The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive, Discourse · Chapter 10

The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive · Discourse · Chapter 10

p. 390CHAP. X. The Roman Doctrine makes good works to be unneceſſary.

SECT. 1.

BUt their good works poſſibly may ſatisfie for their other defects, and extravagancies, and in theſe they glory above all, and have the confidence to condemn us, upon a pretence (though utterly falſe and groundleſs) that we deny the neceſſity of good works. Is it imaginable, that after this, they themſelves ſhould hold them to be unneceſſary; and ſo run into the Hereſie, which they charge upon others? I will not deſire any to believe this, unleſs I let him ſee it, but their Writings make it viſible to any, who have a mind to ſee. They reduce all good works to Faſting, Prayer, and acts of Mercy, or alms-Deeds. For their faſting I ſhall only ſay this, It is no faſt, it is no good work, nor is it in their account neceſſary. To the making of a Faſt, there muſt (as they tell us) be the concurrence of theſe ſeverals. Firſt, there muſt be no more than once eating. Gregory (s)(s)Unica demum comeſtio, niſi ad jejunium neceſſaria ſit, mentitur Gregorius. Sum. v. jejunium. p. 344. Unica comeſtio eſt de eſſentia jejunij. Navar. cap. 21. n. 14. Sane ſi in jejunio bis cibum capere fas eſſet, ecquae hic abſtinentiae forma, vel ſpecies quidem foret? parvi enim refert, quo veſcaris cibo, ſi modo te ad ſummum ſatiaveris. Polyd. Vergil. de ſuvent. rer. lib. 6. cap. 16. p. 372.lyes (though both a Pope and a Saint with them) if this be not true, ſays Cajetan. Secondly, This eating muſt not be a Dinner. Bellarmine makes this p. 391good (t)(t)Unicam igitur refectionem, eam que caenam eſſe debere, nec prandium; cum jejunio datur opera, facile probari poteſt, extant enim exempla ſcripturarum, teſtimonia patrum, & perpetua conſuetudo fidelium. De Jejun. l. 2. c. 2. p. 1034. Apud veteres inauditum eſt prorſus, ut ante horam nonam, quae eſt tertia post meridiem, jejunium quodcun que ſolvatur. Quemadmodum etiam nulla eſt apud veteres mentio binae refectionis, cum de jejunio agitur. ibid. p. 1035. vid. Victorel. ad Tol. l. 6. c. 2. p. 992.by Scripture, a Troop of Fathers, and the perpetual cuſtome of the faithful; concluding that it was never heard, in the ancient Church, that they did eat (either till night, or,) before Three at afternoon. Thirdly, what they take muſt be leſs nouriſhing, and delicious, than their ordinary fare. And ſo the Church forbids, that (u)(u)Certum genus cibi probibuit jejunaturis, illud videlicet quod ex genere ſuo, & ut plurimum magis nutrit & magis delectat. Idem. ibid. cap. 5. Nam finis jejunij eſt corporis concupiſcentias edomare, & in ſervitatemredigere. Ibid. p. 1043.which in its nature, and for the moſt part, is more nouriſhing and more pleaſing, the end of faſting requires it, which is (ſays he out of St. Auſtin) to tame and ſubject the concupiſcence of the body. All theſe are neceſſary to the being of a Faſt as they affirm; and yet not one of theſe is obſerved in their Faſting. For firſt they eat a Dinner, a full meal at Noon, or an hour or two ſooner if they pleaſe at the ſame time, and in as great quantity, as they do any other day; yea if they eat to great exceſs at a faſting Dinner, yet they keep the faſt. (x)(x)In continua autem quantitate prandij, non eſt certa menſura ratione jejunij: ſed quamvis aliquis multum excedat, non ob id ſolvit jejunium, peccat tamen contra ſobrietatem—licet tamen tempore jejunij, aliquid plus accipere in prandio. Inſtruct. l. 6. c. 2. p. 990. Qui intemperanter comedit, dum prandet Die jejunij—ſatisfit praece…o. Bonacin. Tom. 2. diſp. 1. q. 1. punct. 9. n. 1.As to the quantity (ſays another of their Cardinals, who can beſt tell what belongs to faſting) of a Dinner at a faſt, there is no certain meaſure: but though one be very exceſſive, and tranſgreſs the Law of Sobriety, yet he faſts well enough; and adds, it is lawful to eat more than ordinary at Dinner upon a Faſt day. Others not of the Society, may hit the ſenſe of the Church herein more unqueſtionably, when they teach, that one who obſerving the quality of the meat, ſtuffs his Belly ſo full, as to be ſo far from any ſenſe of the hardſhip of faſting, or from repreſſing the ſins of the fleſh, that he rather excites, and cheriſhes luſt thereby: yet fulfils the precept for faſting. So Covarruvius, Abulenſis, Medina, Cajetan, and others in p. 392Bonacina and he after them (*)(*)De praecept Eccleſ. ult. diſp. q. 1. punct. 2. n. 6,where by the help of a diſtinction or two, intemperance both in quality and quantity, is made perfectly conſiſtent with the faſt and temperance of holy Church.) So that they Faſt, though they Dine, and that luſtily; whatever the Scripture, or the Fathers, or all the faithful (in Bellarmine) ſay of the inconſiſtence of a Dinner with a Faſt. But this is too little for a Roman Faſt (though many that never dream they Faſt, eat conſtantly leſs); they may eat a Breakfaſt too, and yet keep a Faſt after they have broke it. They may drink Ale or Wine, and eat Bread after it, that the ſtrong drink may not (y)(y)Licitus eſt mane potus etiam vini ſine fraude etiam licitum aliquid ſumere pro ſtramento, potus ne obſit Sylv. v. jejun. n. 9. & hoc expreſſe tenet. S. Thomas. Nec ſumere in ſerotino jentaculo parum panis, frangit jejunium: quia ad hoc videtur ſerotinum ientaculum reductum ut non referat quid quiſ que ſumat, ſi modum non excedat. Cajetan. Sum. jejun. it holds as well of a breakfaſt early as later.hurt them; or if Bread will not ſerve them (though theſe together may make a Breakfaſt for a Feſtival) they may eat other things elſe after their Mornings draught, if it be not beyond meaſure and theſe both at their firſt and ſecond Breakfaſt. O! but thus they eat twice, that the Cardinal was aware of, where's then their Faſt? when it is (as they affirm) eſſential thereto, not to eat twice? why (ſays he (z)(z)Sumere vero jentaculum ſerotinum ad ſuſtentationem naturae, eſt proculdubio iterum comedere. ibid. Pie interpretandum eſt: ut ſcilicet fiat ne potus noceat. ibid.a pious conſtruction muſt be put upon it, it is that the drink may not hurt them; and ſo taken it ſeems, either they eat not twice, when they eat once and again, or they faſt by a pious interpretation, when in the ſenſe of the univerſal Church and the World too, they faſt not. Thus, that they may be ſure to afflict the fleſh, with a ſevere abſtinence, they may eat a Supper too. And no wonder, for if they can excuſe the ſecond eating, it will be (as they conclude (a)(a)Sola autem ſecunda comeſtio peccatum eſt: non autem tertia ne que quarta, vel ulterior: quia illa ſola jejunium frangit ſecundum Durandum quam ſequuntur recte Angelus, & Sylveſter. Navar. c. 21. n. 14. Vid. Cajetan. Sum. v. jejunium. p. 392.no fault, to eat a Third or a Fourth, or a Fifth time, or as often as they pleaſe, but Three meals may ſerve them for a Faſt; and ſo one Supper may ſuffice. Indeed they call it but Caenula, and will have it paſs under a little name; though the quantity allowed be p. 393great, even full as big as cuſtome will make it, for that's their rule, for faſting-ſuppers (b)(b)Quanta tamen debet eſſe, conſideranda eſt conſuetudo communis patriae—non enim eſt pecca…um mortale talem conſuetudinem ſervare, licet quantitas ſit aliquantulum grandis. Unde Armilla probat collationes, quae fiunt Romae ſecundum conſuetudinem tenelli ob conſuetudinem, & quia Pontifex tolerat, cum ſciat: nec ego auderem damnare, quamvis iſti ſunt abuſus hominum parum timeratorum. Tol. ibid., not to eat by any certain meaſure, but ſo much as others are wont to do: if it be exceſſive great that which cuſtome introduces, will juſtifie it. And thoſe that tell us cuſtome is their rule, acquaint us alſo; (c)(c)Navar. c. 21. n. 14. collatio notabiliter immoderata—frequenter praeſertim in Luſitania.that it is the cuſtome in diverſe Countreys, to Sup with notorious exceſs. And ſo they may eat at Supper, not only for hunger, but out of ſenſuality, as Panormitan and others after him. And thus ſenſuality, and the ſeverity of a Popiſh Faſt, are perfectly reconciled.

Such a Supper theſe Faſters may eat in the Morning, if they pleaſe. This will be but a ſmall fault, though they do it when there is no occaſion for it (*)(*)Bonacin, de praecept. Eccleſ. q. 1. p. 3. n. 6. ibi. Angles. Naldus, & ali… vid. p. 1. n. 8.: and they may the better faſt after, upon a full Stomach, till noon at leaſt; but they need not ſtay ſo long, for they may drink every hour, or oftner if they will, and when ever they drink, they may eat ſomething too, that the drink may not hurt them; and thus may break their faſt every hour of the day, or more, and yet keep it the whole day well enough.

For the quality of their faſting, meat (to ſay nothing that ſome fleſh is allowed) they may uſe the moſt delicious, that they can compaſs; the moſt curious ſweet meats, the choiceſt Wines, the rareſt Fiſh, and that dres'd after the moſt delicate mode, and this at Dinner, the meal moſt repugnant of all to faſting. O how gladly would Thouſands of our People be condemned to ſuch a maceration of the Fleſh, for more days in a year, than the Romaniſts are, thus pitifully mortified; and never trouble Pope or Prelate for a diſpenſation? nay they would purchaſe a licence to faſt, if any would accommodate them p. 394(d)(d)Immo et ſi ex ſenſualitate—ſecundum mentem Panormitani, quia ſufficit non exire t…rminos conſuetudinis. Sylv. ibid. n. 10.with expedients to do it at ſuch a rate. Beſides their meats, they may drink freely; not only (e)(e)Utrum pluries bibere vinum vel aquam frangit jejunium Reſp. Innocentius & Ricar. quod non, ſive ante paſtum ſive poſt. Angel. ſum. v. jejun. n. 4. They may drink it and that often for hunger as well as thirſt. Navar. cap. 21. n. 13.at meals, but before or after, though they need it not, and be not thirſty, the drinking of Wine out of ſenſuality, breaks not the faſt ſays Sylveſter (f)(f)Potus etiam vini & electuaria, &c. De quibus intelligitur, quod ex ſenſualitate ſumpta, non frangunt jejunium. Ibid. Sylveſt.. And thus they may drink, before the meat they faſt on be digeſted: for though that be intemperance in other caſes, as Navar (g)(g)Eſto, quod venialiter peccaret, qui coepta & nondum finita digeſtione biberet, non quidem quod jejunium frangat, ſed quia actum inordinatum agit, Navar. ibid.tells us, it breaks not the faſt. (h)(h)Licitum eſt jejunantibus pluries intra diem unam Potare, licet immoderantia circa hoc poſſet …ſſe peccatum. Sylv. ibid. n. 9. ſecundum S. Thom. idem dicit Albertus. Paludan. Richardus. quod po…us non ſolvit jejunium ſive post, ſive ante prandium. ibid.Sylveſter thinks it poſſible, that intemperance in drinking may be a ſin: however it is lawful for thoſe that faſt, to drink often, on the ſame day; for drinking breaks not the faſt, either before or after Dinner, ſo he after others. A man may wonder what can break this faſt, ſince neither drinking nor eating ſo often, and ſo much, even to exceſs, and the gratifying of ſenſuality, in ſo high a degree can do it. It is Wine that they may drink ſo often when they faſt; and yet they acknowledg that Wine is more contrary to the nature and end of a faſt than fleſh. Though Wine (ſays De (i)(i)Etſi vinum ſit nutritivum, & ad concupiſcentiam magis provocet potus vini quam eſus carnium, ſecundum illud Prov. 20. Luxurioſa res eſt vinum & ad Eph. 5. Nolite inebriari vino, in quo eſt luxuria, tamen qui Die jejunij ſaepius biberent vinum, aut aquam, & mane & veſpere, jejunium non frangunt, quamvis hoc facerent ad ſuſtentan…ium ſe, & famem ſedandam. ita D. Th. 2. 2. q. 147. art. 6. ad 2. qui inquit, quod bene poſſunt peccare & meritdm jejunij perdere ſicut ſi immoderate cibum ſumerent; ſed non ut j…junium frangatur; & ratio eſt quia jejunium eſt abſtinentia a cibo tantum. Graff. l. 2. c. 36. n. 21. p. 215.Prov 20Eph 5Graffijs) be more nutritive, and the drinking of Wine do more provoke to concupiſcence, than the eating of Fleſh according to that, Proverbs 10. Wine is a luxurious thing, and Eph. 5. Be not drunk with Wine in which is luxury: yet (ſays he) he that on a faſtday often drinks Wine or Water, either ſooner or later, does not break the faſt.

p. 395Thus as they may eat like gluttons, ſo (by the Doctrine of their chief Authors) they may drink till they be drunk, and yet not break their faſt, for no drinking (how exceſſive ſoever) can break it. The Church-faſt (they tell us) conſiſts not in abſtinence from drink:—conſequently be that drinks Wine, or other liquour before or after Dinner, breaks not the precept for faſting, though he ſin againſt temperance, and drink exceſſively. So Bonacina after Aquinas. Abulenſis. Navar and others, telling us it is their common Doctrine (*)(*)Non violat praeceptum jejunij—quamvis peccet contra temperantiam, bibendo intemperanter. Tom. 2. p. 337. n. 7. & alij communiter..

I ſuppoſe this faſt can never be broke, it will be a faſt for ever, do what they can; if all they are allowed to do againſt it, cannot make it to be no faſt: for ſo far as I can perceive, they may break their bellies, and yet not break their faſt. If one in the antient Church had ſpoke of his faſting after three ſuch meals, and ſo much drinking, yea, or but eating a Dinner; he would have been thought out of his wits: yet they muſt not be accounted ridiculous, who tell us gravely, that this is faſting; and that they break not a faſt, unleſs they (k)(k)Innocent. & Richard. (dicunt) quod prandere pluries in Die jejunij eſt contra conſuetudinem probatam eccleſiae. Angel. ſum. ibid. n. 3. Semel eſſe in Die prandendum ſeu manducandum: qui vero pluries, ſolvit jejunium. Tol. l. 6 c. 2. p. 989.Dine twice on a faſting day. And indeed ſome of their Writers (l)(l)Jejunia noſtra, quae in vini copia natan…, & piſcium varietate carnis delicias ſuperant—veteribus omnibus non modo fuiſſe incognita, ſed & intolerabilia adeo que abhominanda, conſtat. Lindan. Panopl. l. 3. c. 11. inanem tantum veri jejunij retinet umbram. Caſſand. defenſ. lib. de Offic. viri. p. 119., ſeem aſhamed of this good work, as they do it in their Church. But ſuppoſe this were a faſt (when indeed it is no ſuch thing), and obſerved by them foreign (as Epiphanius (m)(m)foreign Compend. Doctrin. Cathol. If they ſleep the whole day, yet they accompliſh the precept. Jo. Sanc. diſp. 51. n. 2.explains it) and ſo that they taſted nothing till Three a clock, or till evening, as of old: yet by the Roman Order, it would be no good work. That it may be ſuch, there muſt be ſomething Religious (formere abſtinence has no more goodneſs in it, than eating); it cannot be Religious, unleſs it be ſubſervient to ſome Religious deſign or imployment: but they diſjoyn it from all things of that nature; we hear not a word from them, of p. 396their taking notice of their ſins, or confeſſing them, or afflicting their Souls for them, they need not ſo much as pray when they faſt, either in publick or private: yea they are not obliged to hear (n)(n)Dixi feſto: quia nemo ullo alio Die hoc praecepto (de audienda miſſa) tenetur, etiam clericus vel monachus, imo ne que Epiſcopus—Nullo inquam, alio Die etiam jejunii & quadrageſimae, &c. Navar. cap. 21. n. 2. Roſel. v. miſſ. n. 13. Sylveſt. v. miſſ. 2. n. 1.Maſs, though that be the imployment of every day for worſhip; So that their faſts are no days for worſhip, or any religious exerciſe. They are diſcharged alſo from religious ends, two are commonly aſſigned, the taming of the fleſh; and the elevating of the mind to God: but though the fleſh be more unruly, and the mind move not in the leaſt towards God on a faſting-day; though they never mind theſe ends in their abſtinence, yet they intirely fulfill the precept of their Church for faſting, as they commonly (o)(o)L…x quae praecipit aliquid, non obligat ad finem, ſed ad media tendentia ad finem D. Tho. 1, 2. q. 100. art. 9. & 10. Unde lex non obligat ad carnis petulantiam compeſcendam, ſed ad media quibus comprimi poſſit, ſicuti eſt jejunium. Graff. l. 2. c. 36. n. 20. Licet eccleſia nos quadrigeſimali obſervatione extenuare in carne intendat, ut liberior mens ſpiritualibus accommodetur, tamen finis ille non eſt in praecepto, ſed tantum ciborum abſtinentia Soto. de nat. & gr. l. 1. c. 22. p. 57. Finis praecepti jejunij eſt elevatio mentis: ſi tamen quis jejanat & non elevatur mente, non eſt tranſgreſſor praecepti. Cajetan. Sum. v. matrim. p. 430. Nec ſi lex jubet quadrigeſimae jejunium ut, mens elevetur in Deum; aſtringimur proinde ex hujus praecepti vigore mentem in Deum elevare. Canus. Relect. de p…nit. pars. 4. p. 871. vid. Tol. inſtr. l. 4. c. 12. p. 623.conclude upon this ground, becauſe the end of the precept is not commanded. So that this practice which they call faſting, is a mere bodily exerciſe amongſt them, and thus it is repreſented by Cajetan (p)(p)Sum. v. jejuniurn. p. 348. opera utriuſ que miſericordiae meliora ſunt quam jejunii: juxta illud Apoſtoli, corporalis exercitatio ad modicum utilis eſt: pietas autem ad omnia valet.applying that of the Apoſtle to it, 1 Tim. 4. 8. Bodily exerciſe profiteth little, &c.

Where he denys it the character of a good work. And ſince it is neither a true faſt, nor a good work, if they made it never ſo neceſſary, it would be no proof, that by their doctrine, there is any neceſſity, either of real faſting, or any good work. But indeed they declare their p. 397pretended Faſts needleſs; for their beſt Writers (q)(q)Quantum eſt ex jure ſcripto nullum cognoſco intervenire mortale peccatum in fractione jejunij Eccleſiae, ſi contemptus deſit. Cajetan. ibid. p. 352. vid. Aquin. Antoninum. Archidiac. Paludan. Angelum. & alios in Sylveſt. v. Jejun. n. 21. Communis opinio.conclude it to be but a Venial fault not to obſerve them; ſo that there is no more neceſſity with them to Faſt after their mode, than there is to avoyd a Venial ſin, which is none at all. (*) So Jo. Sancius afters others; Liberos a jejunio exiſtimo, qui culpa ſua ita defatigati redduntur—quod j…junare non valeant; ut qui defatigatus eſſet ludo pilae, aut nimis eſſet deditus faeminarum commiſtioni—docent Medina. Diana. Ledeſma, Monteſin, &c. diſp. 54. n. 20. Nonnulli doctores ex…endunt ad eos qui defatigantur in ludis, aut in quaerenda meretrice, &c. Bonacin. Tom. 2. diſp. 2. q. 8. punct. 1. n. 16.They have ſo many ways to excuſe men from Faſting, as leave no neceſſity of it. This one may ſerve any that have no mind to faſt: If a man have tired himſelf with any imployment (lawful or damnable) not only with honeſt labour, but with too much gaming; yea, or with exceſſive Whoreing; he is thereby exempted from the obligation to Faſt, though he ſo wearied himſelf on purpoſe, that he might be excuſed. But one thing herein is more intolerable, that this ridiculous piece of mockery, which they call Faſting, has the glory given it, which is peculiar to Chriſt alone, and is thought ſufficient both to ſatisfie the Juſtice of God, and to merit by way of condignity, not only grace, but eternal glory. An opinion of ſuch malignancy, as is enough to poiſon the beſt work in the world into deadly guilt. To hold that a perſon, becauſe he eats not two Dinners, or abſtains for a day from fleſh, though he ſtuff himſelf with other delicacies; even to exceſs, ſhould be worthy of the glorious prerogative of Chriſt, is a conceit to be entertained with ſcorn and laughter, if the horrour of it did not call for another paſſion. Yet ſuch are points of Faith in that Church. And this ſurely is enough to cloy any man with their Faſting.

Sect. 2. Come we to the next of their good works, that is Prayer; this unqueſtionably is a good work, but then ſure it muſt be good praying; but they are ſo far from judging it neceſſary to pray well, that they conclude it ſufficient to imploy themſelves about this work, in ſuch a manner, as cannot upon a juſt account, be called praying at all. The p. 398only publick prayers neceſſary for the people by the Roman orders, are thoſe of the Maſs, but how they pray therein, I cannot apprehend. They uſe not the words, they need not hear them, they cannot underſtand them; now can it be imagined that he prays, who neither expreſſes, nor conceives any Petitions? they do it not themſelves, they joyn not with the Prieſt, for no man can poſſibly concur with the words, or the ſenſe of him whom he neither hears nor underſtands. They cannot concur with the Prieſt as men, with rational acts, much leſs as Chriſtians. The Church of Rome has made it not only needleſs, but impoſſible for the people to pray in their publick Service, they muſt think ſomething ſufficient for them, which is not praying. Let us ſee what account their Authors give of this. Sylveſter proving that it is not needful to pray on the Lords Day, or any of their days, for publick worſhip, tells us what will ſerve the people inſtead thereof. (r)(r)Unde ſufficit aſtare oranti ſacerdoti in miſſa, quantum eſt exvi hujus praecepti. Sum. v. Dominic. n. 8.It ſuffices that they ſtand hy the Prieſt praying in the Maſs, and that's all that is requiſite, by vertue of this Precept. So that the Church requires no more than the preſence and poſture of the body. And they that can make a prayer of this, may make an Image in the Church to pray: and if this would be a miracle, it would be as wonderful that the other ſhould be praying; but thus it becomes thoſe who will worſhip Images, as if they were God; to worſhip God, as if themſelves were Images. Oh but they muſt concur with the Prieſt, (s)(s)Cum nemo teneatur ex praecepto audire, & minus intelligere verba ſacerdotis, quia ſatis eſt, vel ex longinquo miſſanti adeſſe, & ſurgendo, genua flectendo, vel alias actualiter vel virtualiter exoptare, ut ſacerdos qui pro omnibus orat & ſacrificat, a Deo exaudiatur. Navar. cap. 21. n. 8.ſo far, as either actually or vertually to wiſh that his prayers may be heard. And if this be praying, a man may pray in the Church, while he is in his Bed at home; for actually he may wiſh this, if he be awake; and vertually, though he be aſleep. There is no prayer, but what is either vocal or mental; what the people do in the Maſs, is neither, they ſay nothing, nor do they underſtand any thing, nor need they mind any thing, of what is ſaid; and it is much, if a mans mind can be imployed about that, which he not only underſtands not, but minds not at all. The p. 399mind muſt neceſſarily attend actually (t)(t)Cum ipſa eadem attentio ſie ipſiſſima oratio. Soto de juſt. & jur. l. 10. q. 5. art. 5. p. 340., in mental prayer; but actual attention is not neceſſary to what they call praying. So it is neither vocal nor mental, not any at all, unleſs they can deviſe a mode of prayer without either voyce or mind. They know not what to mind, nor whom, perſon or thing: they underſtand net whether the Prieſt be in confeſſion, or at prayer, or in his Lauds; no, nor whether he be praying or reading, unleſs the dumb ſignification of a poſture tell them; nor that way neither, for they need not ſee no more than hear the Prieſt. They know not whether he be addreſſing himſelf to God, or to a Creature, whether to another divine perſon than the Father (for they have prayers in the Maſs to Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt, though an ancient Council forbids it); they know not whether he be praying to an Angel or to a Saint; to a Man or to a Woman; to an Image or to a Crucifix; for they have addreſſes to all. They can in no wiſe be thought to pray, who do not, who cannot ſo much as ſay Amen to a prayer; and this they cannot ſay, who underſtand not what is prayed for, as (u)(u)Quomodo enim dicet Amen cum quid orat neſcit? quia non poteſt intelligere quid boni dicas. Comment. in 1 Cor. 14. Manifeſta ſunt verba Apoſtol…, cum qui … imperitiam, quod dicitur, non intelligit, fieri non poſſ…, ut ad alterius gratiarum ac…ionem Amen. reſpondeat. Caſſand. Defenſ. lib. offic. pij▪ viri.1 Cor 14Aquinas himſelf aſſures us from the words of the Apoſtle.

But the Prieſt, who celebrates, ſeems to pray, though the people at at Maſs do not. He ſeems ſo, but the Church of Rome obliges not him to pray, unleſs he can be ſaid to pray, who only reads the words of a form, without minding any thing elſe which they muſt neceſſarily be concerned in who pray indeed. Of the ſeveral ſorts of attention, requiſite in prayer, none, with them, is neceſſary, but that which reſpects the pronouncing of the words right. If the Prieſt mind but this only, ſo as to read the words right, it is ſufficient, he does all the Church requires, and fully ſatisfies the Precept of ſaying Maſs; this is their common doctrine. So that unleſs he can be ſaid to pray, who neither minds the God he ſhould pray to, nor the things to be prayed for, no nor the ſenſe of the words he uſes; their Church requires not the Prieſts to pray, even when they are ſaying their Maſs-Prayers. Nor is it more needful on the ſame account, in the Canonical hours, as we p. 400have ſeen before. So that praying indeed is not neceſſary for Prieſt or people, in all the publick Service of the Romiſh Church, much leſs is it (x)(x)Ubi autem libere & eitra obligationem oratur; ſola eſt culpa venialis indecenter orare: quare deſtractio, etiam meditata, niſi contemptio adſit, nunquam erit mortalis, Soto de juſt. & jur. l. 10. q. 5. art. 5. p. 341. fine. vid. Angel. Sum. v. horae. n. 27. Gabriel de Can. Miſſ. Lect. 22. Graff. l. 2. cap. 51. n. 11.needful in their private devotions, which are not injoyned; for there they declare it Lawful to be more neglectful of all the neceſſary concerns of prayer, than in publick. Now that they who mind nothing but the bare ſaying the words of a prayer, do not pray indeed; they themſelves will acknowledge, in their lucid intervals. Cajetan tells us, (y)(y)Si quis corporaliter praeſens ſit miſſae, ſed mentem advertenter a miſſa divertat ad al…a, non ſatisfacit praecepto miſſae: quoniam ita ibi eſt, ac ſi voluntarie ibi dormiret, paria namque ſunt longe a miſſa fieri per voluntarium ſomnum, & per voluntariam diverſionem mentis ad alia. Sum. v. feſt. p. 305.that if one be corporally preſent at Maſs, but lets his mind conſiderately wander after other things, he ſatisfies not the Precept, becauſe he is but ſo there, as if he voluntarily ſlept at it; for to be far from the Maſs by voluntary ſleeping, and by voluntary wandring, are both alike. Hence it is clear, that Prieſt or people, whoſe minds voluntarily wander at Maſs, do no more pray there than if they were voluntarily aſleep; and conſequently, if they wander careleſly, without obſerving it, they pray no more than if they were careleſly aſleep: Yet many of them think the Church forbids not voluntary wandrings; he himſelf thinks, ſhe forbids not careleſs wandrings; therefore all of them muſt believe that ſhe thinks it ſufficient to pray as they may do, who are faſt aſleep, one way or other: And yet none that are awake can well count ſleeping to be praying. (z)(z)Alia eſt oratio tantum mentalis, alia mentalis ſimul & vocalis, neque debet addi tertium membrum (id eſt) vocalis tantum. Ea ſiquidem non eſt utilis ad placandum Deum, ſed magis ad provocandum ad iram, juxta illud, Populus hic labiis me honorat, cor autem eorum. longe eſt a me, Iſ…i. 29. De bonis oper. l. 1. cap. 2. p. 974.Isa 1:29Bellarmine reckoning the ſeveral ſorts of prayer, one, (ſays he) is mental, another is both mental and vocal. But when he would add that which is vocal only, he will not have that accounted prayer: a third member of the diviſion ought not to be added, to wit, that which is Vocal only: and gives good reaſon, for that, ſays he, is of no uſe to pleaſe God, but rather to provoke him to anger, according to p. 401that Iſaiah 29. This people honour me with their lips, &c. Yet ſuch is the praying in the Roman Church, and no other needful in their divine Service, as the Cardinal himſelf declares ſufficiently in the ſame Book. And if no other praying be needful, no prayer that is a good work is neceſſary by their doctrine.

Sect. 3. Proceed we to the laſt ſort of their good works, to wit, acts of Mercy, or Charity, comprized in Alms-deeds for the relief of the Indigent; and we can ſcarce diſcover, that theſe will ever be neceſſary by their doctrine. Cardinal Cajetan (one repreſented as more favourable to theſe acts of Charity than divers others) tells us, (a)(a)Eleemoſynam non facere eſt peccatum morale in duobus ſolummodo caſibus, primus eſt ſi quis habet de ſuperfluo naturae & perſonae—ſecundus eſt quum apparet pauper in extrema neceſſitate conſtitutus, juxta illud. Paſce fame morientem, Sum. v. Elemoſ. p. 134.that to omit them is no mortal ſin, (and therefore to do them,, will not be neceſſary by any command) but only in two caſes: Firſt, when one hath ſuperfluities, both in reſpect of nature and ſtate; that is, more than either nature, or the quality of the perſon requires. Secondly, When the Poor are in extreme neceſſity (not in common want only, but ſuch as is extraordinary). And theſe two are ſo deſcribed to us, that themſelves confeſs they very ſeldom fall out, and we may think, hardly ever; ſo that rarely, or never will this good work be neceſſary. For the former, that a perſon (b)(b)Superfluum in tali latitudine conſistens, judicandum eſt conſideratis ſumtibus honaribilibus etiam filiorum, familiae, ſtatus munificentia, magnificentia, communibus eventibus, haeredibus, & aliis ejuſmodi: ita ne raro videatur contingere, ut homo ſecundum ſt… tum glorioſe vivens, ſuperfluum habeat. Idem. ibid.may be judg'd to have any thing ſuperfluous, (without which he is not bound to relieve others) it muſt be conſidered what is requiſite for the honourable expences of himſelf, his Children and Family, and what for the munificence of his ſtate and magnificence too; what for common events and caſualties, to provide againſt them, and other things of this nature. Upon which he concludes, it will rarely fall out that a man living ſplendidly, according to his quality, will have any thing ſuperfluous. And ſo very rarely, (if he had ſaid never, the premiſes would have borne it) will it be the duty of ſuch as have enough to live gloriouſly, to ſpare any thing for the poor. Leſs pride and vain-glory, or prodigality, than they allow them to have without p. 402any mortal guilt, will leave nothing ſuperfluous, and ſo quite excuſe them from theſe good works. Navar is of the ſame mind, and tells us, (c)(c)Sequitur item Roſellam ſine juſta ratione dixiſſe, paucos divitum confeſſarios ſalvatum iri, ſi eleemoſyna in praedictis duobus caſibus de praecepto foret; non enim …ot ſunt, quot putat, hujuſmodi divites, quibus ſit ſuperfluum ſtatus, cum nec reges & magni principes—ſuperflua habere cenſeantur cap. 24. n. 6. Facile judicandum non eſſe, aliquem Jaecularem plura, quam quae ſuo ſtatui neceſſaria ſunt, habere. Cum etiam ille qui ad aliquod dominium emendum, & mutandum ſuum ſtatum in alium majorem, ad quem idoneus eſt, pecunias congerit, non habet plus quam ſuum ſtatum deceat, ibid.there are few rich men who have any thing ſuperfluous, ſince neither Kings, nor great Princes can be thought to have ſuperfluities; having ſaid a little before, that it cannot eaſily be judg'd that any ſecular perſon hath more than is needful for his condition. For he may heap up moneys to purchaſe more, or to advance his condition higher; and ſo ſtill have no more than is requiſite for his ſtate, and nothing at all will be due for charitable acts. He expreſſes it more fully (d)(d)Cap. 23. n. 74. Nec ob id dicitur habere tale ſuperfluum, quod de praecepto pauperibus teneatur erogare.elſewhere, and concludes for all this, he cannot be ſaid to have any ſuch ſuperfluities, that he ſhould be obliged by any command to give to the poor. So that unleſs a man have ſo much as he neither has at preſent, nor may have for the future occaſion to uſe; that is, unleſs he has ſo much, as no man will, or can believe he hath; an act of Charity will not be his duty. If he do but deſire to have more than he now has; or do but deſign to riſe any higher than he now is; though but in ſuch a degree as is found in all, and may innocently be in any: at leaſt, if he have but any thing of Covetouſneſs or Ambition, though far leſs than they determine he may have, without any deadly guilt (and ſo without any conſiderable danger) he is diſcharged from all obligation to this good work.

The other caſe will make Charity no more neceſſary; it is when the Poor are in extream neceſſity; and this is (*)(*)In ſententiam Cajetan. & Navar. inclinant Sotus & Sarmientus. Vaſques. Opuſc. Moral. de Eleemoſgu. dub. 3. n. 20. Aſſerunt non eſſe praecepti obligationem ullam, extra tempus extremae neceſſitatis proximi, quantumvis divitiae ſuperfluant non tantum naturae, ſed ſtatui etiam congruae ſuſtentationi, Gabriel, Alexander, Major, Gerſon—reputant probabilem Antoninus, Conradus, Durandus. Durandus aſſerit ſe non audere dicere eſſe aliud tempu… praecepti extra extremam neceſſitatem, ne …ot divites condemnet, Idem. ibid. n. 11. & Jo. Medina. in Sa. v. Elecmoſyn.only when it is apparent p. 403they will dye for want of neceſſaries, if we relieve them not. Now ſuch a caſe rarely happens, and a man may never meet with one in ſuch extremity, all his life; but if he do, yet he may be excuſed for want of evidence that his neceſſity is ſo great, he need not take the party's word for it, no, not though in publick places there ſeem to be alſo clear ſigns of it; he need not take the word of any other, no not. the judgment of his pariſh Prieſt, or Confeſſor (though upon their opinion he may ſafely venture upon acts of wickedneſs) unleſs they can aſſure him thereof as eye witneſſes, (*)(*)Bonacin. 1. praecept d. 3. q. 4. p. 6. n. 3.or if he be morally certain of the extremity; yet if there be a probability that any other will relieve the perſon ready to ſtarve, he may leave him to the mercy of others, without doing any thing himſelf towards his relief (for that is another limitation (e)(e)Extreme egere dicitur, non ſolum qui jam animam agit vel ſpirat: ſed etiam cum indicia probabilia apparent eo deventurum, niſi ei ſubveniatur, & non ſe offert nec expectatur probabiliter alius, qui ei ſubveniat, juxta S. Thom. & declarat Cajetan. Idem cap. 24. n. 5.which they add in the caſe). For example, if he thought it likely, that a Proteſtant would relieve the periſhing party, a Papiſt by their doctrine of good works might reſerve his Money and Charity for another world; nor would it be neceſſary to exerciſe one act thereof while he lives. Or amongſt themſelves, while each one expects that another may do it, the Poor may periſh, and all that might relieve them are excuſed. Beſides, in this caſe, they conclude it lawful for the perſon in extremity to (f)(f)Soto de juſt. & jur. l. 4. q. 7. art. 1. Licet alienum arripere ſine peccato in extrema neceſſitate. Sotus, Cajetan, Navar, Adrian. Armilla. Covarruvius. Et in urgenti Sylveſt. Angelus. in Vaſq. ibid. dub. 7. n. 28. in gravi licitum eſſe. Sylveſt. Medina. Angel. Navar. Pet. Navarra, Malderus & plures alij apud Dian. p. 2. tr. 3. Reſ. 29. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 66. art. 7.Steal, either ſecretly or openly from thoſe that have enough; ſo that acts of Charity will not be neceſſary among them, but when Theft is Lawful; and no man need to relieve the Indigent with any thing he hath, till they may juſtly take it from him. But if it were poſſible, in theſe caſes, whereto they confine it, to find any place for the neceſſity of this duty; yet one thing more, added by their prime Doctors, daſhes all, for they teach that it is not p. 404required to relieve the Neceſſitous, (g)(g)Adrian 4. de reſtit. Navar. cap. 17. n. 61. & cap. 24. n. 6. In quibus tamen duobus non est de praecepto ſubvenire donando, ſed ſatis eſt ſubvenire commodando vel mutuando, Vid. Bellarm. de bon. operibus, l. 3. c. 8. haec doctrina vera & non ſolum a S. Thom, ſed etiam ab aliis Theologis communiter tradi ſoleat. Vid. plures in Vaſq. ibid. dub. 6. n. 50.by giving them any thing; but it is ſufficient to Let, or Sell, or Lend to them. Navar concludes it lawful (h)(h)Licet eos emero & illis emptioni ſuae conſentire, c. 23. n. 75. quia pater tempore famis extremae fi ium vendere poteſt—tum quia nemo tenetur ad gratis ſubveniendum, egenti etiam extreme, modo commodando, vel mutuando ſatis ei ſuccurrat. ibid.to buy perſons in extream Neceſſity, and lawful for them to conſent to it; his reaſons among others, are, becauſe a Father in time of extream Hunger, may ſell his Son; alſo, becauſe no man is bound to relieve one, though in extreme Neceſſity gratis, if he can do it ſufficiently by loan, exchange, &c. So that if a man were in ſuch extremity for want of Food, that he might ſell his Son to get it, for the ſaving of his Life; yet no Chriſtian, in that caſe, were bound to give him relief freely; by their doctrine it would ſuffice to let him have Money, or Meat by the ſale of his Child. We cannot expect they will ever find it a duty, To give to the Indigent, if not in ſuch circumſtances, and 'tis a plain caſe, where there is no obligation to give, there's no neceſſity to give Alms.

But if they did make it neceſſary to give Alms, yet is it not needful by their doctrine to do it ſo, as it will be a good work (or ſo, to Faſt, or Pray, or do any other act, which have any goodneſs in them, or pretend to it) ſo good works will, by their principles, be ſtill unneceſſary. For that any work may be good, it muſt be from a right principle, and for a good end; but both theſe they make needleſs. As to the former, there's no neceſſity, as they teach, to act out of (*)(*)Alexander Alenſis. Petr. Lombard. Aquinas. Angelus. Sylveſter. Canus. Soto. Jac. de Graffiis, &c. ſupra.love to God; for though this be the intention of God, and the deſign of the Law in all good acts, as they acknowledge from that Tim. 5. Rom. 13. yet they have a maxim generally received, (i)(i)Ex D. Thom. & graviorum autorum ſententia, ad finem legiſlatoris minime teneamur, ſed ad media, &c. Canus, Relect, de paenit part. 4. Soto de nat. & gr. ſupra.the intention of the command is not commanded; herein they follow Aquinas: and hence they p. 405conclude that (k)(k)Modus talis charitatis non cadit ſub praecepro, &c. Soto de juſt. & jur. lib. 2. q. 3. art. 10.ſuch a mode of acting out of love to God, is not required in any command of the divine Law; but the whole, and every part of it, may be fulfilled, & ſin avoyded; if (*)(*)Hinc ergo patet adimplentem praeceptum per actum ex aliqua circumſtantia malum ſatisfacere praecepto, etiamſi non adimpleat Modum, aut etiam ſinem a legiſlatore intentum. Bonacin. Tom. 2. diſp. 1. q. 1. punct. 9.that which is required be done, though not out of Love to God at all. And particularly, Soto takes much pains to argue us out of the love of God in all our actings, and to prove that it is not neceſſary. And all generally conclude that it is not needful in any acts of Piety, Mercy, or Charity, required on their days for worſhip; ſince there, they determine that there is no need of any act of love, as was ſhew'd before.

'Tis no wonder therefore, (as to the ſecond,) if they conclude it needleſs to act for God, in what we do, and make him alone our chief end. In the Theory indeed, they determine that an act is not good, unleſs there be a concurrence of all conditions requiſite thereto, and that the end is the principal (as much in morals, as the form is in naturals); ſo that without (l)(l)Omne opus cujus finis eſt malus, ipſum quoque malum eſt, Navar. cap. 12. n. 30.a good end, that act muſt be naught, and no end good where God is not chief; yet for practice, they diſcharge them from any neceſſity to make God their principal end; they conclude it lawful for a man to act (m)(m)Sylveſt. Sum. v. Charitas. n. 5. Navar. ſupra.principally for his own advantage; yea, they account it but a Venial fault to do the beſt act, principally, for (n)(n)Cajetan. Sylveſt. Navar. ſupra. The precept may be fully accompliſhed where the manner and end is naught, Bonacin. ibid. & apud eum, Aquinas, Sotus, Navar, Medina, & alij.a ſinful end. Now to avoid a Venial ſin, they hold it not neceſſary, by any command of God; and therefore it will not be needful to do any thing but principally for an end ſo far ſinful; and conſequently, unleſs the work can be good, whoſe principal end is ſin, no good work at all will be neceſſary. But it is a more wicked end, which they openly avow; when they deſign by what they do, to merit grace and glory, and make ſatisfaction to divine juſtice. This is to make Chriſt a legg, while they attempt his Crown; and to offer him a Ruſh, with p. 406an intent thereby to inveſt themſelves in his prerogative. They ſhould ſhew us how it is poſſible ſuch acts can be good before they pretend to account good works neceſſary.

Sect. 4. But though they find no neceſſity of good works, by vertue of any divine Precept ordinarily; yet they ſeem to make ſome when they will have the Prieſt to injoyn them for Penance; (and 'tis like, in this, as in other caſes, they leave ſo little or nothing needful that God has commanded, to render their own devices more neceſſary.) But good works, being injoyned as penance, become puniſhments; and it ſignifies, the Church of Rome is no good friend to good works, when ſhe counts or makes them puniſhments; for puniſhment is properly evil to us, and not to be done, but ſuffered; and thus ſhe will have good works neither to be good, nor to be done. To be ſure, thus they cannot be done ſo as to be good, or as becomes Chriſtians to do them; for he that muſt think it a ſuffering to do them, does them with the ſpirit of a Slave, not of a Chriſtian. But let us ſuppoſe they may be good works, and well done too by way of Penance, yet they are not neceſſary at all in their Church, upon this account, and ſo no way. For firſt, the Prieſt (o)(o)Vid. Sylv. v. Confeſſ. 4. n. 2. Suarez. 3. tom. 4. diſp. 38. Sect. 6. n. 4.needs not injoyn good works as penance, he may injoyn (p)(p)Cajetan. Navar. ibid. Sect. 3. n. 4.nothing at all if he pleaſes, or ſome (q)(q)D. Thomas, Soto. & alii communiter, ibid. Sect. 4. n. 4.ſlight thing, that which is good for nothing, or that which is worſe; or (r)(r)Ibid. Sect. 6. n. 5.what the Confitent muſt have done if he had not ſinned; or he may diſmiſs him with this general (s)(s)S. Thom. Paludanus. Petr. Soto. Navar. ibid. Sect. 6 n. 6.all the good thou doeſt, or evil thou ſuffereſt, let it ſerve for ſatisfaction; or he may commend ſomething by way of (t)(t)D. Thom. Paludanus, Petr. Soto. Victoria. Ledeſma. ibid. Sect. 3. n. 2.Counſel, without obliging him by any injunction; or he may require him only to avoyd p. 407the ſin he confeſſes for a while (u)(u)Ibid. Sect. 6. n. 2.(and when he ſhrives the woman that he has (x)(x)Vid. Angel. ſum. v. confeſſ. 5. n. 8.ſin'd with, it is like he may not prove very rigorous this way): Or Secondly, if he ſhould injoyn this, or any good work, the Confitent (y)(y)Scotus, Gabriel. Hoſtienſis, Panormitan. Medina. Sylveſter. Armilla. Navar. in Suar. ibid. Sect. 7. n. 1.need not accept of, or ſubmit to it, as many of their chief Doctors determine: Or Thirdly, if he do accept it, yet he needs not perform it for all that; he may be releaſed by himſelf. (z)(z)Omittere ſatisfactionem eſt peccatum ſed non mortale, ſi deſit contemptus: quia non omittitur aliquid neceſſarium ad ſalutem, Cajetan. Sum. v. ſatisfact. p. 520.To omit it will be but a ſmall fault (ſuch as he needs not regard, be the good work little or great), if it be not out contempt. Or (a)(a)Communis ſententia theologorum eſt, poſſ… paenitentem implere per alium ſatisfactionem ſibi impoſitam. Ita D. Thom. Paludanus, Sylveſter, Alenſis in Suar. ibid. Sect. 9. n. 1.another may undertake it, and ſatisfie by ſuffering it for him. Or a Prieſt may releaſe him, either he that injoyn'd it, (b)(b)Opinio communis eſt quam tenet Sylveſt, Angelus, Navar, Roſella, Victoria, Le deſma, Medina, ibid. Sect. 10. n. 4.or another. However, Indulgences will do it effectually; theſe ſerve to ſweep away all good works, (all neceſſity of them), on this account, for ever. This is their ſpecial uſe, to releaſe the Popes Subjects from the ſad penalty of good works; for though they have dealt hardly with good works, to make them a puniſhment, yet they will not deal ſo hardly with Catholicks as to have it neceſſary that they ſhould be thus puniſhed. And therefore to eaſe them of this grievous ſuffering, of doing good, the Church in great tenderneſs has provided Indulgences, which they may have at eaſie rates; and thereby an acquittance diſcharging them from the good works they were to ſuffer. And if the Prieſt ſhould be ſo rigorous as to injoyn a Sinner to be doing good all his life; or ſo impertinent, as to require it for a hundred years, he may meet with Indulgences, will quit him of it, every moment of his life, and if he will, many thouſand years over and above. And if this cannot be had unleſs he pay p. 408for it, yet for his incouragement, they teach (*)(*)An ſit melius dare argentum in Eleemoſgnam, quam dare in ſubſidium ad conſequendam indulgentiam?—loquendo ex genere cenſeo eſſe melius, ſubſidium facere ad conſequendam indulgentium, Idem. ibid. diſp. 49. Sect. 5. n. 7. p. 633.that it is better to lay out his money for an Indulgence, than in deeds of Charity. So that there is no ſuch goodneſs, or neceſſity in the beſt work a Prieſt can injoyn; but it may be better, and more neceſſary to give the Pope money; and this done, through his Indulgence, there may be no need to do any more.