CHAP. XXXIII. Mr. I S. his Engagement, touching the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the practice of Confession confuted.

FOR instance of the cruelty of the Romish Church, in pressing upon the belief of the faith∣ful things uncertain and repugnant to their judgment, I made a brief mention of the opi∣nion about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; how they make people swear to defend it, and debar from offices and preferment such as will not take such oaths. And Mr. I. S. must enter into a formal dispute upon the point. The testimony of S. Paul (saying, Rom. v. that all men sinned in Adam, and consequently the Vir∣gin Mary with the rest) he values nothing. It is a general rule, saies he, capable of exception; but gives us no testimony to prove the Virgin was excepted from that rule. He admits that Christ was Universal Redeemer, and died for all men, but thinks it not a consequence that the Virgin should have bin redeemed, or drawn, but only preserved from sin, and so the consequence of St. Paul was not legal, saying, 2 Cor. v. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead; or if if it be legal, sure the Virgin was dead by Original sin as the rest, or else all were not dead.

You say it is not unlawful in a community to Page  220require certain conditions from such as will be members of it, and so may require of them en∣gagement to defend the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. To demand conditions not including a disturbance of conscience, nor occa∣sioning dissimilations may be lawful; not so to re∣quire conditions contrary to a mans conscience and judgment, which was our case. You say the Oath of Supremacy, in opinion of Papists, is an heresie, why then is it required from me? I an∣swer, it is only folly or malice can make it appear such, as I have declared in the 18. Chapter, and the Law is not to be regulated by such passions.

I gave likewise a short touch to the cruelty used with consciences in the practice of Conses∣sion, as well in the manner of its exercise, as the frequent reservation of cases. And here Mr. I.S. must enter again into the deep of the dispute, whether Confession ought to be admitted, which was not the case; in as much as the Church of England doth not only admit, but commend and enjoin the practice of Confession in necessary oc∣casions, tho not the unnecessary and pernicious superstructures of the Roman Church, touching the mode prescribed, and the reservation of cases, occasioning lamentable perplexities, and despe∣rate melancholies of Souls, whereof I could de∣clare miserable instances, if certain due conside∣rations did not make me supersede enlarging up∣on this kind of matter.

Only I will reflect upon a new addition of ri∣go• brought in by Mr. I. S. of which he will have St. Augustin to be Author, that the quality of the sin, the place, time, continuance, and diversity of Page  221persons must be specified. This makes me doubt and wonder what kind of person my Antagonist is, whether ever he was bred among learned men of the Roman Church, or did read their Books; for certainly any of them that has but the least tincture of moral Theology, will think strange of this paradox, That the place and time of sins are to be declared, as also the diversity of per∣sons, being of the same kind or species. But of these kind of lapses Mr. I. S. his Theology makes no scruple; if •e were better acquainted with the practice of Doctors in the Roman Church, he would not fetch up doctrines of Fathers op∣posite to the present practice of that Church. If he did but sit certain hours of the day from St. Lukes to May-day, or thereabouts, in the Halls of Divinity of the Colledges of Palentia and Tudela, where he saies no Divinity was ever taught, he would learn, that it is not the duty of a Penitent to specifie in his Confession the time, place and diversity of persons, wherein and wherewith his sins were committed; and they would tell him, that if St. Augustin said the con∣trary, it was one of his errors, and a doctrine now out of date. But Mr. I. S. is of a stronger stomach, can swallow by the gross, and cares not so much for chawing or mincing distinctions of doctrines.