page 600. by murderers underſtand thoſe who have taken money to kill one treacherouſly: and that thoſe who kill without receiving any reward, but do it only to oblige their friends, are not called murtherers.] But the Janſeniſts think otherwiſe. (No marvail if you cannot underſtand the Scripture without a judge, when you can no better underſtand your judge, no not what he means by a murtherer.)
Vaſquez the Jeſuite ſaith [that in this Queſtion, rich men are obliged to give alms out of their ſuperfluity; though the affirmative be true, yet it will ſeldom or never happen, that it is obligatory in point of practice] Pag. 105. But the Janſeniſts think otherwiſe.
Valentia the Jeſuite, Tom. 3. p. 2042. holds, that [If a man give money not as the price of a Benefice, but as a Motive to reſign it, it is not Simony, though he that reſigns do look at the money as his Principal end] and ſo Tannerus, p. 115. But the Janſeniſts think otherwiſe.
Father Gaſpar Hurtado ſaith [that an Incumbent may without mortal ſin wiſh the death of him that hath a penſion out of his living, and a ſon his fathers death; and may rejoyce when it happens, ſo it proceed only from a conſideration of the advantage accrewing to him thereby, and not out of any perſonal hatred] pag. 136. But the Janſeniſts believe not this.
Layman the Jeſuit, and Pet. Hurtado: thinks that a man may lawfully fight a duell, accepting the challenge to defend his honour or eſtate, Pag. 138. But the Janſeniſt thinks otherwiſe.
Sanchez and Navarrus allow a man to murder his adverſary ſecretly, or diſpatch him at unawares to avoid the danger of a duell: p. 140. And Molina thinks you may kill one that wrongfully informs againſt us in any Court: and Reginaldus, that you may kill the falſe witneſſes which the proſecutor brings; And Tannerus and Emanuel Sa, that you may kill both witneſſes and judge which conſpire the death of an innocent perſon] But ſo think not the Janſeniſts.
Henriquez ſaith [one man may kill another who hath given him a box on the ear, though he run away for it, provided he do it not out of hatred or revenge, and that by that means a gap be open for exceſſive murther, deſtructive to the State. And the reaſon is, a man may as well do it in purſuance of his reputation, as his goods; and he that hath had a box on the ear is accounted diſhonourable till he hath killed his enemy.] And Azorius ſaith, Is it lawfull for a perſon of quality to kill one that would give him a box on the ear, or a bang with a ſtick? ſome ſay not—But others affirm it lawfull, and for my part I think it probable, when it cannot be avoided otherwiſe: For if it were not, the reputation of innocent perſons were ſtill expoſed to the inſolency of the malicious.] pag. 142, 143, 144. many other are of the ſame mind, in ſo much that Father Leſſius ſaith [It is lawfull, by the conſent of all Caſuiſts, to kill him that would give a box on the ear, or a blow with a ſtick, when a man cannot otherwiſe avoid it p. 145. Father Boldellus ſaith It is lawfull to kill him that ſaith to you [thou lyeſt] if a man cannot right himſelf otherwiſe.] And Leſſius ſaith [If you endeavour to ruine my reputation by opprobrious ſpeeches before perſons of honour, and that I cannot avoid them otherwiſe then by killing you, may I do it? According to modern Authors I may; nay though the crime you lay to my charge be ſuch as I am really guilty of, it being ſuppoſed to have been ſo ſecretly committed, that you cannot diſcover it by ways of juſtice. Tis proved, if when you would take away my reputation by giving me a box on the ear, it is in my power to prevent it by force of arms, the ſame defence is certainly lawfull, when you would do me the ſame injury with your tongue. Beſides, a man may avoid the affront of thoſe whoſe ill language he cannot hinder. In a word, honour is more precious then life, but a man may kill in defence of his life, ergo, he may kill in defence of his honour] pag. 146. But the Janſeniſts are againſt all this.
Eſcombar ſaith, that regularly it is lawfull to kill a man for the value of a crown, according to Molina. p. 151. Father Amicus ſaith [It is lawfull for a Church-man, or a Religious man to kill a detractor that threatens to divulge the ſcandalous crimes of his community or himſelf, when there is no other means left to hinder him from doing it, as if he be ready to ſcatter his calumnes, if not ſuddenly diſpatched out of the way] p. 152, 153. And Caramovel in his Fundamental Theologie takes it for certain, and thence concludes, that [a Prieſt not only may kill a detractor on certain occaſions, but ſometimes ought to do it] And yet the peeviſh Janſeniſt believeth none of this.
But I muſt ſtop: you may read in the ſaid Janſenians Myſterie of Jeſuitiſm, a volumn of ſuch paſſages of the Jeſuites, allowing men to give and receive the Sacrament when they come that day from Adultery: and allowing a man to eat and drink as much as he can with his health: and diſcharging men from a Neceſſity of Loving God, unleſs it be once in their lives, or as others ſay, upon Holy-daies, or as Hurtado de Mendoza, once a year, or as Conink, once in three or four years, or as Henriquez, once in five years, or as Anthon. Sirmond, not at all, ſo we do not hate him, and do obey his other commands, with abundance more.
Now Reader I would here leave it to thy conſideration, whether all theſe differences among the Papiſts are ſo ſmall as to be no matters of faith. And I intreat you to read over the forementioned Book, (the Myſterie of Jeſuitiſm) and then judge whether Papiſts or the Reformed Catholicks are more at unity among themſelves.
Well! but ſuppoſe the loving of God, the avoiding murder, bribery, and the like, be no matter of faith at Rome, yet I have not done with them ſo. I deſire to know whether the holy Scripture be matter of faith or not? They dare not deny but it is. Well! and what is the Scripture, but the words ut ſigna, and the ſenſe or matter ut res ſignificata? And are the Papiſts agreed among themſelves about either of theſe? no: For the words, its well known how ſome of the beſt Learned of them have ſtood for the preheminence of the Hebrew and Greek Texts: and others, and the moſt, for the vulgar Latine. And that vulgar Latine Tranſlation hath been altered and altered again by them. And after many others comes Pope Sixtus the fift, and makes it ſo compleat, that the Church is required to uſe his Edition; yet after him comes Pope Clement the eighth and mends it in many hundred, if not thouſand places, and impoſes this upon the Church; which of theſe Popes was Infallible? I am ſure they much differ in their Tranſlations.
And for the ſenſe of ſcripture, though men muſt ſwear to take Scripture in the Churches ſenſe, yet will not any Pope or Council to this day, tell us the ſenſe of them, either by giving us an infallible Commentary, or by deciding the many thouſand differences that are among their Commentators. Do not all theſe Commentators forſwear themſelves, having ſworn (thoſe that lived ſince the Council of Trent) to expound Scripture in the ſence of the Church, and only according to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers. And why doth not the Pope decide theſe controverſies? ſeing it is their happineſs to have ſuch a Judge of Controverſies to keep them all of a mind?
But perhaps they will ſay, that all theſe Scriptures be not matters of faith. No! where are we then? what is matter of faith if Scripture be not? And if all be not, how ſhall we know which is? But at leaſt, tell us, Is no one of all thoſe many hundred or thouſand Texts which your Commentators differ about any matter of Faith? If not, then ſure you have no Faith. If it be, then ſurely the Papiſts differ among themſelves in matters of Faith. It is not a few Texts that Lyra's excepter and Burgenſis differ about, to name no more. And of the foreſaid Editions of the Bible by Pope Sixtus, and Clement, ſee Dr. Jame's Bellum Papale, vel Concordia diſcors.