The Grotian Religion Discovered, Section 30 – Section 46
SECT. XXX.
DIscuss. pag. 67. he applauds and comments §. 30.on the words of certain Antients thus, [Hinc est quod apud Ambrosium convenire cum Episcopis Catholicis, exponitur, id est cum Ecclesia Romana: Et par ei aetate scriptor in Epistolam primam ad Timothaeum, Ecclesiam quae est domus Dei, sic denotat, Cujus hodie rector est Damasus; Cui Damaso scribens Hieronymus, Qui tecum non colligit, ait, spargit: Idem adv. Ruffinum, [Fidem suam quam vocant? Eamne qua Romana pollet Ecclesia? Si Romanam respondent, ergo Catholici sumus. Sozomenus. 3. 7. Episcopus Romanus, ideo quod omnium cura ad ipsum pertineret, ob throni dignitatem unicuique Ecclesiam suam reddidit.] Ʋnicuique, id est, Alexandrino, Constantinopolitano, & Ancyrano. Roman. Concil in Epist ad Imperat. [Damasus quibus aequalis est munere, praerogaetivâ tamen Apostolicae sedis excellit.] Concil Aquil. in Epist. ad Gratian. Imper. Romanam Ecclesiam vocat totius orbis Romani caput, unde in omnes vener andae Commonitionis jura dimanant. Valentianus 3. Imperator [Romanae sedis Episcopus, Cui Principatum Sacerdotii super omnes Antiquitas contulit.] You see here what it is that Grotius pleads for: that Romanism and Catholicism should be convertible: That the Pope was Ruler of the whole Church; that all that gather not with him, do scatter: that the care of all belongs to the Pope: and that by reason of the dignity of his Throne, he had power to restore even the great Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople: That he is the Head of the whole Roman world; and Laws flow from him to the rest; that the Pope hath the Principatus sacerdotii over all: Me thinks he speaks as plain as you can desire. But as to his Authorities here cited, 1. I desire the Reader to observe, that they are over and over by Protestants proved to be part of them forgeries, and part of them nothing to the business. I should digress from my intended course, if I should stand to confute all that he saith as I go. I have said enough to them in another writing before mentioned (A Key for Catholicks.) And among others you may see almost all these and many more sufficiently answered by Jacobus Cappellus, against Bulinger. 2. And note here a remarkable passage that truly tells you the height of the Roman claim and ambition till of late: that it was but orbis Romani caput, that his greatest friends and flatterers called him. And when ever they called him the head or chief of all Bishops, or Churches, &c. they still spoak in the Roman Dialect. For he had never any thing to do with Ethiopia and other Churches where the Roman Emperour had nothing to do. So that I will not lay my censure on others; but sure I should be blind my self if I should not see that the Papal power was the effect of the Emperours Greatness, and Pleasure, and Beneficence; who thought it most for the Unity and Honour of the Churches in their Dominions to be thus Headed by the Bishop of the Imperial seat. If any man will needs take it for an Infallible consequence, that Bancroft or Laud were chief Bishops of all the world, because they were the chief in England, I will not much dispute against them. But I am sure when all the world was taxed by Augustus Caesar, (Luk. 2. 1.) there was many a man on earth that heard nothing of the business. The Roman world was but a little world & the Roman Catholick Church is too little a Church for me to own, as such, or to joyn with. But let us go with Grotius and see whether we wrong him.
SECT. XXXI.
DIscuss. pag. 69. he praiseth King James for saying, [Si Romanus Pontifex probet, non suam se, verum Dei immortalis gloriam quaerere, & populorum pacem, concordiam ac salutem sibi curae esse, se sine cunct atione primas ei delaturum, dicturum{que} non invitum, à Pontifice totam Ecclesiam curari.] And he adds, [Neque vero Cardinalis Perronius aliud à Rege illo exigebat, quam ut Papae tribueret illas Primas, id est, praecedextis dignitatis praerogativam in omnibus negotiis ad Religionem aut Ecclesiam spectantibus.] Though he mis-interpret King James his [Primas] yet he is easie to be understood himself, that if Perron were a Papist, and would have drawn King James to be a Papist, then Grotius was for Popery: Otherwise not: And when I call him a Papist, I mean it no otherwise then as Perron was a Papist.
In the next words he cites Bucer, (I know not where, and therefore cannot vindicate him) saying [per Protestantes posse Pontificem Romanum & caeteros Episcopos omnes suam potestatem retinere: tantum sua potestate utantur in aedificationem Ecclesiae.] But Bucer took not that to be their power which Grotius did.
SECT. XXXII.
IBid. p. 69. he adds a twofold use of the §. 32.Papal Primacy: the first is, [In tutandis illis qui per inimicorum coitiones opprimebantur:] the other, [In praeveniendis aut sanandis scissuris.] This shews that he would have in the Pope some Governing power over all the Christian world; or else he cannot by his Primacy have power to right and help the oppressed, and end divisions. And how well he doth either of these, I have shewed elsewhere.
SECT. XXXIII.
PAg. 70. [Oggeritur etiam alos Episcopos §. 33.non malam ad as res operam posuisse] And he answereth, [Posuerunt sane, sed non sine Episcopo Romano, cui semper primas in hac re partes detulerunt.] Though this be false; yea so false that they have done it contra Episcopum Romanum, yet it shews still the meaning of Grotius; who it seems would not have Schisms ended, and the oppressed righted without the Pope of Rome; Let him put it into his motion that no sick man shall be cured without him, and then put it to the vote.
SECT. XXXIV.
PAg. 71. He cites as approving it, the §. 34.French esteem, that take none for a General Council that is not confirmed by all or most of the Patriarchal seats: and yet admit not promiscuously a custom of appealing from the Pope to a future General Council, lest bad men win time, &c. By which it appears that he would have the Pope to Govern in the Intervals of Councils.
SECT. XXXV.
YET would you have him speak more §. 35.plainly? Discuss. p. 95. [Quid verò Ecclesia Romana, aliarum Magistra, jam olim senserit, optimè cognoscemus ex Epistolis Episcoporum Romanorum ad Afros & Gallos, quibus Grotius promptissimo animo subscribet.] In the language of the Trent Creed, he calls Rome the Mistriss of other Churches; and therefore no doubt acknowledgeth more to her then a Primacy of order.
So pag. 245, 246. he again abuseth the place in Irenaeus for Romes Principalitie. But I will say no more of this first point, the Papal Soveraignty, but pass to the next.
SECT. XXXVI.
THat Grotius received the Creed, and §. 36.Canons, and Decrees of the Council of Trent, and all other Papal Councils, I think is evident by what here followeth: Or at least that he received as much of, them as will prove him a Papist, if not more then some Papists do.
Discuss. p. 7. Accusat Bullam Pil Quinti quod Articulos habeat extra illos Symboli. At plures habet Synodus Dordrechtanae—At novi sunt illi in Bullâ, ut vult D. Rivetus. Contra sentiunt eruditi plurimi, non novos esse si rectè intelligantur, idque apparere ex adscriptis ad marginem canonum Tridentinorum locis tum Sacrae Scripturae, tum eorum quorum magna semper in Ecclesiis authoritas fuit. At Grotius non eam Bullam approbantem quae in Concilio Tridentino fuerant explicata, solam edidit, sed & confessionem Augustanam, existimans commode acceptas doctrinas Tridentinam & Augustanam inter se non ita pugnare, nt multi credidere▪] Though his [contra sentiunt plurimi] and his [non ita pugnare] may be pretended to wave a peremptory owning of them himself, yet indeed he plainly signifieth in this with his via ad pacem, 1. That he takes not the Trent Creed to contain any new Articles. 2. Nor that Creed or Council to be unreconcilable with the Augustane Confession, (with his correctives distorting it to the Tridentine sense.) And if he be not a Papist that owns the Council and Creed of Trent, I know not what a Papist is. By this which Grotius owns as the means of Unity, Bishop Bramhall will prove them to be no Orthodox, or Catholick, or Apostolick Church. I think Francisc. à Sancta Clara is a Papist (and so thinks the foresaid Bishop, and so thought the Queen of England that chose him to be her Ghostly Father, and so thought Tho. White, that dedicates his Book to him:) and yet he hath endeavoured to Reconcile the English Articles with the Tridentine, even as Grotius did by the Augustane: not healing or correcting theirs, but distorting ours, to mean what they would have them mean.
SECT. XXXVII.
YET more plainly, Discuss: pag. 14. §. 37.[Distingui… Grotius inter dogmata Scholasticorum quae neminem obligant, (magna enim Schola nostra, inquit Melchior Canus, nobis indulget libertatem) ac proinde non potuere justam dare recedendi causam: Et inter ea quae Conciliis sunt definita, etiam Tridentino: Quorum Acta siquis legit animo ad pacem propenso, is inveniet, ea commode, & convenienter, tum Sacrarum Scripturarum, tum veterum Doctorum locis ad marginem positis, posse explicari Quod si praeterea curâ Episcoporum & Regum, tollantur ea quae cum pia ista Doctrina pugnant, ☞& non conciliorum authoritate, aut veteri traditione, sed malis moribus sunt introducta, habebit jam Grotius, & multi cum ipso, id quo possint esse contenti.] Would you wish a man to speak plainer? Here are four things that Grotius takes notice of among the Papists. 1. The free opinions of the Schoolmen. 2. The ill manners and customs that are contrary to their own Doctrine. 3. The Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the rest of the Councils. 4. Antient Tradition. The two first he is content that none be bound to. The first he would have free, and the second mended: But the two last he is for, as consonant to Scriptures and Fathers. And is there any Papist, (even the highest Italians) that go any further? Would Molina or Mariana, or Vasquez or Suarez, or any Pope, oblige all the Church to all the Articles contained in Aquinas, Scotus, Ockam, Durandus, Alensis, Bonaventure, and an hundred such like? Or would they have us all take the Licenced Whore houses at Rome or Bononia for Articles of our faith, or obligatory examples of our Practice? You see here that Grotius is for the Council of Trent, and for all the rest of the Councils: He thinks those agree with Scripture, that can never be agreed among themselves. He is for the ☞Council of Laterane, that set the Pope above a Council; and he is expresly elsewhere, for the Council of Constance and Basil, that set a Council above the Pope, and damned the contrary Doctrine as Heretical. He is for the Council of Laterane that puts it in the Power of the Pope to depose Princes, and absolve their subjects from their fidelity, and give their Dominions to the Government of others: And yet, he is stiff for the right of Princes. He is for the Council of Laterane, Florence and Trent that are for Transubstantiation, and in a word, for all the rest of Popery: and yet Mr. Pierce saith he is no Papist. I confess most words have their ambiguity. This may be no Popery with Mr. Pierce: I will not contend with him about the name. Let him call it what he please, and I will call it Popery. You see here that Grotius and his followers will be Content without any more ado, if Bishops and Princes will but take away those things that ill manners have introduced, contrary to the pious Doctrine of the Papists, without antient Tradition or Authority of Councils; let all the rest that this Tradition and Councils have introduced or determined of, continue, and spare not. Beshrew Bellarmine, or Baronius, or Stapleton, or Parsons, if they will not stand to this motion and profession. Nay he needs not [a Pope eximiously good] to consent to this much, unless that Pope be eximiously good, that exceedeth not the ordinary sort of the wicked in impiety: Which I confess I find some Papists speaking of the Holy Seat.
SECT. XXXVIII.
AND yet, when I pass but one page §. 38.further (15) I find indeed for all this that Grotius is no Papist: (I may possibly understand this word at last.) But then he tels us what he means by a Papist, [Papistas Grotius in illa Epistola—eos intelligebat, qui sine ullo discrimine omnia Paparum dicta factaque Probant, honorum aut lucri, ut fieri solet causâ.] I would be glad if Mr. Pierce will tell us whether this be the description of a Papist that he will stand to. It seems with Grotius, a Papist is one that, sine ullo discrimine, doth like Marcellinus sacrificing to Devils, yea as well as his worshipping God: and one that will approve of John the thirteenth, for ravishing wives and maids at his doors; and one that will own the Adulteries, Sodomy, Murders, &c. of all the Popes that ever were guilty of them, and this sine discrimine, as well as their good deeds: A Papist is one that for honour or lucre sake will approve of John the two and twentieth (alias the three and twentieth) for denying the Resurrection of the Body, and the Life Everlasting, and of all those other Articles of his Belief and Practice which the Council of Constance have left us at large: And one that liketh of Leo the tenth his Profession of faith to Cardinal Bembus, Quantum nobis lucri haec fabula de Christo—] Or at least he is one that approveth the Heresie of Pope Honorius, and the Arian subscription of Liberius, &c. Now we know what a Papist is. I blame not Grotius then for the wish that Mr. Pierce commendeth, as to the Papists, when he saith, that [if he had accomplished his wishes, there had not been in all the world a Papist or a Puritane] (pag. 92.) And I hope there are but few Papists in the world, if these only be Papists. I do not think that the very Infidels and Atheists that call themselves Roman Catholicks (for some such wear the Roman Vizor) are so bad as these of Grotius his description, that sine ullo discrimine omnia Paparum dicta factaque probant.
SECT. XXXIX.
IN the next words, p. 15. he tels us that §. 39.by Papists he meaneth not them [Qui salvo jure Regum & Episcoporum, Papae, (sive Episcopo Romano) eum concedunt primatum, quem mos Antiquus & Canones, & veterum Imperatorum & Regum ei assignant. Qui quidem Primatus non tam Episcopi est, quam ipsius Ecclesiae Romanae, caeteris omnibus praelatae communi consensu—Sic Liberio Episcopo ita lapso, ut Ecclesiae esset mortuus, Ecclesia Romana jus suum retinuit, & Ecclesiae Ʋniversalis causam tutatae est.] But 1. If it be but communi consensu that Rome hath this Primacy, why do you so often derive it from Peter? and why may not that Consent on weighty causes be withdrawn? 2. If it be that which is granted by Canons, and Emperours, how comes it to reach to the Universal Church, of which so great a part was out of the reach of the Canoneers, and from under the Power of those Kings and Emperours? I pray you when did Prester John (as they call him) give power to the Pope, or Primacy either, in reference to his dominions? The like may be said of many more Princes, and populous Churches that had none to represent them in any of the General Councils. 3. But by this (with the rest) we understand the sense of Grotius: He is no Papist that is for that Supremacy only of the Pope and Church of Rome, that Canons and Emperours granted of old. And he hath sufficiently told us that he takes in Gratian and Valentinian among these Emperours: And Valentinians Letters or Grant are the highest testimony that the Popes upholders plead for his Universal Soveraignty or Heap-ship (to which see Jacob. Cappellus answer. uhi sup. to Bulinger.) So that this is even to give them what they wish. 4. But I would be glad to learn what is that Church of Rome that hath a Power to defend the Universal Church, and heal Schisms, and do the rest of the Popes work when he is dead? If it be the Cardinals, sure Peter and many a Generation after him were utter strangers to them. If it be the Clergy of the whole Patriarchate, or but of the suburbicarian Churches, they are all too new to be the Successor of Peter in his Primacy, and have no better title to shew for it then any of their neighbours. If it be the City Presbyterie, they may do well to prove their power over Bishops, and all the Bishops of the world. Sure this is like to be but an unwelcome conceit to the Episcopal: This is too hateful a Presbyterian Government, for them or us or any wise man to own. What's left then but that it be [the Church Essential] as they call it, that is, the Roman people, who must carry it by the vote: But truly this is such a kind of Independency or Popular Government, that I am resolved never to be Independent of this sort: Let it be enough for the people to be over their own Rulers, without being over all the Rulers of the Churches in the world. Truly I know not what that Roman Church is that Grotius would have to be the Universal Superiour of all Churches when the Pope is dead. Thus we see who is and is not a Papist.
SECT. XL.
DIscuss. p. 185. he professeth that he §. 40.will so interpret Scripture, [Deo favente, & consultis viris piis, ut non incurrat in Regulam & à semet & ù Synodo Tridentina traditam, &c.] Which he mentioneth, pag. 182. Nihil in eo fecisset, ne contra Synodum quidem Tridentinam: Regula enim prudentissima ejus Synodi de non interpretanda Scriptura contra unanimem Consensum Patrum, non obstat quo minus ad loca Scripturae, historica praesertim aut prophetica adferatur nova expositio, sed veteri Traditioni dogmatum nihil repugnans] For which he refers us to Alcazar. So that still he is fast to the Tridentine Creed. But we may see what a jest the Patrons of it do make it. They are devoutly to swear according to that Bull [that they will never interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers.] But if there be no unanimous Consent of them at all, yea if they unanimously dissent, yet Grotius thinks this Oath is kept, so be it the exposition be not against their consent in matter of Doctrine: In expounding history and Prophesie we may safely venture uppon novelty, and let the Fathers keep their expositions to themselves. Verily I had the charity till I read this explication of the Trent Oath, to think that the very novelties and contradictions of the Fathers, found in some late expositors, had been a sufficient argument to prove them to be no Papists. But I see I was deceived.
SECT. XLI.
DIscus. pag. 239. he saith [Confessu §. 41.Augustana commode explicata, vix quicquam habet, quod non conciliari possit cum iis Dogmatis, quae antiquitatis & Synodorum Authoritate apud Catholicos sunt recepta quod & ex Cassandro & ex Hoffmeistero datur cognosci. Et sunt etiam inter Jesuitas, qui non aliter sentiant] Here again you see that the design is (to which some Jesuites consent) to make the Protestant Confession speak up to the sence of all those opinions which the Papists (for those are Grotius Catholicks) have received either from the Authority of Councils or Antiquity. He will not with Bishop Bromhal abate us the Determinations of the last four hundred years: though if he did, it would prove but a pittiful patch for the torn condition of the Church.
SECT. XLII.
ON this same account it is also that in §. 42.particular cases Grotius still pleads the Council of Trent, as that which he was resolved to conform to; so Discus. p. 35. when he is speaking of the Real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, he saith [Et hoc est quod dicit Synodus Tridentina; in isto Sacramento Jesum Christum verum Deum at{que} hominem verè, realiter, ac substantialiter sub specie earum rerum sensibilium contineri, non tamen juxta modum existendi naturalem, sed-sacramentaliter, & ea existendi ratione, quam etsi verbis exprimere non possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per fidem illustrata assequi possumus.] And indeed in owning the Trent Creed, he must needs own this and more [fieri{que} oonversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, & totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiationem appellat.] So p. 37. he citeth with approbation the same doctrine as agreed to by the Greeks in the Council of Florence: which with many more such passages in his writings, shew us his faith in the point of transubstantiation.
SECT. XLIII.
SO of the Article of Justification: Discus. §. 43.p. 38. he saith that the true and ancient Doctrine of Remission of sin, and of the causes and nature of Evangelical Righteousness [Semper fuerit in Ecclesia Catholica, & a Synodo Tridentina optime sit explicata] And with him (ibid.) Justitia est purgari à vitiis commissionis & omissionis: Sanctitas, ad opera eximia ferri heroico impetu. Nec illud rectè dicitur justificationem nostram in eo consistere, quod Christus peccatorum remissionem nobis acquisivit (he should have said donavit) Justificari enim est, aut justum facere, aut ut justum tractare. Justus fit homo, cum per fidem habitam Evangelio purgatur à vitiis; & p. 39. Malè adjecit illius (justitiae) [inhaerentis;] nulla enim est justitia alia. And Rivet having denyed that Inherent Righteousness is so perfect in this life, as may endure the exact judgement of God; He saith [Talis Perfectio, id est, Pietas ad summum gradum producta, fuit in Apostolis, Martyribus, aliis{que} And of Christs satisfaction and our own he saith (ibid.) Satisfecit pro nobis Christus generatim, quia passione sua jus acquisivit omnibus se per Christum conversuris, id est, Deo satisfacturis pro criminibus suis. And for the nature and office of faith, he saith, p 40, 41. Credere, Abrahamo imputatum est in Justiciam; id est, pro magnifico facto id habitum est▪ non quod credidit Messiam pro peccatis ipsius mortem toleraturum, quod tamen an noverit, hic non disputabo: sed quod Deo vocanti & jubenti confisus est.—Quia vero fides tanti est apud Deum, ideo ei datum est hoc munus longe maximum, purgandi hominem à vitiis, sive quod idem est, hominem justificandi. So that they that think his Annotations on Rom. were not fully his own, because of his doctrine of Faith and Justification there, should rather think that indeed they were his own, as agreeing so punctually with what he published himself. But then they must not be offended, that his later doctrine differeth from his former: For he frequently professeth that he was progressive, growing wiser and wiser in such things, and very prone to dislike what a little before he was pleased with (ut in Epist. & alibi passim.)
Again, pag. 77. he defendeth the term [Transubstantiation] and pag. 78. addeth [Sed de hoc mysterio, eo minus necesse est multa hic disseri, quia de eo satis dictum est supra, allata{que} verba Synodi Tridentinae, ita commeda, ut lites quaerat qui eis se velit opponere] he must be a fellow so quarrelsom as to seek matter of contention, that will oppose the terms or doctrine of Trent about Transubstantiation, so admirably are they fitted.
SECT. XLIV.
DIscus. 79. He defendeth the Council §. 44.of Trent for saying that the Sacrament is to be adored with Divine worship, saying [Cum Synodus Tridentina dicit, sacramentum esse adorandum cultu divino, nihil aliud vult quam ipsum Dei filium adorandum] Which is very true in their sence that think that to be really, substantially, ipsum Dei filium, without any remaing substance of bread or wine, which we think to be substantially Bread and Wine, and to be but Representatively a Crucified Christ. But here you see that Grotius is for the Trent divine Adoration of the Sacrament, as it is Christ. Let his followers answer Daile and others that have said so much to prove this to be Idolatry, before they expect that we should all be of their faith.
SECT. XLV.
ABout Priests marriages he thinks that the Church did justly make a Law §. 45.against it, yet alloweth them a power to change it, Discus. p. 129, 130. [Quod si constet, aut nullos aut paucos inveniri in sacerdotibus Castos—Coelibes, omnino Ecclesiae est luxare legem gravi de causa quam non levi de causa fixerat So that it was not a light cause that fixed the Law that forbids Priests marriage: but it should yet be altered, when it is manifest (when Priests will confess it, or be naught in the open streets) that either none or few unmarried Priests are found Chaste. There is hope then of repealing this Law; but the Roman Church must be made a Holy Society of perjured whoremongers first.
SECT. XLVI.
I Am weary of this unpleasing work §. 46.(which within this weeke I hoped I should never have been put upon,) and therefore I shall not stand particularly to recite his sayings for Images (even of God himself) of the sacrifice of the Mass as expiatory of the sins of the living and dead, of oblations for the dead, of Prayers for the dead, and to the dead; of a penal Purgatory, of Traditions as part of the Apostolical Doctrine, not found in Scripture, with abundance more of which his Annot. in Cassand. his Animadvers his Votum pro pace, and his Discussio Apolog. Rivet. will give him a sufficient account that would be acquainted with his mind, especially the last. Read impartially and judge as you find cause.