CHAP. XV. Their boast of Unity, and reproaching us with Divisions
CHAP. XV. Their boast of Unity, and reproaching us with Divisions.
D etect. 6. And by this that hath been said, you may see what to think of their glorying in their Unity, and accusing our Divisions. One of the principal arguments that they prevail by, is by telling the people into how many sects we are divided, and that the Catholic Church is but one: but we are many: and here they will tell you of all the names they can reckon up, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Arminians,
Socinians, Quakers, and what not. And they will tell you that all this Division comes by departing from the Roman Catholic Church; every man being left to be of what Religion his fancy leadeth him to, for want of a universal Judge of controversies. And they will ask you what reason you have among all these Sects to believe one of them rather than another? So that they would persuade you that there is no way for Unity but by turning to be Papists, that we may be united in the Pope of Rome.
To all this deceit (for it is no better) we give them our full answer in these Propositions. 1. It is not every kind of unity that is desirable: but Unity with truth, and honesty, and safety. Its easier to agree in evil then in good: for
evil findeth more friendship with corrupted nature, and hath more servants in the world. The wicked are more agreed, and far more in number, of one mind, then the Godly are. The Mohammedans are far more agreed; and that in a far greater number, then the Papists are. The Devils have some agreement in their way: They are all agreed to hate Christ and his members, and to seek night and day whom they may devour. It is easier to agree in a Papists work then in ours: To center carnally in a sinful (and oft a most wicked) man; to agree in certain forms and ceremonies, which flesh and blood is glad to delude themselves with, instead of the Life of faith and Love; its easy to agree in such a carnal religion. To spare the labor and time of study and searching after truth, and to cast their souls upon the faith of others, even the Pope or a Council, this is an easy thing for lazy ungodly men to agree in: But to make the Truth our Own, and get the Law of Christ written in our own hearts, and to live upon it, and walk in the light, and embrace all those truths that are most against our fleshly inclination and interest, this is not so easy for corrupted nature to agree upon.
2. Christ hath told us that it is a little flock to whom he gives the Kingdom, Luk. 12:32, and that the gate is strait, and the way narrow that leads to life, and few there be that find it; and the gate is wide and the way broad that leads to destruction, and many there be that enter at it. And therefore it is no great wonder if error and sin have the greater number.
3. And yet for all this I dare boldly say that there is a far more excellent Unity and Concord among the true Reformed Catholics, then among the Papists, and that they do but cheat poor souls with the false pretense of unity. And this I shall make appear to you as followeth.
1. As I have said before, they are utterly divided and disagreed about that very power in which they should unite, and which they pretend must agree
them in all other things. One half of them are for the Sovereignty of a Pope, and the other of a General Council: and that as a point of faith. So that there is no possibility of Union with them, that are divided in the very point in which they invite us to Unite with them. If the eye be dark how shall the body see? If they cannot agree about that power that they say must agree them in all things else, what hope of an agreement with them?
But for our parts we are all agreed that Christ only is the head of the Church, and in him we all unite.
2. With us, they are usually but here and there a straggling person, or some few half-witted self-conceited Novices that fall off and disagree from us in anything that destroyeth salvation: But with the Papists, Princes are against Princes, and Nations against Nations, and which is much more,
General Councils against General Councils, even in the Foundation of their faith. So that let the General Councils be never so full and learned, and justly called, yet if they be against the Popes Sovereignty over them, the other party call them but Conciliabula, false Councils and Conventicles. Of how great moment this difference is, let the learned Cajetan be a witness, who in his Oration in the Council at the Lateran, under Leo 10th, inveighing against the Councils at Pisa, Constance and Basil, makes one to be Babel, and the other Jerusalem.
3. As I proved before, the Papists are divided into two several pretended Catholic Churches by making themselves two Sovereigns: but so are not we: For we have but one Head Jesus Christ. That they are two Churches
(besides what is said) hear the words of Cajetan in the foresaid Oration (in Bin. p. 552.) [This Novelty of Pisa, sprung up at Constance, and vanished.
At Basil it sprung up again and is exploded: and if you be men, it will now also be repressed as it was under Eugenius the fourth. For it cometh not
from heaven, and therefore will not be lasting. Nor doth it embrace the Principality of that One, who is in the Church triumphant, and preserveth the Church militant; and which the Synod of Pisa ought to embrace if it came from heaven, and not, as it doth, to rely on the Government of a multitude. The Church of the Pisans therefore doth far differ from this
Church of Christ. For one is the Church of believers: the other of Cavilers:
One of the household of God; the other of the Erroneous: One (is the Church) of Christian men: the other of such as fear not to tear the coat of Christ, and divide the mystical members of Christ from his mystical body.]
This was spoken in Council with applause. And can there yet be greater divisions then these?
4. They have been utterly divided about the very power of choosing their Pope, in whom they must unite. In one age the People chose him: In another the Clergy chose him; sometime both together: For a long time the Emperors chose him: At last only the Cardinals chose him. And sometime a General Council hath chosen him. Our Catholic Church hath no such uncertain Head, but one thats the same yesterday today and forever.
5. They have often had two or three Popes at once, and one part of the Church hath followed one, and another the other: yea (as is said for forty years together, none knew the true Pope) saith Cajetan ubi sup. [Of the Schism of that time there were three so accounted Popes, that none of them might be esteemed the Successor of Peter either certain, or without ambiguity.] For many ages one part hath been running after one, and the other after the other, or striving about them. But we are all agreed in our
Head without Controversy.
6. They have killed multitudes of persons in their divisions about the choice of their Pope (as in Damasus choice) And they have had many
bloody wars to the dividing of the Church about their Popes and between Pope and Pope. This was their Unity. It would make a Christian ashamed and grieved to read of the lamentable wars and divisions of Christendom, either between or about their Popes.
7. Their Popes and Christian Emperor, Kings and Princes, have been in yet longer and more grievous wars.
8. They have set Princes against Princes, and Nations against Nations in wars about the Causes of the Popes for many ages together: and it is too seldom otherwise.
9. They have set Kings and their own subjects together in wars, as England and almost all Christendom hath known by sad experience.
10. They have Excommunicated Princes, and encouraged their subjects to expel them, and to murder them: hence were the inhumane murders of Henry the third, and Henry the fourth, Kings of France; and the Powder
Plot, and may Treasons in England: This is their Unity.
11. They center and unite the Church in an impotent, insufficient Head, that is not able to do the Office of a Head, to the hundredth part of the Church, and therefore cannot possibly preserve unity. But our Head is allsufficient.
12. They set up not only a Controverted head, which all the Churches never agreed to, nor ever will do, but also a false usurping Head, which the Churches dare not and ought not to unite in. Whereas Jesus Christ is beyond controversy the just and lawful Head of the Church.
13. Your Agreement and Unity is with none but your own sect: and is this so great a matter to boast off? You divide yourselves from most of the Catholic Church, and cast them off as Heretics, or Schismatics; and then boast of a Unity among yourselves. And so may the Quakers, the
Anabaptists, the Socinians, as well as you: Or if you magnify your Unity from the greatness of your number that agree, the Greek Church also is numerous: and yet in this we far exceed you. For the true Catholic is in Union with all the Members of Christ on earth. We lay our Unity on the Essentials of Christianity, and so are united with all true Christians in the world: even with many of them that reproach us: when you laying your
Unity on I know not how many doubtful points, yea, on you know not what yourselves, can extend it no further then to your sect. Which is the more notable and glorious Unity? To be United to the truly Catholic body, containing all true Christians in the world, or to be at Unity with a sect, which is the lesser and more corrupted part of the Church?
14. With what face can Papists glory in their Unity, that are the greatest Dividers of the Church on earth? Who is it that condemneth the greatest part of the Church, and prosecuteth that condemnation with fire and sword, or so much vehemence, as the Papists do? When they have most audaciously divided themselves from all others, and arrogated the title of Catholics to themselves, they call this abominable Schism by the name of Unity. If you say that the Reformers have divided themselves from all others too: I answer, not as from Heretics, or no members of the same body with us, as you do: but only as from unsound mistaken Brethren: And therefore properly we are not divided from them, but only from their mistakes. We think it not lawful to join with the dearest Brethren in sinning, or in that worship (by personal local communion) where we cannot keep our innocence: But yet we hold the unity of the Spirit with them in the bond of Peace: and are one with them in all the substance of Christianity, and holy worship. Even where distance of place, or circumstantial differences keep us from Communion in the same Assemblies: yet our several
Assemblies have communion in faith, and Love, and the substance of worship as to the kind, so that our division from other Christians is nothing to the Papists.
15. But yet when any differ from us in any point Essential to our Religion (that is, to Christianity,) they are none of us, nor owned by us; and therefore you cannot say that we are at difference among ourselves, because some
Apostates have fallen off from us. You will not allow us to say you have many sects, because some of you have turned Socinians, or because thousands of yours have turned to the Reformers, in the days of Luther,
Calvin, &c. And why then should those sects be numbered with us that are not of us, but went out from us? If men turn Infidels, Seekers, Quakers,
Socinians, &c. they are not of us no more than of you. If you say that we bred them: I answer, no more than you breed them, when they turn to the same sects from you: Nor no more then you bred the Lutherans, far better men. They went out from you, and yet you bred them not: But on the other side, you cherish those as part of your Church, which differ from you in your fundamentals; so that the Pope dare not unchurch or disown them (as the French, &c.) but so do not we.
16. Our Unity is in Positives, and theirs is in Negatives: Ours is a Unity in faith; and theirs is in not believing the contrary: And so dead men, may have a fuller Unity in the grave then the Papists have.
17. Our Union is Divine, having a Divine Head and Center, and Divine Doctrine and Law in which we agree. But the Papists is human, having a carnal Head and Center, and Human Decrees and Canons for its matter and Rule.
18. They have not so sure a means of retaining men in their unity as we have: Let experience be Judge of this: For where one hath forsaken our
Unity and Communion, I suppose hundreds, if not thousands, have forsaken theirs, as France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary,
Transylvania, England, Scotland, Ireland, &c. can witness: and if themselves might be believed, the Greek Church, and all, or almost all the Christians else in the world have gone from their unity. And yet will they glory in the effectualness of their means of unity? Why then did they not retain all these Nations in their unity?
19. Moreover, indeed they have very little Religious unity at all among them; for its force and terror that keeps men in their Church: And who can tell under such violence how many stick to them in Conscience and willingly? He that will forsake their Religion in Spain, must be tormented and burnt at a stake, and in other Countries where they have full power, he must be at least undone. So that 1. Theirs is a unity of bodies more than of minds: 2. And their union is not procured by the Pope as Pope; but by the temporal sword, which the Pope hath usurped over some countries, and which deluded Princes use by his persuasion in other Countries. What a juggling deceit then is this, to persuade poor souls, that the only way to unity is to Center in the Pope of Rome, and that this is the most effectual means of ending differences! When in the mean they make so little use of it, and place so little confidence in it themselves, but uphold their unity by the Magistrates sword? And if this be the way, we have Magistrates among us as well as they, that can as effectually compel men to unity, as far as their
Judgments tell them it is fit: And besides this force, it is the riches and preferment of their Clergy, with their immunity from secular power, and the like, that is the means of their unity. But it is the light of holy Scripture opened by a faithful Ministry, and countenanced by Christian Magistracy without tyranny, that is our means of unity.
If the Papal Headship be so effectual a means of unity as they pretend, and if they are so much of a mind as they say, let them give us leave but to preach one 12 months in Spain and Italy if they dare: or let them give men leave without fire and sword to choose their Religion.
20. And yet besides all this, and after all this tyranny, they have more difference among themselves then we have, or then all the Christians that I hear of in the world. And to hide the Infamy of their differences, they tolerate them, and extenuate them. For differences in Discipline, and order of Worship they allow abundance of sects called Orders, that men and women may choose which they please. And the voluminous differences of their Schoolmen, Casuists and Commentators, they say are not in matters of faith. But call them what you will, they are many of them greater differences then are with us. I pray read over the Jansenians Mystery of Jesuitism, and take notice of the differences between the Jesuits and them in CaseDivinity, and judge whether they be small. And let it not offend your ears if I recite some of their Differences in that Papists own words, as he cites the Jesuits, and tells you where to find what he saith.
Pag. 89. Filintius the Jesuit holds, that if a man have purposely wearied himself with satisfying a whore, that he might be dispensed with from fasting on a fasting day, he is not obliged to fast, But the Jansenians think otherwise.
Basilius Pontius and Bunny the Jesuits teach, that a man may seek an opportunity of sinning primo & per se, when the spiritual or temporal concernment of ourselves or our neighbors inclineth him thereto, But the Jansenists think the contrary: p. 91.
Eman. Sa the Jesuit holds, that [a man do what he conceives lawful according to a probable opinion, though the contrary be the more certain:
and for this the Opinion of one grave Doctor is sufficient.] And Filintius the Jesuit held [that it is lawful to follow the less probable opinion, though it be the less certain, and that this is the common opinion of modern authors] p.
95. And yet the Jansenists are against it.
Layman the Jesuit holds, that [If it be more favorable to them that ask advice of him, and more desired, it is Prudence to give them such advice as is held probable by some knowing person, though he himself be convinced that it is absolutely false.] But the Jansenists are against this. p. 96.
Bunney the Jesuit holds [that when the patient follows a probable opinion, the confessor is bound to absolve him, though his judgment be contrary to that of the penitent: and that he sins mortally if he deny him absolution]
Myster. of Jesuit. p. 97. But the Jansenists deny this.
Father Reginaldus and Cellot hold, that [the modern Casuists in questions of Morality are to be preferred before the ancient Fathers, though they were nearer the Apostles times] p. 98. But the Jansenists think otherwise.
Pope Gregory the fourteenth declareth Murderers unworthy to have Sanctuary in Churches. But the Jesuits and Jansenists agree not who are the Murderers. The 29 Jesuits in their Praxis p. 600, by murderers understand those who have taken money to kill one treacherously: and that those who kill without receiving any reward, but do it only to oblige their friends, are not called murderers.] But the Jansenists think otherwise. (No marvel if you cannot understand the Scripture without a judge, when you can no better understand your judge, no not what he means by a murderer.)
Vasquez the Jesuit saith [that in this Question, rich men are obliged to give alms out of their superfluity; though the affirmative be true, yet it will seldom or never happen, that it is obligatory in point of practice] p. 105. But the Jansenists think otherwise.
Valentia the Jesuit, Tom. 3, p. 2042, holds, that [If a man give money not as the price of a Benefice, but as a Motive to resign it, it is not Simony, though he that resigns do look at the money as his Principal end] and so Tannerus, p. 115. But the Jansenists think otherwise.
Father Gaspar Hurtado saith [that an Incumbent may without mortal sin wish the death of him that hath a pension out of his living, and a son his fathers death; and may rejoice when it happens, so it proceed only from a consideration of the advantage accruing to him thereby, and not out of any personal hatred] p. 136. But the Jansenists believe not this.
Layman the Jesuit, and Pet. Hurtado: thinks that a man may lawfully fight a duel, accepting the challenge to defend his honor or estate, p. 138. But the Jansenist thinks otherwise.
Sanchez and Navarrus allow a man to murder his adversary secretly, or dispatch him at unawares to avoid the danger of a duel: p. 140. And Molina thinks you may kill one that wrongfully informs against us in any Court: and Reginaldus, that you may kill the false witnesses which the prosecutor brings; And Tannerus and Immanuel Sa, that you may kill both witnesses and judge which conspire the death of an innocent person] But so think not the Jansenists.
Henriquez saith [one man may kill another who hath given him a box on the ear, though he run away for it, provided he do it not out of hatred or revenge, and that by that means a gap be open for excessive murder, destructive to the State. And the reason is, a man may as well do it in pursuance of his reputation, as his goods; and he that hath had a box on the ear is accounted dishonorable till he hath killed his enemy.] And Azorius saith, Is it lawful for a person of quality to kill one that would give him a box on the ear, or a bang with a stick? Some say not—But others affirm it
lawful, and for my part I think it probable, when it cannot be avoided otherwise: For if it were not, the reputation of innocent persons were still exposed to the insolency of the malicious.] p. 142,143,144, many other are of the same mind, in so much that Father Lessius saith [It is lawful, by the consent of all Casuists, to kill him that would give a box on the ear, or a blow with a stick, when a man cannot otherwise avoid it p. 145. Father
Boldellus saith It is lawful to kill him that saith to you [thou liest] if a man cannot right himself otherwise.] And Lessius saith [If you endeavor to ruin my reputation by opprobrious speeches before persons of honor, and that I cannot avoid them otherwise then by killing you, may I do it? According to modern Authors I may; nay though the crime you lay to my charge be such as I am really guilty of, it being supposed to have been so secretly committed, that you cannot discover it by ways of justice. It is proved, if when you would take away my reputation by giving me a box on the ear, it is in my power to prevent it by force of arms, the same defense is certainly lawful, when you would do me the same injury with your tongue. Besides, a man may avoid the affront of those whose ill language he cannot hinder. In a word, honor is more precious than life, but a man may kill in defense of his life, ergo, he may kill in defense of his honor] p. 146. But the Jansenists are against all this.
Escombar saith, that regularly it is lawful to kill a man for the value of a crown, according to Molina. p. 151. Father Amicus saith [It is lawful for a Church-man, or a Religious man to kill a detractor that threatens to divulge the scandalous crimes of his community or himself, when there is no other means left to hinder him from doing it, as if he be ready to scatter his calumnies, if not suddenly dispatched out of the way] p. 152,153. And Caramovel in his Fundamental Theology takes it for certain, and thence
concludes, that [a Priest not only may kill a detractor on certain occasions, but sometimes ought to do it] And yet the peevish Jansenist believeth none of this.
But I must stop: you may read in the said Jansenians Mystery of Jesuitism, a volume of such passages of the Jesuits, allowing men to give and receive the Sacrament when they come that day from Adultery: and allowing a man to eat and drink as much as he can with his health: and discharging men from a Necessity of Loving God, unless it be once in their lives, or as others say, upon Holy-days, or as Hurtado de Mendoza, once a year, or as Conink, once in three or four years, or as Henriquez, once in five years, or as Anthon. Sirmond, not at all, so we do not hate him, and do obey his other commands, with abundance more.
Now Reader I would here leave it to thy consideration, whether all these differences among the Papists are so small as to be no matters of faith. And I entreat you to read over the forementioned Book, (the Mystery of Jesuitism) and then judge whether Papists or the Reformed Catholics are more at unity among themselves.
Well! But suppose the loving of God, the avoiding murder, bribery, and the like, be no matter of faith at Rome, yet I have not done with them so. I desire to know whether the holy Scripture be matter of faith or not? They dare not deny but it is. Well! And what is the Scripture, but the words ut signa, and the sense or matter ut res significata? And are the Papists agreed among themselves about either of these? No: For the words, its well known how some of the best Learned of them have stood for the preeminence of the Hebrew and Greek Texts: and others, and the most, for the vulgar Latin.
And that vulgar Latin Translation hath been altered and altered again by them. And after many others comes Pope Sixtus the fifth, and makes it so
complete, that the Church is required to use his Edition; yet after him comes Pope Clement the eighth and mends it in many hundred, if not thousand places, and imposes this upon the Church; which of these Popes was
Infallible? I am sure they much differ in their Translations.
And for the sense of scripture, though men must swear to take Scripture in the Churches sense, yet will not any Pope or Council to this day, tell us the sense of them, either by giving us an infallible Commentary, or by deciding the many thousand differences that are among their Commentators. Do not all these Commentators forswear themselves, having sworn (those that lived since the Council of Trent) to expound Scripture in the sense of the Church, and only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And why doth not the Pope decide these controversies? Seeing it is their happiness to have such a Judge of Controversies to keep them all of a mind?
But perhaps they will say, that all these Scriptures be not matters of faith.
No! Where are we then? What is matter of faith if Scripture be not? And if all be not, how shall we know which is? But at least, tell us, Is no one of all those many hundred or thousand Texts which your Commentators differ about any matter of Faith? If not, then sure you have no Faith. If it be, then surely the Papists differ among themselves in matters of Faith. It is not a few Texts that Lyra's excepter and Burgensis differ about, to name no more.
And of the foresaid Editions of the Bible by Pope Sixtus, and Clement, see Dr. Jame's Bellum Papale, vel Concordia discors.