An answer, to a little book call'd Protestancy to be embrac'd or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy

CHAP. VII. Of our Ecclesiastical Discipline.

SECT. I. Protestants live in Spiritual Sla∣very not Catholicks. The De∣cree of Innocent the third, in the third Cap. of the Gene∣ral Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith

TO his saying the R. Church imposes besides the written Law so many Obligations on her Subjects, that Popery is justly call'd a meer Slavery.

I Answer. She imposes none not contained in the Law of God, explicitly or Implicitly. Since God has bid Bishops (or the Teaching Church) Govern the Church, viz. the directed Church and Commanded us to hear Her, or them, 'tis no more Slavery to us to Obey Her in Spiritual matters, then for the Subjects of a Kingdom to Obey in Civil matters, the Commands of a Vice-Roy, or a Commissioner.

The Protestants indeed live in a Spiritual slavery according to their Principles, because when they have

Grace, they are necessitated by it, and when they want it, they are necessitated by their concupiscence, and so are ever without Liberty in Sla∣very.

The business our Adversary drives at in this Ob∣jection, is this, that the Church incroaches upon the Temporal Dominions of Princes by deposing Kings, untying their Subjects from their Allegiance to them, and giving their Lands to such as can Conquer them. As may be seen in the third Chap. of the fourth General Lateran Council, under In∣nocent the Third.

Answer. Let our Adversary Read that Decree with the Eyes of a Divine, and he'l find that, that Decree is not of Faith, and therefore does not o∣blidge us to believe it.

The Decrees of Faith in that Council being ga∣thered into the first Chap. Intituled, de Fide Ca∣tholica, The Tenets of the Catholick Faith. Let him then learn to distinguish another time a De∣cree of Faith from a Decree of Precept. The first oblidges always and every where, the other not al∣ways nor every where, but may be chang'd the circumstances changing: As I said when I told how a General Council may be mended.

And this I show in this present Precept of the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third now ceasing: For are R. Catholicks in France, Germany, England, Scotland, &c. admonish'd to take that Oath of Ridding their Lands of Hereticks? Or are they thought by the R. Church not good Catholicks, because they do not do it?

Then you see this Oath may be omitted with a safe Conscience, and Princes be without fear of having their Subjects free from their Obedience.

Moreover, I say that under the general notion

of Potentats, Soveraigns are not comprehended, no more then Abbots under the General Name of Monks, tho' really they are Monks.

In fine, if you will not be satisfied with these so∣lid solutions, remember that the Embassadours of Kings were present at the Council, so that if they knew 'twas mean'd also of their Masters, and they did not oppose the Decree afore it was passed vo∣lenti non sit Injuria, no Injury is done to him who is willing.

This Decree I know is a common place for Pro∣testants, not considering that they hit themselves on the Heel when they bring it against us, giving us an occasion to reflect, not by a mistake, but with Truth upon them, since the chief Principle sup∣posed by the first Beginers of their Reformation was, that it was Lawful not only to refuse all O∣bedience, but to take Arms against their own Na∣tural Soveraign, for the Reformation of Religion. If they deny this Principle, as never supposed by their Predecessors, then they must grant that the first Broachers and Abettors of their Reformation were all Traytors and Rebels, since they begun it by Sedition and Rebellion against their Lawful So∣veraigns in Germany, France, Geneva, Holland, and Scotland.

What was the great ground of the Bloody Scots Covenant? Have we not seen of late a number of Clowns and Crafts-Men by their private Inter∣pretation of the Bible, free themselves from all due Obedience to their King, and in their Conventicles endeavour to take from him all Royal Power by their seditious Sermons and Declarations, as in those who were published at Sanchir and Rouglin? Many of which remain so obstinate in their ridicu∣lous perswasions, that they will rather Dye, then

give any acknowledgment of submission to a most Gracious and Loving Prince.

You'l say, they are not true Protestants.

Answer. I pray in what Fundamentals do they differ from you?

What a Childish Discourse is this which follows, when he says that the Romish Church forbids Her Followers the use of their Rational faculty to find out the true Church.

Why then does She propose to our Rational Fa∣culty to move it to Assent, or to be confirmed in that we have Assented to, marks out of Scrip∣ture of Her being the true Church? Telling us first, that we see in Her, as was foretold, Ephes. 4. A perpetual and visible Succession of Pastors, since the Apostles time, Is it credible, that God by a special Providence, notwithstanding so many Persecutions, would have Conserv'd that perpetual Succession of Pastors, to teach Superstition and I∣dolatry? And not Conserv'd a Succession of Pa∣stors among Protestants to teach the true Religion? As we then have the same Spiritual Power ever Descending, and continued from the Apostles time, so have we also with it the same True and Aposto∣lical Doctrine, Descending from Father to Son, since the Apostles time to us.

Secondly, That there is no Doctrine or Faith now Preach'd to all Nations according to the Command of Christ, Matth. 28. v. 19. given to his Apostles, but that of the Roman Church.

Its altogether amazing, if the Protestant Doctrine be true and Evangelical Doctrine, that GOD has never stirred up any of the Protestant Preachers to go with an Apostolical Spirit through Poverty, Afflictions, Persecutions, &c. as the Apostles did, to instruct many Barbarous Nations in Africa, A∣sia,

America, but makes use only, to give the knowledge of his Holy Name to them, of Idola∣ters and Superstitious Romanists, the true Preach∣ers staying at Home with their Wives and Chil∣dren.

Thirdly, That moreover this Faith and Doctrine, altho so Universal, yet all the Believers thereof have such an Unity and Agreement among themselves in matters of Faith. and such a subordination to the visible Head of the Church, that they make, as Christ said of his Sheep, Iohn 10. v. 16. one Flock and one visible Pastor, they both receiving all Spi∣ritual Light, Grace, and Direction, from their in∣visible Head and Pastor Iesus Christ.

Fourthly, That the Doctrine of the R. Church, leads evidently to a Sanctity of Life, and Worship of God Almighty, by a Sacramental Confession of Sins, Fasting, Praying, Self-denyal, Mortificati∣ons of the Flesh, Good Works, keeping GODS Commandements, by Vows, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and many Ceremonies, by which out∣ward show we make appear our inward respect to God.

From hence it comes that in all Ages among the Believers of the R. Church, there has appeared pub∣lickly and visibly, to whole Nations Men of such Sanctity of Life with the Gifts of Miracles, that af∣ter their decease, their Lives and Miracles done both afore and after their Death, having been first se∣verely examin'd and discus'd, and then approv'd, they were after this Examination declared Saints, and as such, are for the present Honour'd by the whole Catholick Church. If you say, what is said of those Saints and their Miracles, is but Fabu∣lous.

Then I ask you, if a Iew would say the same

to you of our Saviours Miracles. How would you convince him? For as he denyes the Divinity of CHRIST, so he denyes also the New Testament to be the Word of God. Laying then aside Di∣vine Revelation, had Men at that time more Hu∣mane Authority to believe CHRIST's Miracles, then we have now to believe the approv'd Mira∣cles of our Saints? From all I have said, I in∣fer.

First, If the R. Church, notwithstanding all these marks be not the true Church of CHRIST, he has no true Visible Church upon Earth, since there cannot be more clear and Visible Marks of the true Church, then these I have brought.

Secondly, I infer that if the Iews seeing some Prophet's Sanctity of Life and Miracles, were most reasonably perswaded, and convinc'd, that GOD directed them by his Spirit, and spoke by their Mouths to others: We must of necessity believe that the Roman Church is directed by the Spirit of GOD, and that He speaks by Her to us: Since whatsomever motif you'l find for that perswasion in a single Prophet, you will find it in an higher Degree in the whole Body of the Church.

Now to make use of our rational faculty in or∣der to see if you have any appearance of a Church among you, 'tis not enough for you to say that the Protestant Church has the true Worship of God. You must bring such proofs as I have brought for the R. Church to prove it. This you have never done nor will ever do.

But to come nigher to you, I ask by what mo∣tive you can perswade me that Luther and Calvin your first Reformers were mov'd and directed by the Spirit of God in all their oppositions to the Roman Church?

Can it be imagined that God would have taken from a whole visible Church which had those marks I spoke of, the true sense and meaning of the word, and given it to Men who leaving the Altar and their Vow of Chastity prostituted themselves becoming the slaves of a shamful and Sacrilegious Passion?

As to that our Adversary saies the Roman Church Imposes many weighty burdens on her Children beyond what God Commands, he is mightily de∣ceiv'd; for God commanding us to Worship and obey him, he Commands us implicitly to make use of the means most convenient to perform these two duties.

Now the Church by her Commands does also but show us the fittest means to perform the perfect observation of Gods explicit Command, and oblidg∣es us to make use of them; and consequently pro∣perly speaking there, is no new burden impos'd upon us.

SECT. II. Saint Pauls saying, whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles, &c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24.25.27. makes nothing against our absti∣nence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes.

OUr great Defender of the rights and dues of the senses, having told us in the Eucharist what the sight claims to; now he will not have the Taste depriv'd of its satisfaction.

Telling us Pag. 107. 'twas a liberty and priviledge of the primitive Church, as St. Paul witnesses to the Corinthians; 1 Cor. 10. that whatsoever is Sold in the Shambless, &c. we may Eat.

Answer. St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. Having terrified the Christians from Eating with the Gentils in their Solemnities a part of what was offer'd to the Idol; because by this Eating they seem'd to approve the Oblation of that Flesh made to the Devil; he told them nevertheless that they should not be scrupulous to Buy what they found in the Shambles, nor to Eat what was set down before them to Eat at Common Tables out of those Solemnities, altho' perchance those Meats had been offer'd to Idols, viz. because they being Ignorant of it, did not give occasion to think they approv'd that Oblation to the Idol, in which onely the Sin was: But if, it fell out that one should tell them that such a

Meat had been offerd to the Idol, then he forbid them to Eat of it v. 28. for fear of scandalizing that Person.

Is not here something refused to Eat altho' it be set down afore me to be Eaten, and altho' the thing be good in it self ond belonging to God? Was not the forbidden fruit good in it self, and yet was it Lawful for Adam to Eat it then with Thanks-giving when God had forbidden it? no more is it Lawful to us to Eat Flesh which is good in it self on Fasting dayes, because it is then for∣bidden by the Church of God which God will have us hear as himself Luke 10. v. 16. Who hears you hears me. Has not the Church of England taken away that priveledge too, when she commands to abstain from Flesh in Lent, or at least from Ea∣ting a sull Meal till after noon or towards the E∣vening on their dayes of Humiliation?

When there is no Danger then of offending God neither by my approbation of an offering to the De∣vil, or Scandalizing my Neighbour, St. Paul sayes I may Eat Flesh tho' offer'd to the Devil.

From that antecedent is this a good Inference, then, when I know I offend God by Transgressing the Command of his Church, and by Scandal of my Neighbour, I may Eat Flesh, because it is good in it self, and at another time may be Eaten with Thanks-giving?

St. Paul then bids Christians not to scruple to buy or Eat Meat upon a fear that, it may be, 'twas offer'd to Idols; because that reason did not make it unlawful to Eat, so I was not told of it. But he bids not Eat it if it be unlawful upon an other accompt, viz. because forbidden on certain dayes by the Church.

Now to show how pleasing a thing to God, and

advantageous to our Souls our Fasting is; remem∣ber that Moses having fasted forty Dayes and forty Nights in the Mountain obtain'd the Favour to see God Face to Face. Exod. 24. chap. did not Achab make use of Sack-Cloath and Fasting for the ex∣piation of his Sins? 1 Regum 28. did not David after he heard from Nathan that God had Forgiving him his Sin, say that his knees were weak through Fasting, 2 Sam. 12. chap. Were not Divine Mysteries reveal'd to Daniel after he had Fasted and was he not Fa∣vour'd with a Miraculons Dinner by the means of an Angel, Daniel 14.

In the New Testament did not Christ Fast forty Dayes and forty Nights and so teach us how to over∣come the Temptations of the Devil, Matth. 4. did not he tell his Disciples that a certain kind of Devils was not cast out, but by Prayer and Fasting, Math. 17.

Our Advers. inveighs against the rigour of the Ca∣tholick Church not knowing, sayes he, that true Vertue consists mainly in an Intire Victory we should Endeavour to get over our own Passions.

Answer. Holy People Endeavour to get this Victory by the Mortification of their Bodies. Iudith that famous Woman chosen by God for the saving of her Nation, wore a Hair Cloath upon her Loins, (not to speak of Her Fasting all the Dayes of Her Life, except the Sabbaths, New Moons and the Feasts of the House of Israel) Iudith 8. St. Iohn the Baptists led a rigorous Life in the Wil∣derness, and St. Paul besides his stupendious La∣bour by Teaching and Preaching added a chastising or Scourging of his Body least after he had Preach'd to others he should become a Reprobat Himself, 1 Cor: 9. v. 27. What means he 2 Cor. 4. v. 10. when he says always bearing about with us the Mor∣tification

of Jesus in our Bodies that the Life of Jesus may be manifested in our Bodies. What was this Life of Jesus, a perpetual Mortification of his Body from his Cradle to his Cross.

Our new inlightned Men find another way to o∣vercome their Passions, to wit, abstaining from the Chastisement of the Body. Deny thy self take up thy Cross and follow me, sayes our Saviour, Matth. 16. v. 24. But does not our Adversary seem rather to say, take thy satisfaction in Eating and Drinking thy fill, and so thou wilt be strong to follow him. Pamper thy Flesh, and so thou wilt be strong to overcome thy Lust, Eat and Drink thy fill, and I'll warrant thee thou shalt alay thy Passion of Eating and Drinking for an hour or two. But his Experience may have told him, that thus he puts a Sword in his Enemies Hand, who tho' he lay quiet for a while, will rise up more firce hereafter. Bellarmine said indeed, that if he were Pope, he would take away Lent, but he added, that in its place he would order to Fast on Wed∣nesday all the Year over. Does the exchange of fourty Fasts with fifty two favour the inclination of our Adversary to Feasting?

SECT. III. The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marry∣ing of Church-Men, are ei∣ther willfull, or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God.

MArriage in the purest Age was not forbid∣den to Ecclesiasticks, sayes our Adversa∣ry, which he proves by this passage, 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. A Bishop must be blamless the Hus∣band of one Wife.

Answer. First, was not St. Paul a Bishop? Had he a Wife when he said, 1 Cor. 7. v. 8. I say to those who are not Married, its good for them if they remain so, even as I? The sense then of that place is, that as St. Paul would have the Church Widow to be the Wife of one Husband, or to have been only Married once, 1 Tim. 5. v. 9. So he would have a Bishop to be the Husband of one Wife, or to have been only once Married. Other∣wayes what does St. Paul say here particular to a Bishop, have other Men two Wives?

Note, in the Birth of the Church it was hard to find among new Converts, Men of Maturity, for the Government of a Bishoprick, who had not been once Married, especially at Candy, of which Church St. Paul speaks here to Timothy, because, as Stra∣bo

writes, L. 10. They had an Antient Law by which all of their Republick were forced from their very Youth to Marry.

Again, to prove that Ecclesiasticks may Marry, he brings this passage of St. Paul, Marriage is Ho∣nourable in all and the Bed undefil'd, Hebr. 13. v. 4.

Answer. First, the same St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7. v. 38. He who gives his Virgin in Marriage does well, but he that gives her not in Marriage does better. And 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. 'Tis good for a Man not to touch a Woman.

The former passage is then to be understood, thus,

Marriage is Honourable in all who may Law∣fully Marry, but not between Father and Daughter: Brother and Sister: In Church-Men who have vow'd Chastity, in Church-Widows, who being admitted to the Service of the Church, upon their resolution of not Marrying, according to St. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. v. 11. Incur Damnation if they Marry, because they cast of their first Faith, as the Apostle speaks, to wit, to CHRIST.

Secondly, the Greek Text has Timios o gamos en pasi, that is, Honourable Marriage in all so where, Protestants without ground add is, Catholicks with ground add be in the imperative mood, and so it imports,

First, an Exhortation to those who are Married that they live Faithful to one another not Disho∣nouring by Incontinency their Marriage, but keep∣ing their Bed undefil'd. But why will the Apostle that Marriage be Honourable in all keeping their Bed undefil'd? Because as he presently adds, A∣dulterers God will Judge. Thus you see Catholicks have a ground to supply the sentence not with is, but with be, or let it be.

Secondly, To those who desire to Marry, that they do not offer to Marry, when they know they are not free to Marry, being engag'd to others, or having an Impediment, and so make their Marri∣age (when the Impediment is discover'd,) Dis∣honourable. However our Latin and English Cath. Text have neither is nor be; but Honourabile conu∣bium in omnibus, Honourable Marriage in all, con∣form to the Greek Original Text.

In the third place, to justifie the Marriage of Church-Men who have Vow'd Chastity, he brings what St. Paul sayes to Tim. 4. v. 3. That forbiding to Marry is a Doctrine of Devils, where he speaks of Manicheans, Encratists and Marcionists, and o∣thers of that Cabal, as St. Chrysostom remarks in his 12. Hom. upon that passage, it is quite another thing to forbid absolutely to Marry, then to forbid only those who have Vow'd Chastity to Marry.

The Catholick Church does not forbid to Marry, but only forbids to break a Vow made to God. I think no Body will say that it is a Doctrine of De∣vils, to fulfill what one has solemnly promised to God. The thing being Lawful in it self, Deut. 23. v. 21. When thou shalt Vow a Vow to the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slak to pay it, for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee. Now the Ca∣tholick Church shows she Honours Marriage more then Protestants, because she looks upon it as a Sa∣crament which Protestants do not.

His instance of Zacharie sayes nothing against us, for we do not deny, that the Priests of the Old Law Married, but only we say, they did not use their Wives those dayes their turn was to Sacrifice, Luke c. 1. v. 23, 24. And seeing our Priests must Sacrifice every day, they ought to abstain from that Action so remote from the Spirit, and dulling it in

order to Divine thoughts at that time that our mind ought to be (sursum corda) raised above our sen∣ses, hence Origen said, Hom. 23. in num. It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the conti∣nual Sacrifice, who has dedicated himself to a conti∣nual and perpetual Chastity.

In fine, his last passage is from the 1 Cor. 7. v. 2. Let every Man have his own Wife, (had those who were not defil'd with Women Rev 14. v. 3. every one their own Wife?) makes nothing to prove that a Church-Man, who has made a Vow of Chastity may Marry, first, because St. Paul sayes, 1 Cor. 7. v. 27. Art thou loosen from a Wife seek not a Wife.

Secondly, because there is no Woman who was his or the Church-Man's own Wife. To understand the meaning of this passage, you must know, the Corinthians asked St. Paul whither being converted they were not bound to leave their Wives, yet In∣fidels, as some told them they ought to do, St. Hieron. L. 1. contra Iovin. cap. 4. To this St. Paul answers, no, but bids every one have his own Wife to whom he was Married in his Infidelity. He adds, let the Husband (viz. now converted) render his Debt to his Wife (tho' an Infidel) and the Wife al∣so (Converted) mutually to the Husband (yet an Infidel.)

I would now desire Protestants to reflect, that these passages brought by our Adversaries to prove their Tenets have no force for their intent and pur∣pose, when they are read in their proper places, and in the aim of the Holy Writers in those places; and so see how they are cheated, and imposed up∣on by their Teachers, when they are perswaded by them, that the Word of God is against R. Catho∣licks.