The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive, Discourse · Chapter 9 · Section 13 – Section 14
Sect. 13. But if they have not legitimated wickedneſs enough already, they have expedients at hand to do it, for much more; they are furniſhed with devices to juſtifie all the ſin in the world, or at leaſt in their Church, when they pleaſe to uſe them: Let us inſtance in two or three.
That power which they challenge for the Pope herein, is notorious. We heard Bellarmin tell us before, that if the Pope ſhould command Vice, the Church muſt practice Vice, or elſe ſin againſt her Conſcience. And he ſays expreſly elſewhere, that (m)In bono ſenſu Chriſtus dedit Petro poteſtatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum; & de non peccato peccatum, in Barkla. c. 13.in a good ſenſe, Chriſt gave to Peter a power to make that which is ſin, to be no ſin; and that which is no ſin, to be ſin: and what he gave to Peter, they will have us believe he gave to Popes. So that it ſeems, Chriſt hath given Peter, and conſequently his Succeſſors, the Popes, power to Authorize any ſin and wickedneſs: only we are to underſtand this in a good ſenſe, which let any man do if he can. They declare, that he can diſpenſe not only with poſitive but divine Laws, and ſo make the tranſgreſſions thereof to be no ſin. To omit the many teſtimonys for this, produced by others (and which ſome of themſelves count extravagant) let us hear Sylveſter (who ſeems modeſt in compariſon) (n)Sicut habet papa (potiſtatem) in omnibus pure poſitivis, & in quibuſdam pertinentibus ad jus divinum, quomodo dicitur omnia jura habere in ſcrinio pectoris ſui de conſt. licet. l. 6. quantum ſcil. ad interpretationem & diſpenſationem. Sum. v. diſpens. n. 7.the Pope has power in all things purely poſitive, and in ſome pertaining to divine Law, becauſe he has all Laws in his own breaſt, as to interpretation and diſpenſation. Where what in his aſſertion ſeems reſtrained, in the reaſon of it (fetch'd from the Canon Law) is unlimitted, he has all Laws in his own breaſt, it ſeems to import that they are all in his power, and at his pleaſure; ſo as he may either interpret them, or diſpenſe with them, as he thinks fit. Some of them, in reference to natural and divine Laws, make ſhew of denying this in general; but then they grant in particular inſtances, what is ſufficient to make good the general charge. There is no command of the firſt or ſecond Table, wherein they do not hold the Pope may diſpenſe, unleſs it be the firſt; and to queſtion his power of diſpenſing there, is no great diſparagement to him, ſince they deny it to God himſelf. There is no doubt amongſt them, but he can diſpenſe with (o)In votis autem & juramentis diſpenſat it, ac poterat quidem, quod erat in aediſicationem. Canus. pars. 6. Relect. de paenit. p. 371.Oaths, and make it no ſin to break them, though they acknowledge the (p)Reddere vota, juramenta ſervare, juris eſt divini & naturalis, idem. ibid. p. 370.obligation of an Oath to be by divine Law. And no wonder it has been ſo ordinary a practice, ſince they hold that this condition is ſtill preſuppoſed in (q)Subintelligitur—ſi placuerit papae ut in D. C. Venientes. de jurjur. immo in omni juramento excipi ur authoritas ſuperioris, Sylv. v. juram. 3. n. 1.the Oaths, If it ſhall pleaſe the Pope. And though they conclude Vows to be more obliging than Oaths, yet they (r)Canus. ſupra.teach, the Pope may diſpenſe with the accompliſhment of ſolemn promiſes made to God, and ſo can make both Sacriledge and Perfidiouſneſs to God lawful enough. The Pope can diſpenſe not only with raſh Oaths or Vows, but thoſe that are beſt, and their obligation moſt unqueſtionable. If any (ſays Roſella, after others) do Vow or Swear any thing, that may lawfully be obſerved, the Pope ſhould not alter it, when there is no cauſe; yet if he do releaſe ſuch (though without cauſe) the releaſe holds good, becauſe he is above poſitive Law, and alſo can diſpenſe againſt the divine Law, ſo that he diſpenſe not againſt the Goſpel, and Articles of Faith (Sum. v. juram. 1. n. 4.) But if he do that too, he may ſtand to it, for many teach that the Pope is not forbidden to diſpenſe againſt the Goſpel, but only not to deſtroy the Goſpel. (v. papa. n. 3.) and we muſt conceive (if we can) that he may take away the obligation of the rules of the Goſpel, without deſtroying it.
However, as to Oaths and Vows, he can totally (they ſay) diſſolve the Obligation, Quem admodum poteſt ipſe Deus, even as God himſelf can; becauſe it is likely that God, as he had cauſe, gave his own power to bis Vicar; etherwiſe he had not been a good Father of his Houſhold, if he had left his Flock without a Shepheard, who could, as occaſion ſerves, provide for them in all (even to licenſe: Perjury and Perfidiouſneſs to God himſelf) as Pope Innocent argues, but whether with more reaſon or Blaſphemy, let others judge. Whereupon, Hoſtienſis ſaith, that ſeeing God and his Vicar have the ſame conſiſtory, the Pope can do in a manner all that God can do, the Key not erring; for Chriſt ſays generally to Peter, Whatever thou ſhalt bind; and ſaying whatever, he excepts nothing. ibid. n. 1.
There is not any thing in the world which they count more inviolable than their Vow of Religion; yet he may diſpenſe with this, and the reaſon is conſiderable, Becauſe Religion derived its being from the Authority of the Roman Biſhop; he therefore who gave it, may take it away: So P. Innocent and their Canoniſts generally, ibid. n. 4. Hoſtienſis and others, ſeem to ſpeak extravagantly, when they ſay, the Pope can do as much in a manner as God himſelf: But this may paſs for a modeſt ſpeech, if they will have him to do more; and more he can do, if he can make contradictions to be conſiſtant. One inſtance of it we have in the queſtion, whether the Pope can diſpenſe with a Monk to have ſecular propriety. Rich. de S. Victore ſays, it is eſſential to a Monk to want it; and ſo a contradiction to be a Monk; and have it: yet others ſay the Pope can do it, and render thoſe conſiſtent enough, and ſo make one to be a Monk, while he is none. Idem. ibid.
So for Sanctifying of the Lords day, there can be no doubt of the Papal power herein, ſince they count the command for it (s)Dicimus omnia Chriſtianorum feſta, etiam dies dominicos ſolo humano jure—id quod etiam ſent it, Turrecrementa, Archidiaconus, S. Thomas, Waldenſis, Navar. c. 13. n. 1.poſitive; for that he can diſpenſe in all (t)Quae ſunt de jure poſitivo, poteſt ſummus Pontifex, etiam ſine cauſa tollere & abrogare, & quamvis male faciat, factum tamen validum ſit, Canus. ibid. p. 972. Sylveſt. juxta mentem, S. Thom. v. papa. n. 15. vid. Angel. Sum. v. papa. n. 3. Univerſaliter poteſt diſpanſere—contra ſtatum univerſalem Eccleſiae.poſitives, is with them unqueſtionable. Nothing is neceſſarily required by the Precept for Sanctifying of this day, but the hearing of Maſs, and abſtaining from ſervile works: The Pope, if he pleaſe, may turn theſe into working days, for he can Abrogate them. And ſince the people, by their Divinity, are not obliged to any other publick worſhip, but the Maſs, and that only on theſe days, he may diſcharge them from all Conſcience of publick (u)Sequitur poſſe pontiſicem in hoc praecepto (de miſſa audienda) diſpenſare, cum Eccleſiaſticum ſit, he adds only diſpenſare cum aliquo ut nunquam in toto vita miſſam audiat, etiamſi poſſit, neque ulla rationabili cauſa impediatur, non poteſt eſſe expediens, Suarez. tom. 3. diſp. 88. Sect. 2. p. 1140. Hinc patet ſummum Pontiſicem poſſe diſpenſare in praecepto audiendi miſſam, Tom. 1. diſp. 4. q. ult. punct. 11. n. 6. Bonacina. aiunt communiter Doctores poſſe conſuetudine vel humana poteſtate abrogari, Idem. in 3. praecept. q. 5. n. 4.worſhip, and diſingage them from tendering any unto God, for he can diſpenſe with the Maſs. They make it indeed, ſometimes, a character of Antichriſt, to put down the Maſs: But it is not fit the Pope ſhould want power to be Antichriſt at pleaſure; and why ſhould they be angry with us for thinking him ſo already? ſince with them, herein, he may lawfully be Antichriſt when he liſt. And he may do as much for the Clergy and Monaſticks: All the ſolemn worſhip neceſſary and proper for them, is that of their Canonical hours; but (x)Quarta cauſa (a recitando divinum officium excuſans) eſt diſpenſatio papae juxta Cardinalem Turrecrematam, neque aliud ſentit Cardinalis Florentinus. Navar. c. 25. n. 102.the Pope can order that they ſhall not be obliged to ſay their Service. Utrum papa facere poſſit quod praedicti non teneatur ad horas? Laud. & Jo. de Lig. ſenſerunt quod papa hoc poteſt, &c. Sum. v. hor. n. 9.So Sylveſter after others concludes; he adds indeed, that though the Pope can diſcharge them from this Service, yet he cannot diſoblige them from making ſome recompence to their Benefactors for not praying for them; (y) Sed circa iſtam ſuppletionem non oportet eſſe multum ſcrupuloſum, quia conſurgit ex naturali lege potius quam Eccleſiae praecepto; ut reompenſetur benefactoribus: quod etiam per minimam orationem fieri poteſt, ibid. n. 5.but for this (he ſays) they need not trouble themſelves for the leaſt prayer that can be, will ſufficē for that. So an Ave Mary may ſerve (that ſerves generally on all occaſions) a prayer (if it may be ſo accounted) of one petition to the Virgin, and not a word to God, not a ſyllable for their Benefactors; they may be as well without it. And ſo others leave them determining without any reſerve, that the Pope may diſpenſe with their divine Service, and may do ſo validly, without any cauſe too. So that the Pope, when he liſt, may leave no publick worſhip of God in the whole Roman world; and when he does this, it will be no ſin wholly to neglect it. He can diſpenſe againſt the univerſal ſtate of the Church, ſo the Law of their Church will have it. Only ſays Panormitan, he ſhould not deface it; but there's no danger of that, though he ſhould deſtroy it (as he has done indeed; they aſcribe no power to him in this, but what he has given the world proof of effectually) for he cannot deface it, unleſs he change the univerſal ſtate of it, without reaſon; and this he can never want, ſo long as his will is good reaſon, as they ſay it is.(*) Bonacin. Divin. Offic. diſp. 1. q. 6. p. 3. n. 1.(*) Sum Roſell. v. papa.
He can as eaſily diſcharge them from all Righteouſneſs towards men; he can make it lawful for a Son to calumniate his Father, or covet all he has, or to wreſt it from him by force, yea to attempt his life; and when he hath reduced him to want and miſery, to leave him periſhing for want of relief: this office he did for the Emperours heretofore, and is (z)So the Emperour Henry 4. was uſed by his own Son, excited by the Pope; and Baronius will have it paſt denyal, an eminent work of Piety, Annal. tom. 12. an. …1…6. n. 14.commended for it. He can take away any (a)In omnibus & per omnia potest facere & dicere quicquid placet auferendo etiam jus ſuum cui vult. Specul. Guliel. Durand. l. 1. par. 1. de legit. Sect. 6. n. 51.mans right, and diſſolve all Bonds, Contracts, Obligations, whereby one man is bound to another (b)Utrum poſſit aliquem abſolvere ab obligatione, qua tenitur alteri homini? & dico ſecundum Innocentium quod hoc poteſt, de plenitadine poteſtatis, Sylveſt. v, papa. n. 13.; and ſo can make it lawful to act againſt all Faith, Truth, Juſtice, and common Honeſty. Further, thoſe whom God hath joyned together in lawful Matrimony, the Pope (they ſay) hath power to ſeparate, and ſometimes, ſo, as to Marry others, and ſo live in Adultery without ſin, as he did with the Son of the Conde D'Olivares.
If there have been no Carnal knowledge they make no bones at all of the Popes diſſolving Marriages, how firmly ſoever contracted, or ſolemnly celebrated: No, nor if they have had that full conſummation with reluctancy. But there is one rarer feat that the Pope can do, he has power to diſpenſe with perſons to Marry and continue ſo, not during life, but for ſuch time as they deſire, a year or two, or till they can have a Child, and then be Unmarryed again, and freed from all bonds of that ſtate, without any Divorce or occaſion for it. Jo. Andreas (a principle Rabbi of their Church Talmud) ſays, he had diſputed this queſtion, whether the Pope might not diſpenſe with a Kings only Son, being a Monk, to Marry for a while, till he could get a Boy, and after return to his Monaſtery and Unmarryed condition? He anſwers, That the Pope, whoſe power is diſputed, may reſolve it himſelf, yet he may be adviſed to forbear: but many maintain, that if he ſhould diſpenſe, the diſpenſation would ſtand good, (according to whom, the Pope is not forbidden to diſpenſe againſt the Goſpel, when he ſees cauſe, but only not to deſtroy it, as before,) and this holds eſpecially, if the party would be content to be Marryed for a while, rather than for ever. So Andreas, and the ſame, it ſeems, is defended by Jo. Antonius, Biſhop of Alexandria (in Millain) by Baldus, by Fulgoſius, and Baptiſta Toruamala, Our Author will not grant, that the Pope cannot diſpenſe with a Religious perſon to be Marryed a little, but makes it a queſtion whether he can let him Marry during life (*)Sum. Roſell. v. papa. n. 3. &. 4..(*)So Aquinas (in Dian. v. matrim. n. 56). Bonaventur, Scotus, Durand. Alenſis, Richard. Auguſtinus Triumph. Cajetan, Roffenſis, (in Victorell. ad Tol. l. 7. c. 9.)
(c) Fere omnes gradus Moſaica lege prohibiti, ſunt etiam prohibiti naturali, Sylv. v. papa. n. 17.Moreover, he cannot only legitimate Adultery, but Inceſt; for they teach that he can diſpenſe with Marriages in thoſe degrees which Gods Law forbids, even ſuch as are acknowledged to be againſt the dictate of Nature. They except no degree of Conſanguinity, but only the firſt in a direct line, viz. Marriage betwixt Parent and Child; they ſay he can licenſe it in the firſt degree in the collateral line, viz. betwixt Brother and Siſter.
(d) Reperitur tamen Martinus 5. ut Archiepiſcopus, (viz. Antoninus) reſert diſpenſaſſe cum eo, qui cum ſua germana contraxerat, & conſummaverat, habito conſilio cum peritis theologi, & Canoniſtis. Idem. ibid. & Angelus. v. papa. n. 1.Some indeed ſtick at this, becauſe they obſerve not that the Pope has diſpenſed in this caſe. But the credit of their, St. Antoninus will not be queſtioned, who tells us, that Pope Martin the fifth, diſpenſed with one who had Marryed his own Siſter. Yea, he takes upon him to diſpenſe with Sodomy. Sixtus the Fourth, (e)Vid Myſter iniquitatis 1310.gave Licenſe to the whole Family of Cardinal St. Lucy, that they ſhould uſe Sodomy in the three hotter Months, June, July, and Auguſt. And Alexander the Sixth, (f)Ibid. 1328.gave the Cardinal De Valentia leave to Buggar the Marquis De Zaneta, his own natural Son.
The moſt modeſt opinion at firſt, bluſh (which yet ends little better than the worſt) that I have obſerved amongſt them, concerning the Popes power, i… reference to the Laws of God, is that of Richard De Sancto Victore, as Angelus reports it, (g)Si occurreret caſus particularis in quo deficeret ratio legis—tunc papa poſſet diſpenſare aliter ut dicit Ricar. non videretur Deus fuiſſe bonus pater-familias. v. papa. n. 1.That the Pope can diſpenſe with the divine Precepts, when the reaſon of them ceaſeth; otherwiſe, ſays he, God (if he had not ſo impowered him) would not ſeem to be a good Maſter of his Houſhold (not wiſe, ſay ſome; not diligent ſay others; for this is a common Argument for the Papal prerogative). We muſt take heed how we queſtion the Popes power herein, for if we do, they may queſtion the Government of God. And herein he is followed by (h)V. papa. n. 16.Sylveſter a Dominican, and Angelus (i)Ibid.a Franciſcan (though in other things they often claſh) who tell us that beſides Divines, (k)Et in praedicta opinione concurrunt omnes Canoniſtae, ſi bene intelligantur. Idem. ibid.all the Canoniſts agree in it, if well underſtood. And this, the former (l)Poteſt ea interpretari in dubio authoritative, ſcil. utrum in aliquo determinato caſu, habeat locuni ratio divini, aut naturalis ſtatuti, vel non, Sylveſt. ibid.extends to particular caſes, whether in the natural or divine Law, and the latter concludes it, (m)Et quod dico de praeceptis ſecundae tabulae, idem dic de omnibus praeceptis veteris & novi Teſtamenti, Angelus. ibid.not only as to to the Precepts of the ſecond Table; but as to all the commands, both in the Old and New Teſtament. All the queſtion is, (n)Sed quis poter it ſcire quando ratio legis deficit in aliquo caſu? Reſp. quod iſtud aliquando habemus ex exemplo Dei, qui multoties diſpenſavit in ſua lege.how one may know when the reaſon of Gods Law ceaſeth in any caſe? to which he anſwers, that this we ſometimes may learn by the examples of God himſelf, who many times diſpenſed with his own Law. So that in ſuch caſes, it ſeems, the Pope may do as much as God himſelf. But this may not prove enough to ſerve the Popes turn. So he adds, (o)Sed quum talis diſpenſationis vel ſimilis non habemus exemplum i… ſcriptu…a, tunc ad ſolum pnpam pertinet ipſius declaratio. Idem. ibid.When we have not an example of that, or the like diſpenſation in Scripture, the declaration of it (that is, when the reaſon of the Law fails) in any other caſe, belongs to the Pope alone. Accordingly (p)Supra.Sylveſter, He may, when there is any doubt, Authoritatively explain whether or no in any certain caſe the reaſon of the divine or natural Precept takes place. The Pope, if he were God (as they too often call him) needs not herein, deſire more power than this; he may declare that the reaſon of the divine Law ceaſes when he pleaſes, and ſo he may diſpenſe with it when he liſt. Thus the Pope might diſcern the reaſon of the Law for Marriage to ceaſe, when Olivares had declared Julian Valeaſor his Heir, & ſo gave him leave to Marry another Wife, when he had one already, lawfully Marryed: (yet his Holineſs might be haſtier herein than ſome Doctors would have him, who though they hold the Pope can diſpenſe with one to have two, or more Wives at once; yet think it not ſo very fit to be done, whole Catholicks are ſo plentiful (*)Vid. Sum. Roſell. v. papa. n. 5.. And he would have ſeen ſomething more in Harry the Eights caſe, than he let the world know, if the Emperour Charles the Fifth had not ſtood in his light. And ſo in that againſt Perjury, Clement the Seaventh ſaw the reaſon of it ceaſe, when he ſaw it his intereſt, that Francis the Firſt ſhould break his Oath. And Sixtus the Fourth could well ſee that the reaſon of that Law againſt Sodomy, ceaſed in the hotter months, and ſo diſpenſed with it then, though not in cooler ſeaſons.
But what if the Pope ſhould miſtake in his Declaration about the Law, and the reaſon of it, and ſo err in diſpenſing with it? this muſt not eaſily be ſuppoſed. I firmly believe ſays Angelus (q)Ibid. n. 2.that if any one ſeeking a diſpenſation, in any caſe againſt the Law of God, not interpoſing the importunity of gifts and ſolicitations; do put himſelf ſimply into the Pope's hands, with a Declaration of his caſe: that God will not ſuffer his Vicar to err, in diſpenſing. Yet if the worſt ſhould come to the worſt, and the Pope ſhould err herein, that will make no alteration in the caſe, before us: for though it may be a fault to diſpenſe, yet the crime he diſpenſes with, may be no ſin to him, who has his holineſſes leave to commit it. (r)Arbitror autem, quod licet diſpenſator peccet: tamen diſpenſatus, ſi bona fide nixus authoritate ſuper ioris, putat eam juſta de cauſa eſſe datam, excuſatur donec ſatis noverit, eam non fuiſſe ſic datam. Ibid. praelud. 9. n. 13. 14.I judge, ſays Navar, that though the diſpenſer may be in fault, yet he that is diſpenſed with, is excuſed; if relying honeſtly upon the Authority of his Superiour, he thinks it was granted upon juſt cauſe: till he be convinced, that it was not juſtly granted. For all this, Bellarmine has the confidence to affirm, that no Catholick ever held, that the Pope could diſpenſe any way, with the Divine commands; and yet what is it leſs that himſelf aſcribes to the Pope, when he ſays, by his Indulgencies, (s)Indulgentiae—faciunt tamen, ut pro ijs paenis, quae nobis per indulgentiam condonantur, non teneamur praecepto illo de faciendis dignis paenitentiae fructibus. De paeni…. l. 4. c. 13. p. 1068.we are diſobliged from the command of bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance? Theſe fruits are by their own account; all good works. And ſo in fine, the Pope can make it to be no ſin, to live without the worſhip of God, righteouſneſs towards men, and good works, which reſpect either.
Sect. 14. But they need not make uſe of the Pope's Authority for this purpoſe; there are other expedients nearer hand, will ſerve, to make any ſin lawful. One is probable ignorance, and that, when upon a probable ground, error is conceived to be truth; and that which is ſin indeed is taken to be no ſin. When upon ſuch a ground one ventures upon a crime, it will not be criminal. Now they give an account of ſeveral things, each of which will ſerve them herein for a probable ground.
Firſt a probable Reaſon, (t)Quando homo occurrentibus rationibus in utram que partem ſuo judicio probabilibus, eligit …os quae ſibi videntur probablliores quae tamen revera ſunt contra veritatem, cui ipſe alias bene aff…ctus …ſt: tunc iſle (licetcontra veritatem erret, & ſic laborei ignorantia contraria) nulla culpa errat: ſic Doctores Communiter. Sancta Clara. Deus. nat. gr. problem. 15. p. 87.when there are Arguments pro and con, all probable in his judgment that views them, if he follows that which ſeems to him moſt probable; he ſins not, though it lead him into ſin. They lay great weight upon Authority, and think it ſafe to follow the herd, in a common opinion: yet one good reaſon (u)Navar. cap. 3. n. 8.they ſay) is to be preferr'd, before the common judgment of their Writers; and one may venture againſt the ſtream, being back'd with it. Nor is there need to be very ſcrupulous about the probability of a reaſon; 'tis enough, if it ſeems but probable, to him that weighs it: yea (x)Ignorantia excuſat—etiam cum quis in affectione ad ſuum Doctorem, judicat probabiliter ut ſibi videtur, eſſe verum, quod est falſum. Sylveſt. ſum. v. opinio. n. 1.though it ſeem but ſo, out of affection to him that offers it. And that may as well paſs for more probable, which is more favourable to the inclination of the Inquirer; and he may be his own Judg in the caſe, and act againſt the ſcruples of his Conſcience, when he has probable reaſon. But when there are more reaſons againſt it, and but one probable for it, muſt not the more ſway us; ſince that is ſafer, and that which is ſafer is to be choſen according to the common Rule? no, we are not obliged, for that rule even in matters of faith and practice, is (y)Navar. c. 27. n. 281.only a Counſel, not a precept: we are only injoyned to do what is ſafe, not to what is ſafer, and a practice upon a probable reaſon, is (z)Hoc poteſt facere (viz. crebro contra ſcrupulos) tuta conſcientia ex conſi…io proprio, quando habet probabilem rationem. Sylveſt. v. ſcrupul. n. 3. Regul. 5.ſafe enough.