Naked popery, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. His own falſe Deſcription of Papiſts.
YOUR next work being to give your Relations, firſt the falſe and then the true deſcription of a Papiſt, it's moſt deceitful work that you make in both.
I. In the falſe deſcription you do quite paſs over the great Conſtitutive Cauſes of Popery, in which it is that it differs from Apoſtolical Chriſtianity: And you name a few of the ſuperſtructures or remoter differences, and cite not one Proteſtant that ſpeaketh thoſe words, but only the preſent Arch-biſhop of York, and as you ſay, the vulgar conceit: And you are ordinarily careful, in every Paragraph, to put in ſome one word, by the diſowning of which you may diſown the ſentence.
But, 1. Is it not a meer deceiving trick to word your own Accuſations ſo in the Proteſtants name, as you know you can eaſilyeſt plead, Not Guilty? May not one alter ſome one word in every Verſe of any Chapter in the Bible, and then proteſt, that not one of all thoſe Verſes is in the Bible? So if the Printer have ſome Errata in each Leaf of your Book, may you not proteſt that not one Leaf of it is yours?
2. And is it not deceitfully done to appeal to the Vulgar as the Accuſers, that thus charge you, when you know how vain it is to expect, that, (how ſound ſoever their judgments be) the Vulgar ſhould ſtate any Controverſies ſo exactly, as not to miſs it in a word or more; when they hit the ſenſe? And you knew how hard it is to diſprove you: For who ſhall judge what is the opinion of the Vulgar? If I ſhould ſay that few or none of my acquaintance do charge you to ſpeak thoſe very words, you may ſay that you know ſome that do, and I cannot confute you.
3. And have you not the Differences between you and us voluminouſly ſtated and handled long ago, by many whoſe Books have been received by the Churches, and Licenſed by Authority, when the Vulgar ſtating of them was never Licenſed nor owned? Why did you not gather out of Jewel, Uſher's Anſwer to the Jeſuites Challenge, Dr. Challoner, Chillingworth, Dr. Field, Dr. Crakenthorp, Dr. Reignolds, Dr. John White, Biſhop Morton, Dr. Ames, Sadeel, Chamier, Whitakers, or ſuch others, what the things are that Proteſtants charge you with? And anſwer what is there charged on you?
I my ſelf have enumerated many of the things which we take for Popery, and not to be defended, in my Key for Catholicks, and in my Safe Religion, and in One Sheet againſt Popery, almoſt twenty years ago; and ſince then in my [Full and eaſie ſatisfaction which is the true Religion,] and in my [Certainty of Chriſtianity without Popery.] And you have given no anſwer to any one of them that I ever heard of: But you can better diſpute, it ſeems, with your Relations, and with the Women and Country-Labourers, or Tradeſmen, that never uſe to ſpeak in that ſtictneſs of words as ſhall prevent the Cavils of a ſtudied Sophiſter.
4. As for the A. B. of York, I am almoſt a Stranger to him, and more to his Book, which I never ſaw: But two things I can ſay, 1. That we are no more obliged to juſtifie his words, than you to juſtifie the words of any one of your Doctors. 2. That no man is ſo fit to anſwer for him as he is for himſelf: Becauſe no man knoweth ſo well in what ſenſe he took the word [Papiſt.] I ſuppoſe you know that Grotius, who perſwadeth us all to an obedient Union with your Church, under the Popes Government according to the Canons, owning the Decrees of all the Councils, even that of Trent, yet for all this doth ſpeak againſt Papiſts: But he tells you that by Papiſts he meaneth thoſe Flatterers of the Pope, who approve of all that he ſaith or doth. And that it was not the Government or Doctrine of that Church that was to have been reformed, but the Opinions of ſome Schoolmen, and the exceſſes, and ill lives of many of the Clergie. Now could not Grotius eaſily have produced ſuch Papiſts as theſe, as having ſaid as groſs things as you recite?
And how far Biſhop Bromhall, and the Doctor that lately publiſhed him, own Grotius, I will not tell you, but refer you to their own words: To which many more might eaſily be added. Now ſuppoſe that Dr. Heylin, or A. Biſhop Bromhall, or his Prefacer ſhould ſay, that by [Papiſts] they mean ſuch as Grotius did, do you think that they could not prove as groſs words, as any cited by you, in ſome ſuch Flatterers of the Pope? And you know, I ſuppoſe, that ſome of late would not have the Church of Rome called Papiſts, or at leaſt ſo charged, but only the Court of Rome.
But let us take notice of ſome of the Particulars.
I. Your firſt Article is, That Papiſts are ſaid to Worſhip Stocks and Stones, Medals, and Pictures of Jeſus Chriſt as Gods, and pray to them, and put their whole confidence in them, as the ancient Heathens did in their dumb Idols of Jupiter, Mars, &c.
Anſ. 1. Your Doctors are oft charged with maintaining that the Image of Chriſt and the Croſs muſt be worſhipped with latria, which is the Worſhip called Divine: And inſtead of this you put in the word [as Gods.] It is not [as reputing theſe Images to be really Gods,] but [worſhipping them as God only ſhould be worſhipped,] contrary to the ſecond Commandment, which forbiddeth ſuch Bodily actions as were ſymbolical of Idol-Worſhip, though the Mind were kept never ſo free from accounting God to be like Idols, or Idols to be Gods.
2. Who chargeth you of putting your Whole truſt in Images? Is not part of it too much?
3. How prove you that the Heathens ordinarily did ſo? Or that they took Jupiter, &c. to be nothing but the Image, and not a Coeleſtial Power?
4. But inſtead of ſaying any more on this point, I again tell you, that Dr. Stillingfleet hath in his new Defence againſt T. G. ſo fully proved that the generality of the Heathen Nations did worſhip one Univerſal Supreme God, and worſhipped their inferior Gods much like as you do Angels, and worſhipped their Images, not as being Gods themſelves, but with ſuch a Relation to the Deity, as you do your Images; and that your Image Worſhip is ſuch as the ancient Fathers condemned in the Heathens; that none of you will ever be able ſolidly to confute him, or defend your Idols any more: So dear do you pay for T. G. his temporary triumph.
II. Your ſecond feigned Charge is, [That the Pope can give men leave to commit any ſin for money—or ſo pardon any ſin after, as you ſhall not be in the leaſt danger of any puniſhment for it temporal, or eternal, in Purgatory, or in Hell.]
Anſ. I will take your part in this, and prove that the Squib-maker, who drew up this Charge, doth do you wrong. What a Sot was he to think that any Pope would ever be ſick, or ſore, or dye, if he could forgive all temporal puniſhment? Unleſs the unhappy man can forgive all others, and not himſelf? At leaſt he would preſerve ſome of his Friends in health and immortality on Earth? And the Whores, that Baronius himſelf ſaith made Popes at their pleaſure, would have found ſome Popes ſo grateful as to have ſaved them from dying, if not from bringing forth in pain. And truly I ſhould hope that at leaſt the Pope that by a Council was condemned for an Infidel, and believing not any life to come in Heaven or Hell, would have been ſo tender-hearted as to forgive all the world the puniſhment in Hell. And it was a great miſtake in theſe Slanderers of you, to except no ſin: As if the Popes could forgive them that would diminiſh their Kingdoms, or reſtrain their Domination; much leſs that would depoſe them. Could Pope Eugenius ever forgive the Univerſal Church, as it's called, that is, the great General Council which in vain condemned and depoſed him? When he can ſcarce forgive a poor Proteſtant the Rack and Fire, for reading the Bible or ſerving God out of the Roman way.
And doubtleſs he is wronged by this Charge, that he can nullifie all pain, death, Purgatory, and Hell; for I think you will ſay, that quoad potentiam ordinatam Chriſt cannot do it, or at leaſt he will not. And were this believed by all the World, no wonder if they willingly obeyed him, and called him, Our Lord God the Pope. For he could conquer any Kingdom, by ſaving all his Souldiers from hurt and death.
It is enough that he can forgive ſome part or time of Purgatory Torments, and that (as great Doctors ſay) he can (and leſſer Prieſts than he) forgive the pains of Hell to a ſinner that hath no true contrition for ſin (that is, repenteth not out of any Love to God or Goodneſs) but only Attrition and the Sacrament of Penance and Abſolution, (that is, repenteth only for fear of Hell, and would ſin ſtill if he durſt.)
And though you may hope that there are no Copies of the old Pardons yet to be ſeen, or any of Tecelius Merchandiſe now extant, yet the ſure Hiſtory of them is common, and if you deny it, it will be proved to your ſhame. What a multitude of Writers have better cited your practice and confuted it?
But yet I remember (to do you right) that even Hildebrand himſelf (Greg. 7.) in a Roman Council ſaith, that [neither the Sacrament of Baptiſm, nor Penance is of any force to pardon any impenitent Hypocrite,] which is well ſaid; and as for true Penitent Believers, we verily believe that they are pardoned ipſo jure by the Goſpel, as to deſtructive or helliſh Puniſhment; and that every true Miniſter of Chriſt may validly deliver this pardon miniſterially, by true abſolution, in the Sacrament, and without it. But in what meaſure God himſelf will remit temporal Chaſtiſements, few men can know till the event tell it them: And neither Pope nor Prieſt can forgive without him; nor know what God will remit, any more than another man may know, that is, by Gods Word, and by the event.
And again, I ſay if it were in the Popes power (however you may abſolve him from Bribery or the Love of Money) that there would be more difference in point of bodily ſuffering, between his Subjects or Favourites and other men, than was ever yet perceived. It's policy therefore to confine the buſineſs to Purgatory, that no witneſs may be able to diſprove it.
You add to the Charge, [That of all Chriſt's Merits the Pope is the Supreme Lord, to diſpoſe of them to the living and the dead, as he by his unerring Spirit thinks fitting.]
Anſw. Here the Charger wrongs you too: For ſeeing all mens Lives and Mercies are the Fruits of Chriſts Merits, if this were true, the Pope could kill all his Enemies at his pleaſure, and when he hath killed them could caſt them into Hell, or keep them out of Heaven: And then no one in his wits would be againſt him, or diſpleaſe him. It's enough to be able to do as aforeſaid.
III. Your next is [the Papiſt honours the Virgin Mary much more than he does her divine Son, or God the Father: for one Prayer he ſays to God, he ſays ten to the Virgin.]
Anſw. This is injurious too, whoever made it: The Pagans honour not their Inferiour Gods, ſo much as the Supreme! And for the number of Prayers, it's not like that all Papiſts uſe the ſame, or by the ſame Beads: But whether you give inordinate honour to the Virgin Mary, and put not up a very large proportion of your Prayers to her; if Dr. Stillingfleet, and abundance before him, may not be truſted in their Citations, I hope your own Prayer-books may be believed. It's bad enough to make her like Juno, though you ſhould not equal her with Jove. Angels have refuſed ſmaller honour.
IV. You add [His Prayers are a company of Latine words, he neither underſtands, or cares to underſtand them, which if he do but patter over in ſuch a number, though his heart and mind be wholly taken up with worldly thoughts and deſires, he thinks, &c.]
Anſw. At the firſt line one would have thought you had grown paſt bluſhing, and had denyed your Latine Prayers, not underſtood; but you never want one word to help you out in renouncing the whole Sentence: You make me think of that ſorry Religion which teacheth men, that if one Article in a Vow, among many, be unlawful, they may renounce all Obligation to any thing elſe that there is Vowed; and ſo a Knave may be diſobliged to all Vows and Covenants, if he will but drop in any thing that is unlawful. Do not your unlearned Multitude join in your Latine Prayers? Do Maſs-books, and your daily Maſſes, all deceive our Eyes and Ears? No, that's not it; what then! muſt all be deſirous to underſtand it, if they cannot? I rather think the Calumny is, that [his mind and heart may be wholly taken up with worldly deſires?] But who was it that put in that into the Charge? was it not your ſelf? We know that you ſay, There ſhould be ſome General kind of Devotion and good Deſire, though he know not what is ſaid; and a General Belief, called Implicite, which is no Belief of any of the Particulars, and a General Implicite Deſire, which is no Deſire of any expreſs Particular, being a Faith that is no Faith, and a Prayer which is no Prayer, would make a Religion which is no Religion, if you had no better.
V. The next is [If he do but believe as his Church-men believe, though he be wholly ignorant of their Belief, his Soul is ſafe enough.]
Anſw. What is a Man but his Wit? The Word (wholly) craftily put in by your ſelf, enableth you alſo to renounce this Charge: For we all confeſs that your Doctors commonly hold, that this one Article muſt be believed, [That the Church is to be believed and obeyed,] and that's one Particular. But I pray tell us if you can: 1. Dare your Church ſay that every word revealed muſt be believed Explicitely of neceſſity to Salvation? No: 2. And have they in any General Council determined what thoſe Particular Articles are that are ſo neceſſary, (ſince you departed from the ſufficiency of the Creed?) Or do not your Doctors, without any Decree of the Church, uſe to debate it as a free opinion? 3. And do they not differ among themſelves, as all in pieces about the Point? And do not your chief Learned School-men cited at large by Fr. a Sancta Clara on our Articles hold that the Particular Belief of Chriſt himſelf, or the ſupernatural Articles of the Creed are not of neceſſity? And I know not of any one thing that you are agreed to be neceſſary, beſides the Belief that the Church, (that is, the Pope and his Council) are Infallible, or to be believed and obeyed; and it is a Learned School Doctor and Jeſuite Fran. Albertinus Corol. p. 250. that juſtifieth a Countryman that ſhould believe a falſhood if twenty Biſhops tell it him, and that the Command of Faith doth oblige to believe falſhood, it being not per ſe, but per accidens, &c. And I think the old man is now among you at London, (Fr. a Sancta Clara,) who having cited abundance of Doctors againſt the neceſſity of believing in Chriſt or any Supernatural Point, or in ſome caſes knowing the Law of Nature and the Decalogue, ſaith p. 20. [To ſpeak my ſence freely, I think that the Common People committing themſelves to the inſtruction of the Paſtors, truſting their knowledge and goodneſs, if they be deceived, it ſhall be accounted invincible ignorance, or probable at leaſt: So Herera; which excuſeth from fault: Yea, ſome Doctors give ſo much to the Inſtruction of Doctors on whom the care of the Flock lyeth, that if they teach hic & nunc that God would be hated, that a rude Pariſhioner is bound to believe them. See abundance more in him cited, Deus, Nat. Grat. Probl. 15, and 16. And that you may know that this opinion is not rare, he addeth, p. 123. [It ſeemeth to be the common opinion of the Schools and Doctors at this day, that the Laity erring with their Teachers, or Paſtors, are altogether excuſed from all fault: Yea, by erring thus many wayes materially they merit for the Act of Chriſtian Obedience which they owe, their Teachers, as Valentia ſaith To. 3. Diſp. 1. q. 2. p. 5. and others with Angles, Vaſ. quez. &c.]
And if this be true, what Prince, Lord, or any other Lay-man, that would be out of all danger of Sin and Hell, would not be a Papiſt, and be ſure to chuſe a Prieſt that is ignorant enough to take Perjury, Drunkenneſs, Gluttony, Adultery, Fornication, Perſecution, Opreſſion for no Sin, and then he may be ſure that it's none to him, but he meriteth by obeying him that will perſwade him to it?
And what if theſe bid Subjects kill their Kings, would it not be ſinleſs and meritorious by this Rule?
But you'll ſay, Theſe be but the words of Writers, and Books may be miſunderſtood, when they ſay that this is the common Opinion of the Doctors. And perhaps if I talk with you, or another, you will proteſt that this is none of your belief. But how ſhall I know that W. H. or his Neighbour, or Grandfather, know better what is the Faith or Religion of the Papiſts than the old Queens Confeſſor, and all thoſe famous Doctors, whom he citeth, and all that I my ſelf have read?
And remember your Undertaking, cited in my Title Page.
Is it not the moſt common Opinion of your Doctors, that all men are bound to know and believe according to their opportunities, and probable inſtructions? But what is commonly neceſſary your Learned Church-men cannot tell us, no not the Pope or Councils? And who can tell what other mens capacities and opportunities have been? and ſo whether he be a Believer indeed, or not? or bound to be ſo?
VI. Your next part is, [He makes Gods of—ſinful men:—He maketh leſs ſcruple of violating Gods Laws, than he doth any Ordinance of the Pope, or any Law of his Church]
Anſ. That one word [any] is either the falſhood of your Accuſer, or the craft of the Clark that drew up the Inditement: And I think it ſhould not be drawn up of theſe Laws compared formaliter, but materialiter: For I cannot think you ſo unreaſonable, as to think that the Pope is above God; but that when you caſt away God's Laws to keep the Pope's, it is becauſe you think that the Pope hath power to change and abrogate God's Laws, or diſpenſe with them; or that you are bound to believe that it is none of Gods Law, if the Pope ſay it's none: For Inſtance, 1. I know that you caſt away Chriſt's Law for receiving his Body and Blood, the Cup as well as the Bread in the Sacrament: But why you do ſo, I am no Judge.
2. I know that you break the Second Commandment, and uſually leave it out of the Decalogue too: But why you do it, I am no Judge.
3. I know that the Pope and his approved General Council at Laterane make a Law againſt Gods Law for obedience to the higher powers, and this Papiſts profeſs to receive as part of their Religion: But on what reaſons you do it, I leave to you.
You Inſtance [If he commit Fornication it is but a Venial Sin] Do You hold that any of your approved Councils have defined it to be a Mortal Sin? If ſo, I hope you will take thoſe for Heretical that think it is not always ſo: I refer you to Mr. Clarkſons Practical Divinity aforeſaid, and the Jeſuites Morals. But doubtleſs all of you have not the ſame Judgment either of Fornication or Murder, (as is there proved;) for you are not bound to be ſo far agreed, in ſuch little things: But your craft put in the ſaving word next, [and ſprinkling himſelf with a little Holy Water he is as free from all ſpot as a new Baptized Infant.]
Anſw. They ſay, No Man wrongeth himſelf: You may lay a falſe Charge againſt your ſelf that you may the eaſier deny it; There muſt be ſomewhat more than Holy Water, elſe what need of Attrition and Confeſſion, and Penance, if it pleaſe the Prieſt, or Commutation of Penance? what need the Cruſado's to have killed ſo many thouſands of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes to procure the pardon of their ſins (O dreadful way to pardon!) What room for Pilgrimages, ſatisfactions, or for Purgatory, or for Maſſes to be ſaid for the Souls in Purgatory, or for praying to the Virgin Mary, and abundance ſuch, if Holy Water alone would do all the Buſineſs? Was not he much overſeen, or did groſly prevaricate, that drew up this Charge? Might I but chuſe my Adverſaries Advocate, and agree with him to ſay nothing but what I can diſprove, I would certainly have the better, and be juſtified.
VII. The next part is, [And as for his obedience to Magiſtrates, if they be not of his Religion, he owes them no allegiance: And if he have by Oath obliged himſelf, he has a holy Father can diſpenſe with him for that, or any other Oath, for a piece of Money: If his Prince perſecute him for his Religion, let him but have ſo much deſperate courage as to ſacrifice his own life to ſtab or poyſon his ſaid Perſecutor, he ſhall at Rome be canonized for a Saint: Nor can private Perſons expect any fidelity from him, when he is thus traiterouſly rebellious againſt his Liege Lord and Soveraign, &c.]
Anſ. Now I perceive you are over bold, and do too hardly bluſh, when you have the face to bring in ſuch an inſtance, and by the inſerting of a word or two of your own, to dare to waſh off from your Religion the blot of Perfidiouſneſs and Rebellion, when it is part of the Decrees of your approved General Council. The Prevaricator wrongeth you, 1. By making [not of his Religion] to be all that's neceſſary to free you from allegiance. 2. By putting in [or any other Oath for a piece of Money:] I have not yet found that the Pope undertaketh to diſpenſe with a man that will ſwear to believe the Roman Church, or the reſt in Pope Pius his Trent Oath, nor yet with the Vow of Baptiſm, if ſeconded by an Oath. 3. By ſaying only [If his Prince perſecute him;] for the Doctors ſay that he muſt be firſt excommunicate, or a Heretick at leaſt, and ſome ſay he muſt have the Pope's Order before he may kill a King; and the Council only ſpeaketh of Depoſing, and not of killing. 4. And the Prevaricator too raſhly promiſed [Canonizing:] He that murdered one of the French Kings, was but praiſed in an Oration by the Pope, (proved by many) but not Canonized: Garnet was not every one.
But becauſe I ſee you grow ſo bold, (and alſo in what follows return to what you had ſaid before) I will, inſtead of following you farther, tell you what ſuch as I mean by a Papiſt, and what ſome other men mean by him.