I. Question: Why are you a Catholic? The answer follows. II. Question: But why are you a Protestant? An answer attempted (in vain) / written by the Reverend Father S.C. Monk of the Holy Order of St. Benedict ...

THE SECOND QUESTION: BUT, WHY ARE YOU A PROTESTANT? (Book 2)

§. 45

CAth.

Sir, Have you considered seriously on the Subject of our last Discourse?

Prot.

Yes.

Cath.

And have you found either in Scripture. Tra∣dition, Councils, or Holy Fathers, any warrant to re∣main divided, both in Doctrine and Discipline, from all Churches an∣tiently existent upon Earth; and at the same time to profess, not∣withstanding, a Belief of One, Holy, Catholic Church, out of whose Com∣munion there is no Salvation.

Prot.

I freely accknowledge that I am not able to produce any considerable Quotations to confront yours: Quotations, I mean, assert∣ing the Authority of particular, or new-erected Churches, independent on others.

Cath.

Then since, it seems, both Scripture, Tradition, Councils and Fathers have given their Testimonies against you, Why are you (still) a Protestant?

§. 46.

Prot.

Sir, I suppose you do believe I should be very glad to find out a Church to whose Authority I could think my self obliged en∣tirely to submit mine own judgment, and securely to commit my Soul to her guidance. But hitherto not having been able to find such an one, I must be content to stay where I am: For as for the Roman Church, to whose Communion alone you would invite me, she appears to me so wholly depraved, that I think a real Miracle would hardly draw me to joyn my self to her Communion.

Cath.

I see, Sir, that you, despairing to justifie your own Churches, and to excuse them from Schism, do seek to draw me to particular Disputes: By which notwithstanding you can receive no benefit at all, whatever the success of such Disputes shall be: For still the unpar∣donable guilt of Schism will lie upon you. However I will not refuse so far to comply with you. Therefore tell me, Wherein consists that depravation you speak of?

Prot.

It consists in this, that both her Doctrines and Discipline are framed, as on purpose to comply with wordly interests: and by con∣sequence are opposed to the Spirit of Christianity.

Cath.

How does that appear?

§. 47.

Prot.

It appears more than sufficiently in this that (as the* 1.1 late learned Arcbishop of Spalato observes) all those Points of your Be∣lief and Practice which we condemn, and for which we separate from your Church, are such as manifestly have a strong influence on the satis∣fying either her Ambition or Covetousness.

Cath.

Which are the Points which you suppose to comply with Am∣bition?

Prot.

These which here follow: 1. Your Churches assuming the Title of Catholic to her self alone, with exclusion of all other Churches. 2. The Popes assumed Universal Authority. 3. His pretended Infallibility in de∣termining Controversies. 4. His usurped Temporal Authority. 5. A Power to be acknowledged as given to Priests, by consecrating the outward Sym∣bols, to make the glorified Body of our Saviour present on the Alter. 6. The Offering it in Sacrifice to the Father. 7. The exposing of it to mens Ado∣ration. 8. The Obligation imposed on all sinners to discover their most secret sins to Priests in Confession, and to submit to satisfactions enjoyned by them. 9. A proud esteem of attaining to Iustification and Salvation by your own Merits. Thus your Clergy, not content to invent Doctrines proper to procure their own Exaltation; would instill Pride into the people also.

§. 48.

Cath.

For what Doctrines do you accuse the Roman Church of Covetousness.

Prot.

Of this latter sort are the Romane Doctrines. 1. Touching Pray∣er for the dead and Purgatory, out of the torments whereof Souls are to be redeemed by Masses, Alms, &c. 2. The gaining of Heaven by mony given for Indulgences. 3. The Invocation of Saints. 4. The worshipping of their Images and Relicks: To which Pilgrimages are ordained with costly Of∣ferings, &c.

§. 49.

Cath.

This Observation, made by the infamous Apostate you named, if rightly considered, truly seems to argue a guilt somewhere; yet not in the Church, but much rather in those who seperated from her. For it strongly argues, that, since, to oppose her, they made choice only of those Points which regarded the Honour, Authority and Wealth of the Clergy; the true Motives inducing them to rebel against the Church, were, not any zeal for Truth, or care for their Souls (for they acknowledg her Orthodox, as to all Points of Doctrine approved by former Heretics.) That therefore which stirred up their rage a∣gainst her was Envy, Hatred of Obedience, and a thirst unquenchable to rob her of the Treasure and Possessions conferred on her by the Piety

of their Holy Progenitours. Now Sir, tell me sincerely, If you were to establish a Church, would you take for your pattern that Schismati∣cal King Ieroboam, who chose Priests from the dreggs of the People; or* 1.2 God himself, who instituted a splendid Clergy?

Prot.

It cannot indeed be denied, but that contemptible, needy and depending Directours of Souls will but very meanly discharge so high an Office as Christ has committed to them, having made them Spiritual Iudges of Mankind, and stiled them the Light of the world,* 1.3 and the Salt of the Earth.

§. 50.

Cath.

If the first Reformers had been of your Judgment, they would first have reformed in themselves their inordinate Passions. But, Sir, if you please, let us leave the judgment of mens secret in∣tentions to Almighty God, to whom alone they are open and trans∣parent. However, this may with full assurance be asserted, That if Sacriledge and freedom from Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction were not the on∣ly prime Motives, they were, and will be, the prime Effects of your multiplied Reformations.

§. 51.

Prot.

I am well content to desist from enquiring into the secret thoughts of persons on either side: And therefore I will hence∣forth consider the forementioned Points in debate between us, abso∣lutely and in themselves. And so doing, you must give me leave to say, That this also may with full assurance be asserted, that, what∣ever Motives the Roman Church may have to require Belief of them, we cannot assent to them without rendring our selves guilty of appa∣rent contradicting Scripture generally in them all, and no less than the heynous Crimes of Superstition and Idolatry in several of them.

Cath.

I do not much wonder to hear from you so a cruel a Censure of our Catholic Belief. Yea, perhaps I should my self joyn with you in the like, if I should take a prospect of the Church by the same false Light that I perceive you have done.

Prot.

Why, Sir, from whence should I receive Light to discover what you teach, but from our Controvertists?

§. 52.

Cath.

I did not at all doubt from whence that which you call Light came. And therefore permit me to tell you, that if you frame your judgment touching the Faith, of Catholics by what you find commonly in Controvertists, you will condemn you know not what, nor whom.

Prot.

This is strange: Do none of our Controvertists understand what your Church teaches?

§. 53.

Cath.

What, and how much they understand I cannot de∣fine. But this I may with confidence say, that generally judging of your Controvertists, not a twentieth part of one of their Volumes con∣tains an examination of the necessary Faith of the Church, which Faith notwithstanding is pretended to be confuted in every Page.

Prot.

Notwithstanding what you say, yet your Controvertists also in answering our Books, do take on them to defend whatsoever ours oppose as the Doctrines of your Church.

Cath.

It is too true indeed of some of them; who deserve much to be blamed for giving thereby occasion to our Adversaries to multiply unnecessary Debates, by a partial esteem of their own private, adopted Opinions, of their peculiar Interpretations of the Churches Doctrines, their probable Additions to them, and Inferences from them: all which they are desirous should pass for Points of Catholic Faith. Be∣sides this, several Schoolmen there are, whose end of Writing being to boast their Wit and Subtilty, who will penetrate into all things; no Mysteries shall be incomprehensible to their Philosophy, and who think it a great Mastery to advance Positions bordering on the very brink of Heresie, Speculative or Moral, and then by some nice Distin∣ction to prove them, if not Orthodox, at least not deserving the utmost Censures. And of these mens rashness Protestants oft-times take advan∣tage, and zealously oppose them, as if the Church were obliged to make good their aery Speculations.

§. 54.

Prot.

What Expedient then do you propose to me by which I may be certainly informed of your Churches Doctrines.

Cath.

The way is plain, easie and short, if you will look before you and not wilfully go out of it.

Prot.

I pray you put me into that way.

Cath.

The way is to examine candidly and seriously the Churches own Decisions only, which if you do, you will find how little she is concern'd in the accusations you lay against her.

Prot.

If this prove true, surely our Modern Controvertists have a dreadful Account to make to God, who seem studiously to design the widening of the breaches amongst Christians.

Cath.

That what I say is true, I dare take the confidence to make your self the Iudge. And this I undertake to demonstrate through all the controverted Points before mentioned by you, not by disputing, alledging Proofs, or answering Objections; but only by representing

to you, in a simple manner, the pure, naked Doctrine of the Church in relation to all these Points.

Prot.

I am likewise sufficiently averse from clamorous Disputes, which commonly are only Prizes of a quick Fancie or voluble tongue, and fo∣mentors of unruly Passions. Therefore I expect what you intend to say.

§. 55.

Cath.

Before I begin, I have a few Requests (in my judg∣ment not unreasonable) to make to you. The first is, 1. That (hav∣ing supposed that upon a true or false Belief Eternity of Happiness or Misery depends) you would force your Imagination to put your self in that state in which your first Reformers really were, immediately before they broke from the Churches Obedience and Communion, and supposing that you were earnestly tempted by them also to forsake it, by adhering to a New-begun Society, never heard of in the world be∣fore, upon a pretence that the Church in which you live, and which you as yet esteem to be the true Catholic Church, teaches most perni∣cious Errours, Superstitions, and Idolatrous practices: Of the Justice of which pretence your Tempters, now declared Enemies, will needs be the Iudges.

Prot.

This I will endeavour to perform.

§. 56.

2. Cath.

My Second Request is, That you will acknowledge that the Doctrines of Catholic Faith, once decided by the Church, are to be understood in the plain literal Sence, and in the latitude of the Churches expression. And by consequence that when they are seve∣rally restrained to different particular Senses by interpretation of Catholic writers, such Interpretations are not necessarily to be admit∣ted by you: And much less are other Doctrins, by inference drawn from them, to be esteemed Points of Catholic Faith, but only Opi∣nions of particular Divines, which do not oblige to Assent.

Prot.

This ought in reason to be acknowleged.

§. 57.

3. Cath.

My third and last Request is, That, when your Tempters shall tell you that the Catholic Church teaches Dostrins con∣trary to Scripture, you would acknowledge that unless such a pre∣tended Contrariety can be evidently demonstrated to you, you ought not for that cause to forsake the Churches Communion: For undoub∣tedly; where her Doctrines seem only probably contrary to some Text of Scripture, her Authority is such as to oblige you to belive that her Sence ought to be preferred before that of her Enemies, who are des∣stitute of all Authority. And it would be madness to transgress the

necessary Duty of peaceful Obedience and of avoiding Schism, upon a probable hope of finding some Truths, elsewhere.

Prot.

Reason requires that this also be granted.

§. 58.

Cath.

These concessions therefore being presupposed, give me leave to put you in mind of what you said at the entrance into this our Discourse, viz. That, this may be with full assurance asserted, that you cannot assent to any of those Doctrines taught by the Roman Church, and rejected by your Party, without rendering your self guilty of apparent con∣tradicting Scripture.

Prot.

I remember this well: but how will you disprove me?

Cath.

If this Perswasion of yours were well grounded, it would be not only in vain, but unlawful for me to seek to withdraw you from it. But being on the other side assured, that what you say is appa∣rent, is only so in a false appearance to your mind prepossessed; I hope I may without vanity promise to demonstrate to you, that you on∣ly think, an this without Ground, that you are assured.

Prot.

You make large Promises to your self, which I believe will have small effect upon me.

Cath.

Sir, Truth and a Good intention make me confident, that Di∣vine Grace, which is Omnipotent, will accompany them. Whereas therefore you say, That Roman Doctrines are apparently, or evidently contrary to Scripture: I desire you to take into consideration that the same Roman Church, at the same time, both proposed the Belief of those Doctrins to your first Reformers, and also gave them the Scrip∣tures, testifying that they were the infallible Word of God. There∣fore certainly it was far from being evident to her that her Doctrines did evidently contradict Divine Revelation. Now you will not surely deny but that in the Catholic Church there are men as learned, and those in a far greater number, than among Protestants, Men, I say, who also make the Scriptures their principal study, and have pub∣lished almost innumerable Commentaries on them; again, Men, of whom a great number live sequestred from the world, in an assiduous Practice of Spiritual Prayer, and therefore not likely to have their judgments perverted by worldly interests: Yet not any one of these does see, or but suspect that the Faith they profess is contradicted by Gods Word: on the contrary, they invincibly demonstrate, that the Church has been, as the only Depository of Scripture, so likewise of the true Sence of it: How comes then that to be evident to you, which

is invisible to them? Which way went the Spirit of God, from the whole Church, to inhabite a debauched incestuous Fryer, or a stigma∣tized Pichard, upon whose credit doubtless you have taken up your Evidence? If they could have shewed you in Scripture such passages as these, The Pope is not the Supream Bishop and Visible Head of the Church: Bread by Sanctification does not become the Body of Christ; We ought not to confess our sins to Priests: Purgatory is a meer humane inven∣tion: It is an injury to Christ to desire Saints, but none to desire Sinners, to pray for us, &c. Such sayings indeed as these might have justifyed your charge against the Church, that she contradicts Scripture. But where are such sayings to be found, except it be in the Heretical Writings, of your Reformers? On the contrary, some Points contra∣dictory to those are found litterally contained in Scripture; and to elude them you are foced to have recourse to figurative sences, and the rest are conveyed to us by the same Authority, by which we receive the Scripture it self, Yea by the Holy Fathers justified as consonant to Scripture: and however I suppose you will not say, that silence is e∣quivolent to express contradiction. The utmost that you can say is, that perhaps you can produce now and then some scattered Texts of Scripture from which you can make a shew of arguing against some Tenets of the Catholic Church; But what will that avail you, since Pro∣bability (as hath been said) will not excuse you for omitting a necessary duty of Obedience, and incurring the horible guilt of Schism. Where now do you see an evidence that the Church contradicts Scripture?

Prot.

I shall be better enabled to give a resolution in this Point, when, according to your promise, you shall have given me an ac∣count of the necessary Doctrines of your Church in the points contro∣verted between us.

§. 60.

Cath.

That Promise I will now, with Gods assistance, dis∣charge through all the Points mentioned by you in the beginning.

And first as touching the two first Points, viz.

• 1. The Churches Authority.
• 2. The Popes Universal Iurisdiction, &c. enough hath been said in our former discourse. Yet for your further satisfaction I will enlarge my self a little more. Take therefore into your considera∣tion that it is a Fundamental Truth agreed on by all Catholics, That the only Objects of Catholic Faith are such Divine Truths as are revealed in Gods Word, and also proposed to all by the Catholic Church to be believed by Divine Faith.

Now this general Ground being presupposed, in case any Contro∣versies should arise touching the sence of any Divine Truths revealed, it is unquestionably necessary that some Means should be appointed by God to determine such controversies, and to prevent a dissipation of his Church by Heresies and Schisms. And what other Mean can be imagined efficacious hereto then what hath been taught and practised even from the Apostles time, and this declared by the Council of Trent. That no man trusting to his own prudence (or skill) shall presume to interpret Holy Scripture in matters of Faith or Manners pertaining to* 1.4 edification of Christian Doctrine, wresting it to his own sences, against that sence which our Holy Mother the Church doth, or hath held (to whom it belongs to judg of the true sence and interpretation of Holy Scriptures) or also against the unanimous consent of the Fathers?

This is that which the Roman Catholic Church teaches concerning her Authority of interpreting controverted Texts of Scripture. No more then this is any Catholic obliged to believe. Now I leave it to your conscience whether you can think it a sufficient Ground for you to break from her Communion upon this quarrel, because she judges more fit that the judgment of the whole Body of Teachers and Gover∣nors appointed by God in her, should prevail against your single judg∣ment, or that of a few Apostat-Ministers: Especially considering the Promises made by our Lord to his Apostles and their lawful Successors, that his Spirit should remain with them and direct them into all Truth, till the end of the world, so as that the gates of Hell (that is, say the Fa∣thers,* 1.5 Heresies) should never prevail against them.

Prot.

I see it is in vain to contradict this.

§. 61.

Cath.

Let us next proceed to what the Church has determi∣ned touching the Priviledges and Authority of the Prime Pastor the Bi∣shop of Rome. Thus then we read in the Confession of Faith collected by the* 1.6 Pope himself out of the Council of Trent, I acknowledg the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches: and I promise true Obedience to the Bishops of Rome, Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Iesus Christ. Here the See Apostolic being acknow∣ledged the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and the Pope Vicar of Christ, his universal Iurisdiction, is therein acknowledged, which Jurisdiction, or Authority, we are not to suppose to be arbitrary and unlimitted: but (as we read in a Canon of the Council of Florence consented to by* 1.7 the Emperor, Patriark and other Bishops of Greece) to be exercised [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] after the manner as is also contained in

the Gests of Oecumenical Councils and Sacred Canons. And such a Pri∣macy invested with Authority as this the General Council of Chalcedon (admitted by Protestants) does acknowledg in him: which is also at∣tested by Tradition, and practice from the beginning.

§. 62.

Now the necessity of such a standing Authority in Gods Church is thus grounded. The absolutely Supream Ecclesiastical Au∣thority, against which can lye no Appeal, is confessedly residing in a lawful General Council, by which all Debates whatsoever may be de∣termined, all necessary Laws enacted, &c. But it being a matter of infinite difficulty, especially since the division of the Roman Empire, to bring together so vast an Assembly from all Regions, and yet Unity, essential to the Church, being always to be preserved, which cannot be done without a supereminent Goverment always existent, hence it is come to pass that the supream Bishop and Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, has even from the beginning been acknowledged this supereminent Governor through all the whole Church, to take care that the common established Laws, former Definitions and Decisions of the Church be every where observed and professed; to prevent any innovations in Doctrine; and also to end Controversies among Catholics (if any arise) at least by silencing contentious Disputes till a General Council may further consider them: by which all Schisms are prevented; and also Heresies, that is any Doctrines that are de∣clared by this supream Pastor contrary to former Church-definitions perpetually crushed: and lastly to judg in causis majoribus; when quarrels arise among Patriarks, Metropolitans, &c.

Thus stands the case; and now I appeal to your own Conscience, whether you can imagine any other Expedient for preserving a ge∣neral Peace and Unity in Gods Church: And whether if you were appointed, and also enabled, to frame such a Church as was neces∣sarily to continue always One Body, Reason it self would not dictate the same Order to you. Experience shews that all Divisions both in the West and East are to be ascribed to mens renouncing Obedience to this Common Governor.

§. 63.

Prot.

Truly Sir, I cannot but acknowledg that to preserve Order and Peace in so vast a Body as the Church is, there must of ne∣cessity be a Government; and if Government then Subordination and consequently an established Supream Governor. And now methinks reflecting upon Ecclesiastical History, I see clearly that such an order∣ly

Government was settled in the Church by the Apostles themselves. For if, as some among us pretend, the same Apostles had intended no Supereminence of Bishops above Presbyters, and no degrees of au∣thority among Bishops, it could not possibly have happened, that a few unarmed Bishops, not assisted by Secular Power, should, so im∣mediately after the Apostles, have subdued such a world of Presbiters, formerly supposed their equals, to their Iurisdiction, and no marks be left in any antient Writers to shew that those Presbyters resisted, or so much as complained against such an usurpation and tyranny. And the like may be said touching the Subordination of simple Bishops to Metropolitans, Primate, Patriarks; and of all these to the Supream Pastor: Though probably those Titles came into the Church in po∣steriour ages. Therefore upon due consideration I cannot deny but my aversion to such and so qualified an Authority of the Bishop of Rome, as you say is moderated by the Churches Decision, is very much abated.

Cath.

Since therefore you now see a way how to avoid danger from this (to you formerly) Rock of offence, I may, I suppose, pro∣ceed to the following Points of Controversie touching the Holy Eu∣charist, &c.

§. 64.

3. Of the Popes Temporal Authority and Iurisdiction.

Prot.

No, Sir, You go too fast: For, though I am perswaded that our first Reformers with all their Rhetoric should not have drawn me with them out of the Church, upon this Motive of opposing such an Authority in the Pope, as has been acknowledged by General Coun∣cils, and the ordinary Exercise of it to be regulated by approved Canons, since, I suppose such Authority regards only Ecclesiastical Affairs. But your Church will not be contented with this: for she will extend it also to Temporal matters, even to the disposing of Kingdoms, deposing of Princes, absolving Subjects from their natural Allegiance expresly commanded in Holy Scripture, &c.

Cath.

Where do you find that our Church invests the Pope with such an Authority?

Prot.

I cannot distinctly tell you that: but of this I am assured that the Pope challenges it, and as by Divine Right.

Cath.

How do you ground such an assurance? you will not surely esteem this to be an irrefragrable Proof thereof, because some of his Predecessors have challenged it, when as for above a thousand years

before them not any precedent Pope ever pretended to it.

But let it be supposed that the present Pope did now challenge it: Will you not live in a Community in which the Governor challenges more then you will grant to be his due.

Prot.

No truly: especially if that Authority, to which he pretend∣ed, endangers the ruine of Kingdoms, or the utter banishment of Peace every where. For such an Authority, I am sure, was never established on earth by our Saviour, who is the Prince of Peace. And that which makes me assured hereof is this, because if Christ had had such an intention of dissolving the Frame of all Civil Government through the world, he would have left in Scripture, or Tradition, most express proofs of such his will, in a matter of that infinite im∣portance: whereas the quite contrary rather appears.

Cath.

You say well. But will you run out of the Church in case a Pope should chance to challenge more then his due, when perhaps no obligation lies upon you to submit to such Authority challenged by him, or to acknowledg the justice of it?

Prot.

Dare you disacknowledg this Authority?

§. 65.

Cath.

What I acknowledg or disacknowledg is not ma∣terial. But to rectify your mistake, I will sincerely acquaint you with the whole matter as it stands at this day: and thence you may collect what must be required from you, in case you are a Catholic.

Prot.

You will much oblige me therein.

Cath.

Then, it cannot be denyed that (besides that Temporal Power indeed belonging to the Pope within his own Dominions, of which he is now the Temporal Soveraign) several Popes in former times have both Challenged, and actually exercised an unlimitted Temporal Iurisdiction over other Kingdoms and Empires. Which Iurisdiction, if it hath not been expresly acknowledged as just, yet it hath been sometimes submitted to by Kings, either obnoxious and unable to resist, or desirous to make use of it for their own advan∣tage against Enemies or Rebels. Several examples hereof remain in our Records, particularly during the Raigns of King Iohn and Henry the third. But generally Princes, when freed from such exigences, have resolutely and stoutly resisted such pretentions of the Roman Court.

If we now descend to latter times, and cast our view on the pre∣sent state of Christendom, we shall find Kings and states so far from admitting such an exorbitant forrain Iurisdiction to be exercised or

acknowledged within their Dominions, that not any of them will permit Rescripts, Bulls or Mandats from Rome, though regarding even Ecclesiastical affairs (unless touching private inferior persons) to be published, and much less executed within their states, till ex∣amined and approved in their respective Councils.

Nay more then this: even the Canons of Reformation prescribed by the General Council of Trent, as far as they are suspected to en∣trench upon the Temporal Power of Princes, have always been refused to be admitted in France, the Pope not only knowing, but expresly allowing such refusal; as appears by the Bull of Pope Clement the eight sent to King Henry the fourth, at his reception into the Church,* 1.8 and recited by Cardinal Perron in his Epistles: in which Bull we find this Clause; His Majesty shall effectually take order that the Council of Trent he published and admitted in all things, Excepting only (at your must earnest Supplication and Petition) those things, if there be any such, which cannot be put in execution without a real disturbance of public tranquility.

The King of Spain likewise, though believed to be more com∣plyant* 1.9 with the Court of Rome, being sollicited by the Pope to publish and admit the same Council in his Belgick Provinces, though he wil∣lingly yielded thereto, yet he did it not without this additional Clause adjoyned, Touching the Regalities, Rights, Prerogatives and Preeminences of his Majesty, his Vassals, Estates and Subjects; the Lay∣cal Iurisdiction hitherto used, the Right of Lay-Patronage the Right of No∣mination, Hearing of causes in the possessory matter of Benefices, Tithes possessed or pretended to by Seculars, &c. in regard of all such things his Majesties Intention is, that proceedings shall go on as hitherto they have done, without changing any thing at all, &c. So necessarily scrupulous are Christian Princes to prevent the least diminution of their Tem∣poral Rights and Priviledges.

More lately likewise when certain Authors of one Order published several Treatises, in which they endeavoured to exalt to the height the Popes Iurisdiction Universal in Temporal affairs, those Books were censured and condemned by many Catholic Universities, and com∣mitted to the fire by Public Authority, the Pope not being ignorant hereof. And moreover (which perhaps is yet more considerable) the Superior General of the said Religious Order, even in Rome it self, published an Edict (known to all Christendom) by which he strictly

forbad his Subjects, under most heavy Censures, to maintain such a Tem∣poral Iurisdiction of the Pope, either in Books, Sermons or Disputations. Now that which makes this so solemn a Prohibition of more weight is this, that whereas the foresaid Authors earnestly contended to prove that all Christians were obliged to believe the Popes Right to such Authority, as an Article of our Christian Faith, the said General▪ by publishing his Prohibitory Edict, clearly shewed that he re∣nounced the Belief of such a Doctrine: For otherwise, Who but a•• Antichrist would so severely under a penalty of Excommunication for∣bid the teaching or defending an Article of Faith? And moreover in a General Chapter not long after assembled, the said Prohibition was ratified by all Superiors of the same Order, as their own Writers testifie.

Prot.

I must needs confess that Christian Princes, and Subjects too▪ are much beholding to that Worthy General for his prudence and zeal to prevent occasions of tumults and Seditions. Notwithstand∣ing it seems to me that Princes are not yet secure: for though the said Doctrine should cease to be esteemed an Article of Faith, why may it not be defended as an Opinion, at least Speculatively probable? and if so, a slender Probability will have force but too great to raise and foment Rebellions, when discontents are multiplied among the people.

§. 66.

Cath.

You are much deceived, Sir. For besides that you may be sure that Princes will never permit their Authority to be ren∣dred questionable, the very pretending such a Doctrine to be only Probable, is equivalently to grant that it is no Authority at all: Since every one knows, that a meer probable Title against a long establish∣ed possession (such as is that of Princes for their Temporal Soveraign∣ty) is in Law and Reason accounted no Title: and consequently none who have any sence of Christianity will ever seek, with the horrible Scandal of Religion to instill such a manifestly unjust incentive to Re∣bellion into the minds of Christians.

And now, Sir, I beseech you to consider things seriously, and then judg with what injustice and cruelty our whole Religion and Church is condemned, as teaching Treason and Rebellion, and this only for a few private mens Writings, so generally abhorred by our selves.

Prot.

All I can say hereto is, that for as much as concerns my self, I will be no longer an accuser of your Church in this matter. Pro∣ceed

therefore if you please, to the other following Points.

4. Of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

§. 67.

Cath.

The next Point of Catholic Doctrine, opposed by all Sectaries, regards the Holy Eucharist. Their rage against the former is indeed greater, because interest is more concerned in it: but a greater advantage for seducing the ignorant people they make of this, because they permit them to judg of this most dreadful Mystery by their outward Senses, which, Catholics, instructed by Holy Fa∣thers, tell them are not to be believed here.

In the Eucharist the first matter of Dispute, and ground of the rest, is the Catholic Doctrine touching the Real Presence of our Lords Body on the Altar after Consecration of the Symbole, thus declared in the Council of Trent, I prosess that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eu∣charist is present truly and substantially the Body and the Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ: And that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into his Body, and of the whole substance of the Wine into his Blood: Which Conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation.

This Article of our Belief is to us solidly established on the Words of Institution. THIS IS MY BODY: which Words without any figurative explication are repeated alike by three Evangelists and the Apostle Saint Paul: therefore we believe, following universal Tradition, that our Lord sincerely meant as he spake; and because we believe so, we are hated.

Prot.

But how can you expect that we should assent hereto, since our Senses contradict it?

§. 68.

Cath.

You cannot say however that our Senses are de∣ceived: for in this great Mystery they have a right perception of their proper Objects, to wit, Colour, Extention, Figure, &c. Nei∣ther I suppose, will you say that the judgment which Reason from the Senses collects, is always infallible. For if so, then (for exam∣ple) our Saviour whilst living on earth should have been judged a meer Man: And the Angels, appearing to Lot and his daughters, no Angels but meer men: for so would Reason, relying on the outward Senses, have judged.

Prot.

in these examples Divine Revelation expresly teaches the contrary.

Cath.

Then if in the present case you were assured by Divine Re∣velation

that God by a supernatural Power did on the Priests conse∣crating the Symbols produce a real Change of the Outward Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ, you would believe God against your Senses.

Prot.

I should no doubt.

§. 69.

Cath.

Can you have a greater assurance hereof, then the express Words of Christ literally understood by the Constant Tra∣dition of all Churches in all ages?

Prot.

Such an assurance truly would to me be sufficient.

Cath.

Then, since we are not met here to mannage a formal Dis∣pute, give me leave to desire you seriously to peruse what has passed very lately in Writings on this Argument between Monsieur Arnauld a Doctor of Sorbon, and the most subtle of the Huguenot Ministers called Monsieur Claude. There, besides Testimonies of Antiquity, you will find our Catholic Doctrine acknowledged by the Prime Bi∣shops of Greece, Muscovy, Armenia, and many other Oriental Sects, who by their Attestations, subscribed with their Names before Wit∣nesses, have professed that the Doctrine touching the Real Presence and Change of the Visible Elements into the very Body and Blood of Christ, is the constant Doctrine of all their respective Congregations, and that it has been so delivered to them by their Ancestors from the beginning.

Prot.

Truly Sir, if this appear to me, I shall not trouble my self with Doubts or Objections from School Philosophy; nor examine the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] How such a change is made: which Examination hath been long since condemned by St. Cyrill of Alexandria, but humbly sub∣mit my judgment and assent to what God has revealed, as I do also in the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, &c. For in∣deed I find that the Doctrine touching the Holy Eucharist has from the beginning been delivered as a Mystery also incomprehensible by na∣tural Reason.

§. 70.

Cath.

You may add hereto, that even the Calvinists them∣selves, though the most perverse Enemies to this Mystery, yet afford a considerable Proof of it against themselves. For seeing clearly the Tradition touching the Real Presence so fully attested in the Writings of the Holy Fathers and in Ancient Councils, they, even when they endeavour with most eagerness to oppose it, oppose it in language counterfeiting that of Antiquity; so ashamed are they to renounce both

the sense and expressions too, of the Primitive Church. This may be observed not only in the Polemical Writings of Mestrezat, Anbertin and others of their Champions, but even in their Catechism and sim∣ple Confession of their Faith. For, there we read; That our Saviour* 1.10 nourishes and quickens us with the substance of his Body and Blood, That he is given us in the Sacrament according to his proper Substance; And that, though he be truly communicated to us both by Baptism and the Gospel; Yet that is only in part, and not entirely (so that it seems, in* 1.11 the Eucharist they receive him whole and entirely.) Moreover, that the Body of the Lord Iesus, in as much as it hath been once offered in* 1.12 Sacrifice to reconcile us to God, it is now (in the Eucharist) given us to rectify us that we have part in that reconciliation.

§, 71.

And as for English Protestants the time was within mans memory, when not only the Prelates of this Church (without Hu∣guenotical hypocrisy) delivered their Belief of this Mystery in expressi∣ons very Catholic; but his Majesties learned and wise Grand-Father giving the world an account of the Faith of that Church of which he was the Head, delivers it thus, We acknowledg a Presence (of Christ in the Sacrament no less true, then you (Roman Catholics:)* 1.13 but we dare not determine the manner of it. Neither truly dare we Catholics. Thus learned Protestants wrote and spoke before this last, worse then Zuinglian Reformation and new Rubrick: since which time the English Church has permitted all fanatical sectaries to make her a brocher of all their frenzies, and a justifier of Doctrines which devour her very vitals.

Prot.

Enough of this, Sir, Be pleased now to proceed to the next Point.

5. Of Adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

§. 72.

Cath.

The next controverted Doctrine, regards the Ado∣ration of Christ in the Holy Sacrament. Concerning which the sum of the Churches Faith is comprized in this her Decision; Whosoever shall* 1.14 say, that Christ the only begotten Son of God ought not to be adored in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the Supream Worship (Latria) even external—And that his Adorers are Idolaters, let him be Anathema.

Now the Doctrine touching the Real Presence, being once esta∣blished, will sufficiently justify this: for certainly it is not only law∣ful, but our Duty to adore Christ whereever he is truly present. And consequently this Practice of Adoring our Lord in his Sacrament is by

the same Universal Tradition delivered, and ordained in all Publick Liturgies, both of the Grecian and other Oriental Churches.

§. 73.

But the great, and too willing mistake of our Adversaries is, that they impute to us the Adoration of the Visible Elements: Whereas the proper Object of our Worship is not any Visible thing, Nay, we do not terminate our Worship percisely in the Body of Christ which we beleive invisibly present: The proper Object of our worship is the Person of Christ God and Man veiled under the Visible Elements. So that in case it should happen through some incapacity in the Mini∣ster, or defect in the manner or matter, that the Elements should not be effectually consecrated, and yet we, (beleiving Christs Body to be Sacramentally present,) should so worship him, in this indeed would be a circumstantial mistake, but here would be no Idolatry, nor in∣deed any fault in us, the Errour being supposed undiscoverable by us. The reason is, because the Belief of the Presence of Christs Body is truly grounded on Divine Revelation; and not a fond fancy such as was that of the Manicheans worshiping Christ as peculiarly present in the Sun, or of the Isrealites conceiving God to be peculiarly present in the Calves at Bethel. And to this you may see Daille yeilding his consent, in his Apology for the Reformed Churches, the eleventh Chap∣ter.

It is observable with what strange and unreasonable partiality the Calvinists treat Catholics in this Point: They give their judgment that there is no dangerous Venome in the Doctrine of the Lutherans touch∣ing this matter, and therefore have Synodically granted them admission to their Cene which the Lutherans scorn. Now the Lutherans profess the Real Presence of Christs Body together with the Bread: and some of them acknowledg Adoration due to him there. So that to a Calvinists consci∣ence the same, or a worse Doctrine held by a Sectary looses all its poyson: it is only dangerous to believe what the Church teaches. Yea those very Calvinists acknowledg also, that if Christ be in such a special manner really present, Adoration would be due to him. Some Lutherans de∣ny this. But whether they affirm or deny any thing, upon condition they will stay out of Gods Church, they shall be welcome Brethren to Calvinists.

Prot,

Truly such a dis-ingenuous want of Honesty and such interes∣sed Compliance is very justly to be condemned. You may now pro∣ceed.

6. Of the Sacrifice and Oblation of Christs Body on the Altar.

§. 74.

Cath.

The next Point, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, quarrelled at by Protestants, is our Doctrine touching the Sacrifice of Christs Body on the Altar concerning which the summ of the Churches Decision is as followeth: I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a* 1.15 true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the dead. By which Sacrifice that bloody Sacrifice performed once on the Cross is represented, and the memory of it remains till the end of the world: the saving vertue thereof is also applyed for the remission of those sins which are dayly commited by us.

All Catholics receive this Decision, as it lyes: As for School-men, they according to their custom, raise a world of unnecessary Disputes which are no where so multiplyed as on this incomprehensible Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. But as many of their Questions seem no way neces∣sary, so no Catholics are obliged to their Decisions.

§. 75.

Protestants set themselves against this Sacrifice, upon a meer mistake of the Term, which they will needs affirm to imply an Im∣molation: and thereupon argue, that the Roman Church manifestly* 1.16 contradicts the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrews who affirms that Christ hath now once in the end of the world appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. And that he was once offered to bear the sins of many: and thence concludes the absolute Perfection of that one Sacrifice of Christ once offered, which did not need be repeated, as the Legal Sacrifices did.

But this pretended Contradiction will quickly vanish, if we con∣sider that though the Sacrifices made by Christ did accomplish all sorts of Sacrifices and Oblations in the Law, yet the forementioned Divine Authour in a special manner compares it to that great Anniversary Sa∣crifice of general Propitiation, in which after the killing of the beast, the High Priest alone, and only once every year, carryed the Blood into the Holy of Holies, and there sprinkled it before God. In like manner did our Saviour after his bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, ascending into* 1.17 Heaven by his own blood entered into the most Holy place, having ob∣tained eternal redemption for us.

Now these two Acts of Priesthood are by his commission in a sort, repeated by his Servants whom he hath ordained Priests in his Church, and who according to Saint Augustine's expression are [propriissime Sa∣cerdotes] in a most proper Sence Sacrificing Priests. For answerably to the Acts of Immolation, their Sacrifice on the Altar is only Represen∣tative

and Commemorative, and expressed by Seperating the Body from the Blood, Yet so, that it is not barely a Sign of Christs death, for that alone would not be sufficient to entitle it a Sacrifice; but it also con∣tains the Victim whose death is represented. And again with regard to Christs offering and presenting to his Father his crucified Body in the most Holy place, or Highest Heaven, his Priests truly and properly pre∣sent and Offer to Almighty God the same Body and Blood really present on the Holy Altar, as a Propitiation for the Living and the Dead. Which Propitiation is not at all injurious to that Propitiation and Eternal Re∣demption purchased for us by our Saviour, since it receives all its virtue from his bloody Sacrifice, being instituted for an Application of the said Redemption. For thus also in an inferiour degree the same Propitiati∣on is applyed to us by other Sacraments, as Baptism, Pennance, and Absolution, and Extream Unction, yea also by the Word preached, &c. And thus much even the French Calvinists do acknowledge in their Cene, as hath been shewed. Now I desire you to judge what pre∣judice can come by the various applications of Christs Merits.

Prot.

There seems to me now no such great difficulty in admitting a Relative Sacrifice, and a proper Oblation. Therefore you need not enlarge this Point any further.

7. Of Communion under One Species.

§. 76.

Cath.

The last Subject of Protestants quarrels against the Church, with relation to the Holy Eucharist, is her Ordaining to the Laity, Communion under one Species only.

Now it is acknowledged that, as our Saviour instituted this Sacrament in both Species, so for many ages together, it was, in public Commu∣nions, received accordingly: I say, in Public Communions: for in other private occasions, as in Sickness, at Sea, and generally among the devout Inhabitants of Desarts, it was otherwise: yet these, re∣ceiving in One Species only, did not esteem themselves deprived of any vertue pertaining to the integrity of the Sacrament: And the reason is, because they generally believed (as the Church has now declared) that it is most true, that as much is contained in each Species, as under both: for whole and entire Christ does exist under the Species of Bread, and under every particle of that Species: in like manner whole Christ does exist under the Species of Wine, and under its parts (when separated) Upon this ground the Church without intending the least prejudice to her Children, has thought fit, for avoiding many inconveniences and

irreverencies which did frequently occur by the negligence and con∣fusion of such vast multitudes of Communicants receiving the Blood also, that all, excepting the Priest who celebrated, should content themselves in Public Communions, as from the beginning Christians did in Private, with our Lords Body only under the Species of Bread, which is not obnoxious to the like inconveniencies, considering that hereby they should not be loosers of any part of the Blessing.

§. 77.

This regards the Holy Eucharist considered as a Sacrament. But as it is a Sacrifice, both the Species are necessary to the constitution of it, it being ordained to represent the Death of Christ by shedding his Blood: Which representation is made by Consecreating and offer∣ing both the Body and Blood separatly.

Matters standing thus, it concerns you much to consider whether this be a just cause of your Speration from the Catholic Church in which you might have been partaker truly and really of the precious Body of Christ: whereas in Congregations divided from her, you, instead of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, must content your self with a morsel of meer bread and a sup of wine.

Prot.

I will, by Gods assistance, think seriously on this. In the mean time you may proceed to the following Points.

8. Of Sacramental Confession, Pennance and Satisfaction.

§. 78.

Cath.

The next Catholic Doctrine severely censured by you, as an invention of the Clergys ambition, is the Obligation imposed by the Ca∣tholic Church on her subjects to Confess their Mortal sins, and to submit to satisfactions for them; according to this Canon, Whosoever shall deny Sa∣cramental Confession to have been instituted by Divine Law, or to be neces∣ary to Salvation: or shall affirm that the manner of Confession secretly to the Priest alone (which the Catholic Church from the beginning hath allways and still doth observe) is disagreeing from the institution and command of Christ, and that it is a humane invention; Let him be Anathema.

This Duty of Confession of sins seems by this Canon referred to that Commission and Privilege given by our Saviour to his Apostles and their Successours, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins* 1.18 ye retain they are retained, As likewise to the Precept to Saint Iames, Con∣fess your sins one to another: Which Texts have been alwayes interpreted by the Holy Fathers in the same sense. The universal Practice likewise of the Iewish Synagogue conformable hereto adds a considerable weight to induce us to a perswasion that it is by Divine Institution.

For how can it be imagined that by any humane invention a Duty so burthensom to flesh and blood, and to our Natural Pride, could have been introduced generally into the Church, without sparing the aw∣full Majesty of Kings and Modesty of Queens, by an unarmed Ecclesias∣tical Power, the Pope himself also owing such Submission to a simple Priest.

§. 79.

The ground of the necessity of this Sacrament is, because those who by Baptism having submitted themselves to the Churches Authority, afterwards do violate the Laws of the Gospel, ought to un∣dergo the judgment of the same Church in the Tribunal of Penance, where she exercises the Power given her of remitting and retaining sins. Now such judgment is esteemed as given by Iesus Christ himself, by whom and in whose place his Priests are appointed Iudges. It is this invisible High Priest who after Confession, Sorrow and Satisfaction in∣teriourly absolves the Penitent, whilst the Priest, exercises the exteri∣our Ministery, as a Subordinate Iudge, without whose concurrence Sins shall not be remitted.

§. 80.

As for Satisfactions imposed after Confessions, they, according* 1.19 to the Churches expression, regard only Temporal Pains due to our Sins; She does not teach that we can satisfie God for the guilt even of Venial Sins; or for Eternal Pains. Moreover she declares, that these Satisfactions are accepted of God through the Merits of Christ: and that they do no way obscure the benefit of Christs death, For Christ by his death has so satisfied for our sins, that it is Gods pleasure his satis∣faction should not produce its full effects, till it be by us particularly applyed in the use of his Sacraments and works worthy of Penance: to which Works his Merits being linked, and not otherwise, our Satis∣factions will be accepted by him, through his pure Grace and Mercy.

The Lutherans, who seem so only to rely on Christs Passion for the remission of their Sins, doubt not yet to profess that a previous Faith is necessary thereto, for such as are come to the age of discretion, and Baptism for Infants. The difference then between us is, that they pretend to be justified by a Dead Faith, and we by a Living. Now therefore advise with your self whether you would forsake Gods Church rather then submit your self to a Duty, without which that eminent Priviledge given by our Lord to his Ministers for the general good of his people, of remitting Sins, becomes vain and of no effect.

Prot.

I will seriously think on this: and now expect what you will say concerning the other Articles.

9. Of Indulgences.

§. 81.

Cath.

I will, if you think good, in the next place treat of the Point touching Indulgences, by reason of its affinity to the former.

Prot.

I leave the Method to your own choice.

Cath.

Concerning Indulgences then the Church hath thus delivered her* 1.20 sense: Since the Power of giving Indulgences hath been bestowed on the Church by Iesus Christ, and that She hath made use of this Power, divine∣ly left her, from antient times: the Holy Synod teaches and commends the use of Indulgences, as very beneficial to all Christian people, and approved by the Authority of other Holy Synods; and that they ought to be retained in the Church▪ And denounceth Anathema against those who assert that they are unprofitable; or deny that there is a Power of giving them in the Church. Notwithstanding the Synod admonishes that the granting of them be done with great moderation, according to the ancient and approved Cus∣tome of the Church; for fear least by two great a remisness Ecclesiastical Discipline be weakned.

Thus we are taught by the Church. And certain it is that there is not any Point of Catholic Faith which, taken simply according to the Churches own expression, is more evident, as to the Truth of it, and less offensive, as to the use, then is this touching Indulgences. Yet af∣ter all, there is not any one Point so embroyled by Controvertists dis∣puting for and against Inferences and Interpretations made by several Schoolmen, which have occasioned most horrible Scandals by abuses committed in Practise: This having been the first occasion of Luthers revolting and Schism.

§. 82.

Now forasmuch as regards the proper, necessary sence of this Canon, those very Schoolmen who advance the virtue of Indulgences* 1.21 much beyond what will be allowed by many very learned Catholics, yet do acknowledge that the Church by her Decision obliges us to be∣lieve as of Faith only this, viz. That only such a Power of conferring In∣dulgences has been left by our Lord to his Church as from ancient times has been practised and approved by former Synods, intending those that are u∣sually cited to that purpose, as the first of Nicea, Can. 11. of Neocaesare Can. 3. of Laodicea, Can. 1. and 2. the Fourth of Carthage, Cap. 75. and of Agdes, Can. 6. in all which Synods we only find this, that it was always lawful and usual for Bishops to remit to their Penitents some part of those Canonical Penances which were inflicted for certain crimes, in case the life and laudable conversation of the

Penitent did seem to deserve so great a favour; or if by such indul∣gence they thought requisite to encourage weaker Christians in times of Persecution to suffer for the Faith.

Hence appears that whatsoever beyond this we read in the Catholic Writers, as thouching the remission of any pane due to Sin in the judg∣ment of God, or after death in Purgatory, or touching certain clauses in the Bulls of some Popes; or touching the Churches Treasure consist∣ing of the Merit of Christ alone, as some, or of the Merits of Saints joyned to those of Christ, as others conceive, &c. not any of these are necessary Points of Catholic Faith.

Thus in effect the Catholic Church requires no more to be assented to, but what is taught and practised by every Congregation of Chris∣tians upon Earth. All Sects, even Fanatics and Quakers, denounce Censures against Delinquents. Must all those Censures alwayes have their full effect? Is no mercy to be extended to humble, contrite Pe∣nitents? Shall no difference be made between Sinners converted, and those that are remorsless? This is contrary to humane Nature and the practise of all mankind. Therefore surely you would not for∣sake the Catholic Church for allowing that which all Christians esteem necessary.

§. 83.

Prot.

If this were all that the Roman Church teaches con∣cerning Indulgences, they are much to blame who condemn her. But the general Practise therein contradicts you. Do we not see the vir∣tue of Indulgences extended to the other world? Do we not see in the tenor of promulgated Plenary Indulgences all Sinners promised Remission, and Heaven too for a few Prayers recited, for visiting a certain number of Churches, or disbursing a small sum▪ of Money? Quid ergo verba audio, cum fact a videam?

Cath.

All that you alledg being confessed, what prejudice can that bring to you or me? I told you that several School-men in their Speculations do attribute more to Indulgences then the Church gives them warrant for? and this they themselves acknowledg. So it fares in all Religions, that Opinions do in number far exceed Articles of Faith. No wonder therefore if Popes do enlarge their Graces ac∣cording to the measure of Opinions, not condemned. And who justly blame them, since they themselves reap no profit by all the Alms given? Indeed in the former Ages great Scandal was given by the avarice of such as published Indulgences, and collected the chari∣table

Alms of devout people. Of which Scanda•• ••••e Church taking * 1.22 notice, utterly abolished that Office, and commanded Bishops in such oc∣casions to assume from among the Canons of their respective Churches to be Collectors of Alms, withal strictly forbidding them to accept any re∣ward at all for their labour.

§. 84.

Matters standing thus, what harm flows to any by Indul∣gences so published? Though perhaps not one in a hundred gains the full vertue of such Indulgences, yet something they do certainly gain; some reward they will reap from performing the good acti∣ons enjoyned, which probably would otherwise never have been done by many. However, they loose nothing at all. They are taught, not to expect remission of unrepented sins, or to gain Heaven by an Indulgence: for none are capable of the fruit thereof, but such as have with Contrition confessed their sins▪ and received absolution, and consequently are in the state of Grace, but yet remain obnoxious to temporal punishments, from which an Indulgence, duely made use of, doth free them.

§. 85.

One incommodity indeed may justly be apprehended by a too profuse and frequent concession of Indulgences, which is the enervating of Ecclesiastical Discipline: to prevent which the Church (as I said in the entrance into this Point) expresly and earnestly admo∣nishes* 1.23 that the granting of them may be done with great moderation ac∣cording to the antient and approved Custom of the Church.

Now If all this care will not yet satisfy you, however surely you will have no excuse for leaving the Church upon this account, because though there be never so many mistakes or abuses in the ordinary teach of Private Doctors, and common practice about Indulgences, you will not need to concern your self in any of them; since if you think fit, you may keep your money in your purse, perform your Devotions in your private Closet, endeavour to fulfil all Canonical Penances which have been, or, by the utmost rigor of Ecclesiastical Discipline, ought to have been imposed on you for all your sins, and so freely abstain all your life time from making use of an Indul∣gence,

Prot.

Enough hath been said on this subject: proceed, if you think fit, to the next.

10. Of Iustification, and Merit of Good Works.

§. 86.

Cath.

After the discoursing of Confession, Penance, and Indul∣gence

it will be seasonable and proper to treat of the Fruit arising from, or by occasion of them, which is the Merit of Good Works and Iustification. There is scarce any Point of Catholic Doctrine from which Protestants have sought greater advantage to multiply foolish Books and senceless Sermons, then this touching Iustification: and oft it falls out that their zealous Invectives against the Church are then most loudand bitter, when explaining themselves, they presently agree with the Churches sense. Of this, as soon as I have sincerely acquainted you with our Catholic Doctrine, I am content you should be the Judg.

§. 87.

First then, it is acknowledged that the Church teaches,* 1.24 That men are justified (indeed) by the imputation of Christs Iustice, and by Remission of their sins; but not by these only, so as to exclude Grace and Charity shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost: that is in effect, That God does not justify nor remit sins to persons while they per∣sist in their sins and in a hatred of him. Again the Church, making use of the ordinary expression of the Holy Fathers, teaches, That a* 1.25 person justified truly merits eternal Life by his good Works.

Now this word Merit (the word, I say, but not the true sense of it when they will permit us to explain it) is very offensive to Pro∣testants. But you having obliged your self to avoid partiality, will judg of the Churches sense by what she further adds for explication of this Point; and for clearing her self from the imputation of en∣couraging men to glorify themselves, and to trust in their own a∣bilities for purchasing remission of sins and salvation.

§. 97.

Thus then she further teaches, it is necessary to believe that* 1.26 sins neither are, nor ever have been remitted, but by Divine Mercy free∣ly* 1.27 extended to us, for (the merits of) Iesus Christ. Again, We are said to be justified freely because not any of those things which precede our Iu∣stification, whether Faith or Works, can merit that Grace. In the third* 1.28 place, Eternal life ought to be proposed to the Children of God, both as a free Grace mercifully promised to them through Iesus Christ; and also* 1.29 as as a Recompence which is faithfully rendred to their Good Works and Merits, by vertue of that Promise. Fourthly although in Holy Scriptures so much is attributed to Good Works, that Iesus Christ himself promises that a Cup of cold water given to the poor shall not fail of a Reward, and that the Apostle testifies that our light and momentary tribulation worketh fur us a far more exceeding, eternal weight of glory; Yet God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord,

whose Goodness towards all men is so great that he is pleased, that the Free Gifts bestowed by him on them should be their Merits. I will add only one passage more, out of a great heap, to the like effect. We,* 1.30 who of our selves, as of our selves, can do nothing, by our Lords coopera∣tion, who gives us strength, can do all things: Thus man hath nothing in himself for which he can glory, but all our glorying is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy, bringing forth fruits, worthy of Repentance, which fruits take their vertue from him, are offered to the Father by him, and accepted of the Father for him.

Thus are we instructed by the Church in the Council of Trent and* 1.31 moreover in the Canon of the Holy Mass we are taught thus to pray. Mercifully vouchsafe, O God, to admit us into the Society of thy Apostles and Martyrs, not weighing our Merits, but pardoning our offences through Iesus Christ.

§. 89.

Can you now say, Sir, that the Roman Church teacheth her Children to glorifie themselves, and to rely upon their own Me∣rits, or indeed to esteem their Merits to be their own? she must cancel the whole Scripture if she would affirm that without a good life and Holiness we may see God: Or if she would affirm that God has not obliged himself by a world of Promises to reward our Good Works with Happiness infinitely exceeding the value of them.

But withal to preserve in our hearts that most essential virtue of our Christian Professor, Humility, She further instructs us, that our Works as Merits, are the pure free Gifts of God and effects of his meer Grace, which alone affords them all their value: That they are accepted and rewarded by God, only for the Merits of Iesus Christ. Yea further, that our Natural Corruption still remaining, and ming∣ling it self in our best actions, we can have no assurance that they are indeed such as God has promised to reward: And however, that though we now stand, yet we have no assurance that we shall not fall. In a word the whole Substance of her Doctrine touching the present Subject directs us to work out our Salvation with fear and trem∣bling: and when we have done all we can, to acknowledg our selves un∣profitable Servants, having only done our duty (if we have indeed done that) and consequently if God do reward us, it is to be ascrib∣ed to his own free Goodness and Grace, in which alone we place our trust, and not at all in our own imperfect Merits.

§. 90.

And now, Sir, judg whether the Roman Church teaching

these Doctrines can with any shew be accused or suspected to have a design to nourish Spiritual Pride in her Children; and whether the first contrivers of Schism had reason to publish to the world, as the principal ground of their rupture, this Article of Iustification and Good Works; and in opposition to her, to make the people believe that the Faith by which they are to be justified must be a strong re∣solute Fancy, of their Election, and an assurance of their Salvation; that a holy life has no influence therein; yea that Good Works do ra∣ther* 1.32 harm then good; and lastly, that this monstrous kind of new in∣vented Faith once had, can never be lost again, nor their right to heaven prejudiced by never so many, or never so heynous crimes. A∣mong them there is no working our Salvation with fear and trembling. Assurance of Salvation in them annihilates the great Christian ver∣tue of Hope. This in the midst of a world of Sins they will be as∣sured of Salvation, to which Assurance Catholics dare not pretend in the midst of all their Mortifications, Humiliations, and assiduous Devotions. Since therefore, Sir. you are so afraid of Pride, as in∣deed we have all reason to be, be you the Iudg which of these Par∣ties affords you best means to avoid it, and so, best deserves your choice.

Prot.

A short consideration will serve the turn for that purpose, Be pleased to proceed.

11. Of Invocation of Saints.

§. 91.

The next Point censured by you is the Churches Doctrine touching Invocation of Saints: thus expressed in the Council of Trent,* 1.33 It is good and profitable to call upon the Saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and assistance, whereby to obtain from God many benefits by the Merits of his Son Iesus Christ, who is our Redeemer and Saviour.

In this Point I shall briefly offer to you these considerations; 1. That it is a general Tradition of Gods Church from the begining, and not contradicted by sober Protestants, that glorified Saints do in∣cessantly Pray for the Militant Church on earth. 2. It is unquestion∣able that we may desire to receive benefit in particular by such their Prayers. 3. That it contradicts all reason and modesty in our Adversaries to charge the addressing our Petitions to them for that purpose with the horrible crime of Idolatry, since we do no otherwise beg the In∣tercession of Saints, then we do that of our sinful Brethren alive, ac∣knowledging God alone to be the Author and fountain of all good.

§. 92.

Hence it follows that the worst title that malice it self can

with any shew of reason affix to this our Practice is, that it may be esteemed superfluous, in case it can be demonstrated, that Saints at such a distance cannot hear nor know our Requests in particular. Yet neither would this enervate the Churches Doctrine or Practice;* 1.34 which by eminent Divines is proved to be laudable and profitable, though they did not always hear us: neither indeed has the Church any where determined her Belief, that they do so. But lastly, if it be the Church her self, and not some private Catholic Writers, that you would question about this Subject; observe, that in her public Liturgy and Mass, celebrated on all the Feasts of Saints, she continually addresses her Petitions directly to God alone, desiring him to grant us such special Blessings by the Intercession of such and such Saints. Now it cannot be doubted but that Charity and mutual assistance among fellow members of the same Body is very acceptable to God whensoever and wheresoever performed. We are taught to beleive a Communion of Saints: we doubt not of their Charity to us: our Communion therefore with them must be to testify our joy for their Happiness, and our assurance that their Intercessions for us are more prevalent with God, then the Prayers of our living imperfect Brethren: Therefore since we may and ought, on occasions to beg these, and to desire God to hear them for our good, much rather surely ought we to do the same with regard to the glorified Saints. I leave it therefore to your conscience whether you can judg that a separation from Gods Church on this quarrel can be justified.

Prot.

At least I shall never hereafter impute Idolatry to her for this Practice.

12. Of Veneration of Images and Relics of Saints.

§. 93.

Cath.

The next Point of Catholic Doctrine, and which has an affinity with the last, regards the Veneration due to Holy Images and Relics, which is equally censured by Protestants. It is thus expressed in the Confession of Faith set down by Pope Pius the* 1.35 fourth. I do most firmly assert that the Images of Christ, of the Virgin-Mother of God, as likewise of other Saints are to be had and retained, and due honour and Veneration to be given to them, and also to their Relics.

§. 94.

Now to justify the use which Catholics make of Images, the Veneration due to them, and that such Veneration is most unjustly and calumniously by some Protestants interpreted to be Idolatry will be no hard task to perform.

For common reason and the experience of all mankind instruct us, that men do naturally desire and delight to think or talk oft on such things past, or persons absent from whom they have received some Signal benefit, and much more if they expect an addition of like benefits. But besides this, if the very thinking or speaking of them with affection be it self a Duty advantagious to us, and conducing to our happiness, we will thank any person, and we will think it reasonable to furnish our selves with such expedients as are proper to put us oft in mind of them: which we therefore regard in a far other manner, then we do such things as represent to us only in∣different Objects. Is not this, Sir, suitable to Reason?

Prot.

Truly it seems so to me.

Cath.

Then I desire you to examine your self, and tell me, if whilst your thoughts are employed on vain, or perhaps sinful objects, one should on a sudden hold before your eyes a Crucifix containing the History of our Saviors Passion, would not the fight thereof recal your mind to the contemplation of an Object more noble, more heavenly, to mediate on which would be very beneficial to you.

Prot.

No doubt it would.

Cath.

Again, may not one glance of your eye thereon so refresh your Memory as in a moment to make you call to mind as much of the Story, as perhaps the reading of a long Chapter in the Gospel would do?

Prot.

That may be granted.

§. 94.

Cath.

May it not likewise have the same effect, and be yet more helpful to ignorant persons who cannot read, and have weak Memories?

Prot.

It may doubtless.

§. 95.

Cath.

And are not such representations, beside refreshing the memory, proper also to raise in your mind holy affections of love and gratitude to our Saviour?

Prot.

It is confessed: But what is all this to worshiping or adoring a Crucifix or other Image?

Cath.

Sir, I desire you, since these terms of Adoring and Wor∣shiping in our common English are usually made to import the Su∣preme Honour due to God alone, that you would, not (in imitation of your libelling Controvertists, whose only aym is, by any arts to render our Religion odious to unwary Readers) make use of them

in this argument: But take the Churches own expression, and call the respect we bear to Sacred Images and Relics, Honour, Reverence or Veneration.

Prot.

I am Content.

§. 97.

Cath.

Then, Sir, give me leave to ask you, Whether it is not another kind of special regard which we have to Sacred and Hea∣venly Objects, from that we bear to profane? as for example, Can you think fit to do all the same things in a Church, which you would have no Scruple to do in your house, or in an unclean place?

Prot.

No doubt, a difference is to be made.

Cath.

And would you not judg that person injurious to our Sa∣viour, or to his Blessed Mother, who should deface, spit upon, or defile the Pictures of either of them? And on the other side, whether seeing another reverently kissing, either of them, you would not collect thereby that he bore respect to the glorious Persons repre∣sented?

Prot.

Let all this be granted.

Cath.

And would you call such a reverent behavior of the latter person, Idolatry; especially when he (with the Church) professes* 1.36 that he acknowledges no kind of virtue or Divinity in them for which they should be honoured, or that any thing is to be beg'd of them, or any trust to be put in them: which acknowledgment the Church her self requires from him?

Prot.

I confess, I see there no Marks of Idolatry: but on the con∣trary, an express renouncing of it.

§. 98.

Cath,

Well, Sir; since then Sacred things are otherwise to be regarded, then common and profane; and again, since our Saviour and his Saints may receive testimonies of our Love and Duty, as likewise of Hatred and Scorn, by our very outward behaviour shewed to their Representations; Moreover Since it is that by Repre∣sentations we are put in mind of Persons and things highly condu∣cing to our happiness, and which we cannot without our great pre∣judice neglect or forget; and lastly, Since by them the ignorant also may very commodiously be instructed, and likewise good affections may by them be raised in all our minds; Would you rather forsake the Communion of the Church, then, with her, acknowledg, that due honour and Veneration is to be exhibited to them?

Prot.

I have no Scruple to allow thus much.

Cath.

Then surely you will have less scruple to allow the same Ve∣neration to the very Bodies, Members, or other Relicks of Saints.

Prot.

Be it acknowledged: and proceed.

13. Of Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory.

§. 99.

Cath.

In the next place we will consider what you object against the Churches Doctrine touching Prayer for the Dead, which implyes a State in them alterable to the better by our Prayers, Alms, &c. for them: Which State is by the Church, called Purgatory. Now it seems to me a wonderful thing that you should quarrel with Gods Church, so as to think Communion with her unlawful, because she is charitable and compassionate to her fellow-members, as she believes, standing in great need of her assistance.

§. 100.

Prot.

That which we principally reprehend in this Pra∣ctice is, that your Church, without any Warrant from Gods Word, will impose this burthen on us.

Cath.

If you had not dismembred that Book of Scripture which the Church once put into your hands, you would have found this Duty of Prayer and offering Sacrifice for the faithful departed expresly com∣mended* 1.37 and practised, even by the Iewish Synagogue long before our Saviour came into this world. So that your Argument is like that of your Patriarck Luther, who could not find in Scripture Justification by Works after he had torn the Epistle of St. Iames out of his Book.

§. 101.

Notwithstanding even in your Scripture you find that, no unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God. Neither have you any the least ground to believe that Christians full of many unrepented imperfections are perfectly cleansed by Dying: Therefore unless after Death there be a place where they may be purified, you most cru∣elly thrust them, without hope of redemption, into Hell.

And this you do in contradiction to the greatest Cloud of Witnesses that, I think, ever gave testimony to any Divine Uerity. For be∣sides a world of passages sprinkled in the works of the Holy Fathers among whom some have written Books on purpose to enforce this Cha∣ritable Duty towards the Dead, there never was any Church since Christ besides yours, which in their Publick Liturgies did not employ their Devotions and Sacrifices for the comfort and assistance of their Dead Brethern: Yea even your English Liturgy is accused by Presbi∣terians and Fanatics of the same criminal Charity.

§. 102.

And as for the place it self, in which we believe them to be detained, stiled by the Church, Purgatory; what a deal of un∣necessary trouble do your Controvertists give themselves in disputing against the fire of Purgatory, and touching the Nature, intention and duration of the pains suffered there: none of which are defined or mentioned in the Churches Decision?

§. 103.

Your partiality is likewise very unreasonable in this mat∣ter. For Calvin is by you generally esteemed a Patriark of great Au∣thority among all your Sects; who notwithstanding assigns to the Souls of the Faithful after death a certain place out of Heaven: in which* 1.38 they expect (saith he) the fruition of Glory promised them, so that all things remain in suspence until the coming of our Saviour to Iudgment. Now this so tedious suspension and anxious expectation of an Object vehemently desired, must needs be more grievous then a short suffer∣ing in Purgatory, where probably such a delayed expectation makes the principal torment, and where perhaps the sufferings of many, less imperfect Souls, may be less tormenting than some pains suffered in this life. Yet because Calvin will not call this his fancied place, Pur∣gatory, he is Orthodox, and the Church only erroneous. He is Orthodox, teaching in a manner, the very same Doctrine taught by the Church, and yet men can have the conscience to forsake the Church that they may learn her Doctrine abroad in a Shismatioal Congregation.

Prot.

Such partiality truly I cannot approve.

Cath.

These are the Catholic Doctrines mentioned by you as evi∣dently contradicting Scripture, and invented to promote Ambition and Avarice in the Catholic Clergy. And besides these, other Points of Controversie there are, which though not charged with such an imputation, yet are esteemed by you of moment, sufficient to drive you out of Gods Church. Do you think good that we should take notice of these also?

Prot.

Yes.

14. Of Celibacy of Priests.

§. 104.

Cath.

The first then that I will mention shall be the Church∣es Ordinance touching Celibacy of Priests. It is confessed by us that this is only an Ecclesiastical Constitution: It is also confessed by the most eminent among you, that if your Clergy would submit to such a Constitution, Ecclesiastical affairs would be better ordered. If they say, that all men have not the Gift of Continence; they may be told,

that in case any one of them wants this Gift, why does he intrude himself into the Office of a Spiritual Pastor? Who compels him thereto? Yet withall the same person in his younger days, had the Gift of Continence, whilst he enjoyned a subsistence by a Fellowship in the University; Does then his Approaching to the Altar expel that Gift? or does Ordination make a wife necessary in these latter days only, whereas never any former Christian Church, not in Greece it self, would permit any person, after made a Priest, to marry? Even those very Councils forbad this, which permitted marryed men to receive Priesthood. If therefore there be among them a want of this Gift of Continence, it is their own fault: generally speaking, they want it, because they are unwilling to enjoy it, and will not make use of Prayer, Reading, Abstinence, Solitude, and other means pro∣per to continue it. And will you, Sir, leave Gods Church, because those whom God hath appointed to take care of your soul, have not, neither desire to have Wives?

Prot.

Go on to the next Point.

15. Of abstinence from flesh enjoyned in Fasting.

§. 105.

Cath.

As not in the former Constitution, so neither in this by which the Church commands Abstinence from flesh on days of Fasting, can you have any pretention to impute to our Church, as we may to yours, that she favors carnal affections? In the former, her Clergy imposed on themselves alone the burden of renouncing all, even otherwise lawful, satisfactions to the flesh: And for this you, who are nothing concern'd, will be angry, and forsake a Church because Mortification is practiced by the Pastors in it. In this latter Ordinance she indeed, I mean her Clergy, restrain in some measure the appetites of the Layty, but they do not in the mean time favour themselves. If it were not good for our Souls to abate the intemperance of our Bodies, Ecclesiastics would not afflict themselves by practising it: And if it be good, Laicks are too blame to find fault with it.

§. 106.

However, I cannot judge you so unreasonable as to joyn with your hot-headed Controvertists and Preachers, who for these two Ordinances sake impute to our Church the teaching of the Do∣ctrine* 1.39 of Devils, in forbiding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats—since it is manifest that these Heretics, of whom Saint Paul prophesied, and which appeared shortly after in the Church, uttterly condemned Marriage in all, as an abomination in it self: and taught

that all Creatures having life are composed of particles of the evil Dei∣ty, and therefore to be had in execration. Now, Sir, can you observe any affinity between these Doctrines, and those of the Ca∣tholic Church, teaching that Marriage is honourable in all, who are called to it; but yet that Virginity especially in persons consecrated to God, is better: And again, that all Gods creatures are good, and to be received with thanksgiving, but yet on some few days when we are for the good of our Souls to subdue our carnal Lusts, fermenting in our Bodies, it is expedient to abstain from some more nourishing meats, though otherwise in themselves lawful and good?

Prot.

I am sufficiently perswaded Saint Paul never intended you in that Prophesie. And now, Sir, it will not be necessary you should trouble your self about any other Points debated among us: None of which (as neither indeed the two last) being of such moment, as to oblige any one to break from any Churches Communion at all: Since all the Doubts concerning them consist in this, Whether a single Christian may safely judg himself wiser and holyer then the Church.

Cath.

God Almighty establish in your heart a love of his Truth and Peace. And now for a farewel, give me leave to add a few considera∣tions touching the general argument of both our Discourses.

Prot.

I give it willingly.

§. 107.

Cath.

Then, Sir, you may remember how at our last meeting I told you that it was the common artifice of your Controver∣tists, when they are charged with Schism, to delay the examination of that most important Point, till the Greek Calends, that is, till all other particular Controversies be debated to their satisfaction, which will never be. But now I must alter the expression, and tell you, it is not so much a voluntary artifice, as pure necessity that put them, and you, upon that unreasonable Method.

§. 108.

When a Catholic is examined why he is so, an Answer is readily suggested to him, that it concerns the safety of his Soul to be a member of that Church which from his Creed he learns to be Holy and Catholic: and that the Roman is such, having all the Marks by which the only true Church is characterized in Scripture. He answers, directly to the Question, without comparing particular Tenents of his Church with those of other divided Congregations, which requires much Study and learning beyond the ability of ordinary Catholics: whereas the most simple are unquestionably perswaded of the Au∣thority▪

of their Church and that keeps them safe in it, against all the captious Objections of Sectaries endeavouring to shake their Faith in particular Doctrines, the justifying of which they leave to their Teachers and Governors.

§. 109.

But a Protestant being examined, Why (for example) he is Member of the Church of England, it never enters into his thoughts to justify his Church by the Marks of Unity, Antiquity, Succession, Universality, &c. nor does he pretend that his Church has any Au∣thority from Christ to oblige him to believe her rather then any Fa∣natic Congregations; for she her self will not suffer him to say so. What does he then? Truly he leaves his Church in a desperately forlorn condition; he never thinks of her, though she be the only subject of the Question, but diverts his fancy to spy out faults and errors else∣where, comforting himself with a perswasion that he has found them; though perhaps he be not able to penetrate into, or truly state one Point of Controversie.

And this illogical Method, Sir, you have observed in this Discourse: and as illogical as it is, I am confident you cannot mend it: for doubtless if you could have furnished your self out of your Anti-ca∣tholick Writers, or if your self could invent any specious Arguments to recommend to any mans liking, or esteem the Church of which you profess your self a Member, you would not have neglected the doing it; you would not have been quite silent in the only matter which you were concerned to prove.

Now, Sir, I am not desirous to take advantage against you from your past Method of proceeding. Take your own time to think better of it, and if it be your pleasure that we may have a third Meeting, I shall willingly expect a direct Answer to my Question, Why are you still a Protestant?

Prot.

I will through Gods Grace seriously think on this: and I will either provide a satisfactory Answer, as you require, or give you leave to conclude, that my eyes are opened to see the true Catholic Church, of which I will live and dye a faithful Member.

§. 110.

Cath.

Gods Holy Spirit direct you. And be pleased to take this Admonition with you: That unless you can find out a way to demonstrate the Protestant Church, in whose Communion you have hitherto lived, to be a true Member incorporated into that Catholic Church, which (unless the Creed be false) had a being before Protes∣tancy

was heard of, and so continues the same, your Soul is in evi∣dent danger, unless you forsake her: It will necessarily follow also (except such a Demonstration can be produced) that; without fur∣ther examination all those special Doctrines, which you have hither∣to triumphed in, as Christian Verities, are certainly illusions and er∣rours, because not professed in the same Catholic Church, which alone* 1.40 is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and whose Teaching whosoever will not hear (and believe) is, by our Saviours sentence, to be esteemed as* 1.41 a Heathen and Publican.

§. 111.

And indeed, to deal plainly with you, it was more then you could justly challenge in the present occasion, that I should have the compliance so far, as to attend unto the charges and accusations laid by you against the special Doctrins of the Catholic Church: for such accusations could have no place in an Answer to be made to the Question proposed in the beginning. Indeed if I had now (as may be done another time) precisely imputed Heresie to you, it might have been proper for you to justifie your particular Tenents, and al∣so to recrimimnate. But it was only the Crime of Schism that I laid to the Charge of Protestant Churches, and therefore asked you the Ques∣tion, Why are you a Protestant? Now to this Question, thus intended, no Answer can be proper but such an one by which you shall endea∣vour to demonstrate that the Protestant Church, in whose Communion you live, is not Schismatical, that it is not divided from the Catholic Church which never did nor ever shall fail, and that it has all the Marks which declare a Church to be Catholic. This you have not done: and no wonder, Since you can find no help for such a pur∣pose from any of your Writers. And yet till that can be done, all other Disputes are to no purpose, neither can Catholics be obliged to engage themselves in them: or if they do so, it is only to shew you that, being evidently and confessedly Schismatics, you are also Heretics.

§. 112.

Now, Sir, Since I am assured you will find it utterly im∣possible for you, this way, to excuse any of your lately erected Churches from the guilt of Schism; if still notwithstanding you will resolve to persist divided from that Catholic Church, which has been deserted by them all, my fear is that for the stupifying of your Con∣science you will think it necessary to make use of that, lately so cryed up, Socinian Opiat, I mean, that desperate Principle, That Schism is* 1.42 one of those Theological Scar-crows, with which those who hold a party in

Religion use to fright away such as making onquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it either appear erroneous, or suspicious, Where∣as whosoever shall, with a true and unpretended Conscience, perswade him∣self, or but suspect, that the Church requires a Profession of false Doctrins, or conformity to▪ unlawful Practises, [and of this each particular person must be the Iudge] in s••ch a case he not only may, but is, obliged to separate from the Church: and by such Separation not he, but the Church, is guilty of Schism. Now, Sir, is not this Prinoiple a Preservative of soveraign virtue against all remorse of Conscience for Schism or Heresie?

Prot.

But what would you have a man so perswaded, or so suspect∣ing Errours and Misdemeanors to be in the Church, to do?

Cath.

I readily enough grant, that in such a Case the man must neither profess, nor do any thing against his present conscience: And consequently, I do not say, he must separate, but if the Church for his obstinate disobedience shall cast him out, he must be pa∣tient. But the truth is, his case is deplorable, for every way he is exposed to extreamest danger. If he conforms against Conscience, he sins mortally by damnable Hypocrisie. If he refuses to conform, that is, to submit his private perswasion, or Suspicion, to the Teaching of the Church [I mean, the Catholic Church] his sin is yet more heynous, be∣ing a rebellious Disobedience to the highest and most Divinely establish∣ed Authority upon Earth, from the guilt of which Disobedience no dictates of consoience, how unpretended soever, can acquit him. Otherwise none but false Hypocrites and subtle pretenders of con∣science can be guilty either of Schism or Heresie: yea, the prouder menace, the more self-conceited of their own judgments, and more addicted to entertain suspition and contempt of their Superiors, the more innocent they shall be. So that a full perswasion, or it seems, but suspition that any Heretical Doctrines are Orthodox, will excuse all Heretics, even the most blasphemous, from all guilt and danger, and moreover, at the end of the account the Governours and law∣ful Teachers appointed by God in his Church, in case the excommu∣nicate such Orthodox Hereticks, must alone be esteemed Heretics and Schismatics, only for teaching Truth and doing their Duty.

§. 114.

Indeed, if he who called Schism a Theological Scar-crow had intended to apply that Expression to single divided Churches, whose birth has perhaps been within mans memory, and particular∣ly to the Church of England (some Fundamental Doctrines whereof,

to my knowledge, he did not assent to, and whose Ecclesiastical Go∣vernment he did not approve) his Assertion may be justified to be grounded on Reason. For who can tell how a Seperation from any of them can be called Schism; or Tenents contradicting their Heresies? They all mutually favour one another with the Title of Pure Reformed and Sufficiently Orthodox Churches: So that in which soever among them any one shall live, and from which soever of them any one shall think fit to depart, as liking another better, this, according to their common grounds, must be accounted a matter in a manner, indifferent, and however there is in it no danger of incurring the guilt of Schism, so it be done with an unpretended Conscience. It seems therefore to me an Act unjust and unsuitable to the grounds of Pure Reformation in some late Prelatical Writers, who charge with the Crime of Schism their tender Conscienced Orthodox Brethren for deserting their Communion: as it was anciently in the Donatists, those Arch-contri∣vers of Schisms for doing the same to the Primianists, Maximianists and Rogatists, subdivided Sects, Spawned from them.

It is plain therefore that among all Reformed Congregations, Schism is a meer Scar-crow, and the like may be said of Heresie: And the reason is, because both Heresie and Schism must include an opposition to that Church only which can justly challenge an Authority to deter∣min what Doctrins are true and necessary to be believed by all Christi∣ans, and to oblige all under penalty of Anathema's to joyn in her Com∣munion: Which Authority only belongs to the Catholic Church, and which is not so much as pretended to by any Reformed Congregations.

§. 115.

Hence it necessarily follows, that the entertaining a per∣swasion that the Catholic Church (to which God hath made a Promise that he will lead her into all Truth) is guilty of Errours, can proceed* 1.43 only from an excess of Spiritual Pride: but it is moreover 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an obstruction of Reason, upon a meer suspicion of such Errors, to esteem one's Self obliged to separate from her Communion. But so pestilent is the Nature of Spiritual Sins, that though all men condemn them, and most men are deeply stained with them, yet not any one can see them in himself. Where shall we find an usurping Oppressor acknowledge himself Covetous? or an ambitious man, proud? So never did any Schismatic say, or think himself Such. He acknow∣ledges that he separates from the Church, and boasts of it, yet he will not endure to be esteemed a Schismatic, as if Sinlurked only in the Greek expression.

To conclude, Unless you will impute to all the Antient Councils and Holy Fathers of Gods Church not only the utmost extremity of ignorance and folly, but likewise a base partial interessedness, and most execrable Tyranny in de∣nouncing Anathemas against Dissenters and Separatists, you will judge Separa∣tion from Catholic Communion to be no vain Theological Scar-crow. Such a sleight Opinion of the harmlesness of Schism was not first branched in this Age. Saint Augustine will inform us, that in his days, There were some who* 1.44 said; We thought it made no matter where (that is, in what Communion) we preserved the Faith of Christ: But (saith he) thanks be given to our Lord, who hath gathered us from separation, and hath made manifest to us, that this is a thing pleasing to God, who is One, to be served in Unity. Such horror had those great Lights of the Church of the Crime of Schism, that according to their judgment, even Martyrdom it self cannot cure the deadly poyson of it: And,* 1.45 that the Martyrdom to which we expose our selves by hindring Schism in the Church, is no less glorious, then that which is suffered for refusing to Sacrifice to Idols: That there cannot possibly be made any Reformation of such importance as the mischief of Schism is pernicious: And in a word, That it cannot possibly be,* 1.46 that any one should have a just cause to•• separate from Catholic Communion. More to this purpose you may find in the Second Section of the Collection of Testimonies out of the Holy Fathers at the end of our former Discourse.* 1.47

Prot.

I well remember them: therefore, if you please, here we may make an end.

§. 116.

Cath.

Farewel, Sir, and pardon the frequent urging of this most necessary Admonition. If I thought you would require it, I could very easily have concluded this Discourse, as I did the former, with a Collection of Testi∣monies from the Holy Fathers to justifie the Churches Doctrines through all the Points here mentioned. But such a Collection having been the only Subject of many great volumns published by Catholic Doctors, it will be sufficient to refer you to them. I will only desire you to take notice in perusing them, first, That never any such Book has been written by any Protestant. And next, that such Collections have been made by Catholics to shew that their whole Re∣ligion, came by descent from the Antient Fathers: Whereas Protestants only upon a particular occasion, Select some obscure, or ambiguous passages from their Writings, with a purpose to cast a mist besore the eyes of unwary Readers that they may so elude the force of those Testimonies far exceeding in num∣ber, and more perspicuously evident, produced by Catholics.

Notes

• * 1.1

  S••ogli, ••el Chr. Nau∣••r.
• * 1.2

  1 Kin. 12.
• * 1.3

  Mat. 5. 13. 14.
• * 1.4

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.
• * 1.5

  Io. 16. 13. Mat. 16. 18.
• * 1.6

  Bulla Pii•• P. 4.
• * 1.7

  Conc. F••r.
• * 1.8

  Perron in Ambass.
• * 1.9

  Epist. Margare∣tae Guber∣natricis ad Archi∣episcopum Camerac. & Re∣sponsis e∣jusd.
• * 1.10

  Confess. de Foy: Art. 36. Catech. Dimanch. 53.
• * 1.11

  Ib. 52.
• * 1.12

  Ibid.
• * 1.13

  Epist. a•• Cardin. Perron.
• * 1.14

  Council. Trid. Sess. 13. can. 6.
• * 1.15

  Bull. Pii. P. IV. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 1.
• * 1.16

  Hebr. 9. 26. Ib. 28.
• * 1.17

  Ib. 12.
• * 1.18

  Ioh. 22. 23. Mat. 18. 18. Iam. 5. 16.
• * 1.19

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. Can. 13. 14.
• * 1.20

  Concil. Tride•• Sess. 2••.
• * 1.21

  Suarez. Vasquez.
• * 1.22

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. de Reform. c. 9.
• * 1.23

  Ibid: Sess. 25.
• * 1.24

  Council. Trid. Sess. 6. can. 11.
• * 1.25

  Ib. can, 34,
• * 1.26

  Ib. c. 9.
• * 1.27

  Ib. c. 8.
• * 1.28

  Ib. c. 16.
• * 1.29

  Ibid.
• * 1.30

  Ib. Sess. 14. cap. 8.
• * 1.31

  Can. Miss.
• * 1.32

  ••uth.
• * 1.33

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 25.
• * 1.34

  E••ius.
• * 1.35

  Bull. Pii. P. IV.
• * 1.36

  Council. Trid. Sess. 25.
• * 1.37

  2 M••c∣chab. 12. 43, 44.
• * 1.38

  Calvin. Insti. lib. 3. c. 25. §. c.
• * 1.39

  1. Tim. 4. 1.
• * 1.40

  1 Tim. 3. 15.
• * 1.41

  Mat. 18. 17.
• * 1.42

  H••le's Discourse of Schism.
• * 1.43

  Epi•• a••. Diut.
• * 1.44

  Aug. E∣pist. 48
• * 1.45

  Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. l. 6 Pacian. Epist. 2.
• * 1.46

  Iren. l. 4. c. 62.
• * 1.47

  Aug. E∣pist, 48.