A papist mis-represented and represented, or, A twofold character of popery the one containing a sum of the superstitions, idolatries, cruelties, treacheries, and wicked principles of the popery which hath disturb'd this nation above an hundred and fifty years, fill'd it with fears and jealousies, and deserves the hatred of all good Christians : the other laying open that popery which the papists own and profess, with the chief articles of their faith, and some of the principle grounds and reasons, which hold them in that religion / by J.L. one of the Church of Rome ; to which is added, a book entituled, The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, truly represented, in answer to the aforesaid book by a Prote

XIX. Of Dispensations. (Book 19)

HEre the Misrepresenter saith, That a Papist believes that the Pope hath Authority to dispence with the Laws of God, and absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments. On the other side, the Representer affirms; That the Pope has no Authority to dispence with the Law of God, and that there's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one from the Obli∣gation of keeping the Commandments: This matter is not to be de∣termined by the one's affirming, and the others denying; but by finding out, if possible, the true sense of the Church of Rome about this matter. And there are three Opinions about it.

1. Of those who assert, That the Pope hath a Power of Dispen∣sing in any Divine Law,* 1.1 except the Articles of Faith. The Gloss upon the Canon Law saith, that where the Text seems to im∣ply, that the Pope cannot dispence against the Apostle, it is to be understood of Articles of Faith: And Panormitan saith, This Exposition pleases him well; for the Pope may dispense in all other things: Contra Apostolum dispensat, saith the Gloss on the Decree: And the Roman Editors in the Margin, refer to 34 Dist. c. Lector to prove it: And there indeed the Gloss is very plain in the Case, sic Ergo Papa dispensat contra Apostolum: And the Roman Correcters there justifie it, and say it is no absurd Doctrine as to positive Institutions:* 1.2 But the former notable Gloss, as Panormitan calls it, sets down the particulars wherein the Pope may dispense. As, 1. Against the Apostles and their Canons. 2. Against the Old Testament. 3. In Vows. 4. In Oaths. The Summa Angelica saith, the Pope may dispense as to all the Precepts of the Old Testament. And Clavasius founds this Pow∣er upon the Plenitude of the Popes Power, according to that Expression in the Decretal mentioned, that he can, ex plenitudine potestatis de Iure supra Ius dispensare; and without such a Pow∣er, he saith, God would not have taken that care of his Church, which was to be expected from his Wisdom. Iacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope,* 1.3 and refers to the Speculator for more. Iac. Almain saith,* 1.4 That all the Canonists are of Opinion, that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle, and many of their Divines, but not all: For,

2. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not dispence

with the Law of God, as that implies a proper relaxation of the Law, but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in such a particular Case; because an Inferiour could not take away the force of a Superiors Law; and otherwise there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church; and if the Pope might dispense in one Law of God, he might dispense in the rest. And of this Opinion were some of the most eminent School-Divines, as Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Major, Soto, and Catharinus,* 1.5 who at large debates this Question, and denies that the Pope hath any Power to dispense with Gods Law: But then he adds, that the Pope hath a kind of propheti∣cal Power to declare in what Cases the Law doth oblige, and in what not; which he parallels with the Power of declaring the Canon of Scripture; and this he doth not by his own Authority, but by Gods; He confesseth the Pope cannot dispense with those Precepts which are of themselves indispensable; nor alter the Sacraments; but then, saith he, there are some Divine Laws, which have a general force, but in particular Cases may be di∣spensed with; and in these cases the Law is to be relaxed, so that the Relaxation seems to come from God himself: But he confesses this Power is not to be often made use of; so that he makes this Power to be no Act of Jurisdiction, but of propheti∣cal Interpretation, as he calls it; and he brings the Instance of Caiaphas to this purpose: And he adds, that the difference be∣tween the Divines and Canonists was but in Terms; for the Ca∣nonists were in the right as to the Power, and the Divines in the manner of explaining it.

3. Others have thought this too loose a way of explain∣ing the Popes Power, and therefore they say, That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power, but a real Power of dispensing in a proper sense in particular Cases: For, say they, the other is no act of Jurisdiction, but of Discretion, and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope; but this they look on as more a∣greeable to the Popes Authority and Commission; and a bare declaratory Power would not be sufficient for the Churches Ne∣cessity; as Sanchez shews at large, and quotes many Authors for this Opinion;* 1.6 and Sayr more; and he saith the Practice of the Church cannot be justified without it: Which Suarez much insists upon; and without it, he saith, the Church hath fallen into into∣lerable Errors; and it is evident, he saith, the Church hath gran∣ted real Dispensations, and not meer Declarations. And he founds

it upon Christ's Promise to Peter, To thee will I give the Keys, and the Charge to him, Feed my Sheep. But then he explains this Opinion, by saying that it is no formal Dispensation with the Law of God, but the matter of the Law is changed or ta∣ken away.

Thus I have briefly laid together the different Opinions in the Church of Rome about this power of dispensing with the Law of God, from which it appears, that they do all consent in the thing, but differ only in the manner of explaining it.

And I am therefore afraid our Representer is a very unstudied Divine, and doth not well understand their own Doctrine, or he would never have talked so boldly and unskilfully in this matter.

As to what he pretends, that their Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin, &c. it doth not teach the Case; for the Question it not, whether their Church teach men to lye, but whether there be not such a power in the Church, as by altering the na∣ture of things, may not make that not to be a Lye, which other∣wise would be one: As their Church teaches that men ought not to break their V••ws; yet no one among them questions, but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow, although it be made to God himself. Let him shew then, how the Pope comes to have a Power to release a Vow made to God, and not to have a Power to release the Obligation to veracity among men.

Again, We do not charge them with delivering any such Doctrine, That men may have Dispensations to lye and forswear themselves at pleasure; for we know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery, and not to be made use of, but upon weighty and urgent causes, of great consequence and be∣ne••it to the Church, as their Doctors declare. But as to all matters of fact, which he alludes to, I have nothing to say to them; for our Debate is only, whether there be such a Power of Dispensation allowed in the Church of Rome, or not?

Notes

• * 1.1

  De Concess. Praebend è proposuit. Abb. c. pro∣posuit de Conc. Prae∣bend. C. 5. Q. 6. c. Aucto∣ritate.
• * 1.2

  Sum. Angelic. v. dispensatio.
• * 1.3

  Jacobat. de Conciliis l. 5. p. 215.
• * 1.4

  Almain de Potest. Eccle∣sia c. 1••.
• * 1.5

  Catharin. ••. Cajetan. 6. p. 524.
• * 1.6

  Sanchez. d•• Mattrim l. 8. Dis. 6. n. 5. Say••. Clavis Reg. l. 5. c. 11. S••••••ez de vot. l. 6. c. 9. n. 7, 8, 9, 17.