The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 24 – Chapter 25
CHAP. 24. Of the authority of the Church, to alter that which God commandeth in Scripture. Confutation of the Cardinal.
AMong the impious doctrines, whereby the enemies of the heavenly truth ſpit againſt Heaven, this is one of the prime and boldeſt, to ſay, that it is in the power of the Church, to alter that which God commandeth in Scripture, that is, to make commandments contrary to Gods Commandments. This M. du Perron teacheth,Pag. 674. in the 3. obſervation of the ſecond book, in the 3. chap. the title whereof is, Of the authority of the Church, in the alteration as well of the things contained in Scripture, as of thoſe that are delivered to the Church by Apoſtolical tradition. This is exalting men above God, and ſubjecting the Word of God unto the will of man. And in the 675. page he ſaith, There are ſome things written which the Church hath altered and changed in the practice, as the ordinance of abſtaining from blood and things ſtrangled, which is ſet down in expreſs terms in Scripture, Acts 15.
I anſwer, that the Church ſhould be obliged to keep that Commandment to this day, and could by no means be diſpenſed from it, but that the alteration of that Commandment is found in Scripture it ſelf. For the Apoſtle St. Paul hath writ the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians many years after the prohibition of eating blood and ſtrangled things. Now in that Epiſtle the Apoſtle teacheth, that all ſuch Commandments, and all diſtinctions of meats are aboliſhed, when he ſaith in the 10. chap. v. 27. If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feaſt, and you are diſpoſed to go, whatſoever is ſet before you eat, asking no queſtion for conſcience ſake. Obſerve alſo, that the Church in the Apoſtles time, had an authority which the Churches of the following ages had not; For the Apoſtles which governed the Univerſal Church, had the Spirit of God in greater meaſure. If they then moved by Gods Spirit, have altered ſomething in their own conſtitutions about the diſcipline of the Church, it followeth not that the Churches of poſterior ages have authority to alter the conſtitutions of the Apoſtles.
The Cardinal brings another example of altering by the authority of the Church, that which is contained in Scripture; namely, the changing of the immerſion, or dipping which was uſual in Baptiſm, into aſperſion. But it is falſe that there is any command in Scripture of baptizing with immerſion: And therefore it cannot be truly ſaid, that herein the Church hath made any alteration in Gods Ordinance. Neither is it found, that the Roman Church hath conſtituted any thing about that, or made any law to alter the inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt in that point.
The Cardinal makes bold to add to theſe, the removing of the cup from the Euchariſt; for he confeſſeth that(a)Laſt ch. of the Communion under the two kinds. p. 1109, & 1115. it is Chriſts inſtitution that we ſhould take the Sacrament under the two kinds, but he ſaith, that the Church hath diſpenſed from that Commandment. For (ſaith he) to the Church it belongs to judge what myſteries of Chriſt are diſpenſable, and acknowledgeth that the Church had the power to uſe both diſpenſation and alteration in this: Words able to make any mans hair to ſtand, if he loveth God; For thereby the Cardinal declareth that the Roman Church is not ſubject to Gods Commandment, ſince ſhe can diſpence from it; yea that the Roman Church is above God, ſince ſhe can change his laws and correct his command.
Now that none think that herein M. du Perron is ſingular, and hath followed his own ordinary inclination to deſpiſe the holy Scripture, it will be to good purpoſe, to ſhew that it is the ordinary language of the moſt famous Doctors of the Roman Church.
(b)Vaſquez Tom. 3. Diſput. 260. num. 60. Licet concederemus hoc ſuiſſe Apoſtolicum praeceptum, nibilominus Eccleſia & ſummus Pontifex potuerunt illud juſtis de cauſis abrogare. Neque enim major fuit poteſtas Apoſtolorum quam Eccleſiae & Pontificis in ferendis praeceptis.The Jeſuit Vaſquez, ſpeaking of the Lords Commandment, Drink ye all of this, ſaith, Though we ſhould grant that it was a Commandment of the Apoſtles, yet the Church and the ſoveraign Prelate had the power to aboliſh it for juſt cauſes; For the power of the Apoſtles in making ordinances, was no greater then that of the Church and the Pope.
Andradius in the 2. Book of the Tridentine faith,(c)Minime vero majores noſtri religione, & pietate praeſtantes haec Apoſtolorum; & quam plurima alia decreta refigere in animum induxiſſent, niſi intellexiſſent, &c. Our anceſtors, men excellent in religion and piety, would never have diſanulled thoſe decrees of the Apoſtles and many more, but that, &c. Whence he inferreth, that(d)Liquet minime illos erraſſe qui dixerunt Romanos Pontifices poſſe nonnunquam in legibus diſpenſare à Paulo, & quatuor Conciliis. thoſe have not erred, who ſaid that the Popes of Rome may ſometimes diſpence from obeying the Apoſtle Paul, and the four firſt Councils.
The Council of Trent in the V. Seſſion, was ſo bold, as to pronounce that the concupiſcence forbidden by the law is no ſin; And that although the Apoſtle Paul calls it ſin, yet to ſpeak truly and properly, it is no ſin. The words of the Council are,(e)Hanc concupiſcentiam quam aliquando Apoſtolus peccatum appellat, ſancta Synodus declarat Eccleſiam Catholicam nunquam intellexiſſe peccatum appellari, quod verè & propriè in renatis peccatum ſit. The holy Council declareth, that the Catholick Church never underſtood that concupiſcence, which in ſome places the Apoſtle calls ſin, be truly & properly ſin in the regenerate, that is, in the baptized. That venerable Council declareth, that if a baptized man covet his neighbours wife, he ſinneth not, although God forbid it in his Law, and St. Paul call that concupiſcence ſin: And that the Apoſtle hath neither truly nor properly ſpoken.
The Council of Conſtance in the XIII. Seſſion, acknowledgeth that Jeſus Chriſt hath inſtituted, that the people in the Euchariſt ſhould receive the two kinds, and that the antient Church hath ſo practiſed it, and yet decreeth, that the cuſtom of giving the bread only to the people, be held for a law, which it is not lawfull to reject or to change, declaring them hereticks which hold the contrary; and commanding them to be puniſht by the Inquiſition, that is, to be burnt.
James Almain, a Sorboniſt, in the book of the Eccleſiaſtical power, chap. 12. ſeems to incline to that opinion, that the Pope cannot diſpenſe from the divine right: Nevertheleſs he alledgeth Panormitanus and Angelus, which ſay the contrary; In the end, after ſome examples of permiſſions given by Popes, to marry two ſiſters againſt the Word of God, he pronounceth (as overcome by experience) this goodly ſentence; Ergo Papa poteſt diſpenſare in illis quae ſunt lege divina prohibita: Then the Pope can give diſpenſation in thoſe things that are forbidden by Gods Law.
Thomas Aquinas goeth ſo far, as to ſay, that(f)Thomas 2a 2… qu. 1. Art. 13. Ad ſolam authoritatem ſummi Pontificis pertinet nova edito Symboli. the Pope can make a new edition of the Symbole, that is, to make a new Chriſtian Religion. Wherefore in the laſt Seſſion of the Council of Florence, the power is attributed unto the Pope, to add to the Symbole.
Cardinal Tolet, in the 1. book of the Sacerdotal inſtitution, chap. 68. excuſeth the Pope for not receiving the bigames [that is, thoſe that have been twice maried] unto the Prieſthood, againſt the commandment of the Apoſtle: His reaſon is, that(g)Cum certum ſit non omniae: quae Apoſtoli inſtituerunt, jure divino eſſe inſtituta. all that the Apoſtles have inſtituted, is not of divine right. It belongs then to the Pope to judge and diſcern what is of divine right among the writings of the Apoſtles, from that which is not. By which means, all that diſpleaſeth him, will be of humane right.
Bellarmin in the 2. chap. of the book againſt Barcklay, (h)Pontifex poteſt dispenſare in vocis & juramentis quae Deus ipſe juſſit reddi, & quorum ſolutio eſt de jure divino.The Pope can give diſpenſations from vows and oaths which God hath commanded to be fulfilled, and the keeping whereof is of divine right. And in the 4. book de Pontifice, chap. 5.(i)Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia, & prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Eccleſia credere vitia eſſe bona, & virtutes malas, niſi vellet contra conſcientiam peccare. If the Pope did erre, commanding vices and prohibiting vertues, the Church ſhould be obliged to believe, that vices are good, and vertues evil, unleſs ſhe would ſin againſt conſcience.
A thouſand ſuch paſſages of our Adverſaries might be produced. The Canons and Decrees of the Popes are full of thoſe goodly ſentences, That the Pope can diſpenſe againſt the Apoſtle and againſt the old Teſtament; Yea that he diſpenſeth againſt the Goſpel by giving an interpretation to it. Alſo that the Pope can of wrong make right, and of evil good; Of which I have given ſeveral examples in the Preface of this Book.
To which I will adde this corollary out of the Roman Decree, in the firſt queſtion of the 31. Cauſe. It is a Canon aſcribed to Chryſoſtom, againſt ſecond marriages. It ſpeaks thus(k)Can. Hac ratione. Secundam quidem accipere ſecundum praeceptum Apoſtli licitum eſt; ſecundum autem veritatis rationem vera fornicatio eſt; ſed cum permittente Deo publicè & licenter committitur, fit honeſta fornicatio. To marry a ſecond wife according to the Apoſtles command, is a lawful thing; but according to the reaſon of truth, it is true fornication; Which being done publickly and with licence, God permitting it, an honeſt fornication is committed. In the Roman Decree that Canon is ſuffered, in which the Apoſtle St. Paul is accuſed to have commanded fornication, and authorized it by his permiſſion, and God himſelf is accuſed to have permitted it.
CHAP. 25. Which and of what nature muſt the marks of the Church be.
WE look not for the marks of the Church of the elect; She hath no marks. God alone knows them that are his, and marks them with the Spirit of adoption:2 Tim. 2.19. Nor for the marks of the Univerſal Church, which comprehendeth all them that make profeſſion to be Chriſtians; That profeſſion is her mark, about which there is no diſpute. The queſtion is, touching the whole body of the Orthodox Church joyned in communion. It is demanded, by what external marks ſhe may be diſcerned from idolatrous, heretical, and ſchiſmatical Churches.
Thoſe marks muſt be proper to that true Church, and perpetual. Alſo they muſt be ſenſible, and more known then the Church, ſince by them the Church is diſcerned. Wherefore if any marks of the Church be ſet forth, which be as much or more proper to Pagans or Jews, or ſocieties of impure Chriſtians, as to the true Church, or which be not alwaies proper to the Church, or that be leſs known then the Church, it is not a good mark; and we muſt look for other marks. So much the Jeſuit Salmeron teacheth, in the XIII. Tome, in the 2. diſpute upon St. Pauls Epiſtles, ſaying, that(a)Pag. 191. Ad idoneum ſignum tria neceſſaria eſſe videntur. Ʋt ſit verum, ut ſit manifeſtum, ut alteri non quadret. to be a mark three things are requiſite. 1. That it be true. 2. That it be evident. 3. That it be proper to none elſe. (b)In 2am 2a Diſp. 1. Quaeſt. 5. Punct. 7.Gregorius de Valentia ſaith the ſame.