The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive

THere is nothing wherein the Honor of God, and the Happiness of men is more concerned, than Divine Worship. Religion provides for these great ends, by obliging us to worship God: this it doth indispensably, and can do no less, without abandoning itself; for this is essential to it, and gives it being. And the truth, and goodness of it depends as much thereon; for no Religion is true and saving, but that which obligeth to worship God really. Now worship is not real, unless mind and heart concur in it: whatever it hath without this, it wants its life and soul; and is no more worship really, than a picture is a man. Hence Christ brands those, who draw near to God with their lips, without their hearts, for hypocrites Matth. 15. 7, 8. Mark 7. 6. Such as pretend to be what they are not; and to do, what really they do not: who are but worshippers in show, and fiction; no more so indeed than the Stage-Player is the Prince, whose part he acts. The Romanists seem to acknowledge all this, and therefore ought not to deny, but that it is as necessary, that God should be really worshipped; as it is needful, that he should have any honor in the world, or that there should be any true Religion amongst men, or Salvation for them. Yet notwithstanding, their practical Doctrine makes it needless to worship God really. That this may be fully and distinctly manifested, let us observe First, what they count requisite in Divine Service, and in their Mass: the former is their worship for every day, (which goes under the name of Canonical hours and the divine office ) and is the proper Service of their Clergy and Monasticks: the latter is for holy-days, and is common to the People with the Religious; and the only public Service they are ordinarily obliged to. Afterwards we may reflect upon, what else passeth under the notion of worship in public; and also take some notice of their devotions, or religious employments, in private.

For the first of these their Divine Service, if there were anything of religion or religious worship counted needful amongst them, it would be required of their Clergy, and those whom by way of eminency they call Religious, in their Divine office especially (if anywhere): but by their doctrine it is not needful for them to worship God really there; unless he can be said to be worshipped where both himself and all that concerns worshippers indeed, may (as it may by their leave) be quite neglected, and no way actually minded. They seem, at least some of them, in their discourses of worship, and prayer particularly, to require as necessary thereto, both an act of the mind and of the will ( attention and intention they call them): but proceed with them a little, and you will find the former of these, quite lost in the latter; and the latter, as they order it, dwindling into nothing. It is the common determination of their Schools and Doctors, that actual attention of mind is not necessary when they recite their Canonical hours, that is, they need not mind God in their service, nor the matter of it more than the object, nor the sense of what they say, nor the words they use; not any of these need be actually minded. A purpose or intention to do it is sufficient, though that purpose be not at all performed. This is the Doctrine of their great Aquinas concerning Prayer in general, whom the rest commonly follow. Attention is not necessary all the while, but the virtue of the first intention, with which a man comes to prayer, renders the whole prayer meritorious, as it falls out in other meritorious acts. And this first intention also is enough to make the prayer prevalent. So he explains his main conclusion, viz. Prayer ought to be at least attentive in respect of a previous intention. So that they may be attentive enough, by virtue of this first intention, though they do not at all mind afterwards what they are doing▪ when they should be worshipping: Which is just as if they should say, a man that goes to Church, with an intent to join in their service, but falls fast asleep when he comes there, serves God effectually, and is attentive enough, by virtue of that former intention, though he sleep all the while. It seems it is sufficient in the Church of Rome, and effectual even to a degree meritorious, to worship God as one that is asleep may worship him, if he falls asleep after a good intention. However hereby it is manifest that with them it is not needful to worship God at all, even in their most solemn service, but only to intend some such thing. If there be a purpose of worship, though God be never worshipped indeed, by their doctrine, it is enough for him. I suppose his Holiness would not think himself well served at this rate. The common women at Rome are to pay him a julio a head, weekly for the liberty he gives them to drive their there trade; now if instead of payment, they should allege an intention of it, and declare this is all they are obliged to, and that they ought to be acquitted upon that account, though they never laid it down, he would think himself not paid hereby, but scorned; he looseth his sacred Reverence, and is affronted into the bargain: yet at this rate will he have God served by Roman Catholics. Well, but if God need not be worshipped but in purpose only, and the intention may serve without the act: yet sure it must be an actual intention, or at least a purpose to worship God. If it be not the worship of God, that they need intend; divine worship is clearly abandoned, both in deed, and in purpose: if it must not be actual, there need be actually no thought of worshipping God. But I cannot discern that they count either of these necessary. They declare plainly that an actual intention is needless; in this they generally agree, though they differ in the terms, by which they use to express it. They call it an habitual, or a virtual, or an implicit intention; in opposition to that which is express or actual: So that actually either to worship God, or to have an intention of worshipping him, is more than needs. But since they will not have it actual, let it be what sort of intention they please otherwise; yet sure the thing intended should be the worshipping of God: So that they may be said to worship in purpose, though they think it needless to do it in deed. Whether they count this necessary, may be best discerned by their own expressions, which they use in some variety. Commonly they say a virtual intention may serve. Now this is not an intention indeed, to worship God, but supposeth a former act, by virtue of which, one is said to have an intention, when really he hath none. As they call that a virtual attention to worship, when a man had a purpose to attend; though he do it not at all: Answerably, a virtual intention to worship, will be a purpose or thought to have such a purpose; though he never have it. Let those, who can, apprehend, how they may be said to worship God so much as in purpose, by virtue of a purpose to worship him, which they have not, but only intend to have, without effect. But it may be, there is no such intention needful with them, for custom may serve, to this purpose, Soto: The precept for attending the performance of divine service canonically, includes two things: First, that at the beginning of Prayer everyone mind what he is going to do.—But for this former it is enough, that it be done by virtue of some former intention and custom: as if one when the sign is given for Prayers, go as is the custom, to the Choir-by this he satisfies the precept. Now this he may be accustomed to do, without any thought of God, or of worshipping him: yet by virtue of that custom, wherein God is quite neglected, he will have their virtual intention to worship him: all the intention that they require, that is, plainly none at all; unless by virtue of neglecting God, he may be said to mind him.

Or an habitual intention may serve, they sometimes tell us. Sylvester expresseth it thus, after Paludanus, He is bound in the beginning of the service, to have an intent to perform it, so that the service may be from his reason, and not from his imagination only. i. e. he must go about it like a man, and not like a beast. But least it should seem too hard for a man to go about their service, with an intention so much distinguishing him from a Bruit; he adds a favorable gloss. This is to be understood, saith he, either in act, or habit, or virtue. So that if it be but an habitual intention, it may suffice. Navarre explains it by this conditional (and others with him) if one be asked, why he takes his Breviary, he would answer, that he doth it to say Service. Now hereby we are told, that, rather an habitual than a virtual intention, is expressed, and they acknowledge that such an intention is not sufficient for a human act; much less therefore for an act of worship; Since then they think, that such an intention will suffice; a purpose to worship God is not needful with them: unless they can make divine worship of that which is less than human; or will have the Bruits to be Catholic worshippers. They tell us also that this habitual intention, is in those that are asleep. So Scotus the first founder of this distinction (and herein that which they call virtual agrees with it; indeed Aquinas saw no cause to distinguish them, and others who affect Scotus his subtlety, use the terms as if they were distinct, yet confound them in their instances). And thus when all the worship which they think needful, is shrunk up into an intention; yet that intention is no other, than they may have in a dead sleep, when they dream of no such thing. So that their souls need be no more concerned in worshipping God, either when they are at service, or when they are addressing themselves to it, than if their Church were in mount Celius with the seven sleepers: When they are coming to it (as we see here) they need have no more purpose to worship God, than if they were asleep: and when they are at it (as we said before) they need no more attend to what they are a doing, than if they were not yet awake. They say also an implicit intention will suffice; which is, as they explain it, when a man hath not expressly any thought of praying or worshipping God, when he is to read service; but only intends to accomplish the precept of the Church, or to perform his task, or to do as he is wont to do. As when a man first takes Orders or enters into a Monastery, understanding that the Church injoines all in that capacity daily to recite their canonical hours; if he then have an intention to perform this task, to do as the Church requires, or as others of that quality are wont to do, and accordingly say his hours as the fashion is, though he have not once a thought of God or worshipping him all his life after, either when he is going to service, or when he is reading it; yet that first intention may suffice; yea it is of such sufficiency, that any other act of mind or heart, either in worship, or in order to it becomes needless: it is of such admirable efficacy, that by virtue of it, they can worship God, when they mind no such thing as God, or worshipping him, no nor ever intend it otherwise, Let us suppose that they thought it requisite to renew this implicit intention frequently, yet would it not necessarily amount to a purpose of worshipping God; for not only their task, and what they are wont to do, but the precept of the Church, may be (as we shall hear them by and by declare) accomplished by acts of wickedness: which sure cannot be acts of worship, nor a design to do them, an intention to serve God. Yea, they may satisfy the Churches injunction for Divine service, though they have an express intention not to fulfill it, all the while as ( Aragon & their Divines of greatest Reputation determine.) So that if the Church did enjoin them to worship God, yet no intention to worship him would be needful, because they can satisfy the Church with a contrary intention: Finally a sinful intention will serve their turn: This passeth for their common Doctrine. If a man intend principally his own praise or worldly advantage, and so design to serve himself, and not God; this cannot with any reason be counted an intention to worship God: yet such a design will suffice for the worship they require, and it will be substantially good in their account, only a little tainted with a venial speck, which though it may hinder it from being meritorious of Eternal glory: yet he that never otherwise intends to Pray or Worship cannot be Damned, and so will be Saved notwithstanding. In short, the Lord requires the heart in Worship, without this, nothing else can please him, nothing in his account will be a real honor or worship of him, but only in appearance and fiction. The Romanists teach, that God need not have anything of their hearts in their Service, not any one act or motion thereof, while they are at it, only some sort of intention before, while they are going about it; but this no act of will or heart neither, but only a virtual, or habitual, or implicit something; they have minced it so small, that an ordinary eye cannot discern in it so little, as a purpose to serve God; yea in fine, they have reduced it to that which is worse than nothing: and if the heart must be cumbered with any such thing, as an intention about serving God, yet a sinful intention may serve: this satisfies their holy Church and her Precept fully; she doth not, she cannot require anymore for God, what burdens soever in other cases she lays upon the Consciences of men. But though the heart, and every act of it be thus discharged from any concern in their service, yet it may be, they will have the mind more engaged. One act thereof, and but one (mental attention ) they seem to require; and its true, some of them make show of calling for it, but as soon as ever it appears, it is dismissed immediately, as needless; for they conclude generally, that a purpose to attend will serve, though they attend not, and this purpose too by their handling (as we have seen) comes to nothing, or worse. But suppose they did (though they do not) account an intention to worship God needful, and that actual, express, and well qualified, yet they confess an intent to worship, or wait on God, is not to worship him really: no more than a man is Sober when he is Drunk, because he intended to be Sober. But they leave us no ground for this supposition, yet ascribe as much to their intention, and more, than the best imaginable will bear; after they have reduced it to as bad, as nothing. However since all the worship they count necessary is included in this purpose, and all their pretensions depend on it; they are concerned to have it though to be something, and they will seem cautious about it, as a thing material, so this proviso they lay down. It must not be changed into a contrary purpose, if that should fall out, it will lose its wonderful virtue, and not make those worshippers, who mind not what they are doing, when they should be praying. But there is no great danger of this, nor need they be solicitous about it: for (as they tell them) they change not their purpose, though they do nothing that they intended; or do what is quite contrary to it, viz. Though if they purposed to attend, yet they attend not at all, but turn their minds to other things, if they act cross to the supposed intention; yet so long as they assume not a contrary purpose, they must be thought to mind what they are about, though they mind it not one moment: And there need be as little care, as there is danger of changing their purpose, for carelessness cannot do it. It cannot be changed, unless a man designedly, and on set purpose, will turn his mind from what he is about to other things. Since then a Person who doth not mind God, or anything that concerns his worship, when he seems engaged in it, doth not worship God at all, as is evident in itself, and they confess it, in case he mind not this on set purpose: therefore though he doth not worship God at all, yet he worships him as much as the Romanists require; unless he wills not to worship him on set purpose: yea though he voluntarily mind nothing that concerns a worshipper; though he deliberately, and willingly let his mind run upon other things: yet so long as he is so regardless of God, and what he is about, as not to take notice of this extravagancy, he fulfills the precept of the Church, and minds Divine service, as much as is required. Thus Cajetan, Soto, and others; so that by their Doctrine, if they do not worship God, and voluntarily neglect it, yet they do as much as the Church enjoins, so long as they take no notice, that they do not worship him. And as they may voluntarily employ their minds about other things, when they should be worshipping, so may they on set purpose, busy the outward man about other Employments, when they are saying their service. They can perform their best Devotions, while (to give their own Instances) they are washing themselves, or putting on their Clothes, or mending Pens, or laying the Cloth, or making Beds, or anything else, which requires no more Attention. Nor dare they count this a venial fault, because the Dominicans are enjoined by the Rules of their Order, to say their service, while they are doing something else. That which would spoil the Devotion of others, gives no impediment to theirs, and good reason, for how can that be disturbed, that is not; or lessened, when it is already nothing? This is to worship God after the Roman mode, when neither body nor mind is taken up with the service, but both deliberately employed about something else.

But that by their principles they need be no better worshippers, will yet be more manifest, if we view their Doctrine concerning Attention more distinctly. Aquinas, and Bonaventure (whom the rest follow) give an account of three sorts hereof, according to the Severals which may be minded in prayer.

The first is Attention to the Words, so as not to err in pronouncing them.

The second, To the sense of the Words.

The third, To the Person prayed to, and the things prayed for.

Bonaventure calls Attention to the first Superficial; and that to the second literal (we may as well call it human, or rational); That to the third Spiritual (Divine or Christian Attention others call it.)

Now (which is to be observed, as that which unvails the whole mystery) they hold, that any one of these is sufficient; not only the third, or the second, but even the first, though it be the worst, and of least importance. So Angelus, Silvester, Cajetan, Bellarmine, Tolet. So Aquinas, Soto, Navar, so all of them, it is (they tell us) the common Doctrine Universally received And this clears all, and leads us directly through their reserves and concealments, and the ambiguity of their expressions (apt to mislead an unwary eye, and abuse a charitable mind, loath to think them so bad, as they speak themselves) into the open view of their irreligious (not to say Atheistical) Doctrine. This makes it very evident, that, with them it is not needful, either to worship God, or intend it. For since they agree, that any one of the several sorts of Attention is sufficient; the first, which concerns the bare words, is enough in their account; and the other are needless. It is not requisite that they should mind, either the things to be prayed for, or the God they should pray to, or the sense of the words they pronounce; it will suffice that they mind the words to them senseless, and therein the empty and insignificant figure and sound. Now words without sense are in themselves neither good nor bad; no worship, sure, can be imagined in them, they are no better, (but less tolerable) in the mouths of men, than the sound of Bruits. And the mere figure and sound of Letters, can make men no more worshippers, than Conjurers; yet such is all the worshipping or praying that they count necessary. But if they had a mind to Supererogate, and their Catholics were to do more than their Duty, i. e. Act as becomes Men in their service, taking the sense along with the words: yet the third sort of Attention, which concerns God, is still unnecessary, there need be no application of the mind unto God in their prayers; Surely in any Religion, but that which will have men abandon both Sense and Reason in matters plain and obvious to either; God would not be thought to be worshipped, when he is not at all minded. By their common Doctrine now mentioned (wherein all sorts of their Authors conspire) first their minds, may in their Divine service, not only depart from God by natural, or inadvertent vagaries, but they may dismiss them from God on set purpose. For they may voluntarily, and upon deliberation decline in their service, what is more than enough; and the attendance of the mind upon God in prayer, is plainly with them, more than enough: seeing they declare, that their attending to the bare words alone is sufficient. If they mind but to pronounce the words entire, no more is needful, God may be left out of their minds, during their whole service: and they may be as much without God in their worship, as others are said to be without him in the World, deliberately and out of choice. They leave us not to rely for this upon consequences, how evident and undeniable so ever, they stick not to declare that they may without sin voluntarily abandon the better sorts of Attention, viz. both that which is Rational, and that which is Spiritual: this will be no fault at all, if done upon a reasonable account, for example, if any one decline these that he may not tire his head therewith, or anything of like nature. It seems reasonable with them not to trouble their heads with minding God, or what becomes men in their worship of him. The reason is, because they are not obliged to serve God as well as they can: it is a received maxim amongst them, that they are not bound to do their best The third sort of Attention is better than the second, and the second is better than the first (that is worst of all): but when there are better and worse ways of serving God before them, they may choose the worse. The worst attendance of all it seems is good enough for God, even that wherein he is not at all regarded. This Doctrine is so common, that I find but two who demur on it, and one of them ( Cajetan ) but drawn in by consequence. Only Navar though he, as the rest, counts the first and worst sort of Attention sufficient: yet thinks it may be a venial fault to retain it, so as voluntarily to exclude, or hinder the better. Yet both these hold, that they may voluntarily want the better, and may without fault turn their minds from God to other things, so long as they observe it not, or if they do observe it, yet so long also, as they do not reflect upon it as a Vagary. And both maintain that any one may pray whilst he is dressing himself, or is taken up with any other like employment. And such action though it be consistent with the worse Attention, yet undoubtedly (they say) it hinders the better, especially that which is spiritual and elevated. So that herein, these Authors are either reconciled to the common opinion, or fall out with themselves. And that such employments (though inconsistent with spiritual Attention, i. e. with minding God) are lawful while they are at their service, is not only the sense of these two Casuists; but to deny it is against the usage of all the Pious (it seems the Roman Piety is without regarding God, even in his worship) All the Domicans are particularly obliged to it (as we saw before) and have a visible demonstration for it from the ancient form of their Dormitories. Thus one way or other all agree, that God may voluntarily be neglected in their worship without sin.

Secondly, as it is not necessary by their Doctrine to worship God, so neither is there any necessity to intend it. When they have encouraged all, even their Religious, not to pray at all; by assuring them they need not mind God at all, whilst they should be praying to him: yet they would persuade them notwithstanding that they may pray, by virtue of a former intention. The vanity of this is shown already (where we prove both, that this is not enough, and that indeed they require not so much) but because it is the only pretence, that such can be worshippers of God, who think it needless to mind him, even in the most solemn addresses amongst them; it will not be amiss to see it again p • f • quite away, by their own Doctrine. What must be designed in that previous intention (upon which not only the efficacy, but the reality of their prayers, and solemn worship depends)? must they intend, when they are going about it, to mind the things they are to pray for, or the God they should worship or the sense of the words they utter? No, as it is not necessary to mind any of these, when they are at their worship; so neither is it needful to intend it beforehand: it will be sufficient if they do but intend to mind, the senseless pronounciation of the words; and neither God nor anything else which becomes Christians, or Men in acts of worship; nothing but what Bruits or Birds are capable of, the mere uttering of the words. This is very manifest by their common Doctrine, now before us, concerning attention in Prayer. Attendance to the words without the sense is sufficient, but they need not purpose beforehand, to have any sort of Attention more than that which is sufficient: for they will not imagine there is any need of a purpose to do that, which is not needful to be done; and they declare expressly this is all which is requisite, that they come to their service with a purpose to have any sort of Attention, that is sufficient (telling us withal, that attendance to the bare words will suffice. ) So that in the issue the worship of God (his and our greatest concern in this world) is reduced to this. There is no need to mind God, and so not to worship him at all, either actually, or virtually; since it is neither needful to to do this, nor intend it. He is not worshipped in that remote and minute way, which they call virtual (which is not indeed the doing of it, but a purpose only to do it), but by virtue of a former intention; where this intention is not, it can have no virtue: but with them there need be no intention to mind God, and so by their Doctrine it is not necessary to worship him one way or other.

Thirdly, since with them it is not needful to mind anything in their service, for which they can be counted worshippers, nothing but the words; it will not be very material, to take notice what attention they must give to these: yet seeing the senseless recital of the words, is all that they would have them mind in Divine service; one would think, that this should be attended to purpose, at least actually. No, it is enough, if their Attention be but virtual, i. e. if they have a purpose to mind them, when they are going about their worship, and change it not while they are at it, though then they mind them not (for as they generally hold, that Attention to the words is sufficient; so none question but a virtual Attention thereto will serve.) It may seem strange that one should be said to attend, when he attends not, but they will satisfy this with something that is as odd: they would have them think their heedlessness is excused, by being more heedless: and so the more careless they are in their worship, the better. For if they mind not what they are doing, when saying Divine service; yet if they do this without reflection, and take no notice that they mind it not at all; they therefore mind it well enough. Such is the Attention which the strictest of their Authors require and judge sufficient; even such as is as good as none, and about that which is nothing worth. Now this Doctrine hath such an Atheistical aspect, that they (who profess themselves to be, and would have the World think that they are worshippers of God) seem concerned not to expose it commonly bare-faced. And indeed they give it some disguize, when they declare so much for Attention of mind in worship, as that which is of the substance of worship, so essential thereto, that without this it is no worship of God, no praying at all; but a mere clamorous noise, yea a mocking of God, and taking his Name in vain. The Jesuits forbear not frequently to acknowledge this. Who would not think hereupon, that they count it most necessary for the mind to attend God in worship? Oh! but the Vizour falls off, when we understand, that attention of mind to nothing else, but the bare words, stripped of their sense, and all respect to God, is enough with them, and that virtual only, and in purpose, though they never actually mind so little. They themselves assure us that the attending to the words only (if that were to be done indeed ) is no attending God: for they make these distinct things, and will have one of them suffice without the other: and it is against the resentments of all Religion, and common sense too, that God should be said to be worshipped, when he is not at all minded. And therefore in fine, when they teach (as the best of them do, so that it passeth for their common Doctrine) that superficial attention in their service is sufficient: they declare plainly enough, th •… in the Church of Rome, there is no need to worship God, no not for their Religious, in that which they call Divine service.

But if we would have a plainer acknowledgment hereof than is needful, we may have it from those who declare, that no Attention of mind is needful in worship, and these are the greatest part of their A •… bours, which I find alleged in this question (taking none into the account neither, but those that are ancienter than the foundation of the Society). They determine without distinguishing that all attention is needless actual, or virtual. If the words are pronounced entire, and no external action admitted, to hinder that; it is no crime with them, if as nothing else; so neither the bare words be further minded, but the thoughts be quite dismissed from them. Sylvester the Master of the Sacred Apostolical Palace, and their prime Champion against Luther, in his Book Dedicated to Pope Leo the Tenth, determines expressly, That to pray with attention in their Canonical hours, is not required by God's Law. If he had said, the Church had not required it, he had spoke within compass; and said no more than many others before and after him: but he says that too, for having told us that Hostiensis, Antoninus, Summa rosellae, do all hold, that the Church enjoins not attentiveness, but only saying the service, he adds, that they say true, as to this, that attention is not under the precept of the Church. Of the like persuasion are Durand, Paludanus, Angelus de Clavasio, and others. For attention, as they say, is not a command of their Church, but a counsel only, which may be neglected without sin. Others, who make the best of it, deliver it thus. The Church doth not command internal acts, no more than judge of them, therefore requires not attention in worship: the precept is fully accomplished without it, by the external act alone; the want of attention is no fault, unless upon the account of the natural precept; and in reference to that, it is no worse than venial. They are herein opposed by some later Casuists and Jesuits (however these come to be counted more licentious.) But the differing parties fully agree, in making it needless to worship God. For both hold, that they need not mind either God, or the matter, or the sense of the words in their service, either actually or virtually: and both conclude, that the words without the sense (and all else for which they can be considerable) need not be minded actually. All the difference is about a virtual attention to the bare words, whether the want of that (which is no attention indeed) be a mortal crime. It is just, as if when they had concluded it lawful to murder a Man, they should fall into a hot debate, whether it were a deadly crime, to disorder his hair. But so it becomes those who make no scruple, to destroy Religion Body and Soul; to make a zealous stir about the sleightest appurtenances of it. Something must be done with some show of Conscience too about its appendices, that the world may not think, they retain nothing of it amongst them. And yet how palpable is the irreligion of these Sophisters, who will have it a damnable crime, to neglect their empty words; but no fault at all, wholly to neglect the Great God, even when if ever, the whole Soul should attend him. Here is evidence too much, that the Church of Rome, so far as we can know her sense by her Doctors the most, and best of them; if she think it fit, that God should be worshipped; yet thinks it not needful, that he be minded i. e. though it be convenient to pretend worship; yet it is not necessary to worship him indeed. Medina is so ingenuous as to tell us, that since the Church requires not attention in their service, she doth not oblige them to pray, when she enjoins them to say their Canonical hours. So that all in the Church of Rome are discharged, from any obligation to worship God at all, even in their most solemn service; they need not pray, when they are at their Church-prayers. Not only he, but all of them must acknowledge this, who will yield to that Reason or Authority which they count best. Their Law saith, God is not prayed to with the mouth without the heart. And it is a natural and evident principle (as themselves tells us) that vocal pronouncing of the words, is not prayer, unless it be done with some attention, whereas most of them say no attention is requisite in their service; and that virtual attention which the rest are for, themselves say, is no attention indeed; no more than the purpose is the act, when not performed. But what then becomes of their pretences to Worship or Devotion, may they be wholly without this? Medina easily resolves this difficulty; though he who useth their service, hath no Devotion, yet the Church in whose words he prays, and whose Minister he is, brings her Devotion. So that the Church brings Devotion still, though none in the Church, no not the Clergy, not the Religious have any. The Church prays effectually, in the words of those who say service, though these should Blaspheme God in their hearts, while they utter the words of a prayer; and they pray in the person of the Church by their common Doctrine. So that though they be in mortal sin (suppose Atheists or Debauchces) their prayers prevail in regard of the Churches Holiness. Happy persons they are, as ever any were in a dream; who can pray effectually when they pray not at all; and be Devout with another's Devotion, and why not saved too by the Churches Holiness? But then since this is applicable to all particular persons, what is that Church, by which they may have such advantages? it must be something not made up of particular persons, something abstracted from subsistence, and refined above the grosness of any reality: and the structure, their Devotion and worship must be answerable, and as much beholding to imagination for a being. Not to disturb their fancies further, it is enough that they acknowledge (what cannot be denied) that they are not obliged to worship God in their Divine service; being there is no worship without attention, and no attention with them necessary; or only that which is in effect none.

But it is no wonder they make attention at their Divine service not necessary; since being in Latin, it is to far the greatest part concerned in it, impossible. The first sort of it, which they call superficial Attention, none are capable of effectually, but those, that are well acquainted with that language: so as not only to understand, but duly pronounce it: which few of their Monasticks are, indeed it is not the talent of many of their Priests. The lowest degree of attention, saith Soto, none can have, but he that knoweth the tongue. The second, which they call literal attention, fewer can arrive at, it is only for expert Divines. To attend to the sense is not for all Latinists, but only for those that are expert in Divinity (saith the same Author ) which is so far from being the attainment of Monasticks, and common Priests; that many of the chief of their Clergy cannot pretend to it. It was necessary for them to conclude (since they will have their own way, what ever the Scripture saith against it), that it is no sin for the Clergy not to understand what they say when they say Service, though they confess they can have no relish of what they understand not. As to the third, which they call spiritual attention, they cannot mind the things prayed for, who know not what they are; and apprehend nothing of the contents of their prayers: Mor can they mind the God, that is to be prayed to, when they know not whether they pray to God or no: for they understand not to whom the prayer is directed, to God or to a Creature; to an Angel or a Saint; to a Man or a Woman.

Now seeing attention to what they do at their service, is impossible to most, and unnecessary to all: it may seem superfluous, to show, that with them Reverence and Devotion is also unnecessary. (And what Religious worship there can be without these; let those who have any tolerable notion of Religion judge.)

For Reverence and Devotion are included in attention, or necessarily depend on it, and unavoidably fall with it. No man will imagine, that there can be any Devotion or Reverence toward God, when he is not so much as minded, when he is not before their eyes, when the mind is voluntarily turned from him, and wholly taken up with thoughts, which are inconsistent with observance of him. And this is the plain import of that non-attention, which they allow in their service. When the mind departs, the heart follows it (since it moves by its conduct, and acts not otherwise) and when these are gone, the man is morally absent: and worships God no more, nor hath anymore Devotion or Reverence for him, (if these be so much as moral acts) than if he were not in the place where he is worshiped. And seeing (as themselves tell us) outward acts in worship are not considerable, but as signs of inward motions: all external shows of Devotion, or Reverence, when there is none of these in the Soul, will be but hypocritical significations, denoting that to be there, which the Lord discerns is not there: and so tend to affront him, instead of approaching him with Reverence, Worship or Devotion. But there's no need of a proof, where the thing is confessed: they tell us plainly, that neither Reverence, nor Devotion is necessary.

Reverence (saith de Graff • is in his time the grand Penitentiary at Naples) consists in this, that the body be in a composed temper, otherwise it signifies an incomposed mind, they ought therefore reverently, and humbly to pray, for such prayers penetrate the Heavens. But this is only counsel and advice, it is not commanded, as he tells us immediately, such Reverence saith he is not required by any precept, though the service be said irreverently, yet the command is satisfied. Here is encouragement enough for irreverence inward, or outward. All the danger follows; but possibly it may be a venial fault, if the irreverence be great according to Pope Innocent. And if great irreverence will in the Popes judgment, prove but a small fault, they may venture on great as well as little freely: for neither Pope nor Penitentiary, thinks any much concerned to avoid a venial sin. Sylvester tells us that irreverence is not always mortal. But it will ever be so, or when? It is not so when instead of worshipping God, they take his name in vain, how severe so ever the terms be, in which the Lord hath forbidden this, and thereby signified the heinousness of it. Yea that irreverence to God which is injurious to his Divine Majesty and Excellency may not be big enough to be counted mortal: unless it be so outrageous as to destroy the Majesty of God, or some of his perfections, it may be venial. The little account they make of Reverence is the more considerable, because as themselves describe it, it compriseth all love and observance of God.

For Devotion, Aquinas tells us, as to the fruit of spiritual Devotion, he is deprived of it, who doth not attend to the things he prays for, or doth not understand. So that Devotion is lost (by the Oracle of their Schools,) on a double account: both when prayer is not attended, as it needs not be with them; and when it is not understood, as it cannot be. He that is negligent both as to Attention, and Devotion offends venially. Thus Cardinal Cajetan, after he had told us that Devotion consists in every holy affection. So that he who through negligence wants all holy affection (what ever is included in Attention or Devotion) incurs but a slight fault. And it may be, not so much. There ought to be Devotion (saith Cardinal Tolet ) and he sets it out by love to God, and desires of seeing him; but adds, if this be wanting without contempt, it is no great sin. Whether he thought it a little one, he saith not, but if he had so hard thoughts of it, the Jesuit is more severe then those of other Orders. Graffius after he had described Devotion, concludes, he that wants Devotion, sins not, not so much as venially it seems. Lopez and Metina in him, censures that opinion as false and cruel, which will have actual Devotion requisite for receiving of the Eucharist; though that Devotion be no more, than an actual consideration, that they are there to receive Christ. Indeed they generally count Devotion needless there, where, if ever, it would be counted requisite. To be destitute of it & attention too, at the Eucharist, is either but a small fault, or none at all. Sylvester saith inward Devotion is not enjoined by the Church, but as to outward Devotion, he will not exempt it from the command; and what that is he, lets us understand by the undevoutness which is forbidden. When they make sport with one another for a great part of their worship, so as to scandalize others, and disturb the Priest. It seems they may be as Devout as their Church would have them, when they play the waggs one with another at Divine service, so that their sport be but thus qualified. If it be not so uncivil as to offend the people; or so boisterous, as to disorder the Priest; or so long, as to take up a considerable part of their worship: Their Church who requires no inward Devotion at all, will not burden them much, we see, with that which is outward. So little Devotion serves their Mass, their Divine service requires no more. Devotion there, saith he, is not commanded. Others amongst which the same Author names Hostiensis, Antoninus, and Summa Rosellae, hold, that in the Orders for Divine service the bare saying of it, is commanded: but all that consists in Devotion, is no more than Counsel. (Which by their principles may be neglected without sin.) The ground of their persuasion is considerable: to enjoin Devotion (say they) had been to lay a snare for men, and impose intolerable burdens on them. So that it seems the Church had been wicked, and unmerciful; if she had but obliged their Clergy and Religious, to be Devout in their worship. And by this reason, neither God nor Man can make Devotion a Duty, to any sort of Roman-Catholics. Hereafter we must not wonder if they neither enjoin, nor observe it. And though their reason may be singular, yet the opinion is the common Doctrine, since all are discharged from Devotion, or Reverence, who are not obliged to Attention. Such therefore, and no other is the worship which the Church of Rome makes needful for the Clergy and Religious. Such as it can be, without Attention, without holy fear or affection: it is not the thing they call it, it deserves not the Name of worship, or the Title of Holy or Religious: it must be a profane and irreligious exercise, it can be no better without Reverence, and without Devotion; it cannot but be without these, whilst it is without Attention, which they oblige all to neglect, by declaring it needless. Durand maintained that Images are not to be worshipped properly, but only Abusively, that is, as they explain it, though worship be exhibited before, or about the Image, yet the mind of the worshipper is far from it. This his opinion is now damned, as little less than Heretical; being in their account, no less than a denial, that, any worship is to be given to an Image. Yet this Abusive worship is all that they make necessary for the God of Heaven: for requiring no Attention of Mind, no Devotion of Soul in their service, they allow both mind and heart to be far from him, while they do something before or about him, which they call worship. So that what worship they count intolerably too little for a senseless Image (not to say a detestable Idol); they think enough in conscience for the true and living God. I have not observed that any Idolaters in the world, were ever so gross and stupid, as by their avowed Doctrine, thus to advance, what they look upon as a mere Image; and so to debase what they took to be the true God. However hereby it appears, that they count no worship at all needful for God; since worship without the heart, will by their Doctrine serve the turn: which in reference to an Image is, with them, no worship at all. It is not true honor or worship, but fiction and mockery. This is their own Character of such worship when Images are concerned, and under it I leave their Divine service.

Sect. 2.

Let us in the next place view their Mass, this is for the people and is the only public worship enjoined them, in any of their days for worship. They call it the chief part of their Religion, and this summons us to expect, that herein, if at all, they will show themselves Religious, and worship God indeed; however they think not themselves obliged to it in their Divine Office. But all expectation hereof is quite blasted when they tell us, that less attention is required at the Mass, than at their canonical hours; yet so they commonly determine, and their reason is, because prayer is a more rational act, than that moral presence required at Mass. So that their hearing Mass, is a less rational act, than that which is performed without understanding: and requires less Attention of mind, than that, to which none at all, is actually needful. And we cannot yet apprehend how that can be Divine worship; which is so far from being reasonable service: or how God can be thought to be worshipped; when the Soul which is to worship him, doth not take any notice of him. The servant of servants at Rome would not think himself honored, if the holding out of his Toe, were not regarded by such as have access to him. But Roman-Catholics may, it seems, mind God less at their Mass, than one that minds him not at all; and yet worship him well enough, after their mode.

Besides all inward worship is clearly discharged, for when they teach, that the Mass is for the people the only worship on the Lord's days, or any other day set a part for worship: they tell us expressly, no inward worship is the duty of those days, external worship alone is commanded: So Aquinas Cajetan, so Navarre, so de Graffijs, so Lopez, Dominicus a Soto also, who asserts it with many reasons, amongst which this is one, because the Church requires no other than this external worship, and if God had required more, the Church had not been fida Divini juris interpres, a faithful expounder of the Divine Law, which rather than they will yield they will admit anything, though it be, that God should never have any true worship amongst them.

Particularly and expressly they deny all acts of Contrition for sin to be the duties of Mass-days. So Sylvester, Summa Rosellae, Melchior Cano, and all the other Authors last mentioned. Likewise all acts of Love to God Bellarmine, and in him Aquinas, so Navar and Pope Adrian, de Graffis and Soto who would maintain this with many arguments, one of the chief of them (he calls it ingentissimum argumentum ) is, that this would be to ensnare Souls, and cast them into grievous straits, if so harsh a duty as an act of love to God were enjoined so frequently. Another is that all the commands of God as to the substance of them, may be fully accomplished without love to God, and therefore this.

It is good Divinity with them, That we are not bound to worship God out of love. The Mass saith Navar which we are commanded to hear on those days (and nothing else) may be heard well enough without any such act of love: So Bellarmine, we are not bound on these days by any particular precept not to sin, or to have any act of contrition, or any act of love to God: what, not one act of love to God? no, he will prove it, one of his arguments is, because the Church hath determined the time and manner how Divine Law is to be observed in keeping this command: but the Church nowhere requires inward acts; she thinks, it seems, that God may be served sufficiently with the Mass without any sense o • sin, or love to God. And thus all those other graces and affections that flow from Repentance, or love, or necessarily depend thereon; as filial fear, spiritual desires, delight in God, &c. will be no duty on their Mass-days, their Mass hath nothing to do with them. Confessions of sin there may be well enough without Godly sorrow; and Petitions without desires; and Praises without complacence or ingenuous gratitude: because all is well enough without love to God, or grief for offending him; and that, on all these days wherein they are obliged to hear Mass.

If you would see anything of the worship of God in the Mass, it is as if you look for the life and nature of a man in a Picture: and such an one, as will not so much as show you his color or figure, but very rudely.

The precept for observing Mass-days, as Sylvester tells us, requires not the end, that is, waiting upon God, nor what is necessarily requisite thereto, but the hearing of Mass: Not waiting on God, but hearing Mass! These are distinct things, and disjoined in the sense of the Roman Doctors, the one is commanded, the other is not; so that they may duly hear Mass all their lives: and yet not wait on God one moment, the former they must do, the latter they are not obliged to regard, nor anything that necessarily belongs to it. Navar asserts this, and would prove it by reason and the Authority of Aquinas herein generally followed. In short, if there be any worship required in the Mass it is merely external, and that disjoined from the inward service of the Soul, is, but a mere show or visor of worship, as they themselves confess in their lightsomer intervals. well, but is it worship in any sense? is there anything Religious required of the people herein? for this they tell us it is enough, if it be an human act, no more is enjoined, the precept obligeth not, but to hear so, that it may be an human act, saith Soto, and others, and if it suffice that it be a human act, it needs not be Religious. Let it be deliberate, that is enough to make it a human act; and then though there be no Religious motion or intention in it, the precept is fulfilled. Sylvester confirms us herein, the precept (saith he) is given unto men, and therefore the work must not be the issue only of the imagination, which is common to us with Beasts, it must proceed from deliberation, which requires some attention. So that there is something more required of one that goes to Mass than of a Beast; but that is before he comes there, if he advance but to it as a man, he may be excused even from human acts, when he is at it, he needs neither exercise his understanding nor his senses. He needs not understand it, that is far from being a duty, they have made it impossible, it's no sin either for Priests or people not to know what they do; so reasonable is their service. The Latin makes it unintelligible enough, but if it were in a Language less known, if in Mosarabike or Greek, those who are present without any but their Mother-Tongue, fulfil the precept. As Victorel tells us after Soto and others. He needs not see what is done, he may do all that is requisite in the Mass blindfold. He needs not hear it, as Cajetan and others tells us, and this is much, he is enjoin'd only to hear Mass, and yet doth all that he is enjoin'd if he hear it not, if not one syllable of it reach his ears: it seems with them, to hear, is not to hear. Just by the same figure that they say they worship God, when in truth they do not worship him at all.

He needs not be sensible of anything about it, to hear Mass saith Tolet is not to use any of his senses about what is done in the Mass. And if this be their worshipping God, a man may worship him as much as the Church of Rome requires, not only without Reverence and Devotion, without heart and affection: but without the use of sense or Reason. A Bruit may do more at Mass, than they require their Catholics to do, no wonder that Church enjoins no Attention, Devotion or Reverence, nor counts them needful (as we have already manifested) for can there be any pretence to require these, when both sense and understanding are superseded? or can there be anything that deserves the name of worship without these?

They themselves cancel and overthrow all their own Pleas and pretences for their offering God anything of worship in the Mass. For, they say, he doth not worship there, who is not present, and they cannot deny that in God's account he is absent whose mind is not present; and yet they justify voluntary departures of mind and heart, when they should be worshipping, and those who would not seem to do this, do it really; when they conclude it no fault to employ themselves about other things when they are at Mass. They allow them to say their hours (and so neglect the Mass, out of a neglect of their Divine office) or to recite what is enjoin'd them by way of Penance (and so prefer a punishment before the chief part of their Religion) or other voluntary performances (so they may do what they will, rather than mind what they are about.) They know they cannot do two things at once, especially in Divine worship, which should take up the Soul. Though in their worshipping, where the Soul is not concerned they may attend a hundred acts at once; as much as they are obliged to mind the Mass, that is, actually not at all. They admit them also not only to read, or write what they please; but also to sleep part of the time: so that they take not too long a Nap. It should not last above a third part, or half the Mass (for that is pars notabilis ) if it be but less than that, it passeth for nothing. Or if they be too brisk to sleep, they may entertain themselves with familiar chatt. Medina concludes, that he who is at Mass may spend the whole time in discourse about other things, Merchant affairs, or making Bargains, and yet fulfil the precept. They must it seems demean themselves at Mass altogether as Religiously, as at the Exchange; and no more is required. Suarez would have the Discourse neither so long, nor so serious, there should be some intermissions to attend. But what attention can be mean? He (with the rest) tells us, that to the Mass, less attention is requisite than to their Divine office; and to that office, he and they say, a virtual intention is sufficient, and this is the least of all that can be: So that to the Mass, less attention than the least of all, will suffice, and this to common apprehension is none at all. Others of them (as we saw before) will have no attention of mind needful for their office; and so with them, none will serve the Mass. Their Catholics may have their choice here, and satisfy their Devotion at Mass, either with the attention of this Doctor and some other late Authors, which is none at all: or (if this seem too much) with that of their ancienter Doctors, which is less than none. And what must they attend to, who need neither hear, nor see, nor understand what is said, or done? It would puzzle one as subtle as himself, to tell one how he can attend to that, which is neither offered to his senses, nor his intellect. And therefore the Jesuit though he seems more strict, yet herein is less rational, than Medina, and not so consistent with himself or their common Doctrine. Also he would not have the Discourse at Mass so grave and serious, as that of Merchants, it should be more light, more idle than that about Trade and Business. It seems the levity of the Stage suits with the Mass better than the seriousness of the Exchange. Answerably if their Discourse be not decent, nor the Subject of it very modest, the Mass will comport with it, and the Churches precept will bear it without a breach. And no wonder, since it hath been the custom of that Church (as many of their Writers inform us) to sing, not only profane, but f • l • hy Songs at high Mass; and that to the Organ, that the people might not only be refreshed by their own private immodest Discourse, but edified more effectually this way, by the louder voice of the Church. And how, we learn by a grave Cardinal (though little herein more rigid than others) who tells us, that the hearers were thereby excited, to what was profane and filthy, as experience witnessed. And still notwithstanding any pretence of Reformation, tunes to the Organ at Divine service or Mass, though lascivious and very profane, will pass for a small fault (in the judgment of those who seem most severe in the case) if either the matter be slight, or the intention good, or the Actors inconsiderate. Heres provision enough, that the Scenes in their Mass may not be dull and heavy. Yet further they may laugh, and be pleasant, and when the Music (which sounds not always) doth it not, they may make themselves merry in the height of their worship. But this with some caution, their talk, and laughter may break out into such noise, that possibly it may prove a sin of irreverence. Here is some show of danger, but it will vanish presently; For if it should be a very loud extravagance, and the irreverence great; yet great irreverence may, with them, be but a small fault, and they have the authority of a Pope to warrant this. Nor must this seem strange to us, since they will not have all contempt of God criminal; that which is material may be venial; and it is not formal, unless besides the contempt of God, there be also an intention to contemn him. Such is the most solemn worship in the Roman-Church, and so is God worshipped amongst them; and that not by the unwarranted presumption of the profane multitude: but by the Rules and Conclusions of those, who direct their worship and guide their Consciences. Here we may see in the Mass the Religion of Roman-Catholics, they call it the chiefest, the best part of their Religion, that we may not look for anything better amongst them, nor anything Religious, if it be not found here, yea it is all (better and worse) that the people are obliged to in public (and in private their Church doth not trouble them with any.) He that views it well, and believes he hath a Soul, and that there is a God; must have little, or no regard of either, if he do not bless himself from it, as a thing which hath nothing of Religion, but the name, and that merely usurped. A Religion which needs nothing, by the Doctrine of its chief Professors, that is either Godly, or so good as human: no regard of God at all, so much as in one thought of him; nor any act of Reason, yea or of sense either about anything Religious or Divine; yet allows a free exercise of both, about that which is profane and irreligious. He that counts this Religion indeed, must stifle the common notions of Religion and Christianity: and he, that understanding it, makes choice thereof; had need first be very indifferent, whether he have any Religion, or none. Had the ancient Fathers talked after this senseless, lewd, extravagant rate, concerning the worship of God, how would Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian have Triumph'd over them? nay, they might justly have challenged them to have instanced in any one that bore the name of a Philosopher, that ever treated of the worship of God with so little Reverence and Discretion. Had such loose and wild Doctrines been broach'd by the first Teachers of Christianity, the Heathens needed not have raised so fierce a persecution against it, they might with ease have hiss'd it out of the World.

But this is not the worst, they encourage that in the Mass which they cannot but condemn as wicked; and maintain that the precept for hearing Mass may be satisfied by such wickedness. Melchior Canos to this Objection (that the Command of God, or the Church, cannot be fulfilled by sin) answers according to the opinion commonly maintained amongst them. That he is no Transgressor of the precept, who to the Act enjoin'd, and good, in its kind, adds something sinful. He supposeth that the Act commanded by the Church, is some way good; but withal, that the precept may be satisfied, though it be done wickedly, and that by their common Doctrine. Whether the circumstances may be venially or mortally wicked, he saith not, but leaves us to understand it of either. Dominicus a Sato, tells us expressly, that though what is added to the Act enjoined, be a mortal wickedness, yet the Precept may thereby be satisfied substantially. With these Divines of greatest reputation amongst them, concurs Navarre no less renowned (and none of them Jesuits ) the opinion of Antoninus (which he is disproving) presupposeth, saith he, that by a sinful Act, especially if it be a mortal sin, the Command of the Church cannot be fulfilled; but that this is false we have largely proved. He would have us know that he hath fully demonstrated, that the Precept for hearing Mass, may be entirely accomplished by deadly crimes. This is the judgment of the most eminent Doctors amongst them, such as are not of the Society; and (if they will believe their famous Bishop of the Canaries ) the common Doctrine in the Roman Church: and by this, the world may judge what a Church it is, what her Religion, what her Worship, what her Precepts for it are: When all that she requires for that worship, which is the principal part of her Religion, may be satisfied by acts of wickedness, such as are mortal and damnable to the Worshippers, and most (of all others) dishonorable to God, whom they pretend to worship: And let those that are seduced, or may be tempted by Seducers, seriously consider, whether they can wisely trust their souls to such a conduct, or be safe in such a communion, where there is no more tenderness for the salvation of souls, than to be satisfied with such a worshiping of God as will confessedly damn them.

Sect. 3.

Thus much for the manner of their public worship, all of it, whoever amongst them it concerns; whereby it appears that they count it not necessary that God should have any real worship from them. This will be further manifest by what they teach concerning the end of it.

They maintain, that it is lawful for their Clergy and Monasticks too (who profess perfection) to serve God for their own ends, viz. to get preferment, or compass a dignity, or gain some worldly advantage, and so to prostitute the Honor and Worship of God to such low, earthly, sordid designs, as Religious persons would never appear to own; but that Irreligion is grown too monstrously big for its vizard. He that riseth to their morning Service for this end, that he may have his daily devidend, if it be not principally for this, he sins not. So their glossa celeberrima, the two Popes Urbane & Caelestine determine that it is lawful for their Clergy to serve God in their Churches for this design, and hope to get Ecclesiastical dignity in Navarre. But then this great Casuist, (of so high esteem amongst them, that he was sent for from Spain to Rome, to give advice and direction to the old Gentleman there, that cannot err) understands (after Aquinas & Jo. Major. as he pretends) the principal end to be something else than others do. It is not that which so much moves the Agent, as that without it he would not be drawn to act by any other end and accordingly he will have the premised testimony to be understood. So that one of their Perfectionists, who riseth to morning prayer for this end, that he may have his dividend; & would not stir out of his Bed to attend the Worship of God for God's sake, or any other end beseeming a Religious person, if the consideration of his daily allowance did not rouse him: yet he serves God so well herein, as that he is sinless, and not so much as venially tainted. Likewise the Clergy who address themselves to the Worship of God, moved thereto, more by hopes to gain preferment and dignity than any respect to God, yet they sin not. That is, they worship God well enough, though they respect themselves and their own ends more than him: or which is all one, though they serve themselves rather than God whom they are to worship. They are all concerned to maintain this: for he tells them, if such acts of Virtue, or Worship, were Vicious, all their acts in a manner would be stark naught, since there are extremely few amongst them that are purely done for God. They are a Church in the mean time that worthily profess godliness, since nothing is done, or needs be done by them, even in the worship of God, for him, so much as for themselves; and indeed Sylvester deals ingenuously when he tells us plainly, without the cover of any pitiful shift that it is no sin to serve God principally for their own profit.

Moreover, and yet worse, They teach it is no sin to worship God for an end that is in itself a sin, if it be not principally intended, it is lawful by their doctrine to Preach, to Pray, say Mass, &c. for praise of men (though Christ will have those that designed it as Cajetan notes, even when he is excusing this to have no better reward:) or for vain glory (though they reckon this amongst capital crimes) only he must not make so wicked a thing his chief end, and then he is innocent enough, though sin against God be his design in worshipping him. It is no sin, yea, it is meritorious to do these things, viz. to Preach, and say Mass, and to do other things of like nature principally for God, and secondarily for vain glory and praise of men, aptly directed as our end. Thus Navarre determines after their great Saint and Doctor, Aquinas. Now he had taught us before, that these acts of worship are but done secondarily (and so unlawfully) for these criminal ends when they so much sway a man, as that he would not worship God unless he were excited by them; and that vain glory is not his principal end, even when he is so much influenced thereby, as that he would not Pray or Preach, &c. if this were not his motive, this in the judgment of others, as he acknowledgeth is to make sin his principal end, and to advance wickedness above God, even when he pretends to worship him. But let us not interrupt this great Doctor in his way, it is soul enough as himself makes it; for hereby a man may serve God, and that meritoriously (after the Roman mode) though he never would let him have an act of worship, if pride and vain glory did not set him a-work. He would never Pray or Preach, &c. if he were not more moved to it by sin, and out of regard to some wickedness, than out of respect to God.

Further yet: They hold it is but a venial fault to worship God principally for vain glory, and other designs of like quality. Aquinas, as he is represented by Sylvester determining that it is no mortal sin to serve God principally for vain glory; if that be ones chief end actually only, and not both habitually and actually. Sylvester declares it as his own persuasion, that it is both against Aquinas and the Truth, to hold it is a mortal sin, when those things which are ordained for the glory of God, are used principally for a man's own glory. He instances in the Sacraments, saying Mass, the Scriptures and Preaching.

Cardinal Cajetan declares himself thus in one instant, which involves the rest: It is but venial to Preach for vain glory, or hopes of a gainful alms, signifying, that he means such vain glory as Christ condemned in the Pharisees, when he told them this was like to be their reward.

Navarre affirms, that to Preach, or say Mass, or Pray, and such things as are instituted for the Honor and Worship of God, and the Salvation of Souls, for vain glory principally, or more than principally, is but a venial fault; and that such as gain-say this (who are but two) have been confuted by others, and by himself after them. These are the chief of their Doctors, whom the rest commonly follow, (and none of them Jesuits ) who unanimously assert this. Now it is not necessary with them, for any man to avoid a venial sin, since by their doctrine a world of them can never damn a man: and therefore it is not necessary for any Papist, to worship God otherwise, than principally for vain glory, or ends equally criminal, i. e. it is not needful for them to worship him at all; for no man can imagine, that he is worshipped, when he is in the highest degree dishonored and affronted: and what greater affront can be put upon him, than under a pretence of worship to debase the great God, and thrust him lower in our designs, not only than ourselves and earthly trifles, but lower than sin, the vilest thing on Earth, yea, or in Hell? and this is evidently done when vain glory (a capital sin) hath the preeminence of God in addresses to him, and is regarded as principal: when the Lord of Heaven and earth hath no regard at all, or only in a lower place. It is not worshipping of God, but a horrid impiety, for men to serve themselves instead of God; but more intolerably impious to worship sin: and that hath the worship and is honored in the place of God, which hath the highest advancement, and is principal in Religious addresses; yet no better than this is all the worship, which by the Roman Doctrine is necessary from their Catholics.

In short, whereas by their Doctrine of non-attention formerly exaamined, it is so evident that they discharge themselves from all real worship, as they have no color to hide it, no shift to evade it; but a supposal of some previous intention to serve God, when they are addressing themselves to their service: this their last reserve they themselves ruin, by their Doctrine concerning the end of worship. For they teach (besides what is premised) that a man who comes to Mass, or Divine service; with a purpose not to worship God, but to serve his Lusts, doth satisfy the Precept. We are not obliged (saith Soto) to hear Mass but only so, that it may be a human act, which it may be, though there be a sinister intention in it. Yea though the thing intended be a sin, and that highly criminal, for he adds if one attend prayer, though he do it for vain glory (that is a small matter to stick at) yea though it be with a purpose mortally wicked, yet he fulfills the precept substantially. Such are the commands of the Church of Rome for her most Sacred worship, they may be fully satisfied by deadly wickedness, there needs no purity of heart or hand for her Devotions; a design damnably evil will serve the turn. That of Antoninus (saith Navarre ) is not to be maintained, that he doth not satisfy the precept, who comes to Church principally to look on a handsome Woman, or to talk with her, or for any other sinful thing. If a man in going to Mass, designs to satisfy his curiosity, or his lust, or anything else which is wicked: that Church is so good natured, she will be satisfied with it, and think her precept for worship well observed, and you must believe (if you can) that the is a good Christian-Church, that will have Christ worshipped at this rate. He adds reason for it, a man may come to Church for a wicked end, and yet hear Mass well enough there.

Bonacina, instances in several sorts of wickedness, whereby the command for worship may be fulfilled. This is one amongst the rest, if a man go to Church on purpose to gaze on, or to lust after Women lecherously, he satisfies the precept, and for the general Rule vouches not only Sotus, Navar, Medina, and others of greatest Reputation in their Church; but also their Angelical Saint Thomas.

I need not censure these things, let those that are impartial consider the premises, and see if this be not their sense, that the people in the Papacy, by its order, do not, or are not obliged to give God any real worship in public: and by their leaders, are taught and encouraged instead of worship, to present him with gross wickedness. If the measures of Religion may be best taken by its worship, what can any indifferent person judge of Popery; where a service so palpably irreligious, is the best and the most excellent worship they have? if this were duly considered, I think it alone, might be sufficient to reduce those, that are deluded; and to secure those against Temptations, who are not yet ensnared.

Sect. 4.

There is another public exercise which Christ makes as necessary, as any Evangelical service whatever, and that is Preaching and hearing the word of God. But the Romanists are not of his mind, in this. The Mass is commanded, but not Preaching saith Sylvester, and he one of the order of Predicants. Accordingly hearing Mass is commanded, but hearing Sermons is only matter of Advice (saith another) which may be neglected without imputation of sin, and if observed, is an act of Supererogation.

They conclude it no duty in such circumstances where it would be counted necessary, if ever; it is no duty on the Lord's day, or any other time set apart for the public worship. Mass must be heard then, but no need to hear a Sermon. If it were any man's duty in their account, it would be so in that case, when one wants the knowledge which is necessary to Salvation, and hath opportunity to get it by hearing: but even then they declare him not obliged. Sylvester propounds the case in these terms. Doth he sin mortally, who is ignorant of those common tbings, which are necessary to Salvation; and may hear Sermons, but doth not? he answers. He so sins, who omits it out of contempt, or with notorious scandal, but not always, when it is out of negligence; because according to Aquinas▪ negligence is not mortal, unless something be omitted which is under precept, or with contempt. Adding, such negligence may possibly be a mortal sin, hut when it is so, it cannot be determined. It seems no man can tell when it will be a crime, for a person damnably ignorant, to neglect the means of instruction; but more briefly, and positively he resolves it elsewhere, that he is not commanded to hear a Sermon upon the Lord's-day; although he be ignorant of those things which are necessary to Salvation, because he may otherwise satisfy the precept for learning.

Sect. 5.

As to the Sacraments, and the worship in them, the dispatch may be quick, there are none considerable here, but Baptism and the Eucharist, for their other five are not of Divine appointment, nor the worship of God, but their own inventions, and therefore how needful so ever they count them, thereby they make no true worship necessary. But indeed none of them are in their own account necessary to Salvation; save only Penance, and that we shall meet with hereafter. What worship they will have in the Eucharist is sufficiently discovered, by what they are satisfied with in the Mass, where we have found them contented with none at all, or that which is worse than none. Neither do they account this Sacrament simply necessary, for although it be required that they Communicate once a year; yet that is but by human Law or Custom as they teach. The Sacrament of the Eucharist saith Cano, is not a Sacrament of necessity.

For Baptism, if they account any worship necessary, it must be either in respect of the Administrator, or the Baptized, as to the former none with them is needful. For by their Doctrine it may be validly Administred by any Man, or Woman, or one that is both; yea or by a Child, by those also that are strangers, or enemies to all Christian worship, by Jews, Pagans or Infidels of any sort, by such as worship not the true God (as Sylvester tells us out of Aquinas, Paludanus and their Churches Law.) By such as believe that Baptism is good for naught, and minister it in scorn. By such as believe that it is not a Sacrament, that it hath no spiritual virtue, and intend not, while they Baptize, to Administer a Sacrament, but only think to do, as the Church does; although they account that to be nothing at all, so Aquinas, and Pope Innocent saith it will be effectual, though the Baptizer neither know nor believe what Baptism is, but counts it a trifle, though he neither know what the Church is, nor minds to do what the Church doth, but means to do the contrary. No other worship is necessary upon the account of the Ministers, but what might be expected from such as these. Nor anymore upon the account of the persons Baptized. For as to the Adult (there being no pretence in reference to infants) they think it sufficiently administered by force, to those who would not endure it, but for fear of death if they did not yield: to such as make all the resistance they can and offer foul injury to the Sacrament, and defile the water: to those who receive it, not for the purpose for which it is intended, but for quite other ends than ever it was designed for: yea to those that are Frantick and never had the use of Reason, or are stark mad, and that in the height of their madness: to those also that are fast a sleep, if they had a mind to it when they were waking. Since they think it duly administered, to such as these, they cannot count any worship necessary herein, upon the account of the partakers, but what such as these now mentioned may offer.

Sect. 6.

For fuller and more particular satisfaction, it is observable, that they divide their Sacraments into some for the Dead, and some for the Living: those for the Dead are Baptism and Penance. As to these two, some count no disposition requisite, but only a willingness to receive them. Others (who would seem to be more severe) count Attrition sufficient; (which is a slender dislike of sin, not as it is an offense to God, but out of some other consideration Human, Natural, or Servile. ) And the lowest degree of this possible; and that dispatchit in a moment; and this moment need not be, while they are at these Sacraments, but either before or after. Their Penitents may make their Confession with laughter instead of grief; yet have as much grief at their Sacrament of Penance as they require, this is past doubt with them. So that it is their common Doctrine that no good act, or motion at all, no not so little, and low as that of Attrition (much less any ingenuous Reverence or Devotion; any act of grace or holy affection) is needful, while they are at the Sacrament, either of Baptism, or their Penance.

The Sacraments of the living are their other five, Confirmation, Orders, Matrimony, extreme Unction, and the Eucharist: these they say were instituted for the increase of Grace, this is their proper effect; and that they may have their effect, there is not requisite in the partakers any actual disposition at all, not the least inward act or motion that is good; no, not so little as that of attrition, which in their account is of all others the least and lowest disposition. And well may they count it so, since the best sort of it, with them, is but the issue of servile fear; which, as such, is below the least degree of moral goodness; and so far from being supernaturally good, that it is morally evil, as we shall see hereafter. All that is needful, is only that the partakers be in a state of Grace, (such as a Priest may put a sinner into who is impenitent, and never truly contrite) though he show it not by any act in the Sacraments where, if ever, it should appear. That the Sacraments may confer an increase of Grace, they only require an habitual disposition, i. e. that they be received in the state of Grace: this is the judgment of Aquinas and Scotus, whom the rest generally follow. So that to partake worthily of these Sacraments, no actual disposition, no act of reverence or devotion, not any inward motion (such as should be in true worshippers) is more required or expected than in the senseless Statues which they idolize. Their souls need act or move no more as worshippers of God herein, than if they were neither Christians nor men; than if they were so far from having grace, as to have no souls. Yea, these Sacraments may be valid, and duly celebrated, as their Church requires they should be; while the partakers are, not only void of all good motion towards God; but while their souls are in motion against him, and all that is divine and sacred. Their minds and hearts may, during the celebration, be taken up with acts, not only of folly and vanity, but of pride, or lusts, or revenge, or infidelity, or atheism, or what is most contrary to the most holy God and his worship, and yet partake as well as the Church requires. For the precepts of their Church, concerning the administering of the Sacraments, and all other things by her enjoined, may be entirely satisfied by acts of wickedness. So notoriously holy is that Church, by the report of their chief Writers.

Sect. 7.

If they count any of their Sacraments more worthy of holier treatment than that now mentioned, it will be the Eucharist; for this they count more worthy than the rest, and have it in such veneration, as not only to worship Christ in it; but to worship it even as Christ himself; and therefore here, if ever, they will judge it requisite to show themselves worshippers indeed. Yet for all this, whatever worship of this Sacrament they count needful, they conclude no true worship of Christ necessary; no, not so much as the least inward act of reverence, devotion, or honor: for this is their common Doctrine, that besides the disposition of habitual Grace, there is no precept so rigorous as to require any actual disposition for the worthy receiving of this Sacrament, so as that the omission of it can be a mortal sin. In this all their Divines agree: so that any one may partake worthily of this Sacrament, and be free of mortal guilt, without any actual reverence or devotion, any act of grace or holy affection, while he is communicating. This one Maxim (wherein they all concur) quite stifles the spirit of Christianity, and bereaves it of its life and soul; it leaves nothing that can honor or please Christ, or be of any advantage to souls, needful in any Christian duty. For no good motion of mind or heart, being needful in the celebrating of this Sacrament, which requires it more, they cannot imagine it necessary in any other duty, of less consequence. And the want hereof being but a venial fault, there is no more necessity to have it, than there is to avoid a venial sin, which they make nothing of. In this very case, they hold that a venial sin, even in the act of communicating, will not hinder the effect of the Sacrament. Yea, it may not be so much as a venial fault, if the vagaries of the mind, which exclude attention and reverence due to such a religious act be natural. But will it not be more than so slight a fault, voluntarily to abandon every good motion in the celebrating of this Sacrament? No, to decline every good act of mind or heart, and that voluntarily, it can be no worse, if it be without contempt, it will be no mortal fault; & that also in the judgment of all their Divines. But though there be not any good disposition in the soul towards Christ, in partaking of his Supper, yet is it not necessary that vile and wicked dispositions should be excluded? No, there is no more need of this than the other. The mind and the heart may actually entertain such as are sinful; without anymore danger than it rejects those that are good. It is but a slight fault to communicate out of ostentation and vain glory; and so to nourish pride while he should be feeding upon Christ; and to design his own honor without any act of reverence for Christ: he may let his thoughts run out upon vanity, or entertain his soul with vain delights, without the least motion of love, or delight, or desire for Christ, without the least act of Faith in him: and may be pleasing himself with sin, instead of grieving for it; when he hath the greatest advantage to look upon him whom he hath pierced. And all this he may do without any guilt, that need be repented of, or regarded. This is all the worship and honor that it is needful their souls should give to Christ, even in the Sacrament of his body and blood; who will have others cursed to hell, and burnt beforehand, for not giving divine worship to a Wafer. But this is not all, their Church will be satisfied with greater indignity offered to Christ than this: for they teach, that those who communicate unworthily, to such a degree as they count sacrilege, (and that so heinous, as they question whether it be not as tolerable, to cast that which they count their God, to be devoured by dogs; or throw it into the dirt to be trampled on; and many of them are positive, that it is greater wickedness than murder or adultery, or that uncleanness against nature, which is most abominable) do fully satisfy the precept of the Church for this Communion. Thus Soto, Corduba, Covarruvius, and others alleged by them. And this is all derived from their St. Thomas, that Maxim of his so generally received. The Law commanding an act, enjoins the substance of it, but not the manner. By which we must understand, that the Church would have the thing done, but regards not how they do it, whether as Christians or as Atheists. She is indifferent as to devotion or sacrilege in her Catholics, having something else in design, than to be concerned in the honoring of God, and the happiness of men, which so much depends upon the manner of worshipping. It is too plain to be denied, that such a treatment of holy things (to use their own words) is not at all for the worship of God, or the salvation of souls, but opposite to both; yet their Churches precept is entirely thereby fulfilled. So that if God have no worship, and men no salvation, yet the Church is satisfied. This and other outward acts must be visibly done, that the World may not think but they have something like Religion amongst them: but though instead of the worship due to the Divine Majesty, they perform the acts of it in such a manner, as no less dishonors and provokes him, than the crying sins of Murder or Sodomy; their Church hath full contentment, it's all she requires.

Thus we have surveyed the Church-service amongst the Romanists in the several parts of it, and cannot discern any real worship therein, to which they are obliged: but rather that all such worship of God in in public is by their rules and orders rendered either impossible, or unnecessary.

Sect. 8.

Let us inquire in the next place, whether they count it needful that God should have any worship from them in private: and this we may discover by what they determine concerning Meditation, reading the Scripture, and private Prayer. For Meditation, the Casuists speak little of it, nothing at all (that I have met with) of its necessity; it is like they reserve it for their contemplative persons, as a degree of perfection, to which others need not aspire. The Perfectionists themselves may wave it, but when they will be so over-good as to supererogate, and do better than God commands them; if they judge it necessary at any time, sure it would be on those days, when such acts are most proper and requisite. But they conclude it no duty upon the Lord's-day, or any other devoted by them, as they pretend, to the observance of God. For they generally agree that no inward worship is then required, and meditation is discharged by name: now if they need not think of God on his own day, or any other, wherein a particular observance of him is requisite, it is ground enough to conclude, they do not count it needful to think of him at all. Who can imagine that they judge it necessary to think of God at any time, who count it needless to have God in their thoughts, when they are at his worship?

Sect. 9.

As for the reading the Word of God in private, they are so far from esteeming this a duty, that they will scarce excuse it from a crime: all that can be obtained for it, is only a toleration, (as a thing that passeth under an ill character,) and that but in some places, and there but for some persons; with more restriction and caution than the public Stews are tolerated by their holy Bishop in Rome. So much friends are they to the Word of God, or so little do they judge it a friend to them; they are the best Catholics in their account, who do not desire to look into it, or to understand from God what he would have them to be: they think it advisable that no mortal should be acquainted with more of the Scriptures than is in the Mass; where they can understand nothing, and need hear nothing of it at all.

Sect. 10.

For private Prayer, it is either vocal or mental: that which they call vocal, they generally count not necessary by any Law, either of God, or Nature, or the Church; and so all praying with Families is quite cashiered from the rank of Christian duties; there, to call upon God's name together they are not concerned, though some think the Heathen are: they count it not a duty to say so much as the Lord's Prayer, (if they understand but otherwise what is to be prayed for:) this is the common opinion in Suarez; nor do they think an Ave Mary (though these are the Prayers most in request with them) more needful: they are not obliged to say it, when the public sign is given at night for that purpose; nor need they use any vocal prayer at all, no, not so much as on the solemn days for worship.

But is mental prayer a duty when the other is not used? So it seems: but the question (as in all affirmative precepts) is when? Lessius thinks it should not be put off above a month or two, that would signify too much neglect of our Salvation. It seems those that pray but once in two months do not much neglect it; but this Jesuit is too strait lac'd: that opinion is probable enough, saith one of the greatest Casuist's of this age, which assigns 3 times for prayer, once when we come to the perfect use of Reason (suppose when they think him capable of fasting, about 21 years of age); and again at the point of death, and in the interval, when we are obliged to love God (that is once in five, or once in seven years). But is not this Jesuit too severe also? It may be those of other Orders will not oppress us so much, or wish us so unlike to Atheists, as to have us pray once in seven years. The Jesuits, though accounted most licentious, yet seldom exceed, and sometimes fall short herein of their other Divines. Sylvester, a Dominican of greatest reputation amongst the Casuists, thus determines the question after Aquinas, When one first comes to the use of Reason, he should pray for God's assistance, (videtur ) he is not peremptory that he must, and speaks but conditionally too; for he adds, If he be thus inspired, otherwise he is not determined to that time. When then? Why the providence of God moves him to it, when it is necessary. Thus he leaves it, and finds no other time, when a man is obliged to pray once for himself, but when he sees his soul in greatest danger, which it may be he will never see. Their common doctrine is yet worse, thereby we are not bound to pray, but in the Article of Necessity; and that is, when we are in such extremity, as there is no other remedy for us: if we judge that we can any way else obtain what we would have, we need not pray: The Law of God, or Nature makes it not then our duty. They help us to understand this by two instances, the one to show when it is requisite to pray for ourselves; the second, when for others. When a man falls into most grievous temptations, to Impatience or to Lust, if there can be no other remedy against it, but the grace of God, to be ohtained by prayer, then it may be his duty. But it seems, if he can rid himself of it any other way, or but think he can, then though the temptation be never so violent or dangerous, he needs not pray. The other is, when a man at a distance sees two ready to sight a Duel, and makes account there is no remedy, but the help of God for parting them, then he is to seek it (which is not the case of one in a thousand). Yet if perhaps he can any otherwise more help them than by praying, he may let it alone. So that private prayer needs not be their daily practice, nor used as a Christian exercise in ordinary; but in extremity only, and cases otherwise desperate, and as the last remedy, and when there is no other indeed, or in their apprehension; it will not be a duty, but in such circumstances as do very rarely, if ever, concur. They are not to use it as their common repast, but as physic; not for prevention neither, but when they are already surprised with extreme danger. And if such extremity occur not once in seven years, they need not pray for so many years; nay, perhaps it may not befall them, or they may not be apprehensive of it, while they live, and then they need not pray at all. This is not my inference only, it is their own, and acknowledged to be the consequence of their common doctrine. Thereby there is no divine precept for prayer, which can oblige any directly; only by: accident it may happen sometimes to be a duty, but such an accident as few may meet with. Its said expressly, that from thence it follows, that many may pass their whole lives, without ever praying to God, and this without any great fault. It should be said, without the least fault, for where there is no obligation, there is no duty at all; and then no sin great, or little in the want of performance.

This is some of their Churches sense, but they speak it more fully who tell us, that mental prayer is to be reckoned amongst Counsels (which none are obliged to observe) and this by the common consen • of Aquinas and their other Doctors. And accordingly, that there i • no Divine Precept, or of natural Law, of itself, obliging to meant • prayer, meditation, (some peculiar engagements or occasions set apart wherein mental prayer is not concerned) and this is counted so certain, that to teach the contrary is temerarious, because against the comm • use and sense of the whole Church. So that they are not far from the sense of the Church, who (without excepting public or private, mental or vocal) deny that there is any Divine Precept in special for Prayer. And these are not only their modern Divines, but some of the Ancienter also, particularly Alexander Alensis (the Prime of all their School Doctors) in strictness seems to deny, that there is any proper command by Divine Law for Prayer, taking it properly, but only in a most large sense, as any pious act, or good desire may be called Prayer. And those who would not seem to like this in general, yet allow it when they come to particulars, since they teach, that the Precept obligeth not at any such particular time, or occasion, when it would oblige, if ever. There is no command they tell us, which binds them to pray in private at any set time what ever. They are not obliged to Pray when they first come to the use of Reason : Nor on common days afterwards, not the least Prayer, not a Pater Noster, not once a day, no, not at their Meals, even their Clergy need not do it. Nor on Holy-days neither, no, not when they have quite neglected their service in public. Nor on their Fasts, though Scripture still joins these, as all Christians, who minded Religion, were wont to do of old. Their Fasts are no more Religious for Prayer or any holy exercise, than the abstinence of their Cattle. Nor to prepare themselves for sacred or solemn employments, for their Sacraments of Penance, or else for the Eucharist (though this would but trouble them once a year), not at the beginning of any service or undertaking whatever. To pray at such times and occasions is mere matter of Counsel, which none can be blamed for neglecting: Nor when a man hath Vowed, and solemnly promised to God, and sworn too, that he will pray, even then If it be but a little prayer, it will be but a small fault to omit it, for all this. In short, which compriseth all, there can be no certain time assigned (unless the hour of death) in which, by any precept of Religion, we are bound to worship God, or seek his help by an act of prayer, as in like case is said of an act of contrition and love to God. So Bonacina. No time for Prayer certain, none determined; but as they conjecture, perhaps, it may be a duty, when they apprehend themselves under grievous and dangerous temptations, and judge there is no remedy but prayer. This, or none at all, is the time for it by their common doctrine; and this is in effect to say, it is a duty at no time, for no person. For those under temptation may not apprehend it dangerous, or a remedy needful; as all will be ready to do, who either regard not temptations, or are pleased with them, or what they lead to. And neither these, nor any else can judge there is no other remedy but prayer; if they believe their doctrine, which offers them divers other remedies, and those more relied on than this. To mention none else, almost any of their Sacramentals (of which they have multitudes) will serve their turn, even a little Salt, conjured after the mode of holy Church, may do it. Thus we see these Catholics secured from all divine obligations to pray while they live. But they have another way to do it; for, if any apprehend themselves in dangerous temptations, and also that there is no other remedy against it but prayer, they determine; that if such be ignorant that it is then a duty; or if they know it, but do not consider it, they are excused from sin, though then they neglect to pray. Now the people may well be ignorant, that they are in such case obliged, when their learned men scarce know it. And for those that do know it, the violence of the temptation (and the case supposeth it violent) may leave no place for consideration. However, no man considers this or other things, unless he will: and so it will be no sin to neglect prayer at that time, when only they count it a duty, unless he list. Yea, though the ignorance, or inconsiderateness be culpable, and through his own default; yet the neglect of the duty, which is thereby occasioned, they can excuse from sin. Besides, if they should both know and consider that prayer is then their duty, yet they teach that the omission of it is then no special sin: i. no other sin then that which they should seek to avoid by praying. Whereby they plainly declare that there is in their account no special precept for prayer, no, not in that case wherein alone they would have it thought a duty, otherwise they would judge it a special sin then to neglect it.

Sect. 11.

But though their Catholics be thus sufficiently eased of all Obligations to private prayer, all their lives, by virtue of any Divine command, it may be there is some precept of the Church for it. Can she be content that they should live so much without God, or any acknowledgment of their dependence on him, more like Atheists than Christians? yes there's not anything for private addresses to God amongst all her precepts; she is too indulgent to trouble them with any such thing; she requires not of them the least prayer, or such as are accounted best, not so much as a Pater-noster, there is no Ecclesiastical precept for this, to make it so much as a venial fault, not to use it, says Medina, not a Salve-Regina, no nor an Ave-Mary. They have indeed a special respect to this last, and prefer it Ten to one before any other (though they might use this every minute, without ever praying once to God all their life.) And Pope John the 22. ordained, that thrice every Evening the Bell should sound, that everyone might say an Ave-Mary thrice; and since it is grown a custom (and a Church custom usually stands for a Law with them) that not only at Evening, but at Noon and Morning too, a Bell should sound for the same purpose. So that this, if any, is under injunction: There is a fair show for it, but it is no more than a show, for they assure us, this is only a voluntary Devotion, and hath nothing of Obligation in it: Those that never use this and such prayers, it is, they say, a shrewd sign, they do not live well, but the omission thereof, is no special sin with respect unto any precept either of God or the Church.

And is not this a very pious concession, that they are pleased to grant, that for a man never to say his prayers is a general bad sign, that he does not live as he ought, though they will by no means allow it to be any special sin? Oh! the Piety and tenderness of this Mother and head of all Churches!

If for all this, any of them should conceive themselves obliged to pray sometimes; or if without such opinion, they should find some season for private prayer, though God (as they dream) and the Church (as they know) hath prescribed none: as when a Confessor enjoins it for Penance; or out of voluntary Devotion, when they have a mind to Supererogate, and do better than God requires, upon which accounts, some of them may be found now and then very busy with their Beads: yet in these cases, there is by their principles no more need to worship God in their private, than in their public prayers, where (as we have shown) they account no actual observance of God at all necessary: As for the prayer enjoined them by way of Penance, these are not necessary for them, but as their punishment; and then they pray not, for that is an act of the Soul, but this a suffering of the outward man. The Church as (they say) it cannot judge of inward acts, so it cannot order them to be penal. And the Male-factors here being their own executioners; as there is no need, so there is no fear, that they will punish their Souls; but leave them untouched, unconcerned, what ever their lips, or fingers, or Beads may suffer, by that grievous penalty of praying. But it were well, if God did not suffer more by such abuse of his name and worship, than those malefactors, who count i • a suffering to do anything like his service. And it sounds not well, that prayer must pass for a punishment. It is as Damascene defines it, and they after him, the ascent of the mind unto God. Now is the approach of the Soul to God a punishment? One would think the Devils should think better of it; for the misery of Hell is distance from God, without hopes of having access to him. But they can solve the difficulty well enough; for they mean not do any such thing as praying in the case, but only to suffer something, which they call so. Their care and pains is about their Beads, not their Souls: if they keep but count, and bring in the full tale which the Confessor enjoins: though in as many Crowns and Rosaries, as there are Ave-Mary's, in each Ten thousand times over, they have not one thought of God, nor the least motion of mind or heart towards him: yet they give full satisfaction, and undergo all they were adjudged to.

In their voluntary prayers, there is less of worship required than the other, if there can be less than none. For when they need not use such prayers, unless they please, they may do it as they list: it being no duty enjoined, the manner of performance is arbitrary, and wholly at discretion. Hence those who think something (of some sort) of attention requisite in commanded prayers count none at all necessary in these; no not that which is Superficial, not so little of that as they call virtual. So that if herein, they mind nothing at all, wherein worshippers at prayer are concerned, not so little as the bare words; yet they acquit themselves well enough, yea if this neglect of all be willful, and the mind not only run of its own accord, but be sent away and employed about something else on set purpose; it will but be at worst a slight fault.

Sect. 12.

In this fashion they would have us suppose that God may be worshipped, when there is neither inward nor outward Observance of him. Inward he hath none, when the mind is departed from him, and the heart with it. Outward he hath none, unless merely in show, when the mind directs it not to, and designs it not for him: which is never done, when he is not minded. In fine by the Doctrine of the Romanists (to say nothing of the Idolatry or Superstition of their service) it is unnecessary that God should have any real worship either public or private: unless God can be said to be truly worshipped, without the love or fear of God, without acts of wisdom or affection, without Reverence or Devotion, without sincere or honest intentions; or with designs of wickedness; without knowing what they do, or heeding what they are about; without mind, or heart, yea or body either, unless in mere show, this is apparent by the premisses. The people (as they think) worship God well enough at this rate; their leaders teach them, no more is needful; their Church by confining their service to an unknown Tongue, makes it necessary for their Divines thus to teach, and unavoidable for the people to worship no otherwise. Now what a Church is this, or of what Religion that makes the real worship of God, and of Jesus Christ to be needless, and takes an effectual course, that he should have none? Let those who are of their Communion, or tempted to it, consider it seriously, and in the fear of God. Is it the way to Salvation to be without Religion? is there any Religion indeed, where it is made needless to worship God really, when worship is as essential to Religion, as a Soul is to a man? They may by joining with them, greaten a party and promote the interest of a faction, which carries on other designs under Religious pretences, without regard of God, as to his worship and honor, or to the Souls of men, as to their happiness, and the true way to it: but if they follow the conduct of the Roman Doctrine, and worship of God no otherwise than these would have them; they may be of the Roman Profession, and yet of no Religion. If a man have a mind to trouble himself with none of the realities of Christianity, and yet to pass for Religious enough, in the opinion of so much of the world as is Papal, and will hang his Soul upon so common Reputation, Popery is contrived to allure and gratify him; and he may safely venture on it, if Damnation be not dangerous, or if he can escape it by an opinion or show of worshipping God, and being Religious without reality.

Sect. 1.

KNowledge is the foundation of almost all that is saving: of Faith, Holiness, Obedience, Worship: it is the groundwork, without which scarce a stone can be laid in the whole structure of Salvation. No saving faith without it, Rom. 10. 14. There can be no love to, or hope in an unknown object. There can be no fear, no desire of what we know not. There can be no true worship of God, unless that of the Samaritans was such, who worshipped they knew not what. There can be no obedience without knowing whom, what, why, and for what end we obey: in brief without knowledge there is no eternal life, Joh. 17. 3. nothing but ruin and eternal destruction, Hosea 4. 6. 2 Thess. 1.

Yet for all this, Popery decries knowledge, as that which is unnecessary for the people, and extolls the want of it, as that which is essential to their faith ( Bellarmine saith faith is better defined by ignorance ) as that which is the Mother of their Devotion (so others declare it:) as that which is the excellency of their obedience; none comparable to that which they call blind obedience, as Cardinal Cusanus tells us.

It sufficeth the people to know that their Church hath knowledge; and their sight is good enough, in that their Teachers have eyes, so one of their Authors. In matters of faith, the people ought not to see with their own eyes, but the eyes of their Superiors. They need not know what they pray for, nor what they are to believe, nor what they are to do.

1. They need not know what they are to pray for, or to whom, or whether they pray or not; all is muffled up in an unknown Language, and they are to venture at they know not what, nor how, nor whither. No wonder if they direct the Lord's prayer to Saints, Male or Female; and say our Father, to the Virgin Mother: and in like manner direct Ave-Marie's to Christ, as if they took him to be a Woman, or to be with Child (and with himself too) to be the fruit of his own Womh; or to be his own Mother, which the words so applied signify. This ignorance is the dam of such Devotion, such as is both horrid and blasphemous to the highest degree of horror. And yet their great Clerks will countenance it. The wisdom of their Church hath thought it fit, that they should not be so wise, as to understand what they do, when they are serving God. The Counsel of Trent • ulminates a Curse against those, who hold that the Mass ought to be celebrated in a known Tongue: that is, they curse those, who approve not that mode of service, which the Apostle condemns as Barbarous, 1 Cor. 14. such as is not fit for God or man, they curse those who will not offer a blind Sacrifice, or blindfold. As if one under the Law ought not to have seen, whether that which he offered, were a Hogg, or a Sheep; whether he Sacrificed a Lamb, or cut of a Doggs neck; whether he presented an Oblation, or offered Swines blood. They think not only the people, but even the Clergy unconcerned, to know what they say, when they speak unto God. The Clergy (saith Jacobus de Graffiis) or the Laity when they are at Divine service, if they understand not what they say, they sin not. It is so far from being their duty to serve God as Christians, that they need not act as Men in his service. If the words be but said, though with no more understanding, than Mag-pyes are taught to sound them: it's as reasonable service as their Church requires; what God requires, with them is no matter. They expect not, that any should understand their service, but expert Divines, as Soto tells us. Now it is a very small part of their Clergy that pretends to be Divines, and a small part of those few that are expert therein; it is an attainment which most of their Bishops fall short of: their common Priests are sufficiently qualified with the art of reading, nor need they be masters of that neither, the Mass-book is almost taught to read itself. For in the Missals established by Pius the 5th. and recognized by Clement the Eighth, every syllable is diversely marked, whether it is to be sounded long or short. What do we speak of Clergy or Priests? it is not necessary for their Popes to be able to understand, or to read their common prayers, themselves spare not to divulge this. It is manifest, saith Alphonsus a Castro; That many Popes are so illiterate, that they are utterly ignorant of the Grammar. It seems, he may be universal Pastor, and the Teacher of the whole World, who hath not learned his Grammar: and the infallible Guide of all mortals, who understands not his own language, wherein the Articles of faith, their Laws, Ceremonies, and Church-service is delivered. And is it not very much that two things so different as ignorance and infallibility, should have the good hap to meet together in the same person.

Sect. 2.

Secondly, They need not know what they are to believe, they tell us they are obliged under pain of Damnation, to believe what • oever the visible Church of Christ proposeth, as revealed by Almighty God. Now their Church proposeth for points of faith so revealed, not only what they have in Scripture; but what they have by Tradition, or by the custom of the Church in former ages; or by the consent of the Fathers; or by the decrees of Councils, or by the determination of Popes e Cathedra, whereby points of faith become infinitely numerous, beyond all account, which the learned amongst them can give, either to satisfy themselves or others. Yet all must be believed, and that under pain of damnation, when as it is but a very small part of them, that can be commonly known. The Articles of the Creed called the Apostles, are not the hundred part of those points, that must be believed by all, that will not be damned: and yet they generally conclude, that it is not necessary for the people to know all of those few Articles. How to believe the rest (and it may be five hundred times more) which they know nothing of, nor ever once came into their thoughts, they must make what shift they can.

However, they need not know all the Articles of the small Creed, as the chief of them teach. Not all saith Aquinas but what is sufficient to direct to the last end. Not all saith Scotus, but the gross things, as, that Christ was born and suffered, and others belonging to Redemption. Not all saith Sylvester (and many with him) but those particularly, for which the Church hath public Solemnities. Not all saith Bonaventure but those which we have notice of by the Church-Solemnities, or acts of the Priests, and these in him are four, that of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Remission of sins, to which he adds another, which the sign of the cross teacheth, and wherein Angelus follows him; so that the half and more, needs not to be known; for they reckon fourteen in all.

Others there are who require not this little, nor think it needful to know these Articles more than implicitly, that is without understanding them; so Gulielmus Parisiensis, and Altissiodorensis in Bannez, Summa Rosellae, after others holds it enough for the simple, and perhaps all discerning people to believe, that God is the Rewarder of the good, and Punisher of the evil. A compendious Creed truly, and that which will never trouble the Conscience of a Turk, or a Heathen, the knowledge and faith of a Barbarous insidel is enough, it seems, to make a Papal Christian. Accordingly others teach, that such as are educated amongst Catholics, and are ignorant of the Trinity; are excused from the explicit knowledge thereof, especially if they want a Teacher; so Bartholomew, Medina, and Immanuel say, who gives this reason for it. We cannot say, that an infinite number of Christians, otherwise good people do perish, that scarce know anything aright of the mystery of the Trinity, and incarnation; yea judge perversely of these points, if you ask them. And yet without the knowledge of the incarnation of Christ, there is no knowledge of the Creed, or of the Gospel. Sancta Clara is of the same mind too, and quotes others for it.

So that by this Doctrine a man needs not know the persons in the God-head, nor the incarnation of Christ, upon which his Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection and Intercession depends, which are the sum of the Gospel. Yea, he may not only be ignorant of these Truths, the knowledge of which (if of any) is necessary to Salvation: but he may have false and perverse apprehensions of them, and yet be secure from perishing. According to Soto and Metina, he that is ignorant of the Incarnation, and Trinity, because he was educated in the Mountains, without a Preacher to instruct him, will be saved, if he die in grace (which they suppose he may have without knowledge) for an implicit faith (that is, without knowledge) will then serve his turn Secundum Doctors nobiles, as noble Doctors conclude, saith Lopez. So that, they may have eternal life, without knowing the true God or Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. Ignorance hereof will be invincible, that is, both inculpable in itself, and sufficient to justify the criminal issues of it, if they want a Teacher: that is, not only, if it be not possible, but if it be difficult, or inconvenient to have one.

The Cardinals of the Inquisition at Rome, will have such Confessors allowed, who hold, that persons are capable of absolution (and so supposed to be in a state of Salvation) how palpable soever their ignorance might be of the mysteries of faith; nay, though out of pure negligence, they know nothing of the mystery of the most blessed Trinity or of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Medina teacheth, that if one when he is dying, acknowledge that he hath been very negligent to learn Christian Doctrine, and would not hear it, and thereby, wants the knowledge of the mystery of the incarnation, and Trinity, and the Articles of faith: yet to deny him Absolution would be impious So Lopez reports him, and himself says, such an one is to be Absolved. Here is encouragement more than enough, to live and die in gross ignorance, and those who have a mind to continue, without the knowledge of God under the name of Men; or of Christ, under the profession of Christians, have a general warranty by their Doctrine to do it.

For, the former sort of their Divines, who seem to require a knowledge of some Articles, do indeed make no more knowledge necessary, than those who require it not. For when they explain themselves, commonly such a knowing is sufficient, as is without understanding, a dark conceit, that such things there be, though they apprehend not at all what they are. Such mysterious subtleties their Doctors are pleased with: as, they have a sort of faith without knowledge, or any thought of what they believe; so a knowledge without understanding.

Scotus thinks they have sufficient knowledge of the Trinity (Three persons and one nature) who can neither apprehend what a person, or a nature is. Accordingly Bonaventure saith, the people may know the Trinity, by crossing themselves, since they do it in the name of the Father, &c. And by the festivals they may know the rest which is necessary to be understood. And when it is argued, that there are few but such as are expert in Divinity, who know how to distinguish, and number the Articles of the Creed, and therefore if all were bound to know them distinctly, and explicitly ( id est, to know what they mean) few or none would be saved, which is an extreme cruel saying; he in his answer grants it all.

Bellarmine seems to make some knowledge of the Articles of the Creed necessary, but what it is, he signifies elsewhere, when he tells us that experience witnesseth that the greatest part of the faithful, and in a manner all the Country people, are so far from understanding the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and other such points necessary to Salvation, that they scarce apprehend anything besides the mere sound of the words, and yet are deservedly counted believers.

So Cardinal Tolet requires in those that are to be absolved, a kind of acquaintance with some prime Articles of faith; but signifies, it will be sufficient if hearing them rehearsed, they can tell us, which is an Article, and which not, and this they may do by the sound, though they understand nothing of the sense. De Graffijs is confident, that a Confessor may make an ignorant person understand all that is necessary to Salvation, by making the sign of the Cross. And Angelus, who would have 3 or 4 Articles of the Creed to be known; yet concludes, if one can answer of this or that Article decently, quod sic, it is so; it will be sufficient for him; though he know not the Creed.

Sylvester pretends to make more knowledge requisite than Rosella, but yet he determines, That mere want of knowledge is no sin; that it is not a sin to be ignorant of what he ought to know, but upon the account of negligence; that negligence to know things necessary to Salvation may be a mortal sin sometimes, but when, it is hard to tell, yea impossible. So that here is encouragement enough to continue carelessly in ignorance of things necessary to Salvation, and to neglect saving knowledge; for when this is a mortal sin, no man can tell; and a venial fault, no man needs avoid. In short, they not only justify simple ignorance, how gross so-ever, but that which has a worse character ( ignorantia pravae dispositionis): and count it no crime not only to want the knowledge of the Articles of Faith, but out of Ignorance to entertain opinions contrary thereto. He that believes an Heresy, saith Navar, out of simplicity or ignorance, because he thinks the Church holds it, and is ready to relinquish it when the Truth shall be discovered, regularly he sins not mortally. And with Alphonsus a Castro, no kind of Heresy is a sin, if it be out of ignorance, & without pertinency, If their Teachers instill such Errors into the People, and they through Ignorance, receive impressions contrary to points of Faith, and follow such Guides blindfold; therein they sin not. Yea, I say more, saith Angelus, Sometimes such an error may be meritorious; for example, One hears a famous Preacher or a Bishop preach some Error, and he simply believes it, with a mind to be obedient to the Faith, but ready to be reduced; for things are to be judged of by the intention. But sometimes it may be a venial fault, as when an old Woman believes the Trinity to be one Woman; and because she thinks the Church so holds, therefore believes it.

To recite the names of those who assert that the people, through ignorance, may safely follow their Teachers in Errors, would be tedious, they are so many: for shortness, let us take Sancta Clara 's word, who tells us It is now the common Opinion of their Schools and Doctors, that people erring with their Teachers or Pastors, are wholly excused from all fault, yea, many times by so erring materially, for this Christian obedience which they owe their Pastors, they merit. So that Ignorance of points, whose belief is with them necessary to Salvation, is so far from being a sin, that it can render Heresy sinless; yea, make the entertaining of damnable Errors, to be a meritorious belief.

We cannot expect that knowledge should be accounted necessary, where the worst sort of ignorance hath such excess of honor and privilege. It is no more necessary, nor more of it (according to their principles) necessitate praecepti, by virtue of any command, than we have shown out of their best Writers. But then the necessitas medij, needfulness as a means or way to life, that is none at all. For as the same Author tells us, and brings us abundant evidence of it, it is the common doctrine of their more grave Divines, that men may now be saved; and the more common Tenet of their Schools, that they may be justified without the explicit belief, and so without the knowledge of Christ himself. So that those who hold the knowledge of Christ unnecessary to Salvation, are many, & their most grave Divines; those that count it unnecessary to Justification, are the greatest number of their Doctors: put these both together, and there will be few left amongst them, and these little considerable in comparison, for number or gravity; but such as judge the knowledge of Christ needless to bring men into a saving state, for this, it will not be needful to be Christians, unless any can be Christians without the actual belief or knowledge of Christ.

Sect. 3.

Thirdly, they need not know what they ought to do; they may be without sin, ignorant of what the Lord hath made their duty. Adrian, Corduba, Herrera determine, and it is the more common and received opinion, that men may be inculpably ignorant of the Law of Nature, and the ten Commandments, as Sancta Clara informs us. But then, since they need not know the Rule, what have they to follow? why, the direction of their Teachers; and these they must follow blindfold, right or wrong: It is one of the qualifications required in the obedience of others, but especially of the Religious (which they would have us think to be best of all) that it be blind: Nor should Fear of going wrong, move them to open, or use their own eyes; for if they do wander out of the way of God, after such Guides, yet they are right, and do their duty. Those who managed the conference for the Romanists at Ratisbon, Anno 1601. maintained that the people are so subjected to the government of their Teachers; that if they err, the people may and ought to err with them. And they are not only excused from all faults, when they thus wander with their Teachers, but their obedience to their Pastors herein, is many times meritorious. This is the judgment not only of Valentia, Angles, Vasquez, but the common determination of their Schools in Sancta Clara. It seems a man may deserve eternal life by leaving the way to it; and may come to Heaven meritoriously by wandering from it. What a strange thing is it, that they will not let their Catholics be certain of Salvation, since they cannot miss it, no not by going out of the way that leads to it? When they follow their Guide into the ditch, yet they are safe; but that's a small matter: by being willing to be led by such as see not, or mind not the way, they merit, and spring up to Heaven marvelously, even when they are falling from a precipice, and tumbling headlong after their Leaders.

The same Author tells us that some Doctors ascribe so much to the instruction of Pastors, who have care of the Flock, that if they should teach that now and then God would have them to hate him, a simple Parishioner is bound to believe them. All think not fit to give so broad instances, but whether all have not warrant to do it by their common Tenet, let others judge.

However, if the people (content to trust, and not to see, what so much concerns them) suffer themselves to be deceived, they sin not, their ignorance will save them harmless. And what could any Impostor desire more than to have those whom he hath a mind to abuse to the uttermost, possessed with such a confidence, that how-ever they be deluded, it will not hurt them? Now what an admirable expedient is ignorance for the Children of this Kingdom, when by virtue of it, the Leaders may carry the people whither they list, without suspicion, the people may follow in the dark without danger? No wonder if ignorance be nourished in them by all means, when they are not concerned to know whether that which they are led to, be good, or evil, just, or unjust, against God, or for him; whatever it be, they ought to obey at a venture. They need not so much as know whether their Leaders have power to require what they enjoin.

If they be in doubt whether that they are led to, be against the Law, yet on they must go, for they all agree here, to drive them; secundum omnes, saith Sylvester, if he doubt of this, whether it be against the command of God, yet he is bound to obey, he may venture safely. It seems, that is no danger which the Apostle speaks of, He that doubteth is damned▪ Rom. 14. 23. They allege an express Text for this▪ in their Law, which will carry it against the Apostle.

And as that evil which God forbids, may be done by him that doubts least God hath condemned it, so that good which he hath enjoined (if Salvation can be had without it) may be neglected when Superiors will have it so; their Canonical Text saith it, which must be regarded whatever becomes of that other, Whether it he better to obey God or men, judge you, Act. 4. 19.

Yea, if they be past doubt, that what is required is against God, if they think, if they believe it to be against his Command, yet if they believe it but upon weak grounds; yea, or if upon probable grounds (if they be not more certain thereof than they ought to be of their Salvation), they are to suppress their own judgment, and will be excused for the goodness of such Obedience, i. e. for obeying men rather than God, and that against their own judgment.

Such art is used to persuade the people, that they need see nothing they are to do, further than their Leaders would have them; if they doubt, or if they believe; if their eyes be opening, or if they be opened; they must shut them close, and obey men blindly, without discerning what God forbids or requires. And it is not for nothing that they deprive them of their eyes, for thus they can make them grind. Such Ignorance is the way to have them in more subjection, and that they account the most perfect obedience, which is next to brutish, without knowledge, and without judgment; that they need not have, and this they must not use: a judgment of discretion must by no means be left the people, that is a point they would maintain against us: but as to their own followers, they put it out of question beforehand; for by keeping them without knowledge, they leave them no judgment, but such as one may pass on colors in the dark. Ribera expresseth their sense significantly. All who are to obey, especially Religious persons, ought to have no head of their own, (i. e.) they are to obey as if they were without eyes or brains. So he explains this worthy expression, non suo sed rectoris sui consilio duci. Let me but add the pregnant words of Cardinal Cusanus, which comprise all that I charge them with in this particular, No man (saith he) can be deceived by an ill Pastor; if thou say, Lord, I have obeyed thee in him, whom thou hast set over me, this will be sufficient for thy Salvation; for thou by obedience paid to a Teacher whom the Church tolerates, cannot be deceived, although he command what is unlawful: wherefore the opinion of the Pastor binds thee upon thy Salvation for the good of obedience, although it be unjust; for it belongs not to thee to take notice whether it be unlawful or not, neither hast thou leave not to obey, if it seem unlawful to thee; for that obedience which is irrational is the most complete, and most perfect obedience, to wit, when one obeys, without the use of Reason, as a beast obeys his owner. A speech fit only for the mouth of the Beast and the false Prophet.

The sum of their doctrine concerning ignorance, is little less than this; they need not be Men; as to their obedience; they need not be Christians, as to the knowledge of Christ; they need scarce be either, as to their worship.

Sect. 4.

The ground of all this, is, that they judge the knowledge of the Scriptures unnecessary, in a manner to all sorts; yea count it necessary to keep as many as they can possibly from acquaintance therewith. They are highly concerned for this, even as much as those who have villanous designs, and would accomplish them without observance and control, are concerned to shun the light. They know full well the Scripture condemns Popery, we may well say they know it, when themselves confess that both their worship and their doctrine is contrary and repugnant to Scripture, and allege this as the Reason, why they would have as little of the Scripture, as can be, known to any. From their own mouths we have the reason, why they would never have suffered the Bible to be exposed in a vulgar Tongue, if it could have been avoided. The Protestants Translations made that impossible, and the Papists among them, who had a mind to look into the word of God, might have made use of these, if no other had been provided: to prevent which, they were forced to translate it, and yet their own Translations (which are so strange a disguize of Scripture) they dare not trust to the common view; they are in the Index of forbidden Books, put out by Pius the fourth, and an unpardondable sin they make it for any to read them, but such as can procure a Licence for it from a Bishop or Inquisitor; that is, none but those who, they are confident, will not be moved by what they meet with there against Popery: and yet (as if so great restraint were too much liberty for so dangerous a thing as the Word of God) in the after Edition of the Index, by Clement the Eight, he declares, That no new faculty is granted to Bishops or Inquisitors to grant any Licence for reading the Bible; since by the Mandate and usage of the Church of Rome, and the Universal Inquisition, all power of granting such Licences is taken away. So far are they from thinking the knowledge of the Scriptures needful for the people; that they count it Heresy to affirm, the Scripture ought to be in a Language which they know (how can it be less than Heresy to think that needful to be known, though it be the Revelation of God which discovers Popery to be an Imposture?) It is a sin from which they shall never be absolved, if they read anything of the Word of God in a Language which they understand, without a Licence from a Bishop or Inquisitor, by Pius his Rule; and no Bishop or Inquisitor hath any power to grant any Licence, by that of Pope Clement.

Knowledge of the Scripture is no more needful for Monks than other people; it is equally necessary, that they should be ignorant of the Word of God, they are under the same restraint, and are no otherwise permitted to read or buy it. Ignorance is proper for this kind of Creature, they are for contemplation, not for knowledge. It seems they may employ their heads in contemplation of they know not what: To be sure they need neither Sacred, nor any kind of literature. A Monk may be illiterate (say they) they have that privilege by their Cannon Law there quoted by Sylvester and others, and they generally make use of this Indulgence: For their Clergy, six parts of seven, need no more be acquainted with the Scripture than the black Art. The four first Orders are sufficiently accomplished, if they are able to read, (according to the Council of Trent ) the two next should understand Latin, i. e. the words, but not the matter, yet no necessity of either; it is not of necessity to their Sacrament of Order, that any below a Bishop should have the use of Reason, when he enters into Orders.

Yea, their Priests need not have any knowledge of the Scriptures. It is no part of their qualification; nor doth their Office, by the Roman constitution, require it; all that belongs commonly to a Priest, is only to say Service and to say Mass; there are infinite numbers made Priests, merely to read Mass (as Polydore Virgil tells us): and this they may do completely, though they cannot so much as read without a Fescue, such as the Missal hath ready for every syllable.

But if the Priest have a special cure, & so be a Preacher or Confessor, yet may he be both good enough without any acquaintance with the Scripture; he may Preach the Gospel after the Roman mode, without knowing the Word of God; for with them it belongs both to Deacons and Monks to Preach; yet those need not understand anything of Scripture, and these must not read it in a Language they understand, without a Licence.

The Priests in Scotland were accounted sufficiently qualified, who, it is said, did think the New Testament to have been composed by Martin Luther.

The Priests even in Italy, if they had more notice of the Author, yet scarce more acquaintance with the Contents of the New Testament, they never read it, and were much more ignorant thereof, than the silly Women amongst the Thaborites, as Aeneas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius 2. writes.

Knowledge of the Scriptures was not counted necessary for their Preachers either Regular, or Secular. The chief of their Regulars were the Franciscans and Dominicans. In the rule of Friar Francis, approved by several Popes, the Minorites (one sort of Preaching Friars) are, amongst other other vices, to avoid learning, if they were illiterate

And those of the Dominicans (the other of Friars Praedicant ) who were rude and illiterate, did Preach notwithstanding.

As for their other Doctors or Teachers, that which they are bound to know, is, the rudiments of faith (such as our Children (who can scarce read) will give an account of.

The Papacy had no Doctors or Divines more eminent than those of the Sorbon; yet they seem little beholding to the Scripture for their Divinity. Robert Stevens in the last age conversing with those Doctors, would be asking in what part of the New Testament such or such a thing is written, but had such answers returned. They had read it in Jerome, or the Decrees, but what the New Testament was they knew not.

For a Confessor he is sufficiently qualified according to Aquinas, Bonaventure and Albertus, as Sylvester collects if he have but read and understand (not the Bible) but Antoninus his Book entitled, Defecerunt; unless he be a mere natural or presumptuous fool: And neither will doubt of anything (when he knows nothing,) nor inquire of others. So that he may be a complete Confessor and guide of consciences, who knows nothing of Scripture, and little else; if he have but the wit to discern his own ignorance, and a will to learn of those that are wiser, when he can meet with them. Thus we see a Roman Priest is furnished for all points of the Office common or special, without any acquaintance with the word of God.

As to Bishops, they seem to agree, that some knowledge of the Scripture is requisite in them, and some venture to say a full and perfect knowledge of the old New Testament signified by their Mitres; the two Horns whereof mystically demonstrate, that they understand the two Testaments both alike. And indeed since their Prelates Secular and Regular, have honor, power and plenty by the Papal contrivement, and hopes of more and greater than other professions can offer: their interest tyes them so fast to it, that they may trust them (if any) with the sight of the word of God securely; and not fear that any discovery of Popish corruptions, through such a Medium, will make any impressions on them to their prejudice; or move them to believe, or act anything against that which is so much themselves; there is no such danger in admitting these to some acquaintance with Scripture as others, who have no expectations from Religion, but for their Souls and Eternity. Nevertheless their Rules which seem to make this knowledge necessary for Bishops; are rather Counsels, than precepts, they are cautious, and will not press this too much: (for conscience enlightened sometimes proves too hard for secular interest.) And their Prelates may be easily dispensed with, if they be ignorant of Scripture, or have little notice of it. It's one of Sylvesters and Angelus questions whether an ignorant Bishop sin mortally, if in his Ordination being asked whether he understand the whole Bible, he should affirm he does? this he so resolves after Richardus a Sancto victor. If the Bishop be so ignorant, that he knows not in general the Commands of God, the Articles of faith, what are virtues & vices, and which the Sacraments; then he so sins, he lies pernitiously. Leaving us to judge that he doth not thus lie; when he solemnly affirms, that he hath as much knowledge of the old and New Testament, as the Church of Rome requires in a Bishop: if he do but know the Creed, the Ten Commandments; which are virtues and vices, and which are Sacraments, and have but some general perception of these. They will not have the Bishops burdened with too much Scripture-learning, since every Child they confirm, should have no less than this. This may pass for perfect knowledge of the Scripture, and of an Episcopal pitch, with those, who count it no imperfection, to be ignorant of that which they say, doth more hurt than good, for so they are wont to blaspheme the Scriptures, or the Holy Ghost, whose inspiration they are. The Bishop of Dunkeld thought he had enough of it, when he said, I thank God I have lived well these many years, and never knew either the old or New Testament. I content me with my Portuis, and Pontifical. Hist. of Ch. of Scotl. l. 2. p. 66. The Bishops in other Countries thought themselves bound in conscience, to be as ignorant of the Scriptures, when they counted it a sin to read them.

Yea he that wants a sufficiency of this knowledge, though so very little or nothing be sufficient, may be dispensed with upon the account of some other quality. As for example, Charity they say, will make up want of knowledge in those, who have not sufficient to make them capable of any place or dignity amongst them. Yea they may be dispensed with, though they have no better qualities than in Gerson 's time, when he tells us there were none anywhere, that were good, or approvable for Doctrine or Practice: but all chosen were both carnal persons, and ignorant of spiritual things.

So he in the Fifteen age, and about the same time Clemangis says, there were scarce any advanced to the Pontifical dignity, who had so much as superficially either read or heard or learnt the Scriptures; or who had ever touched anything of the Bible, except the cover. Quotusquis{que} hodie est ad Pontificale culmen evectus qui sacras vel perfunctory literas legerit, audierit, dedicerit; imo qui sacrum codicem nisi tegumento tenus unquam attigerit? De corrupt. Eccl. Statu.

In the age after whe • ein the Council of Trent was held, we have (in Papyrius Masson de Episc. Urbis ) The Character of the Roman Prelates, by Pasquil begging the next Cardinals Cap, as being more capable thereof than the Bishops then created.

And the same age, in the Council of Trent where (as they boast) was the flower of all the Roman Prelates in Europe, very few of the Bishops had knowledge in Theology, as Father Paul tells us; yet these only had decisive voices in that Council, and all was concluded by plurality of their Votes: when far the major part understood not the matters concluded; so that the Articles of the Roman faith were Voted blindfold. And yet all must be damned who believe not these points of faith: when those who made them so, were ignorant of them, and knew not what they did, when they decreed them. Such is the Roman charity, and knowledge; so burning and shining are their best lights, they will have all burned here, and in Hell too for not believing that, which the Council (for the greater part of it) understood not.

But sure, the knowledge of the Pope must be transcendent, especially, as to the Scripture, his place and office requires it, being accounted head of the whole Church (which ought to have good eyes;) and teacher of Christians (as much or more, than Peter was); and Judge in all controversies which concern Religion; and Interpreter of all difficulties in Scripture, and a more lively Oracle of God, than the Scripture itself in the things of God. Yes say they the Pope ought to have far more knowledge than any other, being the President of the whole Christian Common wealth, so de Graffijs. But then he adds as to him the presumption of the Law is enough for all this, and that presumes, that all is in the Cabinet of the Popes breast (as it may well be presumed, that a skill beyond that of all Physicians is in a bold Mountebank) although indeed what is quite contrary, may prove true. Accordingly the Pope may be all that they style him, without the knowledge of a Novice in the Scripture, without any such acquaintance with it, as to pretend to the name of a Divine (though acquaintance with it be expected from none but Divines) and many that have the name, have little or nothing of the thing. The Popes think not themselves concerned at all to trouble their heads with Divinity. If he be but a Canonist (as Peter no doubt was) he is the Apostles undoubted Successor: though he be no more a Divine than his Chair is, or can make him; and why may not the Chair inspire him with knowledge, as much as holiness? Pope Innocent the Tenth in our days (since they have been more concerned for the Reputation of the Vatican Throne, than as before to let Monsters of debauchery and ignorance ascend it) declared that he had never studied Divinity, nor was it his profession. Pope Clement the Eighth, began to study it when he was very old; and then not to much purpose it seems: for he could not at last decide the question that he had studied, how much soever their Church was concerned in it.

None can understand their Church prayers but expert Divines, as Soto tells us, he means the matter of them indeed, but Popes need not understand the words neither; for many of them do not, who pass for lawful Popes, and such can neither understand the subject nor the words of the Bible, for it is in Latin. And if Alphonsus deceives us not, many of them have not gone so far as their Grammar; yea very many of them have been so ignorant, as they could not speak their own name in Latin. Yet such knowledge of Scripture is enough in the Roman account for the infallible Interpreter of Scriptures, the supreme Judge in all matters of faith, and the teacher of the Universe. When we are ready to wonder at this, they stop us presently, by telling us, that God did make Balaam's Ass speak.

They seem to grant as much stupidity in a Pope, as can be imagined, but then the miracle of making an Ass speak, does patly answer that objection. Had the Bishops of Rome anciently been such ignorant dull Creatures, as many of their later Popes, and yet adored at that rate; the Heathens might have had some color for charging the Christians with worshipping an Asses head.

As for the people, they are so far from obliging them to get knowledge, that they either make it impossible for them to attain it, or encourage them never to look after it. They cannot attain it, but either by reading or hearing: They must not read the Scriptures (as before;) and they cannot, or need not hear. If the Priests be ignorant (as they are allowed to be) they are not able to instruct them: if they be able they need not preach that's sub consilio; or the people need not hear, no nor inquire of them, in private, no, not those that are most ignorant. The further they are from all knowledge, the more excusable, if they take no care, nor pains about it. Sancta Clar •… makes this Query. Are they not bound at least to some diligence, to free themselves from this ignorance? he answers if it be one, who hath no knowledge of these things, which may move him to seek instruction; it is certain that no diligence, or care is required of him, especially if he do not at all doubt (i. e.) if he be confident, that he knows well enough, and his ignorance makes him so senseless, that he discerns it not. His Reason is, because he is not obliged to that which is impossible, and it is not possible that one should seek that, which never came into his mind (as Angles also determines with him.) So that if knowledge never came into his mind, there is no need, that it ever should come there; and he is not bound to take the least care, or pains to make way for it.

LOve of God, or (as they had rather call it) Charity is in their account, as they seem sometimes to express themselves of greatest moment. Regeneration and spiritual life (they say) consists in it; without it no man is in the state of grace, or favor with God. This is the righteousness whereby they are justified, and their sins pardoned, i. e. abolished (for that is pardon with them:) and their Souls sanctified (for justification and sanctification is all one in their reckoning.) This is it, which is the life and spirit of all other graces and virtues (say they) without which, the best of them, are dead and unactive things, and deserve not the name of virtues. And though they look not for Heaven, unless they deserve it, by their own works: yet their works they say are of no worth, without this. Yea their indulgencies will not avail anything without it. So far therefore as love to God is unnecessary; so far Regeneration, and spiritual life, a saving state and reconciliation with God; justification, pardon; all graces and virtues; all their own good works, or their Churches indulgencies are unnecessary. No further need of what, either God or themselves have made necessary to salvation.

One would think, if they had any desire of Heaven, or fear of Hell, or dread of their own Purgatory: if they had any design for the salvation of Souls or any regard of what is saving: they should be tender in this point above all, and not abate any moment of its necessity. But what they do herein, let us see. Indeed they make both the habitual and the actual love of God unnecessary. First for habitual love, they teach, the Lord hath not at all commanded us to have the habit or principle of this love: he nowhere requires that we should love him habitually. certainly, saith Bellarmine, the Lord hath not commanded that we should love him from an infused habit, for Laws do not require habits. Add to him one of the most eminent amongst the Dominicans, there is no affirmative precept for habitual love to God; saith Melchior Cano. I need allege no more, I find none of them questions it.

Now in that they do not make this love necessary as a duty they cannot account it necessary as a means. For they hold that all means necessary to salvation are commanded. So that the habitual love of God by their Doctrine is no way necessary.

And this they teach not only of the habit of love, but of all other graces the precepts of the Law are not for habits saith Soto, we are not (as he adds) to pay what we owe from a habit of justice or liberality. When we are enjoined to live soberly and righteously, we are not required to do so out of habit, but only to do it, saith Bellarmine; and these instances they bring to show, that we are not obliged to do anything out of a habit or principle of love to God.

Sect. 2.

Secondly, for actual love, how can they account the acts of it needful, when they make the habits or principle from whence the acts must flow, to be unnecessary? But let us view their Doctrine about this more distinctly. The acts of love are either more foreign and remote, which they call Imperate: or native and proper which they call Elicite acts.

For the former, all acts of Religion and Righteousness, that they may be truly Christians such as the Gospel requires in order to Salvation; that they may have a real tincture of Divine and supernatural goodness, and be advanced above the pitch, at which Heathen, or graceless persons may arrive: they must proceed from love to God, and be ordered and directed by it. This they sometimes not only confess, but assert. And yet notwithstanding they teach, that it is not needful to perform any such acts, or to observe any commands of God out of love to him. The commands of God, saith de Graffijs, do not oblige us to perform them in love, he clears his meaning by an instance. For he sins not, nor is punished of God, who gives due honor to his Parents; although he have not the habit of piety (and so though he do it not out of such a principal) much less (adds he) doth the Church oblige any one to observe the command in love for if the end of the precept be love saith Cano, we are not forthwith bound to observe all the commands out of love. The reason is premised, for in the opinion of Aquinas and the most grave Authors, we are not bound to observe the end or intention of the Law-giver (i. e. of Christ) but the means which the Law prescribes in order to it. Soto discourseth this at large, and concludes. Love being considered as the universal condition and mode of acting all virtues, and performing all obedience; such a mode of acting out of love is not commanded as when we are enjoined to honor Parents, the precept binds us not to honor them out of love to God. This he delivers as the Doctrine of Aquinas, and finds but one Doctor amongst them of opinion, that we are bound to do all out of love to God; but condemns this as false and very near the Lutheran error condemned by the Council of Trent, because then all acts done without grace would be sins. So we must believe (if we will not venture to fall under the condemnation of their Council) that it is no sin not to obey God, out of love to him; that all acts of virtue and obedience whatsoever, may be performed without sin, though they be done without love to God; that any man Baptized may be saved, though he never act out of love to God (no, not so much as once while he lives); though he perform not one act of a true Christian while he is on earth. He can never perish for want of love to God, in any, or all the acts of his life; for he will never be damned but for sin; and to act without love to God is no sin. Thus their chief Doctors determine, and this they must all do, in conformity to the decrees of their infallible Council, and be deluded infallibly in a matter of no less consequence than the way to Heaven; believing that they may arrive there without acts of love, filial obedience or ingenuous observance of God in anything that he hath commanded, without ever acting as (and so without being at all) true Christians.

Sect. 3.

But though they do not transgress other commands, when they observe them without Love; yet they may violate that special command, which requires inward acts of Love, if at that time when this obligeth, they do not act out of Love. Some of them seem to say this, and we shall see what they make of it in the next place,

The nature and proper issue of Love, is its internal act, when the heart being possessed with a principle of divine Love, to God in Christ, actually loves him above all. If this actual Love (the inward act of it,) be not necessary; as there will be no need of the habit, (that being but in order to acts;) so there will be no place for the Imperate Acts; for those who would have us sometimes observe other commands out of Love, yet never think this requisite, but when the precept obligeth us to actual Love.

Now whether there be any command for this act of Love, or whether it oblige, or when, they are not agreed; only in the issue, they conspire to make the Commandment of no effect.

Some of them determine, that the command to Love God with all our mind, is not obliging; which is all one, as if they should say, there is no command for it at all; thus Stapleton, one of the greatest Divines amongst them in his time, The precept of loving God with all our mind is dectrinal, and not binding.

To the same effect others conclude there is no special precept of Love to God. So Joh. Samcius There is no special command in the Law of God for this, but general, says he. By which he would have us understand, that there is no Precept in particular for loving God, none besides those Commands that require other things; which if they be done, we are discharged from any act of Love, or inward Affection to him. Aquinas is vouched for this, and much alleged out of him, to show he was of this persuasion. If there be any special Precept for this affection to God, it is that which requires us to Love him with all the heart and soul, and strength: But this (as Cardinal Cajetan declares) does not oblige to the love of Charity. And Bannez teaches, that for natural Love, there is no special command; and so amongst them they leave no such command for any sort of Love to God at all. The command to God with all our hearts, Maldonado will have to be a general, no special Precept.

Others of them confess there is a special command obliging us to Love God actually; but they put such a construction upon it, that it signifies little or nothing more, than if there were no such thing. They say it is requisite, that we should Love God one time or other; but what time this is needful, you will never learn of them; what period one fixeth, another unfixeth: and while they find no certain time for it, in the end they leave no place for it.

They all agree in this, that we are not bound to Love God always actually; for say they, the Precept for it, is affirmative, and such Precepts bind not at all times.

But since we are not obliged to Love God at all times, at what determined time is this required of us? Are we to Love him after we are fallen into sin, is that the Article of Necessity? No, Cano supposeth that this will be generally denied; that a man is obliged to Love God soon after he hath sinned.

Are we to Love Him when he vouchsafes some special favor; when he discovers his infinite goodness and amiableness, and makes the most lovely representations of himself to us? one would think, then, if any time at all, we should be obliged to Love him actually. No, saith the same Bishop and he no Jesuit or late Casuist) he sins not mortally, (i. e. he transgresseth no Command of God) who loves him not, how much so ever he discovers his divine goodness, and most inamoring loveliness, unless it be when it is necessary to love him. And when shall we ever meet with the time when it is necessary, if not in such circumstances as these? if it be not needful to Love him, either when we disoblige him, or when he most obligeth us to acts of Love; if neither when he is angry with us, nor when he is well pleased, when will, when can it ever be needful?

Let us see if any others amongst them can nick this Article of time, when this Love will be necessary. Are we bound to put forth an act of Love on Holy-days; so Scotus thought: The time, saith he, for observing this Command, is on Holy-days, then we are to recollect ourselves, and ascend in mind unto God. He would have had this Love to be a Holy-day habit at least, if not fit for every days wearing. But this is too much (say others) nor do they find any reason why this imagination should come in the subtle Doctors head, Cano saith, without all doubt it is to be rejected, and so they do. Scotus herein is borne down by the full torrent of their Doctors. I find none now that will have us obliged to Love God so often.

But since they think it too much to Love God every Holy-day, are we bound to Love him upon his own day? No, not once a week neither. For though the Church oblige them to be present at his Worship, to mind things above, to praise his infinite Divinity, and to give thanks for his bounty towards them; yet in all this they are not bound to any act of Love; and Soto gives this reason for it, The end of the Commandment (which is Love) is not commanded. The assertion is hardly so absurd as the reason given for it; that the end, which is the principal in moral actions, should not be commanded. This is to say, that the Law do's not require to be fulfilled; for Love, which is the end of the Commandment, is by the Apostle expressly said to be the fulfilling of the Law. But notwithstanding all this, in this Maxim, (which is one of their chief Engines, whereby they demolish Christianity in the practice of those who profess it; make void the Commandments of God depriving them of their life and spirit, and leave nothing of the whole body of Religion, but the mere superficies:) Their Divines (he tells us) unanimously agree with Aquinas. So that it seems the worship of God may be sufficiently discharged without any love to him. We may serve him well enough (as far as the Command for his Service will have us) without any affection. In all acts of worship, there needs not any act of Love (by their doctrine) in any part, or any of the times of worship, either their own Holy-days, or the Lord's. They have no more respect to his than theirs, nor for him in either, but serve them and him all alike; and think they hallow them, and honor him enough, without any motion of love in their hearts, when, (if ever it were needful in their account,) it should be most in motion. Certainly those that think not this Love due to God in his worship, think it not due to him at all.

But if it be more than needs to love God once a week, are they obliged at least to love him once a year, if not at ordinary times, yet upon extraordinary or special occasions, such as more particularly seem to call for some act of Love? When they are to partake of some Sacrament, when they come to the Eucharist, or to the Sacrament of Penance (as they are to do once yearly by their Church orders)? No, it is not then necessary neither; it is false saith Navarre, that we are bound to fulfil this Command, when we receive any Sacrament; for it is enough, that we be not in mortal sin, or that we probably believe so, although no such actual Love be conceived in the heart. We are not bound to that Love (saith he) when we minister, or receive the Sacraments; because we are not then bound to have contrition. Those that make such hard shifts to discharge themselves from the obligation of loving God, when ever occasion is offered, will scarce think it needful to love him upon no occasion: and what occasion can we think of, upon which it will be counted requisite, if not on these already specified? if not after sin, if not upon the receipt of mercy, if not on any day of worship, if not in any part of worship; if these be not occasions for it, who can hope they will ever meet with any? if an act of Love be not requisite once a week, or once a year, on such an account as would make it so, if any imaginable could do it; it will not be a duty in any week, or any year, in a whole life; those that discharge themselves of it, in such circumstances, do plainly enough discharge it forever.

But since they would make a show of finding some time for it, (though their determinations all along are pregnant with a denial of any); let us proceed with them a little further. If an act of Love be not due to God once a year, yet may it be a duty once in four or five years? Soto and Ledesma in Filliutius ventured to think it may be requisite once in five years, and he gives this reason for it; Because the time is not determined, but left to the judgment of the wise; but (saith he) thus wise Divines have thought.

Thus Love to God, the greatest duty that we owe the Divine Majesty, and that which is the sum of all the rest, is left to men's arbitrement; and if two or three reputed wise, shall judge that God is to have no love at all, or but one act of Love in a whole life; that must be the rule, God and man must be determined by it: Man will owe no more, and the Lord must have no more. Those of their Divines have had the repute of wise, who thought it enough to love God once in a life time, as well as such who conceive it probable, that he should have an act of love once in five years, or once in seven, for thither it may be adjourned by our Authors leave.

The Jansenists charge this opinion upon the late Jesuits, and would have all the odium cast upon them: but they go about to lead us into a mistake, if they would have us believe that these, and other horrid conceits concerning an actual love to God, are confined to that Society; they are too common amongst those Doctors who are of greatest repute, and judged free from extravagancies in their morality, and more tenacious of what they would have accounted the genuine doctrine of their Church.

There were many in the time of the Council of Trent, when Jesuitisme was but in its Infancy, who held it enough to love God actually but once in a life time. One act of love once in a life, which some count enough, saith Soto, and these some, he tells us afterwards, were very many.

In the time of Francis de Victoria, who lived till the Council of Trent had sat a year, this was the common doctrine, that a man is but obliged to love God once in his life. For upon the question, when the Precept for love obligeth? he says, Nec videtur sufficiens solutio communis, quod tenetur semel in vita Relect. part. 3. n. 11. The common answer, that one is bound to it once in a life, seems not sufficient; he speaks modestly, as one loath to dissent from the common doctrine. (that Council (who if it had been concerned for God and men's souls, as it was for other things, would have appeared in all its thunder against such an error) mends this, as it did other matters, by establishing a doctrine which makes it needless to love God so much as once in a life: of which hereafter.)

But when is that once? They leave us at liberty for the time, so it be but before we die. Suarez was not alone in this, as he wants not followers, so he had many that went before him in this conclusion, and those not Jesuits only; for it is grounded upon the notion which the Romish Doctors have of affirmative precepts, when the time for their accomplishment is not expressed. They teach, that such divine commands, divers of them are fulfilled, and have sufficient observance, if they be but obeyed semel in vita, once in a life-time. Those that are very cautious, express it with a saltem, once at least in a whole life, intimating that though more may be better, yet once is as much as is precisely needful; and this they extend to such things, as by the Lord's constitution, are means necessary to salvation. There are Precepts, saith Cano, without determination of time, which oblige us to observe them sometimes, at least once in our life, such as are the means necessary to salvation. But in what part of our life must it be, that the Lord must have this act of Love from us, which is enough once in the whole? Why since neither the Scripture nor the Church, say they, hath determined the time, there is no reason for one time more than another; it is left to a man's own discretion to love God when he thinks fit; let him but do it before he die, and he may take his own time, so some leave it.

But Vasquez would not leave it at such uncertainty, so he fixeth the period; and that is the period of a man's life: he determines, the time for loving God is when a man is at the point of death: Nor is this the doctrine of a Jesuit only; for before his time, and before the Society was founded, it was the common opinion of the Romish Doctors; so Dominicus Soto informs us, very many hold that the time for the observing of this Command, is at the point of death; that is (as he explains it) when there is not any time left for deserving ought of God. Now every act of Love being meritorious with them, either they contradict themselves, or by this opinion they are not bound to love God actually, till there be no time left for any acts of Love. We are not by this doctrine obliged to love God, till we can live no longer, and are past acting at all.

But are we then bound to love him, is it then necessary? may not a man be saved, who hath continued without Love to God all his life, if he love him not actually, neither, when he is a dying? For this observe what Aquinas tells us, That we do not break this Command, but fulfil it, so, as to be free from all mortal guilt, if we do nothing against the Love of God; that is, if we run not into mortal sin, and so hate him; as a Soldier satisfies his Captains command, who, though he get not the Victory, yet doth nothing against Military discipline; or as Bonaventure explains it, Per exclusionem affectus contrarij, by the exclusion of the contrary affection, as if it were sufficient that he do not hate him.

Marsilius (of great renown for learning amongst their Divines,) will have that which the command for love enjoins, to be the keeping of Grace and Friendship with God, and the recovering of it, when lost. So that it doth not oblige to actual love, but only to the avoiding of habitual enmity and hatred of God.

But what if he hate God, and persist therein? is it not absolutely necessary, that he should beware of that? it seems not, for saith one of their Doctors, There is no Precept that a Sinner should not persevere in enmity against God; there is no negative Command which forbids him to persist in such hatred. It may be you do not read this (no more than I could) without some horror and trembling; and I confess, when I found Reginaldus quoted for this, I was ready to think, it was but the extravagancy of some singularly bold Jesuit: but upon further enquiry, I find it asserted by such whose writings have the greatest approbation of the Romish Church. Melchior Cano, a Dominican, a Bishop, cried up as a most elegant, Judicious, and cautious Writer too, and inferior to none of that Order, their Angelical Doctor only excepted, clearly delivers this doctrine, We are not bound by any negative Precept that we should not be Enemies of God, in respect of guilt. He adds, for as there is no affirmative Precept, requiring habitual friendship with God, so for habitual enmity against God in respect of guilt, there is no negative Precept that forbids it. So that to persist in Enmity and Hatred against God, by their approved doctrine, is no sin, it is against no Command.

We need not allege the words of any other, since this is the plain and necessary consequent of their common doctrine: and we must take it to be the judgment of all, who hold that it is no sin to delay contrition ( i. e. Repentance and turning to God) in which both their Antienter School Doctors, and modern Divines agree. For while it is no duty to turn to God, habitual enmity and hatred of him will be no sin. Now contrition (and so conversion to God) they say may be deferred till death. Indeed by their doctrine it will never be a duty; for even at death the last Attrition with their Sacrament of confession, is all that is needful.

Sect. 4.

However, they make it unnecessary to love God, either living or dying. For though they pretend that there is a time, some or other, when the Precept for it is obliging; and make a show, as if then unavoidably, he that will be saved, must have an act of love for God in his heart: yet when ever that time comes in life or death, to which their several fancies have determined it; they discover to them many ways, whereby the Precept may be satisfied, without any act of love that it requires: and those which have a mind to be deceived with hopes of Heaven, without ever loving God while they live, may have their choice, which way they will be deluded, for they present them with variety. First, a natural love will serve the turn, such as a graceless man may have. For Aquinas determines after others, that he that hath no love to God, may observe the Precept of loving him actually, by disposing himself to receive this grace; and whereas some think, that this great Precept of loving God, since Adams sin cannot be fulfilled, but in the state of grace, Navar asserts the contrary, both upon Reason and authority; because a man, by his natural power, remaining also in mortal sin, may and doth conceive God to be amiable above all, and the last end of all, and consequently can love him as such; as also, because there may be a love for God, above all, without grace, as Cajetan proves; moreover, because St. Thomas affirms that one may, without grace, fulfil the command of Loving God, as to the substance of the act, though not as to the meriting of blessedness.

Elsewhere he affirms that all the Ten Commandments, and all other Precepts, may be fulfilled by him who is in mortal sin, as to the substance of the act, so as to avoid all sin that would be incurred, if they were not fulfilled; and this, according to the judgment of Aquinas, commonly followed, and the sense of the Council of Trent. They assign (we see) two ways whereby the divine Precept may be fulfilled. One as to the substance of the act, so as sin is avoided, and the other as to the end of the Law-giver, so as to deserve Heaven. And they teach that any Precept may be accomplished the former way, by such as are destitute of grace. Now to observe the Command of loving God, so far as not to sin against it, is all that is required, if Bellarmins arguing be good. If I sin not, fiath he, when I love God, without degree of Love (in the judgment of St. Thomas,) certainly I am not bound in strictness to love him more: therefore, if I add another degree, I love him more than I am bound to do. So that an unsanctified man loving God in such a degree, as not to sin against the Precept of love, hath all the affection for God that it requires: and none will be obliged to any love, but such as is natural, and may be found in a graceless heart.

Secondly, an inferior degree of love will satisfy the Command, such as is far short of what it enjoins. He is no transgressor (saith the Oracle of their Schools) who attains not the intermediate degrees toward perfection, if he reach but the very lowest of all. To keep the divine Precepts (saith Bellarmine) any degree of love whatsoever, is sufficient. Any act of Love (saith Banns) how remiss soever, is sufficient to fulfil all the Commands of God; neither is there any certain intenseness requisite, that one in this life may accomplish the Precept of Love to God. The Lord requires that we love him with all our hearts, i. e. with all the affection our hearts can contain: they say that any the smallest degree will suffice. He enjoins us to love him with all our might, i. e. as much as we can: They say it is enough to love him •… little as we can; we need not love him as much as we might if we would; no more is commanded, but as little as is possible. The lowest degree of all will serve; and if we advance but another step, we supererogate, and God is beholding to us for more than is due.

Their gross mistake about the perfection of obedience in this life, intangles them in a necessity to maintain this and other impious absurdities. For if every just person perfectly observes the Law, the least degree must be sufficient for such an observance; and when this command declared, with such circumstance of loving God with all our hearts, mind, and strength, doth especially puzzle them; they are concerned, either to deny its obligation, as some of them do, or to interpret it so as to make it signify that which is next to nothing, as others. All of them are obliged to deface it one way or other, that it may not appear to confound them.

But to go on. If we are not bound to love God, save in the lowest degree, yet that degree sure should exceed our affection to all other things. No, not so neither, for they tell us commonly, We are not obliged to love God more intensely than other things: So Cardinal Tolet, Yea, saith he, sometimes we more fervently love things sensible, and the Creatures. Navarre, after Aquinas, and their Divines ancient and modern concur herein.

Its true, they say, God should be loved appreciatively (as to valuaation, and in esteem) above all: but then by, All, they understand, not simply all things but the worst things of all. In those, (the worst of evils) he is to have the preeminence: but the Creatures are not such evils, and they may be preferred before God in most cases. By their doctrine, we may preser the judgment of others, or our own before the advice of God in all matters of mere Counsel, and to this they have reduced the greatest part of Christian duties; and we may follow our own wills, or the will of others, rather than God's continually, and make this the constant practice of our lives, in all those innumerable evils which they count venial. And so in the most instances by far, we may love and esteem ourselves and others more than God, and yet love him enough, and not transgress the Precept. We need not love him more than all Creatures, we may love any Creature more than him, even in way of valuation; only he is to have this honor, and this will be enough, to love him more than deadly crimes; such as declare open hostility against God: this is all the import of that great precept, which concerns us in this life, as it is expressed after Aquinas by Soto and others.

Yea, to admit mortal sin, and so to love the Creature more than God, in that respect, in which alone, they say he is more to be loved, is not against this Precept. So Navar informs us, Indirectly, saith he, to love the Creature more than God, is not against this Command (of Love): because whoever sins mortally, indirectly loves something more than God—yet such a Delinquent doth not therefore sin against the Precept; because directly he doth nothing against it, nor acts what in itself, and in its own nature separates from God; but by accident, according to Aquinas and Scotus. So that to love the Creature more than God, and to show it in a way, which themselves say is most repugnant to the love of God, is no transgression of this Command. To say he doth nothing against it directly, is no salvo, when that he doth, is all, which they count (if they count anything) inconsistent with the Love commanded. He tells us further, and Lopez after him, That absolutely to love God, but so much, or not so much as other things, without making any comparison, is not evil. So that if God have some affection from us, though we love him less than other things, it is no sin, no transgression of the Precept; and if this be not transgressed in the instant, when it calls for performance, it is fulfilled.

Thirdly, it will suffice, if nothing be done against Love, as we heard before out of Aquinas. So that when the Precept of love obligeth, if we then do nothing contrary to that love, we may be excused from the act itself, or from acting anything out of Love. For that which they count contrary to it, may be avoided out of fear, or other considerations foreign to Love; and so the Command may be satisfied at the instant, when (if ever) it requires actual Love, without any act either of love, or from it.

Fourthly: External acts may satisfy. The precept of Love, saith Soto, doth not oblige precisely to inward affection, but certainly to some outward act; so elsewhere he explains this loving God above all, by doing his Commandments; to the same purpose, Maldonado and others. Now if the precept of Love may be fulfilled by external acts, or by endeavors to observe the other commands of God, then it requires not the exercise of the inward act of love to him, and so there will be no command, for that, at all, nor will it be a duty; and all these other commands may be satisfied without any act of love to God in the heart, and we shall love him enough, though we never conceive any actual love for him in our souls.

Fifthly: It will satisfy the precept, if a man believe that he loves God above all, though indeed he do not. So Lopez. It is enough to avoid the sin of neglecting this Precept, for one to believe probably that be fulfils it at the time when its Obligation occurrs. Navar had concluded this before him. He that believes God, probably believing that he is in the state of Grace, and that his Love is a love of God above all, although in Truth it is no such thing, nor he in such a state; nevertheless, the Precept is fulfilled by him so far, that he is not then guilty of no sin for omitting the observance of it; he adds this reason for it, Because without special revelation, no man can know when he is in the state of Grace, as the Council of Trent determines; and so unless we maintain this, we cannot know when we fulfil the Precept. Thus, though his determination seem strange and desperate, yet the ground he proceeds on, is a principle of their Faith, and obligeth all to be of his persuasion, who submit to that Council. He declares himself further to this purpose. He sins mortally, who loves not God at that time when he is bound to do it, under the pain of mortal sin, that is, when there is danger of death, or necessity of receiving, or administering a Sacrament, unless he probably believe that he hath Grace or Charity; For then, he would have us believe it is not sin, as his limitation shows. Here we have the times specified, wherein the Precept of loving God obligeth, and these are but two, and the latter of them himself expungeth, concluding it false, that we are bound to love God at a Sacrament. So that a man is never bound to love God, but when he apprehends death approaching: no, nor at the point of death neither, if then he probably believe that he hath Grace and Charity, though he have it not; for such a presemption will excuse him from sin, if he love not God, (as all his life before, so) even when he is dying. Thus is the case resolved according to their common principles, by the most learned, and the most pious of their Casuists, as Bellarmine honors him, though he was none of the Society.

Sixthly, attrition, with the Sacrament of Penance will excuse any from loving God actually, living or dying: and will secure him from perishing eternally, though he never entertain an Act of love for God in life or death. The Doctrine of their Church obligeth them all to believe this, and if any of their Doctors seem to say otherwise, they contradict either that, or themselves. For their Church requires nothing precisely, to put a man into the state of Grace and Salvation living, or dying (how long so ever he hath persisted in enmity against God; how highly so ever he hath expressed his hatred of him); but only a due partaking of the Sacrament of Penance: and he is sufficiently qualified for such a participation, if he be but attrite, that is, as they explain it, if he have but some remorse for sin out of servile fear, not out of love to God. (For that fear as servile, is contrary to the love of God: ) so that for this (which they count sufficient to secure his eternal state) even at last gasp, he needs not any act of love to God, and this is not only the opinion of particular Doctors, but (as I shall show hereafter) the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, and so not only probable with them, but certain.

If a man at the point of death, who never had an act of love for God in all his life, do thou ask his Confessor, whether such an act be needful for him before he die; if the Priest tell him it is not necessary, he may safely give up the Ghost, and die as he lived without any actual affection for God: (for though he be deluded by his Confessor, yet consulting him he has done his endeavor, and so his ignorance (they say) is invincible, and will excuse him.) And the Priest must tell him, that it is more than needs, if he believe the Council of Trent, since there it is declared, that the Sacrament. with attrition (though this include something repugnant to such love) is enough to justify, and pass any into a state of grace, and consequently is sufficient for Salvation. And thus they argue, Grace is a sufficient cause of glory, hence whatever it is, without which grace may be obtained, that is not necessary to Salvation. By which account no act of love (nor of any other grace) will be needful for them, that they may be saved.

Thus in fine, here's a Religion which pretends to be Christian, but excuseth, and disingageth all that profess it, from the love of Christ; a Doctrine which bereaves Religion of that which themselves count its life, and quite stifles all the spirits of Christianity; chops off all Christian virtues, all gracious acts and qualities, in this one neck, and leaves nothing but a gastly Carkase. For obliging them to neglect love as needless, it makes the rest impossible; without it, there can be no saving faith, no godly sorrow, no filial fear, no delight in God, no desire to enjoy him, no genuine gratitude. When the life of a true Christian should be made up of these; they leave it not possible for him to have one act of true Christian virtue: for without love, they say themselves there cannot be any one true virtue. Here is a way to Heaven for those that never loved God in life or death, a path that pretends to Heaven, but lies quite Cross to the way of Christ, and leads directly to outer darkness. A Doctrine that encourageth them to live in hatred of God all their days, and in the end sends them out of the World under the dreadful sentence of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 16 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be Anathema, Maranatha. To conclude this head; It is a Doctrine which is damning, not only meritoriously, but effectually; and will certainly ruin eternally all that believe and practice it, and hath in it the mortal poison and malignity of a hundred such speculative Opinions, as pass for Heresies.

And beside the danger, and horrible impiety of this Doctrine, it is ridiculous to the very highest degree. For can anything be more senseless, than to ask how often a man ought to love his best friend and Benefactor? whether once in his life be not enough in all Conscience? nay, whether it be not very fair not to hate him? And indeed they state the business all along in such a manner, and manage it with such nicety and caution, not as if they were afraid lest men should love God too little, but as if all the danger lay on the other hand; and their great care were that nobody should love him too much, or love him at all. I do not believe that things so palpably impious and ridiculous, were ever so solemnly debated by men of any Religion whatsoever.

Sect. 1.

THat no man can be justified or saved without faith, is so evident in Scripture, that none but an Infidel can question it. The Romanists do not express any doubt of it; and yet they make no other faith necessary, than that which is neither justifying, nor saving. They have two sorts of faith, one for the unlearned and ignorant, which they call Implicite: The other for the learned and more knowing, which they say should be Explicite.

The former as they describe it, is an assent to some general including many particulars, with a mind to believe nothing contrary thereunto, the general is this. That what ever the Roman Church (which cannot err) believes, is true, the particulars included, are they know not what, for they are supposed ignorant. Now, this we say, is no Christian faith; and make it apparent, that it is no such thing. For first, it is no belief of any one particular, or article of the Christian faith. It is only a belief of a general, which is no truth at all, much less Christian ( that the Church of Rome cannot err, or believe anything but what is true ) when the ignorant person neither knows what this Church is, nor what she believes, nor why he should give her such credit. So that the act is a blind conceit unworthy of a Man, or a Christian; and the object, a general error.

And then as to the particulars which are necessary for Christians to believe, this implicit faith doth not actually believe any of them at all; if it did, it would not be what it is, implicit. It apprehends them not, & therefore cannot believe them, for as themselves acknowledge That cannot be believed which is not known. To render this clear to us, they thus explain it. When a man is asked, whether Christ were born of the Virgin Mary, and whether there be one God, and three persons; and he answers that he knows not, but believes touching these things, as the Church holds, this is to believe implicitly. So that a man may have this faith completely, and yet not believe an article of the Creed, and if this be Christian faith, a man may have it, who believes nothing of Christ. They are believers at this rate, who have a mind to hold, what the Church doth, concerning Christ, or the Creed; though they never know, what that is. They know not what the Church holds; unless the Churches knowing, be their knowledge; and so believe nothing, unless the Church's believing be their faith; and so have no faith to save them, unless it be saving faith, to believe by an Attorney.

Secondly, as this faith may be without the knowledge and belief of any of the particular Articles, which are necessary to be believed by Christians; so (which is yet more strange) it may be with the belief of what is opposite, and repugnant to the Christian faith. This they acknowledge and clear it to us by instances. A man may be disposed to believe what the Church holds, and yet may believe that God the Father, and God the Son are not equal, but one greater, and elder than the other, or that the persons in the Trinity are locally distant. Such is the virtue of implicit faith faith Altenstaig, that, if he who hath it believes these errors, or any like them, he would be no Heretic he would not sin; provided he doth not maintain his error pertinaciously, and that he believes, because he thinks the Church believes it. Or such a Catholic may believe that the three persons in the God-head are one Woman, it would be but a small fault with Angelus to believe this, thinking the Church believes the same. Or he may believe, that Christ is not true God and Man; and yet not be condemned for it, if the Pope believed it too. If trusting a Priest (who tells him the Church holds it) he believes anything against the Articles of faith, he is excused saith Sancta Clara after Scotus and Gabriel and others Though he expressly disbelieve any Article of faith, yet he may be said to believe it implicitly. So that he may believe that the Creed or the Gospel is not to be believed, he may count it a Fable (as Pope Leo called it) and yet be a Christian, as to his belief, if this be the Christian faith. He may be expressly an Heretic or a monstrous mis-believer, and yet implicitly be a faithful Roman-Catholic.

Thirdly, such a faith as this, Jews, and Turks, and Pagans have, even the worst of these, who do but acknowledge a God of truth. For they believe what this God reveals is true, and this general involves all the particulars of the Christian belief; so that if the belief of such a general without other faith as to the particulars, may be sufficient for Papists; such Infidels may pass for as true believers, as Roman-Catholics. Yea the faith of such Catholics will be so much worse, than that of these Infidels; as it is better to believe God's veracity and Revelation, than to believe the infallibility of the Roman Church, or the truth of all therein believed.

Indeed such a faith was not counted sufficient for Christians, till Christians were thought to be something like Asses. Aquinas inquires, whether all be a like obliged to have an explicit saith? He answers negatively, and the ground of his conclusion is, Job. 1. 14. The Oxen were plowing, and the Asses were feeding beside them: From whence he argues gravely. That the people who are signified by Asses, are to lie down in the faith of their Superiors, who are signified by the Oxen, as Gregory expounds it. But what if the Oxen go a stray, what must become of the Asses then? Why, they may follow them without hurt, believing that they are right, when they are in a wrong way (for they must not have their names for nothing?) So he resolves this difficulty. Human knowledge is not the rule of faith, but Divine truth: from which if some of the Superiors (the Oxen) make defection, that hurts not the faith of the simple (the Asses) who believe them to have the right faith. After these two Saints, their best Pope, and their Angelical Doctor, (that we may see we owe not this rare notion (where their whole Church is so subtly divided into Oxen and Asses) to any lower, than the most eminent amongst them.) Cardinal Bellarmine their great Champion makes use of the same exposition of that Text, to maintain the sufficiency of such a faith.

Stapleton, would have us believe, that they admit not of this implicit faith, save in points of less moment, but herein he misrepresents them, and would delude us. For it is the common Doctrine of the Romanists, That an implicit faith in Christ, (such as Pagans may have, and for which none should have the name of Christians) is sufficient under the Gospel, to pass any into a justifying or saving state.

This is it which our Divines commonly teach saith Vega, when they say, the faith of one Mediator either explicit or implicit, is enough for justification. And Sancta Clara, with others, tell us, this is the more common tenet in their Schools. And whereas they make some difference between justification, and salvation in this point: Banns helps to remove it It is neither Heresy, saith he, nor Error, nor Rashness. nor Scandal, to assert, that a man may also in the same manner he saved; because justification being the last disposition to glory: it is very probable, that he which is justified by an implicit faith; may also by the same faith, without alteration be saved.

It is true, they say there is a precept for a more express faith, though no more than this implicit belief in Christ be needful, necessitate medij. But they have so many ways to exempt Infidels (even under the profession of Christians) from its obligation; that few in comparison will be culpable for not observing it: By their Doctors they are excused, if they be dull or gross-witted If they be ignorant or impotent, or if their Priest or their Parents mislead them; or if the object of faith be not duly proposed, if by slight reasons, or by impious persons (then it would he imprudence to believe; ) or if they do not doubt of their faith; or if their Teachers be fallacious or erroneous; or if the proposal be not enforced with reasons, with holiness of life, with the confutation of the contrary, and with some wonders. In short, if they have not had sufficient instruction (in this all agree.) And this alone will excuse a great part of their Church, who for want of such instruction, are acknowledged by themselves, to be Infidels. Thus Navarre delivers it. In the whole Christian Commonwealth (he means the Roman Church) there is so great neglect as to this, that ye may find many everywhere, who believe no more of these things (i. e.) of Christ and the most necessary Articles of the Christian faith) in particular and explicitly, than some Heathen Philosophers, who have only the natural knowledge of the one true God.

But if the precept could reach any through all these securities, (which we cannot easily imagine) yet there is one way to clear them all of it: so that they may live and die Infidels, without danger from any command requiring faith in Christ. For he that hath not that express faith which is commanded in the Gospel, but only what is requisite necessitate medij, is living or dying, if he be sorry for his negligence, and purpose to amend (which may be in their sense without true Repentance) capable of absolution, without any instruction from his Confessor . And by virtue of that he may live in a justified state, or if he die, he passeth out of the World, as a very good Christian, though he believe in Christ, no more than a Heathen.

Sect. 2.

Pass we to their other sort of faith, which they call explicit, it is, as they define it. An actual assent to the particulars, which the Church propounds, as revealed by God. This with them is justifying faith requisite in the learned, and more intelligent amongst them. As to the object of it, if we view it well, it looks untowardly for a thing by which a sinner is to be justified. For it is prodigiously extended, and takes in things uncertain, false, impossible, impertinent, and ridiculous; as points that must certainly be believed unto justification. For their Church propounds as things revealed by God (and so objects of justifying faith) not only what is delivered in Scripture; but • nwritten Traditions concerning matters of faith and manners, and • hese, if they will be justified, they must believe; though they know • ot what they are, nor where to find them, but in the Churches uner • ing fancy. She propounds also, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, • n several points; and though this never was, or is impossible to be • nown: yet it must be believed, by those that mean to be justified. She propounds the decrees of Councils to be believed as Divine truths; when it is acknowledged, that the design in Councils, for many hundred years; was not to discover truth, but to promote the Roman greatness. She propounds also the determinations of Popes, these must be believed as infallible, when ordinarily they were neither persons of common truth, or honesty, and we must be justified by believing the dictates of Atheists or Heretics; of Conjurers, or incarnate Devils; of vicious Beasts, and wicked Monsters. For those who cry up • is Holiness, have adorned him also now and then with these other Sacred Titles.

I know not whether these things are more ridiculous, or more horrid; how ever letting them pass as they are: let us take their faith at best, and make it better than they will have it. Suppose it rested in the Scriptures, and had nothing for its object but Revelation, such as is truly Divine: yet even so they give such Report of it, as will scarce suffer us to think, that they can expect to be justified by it. Considered in itself they count it not worthy the name of a virtue. They call it a dead, idle thing, and though they would have it to be an infused habit, and the gift of God (because the Scripture so calls that which is justifying faith indeed) yet they say a mere human quality acquired without any supernatural assistance; may perform its proper act and office, by actual assent to the whole Christian Doctrine. They confess it is commonly found in the worst of men ( in perditissimis hominibus ) such as are neither acted nor possessed by the spirit of God; such as live and die in mortal wickedness, and are damned for it. Yea some of them confess that it is in the Devils. This faith, saith Cardinal Contarenus is not it, by which we believe, that there is a God, or by which we believe that the things are true which God speaks: For this also is in the Devils, and the most wicked men. Yet at other times this is with them, THE CHRISTIAN THE CATHOLICK FAITH, as if it were enough, to make them true Christians and Catholics: but sure they will not seek for their Christianity, and Catholickness in a Room lower than Purgatory. However instead of a faith which the Scripture calls for, as saving and justifying; they commend to Christians a faith, which hath no connection at all, necessary or probable, with Salvation or Justification. All they have to say, is, That it must necessarily be joined with love: but when they have said this, they undo it, and all, by making love itself unnecessary, as we saw before.

Sect. 3.

In fine, they seem little concerned for faith who hath it, or hath it not, or how little it be, or how seldom acted. It is not necessary that the Pope himself should have this faith (though the Devils want it not) yea or any other virtue for all his Holiness: the Body may do well enough, though the Head of it be an Infidel. They are obliged to maintain this, because their Popes often have been no better. And the body may shift pretty well without it too. This may be the true Catholic Church made up of the whole company of believers, when not one amongst them all hath faith, for time was, say they, when none at all had faith, but only one Woman, and it may be so again.

As for the exercise of it Hurtado thinks an act of faith may be requisite once in a year; but the Jesuit may seem to deal unmercifully with them, putting them to believe some of their Creed once in Twelve months: those of other Orders would not have them so much oppressed, once in 12 years will be enough, Bonacina saith 4 or 5 moments in a whole life may suffice for this and specifies them; but because this may seem too hard, he signifieth withal, how they may he eased in a manner of them all. For once (though that be at the point of death) an implicit act may serve. At another time or two the precept for faith doth not of itself oblige to the act, only it is requisite by accident; and so the neglect of it then, will be no special sin, nor need be confessed. At another time (or more if there were occasion) ignorance, or want of consideration may excuse them (for these two, though they ruin the greatest part of the World eternally, yet are the greatest security of Roman-Catholics: and not only exempt them from that which is most the duty of Christians, but will not suffer them to sin, at least mortally, do what they can.) So that after all, one act of their faith once in a life time will be enough. I think it sufficient (saith he after many others) for those that are rude, to give an explicit assent once, to the Articles necessary to Salvation, while they are propounded by their Confessor, or some other. But how must the Confessor propound these Articles to them, so as they may pass this one act of faith upon them once for all? Why the best way he tells us, is by a mode of forming the sign of the Cross, as it is described for this purpose, by Graffius, Bellarmine, and other great Divines. I had the curiosity to see how a Confessor can make the most ignorant persons true believers by the sign of the Cross; and so effectually, as they never need more believe than once, while they live, and found it lying thus; let the Confessor teach him to form the sign of the Cross with three singers, to signify the mystery of the most Sacred Trinity. But first it must be drawn from the top of the head, or front to the Navel, to show that the Son of God descended from the highest Heavens into the bowels of his Mother: then draw the cross line from the left Arm to the right, so the cause of the Incarnation is expressed, He came from Heaven to Earth, that we who were to be placed amongst the Goats at his left, might be removed to his right hand amongst the Sheep. This is the admirable expedient: the grave Benedictine reflecting on it, was put into a transport; for he adds behold what great mysteries of faith Mother-Church hath taught us by one mode of forming a Cross, so that a rude person needs know nothing besides this, even this alone may be sufficient for his Salvation. Here is a compendious way indeed to Salvation, and all the knowledge and faith needful for it: he that can be satisfied with it (and give himself up to absurd and ridiculous delusions (against all the evidence of God's word) may in few minutes with once making the sign of the Cross, get all the faith requisite for a Roman-Catholic: and when by such admirable conduct of the Cross he hath but once believed; he need never more trouble himself with faith, while he lives. The precept for faith (saith another) obligeth not, but perhaps once in a life, and it is delivered as the judgment of Aragon Torres, and other their chief Divines, that of itself it binds not, but when one comes to the use of reason, or if it be not then performed, afterwards: but after one act of faith once put forth, the obligation to exercise more acts do rarely or may be never occur. Such is their faith, and thus you must conceive if you can, how they live by it. They can make a life of faith of one act alone in a whole life. No wonder they presume, that they can so perfectly fulfill the whole Law, yea and pay God much more than his due: when they make the greatest commands (the sum of the Law and Gospel) to amount to little or nothing; and instead of a Hundred set down not Fifty, but a fraction, or a cypher: when in the case before us, they take no more notice of the faith which the Gospel calls for, yea make bold in a manner wholly to neglect that of their own making.

Sect. 1.

IF anything be absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation, it is Repentance. Christ himself declares it, Luk. 13. 13. The doctrine of Repentance from dead works, is a fundamental, and so made expressly by the Apostle, Heb. 6. 1. So that without the belief and practice of it, no Sinner can possibly be saved, nor have any hopes of it, but such as are delusions. Thus necessary hath the Lord made it, and yet by the Roman Doctrine, it is more than needs for any sort of sins.

As to Original sin, (the corruption of our natures) those of them who hold there is any such thing within us; yet declare that, if it be any sin at all, it is the least of all sins. Andradius employed by the Council of Trent to write, tells us, that their Divines so determine. Bellarmine saith, that amongst all sins it is the least voluntary, and on that account is less than any venial sin; and it must be little indeed, that is, less than any venial; for that, as another Cardinal tells us, passeth for nothing. And that which hath so little, or nothing of sin in it, needs no repentance. So Soto concludes, A man that hath no guilt but that of Original sin, hath no need of any Repentance. Thus they represent Original sin, as it is in them before Baptism: but after they are Baptized, they all agree that it is no sin at all. The Council of Trent hath determined it (and so it is now with them an Article of Faith) That in Baptism, not only the guilt of Original sin is remitted, but what ever of it hath anything of the true and proper nature of sin, is totally taken away; and they curse those who hold that it is only pardoned or impaired, and not all the sin of it quite abolished by Baptism. They say they are become Innocent, Pure, Harmless, Spotless; without the least speck of Original sin; and so without any need of Repentance, upon that account, They are so far from being actually obliged to repent of any natural corruption, that they cannot be obliged to it, God himself cannot bind any one to Repent of it. So that if there be in our natures any defectiveness, as to the Image of God, any averseness to God, and that which is good, any propenseness to evil; we are not to take notice of it, or grieve for it as a sin: for how ever the Apostle frequently calls it so, it is none; no more to be repented of, than an innocent harmeless thing. Thus Original sin is quite discharged from any concern in our Repentance.

Sect. 2.

There are other evils which make up the far greatest part of actual sins, which by their doctrine are but Venial. Of this quality are not only those which they count small in their own nature; and those which are small in respect of the matter of them: but likewise all (how heinous so ever, as to the nature of them, how great soever as to the matter of them) that are acted without perfect deliberation, and are not completely voluntary. And by favor of their describing this third sort of minute evils, the most enormous wickednesses that can be acted against God or Man, may come under the notion of Venial faults, (of which hereafter.) Blasphemy, Perjury, Adultery, Murder, &c. when without perfect deliberation will be no worse.

How-ever these with them are light faults, and lightly cancelled (as they tell us) by the Bishops blessing, by Holy water, by knocking the breast, by saying a Pater-Noster; by extreme Unction, (so our Rhemists. Aquinas adds) by the Eucharist, by any of the seven Sacraments , by any Sacramental Unction • , by Prayer in a Holy place; yea, or by but entering into a Consecrated Church.

So that by these, and other such means & si aliqua alia sunt hujusmodi (saith Aquinas ) Pardon of Venial sins may be obtained, yea any one of them will quite abolish the fault, if not the whole penalty, particularly Holy water, which (as Cano teacheth) takes away the punishment of sin, and also the faults that are Venial. No wonder if they determine that the Sacrament of Penance is not needful for these, not so much as their ritual Repentance, and that there is no necessity they should be so much as confessed, nor any remorse or grief required for them; nor that any should be relinquished so much as in resolution only. Contrition is so far from being requisite for Venial sins, that with them attrition is not needful; for that is a displicence arising from shame or fear; but these sins are (in their account) neither shameful (its no crime (they say) to glory in them) nor dangerous; no man can be condemned for them.

Thus their Doctrine giveth them all abundant encouragement to live and die impenitently in these sins; in all of them, for all of them in the World, if found in one man together, amount not to so much as one mortal sin. All the penitence for these that is required by the precisest of them, is no more than one act of Charity contains, i. e. such a Vertual dislike, as a man may have of that, which he was never actually displeased at, no, nor so much as thought of.

It may seem strange (the operation of spirit of delusion not considered) how such a conceit could ever possess the fancies of rational persons, and of some acquaintance with the Scriptures; that their Sacramental, (Holy water, and the like trifles) should have the virtue to procure pardon of sins, even without Repentance: Aquinas would have us satisfied with this, that they do not remit sins of themselves, but are said to do it, because they may excite that fervor by which they are remitted; but this fervor is not Repentance, and whatever it be, it ought to be excited, that it may remit sin, since this admirable virtue is ascribed to it on that account. No, say his followers, We must understand him so, that it is not always requisite, it should he excited, but that these Sacramentals are instituted for this end. Wherefore to receive them as accommodated by the Church to this effect, is an act of Repentance, and procures remission of Venial sins; although there be no way, any excitement of devotion, nor any repenting of these sins, nor any dislike of them; for if this were required, truly, they would not be Sacramentals, since this dislike alone would be sufficient; so de Graffiis after Soto. Here is pardon of sin by an excitement of fervor, though it be not excited; that must be the implicit Repentance, sufficient for the pardon of Venial sins; and the Explicite very like it, an act of Repentance (such as is receiving of Holy-water) without any remembering the sins to be repented of, or any dislike of them. They had need believe, that these sins are no transgressions of the Law, since they expect to be secured from it's penalty by that which is no repentance.

Sect. 3.

Hereby it is too manifest that they make Repentance needless, both in reference to Original sin, and likewise to all those which they count Venial. If they will have it needful for any sin at all, it must be for those they call Mortal; but then these are b • t few in comparison. They have reduced them to seven, and none pass for deadly, but s • ch as quite extinguish spiritual life, and kill the soul immediately.

Well, but is Repentance necessary for these? As to this, divers of great eminency amongst them conclude, that there is no divine precept for Repentance. God hath not commanded any to Repent: Now if he command it not, it is not necessary; and if it be not a necessary duty, it is no mean necessary to Salvation: for, as themselves tell us, Though all that is commanded be not necessary to Salvation, yet all that is necessary to Salvation is commanded. That there is no special precept which requires Repentance, was the opinion of their famous Franciscus de Victoria, (in his time the great Master of Divinity in Spain ) and of other Divines both before and after him, as Melchior Cano (sometimes his Scholar) tells us. And when that of Christ, Luk. 13. Except ye Repent, ye shall all likewise perish, is objected, they Answer, the meaning is, They shall perish for preceding sins, not for impenitence. By their doctrine there is no danger that any should perish for that, though persisted in unto death: and they had some reason to allege Aquinas (the Angel of their Schools) as of their judgment herein; for he saith plainly, That impenitency continued in till death is no special sin, but a circumstance of sin. By this doctrine, it is no sin, no transgression of any divine precept to be impenitent, or to persevere therein to the end.

Those who will be concluded by the Council of Trent, must believe that there is no divine precept which requires Contrition or true Repentance precisely, but only disjunctively, either that, or what is there declared to be sufficient without it. And they must take it for certain, that it is not a medium necessary to Salvation, since that Council has determined, that something else will suffice for pardon without it; and so they declare it expressly.

Sect. 4.

But let us take notice of those who seem more severe. Many there be, who think that Repentance is under a Divine command; yet these in the issue make it no more necessary then the other, who find no precept for it. For they determine that we are not obliged to Repent presently; that it may be deferred till the approach or danger of death; and in fine, that it is needless, even when a man is dying.

For the first, They teach that a Sinner is not bound to Repent presently, it is lawful to defer it. So their Doctors of all sorts, so all the faithful (say they) so the whole Church, That a man is not bound to Repent presently is a conclusion, saith Soto, established by the practice and the usage of the Church. Cano tells us, it is his own, and the common opinion, That a man is not obliged to Repent forth-with; and this he saith is confirmed by best Reason, viz. The consent of all the faithful, both Priests and People; and adds, That to make the precept so rigid as to require present Repentance, hath no probable reason, no nor any Authority.

Now this Doctrine concerning Repentance, in this first step of it, where it appears more modest and innocent than in its further advance, is yet very horrid and desperate. For it is all one as if they had said, That they may, notwithstanding any command of God, continue (for some time at least) in their hatred of God, and state of enmity against him, since that is confessed, the temper and state of the impenitent. Besides, it emboldens Sinners, and giveth them confidence to leave their souls at a desperate venture; presuming they may Repent time enough hereafter, when they can have no assurance of any time at all for the future. And it is the more dangerous, because their doctrine takes away all apprehension of danger, leaving them no fear, either of penalty, or sin in putting off Repentance. No danger of suffering by present neglects or delays, for they are told that they may Repent when they please. The Lord, saith one part of their Divines, is every moment ready to help them to Repentance; or say the rest, He will help them to it (if they please) in the Article of necessity; when ever the precept makes it their duty. And what should hinder them upon such encouragement to defer it, even to the point of death? they need not fear that they shall perish, nor need they fear they shall sin by thus putting it off. Some of their Doctors make it no sin at all, others as good as none. Bellarmine determines, That it is not a sin, but only a circumstance of sin, when the command doth not oblige; and that, it doth not presently, but only at a certain season. Medina affirms, That without all doubt it is lawful. Soto saith, it is but a Venial sin. Cano takes a course to reconcile them, he concludes it is no sin at all not to Repent presently; and that it is but a Venial sin to Will (or resolve) not to Repent. Now if it be no sin at all, there is no danger at all; if it be but a Venial sin, there is very little or none to be regarded, no necessity upon any account to Repent of it; and he saith the people never confess this in order to Repentance, the Priests never require it, nor regard it; by the consent of all we are not obliged to it.

Now that which a man is not bound to Repent of, he may still continue in, and so he may still continue resolved to put off Repentance, yes, so he may safely, say they, till the Article of necessity.

Sect. 5.

But when is that? Let us next inquire after it, and in the pursuit thereof, we shall discover the second point I charge them with. That a man, by their doctrine, needs not Repent all his days, till he be in danger of death.

This is their common doctrine, since the command to Repent is Affirmative, it doth not oblige but in time of necessity, even as other affirmative precepts do. All the question will be, When is this time of necessity, when it will be necessary to Repent without longer delay? Now their Doctors are agreed in no other Article of time, except it be the point of death, or when a man's life is apparently in danger. There is no other time in a man's whole life, wherein it is likely that Repentance should be requisite, but they deny it to be then necessary; and offer arguments to prove, that it is not needful in any other, however probable seasons. Let me show this in some instances.

Is it necessary to Repent at solemn times of worship, when we address ourselves in a more particular manner to a Holy God? No, say they generally: and Cano giveth this reason for it. Though acts of Religion be then required, yet Repentance is not an act of Religion, but of Revenge.

Is it needful on days of Fasting? It may seem so, because the main and proper end of Fasts, is the exercises of Repentance and Humiliation. No, say they, It is not needful then; for if this were the intention of God, or the Church, in enjoining Fasts, yet the intention of the Law-giver doth not bind us. No exercise of Repentance is with them, requisite on their Fasts, but what they may perform in a Dream: for if they sleep the whole Fasting day, yet they fulfil the Precept for Fasting . To their Fasts they require nothing but abstinence from some sort of meat, not any Religious act at all: and if with them the Precept for the Mass, or Prayer, could not be fully accomplished without some penitent sense of sin, as it may; yet neither the Mass, nor Prayer public, or private, is requisite to their Fasts. Yea, in extraordinary times for Prayer, upon occasion of some great calamity befallen them for their sins; they think not contrition for sin needful: the peopls know not there is then any necessity thereof; their Confessors and Preachers are never wont to mind them of this as a thing necessary; and therefore Lopez saith, He would not condemn any private person, that neglects it in these circumstances, and so concludes he after others. As for their common Fasts, these (no more than their Festivals) require not abstinence from acts of wickedness, much less Repentance for them.

Is it necessary when sins are brought to our remembrance, and when our minds dictate to us, that they are to be hated and Repented of? It seems then needful, if ever, seeing a practical judgment obligeth even in things lawful, though they be not otherwise necessary. No, not then, a man is not bound to Repent when his sins are offered to his mind, either speculatively or practically. One would think if a sinner needs not repent, when he is mindful of his sins, it could never be needful, since he can never repent but when he is mindful of them.

Is it necessary when a sinner comes to their Sacraments; particularly to that of Penance? This must be the time for it (as we may well conceive) if there be any time for it at all, in the Romish Church. Then a sinner is to survey his life, to find out his sins, and as a Penitent to make particular confession of them, and is to have pardon of his sin, as one that truly Repents; being absolved by a judicial sentence, as valid, as if Christ himself did pass it immediately. If Repentance be not needful, when a sinner is to have pardon, then the Lord never required it, nor can it ever be made necessary by man.

This notwithstanding, Repentance, they say, is not necessary, no, not for the Sacrament of Penance. Attrition will serve for that, which is but a slender dislike of sin, because it is hurtful to a man's self, without respect to God, as it is offensive to him. This, though short of true Repentane, is sufficient to qualify a man for the Sacrament of Penance, by the Doctrine of their Church. For they hold the Sacrament is not only duly administered; but effectual for all its ends and purposes, when there is no obstacle in the receiver; the obstacle in this case is complacency in mortal sins, the complacence is gone, when sin is disliked or displeasing out of any respect, and so the obstacle is removed by the dislike of sin, which is in attrition.

Thus comes Attrition to be sufficient, and true Repentance not needful, no, not for the Sacrament of Repentance.

This is not only concluded by the generality of their Doctors, but by the Council of Trent. And by these particulars we may discern, That Repentance with them, is not necessary, at any season of a man's life, when it would be counted so, if they did judge it needful at all, before the approach of death.

Sect. 6.

But indeed there needs no induction of particulars to prove this, for they declare plainly that by the command of God, it is not necessary to repent till one be at the point of death. This is said to be the judgment of Aquinas, Soto, Navarre, Durand, Medina, Cajetan and others in Suarez. The ground of it is, because the reasons brought to prove that it doth not oblige presently; prove it as much of any other certain time in our life, except that only when a man is dying.

It is to the same effect that others say, the precept does but oblige in danger of death, or perpetual madness. So Bonacina and in him (besides Jesuits) Medina, Sotus, Angles, Zerola Pitigianus, Sayrus, Molfesius, and others. De Sacram. ibid. n. 5. So that while a man is like to live, and be sober, he need not repent: but if he be in danger to die, or run mad, he should be so wise as to repent first, but how he shall know when he is like to run mad, or that his madness will be perpetual, is a hard question; and till he can resolve it, they will go near to excuse him. And if he can have a Confessor, though he be at the point of death and distraction too, he need not trouble himself with repenting, that proviso they still add ( saltem quando non adest copia confessarij, cui fiat confessio cum attritione ) this indeed is it, that their Confessors serve, for to save sinners the labor of going to Heaven, by turning them out of the only way to it.

However by this it appears, that any Papist hath warranty by their Doctrine to live impenitently, till he be in danger to live no longer. He need not grieve for offending God, till he be dying, nor resolve upon that account to forsake any sin, till there be reason to think, that he can live no longer to commit it.

What a Temptation is here for all wicked persons to turn Papists, if they could but prevail with themselves to believe in this particular, as the Church believes, against all that God hath declared concerning repentance? And since men easily believe, what they desire should be true though against the word of truth: how strange would it be, if the World did not wonder after the Beast?

Sect. 7.

But though they excuse a sinner from repenting all his l •… e before, yet when he comes to die, do they not then make it needful? they make some show of it indeed, but it is a mere delusive show; & they are therein as false to their own pretensions, as they are to the Souls of sinners. For at the approach of death (as at any period before, wherein some of them seem to make Repentance necessary, yet) even then they abuse them with conceits, that something else will serve without it. The expedients which they have provided, thus to delude perishing Souls all their lives, and even when they are passing into eternity, are many and various; that those who do not like to be ruined one way, may be taken with another; and so, that repenting, which alone can secure them, may be declined by all.

First, Repentance without any sensible sorrow for sin, will serve the turn. This is the way of Scotus, and Vega and others. A will not to have sinned, though it be without any grief for sin, or without any actual consideration, that he hath sinned, is sufficient for pardon. Such an act of the Will is the essence of that contrition which procures forgiveness, as not only Scotus, but Paludanus, Cajetan, Soto, Victoria and Navarre in Lopez.

Sorrow is not essential to Repentance, but an effect; and such a one as is contingent and separable, and doth not necessarily follow it. Correspondent to this is their Doctrine who teach, that a virtual Repentance is sufficient, any act whatever, which may be counted penitence virtually; though it be no such thing actually, or formally; is enough by their common Doctrine, any love to God above all is such a virtual Repentance, though without any remembrance of sin, this is not only the opinion of Medina, but that which is commonly received. Any kind of love will serve for this, though it be but natural, and such as may be had without the grace of God, as Navarre expresseth it. And the limitation which he would seem to add, that such a virtual Repentance is but sufficient when there is no time for a formal Repenting, is excluded by their common Doctrine. For he and others with him generally teach, that there is no space of time requisite for this, but it may be sufficiently dispatched in a moment.

And some of their chief Divines hold, that a sinner being pardoned upon this virtual paenitence, if he remember his sins afterwards, is not bound to repent of them. So Corduha, Sotus, Vega, Bonacin. ibid d. 5. q. 5. p. 2. n. 1.

Thus we have Repentance sufficient to Salvation in the Roman Church without any sorrow, without any sense or remembrance of sin. And how can they count anymore sorrow for sin necessary? who hold That no prudent person doth confess his sins to a Priest, but he detests them formally or virtually, and so some way sufficiently: when it is known to be their common practice to confess sins, without any sorrow or detestation thereof? Yea even in the hour of death, asking God forgiveness without any remembrance of sin or actual Repentance, is enough for pardon. So Joseph the Minorite teacheth, favoring their conceit (as Lopez observes) who think it repentance enough, to beat their breasts, and say Lord have mercy. Nor doth such pernicious presumption find encouragement only in the Minorites Divinity; Pope Clement the 8th contributes more to it, when in his indulgences sent to Poland he promiseth pardon, to any one whoever that is dying, if he have but the name Jesus once in his thoughts, though he cannot express it.

As there can be no true Repentance without sorrow fought sin; so neither without Resolution to forsake it: and yet they teach, Repentance may be as well without this as the other. a virtual resolution may serve i. e. such a purpose to abandon sin, as he may have, who never thought of leaving it. Navarre tells us that the sufficiency of such a purpose is learnedly and magnificently asserted by Vega. He himself explains it and defends it, without any limitation, but, that the vanity whereof appears before; and tells us the Council of Trent requires not a formal purpose, but thinks that sufficient which is only virtual. And their Divines whom they call Nominals, deny that any purpose to forsake sin is necessary to Repentance, as Soto informs us. So that by the Doctrine of all sorts of Divines amongst them, a repenting, which wants the essentials of true Repentance, will suffice in life or death.

Secondly, A Repentance or sorrow for sin, which is merely natural is counted sufficient. The Apostle to true Repentance requires Godly sorrow. 2 Cor. 7. 9, 10. but they, many of them, think it not requisite that it should be Godly, no not in respect of its original. That will serve, which is not from God, but from nature. Scotus a leader of one mighty Squadron of their School-Doctors determines, That such a sorrow may be had by the power of nature, as will in congruity merit pardon of sin. And Adrian, Durand with all the Nominals in a manner, take that to be his judgment, and are of the same persuasion themselves. The Franciscans maintained it in the Council of Trent. Aquinas whom the rest of their School Divines generally follow, was of that opinion too. And the chief of the Dominicans his modern followers (even those of them, who are loath their Angelical Doctor should appear to be so much a Pelagian ) do hold; that such a sorrow as is merely from nature (without either habitual grace, or special assistance) is enough, to justify him, who through ignorance thinks it enough. So Cano and Soto in Lopez, from whence Lopez infers , That in their account such remorse for sin, as requires special assistance, is not necessary to the justification of a sinner: but that may suffice, which is had from the power of nature, though the ground of it be but outward disgrace. Thus if we will believe the Roman Doctors, Thomists or Scotists (the Jesuits who serve themselves of both as they see occasion, I need not mention; since of their concurrence herein there is no question): a sinner may be saved by such a sort of Repentance, as is not the gift of God; but the pure issue of corrupt nature.

Thirdly, a slight and inconsiderable sorrow (such as falls short of what the Scripture calls for) will suffice instead of true Repentance. One act of grief, they tell us, is enough for the sins of a whole life, one only, there needs not two. So Soto, Bellarmine, &c. One act will serve for all sins in general and together, remembered or not remembered, in which sense they say a general Repentance will suffice. Their sense de Graffiis thus Reports. A particular Repentance is not required, but one general will serve, extending itself, at least virtually, to all mortal sins, both which he remembers, and remembers not; with a will to abstain from all; this is enough for Remission of sins.

Further, this one act of grief needs be but very little and slender, the very least remorse in the lowest degree that can be, will serve.

When they require no sensible sorrow at all to Repentance, but only a dislike of the will, or a will not to have sinned; the best and weakest motion of the will that way (against past sins) will suffice.

To the perfection of Repentance, a certain slender inward grief is requisite saith Maldonado, one act of Contrition, though it be remiss, is enough, saith Tolet. These two are Jesuits, but speak more modestly than others of their Doctors. Let us hear Cano we need not grieve for sin as much as we can, such an endeavor is not required in any other precept for Love, Faith, Hope, or Righteousness. Yea they would be foolish precepts, if they enjoined a certain degree. But if we need not grieve so much as we can, how then? Why, as little as can be: or if that will not satisfy, As little as we will. Quantumcun{que} sit remissa saith Navarre, Penitence be it never so little, it is sufficient for the washing away of all crimes, according to the common sense of the Doctors, quantumvis remissa, Be it as little as you will, says Lopez after Aquinas. No certain degree, none that can be assigned, above the least of all, is requisite in Bellarmine, Victoria, &c. But should there not be a degree, more than the least, for the more grievous sins? No, no more for them than the less. In honesty we may grieve more for the greater, to comply with the advice of God, but there is no necessity for it; it's only matter of Counsel, and so left to our pleasure. But must we not grieve for sin, as those who conceive it to be hateful above all, and most to be avoided? No, not that neither: Lopez tells us, that neither Council, nor Scripture have declared it necessary to grieve for sin, as that which is most hateful: and (which is more than all,) that the Council of Trent requires it not. Navarre had said as much before him, only the former thinks, it may be requisite that the penitent do not expressly or positively form in his mind a Resolution not to grieve for sin above all that is hateful. Thus is Repentance reduced in a manner to nothing: in respect of Appretiation, it is too much to grieve for sin, as that which is most odious: in respect of intenseness, it is enough to grieve less for it, than other grievances, the least degree of all is sufficient, and that which is next to nothing may serve.

Moreover, this one act so extremely little, may be dispatched in a moment. The least degree of it is enough, but the least continuance is too much; all the Repentance that is a Sinners duty, may be perfectly finished in the twinkling of an eye; an indivisible instant can serve all the exigencies of it, and it may be as soon over as a man can say peccavi. It's such an act as vanishes so soon as ever it appears, and is come and gone before there is time to observe it; they allow not the least space, the least particle of time to be necessary for it: And it is so in Faith, Hope, Love, and other virtues; no man ever required any space of time for this; so Bellarmine, Cano de Graffiis; so Navar, so all in a manner; for he tells us, it is the common sense of their Divines. The least penitence that may be, in the shortest time that can be, yea, in that which is less than any particle of time, even in an instant, is enough to blot out all crimes. And Scotus, for saying that penitence dispatched in a moment, is not sufficient for pardon, had like to have suffered shrewdly, everyone almost being ready to fall foul upon him; but his followers have compounded for him, and brought him off with a distinction, which makes him say as the rest do, whether he thought so or no. And now it passeth currently, that all the sorrow which any need have for all his sins, may be over in less than a minute, and may be begun, perfected, and ended in less time than you can pronounce the least syllable of miserere; and this they restrain not to extraordinary cases, but conclude it as common to all. Finally,

This one little act so suddenly dispatched, need never return: Do it but once, and no need to do it again. The act, though next to nothing in degree; though nothing at all, as to continuance, is not necessarily to be repeated, or the defect of it to be supplied by another act, though there be time and occasion for it; all exercise of Repentance for sin, supposed to be thus pardoned, upon any occasion, is altogether unnecessary. Having passed one act of grief so extremely slender, & so suddenly over, he needs never trouble himself with it further; There is no command that can oblige us to have it twice for the same sin. Such is the Repentance which in the Church of Rome is counted sufficient for salvation, even in ordinary cases; how agreeable it is to that which the Scripture makes necessary, let others judge? to me it seems calculated for the humors of those who would be saved with a conceit of Repenting, without troubling themselves with the thing; yet this is not the worst. For,

Fourthly: When they have commended to Sinners a sort of Repentance, which is not sufficient to save them, they take it for granted that it is insufficient; and yet maintain that it is enough, if the Sinner do but think so, yea, or do not think the contrary. He that thinks he is contrite, saith Soto, when he is not; though his inward remorse be not sufficient, yet because he means honestly, he shall receive justifying grace by the Sacrament. Navar tells us that Soto herein followed Aquinas commonly received; and he after Franciscus Victoria judgeth it to be the plain sense of the Council of Trent, Carduba, Cano, and de Graffiis, with others, concur herein. As for the followers of Scotus, amongst them it is taught, That whosoever thinks he is contrite, hath really obtained pardon; and therefore none, who make account they bring contrition to the Sacrament, do by it receive the first Grace, because they are possessed of it already, by thinking so well of themselves, as Soto reports them. Add but Cardinal Tolet (that we may see how all Orders conspire herein) Those who come with remorse (which they think to be contrition) receive the first Grace. He thus explains it: Sometimes a man hath some grief for sin which is not sufficient for pardon; but the Sacrament being added, he is pardoned.

Thus all sorts agree in this conceit, which I know not, whether it be more ridiculous or pernicious, that a man's, thinking he hath true Repentance, when he hath it not, is enough (at least with the Sacrament of Absolution) to save him. Let any man but delude himself, or be deluded by others, with a false conceit that he truly Repents, when he doth not; and any Priest can let him, in his impenitence, into Heaven; if the best of the Roman Guides may be believed, or those Impostors regarded, who hereby make it plain, (if they did it no other way,) that they are given up to strong delusions.

Fifthly: If a man want that penitent sorrow which is sufficient, yet if he signify, that he would have it, or that he is sorry that he hath it not, it is as effectual, as if he had it. The Penitent is to be asked (saith Paludanus) whether he Repent; and if he do not grieve sufficiently, whether this do not displease him, and whether he would not grieve sufficiently; and this (saith he) is sufficient, which Sylvester would have well observed, because one so disposed may be absolved; (i. e. though he want that Repentance which is sufficient, yet he hath enough to put him into a saving state) and this he tells us, is not only the sense of Peter Paludanus, but of Aqninus and Bonaventure, and all their Divines. Navar saith as much approving it as the opinion of all their Doctors. And yet this willingness which they will have to supply the want of sufficient Repentance, is but a conditional Velleity, such as Lopez observes, may stand with an absolute unwillingness to Repent sufficiently; such a Will as a Whore may have to leave the Stews, when she hath an absolute purpose to stay there; and yet he himself will have such a Velleity with attrition (which is far from true Repentance) to be sufficient, in the want of it; and this leads us further.

Sixthly: Attrition, though known by the Sinner to be short of true Repentance, is sufficient without it, to pass him into a saving state, if the Sacrament be added. Betwixt Contrition (which with them is true or complete Repentance) and this Attrition, the distance is great; they give an account of it in many particulars. THAT is a grief for offending God, THIS for temporal or eternal punishment, as the greatest evil. THAT proceeds from filial, THIS from slavish fear. THAT cannot be had without supernatural assistance, THIS may be had by the power of nature, say many of them. THAT is an act formed by Grace and Love, THIS an act unformed, destitute of Grace and Love. THAT can pass one into the state of Grace, with a desire only of the Sacrament, THIS cannot, without an actual partaking of it. So in fine, THAT is complete Repentance, THIS but a defective remorse, such as was in, Antiochus and Judas. Attrition, we see by their own account, is very far from true Repentance, yet being held sufficient for a saving state without it, if the Sacrament be added, by virtue hereof, Repentance is most evidently rendered needless. And such Attrition they think sufficient for this purpose, as either ariseth from the turpitude of sin, as it is disagreeable to reason, or from fear of Hell, or apprehensions of temporal punishments and damage, as loss of Health, Credit, Estate, &c. The Council of Trent admitts of any of these. For Attrition by their declaration, is either that which proceeds from consideration of the turpitude of sin, or fear of Hell, or other punishment. And such Attrition is, with the Sacrament, sufficient for pardon, as is determined by that Council in these words, Hereby he makes his way to Righteousness, and although without the Sacrament, it [Attrition] cannot by itself bring a Sinner to justification; yet it disposeth him to obtain the grace of God in the Sacrament of penance: So that by their doctrine, Attrition so disposeth a Sinner for Justification, that their Sacrament being added, it actually justifies, i. e. puts a Sinner into a state of Grace and Salvation. From this sentence of the Council, as Bellarmine tells us, the Truth of what their Divines hold, is conspicuous, viz. That Attrition arising out of fear, is a disposition to Justification; and the Sacrament being added, doth truly justify. How generally they hold (with some difference of notion) the sufficiency of Attrition with their Sacrament, we may see in such as give an account of their Opinions distinctly (not taking any of the Society into the reckoning): it will be enough but to name some of them, since their suffrages after the determination of a Council are less needful. Some are for Attrition improved, as Henricus, Cajetan, Ferrariensis, Petrus, Soto. Some for Attrition, mistaken for Contrition, as Victoria, Soto, Ledesma, Vega, Corduba. Some for Attrition known to be so, as Aquinas, Scotus, Paludanus, Capreolus, Durand, Adrian, Antoninus, Sylvester, Cano, & some for the opinion of Attrition, without the reality. But this is enough to show, that by the doctrine of their Church, Attrition with the Sacrament, is sufficient to put a Sinner into a saving state at any time living or dying. Thus is true Repentance reduced to Attrition, and this made enough to qualify an impenitent Sinner for pardon, so as he cannot fail of it; and yet Attrition, of what kind so ever, can scarce pass for a good quality. That sort of it which is rational (a dislike of sin, because it disagreeable to reason) is not so good in their account as that which is ( servile); because as such, it is but a mere natural act, and hath no respect to God, and so hath nothing in it which looks like Godly sorrow. As for that which is servile, (a dislike of sin only, or principally for fear of punishment temporal or eternal) this is so far from being spiritually good, that it is morally evil. So bad it is, by the Authority and reason of their own Divines. Thus Gregory, Almain, and Adrian conclude , that it is evil to act out of fear of punishment, as the next end or motive. It is no better by the reasoning of others, who would have us think better of it. A Sinner thereby prefers himself before God (and that sure is a sin (in any, unless they will except his Holiness) not any repenting of sin); for he that dislikes sin for punishment principally, or as the greatest evil, regards more (as themselves argue) that which is evil to himself, than that which is evil to God, and so placeth the ultimate end in himself, not in God.

Sect. 8.

Having thus reduced Repentance to a thing no better than we see Attrition is, as though it were yet too good and too much; they bring Attrition down to nothing. It is but as they describe it, a dislike of sin, not as that is offensive to God, but out of other respects, wherein self-love is most concerned, and slavish fear is most operative. The least dislike of this nature will serve, and in the lowest degree that can be: Nor need this continue any longer than the least moment.

And it will be sufficient, say some, though it be but merely natural, excited by some natural or human motive, without the grace of God, or his Divine assistance: So Cano and Soto. Or it will serve if there be but a dislike, that this dislike of sin is wanting . So Paludanus, Navar, and others. Or it will be enough if there be a willingness to have it in those who have it not, according to the Doctrine of their holy men Aquinas and Richardus especially. Or a man's thinking probably, that he hath it when he hath it not, will serve the turn; so Cano and Vega. Or if he neither have it in reality nor in conceit, it will suffice, if he be but willing to partake of the Sacrament; for so they tell us, he is virtually willing to be attrite, and this qualifies him for pardon, though he neither actually hath Attrition, nor desires it; so Scotus and Sylvester after him. Thus after Attrition hath swallowed up true Repentance, yet it still becomes more lank by their handling, and in fine, shrinks quite away. But whether it be little or nothing, it will serve to justify them, yea, and that too, without their ritual penance; other Sacraments, or rites, with this, will do it. They advance the sufficiency of Attrition, for all the purposes of true Repentance, even without their penance. This, with the Eucharist, will serve, not (say they) that there is need of true contrition, a conceit that he hath it, with this and the Eucharist, will procure him pardon. This with extreme Unction will serve, as Sylvester tells us; yea, this may be enough without any Sacrament at all; as if a man in mortal sin, and so (with them) not in the state of grace, be killed, because he is a Christian, while he is a-sleep; if he was Attrite, and willing to suffer before, by virtue hereof his sins are pardoned; so Cajetan, Sotus, and Lopez after them.

In short, the Mass may serve their turn; for divers of them hold, that this being offered for such as are Attrite, by virtue thereof ( ex opere operato ) immediately, and without more ado, they have pardon of mortal sins, and habitual grace; so Catharinus (in Cano; loc. Theol. l. 12. c. 13. p. 693.) and others.

Here is competent provision made, that Sinners may perish securely, and never look after true Repentance, living or dying. There is but one thing which may seem to give some check to this great encouragement. These administrations, whereby they will have the Impenitent saved, depend upon a Priest; and the Sinner may be in such circumstances (though this be very rare) wherein a Priest cannot be had, and then if he should chance to die without Contrition, he will perish. But this need not disturb any in their course of impenitence; for in case of necessity, where a Priest cannot be had, another may serve in his stead, though he be a Laic, Confession may be made to him, and God will supply the want of a Priest; so Aquinas (in 4. dist. 17. q. 3. art. 3.) or he may have the Eucharist administered to him without a Priest: and it is their common doctrine, that the Eucharist justifies one that is in mortal sin, if he be attrite, and thinks but himself contrite. yea, he may administer it to himself with the same effect, in case of necessity: divers of all sorts amongst them are of this opinion. The Authority of Aquinas is alleged for it, (3. q. 82. art. 3.) and Cajetan in Matth. 26. The example of the Queen of Scots, (commonly produced) who having the Sacrament by her, administered it to herself, is highly approved by all.

Thus far Satan has prevailed with them, to promote the Damnation of Sinners, by hardening them in impenitence, even when the interest of their Priests seems a little concerned. But what if a Catholic Sinner, relying upon such Impostors, still neglect true Repentance, and death surprise him so suddenly, as to render these other devices unpracticable, is not his case then desperate? No, he may have as good hopes of Salvation as other Catholics have, a probable ground for his hope (and none must have any certainty.) Such a ground is the judgment of their Angelical Doctor, who declares, that if one sick desires penance, and before the Priest comes, he dies, or is speechless; the Priest may look on him, as if he had confessed, and may absolve him, being dead, (Opusc. 63. de offic. Sacerd.) Accordingly Clemens 8. Absolved one whom he saw falling from St. Peters Church in Rome, (Molfes. t. 1. tr. 7. c. 5. n. 48.) So that any may be Absolved, i. e. Pardoned and Sanctified (for the sense of the Priests Absolvo, is, I give thee grace which pardons thy sins, Impendo tibi gratiam remissivam peccatorum ut communiter Doctors, in Jo. Sanc. disp. 27. n. 18.) even after they are dead, if they did but desire confession before. Now those amongst themselves, who do not desire confession while they live, are such only as will not have Salvation if they might, upon the most trivial terms, and so none need fear Damnation, how impenitent soever; otherwise they live and die but such as are worse than any Devil now in Hell. And who can accuse them as too rigid, if they make true Repentance unavoidably necessary for such as these, since this doctrine makes it needful for none besides?

All these ways any man may be saved without true Repentance, if he will believe the Roman Doctors (though if we believe Christ, he shall certainly perish that repents not, whatever course he takes besides.) Any of these are probable, and may be by their principles (having grave Doctors, more than enough, to authorize them) safely followed; but that of the Councils prescribing is infallible, and will not fail to secure those who practice it, if anything in their Church may have credit; nor can fail to ruin those who follow it, if the word of God may be trusted. Thus while they would increase their party, by having it thought, that in their way, scarce any Roman Catholic will be Damned; they take the course (in this, as in other particulars) that none, who w • ll follow them, can be saved, unless salvation be for the impenitent.

Sect. 9.

By this it is also manifest, that the charge brought against them in the three last Articles, for making Saving Faith, Love to God, and true Repentance needless in life or death, is not founded only upon the opinion of their private Doctors, or the greatest part of them, but hath that which they count the surest ground of all, the determination of a general Council confirmed by the Pope. For if Attrition be sufficient, as that Council declares, then true Repentance is not necessary. If grief for sin, out of slavish fear, or shame only, without any love to God, be enough, then Love to God is needless; and if Love be not needful, then Faith, which works by Love, and is the only saving Faith, is needless, till there be no time for it to work.

But is it credible, that they who sometimes seem to lay so great stress upon these graces, as necessary to salvation, should contradict, not only the Scriptures, but themselves, and make them needless, not only all a man's life before, but even when he is dying? sure, they must have some device, to supply, in pretence at least, the want of these; if not before, yet at the point of death, and will substitute something in their stead, of supposed equivalence to them. Indeed they are fruitful in inventions tending to ruin souls, and subvert the doctrine of salvation: and one particularly they have in this case; and that is, what we before mentioned, their Sacrament of Penance. When a man is near death, if he be Attrite, and confess his mortal sins to a Priest, and be absolved; by virtue thereof, he hath remission of sins, and together therewith infusion of grace, particularly of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Thus they come to have grace in a moment, who lived graceless all their days before; and had died so if such a Rite had not been provided for their relief. By virtue of this Sacrament Love is planted in their heart, and their Faith in God, and sorrow for sin, is formed by Love, and becomes saving; so that if they die presently in that state, their salvation is secured. But what if they live, must not these habits be afterwards exercised? must not there be some act of contrition in those who never had any before? No, by their doctrine there is no necessity for it, though there be no true actual Repentance without it. The question is in one of their greatest Divines, Whether in the Law of Grace, after justification obtained by the Sacrament of Penance with Attrition alone; there remain any obligation to have Contrition? and it is resolved, that there is no such obligation, and that this is the judgment of all those who hold that the Sacrament of penance doth justify with Attrition alone, known to be so; and these are the most for number, and the most considerable for authority in their Church and Schools, Aquinas and Scotus, both, whom the rest most commonly follow, concurring in it, besides their great Council.

Sect. 10.

This then is the doctrine of their Church introduced there, instead of that of the Gospel: the Habits must serve to save them without their Acts, and the Sacrament of Penance, will help those that are attrite, to those Habits. Here's all the hopes they have for sinners, whom they have encouraged to continue all their days, without Repentance, saving Faith, or Love to God, even to the very Article of death. If this Sacrament do not perform all this for them, they will not deny, but they are certainly damned? But what ground have they for this, upon which their everlasting estate depends? None at all, but their own opinion, and the opinion of such men as themselves, without any support from the word of God. If their own word will secure them for Eternity, they are safe enough; otherwise trusting to this, they are lost forever, the whole weight of their salvation hangs upon a Spiders Web, spun out of their own conceits. For this Sacrament of Penance, upon which all depends, is a mere invention of their own; there is no divine institution for it, it was never authorized by God, he never promised anything to it, or any part of it upon their terms, much less any such thing as they expect.

And who but they who are under the power of strong delusions, would trust to anything for Salvation, without a word from him; who is the absolute Disposer of grace, and the Sovereign Lord of life, and death? Some of themselves acknowledge that their Sacrament of penance was never instituted by Christ. And many of them hold that the material parts of it have no such institution: Now to trust to any device of man for spiritual effects, of so high a nature, is impious folly; but to lay their Salvation on it is prodigious madness. They may with as much reason, expect the infusion of grace from the sprinkling of holy-water; or the cleansing of a Soul at death from the guilt and stain of sin, by a Priests spittle; the Lord hath given them no more ground to expect anymore from the one, than from the other.

But I need not insist upon anything which they may have the confidence to deny. It will be plain enough by what they cannot but acknowledge, that neither pardon, nor grace can be expected from their Sacrament of Penance as ordered by them. For, they assert that pardon and grace are always inseparably conferred together; So that he hath no infused grace, that hath not pardon. And it cannot be denied, but that pardon can never be had, without true Repentance, in Scripture nothing is more evident. He therefore that comes to the Sacrament of Penance with Attrition only, and so without true Repentance; he gets thereby nothing at all: neither pardon, which cannot be had without Repentance; nor infused grace, which is never had, without pardon; neither Love, nor Faith working by love, nor Godly sorrow, nothing that is saving; unless he can have it without God, or against what he hath expressly declared. So that if he comes to this their Sacrament in a damnable condition, he certainly dies so, for any relief that Rite will afford him. And therefore their Doctrine which encourageth sinners, to live all their life, without saving Faith, or Love, or Repentance; in confidence that this rite will help them to these graces, when they are dying, is a damning imposture; and their Sacrament of Penance, a most pernicious trap to draw sinners (as they set and bait it) out of the way of Salvation, whilst they live; and to plunge them into Hell, when they die, without any apprehension of their danger, till there be no way to escape it.

Sect. 11.

Hereby they manifestly declare themselves to be enemies to Christianity, and the Souls of men. For what more effectual course could they take to destroy these, and root out that: than by concluding it certain (as certain as they would have a decree of the Council of Trent accounted) that though sinners neglect the great Duties, and Acts of Christians, and live in any wickedness opposite to the rule of Christ: yet the Church hath a device to save them; and by it they may be sure to escape Hell without true Repentance? What is this, but to declare, that the most damnable neglects and practices shall never damn them, though they never repent thereof, the Church hath a trick to secure them notwithstanding? What is this, but to proclaim that the Laws of God, and the rules of the Gospel are unnecessary impositions, without the observance whereof Salvation may be had? The knowledge of Christ, explicit faith in him, actual love of him (which comprize all the rest) as they teach, are not necessary as means, Salvation may be had without them: and as for a necessity hereof by virtue of any Precept, that is not considerable, but in reference to the danger of not observing the precept; and there's no danger in this, though the neglect hereof were in their account a mortal sin, no more than in Venials (or no sins at all); if it will not damn those, who never truly repent of it. So that plainly by excusing sinners from Repentance, they make all sins safe, and all duties needless: and give men assurance, that they may live and die impenitently, in the neglect of all, even the most important duties; and in the practice of any, the worst wickedness, and yet be saved. There never was any Heresy broached in the World, more monstrous and pernicious than this which the Council of Trent hath brought forth, it hath all the damnable wickedness, both as to judgment and practice, that ever was or can be on Earth, in the bowels of it. It promotes the Birth, the Growth, the continuance thereof: for it promiseth safety to impenitency therein, yea Salvation too, by a knack of a very easy use, and new invention. It hath in it the venom of all damning opinions, practices and neglects; for that which makes them all deadly is impenitency; not would they without this be finally and unavoidably destructive. But this would have impenitency itself swallowed.

Sect. 1.

HOliness of life, is needless by the Popish Doctrine, though the Lord hath made this every way necessary both as a duty, which he indispensably requires: and as a means, without which he ordinarily will save no man, it is declared necessary both ways at once, Heb. 12. 14. The Papists indeed boast much of it, and seem sometimes to lay great stress on it, as if they would have it to be a character of the true Church; concluding theirs is the only true Church; because there is no Holiness to be found in the World, but amongst them only. Thus they pretend it to be of greatest consequence, but this is but to serve another turn, the design is not for Holiness of life, for their Doctors count that more than needs. And really they are extreme good Husbands here, and make a little Holiness go a great way: for it is enough to denominate the Universal Church holy; if there be but one holy person in it, so Costerus. How many soever of its Members be dead, and impious; so long, as there is any one man, that retains Holiness, the Church must be called holy. And then to make this one man holy, one act of virtue is enough; and that a very slender one too, for saith Banns. Any one act of Charity how weak soever it be, is enough to fulfil all the commandments of God. Now he is doubtless a holy man, who fulfils all those Commandments. Further, this one act he need but do once, and that not all his life, he may defer it, till he die, if he have no mind to trouble himself with it in any part of his life before, as we have already shown. Yea, and he may be excused from it, when he is a dying too, as well as whilst he lives, if he can but get a Priest to absolve him: and the Priest must absolve him, if the dying man give but any sign, which may be interpreted a desire of it. And their Sacrament he must have and be absolved absolutely when speechless and senseless, if any can but witness that he desired Confession. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 10. c. 2. Sylvest. v confess. 3. n. 16. Paludan. dist. 21. q. 2. a. 2. Concl. 2. Yea if he did not desire it, nor ever give any sign of Repentance; he may be conditionally absolved, Rituale Pauli. 5. And though he have lived wickedly without restraint all his days, if at last gasp he be attrite, and have but (though it never appear) the virtue of Judas ( • only hoping better i. e. presuming more than he did) by virtue of such absolution, he will be as certainly saved, as other good Catholics: though the other unfortunate wretch for want of a Priest (as virtuous as himself) to absolve and give him hope, was unhappily damned.

See here a most compendious way to be holy! who can imagine any other, but that such principles as these, make holiness of life extremely needful? But more particularly, we may discover how necessary they judge it, by what they determine concerning the necessity of exercising Christian virtues; and the forsaking of sin. There is no need of either of these by their Doctrine.

Sect. 2.

It is not necessary to live in the exercise of such virtues (though one would think, that Religion could not be Christian, which obligeth not the professors of it, to Christian virtues; and excuseth them from the most proper Character of true Christianity) yet those who have the confidence, to account themselves the only true Christians, do this. For they teach, that the acts of these virtues are required by affirmative precepts; and such commandments oblige not at all times; no nor always when there is occasion, and opportunity for the exercise of them: but only in the Article of necessity, and when this is, it is not certain, there's no determination of it, it must be left to discreet men to judge: and being left to men, either they find no time for it at all; or none that will signify it needful, to live in the exercise of such virtues. To exert an Act of virtue once a year, or once in many years, or once in a whole life, or at the hour of death, is far enough from the daily exercise of Christian virtues; or an intimation, that it is needful in their account, who so determine. But indeed their Church is more indulgent, and assures them all (that have no more regard for their Souls, than to believe it): That at the hour of death, one act of slavish fear (though themselves count not that so much as a moral virtue) with confession, will excuse the neglect of every Christian virtue, all their lives; and make their way at last into Heaven, though they never had one act of virtue, any one character of a Christian all their days. A pleasant doctrine indeed, and greedily to be swallowed by those, that have an Antipathy to a holy life; if the Gospel, and the Doctrine of Christ, concerning Hell and Heaven and the way to it, could be counted but Fables.

Sect. 3.

They reckon but Three Theological or Divine virtues; all the other they call moral, of which the Divine are the foundation; and so all the rest must stand or fall with them. Now two of these three they make needless (as is before declared) and without these two, Hope, which is the third, is so far from being needful, that it is not possible to have it, as themselves acknowledge. A lively hope, with them, is needless, till they be dying; and then it can but be like the giving up of the Ghost. For to all that follow their Doctrine, and look after no more than that makes necessary: their hopes at last can be no better, no other, than the expectation of such a pardon of sin; as a Priest can give to an impenitent person, one to whom the Lord, did never give hopes of pardon. And this is a hope, than which despair itself is more hopeful: for this leaves no sense of danger, (which despair retains;) and so leaves no desire, nor endeavor to avoid it, even when they are sinking into bottomless misery. Hope is no more needful with them, than a House is to him, who thinks himself concerned, to dig up the foundation of it; and counts it enough that he hath a Castle in the Air. And when they have left nothing that can be a real ground of hope; they found it upon that, which is worse than nothing, their own merits: that which is inconsistent with the free grace of God, and the merits of Christ, without which Sinners are hopeless. It is a conjecture, founded upon a delusion, upon merit, which no man can have, and themselves say, none of them know they have, and so upon they know not what. Oh! wretched hopes, that have not so much for their foundation as the Sand, that have nothing to bear them up, but a proud and groundless fancy; that we might count ridiculous, if it were not too horrid to be the matter of sport. Can they blame those, who doubt, whether they will be saved; when they themselves have no better hopes of their own salvation?

How much they are concerned for hope, they declare, when they tell us, that the precept for hope does but, of itself, oblige, when the soul is tortured with the more grievous assaults of despair. It seems, unless they be violently tempted to despair, they need not hope. This rarely falls out as to any, and is scarce the case of one in a thousand, so that there is not one of a thousand in Popery, who would have any hope in God, or of mercy from him. No not any at all, as others teach; for the command for hope is satisfied both by grief for sin, and also by a purpose against it ( Dian. after others, v. Spes. ) So that either of these, or both at lest, will supersede all acts of hope forever, and make them needless. And indeed he that considers what sorrow and purposes they count sufficient, may believe them, when they teach, that these leave them without hope.

Sect. 4.

The next in excellency to the divine graces, by their account, is humility, and for this their doctrine makes excellent provision, as a virtue most necessary, by quite sweeping away the true ground of it. It leaves them without sense of any sinfulness, weaknesses, or unworthiness, to make, or keep them humble. Being baptized, by virtue thereof, all the sinfulness of their natures is not only pardoned or weakened, but quite washed away, and utterly abolished. So that they are Pure, Immaculate, Innocent, even as our first Parents were in the state of Innocency; not anything left in the least, that can be truly counted sin. So that it would be very absurd and irrational, for them to be humble under the sense of any remaining sinfulness, since they believe really there is none. But if they sin mortally afterwards (for Venial sins they make no account of, and think that the Lord herein, is such an one as themselves) they may be presently restored again by their Sacrament of Absolution, to a perfect Righteousness, without the least mixture or allay of what is faulty. A perfection short of Heaven, because not so firm and fixed, but not wanting a hair of what is due; having not only all the parts, but every degree of what is required for their present state. And by the power hereof they can fully and perfectly fulfil the whole Law in every Precept, without any culpable defect; they can fulfil it very easily facili & parvo negotio. Yea they can do much more, than the Law requires, or the Lord. hath made their duty: so far are they bereaved of all sense of any weakness, that might humble them. And their righteousness is not only spotless, but meritorious; there is such a transcendent worth and sufficiency in it (as they improve it) that they need not (at least after they are justified) ask anything of God, but what they fully deserve at his hands. All that God doth for them, is but the paying of his debts, his bounty is prevented, his grace is quite excluded; it is not in his power to bestow any free gift: all is due to the meritorious excellency of their performances, beforehand. They can merit the first grace in congruity, the second grace by way of condignity: and Heaven and Glory is as due to them, as a penny for a pennyworth; or Hell is due to proud presumptuous sinners. God would be unjust, and not pay what he oweth them, on their own just account, if he should not let them have all the glory of Heaven and Eternity. They can merit the pardon of Mortal sins before they have grace; pardon of venial sins before, or after; they can merit the continuance of grace while they have it: and the restoring of it, when they have lost it. They can merit not only for themselves, but for others; and deserve for them, not only pardon, but grace: such grace as will enable them, to set up, and merit Heaven for themselves. They can merit not only habitual grace for them: but the Divine assistance, whereby the Lord works it. They can merit for them not only while alive; but when they are dead: and by their merits, bring them out of those torments which are equivalent to the pains of Hell, but only for the continuance, which their deserts hinder from being everlasting.

Here's a Doctrine as proper to nourish humility, as poison is to make a man fat and healthful; however this, as that, is apt to swell them big; and mount them upon the heights of boasting and glorying. It is far below persons of such Dignity, to receive eternal life at God's hands, as a poor man receiveth an Alms: absit, far be it from them, it moves their indignation to think of it; that they should expect eternal glory for God's sake. They will not so disparage themselves as to have it in such a beggarly way: They will have it for their own sake, as that which they fully deserve, or else be without it. They will have it in a way more glorious, becoming persons of such transcendent worth, as Conquerors and Triumphers as a Laurel which they have sweat for, and is due to their merit. The Lord must treat them as persons of such high quality, and in a way that suits their honor: Now it is much more honorable saith Bellarmine, to have a thing by his own merit, than another's gift (though God be the giver) And the Lord (adds he) to honor them, would have them get Heaven by their own deserts. Oh! humble Doctrine, and that which is as like the Gospel, as the Apostle St. Paul was to the King of Pride. Can they think Humility needful, who plucking away the true grounds of it instead thereof, instill those principles, than which Hell can scarce hatch any prouder?

Sect. 5.

As for those virtues which concern men, they are all comprised in love, that love which assects others as capable of eternal happiness, and so desires it for them. Thus they describe Christian love (as for human or natural, we are not here, concerned in it) and tell us, it is this the Scripture speaks of Joh. 15. Colos. 3. and cannot deny, but it is called for in the New Testament most frequently, and with greatest importunity, and yet their Doctrine makes it needless. We are not bound saith Sylvester to be moved with love towards any men whatsoever, but only in preparation of mind, if necessity occur. This seems to dissolve the obligation of this great command, and turn it into a mere Counsel; For in these very terms they describe a Counsel to us, and thereby distinguish it from an obliging precept: But are we bound to love our Brother, when there is necessity? No, not when he is in such necessity as is extreme (and consequently never) for though it be requisite, that we help him in that condition; yet we sin not, if we do not help him, out of Christian love; it is enough to avoid sin, if we relieve him out of natural affection. Thus Navarre. And this holds, not only in the external necessities of others, but also in those that are spiritual, only he saith, that it very rarely falls out, that one can relieve spiritual necessities, without this Christian love, but he tells us also, That a Christian is rarely in such necessity. So that though it cannot be done without Christian love, but very seldom; that will not make such love a duty at any time; because the external act needs not be done, but seldom. Yea if the external act also, whereby we should relieve the Soul of our Brother, be neglected, it's with them, no great matter. For as Cajetan determines That weakness of mind, which withholds us from those things which are profitable to our Neighbor, especially for the Salvation of Souls, though it be grievous, it is but a venial fault. In short, what ever be the circumstances of our Brother; yet we may be excused from loving him indeed, if we do but think, we do it. For Navarre and others tell us, that he who honestly thinks himself to be in the state of grace, when he is not; may satisfy this command for Christian love, by some other kind of affection, so that it is enough to think that we have this love, when we have it not; and this is confirmed by a Reason a fortiori, because it is so, in our obligation to love God. Thus one dangerous error is grounded upon another, and by such arts we are discharged from all Christian affection to God or Men. But we need not stay longer here. All necessity of this love they quite take away, by making it needless to love God; the connection between these, being indissoluble, by their own account .

If any will not rely upon consequences, Cajetan tells them that the command to love our Neighbor as our self, obliges not to a love of charity, i. e. to that special love which was always thought, (till the Roman Doctors taught otherwise) to be the great duty required of all Christians by the Gospel. By the Doctrine of Aquinas The precept requires, no special act of love to our Brethren, no formal or internal act at all, nor any exterior, that will signify more than the want of hatred. This is the common Doctrine amongst his devoutest followers, the Dominicans Others express it thus. There is no affirmative precept for love to our Neighbor, no time for it: it is enough that we do nothing against him. Thus, so great a part of the whole sum of the Law and the Prophets, and all the rules of the Gospel, leading us to Brotherly love and the special expressions of it, are snapped off short; and we reach all that they oblige us to do, by doing nothing: we love them well enough, though we neither will, nor do them good, if only we do them no mischief; or do no more for them than may be done, without inward affection, or any Christian Charity.

Sect. 6.

It would be tedious to pursue this in all particular virtues. The generals, which they acknowledge, will serve for the rest. They confess that knowledge must go before faith, and that faith is the foundation of Charity, and that charity (or love to God which hath its rise and being from faith) is the form and root of all virtues. They all agree in it, nor is it only evident by their own confession, but also by the nature of the things themselves; that other virtues depend upon Knowledge, Faith, and Love, for their being or exercise. For example, without love to God proceeding from faith, there can be no delight in God, nor desires to enjoy him. Delight and desire are but love in several postures; Desire is love in its motion, and delight is love in its rest. There can be no delight in enjoying that which we love not; nor can the enjoyment of it, be desirable. So also there can be no filial fear without love, for love is essential to it, and thereby it is distinguished from that which is slavish. Ingenuous fear springs from love, and is nourished by it, and increaseth or declines with it. It cannot be, nor act; but when, and where love is, and is acted. So that together with love the fear of God, and the acts of it are cashiered; even all due Reverence of him, and care not to offend him.

It is their common Doctrine, that there is no special command, either for servile or filial fear of God; so that the want of it need neither be confessed, nor repented of.

So likewise, There can be no hatred of sin, or sorrow for it, as it is an offense or dishonor to God, nor any true virtue at all without love; nor love without faith, nor faith without knowledge. Now these radical graces being rendered needless by their Doctrine (as I have declared before): They hereby stubb up all the rest by the Roots; so that neither sprigg, nor bud thereof can be expected. To tell us after this, that they count any exercise of Christian virtue needful; is as if a man should take the spring out of his watch, and then persuade us seriously that he counts it very necessary, it should still go, and the Wheels be always in regular motion.

Sect. 7.

But let us stay here a little longer, and observe how their principles (concerning love particularly) disengage all from any exercise of virtue, and every act that is truly Christian. They take notice in virtue, of a goodness that is merely Moral, such as may be found in Heathens; and of a goodness that is Divine and supernatural, such as ought to be in Christians. This latter (they tell us) is derived from their end, when in the exercise of them, they are referred to God, as our supernatural end, and acted for his sake, with an intent to please him. They declare further, That they cannot be thus referred to God without affection for him; nor done with a design to please him, unless they be done out of love to him: and so must be at least IMPERATE acts of love that they may be Choistian acts; and anything better than nature in the Heathen might reach. And yet they conclude (as appears before by variety of Testimonies) that we are not obliged to observe any command, or act any other virtue out of love to God. They find no time at all, when we are obliged to this, unless it be when we are bound to have an inward act of love for God; but when this is, they never agree, except in this, that it may be never. For those who seem to say that it should be sometime, though but seldom, or but once for all; in other words signify it need not be at all: since they assign something else, which may serve instead of it, when ever it may be thought requisite. Thus (according to their Rule in indefinite precepts) their wise men have determined; if their School-Doctors or Casuists, or their Council of Trent, will pass for wise. Now being thus discharged from doing anything out of love; They are thereby exempted from all Christian acts, and any other Christianity, as to the exercise of virtue, their honest Heathenism. It's true, They hold, they cannot be saved without meritorious acts, and cannot well think them meritorious, if they be no better than merely Heathenish: they should, (one would think) have some Christian character upon them and this of love particularly, that they may merit Salvation, and if they disengage their Catholics from this, they make it not needful for them to be saved. But I cannot help that, seeing they will have it so.

If they think there is no necessity their Catholics should be Christians (as they do, when they make no Act truly Christian needful for them); they conclude it not necessary for them to be saved, unless they believe, that such as are no Christians can be heirs of salvation. Their Church (Pope, or Council, or who-ever it is) must provide them some other Heaven, since that which is prepared for Christians they need not; no one step of the way to it being needful for them. All the necessity laid upon them by the Popish profession, is not for salvation, but for something else: they must be Roman Catholics, but they need not be true Christians; they must be the Popes subjects, but they need not be Christ's Disciples; and this (and the rest) because they need not learn of him one Christian act while they live.

Sect. 8.

Moreover, all exercise of Virtues so opposite to Acts in their account, but venially evil, is with them unnecessary. And this goeth near, not only to discharge all acts of Virtue, which are required of Christians, but such also as were found even in Pagans. This is grounded upon their doctrine concerning venial sins; these with them are not necessarily to be avoided, being either not prohibited by any command (as most of them hold), or by no command necessary to be observed (as some of them had rather express it), and therefore no need, that the virtuous acts opposite to them should be practiced. Upon this account, no exercise of Virtue will be necessary, but what is consistent with the vicious acts contrary thereunto, in any degrees of wickedness which they think Venial; no acts of Temperance, Sincerity, Righteousness, Truth, or Faithfulness, Chastity, Liberality, &c. will be needful, but what is consistent with all the Intemperance, Hypocrisy, Unrighteousness, Perfidiousness, &c. which by their doctrine is Venial. So he may be temperate who still loads his stomach till he Vomits, and is daily half drunk. He may be sincere enough, though he always design to seem better than he is, or good when he is not. He may be a man of Truth and Roman faithfulness, though his constant practice be telling Lyes, or breaking promises, or swearing falsely, so all be but in venial measures. He may be just enough, though in all his dealings, he be continually wronging others in lesser matters. He may be Chast enough, though he be unclean in thought, word, and deed venially. And he may be liberal enough, though he constantly practice all the covetousness which is opposite to every degree of liberality, so it be no worse. He may be Religious enough, though his soul never actually worship God; and Devout enough without any inward devotion, and Reverent enough, though greatly irreverent, even in the worship of God; and though at other times he be still profaning the Name of God with vain Oaths, and divers sorts of Blasphemies: Holy enough also, though he never have one act of inward holiness, no not on those days which either God or themselves have made holy. And in short, he may be Godly enough, though he never love, nor fear God till he die. (Some of these particulars are plain by the premisses, the rest will appear so when we present their account of Venial sins): So that, though a man were so far from expressing any Christian Virtue, that he should be instead thereof, continually acting the contrary sins in all degrees not mortal, yet he would not be condemned: For by their doctrine, all the venial sins in the world that a person can be guilty of (though every hour, every minute of a whole life, how long soever, should bring forth one or other of them), cannot possibly damn him. And since whosoever shall not be condemned, will be saved, (which themselves also maintain), consequently, he that after Baptism, acts not one virtue Divine, or Moral, whose whole life hath nothing of a Christian in it, but less and worse than a Pagan, will yet be saved. Thus may they be deluded, who will trust their souls in this infallible Church. They may be true Catholics, though they be not Christians, so much as to one religious Act; and may pass currently to Heaven, though they never move one foot in the way. Such a thing we must take Christianity to be, and with so gastly and frightful a face will it look upon the world; if Popery have not thus far abandoned it, and obtruded upon us a Changling, instead of what Christ left us; there will be no lineament of virtue in the visage of it, not one of necessity; nor needs there be more in the lives of those, who would be counted the only true Professors, and faithful embracers of it.

Sect. 9.

They have other ways to make the exercises of Christian Virtues unnecessary. They do it especially by turning the commands of God into Counsels. Of those things that are required in Scripture, some, they say, the Lord only adviseth and commends; others he commands and enjoins. Those which he adviseth, they call Evangelical Counsels; the other are divine Precepts. Now the precepts, they say, are necessary to be observed, sometimes at least; the Counsels are not needful to be observed at all, any man may be saved without complying with them, they are matters of supererogation, more than we need to do. So that all those Virtues, which they make but matter of Counsel, are unnecessary, the acts & exercise of them more than needs. And those which they make so expressly, are not small nor inconsiderable in themselves; and in consequence little less than all. Many of those admirable rules which Christ giveth us in his Sermon on the Mount, wherein the singular and divine excellency of that Religion, to which he calls the world, is so very conspicuous, they will not have to be Laws, obliging all Christians, but dissolve the obligation of them by declaring them mere Counsels; though they were ratified by our great Law-giver with those universal Sanctions, Matth. 7. 21. Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he which doth the Will of my Father, which is in Heaven; and v. 26. Everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his House upon the Sand; Maldonado giveth that as the account, why he is said, chap. 5. v. 2. THEN TO OPEN HIS MOUTH, because he never before propounded that sublime doctrine of Evangelical perfection. Of this nature in their account, is trusting in God such as frees us from solicitousness, about the things of this life, chap. 6. v. 31. 34. Sincerity of intention in doing good, such as is enjoined, v. 1. Patient digesting of injury, such as is commanded, v. 39. Relieving others freely, such as is required, v. 42. Innocent Communication, such as is specified, v. 37. Avoyding occasions of sin, such as are meant, v. 29, 30. Exemplary walking intended, v. 14. Poverty of spirit, v. 3. Spiritual mourning, v. 4. Christian meekness, v. 5. The three last, saith Soto, are Trinum Consiliorum votum. We must take them to be the peculiar concerns of votaries. Righteousness likewise, as to earnest desires after it, v. 6. Mercifulness, v. 7. Purity of heart, v. 8. as it is the height of Charity, Peacefulness also, v. 9. Love to Enemies, v. 44. more pressed by Christ than the rest, v. 45, 46, 47, 48. And before Popery, taken to be the proper character of Christians; but with them it is no duty, nor anything of like nature, as that Prov. 25. If thy Enemy hunger, feed him, &c. Yea, Acts of Mercy are no more our duty, for these are another instance of the same Author, immediately adding, Et reliqua praecepta misericordiae; not only that, Prov. 3. 4. Honor the Lord with thy substance; but all the rest in Scripture of like nature. So likewise, not only Magnificence, and magnanimity, but humility also, with sincerity of Conversation, and Christian simplicity, or plain dealing. If these be not enough, all good works are in danger to become no duties. Dominicus a Soto, tells us, there are three kinds of good works, to which all Christian Offices are reduced: One respects a man's self, the quelling of his own pleasures, signified by fasting; the other respects the Love of our Neighbors, of which kind is Almesdeeds; the third respects God and divine Worship, denoted by Prayer: and all these three with him are works of supererogation. When they come to an account in particulars, they vary not: As to what concerns ourselves, to abstain from our lawful pleasures, even when they may be an impediment to holiness, is but advice, we need not follow it. Also to avoid worldly cares, to be content with Food and Raiment, not to be eager after superfluities, not to be too solicitous for the body; not to affect dignities, are but matter of Counsel by their common doctrine, in Jo. Sanc. disp. 7. n. 10.

As for the concerns of God, no inward worship in public is under command, nor any outward, but the Mass; and for the hearing of that, no divine precept. No more are we obliged to worship in private, Meditation is reckoned among Counsels of perfection. Vocal prayer is not enjoined by God, and so all public prayer in Christian Families and Assemblies, are under no divine injunction. Mental prayer may be a duty, when it is our duty to Love God; but when that will be, is not well known: So mental prayer will be a duty, nobody well knows when. But this is a Jesuit who minces the matter too precisely. In the judgment of Aquinas, and the generality of their Doctors, mental prayer is under Counsel only. And it is the more considerable, because they tell us, that in mental prayer all the internal acts of Religion are comprehended; so that hereby the very soul of Religion is dismissed as a thing of no necessity among Roman Catholics. And since in all worship, public or private, they will have spiritual attention and devotion to be but matter of Counsel, (without which all that they call Worship is but a Cipher, or a blot rather); they leave no worship of God at all necessary. Cardinal Tolet gravely distinguisheth of a SANCTIFYING the Lord's day, and all other holy days (for which presence at Mass, and abstaining from servile work is sufficient); and of a sanctifying them WELL, (to which it is necessary, that he who is in mortal sin, should be contrite, and turn to God; and he that is in Grace, should give himself to divine Contemplation and good works, and both of them should abstain from new sin). Yet observe (saith he) that a man is bound under mortal sin to SANCTIFY the day, but not to Sanctify it WELL. And after concludes, So I am only obliged to these two things, viz. (presence at Mass, and avoiding servile works) but not to the end (to wit, sanctifying it well); although it be very good Counsel to perform all the other upon this day. Thus with him it is no necessary duty, to which any are obliged on Lord's days, or any other days for worship; to repent of sin, and turn to God, to meditate on divine things, and do good works, and abstain from any wickedness; all these it seems are only matter of Counsel; and herein he saith, Soto, Navarre, and Cajetan concur with him. And if they be only Counsels on all these days, the world will scarce find a day, when they will be duties. However with them, to do a thing, is commanded; to do it well, is not necessary. On all the days which either God or themselves would have kept holy, it is mere Counsel, either to do that which is good, or to think of it, either to be sorry for past wickedness, or not to commit more. And since it is no more on the holiest, it may seem not so much as a Counsel on profane and common days. The means of honoring God, being thus by them made unnecessary, no wonder if they discharge us from the due use of them; pious sedulity (diligence for Heaven and our souls) is but matter of Counsel, we need not trouble ourselves with it. No more scarce with anything else, for the shunning of Idleness is but Counsel, yea, and such as doth not oblige the Monks themselves, though they will have none else obliged by Counsels; in reference to them, Soto says, the avoiding of Idleness is not commanded.

Acts which concern others, are either those of Righteousness or Charity; for the former, how favorable they are, we saw before, they discharge us from such desires thereof as Christ encourageth to the uttermost, Matth. 5. 6. The latter they make corporal or spiritual. That Mercy or Charity which affords outward relief, even their Religious are not obliged to. Nor need others exercise it, by GIVING anything, no, not to those that are in greatest necessity, how much soever themselves have, how extremely soever others want. Spiritual relief, in affording of which, the exercise of mercy consists, they give an account of in many particulars, viz. advising those that want Counsel, teaching the Ignorant, comforting the Dejected, correcting Offenders, remitting Offences, bearing those that are burthensome, and praying for others. Now all these (and as many more belonging to the other branch) are no necessary duties, or (which is all one in effect) under no precept obliging to mortal guilt, except in two cases only, saith Navarre, and those two concern only corporal relief; so that all the other duties which we owe to the souls of men, are left arbitrary, as mere roatters of advice without exception. That of the Apostle, 1 Pet. 2. 13. For subjection to Governors is with them a Counsel. No more is that rule of Christ for Church Discipline & government, Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. if thy Brother shall Trespass against thee, &c.

Mortification can scarce with them be so much as a Counsel, for their doctrine will have nothing in us to be mortified; that which is to be so treated, is sin in us; but they maintain, that in a just man there is no sin after Baptism. Carnal concupiscence itself is sinless; it is natural to us, and so innocent. That which is in us by Nature, they say, is neither worthy of praise or dispraise: Hence they conclude, he is blind, who will say, concupiscence is a sin. They grant it induceth us to sin, but it is no more sin upon that account, than hearing, seeing, or other of our senses; than Gold, or Honor, or Beauty, or anything else that may draw us to evil; and so plainly, we are no more bound to mortify it (if sin only is to be mortified) than we are obliged to ruin our senses, to destroy gold, or to spoil the beauty of a hansome Woman. And the same must be said of other vicious habits, contracted by a continued practice of sin; for though they call these Vices, yet Vices with them are no sins, no more than Virtues are duties; the Law of God is not concerned in any habits, as it commands not those that are good, so it forbids not those that are vicious; and no reason to mortify that which is not condemned by the Law. However, they retain the word, but little else we meet with in them, about this great concern of a Christian; and a very odd object they find for it, instead of that which the Scripture assigns; it is the natural body that is to be afflicted and macerated, not the body of sin; and so they are not concerned to get the work of the Devil destroyed; it is the work of God that must be mortified. They may be excused, if they make not this so much as a Counsel. But they say the meceration of the body is in order to the bridling of concupiscence: It seems, as Innocent as it is, it may need a curb, yet they take care to leave it loose enough, for those severities which should hamper it, they say are not commanded. Afflicting of the body is under no precept, saith Soto and Sylvester, having told us out of Aquinas, that a Vow is properly of a work of Supererogation, acceptable to God; he adds, the maceration of the body, as such, for the bridling of Concupiscence, falls under Vowes. And so how unruly soever the flesh is, they may choose, whether they will use the bridle or no. Yea, if the Priest should be so rigid as to enjoin severities of this tendency, the Sinner needs not submit to them.

Nor will they have us more engaged against the world than against the flesh; all the evils of the world are by the Apostle reduced to three heads, 1 John. 2. 16. but the Oracle of their Schools tells us, that to relinquish these three wholly, as far as we can, belongs to Evangelical Counsels. Soto herein follows him, and tells us that Christ left this unto everyone under Counsel. So to be crucified to the world, and to get the world crucified to us, Gal. 6. is matter of advice with him, nor are we obliged thereto, in reference to those things, or Lusts, which very much endanger our souls.

Self-denial also hath the same measures from them. Bellarmine, by those words of Christ to the young man, Matth. 19. 21. Follow me, understands self-denial, explaining it by Matth. 16. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, it is nothing else, saith he, but to renounce ones own judgment and affections, and to accommodate himself to the judgment and will of other; this the young man should have done, but it was not his duty, it was only a Counsel of perfection, (as he and all of them conclude) to subject himself thus to the will and judgment of Christ. He distinguisheth indeed, and will have submission to the will and judgment of Christ in things necessary to salvation, to be a common duty enjoined, Matth. 16. and Luk. 9. But such a subjection of our wills and judgments to Christ in things not of themselves necessary to salvation, to be only a Counsel; it is advice for those alone that would be perfect. This is bad enough, for thus it will not be a duty to subject ourselves to Christ in most things; or to deny ourselves in anything, which is not in their sense a deadly evil. But Soto, than whom there was no Divine more considerable in the Council of Trent, advanceth farther, and concludes that self-denial, not only which is required, Matth. 19. Luk. 18. But that also commanded, Luk. 9. Matth. 16. (which the Cardinal understood to be a subjecting of our wills and judgments to Christ in things necessary to salvation) is but a Counsel; and tells us for a man to deny himself, is by Vow to give up his liberty to another's will; and so Christ nowhere enjoins other self-denial, than what their Perfectionists voluntarily oblige themselves unto by Vow, and the main duty of Christians is confined to Cloisters; that self-resignation, wherewith Christ should be honored, being transferred to an Abbot.

There is one thing more remains, which Christ requires of those, who will be his Disciples, that is, Christians (and but one where he gives us the sum of all) and that is suffering for him. It would be strange, if when they have eased themselves of the rest, they should leave their Catholics obliged to this. The device of Evangelical Counsels had not been so useful a tool, though it freed them from the rest of Christ's Yoke, if it would not have served to cast off the heaviest part of it; but hereby they can cast off Sufferings, greater, or less. Martyrdom they reserve for those who receive the truth in Love; for themselves it is only a Counsel when it serves for nothing more than the glory of God, and the advancing of the Faith; and this according to the judgment of Aquinas. If it be no more than an opportunity of manifesting the divine glory and edifying the Church, it is a work of supererogation, and of no necessity, saith another. Parting with other things for Christ is no more a duty; to forsake Brethren, or Sisters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands, for Christ's sake, Matth. 19. 29. is not a duty of any Christian, but only such as profess perfection, such forsaking all for Christ, to follow him, is more than needs, it was so in the Apostles. In short, taking up the Cross is more than is commanded, when it is join'd by Christ with self-denial, and following him, as the best character of his Disciples, Luk. 9. They take it to be but matter of Counsel, and so quit themselves of the full character of Christians at once.

If there be any virtue left, requisite for the practice of a Christian, which this Engine hath not yet demolished and brought to discretion, by working it otherwise, it will make clear work. The least degree of virtue, they say, is all that is necessary; none can be assigned above the lowest (in Faith, Hope, Love, Repentance, or other Virtues) which is enjoined. Now that which is lowest of all, is next to nothing; and that which is no more, can act no further; so that all exercise of Virtue which their doctrine makes needful, is either nothing, or next to it. All growth in grace, with them, is needless, for the first degree they attain is not only a sufficiency, but all the perfection that is necessary; what is more, may be profitable, but not simply needful. The first and least degree of Virtue in every kind satisfies the precept, and that being satisfied requires no more. So all other degrees will be but under Counsel; it will be no duty to look after more than the least, nor will the grossest negligence, as to endeavors for more, be any sin.

And since increase of Virtue is by the exercise of it, where the increase is not necessary, the exercise is needless. Further, no Act of Virtue in any degree is requisite, but only in the article of necessity; for then only affirmative precepts oblige, at all other times, they bind no more than mere Counsels, nor than neither, unless it can be known when this Article occurs; and how shall it be known? the Scriptures have not declared it, they say, nor Councils neither, why they have a rule in the case. Things not determined, are left to the Arbitrement of an honest man; & so it is left to every man's will, who can suppose himself honest; if he never find time for any act of virtue, he will not be obliged to any: or if he will be so cautious to consult their Divines in the case, some of them declare, that such a virtuous Act is rarely needful, nor can they certainly tell when: others conclude there is no necessity of it all. Now he may follow which please him best, even those (if he list) which discharge him from all obligations to the acts in question; and this he may do safely, not only by their doctrine of probability, but by the determination of their Oracle. The Council of Trent will secure him, though he never perform one act of Virtue all his life, nor repent thereof at his death, by a fine device, which is neither Repentance nor a Virtue, of which before.

Besides, all acts which have more than moral goodness, seem by their doctrine to be under Counsel, and all acts supernatural and truly Christian more than needs. They are not truly Christian, unless they be done out of respect to God, with an intent to please and honor him, as the Apostle requires, 1 Cor. 10. 30. But this rule, as Soto tells us, taken in that sense which is nearest to the letter, that all be actually referred to God, is but a Counsel. But may not a virtual intent to glorify God be necessary, though an actual respect thereto be but advice? No, not that neither, for without such a virtual reference, the acts we speak of, may be morally good, (as they say they were in those that knew not God) and so no sin. Now in any degree above this ( viz. wherein they are more than not sins, or anything better than merely inculpable) they are works of supererogation, if their great Cardinal be not mistaken.

There is yet another Maxim pregnant for this purpose; The mode of Virtue falls not under the Precept; that is, we are not enjoin'd to act in a virtuous manner, or as becomes virtuous persons, viz. out of a virtuous habit or principle. Aquinas, who delivers and maintains this maxim, explains it by this instance: He is neither punished by God, nor men, as a transgressor of the Precept, who pays his Parents due Honor, though not out of a habit of piety. Such Honor, though it be no act of that Virtue (Piety they call it) from whence proceeds what we owe to Parents, doth satisfy the Precept, so that the person is free both from sin and the punishment. Accordingly Soto, We are not commanded to pay what we owe, out of the habit of Righteousness, or liberality, but only to pay it to the full. By this one instance he would have us judge of all other Precepts concerning Virtues: The habits, i. e. the virtues need not be exercised; let the thing be done, and it is all, the command of God requires, though it be not done out of a virtuous principle, nor be any act or exercise of it. So Bellarmine , When God commands that we live righteously and soberly, he commands not that we do this from a habit, but only that we do it. The external acts which Pious, Sober, and Righteous persons do, are requisite; but the exercise of any virtues therein, whether they concern God, others, or ourselves, is not commanded: The habit is that, which they count the virtue; since therefore they say, that nothing need be done out of habit, they thereby declare that no exercise of virtue is enjoined; nothing that we do, need be the act or issue of a virtuous principle; this will be but matter of Counsel, and not under any obliging command. Indeed they make the exercise of virtue universally needless, since they declare it not requisite in all those cases, where if in any at all, it would be needful, they find no necessity for it, either in worship, or common conversation; all may be done very well, without any act of grace or virtue. They may pray effectually; they may celebrate or hear Mass meritoriously (and these are the sum of all their ordinary worship); they may partake worthily of all their Sacraments; they may obtain all the effects of Sacraments or Sacramentals (these are evident by the premisses); they may satisfy all the commands of God, and peecepts of their Church, so as to free both from sin and punishment in the judgment of Aquinas and his Followers; yea, they may merit too, not only other things, but grace and glory: this is the point more stuck at than the rest, but the gravest of their Authors maintain, that it is sufficient for merit, that a man be in the state of grace, though he do not act it; and this state consists but in that imaginary grace, to which a Priest can help an impenitent Sinner. It will be hard to divine, for what ends the exercise of virtue can be by them counted needful, since without it, all the ends specified may be accomplished, the chief not excepted. However here's enough to enter the exercise of virtue amongst mere Counsels.

If we should take into this account all these rules in Scripture, the transgression of which is by their doctrine but Venial, as Scotus, Gabriel, and others, would have us, (Scotus & Gabriel, asserunt peccata mortalia esse contra praecepta; venialia vero contra consilia, Vasq. in 1. 2. tom. 1 disp. 143. c. 4. n. 7.) the number of Counsels would swell infinitely, and all Conscience of the exercise of Virtue would be in a manner stifled under that notion: but of Venials hereafter. They have, without this, yet another expedient ready to do them universal and effectual service this way, for by their principles any one may turn what divine precept soever pinches him, into a Counsel, and make no more Conscience of it, if he have but some Doctors opinion for it ( ad praeceptum non teneris, si te non teneri probabilis Doct. est sententia, Medina, Soto, in Victorell. ad Sa. v. dubium, n. 2.) Yea, though he have but the opinion of someone Doctor, that's enough to secure him, as Angelus, Sylvest. Navar, Sairus, Victorel, (ibid. & in Jo. Sanc. d. 44. n. 61.) and above 20. of their Authors conclude ( vid. infra). So far is it from being the singular conceit of some Jesuits, yea, though that Doctor therein be opposed by all others, idem. ibid. after Lorca, Villalobos, and many more.

Not to be tedious; where Christ intimates, Math. 5. 19. that some of the commands are greater, and some less; the great commands some of their Writers will have to be Evangelical Counsels, because they are better, more meritorious, and tend to greater perfection: others will have the less commands to be but such Counsels, because they are not necessary to be observed. Now betwixt these two, both the great commands, and the less, will be dissolved into Counsels, and what then becomes of the exercise of Christian virtues? If this be but matter of Counsel, there is no necessity that any should trouble themselves about it. For this is the difference, saith Aquinas, betwixt a Precept and a Counsel . A Precept imports necessity, Counsels are left to the free choice of him, to whom they are given: So that he may mind or not mind them, as he lists: if he observe them not, there is no fear of penalty, either eternal or temporal: There is no punishment saith Bellarmine, if a Counsel be not observed. They all maintain this. Not one of their Divines will yield, that God may punish any one for acting against his Counsel, though of the highest importance. And no wonder, for by their doctrine he no way sins mortally or venially, that doth not observe it. Though it may seem strange, that it should be no sin to neglect Counsels given us from Heaven, and not to follow the advice of the All-wise God; yet it is past all doubt by their principles. A neglect of Counsel is no sin at all. It is not only no sin to neglect these Counsels at other times, but also when God calls us to comply therewith by divine inspirations and motions of his Spirit; to disobey these calls, and resist these inspirations is no fault at all. Cardinal Tolet is rejected as too rigid, for counting it so bad as a venial fault, not to yield to these divine inspirations, ( Jo. Sanc. disp. 7. n. 4). So that if the great God calls to us, either by his Spirit, or by his Word, or both together, as our Counselor; we need not regard it, we may resist both, and yet be innocent. Herein others concur; Aquinas himself counts it no sin to neglect Counsels, even against Conscience dictating, that it is good to follow them, (2. sentent. dist. 39. q. 3. art. 3. ad. 6.) They may refuse the observance of them with some contempt, a presumptive contempt ( i. e. a continued neglect thereof) passeth without control, as innocent. A negative contempt hereof is justified, as either a small fault, or none at all. And some of them exclude not a positive contempt of these Counsels of perfection, but allow a contemptuous neglect of them as sinless. So Angelus, after their Law, and Gloss, and their Saint Antoninus. They may glory in their neglect of these divine Counsels, and make their boast thereof; this will be but a slight fault at most; for they may glory in anything but mortal crimes, and this is not so much as venial. It will be no worse if they not only neglect, but abandon them with some abhorrence too. They may bind themselves by Oath, not to observe them; it will be but a small fault at worst, to Swear, and call God to witness that they will not follow his Counsels. So they commonly determine; and if they be true to their Oath, it will be no fault at all: So that if we be loath to believe, that they abandon holiness in the exercise of Christian virtues, as a thing superfluous, and more than needs, under this notion of Counsels; to put us out of doubt, they are ready to Swear it, and their Doctors assure them they may do it safely.

Sect. 10.

But if all this were otherwise, and any exercise of virtue were needful by their doctrine; yet would there be no necessity of it, but only during the Popes pleasure. For by their principles, if the Pope should determine, that any Virtue were a Vice, all Romanists are bound in Conscience to conform to his judgment, and Virtue must be avoided as if it were a Vice indeed. Bellarmine, their chief Champion (who is wont with so much confidence to deny, or with so great Artifice to hide or disguise anything in Popery which may render his party either odious or ridiculous) delivers himself plainly to this purpose. If the Pope, saith he, should mistake in commending Vices, and forbidding Virtues, the Church would be bound to believe those Vices to be good, and those virtues to be evil, unless she would sin against Conscience. The Cardinal would have us think, that he proceeds herein upon an impossible supposition, and that the Pope cannot thus mistake, as to commend Vices, or forbid Virtues; but the world knows, that this is so far from being impossible, that he hath already actually done it, and this in such instances as may well persuade us, that it is not only possible, but likely; that there is not any Virtue, but (if occasion serve, and his interest requires it) he may forbid it, and declare it a sin, yea, and bind the Church in Conscience to avoid it, as if it were a Vice.

He may do it with as much demonstration of Reason, Holiness, and Infallibility, in any case, as he hath already done it in too many. Since then, that Church hath so far subjected all the Conscience and Reason they have unto him, as they cannot without sin but believe him, if he should determine, that light is darkness, and good is evil; he may take away all Conscience of Virtue, and the exercise of it, when ever he pleaseth; there will be no need of any act of Virtue for any Papist, if he list but out of his Chair to say so; they cannot without sinning against Conscience, practice any, if he do but the same thing in the rest, as he hath done in a great many already.

This is enough to show how needless they count the exercise of Christian Virtues, and so how unnecessary they make all holiness of life; but it will be yet more evident, if their doctrine allow them to live in a course of sin, and make it not necessary to forsake wickedness and abandon such evil ways, as are condemned by the Holy God. For continuance in sin is as inconsistent with holiness of life, as it is with hopes of Salvation; and this is as clear in Scripture, as if it were described with a Sun beam, 1 Joh. 3. 8. Act. 3. 26. 2 Timoth. 2. 19. Gal. 5. 16. & 19, 20, 21. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 9. &c. Notwithstanding, by their doctrine it is not necessary to forsake sin; this will be manifest, if we take notice, that there are many sins that they count Virtues, and so not to be avoided; and many which they call sins, but think it not necessary for the Salvation of any man to abandon them; and many sins also, which they have made to be no sins at all.

THere are many horrid sins, which they have transformed into virtues, or count high strains of Piety and Devotion: and thereby, are so far from being concerned to forsake them, as they are obliged to live in the practice of them, I might instance in Blasphemy, Idolatry, Perjury, Robbery, Murder, &c.

Their Blasphemies, in ascribing the peculiar excellencies of the Divine Majesty, and the prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ to the blessed Virgin, and other Creatures, and to their Popes (though diverse of them, as themselves acknowledge, were Monsters and incarnate Devils) have been sufficiently discovered by others, and therefore, designing brevity, I here wave them.

For the same reason, I will not insist upon their Idolatry in invocating Saints, adoring the Host, and worshipping Images, only as to this last, let me observe what is less taken notice of, that their own Doctrine before opened, quite shuts out the best, and only considerable plea, they make use of, to excuse themselves from this Crime. It is their common Doctrine, that the same Worship is to be given to the Image, and the exemplar, id est, the Worship of God to the Images of the Trinity, the Worship of Christ to a Crucifix, or a Cross, or the Image of the Cross. They also define Idolatry, to be, a giving the Worship of God, to anything else besides God. Who would imagine, but they had hereby fastened the charge of Idolatry upon themselves unavoidably? yet they make account to escape by pleading that the Worship they give to Images is Transient, not Terminative, id est, it stays not in the Image, but passes from it to the exemplar, the mind of the Worshipper directing it to God. There's no need to ask what ground they have to imagine, that their giving the Worship of God to an Image Transitively, is not Idolatry; it is enough that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry, if it be not Transient: since whatever they pretend when they are pinched, yet they count it not requisite, that their worship should pass from the Image unto God; but think it safe to let it stop, where it first fell, and terminate in the Image. For they confess it passeth not to God, without an act of the mind directing it to him; this is not, nor can be, when in the Worship God is not minded: and they generally agree (as was shown before) that they need not mind God in their Worship. So the result of their own Doctrine is, that they need be no better than Idolaters. I know not what they will say here, unless as Cajetan, that a virtual termination will suffice, id est, when they have an intention, to terminate their Worship on God, without doing it actually, and indeed. But if no more be necessary, the Worship need not pass to God really, but may rest in the Image, and actually terminate there: and so they will be real, and actual Idolaters, whatever their intention be. Yea as to that, by their Doctrine it is not needful, to intend to Worship God, as we saw before. Answerably in their prayers to Saints, before their Relics, or before an Image; (which is their usual practice) since by their common Doctrine, the person prayed to, whether God, or a Creature, need not be minded, the address may be actual to the Image, and to that only; the mind not transferring the prayer, so much as by one thought, towards the Saint, it will terminate in the Image, if anywhere, and be as senseless Idolatry, as the most stupid amongst the Heathen were guilty of. Thus what they say, many of them do; by their common Doctrine, all may do, viz. apply themselves to a senseless Image, as though it heard their prayers, and searched their hearts, and were no less than God.

Sect. 2.

There is another branch of this crime, which I shall stay a little on, viz. Their worshipping of Relics. Herein they are so liberal, as to give Religious Worship to such things, which they do but fancy to be Relics; yea such as it is absurd, and ridiculous to imagine, they are Relics. For who can imagine (at least when he is waking) how they could catch, or keep St. Peters shadow; or bottle up Josephs hough, his toilsome breathing, when he was at his Carpenters work? yet both these, with others of like quality, are among the Relics, which they count worthy of such Worship. The shadow of St. Peter, says one, is not the greatest among Relics, and therefore if that be adored, why are not the rest to be honored and Worshipped? Bellarmine asks, what Relique can be imagined to be meaner, than the shadow of Peter? possibly he might be resolved, near Blois in France, where Josephs hough is Honoured, and Worshipped as a Relique. Baronius ascribes much to the shadow of Peter, for he makes it the ground, not only of their Worship of Images, but also of the honor and power of the Popes. Who can doubt hereafter, but that the weightiest things in Popery have a substantial foundation? They Worship their Relics, not only when they are whole and sound, but when they are corrupted, and reduced to dust; or nothing else of them left, but the vermin bred in them; not only the ashes, but the Vermin too may be Worshipped, though some stick at the latter. Henricus one of their School-Doctors concludes, that the Relics in the form of Dust and Ashes, may and ought to be adored, but not under the form of vermin, and gives some reason for it; but their great Vasquez rejects this scruple, and the ground of it, as vain and frivolous; and concludes they may be Worshipped, as well when they are vermin, as when they are Ashes. A man, saith he, may with right intention, and sincere faith, apprehend a Saint, and Worship him in Worms. If the question had been, of the little Worms in the Ulcer of St. Harry of Denmark, for which he had such Saint-like love, as when they crept out of his Knee, to put them in again, that they might be nourished, where they were bred; Or of the Lice of St. Francis, for which he had such a holy tenderness (it is Recorded as an argument of his holiness) that when they were shaked off, he gathered them up, and put them in his Bosom: I suppose Henricus himself could scarce have denied, but those Sacred Creepers (having so near Relation to, and being sanctified by such extraordinary contact, of so great Saints) might have been adored.

It cannot be denied, but they are liable to gross mistakes, about the object of their Worship here; and some of them acknowledge, that the people herein are deluded with great and detestable impostures. What if the Tooth which they Worship for St. Christophers (as bigg as a man's fist) should prove the Tooth of a Beast? or the Hair, which they Worship as part of St. Petes Beard, should be the excrement of some Malefactor? or the shift which they Worship as the Virgin Mary's, should be the covering of some Harlot? or the dust, or the Vermin which they Worship, as the remains of some Saints, should have been in their original, no more holy than a Bruit or a damned sinner? as great mistakes as these about their Relics, the World has discovered, and themselves have been convinced of. Valla, a person of great learning, and eminency amongst them, says plainly, There are ten thousand such things (counterfeit Relics) in Rome itself. And if the seat of infallibility be so well stored with cheats, what shall we think of other places? They say indeed they have the attestation of Visions, Revelations, Miracles to insure them: but these they have, and produce as well for those that are confessed to be counterfeits, as for them which they take to be true. So that they are proved beyond all question, to be all alike: the true ones, as very counterfeits as any; and the counterfeit, as true as the best. Now, may they with safety venture to Worship them for all this? Yes, their Devotion is maintained to be not only safe, but meritorious, however they be deluded about the object of it. They may worship at all adventure, what they take to be a Relique, though it be indeed no such thing: and yet be so far from Idolatry or any sin, that they deserve highly at God's hand by so doing. If any man think, says one, that to be a Relique of a Saint, which indeed is not so, he is not frustrate of the merit of his Devotion. Yea a man may merit by a mistaken belief, though he should worship the Devil, says another. So that they have not only a fair excuse, but great encouragement to venture; though they may happen to Worship the Devil himself, and not only some limb of him, instead of Christ, or his Saints, or their remains. When the Lord declares Deut. 32. That his Wrath should burn to the bottom of Hell, for that the Israelites Worshipped Devils instead of God: they might, if Baronius had been their Advocate, have come off well enough with his Plea, fides purgat facinus. The Israelites believed as firmly as Roman-Catholics (only they were mistaken) that they did not Worship Devils, but that which was a proper object of Worship: therefore they were so far from the bottom of Hell, or any danger of it; that hereby they might merit Heaven and Glory.

Let me add, that the miscarriages in their Mass furnishes them with many Sacred Relics, and their orders about the disasters there, create for them diverse objects of Worship; and help them to many right Worshipful things, of the vilest Vermin, and that which is more loathsome. If the body or blood of Christ (so they will have it to be) fall to the ground; it must be licked up, the ground is to be scraped, and the scrapings reduced to ashes, are to have place among the Relics. If the blood be spilled upon the Altar-clothes, those clothes are to be washed, and the Sacred wash, is to be inshrined. If a fly, or a Spider fall into the blood, it is to be taken out, and burnt; and the ashes put into the holy shrine: But if the blood of Christ be poisoned, it is to be kept in a clean vessel among the Relics; and so poison becomes a very Worshipful thing. If a Mouse, or a Spider, or a Worm eat the body of Christ; (I must desire pardon for mentioning such horrid things) these Vermin in their ashes, are to have the same preferment, and be put into shrines for Relics. If a Priest or other person do vomit up the Host, even that (if no man's Stomach will serve him devoutly to lick it up) being turned into ashes, is to be honored among the Relics. All these and more particulars are ordained and provided for in the Cautels of the Mass: and thereby we see what order is taken by holy Church, that dirty water, the scrapings of the ground, Venemous or loathsome Vermin, yea the Vomit of a weak or gluttonous Stomach, casting up that which they call Jesus Christ; may be inshrined among the Relics, which they adore. They tender Worship to all, under the Altar promiscuously: yea their very prayers are so directed thereto, that you cannot discern, whether it be more to the Relics, or the persons they relate to, for example, when they say, O you that are seated under the Altar, intercede ye to God for us. For they may as well believe, that these Relics can intercede as that Christ, or the glorified Saints, are seated under their Altar.

Sect. 3.

Some of them would have us believe, that they give not Divine honor to Relics, but a sort of Religious Worship, which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but the Scripture (and secular Authors too, as is acknowledged) make no difference between the terms of their distinction, but appropriate both to God. And the people make no difference in their practice, as is confessed, but Worship Saints, (and so their Relics,) even as they Worship God. And their Teachers, and learned writers encourage them to give that to Relics, which is Divine Worship indeed, viz. To put their trust in them, to swear by them, to bring them oblations, to burn incense, and pray to them. So they are taught to give them the thing, which is confessed to be Divine Worship, only they will not give it the name (for though they be real Idolaters, yet it is not convenient to be called so). Nor is this all, there are a world of Relics, to which they will have thing and name given, even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 expressly. For it is their common Doctrine That the Relics of Christ, are to have the same Worship with Christ himself. And under the notion of these Relics, they take in (as of the Saints also) not only the parts of his body, but all that belonged to him, yea all that touched him, or was touched by him. Accordingly Aquinas (whose Doctrine is highly approved, not only by all the Jesuits, but in a manner by all their Universities ) teaches that, not only the Cross is to have Divine Worship, because it touched Christ, but all things else, that belong to Christ, by virtue of this contact, and Damascene (whom he quotes) will have all things near to Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Worshipped on that account. 'It is true they distinguish here, some things touched him innocently, others injuriously. Waldensis seemed loath to grant, these latter should be Worshipped; lest he should be brought to adore, the lips that betrayed him, or the hands that buffeted him: but he is run down by the stream, both of their Doctrine, and practice. For the things which they worship especially, and will have worshipped as Christ himself, are the instruments of his sufferings. The knife, wherewith he was circumcised; the Pillar, at which he was scourged; the cord, wherewith he was bound; the 28. steps of white marble, up which he was led, in his passion, to Pilate 's house; the purple Robe, and the white one too, which he wore in derision; the Keys, and stones of the Sepulcher, the Spunge, the Reed, the Vinegar, the Crown of Thorns, the Launce, the Nails, and (which may serve for all) the Cross, which is never the less, for the loss of so many pieces, as are Ten thousand times more than the whole: all these, (and who can tell how many more?) though they ministered to his pain, or reproach in his passion, have Divine worship. But the things which they will have worshipped, for the innocent contact might suffice, being numerous beyond account. To wave the rest, Damascene (whom Aquinas follows) of this sort reckons, not only his Clothes, and Tabernacles, the Cave, the Manger, and Sepulcher: but also Golgotha, and Zion and the like. Wherein may be included Galilee, Samaria, Judea and Egypt, the Earth where he trod in every place, being (if not deified yet) sanctified by such contact. There is a divine virtue therein, says Baronius, and they were wont to bring Earth from those parts, for the working of Miracles. And amongst the Relics at Venice, they had a stone translated from Chio thither, whereon 'tis said, he sat at Tyre. The water also of the River Jordan, at least, after it comes to the place where he was Baptized; and there that was taken up, they say, which is inshrined at Cessino. And why not the air too, when it comes to any place, where ever it touched him? that so every Element might furnish them with objects of Divine worship; and they might have no need to content themselves with such petty Idols as the Heathen had: but have them in such extent, and largeness, as is proportionable to the vast improvement of this kind of Devotion in the Church of Rome.

Moreover by virtue of this Contact, not only things, but persons, are capable of Divine worship, and such as touched Christ may be thus worshipped. The blessed Virgin in the first place. Cajetan declares that in secret, where it can be done without scandal, and danger; she may have Divine worship on this account, and tells us this is the sense of Aquinas. Later writers determine, that she may be so worshipped, as Christ himself, either upon the account of Contact, or Consanguinity. Upon the same ground Simeon may have Divine honor, for he once embraced Christ: and Joseph his foster Father, for he had him oftener in his arms, which their Church has taken notice of in a prayer on his holy-day . The Apostles, and Seventy Disciples did probably sometimes touch him, and so, by the same reason, may have the same worship, with their Lord. And no wonder, seeing they tell us, the lips of Judas, for but touching him with a treacherous kiss, may be thus worshipped. The woman also with the bloody issue, and those many of the multitude that pressed him, Luk. 8. 45. Mary Magdalene especially, she has double honor, seeing they worship more bodies than one for hers. But this is common, and they had need of a prodigious faith to believe (if any of them believe) that the things they worship are not counterfeit: since the most of them may be convicted of imposture, even by their own practice, and approved writings. They must either believe themselves deluded, or believe that one person had more bodies, and one body more heads than one, yea more than two or three. Many of their most eminent Saints are thus turned into Monsters, but I instance only in those, who may challenge Divine worship upon the common ground of Contact. John who touched Christ when he Baptized him, had three or four heads, if he had as many as they worship: for they worship his head in so many several places, and when they have it whole in some shrines, yet they will have several pieces of it in others. So that Herod had not beheaded him when one head was quite cut off: and when the Damsel had it in a charger, it might be still on his shoulders. Longinus also, who they say pierced Christ's side, and had his eyes cured with a touch of his blood, must have four bodies: for in so many, very distant places, they worship it; and yet this their Saint had never one body, nor being in the world. As for St. Christopher (who must needs touch Christ too, if as they say, he carried him over an arm of the Sea on his Shoulders) there was no need to make him so many bodies, since they have made him one as big as many, and worship for him an Effigies, more like a Mountain than a Man. I need not mention those many thousands besides, who had an occasion to touch Christ for the space of Three and thirty years, while he was on Earth; the meanest of these might have Divine worship, by that Doctrine which makes Contact a sufficient ground for it. Nor must this seem strange, since the very Ass he rode on, when it could be done without scandal, might upon this account be Religiously adored. Yet all these, are not all, that may have the honor of Christ, if we follow their Doctrine whither it leads us. Hereby not only these persons, but their Relics too, are capable of Divine worship. For they commonly teach, that the Relics may have the same worship, with the persons whose remains they are. Those are in the right, says (one of their most absolute Divines) Doctor Stapleton, who confer the like honor on the Relics, as on the Saints; since from both they hope to receive the like advantage. Thus they have huge Shoals of objects, fit for divine worship. Those multitudes of Relics which pass for the blessed Virgins, and all accounted to be the Apostles, and the other persons forementioned. They say they have the blessed Virgins hair in several places, which is no such wonder, since a Monk could show some of the hairs, which fell from a Seraphim, when he came to imprint the five wounds in Friar Francis his body. Her Milk too, kept from souring by a continued miracle Sixteen hundred years, and so much of it, as if with their St. Catherine, she had had nothing, but milk in her veins. Nor is this so wonderful, seeing an Image of hers, could let forth of its breast such a Liquor in great plenty. Her Nails too, or rather the parings of them (worthy enough of divine worship) for the nails themselves she could not spare at her assumption. (That one story, has prevented a hundred other Fables, if they had not believed the assumption of her body, 'tis like we had heard of as many bodies of hers in several places, as Geryon had, twice or thrice over: and more heads than they were wont to show of St. Barbara). Her wedding Ring too (though they used none in her Country), and her attire Cap-a-pee, from her veil, even to her Petticoat and Shift too. Whether she wore any or no is not material, the Archbishop of Chartres wore it, and was thereby inspired with such courage, in a Battle against Rollo, that the dagger wherewith St. Michael combated the Dragon (if he had borrowed it of his Neighbors in Normandy ) could not have performed braver exploits, nor made greater slaughter, than his Grace did: though some will ascribe less to his prowess, because being harnassed with such a shift of mail, he might think himself unvulnerable. Her Slipper also, and Shoe; yea the figure also of the sole of her Shoe, is to be adored. Yet this is at a pretty distance from Christ (though it's prime virtue be from Contact) and derives from him, like the Feathers of the Hen, which were of the brood of the Cock, that crowed when Peter denied him. They have Simeon 's arm (mentioned in the Gospel) at Aken, which hinders not, but they may have it at Hartsburg, and other places too. They have not only Josephs Hem, but his Breeches. And I hope kept less nastily, than Thomas Becket kept his; which yet were worshipful, Vermin and all, and that not per accidens (it may be) since it is one commendation of his Saint-ship, that his Breeches ran quick. They have some remains of all the Apostles, though nobody could tell them where diverse of their bodies were interred, but things of this nature, they still have by Revelation; and how can such as these want Revelations, who in pilgrimage to holy Relics, declared that a Goose carried before them, was the Holy Ghost. They have Peter 's Keys, his Sword, his Staff, his Coat, his Garment besides, and his Girdle, part of his body is at Constantinople, half of it at Rome in one place, and yet the whole in another. They have martyred him over again (or some other bodies for his) and torn him into more pieces than their St. Hippolitus, was torn with Horses. They have his head (or some of it) in Seven several places in Rome, only they want his brains, which were reserved in another place, and worshipped (or a Pumice-stone instead thereof). And there may be some mystery in that; for they speak of some time, under Peter 's Successors, when their Church should have Caput sine cerebro. Setting that aside, we may be sure they have missed nothing that belonged to St. Peter, since they could catch his shadow, and hold it as fast, as they do his Keys. And why might not this be done, as well, as the Monk could bring with him from Palestine, the sound of the Bells that hung in Solomon 's Temple. I have not yet in their Sacred lists discerned the lips of Judas, but they have his Lanthorn, which showed him the way to apprehend his Master; and thereby perhaps in time they may discover the other. They want nothing for this, but some of the Oil of the Candle of the Sepulcher, which can light itself, and this the Monks at Cassino can help them too. If they have not the Ass upon which Christ rode to Jerusalem, they missed it narrowly, when they caught the Palm he then had in his hand (whether he had any or no) and a worshipful Relique of the Ass some show, 'tis said, his tail is inshrined in Liguria. And who can think but that may be as proper an object of adoration, as the Hay, wherewith Friar Francis his Ass was saddled. And every hair in that tail, may make a complete Relique, as worshipful as the whole: for by their Divinity, the virtue of the whole, is in every part. If it were but well distributed, this one, might serve to furnish a hundred shrines: and entertain the Devotion of as many votaries, and Pilgrims, as come to worship at Loretto.

But I need not insist on such Relics, as are to have Divine worship by consequence: those which they say expressly should be so worshipped, are enow, and as many as they please to imagine. For though they have no good ground to believe, that they have any one true Relique of Christ, or the least part of one: yet imagination is enough with them, both to give them being, and to multiply them in infinitum, and to warrant their worship of each of them, as of Christ himself: even such imaginations as interfere, and confute one another, and are each of them confuted by such miracles, as are the ground of the whole imposture. The fore-skin of Christ is more Religiously worshipped among them, than Christ himself, as Erasmus observed. It is kept and exposed, in at least four several Countries, and miracles brought to confirm the truth of its being there: and yet while it is seen, and adored in so many places on Earth, some of their chief Writers say it is nowhere on Earth, but in Heaven; and must be so, otherwise the glorified body of Christ would be imperfect, and not entire. His Shirt, and besides that (though he had no other Shirt) his Coat, which the Soldiers disposed of at his death, was not found till the year 593: yet they had it elsewhere, and greatly worshipped it long before in a City of Galatia, says Gregory of Tours. 'It is much that they should have it, before it was found, and something strange too (that as it was without seam so) it should be without Rent, though afterwards they they found it, in several places at once, many hundred miles distant. They have it in Germany, and they have it in France, and they may have it in all parts of the World at once, as certainly as they have it there: but whether they have it or no, that which they take to be it, must have the same worship and honor with Christ. And we must not think it strange, that it should be in so many places, since, they say, it grew on his back, and so not unlikely might multiply itself since. About the blood of Christ there is no less imposture, and as great Idolatry. They pretend to have much of it in parcels, that which Nicodemus saved in his Glove, that which Longinus brought in a Vessel to Mantua, that which Joseph of Arimathea brought into England in two Silver Vessels, that which is kept at Venice with the Earth it fell on, that which is showed at the Holy Chapel in Paris; that which is adored at Rome on Easter-day; that which may be seen in every Country, where Popery hath left people no eyes: yet the Angel of their Schools (whose Doctrine they say was approved by a miracle, and which they must not question, if they believe their portess) is positive, that all the blood of Christ that was shed before, was in his body at his Resurrection, and so ascended with him into Heaven: and that the blood which is shown in Churches for Relics, did not flow from Christ's side, but miraculously from a certain wounded image of Christ. So that the blood which they worship as God, is no better, than that which an Image can bleed, and this will scarce prove so good in England, as the blood of Hales, which (how much soever worshipped) was discovered to be but the blood of a Drake.

They have the Reed, the Spunge, the Crown of Thorns in so many places as gives them reason enough to believe, they have it in none, and yet they worship these in all. We must imagine (to have such things go down smoothly) that they grow more than any Thorn hedge does, not only in length, but in number. And something towards this, Gregory of Tours writes of those Thorns, they are green still, and though the leaves wither sometimes, yet they revive again, and flourish. But the old Bishop had not the good hap to see this, he had it only by rumour, and such rumors their Annalist is wont to make much of; for it is not amiss to abuse others into a belief of that, which they cannot believe themselves. The Lance which pierced Christ's side, was got into the West, before it had left the East (its proper place). Otto the great, presented Athelstane King of England with it, and other rarities in the tenth age . Yet the Dominical Spear (the same we may suppose, though some question it) was the same age in the possession of Rodulphus, Duke of Burgundy, of which, Harry, Emperor of Germany, was so covetous, that he threatened the Duke to destroy his Country with Fire and Sword, if he would not give it him; and in fine, gave him a good part of his Country for it. Much worship it had, and brave feats it played then, and I know not how long before; for Charles the Great, they say, had it too ; yet for all this, it was still in Asia (if anywhere) and not found there, till two hundred years after; for the Latins having taken Antioch, were blest with the Revelation of it in St. Peters Church (for holy relics was the adventure which those Knights errant sought, and they were concerned in point of honor, either to find or make some); but this was confirmed by miracle (else it had not been worth a rush); Peter, the finder of it, to prove the truth thereof, walked through a mighty fire with the Launce in his hand. 'It is like, this Champion had something of the metal of that Hermits marvelous pot; in which, though it was of wood, he boiled his Meat constantly, how hot soever the fire was, without burning; but that of the pot it seems, was better tempered, for that endured many years, do the fire what it could; but the man could not long survive that hot brunt, dying shortly after. The Nailes wherewith Christ was fastened to the Cross, were three or four at most Barronius dare not say they were four, though he does not always speak with the least in this matter of Miracles. These, as the rumour was, being sent by Helena to Constantine, lost quite the form of Nailes, being used for the making of a Bridle and a Helmet for the Emperor. In this Theodoret Sozomen, and Socrates agree, (but they tell us not how the Nailes which pierced Christ, were known, from those which fastened the two Thieves to the other Crosses. If they had foreseen that such things should have been worshiped equally with Christ himself, they would have thought this necessary (or rather to have said nothing at all without better ground) lest the Nailes of the Thieves might have divine worship for those of Christ's). Gregory of Tours, who will have a fourth Naile, says, one was thrown into the Adriatic Sea, where it seems it Spawned, and from thence came the multitude of Nailes which were showed and adored for the true one: (This is as satisfactory, as the shufling account which their great Annalist gives thereof.) If Constantine had lived in times of Popery, his Horse had been in danger of divine worship, for his Bridles sake, and his Helmet could scarce have defended itself from being made an Idol: but seeing his Religion was of another strain, than that now in request with Romanists, 'tis well if he escape reproach for converting that, the Counterfeit of which they think worthy of the worship of God, to a profane use. However, they would not long endure such abuse, for upon a time, one of them (whether re-assuming its old form or no, I know not) skip'd out of the Bridle (or Helmet, as you please) into Constantine's Sword hilt, and that from thence, sword and all, into these Western parts; and that we may not question this, it was given by Otho the great to our Athelstan . But this was nothing to the Spear which Count Sampson gave to Rodolph of Burgundy; and which Harry the Emperor (or King, as Baronius calls him) forced from Rodulphus; for there were I know not how many of these Nailes artificially fastened to the Spear, say some; others will have it wholly made of them, and then these Nailes had need be twenty times more than ever touched the Cross, or else they must be such as were fit only for the use of their Giant Christopher, whose Saintship they make full twelve Ells high. For all this they had still many of these Nails at their Shrines and Altars. To wave the rest, the Bishop of Mets officiating at Triers for Poppo, who was turned Pilgrim, slily filches away from the Altar one of those sacred Nailes▪ conveying another very like it into the place; and he had carried it clearly, but that as ill luck was, the holy Nail fell a bleeding (and it is like the Nail had more tenderness than the Consciences of those who coined such stories). However, this holy Bishop, who had so dear a love for Relics, must not suffer under the bad Character of a Thief, much less as Sacrilegious, for stealing of Relics was then the practice of the best (and no wonder if Theft got reputation, when Cheats were in so much request): besides, there was something more than ordinary in the case, for such Thieves with the Receivers, cheated themselves most of all; and those that were Robbed, made account (as they had reason) that they lost nothing, but worshipped what was gone, as still in their possession. So they at St. Dennis believe they have still the body, as well as the name of St. Dennis the Areopagite, though Pope Leo the Ninth declared by an authentic Bull, that it was stolen from thence, and carried to Ratishone in Germany. And no wonder if the French will not be bassled out of their Faith by the Pope: for is it likely that he who carried his head in his arms (after it was smitten off) for two or three miles together, and would not die till he came to the place where his body should rest, would not keep it from being carried from that place, signalized with such a miracle? And the remains of St. Bennets body were stolen from Cassino in Naples, and carried, as they say, to Fleury in France, and the Monks there offer proof of it by Miracles; and yet those at Cassino believe they have it, and accordingly worship it still, confirming themselves and others in that confidence by Miracles too. Whereby the world may judge of their Miracles, for since God works none upon such occasions, to be sure, not for the confirming of contradictions: these must be the fictions of cheating Knaves, or the feats and illusions of Satan. And some of themselves confess, that multitudes of them are no better as to their original. Indeed they make such use of their Miracles, that it is enough to blast the credit of a thing, to have a Miracle alleged by them for it, since it is their common practice to confirm one lie with another; and the confirmation is more intolerable than the first fiction, because they will have the Divine power interposed thereby to delude the world.

Not to digress further, they tell us of the Oil, or Liquor which drops from the knotts of the true Cross: No wonder if this be thought worthy of no less worship than the rest, since they ascribe to it a divine power. Besides many marvelous feats, it can cast out Devils; for it must be of no less Virtue than the Oil of the Sepulcher of St. Martin; which duly administered to a man possessed, gave him such a purge, that he squirted out a foul Fiend behind, and voided the Devil for a Stool. In short, that the Cross itself should have divine worship is their common doctrine; this at first was no more than one man might well bear, but by the good Housewifery of that Church (who scruples no Cheats in this sacred traffick) it is retailed out for worship in so many pieces, that together would sink a Ship of a good burden ; so that there are many, many Cart loads of Roman gods, which are really no better than common chips. In all this, there is not any one bit, which they can upon good ground believe to be part of the true Cross. They cannot be more confident of any, than that piece which with Pilate's inscription on it, they say is reserved and worshipped at Rome; but that is detected to be a counterfeit by Baronius his own words; for he says, that on the true Cross the Latin inscription was first (and so the Greek next, and the Hebrew last), and confirms it by no less Authority than that of a Pope, Nicholas 1. whereas in that piece at Rome, the Hebrew is first, and the Latin last. By this we may judge of the slorys concerning the invention of the Cross by Helena. This now mentioned, was a considerable piece of the discovery, nor would the Cardinal himself have us believe, that what is said to be sent to Constantinople, or reserved at Jerusalem, were more real parts of the true Cross than that at Rome. However, true or false, here's enough, one would think, to glut the most ravenous devotion of any Egyptian. But when they will have this worship given to the Images of the Cross, in any matter whatsoever, or immaterial either, they give warranty to turn all things in the world into Idols, any sticks, or straws, yea, a man's own fingers laid a-cross, may be worshipped by him; or let him but move one finger a-cross in Water, or Oil, or the Air, anywhere, and instantly he has of his own creating, what he may worship as God.

For those relics, to which they give divine worship under another name, they are yet more numerous. So that upon the whole, if the Philistines had worshipped not only the god of flies, but the flies themselves too, they would scarce have out-vied these in numbers. The Idolatrous Israelites, who worshipped the Host of Heaven, had a fair company of Idols; but the Egyptians might have more, who could sow gods in their Gardens, and make them spring up on their back-sides; but both put together, would come short of the Romanists herein, both for number and quality, though they of Egypt became the scorn of the world, for the vileness of what they religiously worshipped. How they came by so many, when for three hundred years after Christ, we hear of none; we have an account from their own Authors: out of Covetousness, says their Learned and Ingenuous Cassander, False relics were daily forged, feigned Miracles were published, Superstition thereby nourished; and sometimes by the illusion of the Devil, new relics were revived. So that in brief (to use the language of their own Author) the Devil helped their Church to some of them, and covetous Knaves to others. This stuff might be had cheap, and sold very dear; this encouraged many to take up the trade, and Monks are noted as prime Merchants for this traffick. They were such, who in Austin 's time, being employed, as he says, by Satan (whose Factors they were, and for whom the trade was driven,) sold the members of Martyrs, or what they pretended to be so. He was of the same profession , who declared he came out of Spain into France with relics; which being looked into, proved to be roots of Trees, the teeth of Moles, the bones of Mice, and the claws and fat of Bears. And they were Monks, who, as the same Author tells us, were found at Rome, near Paul 's Church, digging up bodies, and confessed their design was to make relics of them. As for him, whom Glaber speaks of, who furnished France with innumerable relics, it may seem strange that he should be counted a Cheat, when he was thus trading in another Country, since his stuff had the very same mark, which makes their other relics currant as good ware, unquestionably good, and than which their best have no better; for he wrought wonders, (or the Devil for him) and by one Carcass which he feigned to be a Martyrs, he freed many that were sick, from variety of Diseases. But I suppose he was not free of the Company, and they like not Interlopers. The Court of Rome can furnish Altars with holy Relics out of common Graves, and none must count them Cheats for it. And if this Huckster had but procured a Commission from thence, he might have transubstantiated the bones in any Church yard; yea, those of a Sheep, or a Hog, either into the bones of Martyrs, or Apostles, as well as others. By this we may judge what their relics are, the best of them mere cheats; and consequently, how criminal it will be to give them worship, the highest of all; & yet they are so far from abandoning this, that it is in a manner, the sum of their Religion. And so it is expressed by some of their own Communion The whole of Religion is almost brought to this (to wit, their Religious treatment of relics) through the Covetousness of Priests, and the Hypocrisy of Monks, fed by the foolishness of the people: Thus their great Erasmus, in his Annotations, approved by Pope Leo 10. his Breve.

Sect. 4.

Let us see in the next place, if Perjury may not prove as blameless, and as necessary. Breach of Oaths is no less with them than a virtue, or a necessary duty in many cases, (of which a further account hereafter) let me now instance but in one. Suppose a Prince that has Protestant Subjects, should for their satisfaction, give them the security of his most solemn Oath, that they should not suffer for their Conscience, either in Life, Estate, or Liberty; that Religion does oblige the Prince to break all such Oaths, or to count himself no ways obliged by them, because they are against the Laws of the Church; against that particularly of the general Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent. 3. which forbids all favor to be shown to Heretics under • h • severest penalties, and decrees that favorers of Heretics are under Excommunication. So that in this case it must be the Princes duty to be perjured, and to break his Oath made in favor of his heretical Subjects, & that by the sacred decree of the Church. He must forswear himself, if he will not be Excommunicated and consequently deposed, and thereby exposed to the violence of every hand. Yea he puts himself into the state of Damnation, and sins mortally, if he be true to his Oath. So Pope Martin, 5. Declared in writing to Alexander Duke of Lithuania, know, says he, that thou sinnest mortally, if thou keep thy Oath with Heretics. Hereby it appears that no Papists, Princes or Subjects, can possibly give any security which may be trusted, that Protestants shall enjoy anything, which is in their power to deprive them of, for the greatest securities that can be given in this case, are engagements of faith and truth, God being invocated for confirmation in solemn Oaths: but by the principles of their Religion, they are so far loosed from all such Bonds, that they are not at all to be trusted by any, but credulous fools; unless it can be supposed, that they will act as other men than Papists, and contemn all the Authority of that Church, which leaves no hopes of salvation but in obedience to it. For another general Council, that of Constance has determined, that no faith is to be kept with Heretics. In the nineteenth. Session of that Assembly it was decreed, that no safe conduct given by Emperor, King, or secular Prince to Heretics, or any defamed for Heretics, though with a design to reduce them, by what engagements soever they have obliged themselves: shall hinder those Heretics from being prosecuted, unless they recant; though they come to the place of Judgment relying upon such security, and would not have come otherwise. And it is declared further, that one thus bound by promise, was not hereby in the least obliged. And what they decreed and declared they immediately practiced, for the Emperor Sigismund, having given safe conduct to John Huss, and so engaged the public faith, and his own honor, that he should come and go safe to and from the Council; and Pope John 22. then present in the Council, having given his promise and engaged his faith (if he had any) for his safety: yet the honor and faith of the Emperor, was born down by the principles of their Church; and the Pope (as soon as the poor man was drawn into danger past escaping) made nothing of his promise, pretending, when he was urged with it, that he was over-ruled; and so notwithstanding all the security an Emperor and a Pope had given him, he was first miserably imprisoned, and after cruelly burnt to ashes. Hereby the world, Protestants especially, have this plain and useful admonition, that they must trust to nothing among Papists (those that will be true to that Church), but what will keep them out of their power. The principles of their Religion (for such are determinations of General Councils) bind them to observe no faith, or truth or common honesty with those, whom they count Heretics, no not when life is concerned. Their Religion obliges them, to violate the most sacred Oaths, and the most solemn engagements of faith and truth; rather than an Heretic shall be safe, in any of his concerns, where they can reach him. It is a virtue, a duty in that Religion, to snap asunder all securities (by which the world and human society hath hitherto been preserved) to ruin a Heretic: no fear of perjury, or any other perfidiousness, must be a hindrance in the case. Nor is perjury so necessary or innocent only, when it is mischievous to us, but when it does mischief to themselves, and the world also. The practice of their Popes for many ages, may satisfy us herein, and to those who are acquainted with Htstory, which gives an account thereof, it is no improbable observation, that the bloody Wars and Massacres, that have been for many Hundred years in those places, which the Papal influence could reach; cannot be imputed to anything more, for the most part, than the Perjuries of the Popes themselves; and of those whom they involved in that guilt, by discharging them from the obligation of their Oaths.

Sect. 5.

And this brings me to some other Crimes forementioned Robberies, and Murders, which the wonderful power of Papal holiness, hath transformed into Christian, and virtuous acts. By the Doctrine of their Church to deprive those whom they count Heretics, of their Estate and Lives, is a virtue, and a meritorious act. There is too good evidence for this. A decree of Pope Innocent, 3. Recorded in the Tomes of their Councils by their own Writers, as an authentic act of the general Council of Lateran under that Pope, and, inserted by Gregory, 9. into the Decretals, which is the Law of their Church, and part of that which passes with them for Divine Law. There is, there can be no act of their Church more Authoritative, and obliging, than such a decree as this. There first of all Heretics are Excommunicated and condemned, and then it is decreed, that the Estates of those condemned are confiscated. But that's not all, the secular Princes or Lord's, are to be compelled (if they will not do it otherwise,) and bound with a solemn Oath to endeavor to the utmost of their power utterly to destroy them all. They are to labor in good earnest with all their might, to root them all out. And further, if any temporal Lord proceed not to such ruining execution within a year, The Pope is to absolve those that are under him, from their allegiance, the Land is to be seized on by Catholics, who having exterminated the Heretics, are to possess it without control. Here it is plain, that by the highest Authority the Roman Church pretends to, (that which is no less with them than Divine) the Papists are bound to destroy all whom they count Heretics, and to take possession of their Estates. And this Barbarous decree, (which has so much force with them, as the word of God with any,) was put in excution in the days of that very Pope; For he employed Armies against the Albigenses (the Predecessors of the Protestants in France ) who destroyed above , Two hundred thousand in the space of some months. It was executed in the age before this, in France; where so many Thousands were treacherously and cruelly Murdered, that the channels run down with blood into the River: and this magnified as a glorious action, honored with a Triumph at Rome, and the unparalleled Butchers rewarded with his Holiness blessing. We have known it executed in our days upon some Hundred thousands of the Protestants in Ireland, where that bloody Tragedy was acted by the Popes excitement and concurrence, just according to the tenor of that decree: the Irish Papists endeavoring with all their might, utterly to destroy all the Protestants, that their Estates, and the whole Land, might be in the possession of Roman-Catholics. And in all Countries about us, where ever they have been powerful enough, or but thought themselves so: they have effected, or attempted it. Such outrages were, and are to be committed by warrant of the Romish Doctrine; They are bound to act thus by all the Authority of that Church; which not only enjoins this by her decrees, but gives all encouragement thereto; such Robberies and Butcheries are virtuous, yea meritorious acts. Those that will engage therein to the utmost, (as their Church requires) are assured by the Pope, of those indulgences and privileges, which were granted to the Adventurers for the recovery of the holy Land, and these are expressed, in an Appendix to that Council, to be full pardon of all their sins here, and a greater measure of glory hereafter. At no less rate do they value the blood, and utter destruction of such as we (whom they count Heretics): with such, and no less hopes, do they engage all Papists; to endeavor, as far as is possible, our utter extermination. 'It is true, there are good natured persons amongst them, as there are amongst other sorts of men, and such as have a great aversation to such Barbarous cruelty: but their Religion tempts them to it, not only with hopes of Heretics Estates, but of the greatest rewards that can be propounded; yea and forces them to it, even beyond their inclination, with threatenings of the most dreadful import, expressed in that Decree; which signifies also, that they must act at this rate of inhumanity if they will be counted Christians; and must not expect to pass for faithful Romanists, unless they will act as monsters. But if it be their duty, as they are Roman-Catholics; and they bound in Conscience, as far as their Religion, and all the power of it can bind them, to destroy the Protestants amongst whom they live, and seize upon what they have: why do they not fall to work, and make an end of us, that all may be their own? how is it that they live quietly and peaceably in this, and some other places? to satisfy us here they use plain dealing (though we must not always expect it) and tell us in express terms, they do it not, merely because they have not power to do it. Though the Church have made it their duty to destroy Protestants, yet when they are not strong enough to do it, and where the attempting of it, because they are a weaker party, would endanger them: there they are excused, they may wait the happy hour, till they have sufficient power, to show their obedience to the Church, in executing her exterminating decrees, without apparent hazard of their own interest. So Banns a Dominican determines that Catholics in England, and Saxony, are excused from rising up against their Protestant Princes with their Subjects, because they commonly are not powerful enough; and the attempt in such circumstances, would expose them to great danger Bellarmine speaks it as plainly, if it were possible to root out the Heretics, without doubt they are to be destroyed Root and Branch: but if it cannot be done, because they are stronger than we, and there be danger if they should oppose us, that we should be worsted, then we are to be quiet. So that the reason why Protestants in such places are not presently ruined, is because the Papists are not there strong enough, we and others have the privilege to Live: because they are not yet able to Kill us, and to seize on what we have. When they have once power enough (or but think they have it) let us look to ourselves; for if Papists have any Conscience, that anything in their Religion can touch: they must then destroy us utterly, and leave us neither Liberty, Estate, nor Being; unless they will resist Conscience, and rebel against the Authority of that Church, which they count most Sacred and Sovereign, or which is all one in their Catholic sense, they must either exterminate us, or be damned themselves. And to deal thus with us, would be so far from being a sin, that by their most infallible Doctrine (the decrees of Popes and Councils ) it would be an act highly meritorious; though in the common sense of mankind, it be Robbery and Murder. They may become the best Catholics, by abandoning Justice, Mercy, and Humanity itself; and procure pardon of all other sins, by the most detestable injustice and cruelty; and obtain higher degrees of glory by such crimes, as (to use their own expression) deserves all the fires of Heaven and Earth and Hell. If Satan could inspire all other Sects with this Catholic Doctrine, it would be an expedient to satiate his enmity to mankind: this would turn the world into a shambles, and no sort of men should escape unbutchered, but such who could find no party able to force them to the Slaughter-house; yet this is the way to Heaven, and transcendent glory, for those who will follow the Roman conduct, and believe what passes for most infallible amongst them.

Sect. 6.

There is another crime which passes for an eminent virtue with them, and is so esteemed and practiced, that is, Sorcery and Conjuring. In the Books of Devotion published, for the use of their Exorcists, there are such horrid practices in and upon the Devil, as fully answers the Titles of the Books, one of which is called Horrible Conjuration, and another Divelish Exorcisms. He that has not seen them can scarce believe, that such things should be practiced by any that bear the name of Christians; nor can they be heard without conceiving a horror at them. But they have been mentioned by others, I will only insist on that which may seem more innocent, but has indeed too much of Sorcery and Inchantment, and that is their Sacramentals with things of like nature and supposed virtue. Of this quality is their Consecrated water, Salt, Oil, Bread, Waxen-Tapers, Branches of Trees, Roses, Bells, Meddals and Agnus Dei's. To such things as these, they ascribe marvelous and supernatural effects, a virtue to save and sanctify Souls, to blot out sins, to expel Devils, to cure Diseases, to secure Women in Travel, to preserve from Burning and Drowning. Pope Alexander in the decrees which they ascribe to him, asserts, that water mixed with salt, and Consecrated; does Sanctify the people, Purifie the unclean, break the Snares of the Devil, and bring health to Body and Soul. The form of exorcising salt, which we have in their authorized Books, tells us, it is exorcised, that it may be to all that take it both health to Body and Soul. The exorcised water is to chase away all the power of the Devil, and root him out. The virtues of an Agnus Dei are described by Urban 5. in verse, wherewith he sent some of them to the Greek Emperor. If you will believe a Pope, who may be infallible in Rhime, as well as in Prose, it drives away lightning, and all malignancy, delivers pregnant Women, destroys the force of fire, secures from Drowning, and which is more, destroys sin, even as the blood of Christ does. Bellarmine says, they are of power for the blotting out of Venial sins, for the chasing away Devils, for the curing of Diseases. Others ascribe to them, a power to excite gracious motions, even ex opere operato. Now it is acknowledged, that the natural power of these things, cannot reach such effects; and that there is no virtue in, or of themselves, to produce them; no more than there is in such things, by which Magicians and Conjurers work their strange feats. Nor has the Lord instituted them, or anywhere promised to impower them, for such purposes; no more than he has promised, to make the charm of any Sorcerer effectual for marvelous operations. Bellarmine confesseth, . that such things have their force not by any promise of God expressed. And Suarez . says the effect thereof is not founded in any special promise of God, because (as he had said) it does not appear there is any such promise. And they confess there's a tacit invocation of the Devil, in using things for effects, to which they have no power natural, or divine. There is such an invocation of the Devil, says Cajetan, when one uses anything, or word as having power for such an effect, for which it appears not to have any virtue, either natural or divine: for then he tacitly consents to the aid of the Devil. And so Sylvester after Aquinas If the things made use of for such effects, appear to have no power to produce them, it follows, that they are not used for this purpose, as causes, but as signs (or Sacramentals): and consequently they belong to some compact with the Devil. And this, even the Jesuits will acknowledge. Thus Cardinal Tolet, it is to be generally observed, that there is a tacit invocation of the Devil, when a man attempts to do anything, by that, which neither of itself, nor by Divine power produces such effects. And Filliucius, declaring the several ways whereby a Magical operation may be discerned, (most of which are applicable to their Sacramentals) gives this as the reason of them all, because when the effect cannot be expected from the power of such causes, since they have it not; neither from God, who has not instituted them; it follows, that it must be expected from the Devil, who is therein tacitly invocated. They take it for evident, that the efficacy of such things is not from God, if he did not institute them, not from God (says Filliucius) since he was not the institutor. So Sylvester will have the Magical signs, referred to Diabolical compact: because (having no such power of themselves) they are not of Divine institution, plainly signifying, that if their Sacramentals were not instituted of God, they could be no better, than what he refers to the Devil. Now what evidence is there that their Sacramentals are of Divine institution; and appointed by God for such purposes? they say so, and that's all, and so may the Magicians say, if they please, and prove it as well too; for from the word of God (the only proof in this case) neither of them have a syllable. The Author and Original of this strange power, may hereby be discerned; and the means they use to derive it, helps the discovery. They have it they say by virtue of their exorcisms; but if they can consecrate or exorcize, a thing into a power which is above itself, and yet comes not from God, their Consecrations hereby will prove no better, than Conjuring. And indeed he that reads but their Consecrations, may have cause to think they are no other, for instance, their form of Consecrating salt, in these words. I conjure thee Creature of salt by the living God, the true God, the Holy God, that thou mayest be made a conjured salt, for the Salvation of believers. And the like conjuring they use, for the making of holy water, and other things. There is a charm in Alexander Trallianus a Magical Doctor, which is exactly like these, (in what the form of an inchauntment requires) to convey a virtue into an Herb, for the cure of a Disease. I exorcise, or conjure thee, by the great Jah, and Sabaoth, the God that founded the Earth, &c. Take the Spirit of thy Mother-earth and its virtue; and dry up the Flux of feet and hands. He that will count this a charm, will have no reason to deny but the Papists form of Consecration is an inchauntment, and indeed the common notion of inchauntment is applicable hereto. They define it to be the conveying of a marvelous power into a thing, by virtue of the words of the Inchaunter. Now it is a marvelous power which they will have conveyed by their Consecration, since it is a power above the natural capacity of the things, and such as enables them for spiritual and supernatural effects: and they think it conveyed by virtue of the words of the Consecrator, as in the other case by the words of the Magician; for as soon as the words are pronounced, they believe the things so Consecrated, are endowed with the power. They will say indeed, that they expect the power from God, and use his name accordingly in their Consecrations. And so might Inchaunters and Magicians say, with the like reason: for they were wont to use the name of God in their charms and incantations as Origen assures us. Many says he, of the Egyptians when they are conjuring Devils, insert in their incantations, the God of Abraham, and he says, not only the Jewish exorcists did invocate the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: but almost all others who meddled with Conjuration and Magic. O! but this virtue comes from the Churches prayers, says Bellarmine, by these prayers I suppose he means, their forms of Consecration; yet in them there's no praying, but rather plain conjuring, for the words are all of them directed to the things Consecrated, and not at all to God, as is evident to any that reads them. And if they should use some prayers besides the forms of Consecration; a Magician may do so too besides his charm, and yet be no less an Inchaunter. Origen tells us, that some invocation of God, and use of his name, is often found in conjuring Books. And what would it mend the matter, for either of them, to pray to God to bless an inchauntment, or make his conjuring effectual? if the Ephesian Magicians should have invocated God at the recital of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Or the Conjurers among Jews or Gentiles, in the use of their Suffumigations, and other Magical tricks. Or the Simonians for their Agogima. Or Eleazar in the application of his Ring and Root: the practice had been no better on this account, it would be still, at least, a tacit invocation of the Devil; from whom alone such virtue must be expected, as is neither in the nature of the thing, nor from God's appointment; yea it would have been worse, to make so bold with God, as to invocate him for the service of the Devil. But indeed Popish prayers themselves, as they use them, are as like charms at they can look. In their prayers there are barbarous, i. e. unintelligible words (like those of the Magician in 2. Pausarias ) which the people, or Priests many times, understand no more, than the hard words in the charms of Conjurers, were understood: such as Jab, Zebaoth, Elohim, Sadai; or those which Cato says were used in a charm, for curing members out of joint; or the name Abraham, which though the Conjurers in other Countries used, yet they knew not what it meant says Origen. They are tied to the same syllables as Conjurers are in their charms; and that they may not vary, must, as the Persian Magician, read all out of a Book, yea though they have it by heart. It is not requisite by their Doctrine (as we saw before) to mind the God of Heaven in their prayers, more than the Prince of darkness. The mere muttering of the words they count effectual, as in charms and inchauntments, yet have they no promise from God, that the bare recital of their forms, without any inward Devotion or Attention, shall prevail more than a Magician has, that such a pronouncing of the words he uses in Conjuring, will be prevalent: or more, than that the words of a prayer, which one carries in his pocket (another charm in use amongst the Papists) will be effectual. So that Salmeron had more reason than he expressed, to say, that their prayers, were like the words of a charmer. They had need first excuse their prayers from this crime: before this will serve, to excuse their Sacramentals.

Sect. 7.

There is another crime, no less heinous than the former; and yet in their account, it is a necessary duty, and a most excellent service, and that is the destroying of Christ, which by their doctrine and Laws of their Church, they are to do daily in the Mass. To clear this, take notice of these severals: They teach that Christ is really in the Mass, not only as he is God, (and so everywhere) but as he is Man, Soul, and Body, Flesh and Blood, and there not only mystically in signs and representations, or spiritually in virtue and efficacy; but as to the very substance of his body, some say Corporally, others after t • e manner of a Spirit; but all say the true substance of his Flesh and Blood, is as really on the Altar, as his Body was on the Cross, when nailed to it; yea, that it is there visibly, and may be (though it be not ordinarily) seen. 2. They hold that Christ is truly and properly Sacrificed in the Mass, and his Body and Blood there offered, as much as any Bullock or Lamb was Sacrificed under the Law. The Council of Treat declares that the Sacrifice in the Mass, and that offered on the Cross, is the very same for substance, and differs only in the manner of Offering, and denounces a Curse against any that shall say, that it is not a true and proper Sacrifice, or that Christ in these words, do this, did not command the Disciples and Priests after them, to Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ. 3. They maintain, that in every true and proper Sacrifice, that which is Sacrificed, is really destroyed. So Bellarmine, to a true Sacrifice, it is required that what is offered to God in Sacrifice, should be plainly destroyed. And if it be a live thing that is offered, that it may be a true and real Sacrifice, it must of necessity be slain and deprived of Life. A true and real Sacrifice, says he, requires the true and real killing of it, since in the killing of it, the essence of the Sacrifice consists. Hence it clearly follows, and it is their own inference, that Christ being truly and properly Sacrificed in the M • se he is there really consumed, killed, or destroyed; he is as really consumed in the Mass, as Incense, when it was burnt for an Oblation: The Body of Christ, says the Cardinal, for the honor of God, is laid upon the Table, that it may he consumed. He is as really destroyed, as the whole burnt offering was destroyed when it was totally burnt. The consumption of the Sacrament, says the same Author, as it is done by a Sacrificing Priest, is an essential part of the Sacrifice, for it is a real destruction of the Sacrifice, and is counted correspondent to the burning of the Holocaust. He is as really killed in the Mass by their doctrine, as a Bullock that was slain for a Sacrifice. If in the Mass, says he, there be not a true and real killing and slaying of Christ, it is not a true and real Sacrifice; adding this reason, because the essence of a Sacrifice consists in the killing of it. So also Doctor Allen says, Christ is killed there indeed, and sacrificed to God: And Vegad Christis as truly slain, and offered in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as he is truly in the Sacrament; and they think him to be as truly there, as they believe him to be in Heaven. Aquinas favors this Opinion, and Gabriel insinuates it; Soto, Ledesma, Cano, and the modern Thomists, do plainly deliver it, besides Bellarmine and other Jesuits. Cano says, they believe that to the perfect sacrificing of an Animal, it ought to be destroyed and slain, if it be truly Sacrificed. He says also, that the Body of Christ, in the Mass, is a living and breathing Body, even the very same that is in Heaven, and that it is truly Sacrificed. What then can follow from hence, but that the living and breathing Body of Christ in the Mass, is truly killed. This is not denied, only they say it is an unbloody death. And this indeed is their doctrine, Christ is put to death in the Mass, as he was upon the Cross; it is the same death for the substance, that he dies by the Priest, as he died by the Jews and Romans, only with some difference in the manner of it: It was a bloody death on the Cross; it is an unbloody death in the Mass, but he is put to death in both: and why should they say it is an unbloody death that he suffers by the Priest, since they profess that his blood is there shed and poured forth , the very same blood that was shed on the Cross? This may seem strange, and they cross themselves here sometimes; but nothing must seem strange in the Mass, for it is such a heap of absurdities and contradictions, as never entered into the fancy of any men waking, and in their wits; nor could have entered into theirs, if the spirit of delusion, and the dream of infallibility had not distracted them. However, this they do, and must hold whatever come of it, that Christ is killed or destroyed in the Mass; they are as much concerned to do it, as all their Religion comes to; for if Christ be not really destroyed in their Mass, they have no true and proper Sacrifice; and they tell us (to prove us altogether irreligious) Where there is no proper Sacrifice, there can be no Religion Hereby it is very manifest that the Office of their Sacrificing Priest, is, daily to offer deadly violence to Christ: That Christ in their Mass is every day slain or consumed, and that the highest devotion of the Romish Church is the destruction of Christ. 'It is true, Christ is above their reach, whatever they fancy, they cannot offer him this violence, or destroy him as they do his Members; but they really design to destroy him, when they would make a Sacrifice of him; and they verily believe they do it, and they do all which they count requisite in order to it; and therefore they are destroyers of Christ by their own Rule, to will to do it, is t • e same wickedness with the doing of it. The horridness of this will be more apparent if we take notice, wherefore they will thus use Christ. Their Church does it for the honor of the Saints, and of his Mother. In that part of the Mass, which is called the Offertory, they say, we offer thee this Oblation in honor of the blessed Mary, forever a Virgin, and of all the Apostles, and of all the Saints, that it may be for their honor . So that they Sacrifice the Son to honor the Mother, and destroy the Lord in honor of his Servants. If one under the Law, had but offered a Pigeon, or the meanest Sacrifice, in honor of Abraham or Moses, it would have been counted a Crime worthy of the worst of deaths; for this had been an advancing them into the place of God; and yet to Sacrifice the Son of God, that is, to destroy him in honor of a Saint of the Popes making, is a meritorious act. Further, the Priest will not venture on such a fact for nothing; he has no reason to destroy Christ, more than Judas had to betray him, without some valuable consideration. He is to Sacrifice Christ for the living and the dead: For those that are dead, if they have bequeathed anything to the Church for this purpose, or if their Friends hire him to do it. For the living, those that are frugal, may be secretly mentioned in the momento of a common Mass for a piece of money; but if any will go to the price of a particular Mass, the Priest is ready to Sacrifice and destroy Christ on purpose for them in particular. In fine, they do not offer this to Christ for spiritual respects only; but for temporal and worldly advantages, and such often as are of no great moment . Christ is to be destroyed for the health and safety of anybody that is Catholic; yea, for the curing of a diseased Horse, or the recovery of a sick Pigg, or the preserving of their Fruit from frost, or a blast. They think it not amiss for such matters as these, to make a Sacrifice of Christ, and to destroy him, it is done amongst them many thousand times daily. And though the Apostle seems to make it a horrid crime for one to Crucify again the Son of God, yet for them to do that daily, which for the substance of the thing is as destructive to Christ as the first Crucifying was, is the principal part and office, and the most eminent and meritorious act of their Religion.

These and such like are the prime Virtues of the Romanists, most needful to be observed and practiced: And if things of such a quality be so far from being relinquished, where shall we find anything which God hath made a sin, that can be thought worthy to be forsaken? But I have stayed long enough here, let me proceed to the next head propounded, to satisfy us that they count it needless to forsake sin.

SECT. I.

THere are innumerable Evils which they call Sins, yet they count it not necessary in point of Salvation, for any to forsake them; but give all encouragement to live and die therein, as sins for which they can never be condemned. Such are those which they count Venial. Let me show you what sins they are, which they reckon to be of such a quality: and thereby it will be discerned how far their Doctrine gives warranty to sins of all sorts, and to continue in the violation of all the Commands of God. And this I shall do out of their own Authors, such as are unexceptionable, declining the Jesuits: and thereby it will be more manifest how little reason there is to excuse the practical Doctrine received in their Church, by charging their impious and licentious Principles upon the Society.

To hate God, if it be out of inadvertency, and not with deliberation, is no mortal sin, and this they say of actual hatred; for habitual enmity against God is, with them, no sin at all. Acts of insidelity, when they are led thereto by fear; or worshipping an Idol, (such as not only we, but themselves count Idols), are no worse than Venial. Unbelief and perplexing distrustfulness of God, about the things of this life, is as innocent. To present the body only before God, in all religious Exercises, in Prayer, the Sacraments, yea the Eucharist itself; without any actual disposition suitable to the nature of the duties, without any good motion in mind or heart; without any inward Attention, Reverence, or Devotion; without any act of Faith, Fear, Love, Desire, or any other Grace or holy Affection, though the want of these be voluntary, is but a Venial fault. It is no worse, not only to make base and earthly things, the end why we worship God; but to make that which is a sin, our design in any part of his Service: yea, to propose it as the chief and principal end, why we worship him. Though this be no less than to prefer sin, and the pleasure of the Devil before God, and his honor. To make use of a Witch to dissolve some witchcraft, is scarce so much as a Venial sin. And so to use the Devils assistance instead of God's; and employ others disposed thereto, to act as Witches, and to practice with the Prince of darkness by a deputy in Diabolical Arts, is not unlawful. To deal with the Devil for to get some knowledge by him, or obtain other things of him, by such converse; is but a Venial fault: for Example. If an Exorcist require the Devil to satisfy him in some curious questions (such as tend nothing to the expessing of him:) if he believe him not, but does it out of lightness and curiosity; he offends but venially. To use adjurations to God, or Man, or Angels, or Devils, or irrational Creatures lightly, without reverence of the Name of God, or any necessity; is but a slight fault.

SECT II.

BY virtue of their Doctrine concerning Venial sins, they have formed Rules, to encourage men in the practice and constant use of all sorts of profane and wicked Oaths. They acknowledge that the Oath is sinful, unless it be made in truth, and judgment and righteousness; when that which is sworn is not true, or not just and righteous, or not with Reverence and Discretion; yet they teach, it is but a Venial fault, to swear without reverence or discretion, or without righteousness also, if that be not much. So that though Swearing be an Act (as they tell us) of God's Worship wherein Divine Honor is given to him, whom we swear by: yet this may be done without reverence, and discretion, (as the rest of their Worship is,) and God may be solemnly called to witness, that the man intends to sin against him, if it be not much; and this without any great fault. A habit of Swearing thus, or worse, is no sin, (for habits of what wickedness soever, are not forbidden); to use this habit frequently so as to swear Customarily, almost at every word, ( tertio quoque verbo); unless he regard not at all, whether he swear true or false, yea though he regard not that, as much as he ought; is no more a fault. So to swear out of lightness and vanity, upon any the slightest occasion, without any advantage, or the least necessity; is as innocent a practice according to all their Doctors. And the common practice of their Catholics, is correspondent to these conscientious Rules: You can scarce find any one (says Soto) who will either begin; or end the least discourse without an Oath: for they use Oaths for Ornaments of speech, at every word. But should they not at least endeavor to leave this Custom of Swearing? No, never to endeavor it, is but a small fault. Although (says one of their most approved Casuists,) he sins venially who swears true without any necessity, and so the custom of swearing be evil and peruicious: yet be sins not mortally who labors not to break off that Custom, because it is but an occasion of falling into venial faults. Hereby they have encouragement, not only to accustom themselves to this impious practice, (wherein so much prosaneness, irreverence, and contempt of God, is expressed,) but also never to give it over, yea never to endeavor it. And the reason whereby they warrant this, reaches all the wickedness which by those conscientious, Divines is counted Venial: they may commit it customarily, continually, and need never go about to do better; all will be but a fault so smallas is next to nothing. They need not regard in what terms their Oaths are dressed. They may swear body; on blood of God, by Catetans leave: yea, Though they swear, by such parts of Christ's body, or such members of the Saints, or the Virgin-mother, as are not to be named (per inhonesta membra); it is but Venial, if without contempt and scandal, which will make an act in itself lawful, to be criminal. And though they seem to give caution, that what is sworn be not false; since this cannot be excused by any Artifice, from being damnable: yet they try, what may be done, to make this go down as easily as the rest. If the thing sworn be false and he knows it, yet swears it by his faith, or • roth, or this Fire: such per jury is Venial, non peccant mortaliter cum perjurant Angel. after Aureolus v. perjurium: To swear that which is false injest, is a harmless Venial, by the Gloss upon their Law. Commonly to swear that which is false, without considering whether it be false, or no; or whether be swear or not; is as harmless. This is the judgment of Aquinas and their common Doctrine; so that if a man heed not what he does, he may do what he will; and as it were wink a damnable crime into a slight fault. By this expedient he may swear false, as commonly as true, without any considerable hurt; this is enough one would think to render their worse sort of swearing, perjury itself, practicable, in ordinary, with ease and safety: Yet as an over-plus, they add, he that swears what is false through gross or careless ignorance, thinking it to be true, though if he use due diligence, he sins not at all; yet if he used some diligence, but not enough; he offends no more than venially, if Aquinas or the common Doctrine may be credited; for this is it, saith Navar. And that, which way soever a man turns himself, he may have liberty to be perjured; they teach, that, He that swears the truth believing it to be false, and takes notice that he swears, but minds not what he swears, sins not Mortally: Or if he neither regard the one, nor the other, but does both without consideration; it is only a little little fault, unless this inconsiderateness was willful, and out of contempt, for then perhaps it may be worse, upon the account of contempt; probable error will excuse perjury from mortal guilt, as if one appeals, thinking there is reasonable cause for it, though he has sworn before not to appeal. So, Panormitan. and Angel. Sum. v. Perjur.

He that hears a thing from a person of credit, may swear it is true, only not in Court, unless he express his reason. Bonacin. Tom. 2. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 3. n. 7. But as if it were not sufficient, for a man to swear false himself; they conclude he may without harm draw others to do it also; for, 1. They say he may induce others to swear; when he is not satisfied, whether they will swear true or false; that's the opinion of Aquinas, and their common Doctrine. Further, he that knows another will swear false, may yet put him upon it, if he be a public person, that's also the opinion of Aquinas, and commonly embraced by their Doctors; yea moreover any one whosoever, may put him to swear whom he fears, or knows will forswear himself, if he be disposed to swear. Let us see in the next place, whether they may not be as perfidious in promissory Oaths, as they may be false in others; and upon as easy terms: In all cases good or bad, or in different. He that swears he will not go to or pass by such or such a place, though he do it for no end, that is honest or profitable; sins not mortally, if he go contrary to his Oath. He that swears he will do a thing lawful, and does it not, sins but venially, if it was a small matter; this is the common opinion, which Navar attempts to prove with several reasons. As, if a woman swears she will give her Children Apples to quiet them, and gives them none; or swears to chastise them, and does it not (which are Cajetans instances, though he vary from the rest in the general conclusion,) or if a man swear he will say an Ave-Mary, and says it not; or swears to say a Pater-Noster, or to give a small matter, and gives it not; or not to take place of his friend, and yet does it; or to game no more, and plays a little: In such cases any breach of promises, confirmed by Oaths, is but a small fault. And consequently it will be no worse, in all matters not only small but great; for the obligation of an Oath, rises not from the quantity of the matter sworn, but from the concern and interest of God in an Oath, he being invocated therein as witness. Now this is always the same, whether the matter be less or more; and so if they be not obliged, to keep Oaths in less matters, neither are they bound in greater. But by their rules of Conscience, they are set at liberty to break all: He that swears to give a Whore 100 Crowns for the act of fornication, is only bound to give her that part of it, which persons of his condition are wont to give such Women; Because a Prodigal engagement confirmed by Oath obliges only to that proportion in which there is no profuseness. Banns et alii in Diana, v. promiss. If a man swear to be true to a whore, and she to be faithful to him, so as to entertain no other, the Oath doth not oblige either of them to such honesty. Idem, v. juram. n. 10. Whether the matter be small or great, when one is drawn by fear, or brought by law to swear, if he break his Oath that is promissory: he sins but venially. Pet. Aureolus Job. Andreas, et multi alii et places Angel. sum. v. Perjur. n. 7. He that swears he will not observe some evangelical counsel (that which is not only lawful, but excellently good, and better in their account than what the Law of God requires,) offends but venially: so their Authors generally. And yet to these Counsels they have reduced a great part, almost all, which God has made our duty, as we showed before; so that a man may call God to witness, that he is resolved not to do, what he has made his duty. As for one to bind himself by Oath, that he will not lend to his Neighbor, nor be surety for any, nor give alms to any in great necessity, nor do any of those important things, which they count works of supererogation; is but a small Venial. Such Oaths, they say, do give obstruction to the Spirit of God, yet they may be kept without sin. He that swears he will return to prison, and does not; is no more guilty, if he was not duly imprisoned. He that swears he will commit any sin, if it be but a venial; offends but venially, this is the common Doctrine well declared by C • jetan and Navar, as he tells us. As if a man should swear, that he would never use to speak without an Oath; or never avoid any of those horrid acts, which they mince into Venials; to call-God to witness, that he purposes thus to dishonor him; is it seems, no great contempt of him, or else a great contempt of God with them is but a trifle. This is to threaten God to his face, and call upon him to take notice of it, that they will do these evils against him. Soto and others say, it is such a threatening of God, when they swear to commit mortal sin: and no difference can possibly be here discerned, but that the one is a threatening God with a greater evil, the other with a less. However this is their common Doctrine, Assertio posita communis est. They give as much liberty for fraudulent Oaths, whereby God and man are abused; to swear with equivocation or mental restriction, so as those to whom Oath is made, are deluded, is with them, in many cases, not so bad as a venial Evil; of which in due place. To take an Oath outwardly, without an intent to swear, is but a small fault, though it seem a mocking of the Divine Majesty, and is cross to the end of an Oath; if it be unduly required. So they determine also in case one swear without an intention to oblige himself. Angelus enquires, whether he sins, who takes an Oath, with a mind not to be obliged; he tells us, Panormitan affirms, that if he be a perfectionist (id est, a Votary) who so swears, he sins venially, otherwise not: but himself says, Whether he be perfect or imperfect, he sins not so much as venially, and proves it by their Law. He takes an Oath, which in its own nature obligeth, without an intention to be obliged; he calls God to witness when he is deluding men; he abuses the Name and Authority of God, for a cheat; and yet offends but venially whoever he be, says one; and sins not at all, says another: but then he explains it, Understand this when in swearing, he had a mind to use an Oath, for reverence to God, but not for obliging himself. So that must be for reverence to God, which mocks him; and he must be invocated, in a way that is most obliging, without any intent to be obliged. And further to prevent falseness (where there is nothing but fraud) he must swear, with a mental reservation. For example, I promise thee an hundred (pound), with this inward reserve, not expressed: If I be bound to pay it for such concealments, says he, are lawful, and quotes their Church-Law for it, as allowing that, which all other Laws of God, or honest men condemn. 'It is plain by the Premises that their Doctrine encourages the Roman Catholics to venture upon all sorts of Oaths, in many cases, whether they be rash or injurious, or fraudulent, or false; as slight and trivial faults. No more do they make of perjury, though it be frequent and customary. If more evidence be desired, take notice only of the determination of Dominicus Soto (a grave and learned Doctor, and one who was a principal Divine in the Council of Trent: ) he having premised something concerning the heinousness of Perjury, that the Lord forbids it, with a particular EMPHASIS more than other sins; that it is a greater crime than murder, and is most grievously punished both by God and man; his tamen non obstannibus, all this notwithstanding he lays down two Conclusions, in which he maintains Perjuries of all sorts, id est, both in promissory, and assertory Oaths, to to be no worse than Venial. 1. Every assertory Oath though it be vain and unlawful, and in a sort perjury; is not a mortal sin, but oftentimes venial. 2. There are many promissory perjuries, (promissoria perjuria) which are no greater faults than Venial; and reduces these Perjuries to four general Heads, (under which many thousands of particular cases may be contained): and all must pass for Venial. Then, for customariness of such Perjuries, how commonly, how often soever a man is guilty thereof, that makes them not mortal, he speaks of some mentioned by Scotus, who thought that a light Perjury was no worse than venial; but if it were customary, it would be mortal: But he confutes this opinion, by a Principle generally received, that a multiplication of the same acts, do not change the nature thereof; that is, ten thousand Venials acts, do not make one mortal sin: and concludes if the purjury be but Venial, (as it may be by his determinations now mentioned, in many thousand instances) how habitual and customary soever it be, it is not thereby mortal. So that if a man, how calkative soever, should neverspeak while he lives, but with an Oath, or such Perjury as he here excuses: yet all the Perjuries of a whole life, would not be a mortal sin.

SECT. III.

THey determine in their Schools, that of all sins those are the greatest and most heinous, that are against the Theological Virtues and Religion; of those against Religion (which are counted sacrilege) there are three degrees, and in the highest of all, (containing crimes against the Deity and being of God:) as the most grievous they place Perjury, Blasphemy, and the sins against the Holy Ghost, (and those in the same rank with these;) yet for practice how little they make of Perjury we have seen. Blasphemy meets with the same measures: they teach it may be but a Venial fault, in any of those cases, wherein they describe it: whether by denying God's infinite perfections, his Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, Providence, &c. or by charging what is reproachful to him, as Injustice, Partiality, Impotency, Cruelty, Ignorance, &c. or by ascribing his incommunicable Excellencles to others, as calling a friend our God; or attributing the divine Perfections to the Devil; or else by way of detestation, decrying, renouncing, cursing God, with imprecations against his Blessedness, or Being; or else by way of derision, &c. Now it will be but a Venial fault to Blaspheme the divine Majesty in such a manner, when it is out of lightness of mind; or (2) when it is sudden from passion: so Sylvester, after Aquinas. And Navar after, Angelus adds, that it is not material though the passion be without just cause, or in gaming, or from drunkenness, or any unlawful employment; such passion and excess, will be so far from being great sin, that they will lessen the greatest, or (3) when it is from wicked custom, with contempt of ones own Salvation. When one is so habituated in the practice of reproaching God, that Blasphemies break from him, without observance or consideration. So Cajetan and So us, and Navar after Sylvester. Thus by their rules, the more a man 〈◊〉 in the most horrid instances, the less will his sin be. To blaspheme God customarily may be a slight fault, when to do it rarely, will be a most deadly crime. Here's a course described, to make such blaspheming of God, as a Soul that has any sense of his Majesty, can neither think nor speak of without horror, to be familiar, and practicable, without danger; let him, then blaspheme God at first out of levity or passion; he may do it thus customarily, with safety: and the oftener he does it, the more he secures himself, for when he hath so perfected this habit of wickedness by custom, that Blasphemies 〈◊〉 • ssue from him, without his notice or observance; he may, even when he is not heated by passion, repreath God at every word, while he lives; and breath out his Soul with Blasphemies, when he dies; and yet be saved, for all this will amount to no more than such faults, as never endanger the Soul of a Roman Catholic. There needs no more to make mortal sins Venial, but to get the perfect habit of them, that is, if a man be but wicked enough, there is no great danger.

SECT. IV.

FOR the sanctifying the Lord's day, or any other which they count holy, all that is necessary, is the worship of the Mass only, with abstaining from servile works: this is enough on any festival for the avoiding of mortal sin. It is their common Doctrine, and there is not anything wherein they more generally agree. So it is to be observed, that the total sum of all the holiness, which is necessary for these Catholics; even at those times, when it should appear if ever, and all which they themselves are obliged to exercise, consists in their being at Mass, and evoiding servile work. What holy attendance at the Mass they count necessary, we saw before, they may spend the time in sleeping, or talking, or laughing, or scoffing; only with some little intermissions; that they may stand at the Gospel, and kneel at the Consecration, and how at the Elevation; but therein no inward act being necessary, all the holiness requisite, lies in their legs, which should be ordered, as the Priest gives the signal; yet even this, they are not obliged to, who neither hear, nor see what is done; and it is not needful at the Mass, for any of the people, so much as to use their senses. When the Mass (which may begin at break of day or before) is dispatched in such a holy manner, (with such attendance as would scarce be counted civil, at least sufficient, at a stage-Play) they may spend the rest of the day, according to this beginning. Th •… (says Cajetan ) who after Mass vainly consume the rest of these d •… in sports, in jesting, in idle vagaries, in hunting, in seeing Shows •… Plays, and anything of this nature: by such acts, because they are •… servile works, (upon which account they say, that no other acts of, wickedness are a profaning of these days, or a breach of that Precep •… they incur no mortal sin. But then he (who is more precise herein, that the generality of their Divines), brings an after-reckoning: Yet, say • he, hereby because they neglect that divine Worship, for which these days were instituted, they sin greatly; How can that be, since he said immediately before, that they sin not mortally? why there is a latitude in their venial Faults, some are great, and some less; and so wi •… him, to neglect all Worship but the Mass, is a great sin of the little size: he gives the reason, because hereby they give not to God the things that are God's, and as much as in them lies, make the Festivals •… Christians ridiculous, according to that Lam. 1. 7. So that by him, those who after Morning-Service, spend this day in such Pastime • , they rob God of his due, and they render Christians, in their pretences to the sanctifying of the Lord's day or others, ridiculous to the World: and yet, this is but a Venial Sin: or at worst, but a gre •… little-Fault, not so great, as any man need fear; no not he, who is most afraid of damnation. Navar adds another reason, why it should be a sin though but a Venial, to consume these days in Recreations; because in such Employments many mortal sins occur, according to Antoninus, who says, The blindness of Christians is to be lamented with the tears of all men, who more grievously offend God, on the days appointed for his Worship, than the whole week besides. Notwithstanding this is their way of sanctifying the Lord's Day, and all other times, for Devotion, of their own; with profane and irreligious Divertisements, such as render their pretences to Religion ridiculous (as the Cardinal notes): accompanied with such debaucheries, as make their holy-days the profanest, of all other. It is but a Venial fault at most (for many count it not so much) to consume the whole day herein without any other religious Act, or Exercise of any sort whatever: they need hear no Sermous, nor attend their Vespers, nor use any Prayers public or private, nor read the Scriptures, nor sing the praises of God, nor meditate on him; nor have any one act of Love, or Con • rition, nor any other act of inward Worship at all; nor of outward Worship either, but only part of the Mass: this will serve for all, so highly divine and religious a Service it is; though they declare themselves not obliged therein, either to mind God, or divine things: yea though they hear Mass (when nothing else is needful for the sanctifying of the Day) out of contempt of the day; yet the Precept is satisfied. But if they be not at Mass on those days, (though presence at Mass may make all other holy Duties unnecessary in other cases, yet) should they not make up that defect with some other prayers, or religious Exercise; lest God should have no service at all, nor show of it, in public or private, on those days which alone are set apart for that purpose? no, ) if they neglect Mass, either upon reasonable or damnable occasions (to wit, if they spend the time when they should be at it, in any other wickedness); yet are they not obliged to Prayer, or any other act of Worship, on those days afterwards. This is the Doctrine not only of their famous Navar, but of Pope Adrian, and their Saint Antoninus, with others: Yea after all other holy Exercises are cashiered as needless on any of their holy times; the Mass itself may be dismissed too for company. And because all their Religion necessary for the people, consists in this, at all times, when anything religious is by their Doctrine needful for them; it will not be amiss, to observe, how easily they may be excused from this: thereby we may discern, of what moment it is in their account, to have nothing at all of Religion amongst them. Cardinal Cajetan will satisfy us herein; he determines, that it is no mortal sin, to neglect the Mass on a reasonable occasion, though it be but such an occasion as is not urgent. Yea, he says, It is but a Venial fault to omit it, upon no sufficient reason, and universally it is no great fault to neglect it, if a man thinks really he may be excused from hearing i • , or if besides his intention, out of some negligence it be omitted. Yea, they may be excused by custom; for so he says Maids are excused from hearing Mass, till they be married, (and their Mothers too who are obliged to stay at home with them) because so is the custom. If so were the custom, it seems, all the rest might be excused. So many ways at least, may these Catholics be excused from all their Religion: by custom, or necessity, or opinion, or (which alone may suffice) by an insufficient reason; it will but be a Venial fault at most, together with all religious Exercises, to omit the Mass too; and that at those times, when alone (if ever) they are obliged to them. Such being their Doctrine, we need not wonder, if Religion be starved to death among them, the life of it cannot be sustained (no more than God can be honored by man-kind) without some acts of Worship and religious Exercises in ordinary practice: their Teachers assure them, that they are not ordinarily obliged to any of these, on common days; and to none of them all, but the Mass, on their days for Worship; nor to any religious attendance on God or their Souls, in that; nor to any attendance on it at all, but what they may decline, without mortal sin. If the life of Religion be preserved amongst any, without its necessary supports, and proper nourishment, it must be by a Miracle: but they seem so far from regarding the life, or the power of it (on which the honor of God, and the salvation of Souls depends); that they are not concerned for the carcass of it, in exterior acts, no, not that of the Mass (when they have reduced all to that) further than the fear of a Venial sin will oblige; ten millions of which cannot as they teach, damn a man. As for servile works, abstaining from which they make the negative part of this Precept; the avoiding of these is but, that we may with more leisure attend on divine Worship: it cannot be expected they will much insist on the means when they have overturned the end. In short, they determine that they who do any servile or forbidden works, on the Lord's day; if they do it not, with a design to profane it, offend but Venially. Thus if they never all their life, perform one religious act which God has commanded, on his own day or others, they scarce sin Venially; or if they neglect that, which themselves have made the religious Duty of these days, they may do it without greater fault or danger. And for the negative part, if they consume these days in servile works (without an intention needlessly perverse); or which is worse, in profane divertisements; yea, or in acting the most enormous wickedness (as we shall see in its place): yet by their Doctrine they do nothing, against this Precept, or nothing which any of them need regard. Thus their Doctrine of Venial sins, is improved to possess them with a conceit, that they may make what breaches they will upon the Commandments of God, without doing anything at all (or anything dangerously) against them; and so to render all sorts of ungodliness practicable with safety. We have seen it in instances against precepts of the first Table; let us see if those, who make so bold with God, in the Duties which more immediately concern himself, will be more tender, as to those which respect man.

SECT. V.

THE Duties which Children owe their Parents, (to instance for briefness only in those which the Lord hath made the exemplar of the other; and by which we may pass a judgment on the rest): they reduce to those three, Reverence, Love, and Obedience. In reference to the first, They conclude that those who have no more respect for their Parents, thou to count it a disgrace and a shame to be counted their Children; if it be for the inconveniences of a sinister opinion, or such-like cause, sin not mortally: and the fault may be less still, if the Parents consent to it expressly, or tacitly, to avoid some inconvenience. It seems, the Command calls for no such Reverence from Children; but they may be ashamed of their Parents, if they be poor, and low in the World. Children may curse their Parents if they do it but with their lips, and this whether they be alive or dead, the offense is but Venial. And indeed, they all • ow Parents, to give their Children occasion enough to curse them: when they will not have them obliged under mortal sin, to teach them anymore than the sign of the Cross, the small Creed, and Pater-noster; nor teach them these in a language they understand. However Parents may come even with their Children, and if they love and reverence their Father and Mother so much as to curse them; their Parents may curse them again, upon as easy terms, only they should not desire mischief to them in their heart, though their words express that desire. When Parents curse their children, having no inward desire of their mischief, it is never a mortal sin, says Soto. (and it may seem strange considering the account of it immediately added,) Although it be indeed a wicked custom, and not at all for correction, besides that the heat of cursing, often raises anger into hatred, and so alters the mind, that they often desire, that all the mischief imprecated may befall them: besides the appellation of the Devil, can scarce be excused from a mortal Evil, for it is a kind of blasphemy and scandal, to wish eternal death to any. Yet all this it seems may be excused from deadly sin, though not very easily.

For Love, they may rejoice at the death of their Father because of some outward advantage they gain thereby: They may accuse their Parents of Heresy, though the effect of that will be a cruel death to those, who gave them life. As to Obedience in things that pertain not to paternal government, it is no mortal sin to disobey them. In any things whatsoever, it is but a Venial fault to disobey them, out of negligence, or sensualness. And so there's room enough for a continued disobedience, while they live. In matters of great importance, where, if ever, disobedience would be mortal; they exempt it from such guilt. They may enter into a Manastery, before they are at age, though their Parents charge them, not to do it: They may dispose of themselves in marriage, without their Parents consent: because according to Aquinas, in the choice of their condition, they are not subject to their Parents, and their Parents concurrence herein is for decency not out of necessity. Not only in things of great consequence as to this life; But in matters necessary to their Salvation, it is but a venial fault if they disobey them; so it be not out of contempt, that is, out of obstinacy and pertinaciousness. Thus Sylvester and others, de Graffiis is more particular herein, a Son should not be disobedient to his Father in things which belong to the Family, and his salvation, as in avoiding pernicious company, and unlawful games, and Whores, he should not disobey him herein out of contempt, by which (says he) I understand obstinacy and pertinaciousness, so that, not to be obedient (herein) out of inconsiderateness, or negligence, or sensuality would be Venial. They encourage a Maid not only to dispose of herself in marriage without consent of Parents, but also to give up herself to uncleanness. If she willingly be deflowered, they conclude it is no injury to her nor to her future Husband, nor to her Parents. Their reason is because she has the disposing of her own body, and so may use it freely for the satisfying of lust, though not lawfully; yet lawfully too so fat that they will have this lewdness to be no wrong at all to the party, most concerned, herself or others. If she be unchaste herein, yet not unrighteous; She owes not so much obedience to her Parents as to keep herself honest; nor have they authority to oblige her not to be a Whore, no more than not to be a Nunn. By this we may take an estimate, of the honor which other Superiors must expect, by their rules of Morality. I must not descend to other particulars, fearing tediousness.

SECT. VI.

THey hold that he breaks not the sixth (in their account the fifth) Commandment, who desires, or procures, or does any mischief, to another's Soul. It seems it is no murder, to kill the Soul. It is a rule with them that sins in heart, word and deed, are of the same kind. So they yield to Christ in this, that anger and hatred, may be a kind of murder: yet they think fit to exempt these, for the most part, from mortal guilt. When there has been such hatred and enmity betwixt two, as neither of them will be induced to speak to the other; yet both are to be absolved (says de Graffiis). When there is such indignation, that will admit of no affability, or converse. It is a fault, says Cajetan, for the inordinacy of the passion, yet commonly Venial. They would reconcile us to anger when both the measure, and the effects of it, seem intolerable; when it is so extravagant, as that it both burns excessively within, and flames out no less in external significations of its excess; yet such an excess, is a small fault. It will be as harmless though it be revengeful too, if it seek not a great revenge; yea a man as innocently seeks and takes the greatest revenge, if he do it inconsiderately. This they deny not, when they tell us withal, that the passion may be but Venial, when it makes a person inconsiderate: So that a man may destroy all that he is angry at, if his passion be but quick, and great enough. To desire that he whom we count our enemy, were killed; or to rejoice that he is murdered, if it be for some good that ensues upon it, is no Crime. No more it seems than it is for the Cannibals, to delight • o▪ have others killed; it is for the good they reap thereby, they have the advantage to feed on them. They will scarce be able to persuade one, that it is unlawful to act, what he may lawfully desire; yet they count it no sin to desire the death, not only of those that are mischievous, and do or may do them hurt, but of such as are innocent: not only of strangers, or such as they count enemies, but even of their nearest Relations. A Woman may desire the death of her daughters, because they are unhandsome, or poor; so that she cannot marry them according to her mind. And the reason (which must clear this from guilt) is because, this is not a hatred of enmity to their persons, but only a hatred of abomination, as to their unhandsomness and poverty. Thus she may hate her own Children to any degree of abhorrence, so far as to will them the grandest evil in this world, death itself, because they are not rich; or because they are not comely, she may kill them so far as her mind and heart can do it, upon this account; and sacrifice them inwardly to her covetousness or ambition, or curiosity; and this very innocently. A • affecting to kill ones enemy without consent, is but a Venial fault with Cajetan. If he actually kill him, so it be done indeliberately, he does no great harm. The rule received by them without exception, will warrant it, surpise and inconsiderateness excuses from mortal sin. Thus if a man kills any he meets with, without any deliberation at all, through natural hastiness, drink, or passion, 'tis no mortal sin; yea it may be done as easily, with some deliberation, if that be not full, and perfect: and there are so many things, which they tell us of, to hinder it from being full; that killing of others may be a common practice, with little or no fault. But when it is more voluntary, there are more cases wherein they make murder no sin at all, than so much as a Venial fault, of which in its proper place.

SECT. VII.

PRoceed we to the next command. Some of their Doctors have determined, that fornication is not intrinsically evil, nor forbidden, because it is evil, but only evil because it is forbidden. So Martinus a Magistris, and after him Durand, held, that fornication is not condemned by the law of nature, as a sin deserving eternal death; but is only prohibited by a positive law, Deut. 23. Eph. 5. And so it will be no worse, nor deserve anymore than a Venial fault; since a positive law neither adds to the penalty, nor makes it a greater evil, but only declares the native evil of it, more expressly. Not only fornication, but also adultery, even in the Clergy, has passed amongst them as a lesser sin, and is so expressed in the Pontifical Law. For some crimes Clergy-men were to be deposed, for others the Bishop might dispense with them, to wit, when they were lesser faults. Amongst these lesser Pope Alexander 3 reckons adulteries; but for Adulteries, says he, and other lesser crimes, the Bishop after they have done penance, may dispense with the Clergy. They teach, that for a whore, though she be a married woman, or a Nun, to seek or receive a reward for prostituting herself, is but a Venial fault, if any. Only they differ how she should have it. Some say as a gift or gratuity; but others as a hire, legally due in justice. By which it is evident, that either they must think such uncleanness not to be intrinsically evil; or else, that it is as warrantable to seek and receive rewards for other such acts of wickedness (as for slandering, robbing, assasinating men, or firing houses, &c. The use of matrimony, before the marriage be solemnized, if it be without contempt, is no mortal sin, says Cajetan; because neither the violation of rules, nor of custom, through the weakness of passion, can be mortal: others concur with him her in. Nor do Antonin •… and John Tabienna much mend the matter; who will have the first act to be a sin, but none of the rest after. He or she who first contracts marriage with one privately, and after with another publicly, sins not mortally, if they lie with the former, without scandal; but is bound to live with the latter, the Church commanding it, if there be no danger of coming together. As though they could cohabit together, as man & wife, without such danger. This is in effect to determine, they may lie with both, and they that have a mind to it, may have warranty from the Master of Sentences for the latter; and from the Master of the sacred Palace and others, for the former. A woman whose Chastity is attempted with some force, though she cry not out, though she call not for help when it may be had, though she make no resistance at all with any part of her, though she do not so much as any way move to hinder it; yea though she take natural pleasure in the act: yet if her will, do not deliberately consent ( though they say) in any court, she could not in such circumstances, but be presumed to consent;) she sins not mortally: thus Soto with others. They confess that a woman can scarce ever do this and be honest, and yet give this encouragement, to all, to doit. Here's a way to have all women corrupted, that are but attempted with eagerness, if the rules of those, who have the guidance of their practice and Consciences be but complied with: impetuous lust may make the essay upon any, without fear of so much as a check, or any resistance: and those who are engaged by the Laws of nature, God, and man, to make opposition; may innocently give place to it, without struggling; yea they may be chaste enough though they yield to such lust with pleasure; so it be no more than sensual, and these delights be not jumbled together in practice, which in the Doctrine of their Teachers is sufficiently distinguished and parted for them. They bid fair also to make that uncleanness to which persons are drawn by the power of Courtship and insinuation, pass as innocent; for they say, that is no sin which is involuntary, and that is not voluntary to which we are necessitated; and Cajetan tells us (in a case much akin to this) that our passions excited by exterior persuasion, do as it were, offer us violence; after he had informed us, that what Whores extort by flatteries more than their hire, is an involuntary gift, the mind being this way necessitated: and sure, flatteries in reference to the act, as well as the reward, may as much necessitate, and make the one as involuntary, as the other; further, if man or woman need neither force nor importunity, but be ready to commit uncleanness without more ado, one may without sin invite them to it. Self polution is no mortal sin, in any that desire, it may befall them in their sleep for the ease of nature: nor is it a sin to be pleased with it when it is past for a good end, and so Aquinas, Paludanus, and the common Doctrine: Nor to be pleased with it as future, if the pleasure do not cause it: Nor to be pleased with it when it befalls them awake, if the pleasure be but sensual, and not rational. Under the favor of this distinction they may act uncleanness, either natural, or against nature, and that with delight too: for though the lower faculties take pleasure therein, yet if the superior either check it, or run not into a full compliance there with, they are safe. They encourage them to venture upon, and continue in such occasions of uncleanness; as those who think it needful to avoid the acts, cannot but judge necessary, to be abandoned. They that eat hot meats, such as provoke and cause uncleanness; or otherwise eat excessively: if they do it not with such an intention, but to satisfy their gluttony, or for other cause: yea though they doubt uncleanness will be the issue of it, offend but Venially. Carnal touches used, for sensual pleasure, without designing the act of uncleanness, or the delight of it (though it be consessed, that of all other occasions, this leads most directly, and most dangerously to the consummation of the act): yet are they but Venial faults, with many of their Writers. To go to the place, or company, where is danger of sinning mortally, by reason of the sights, persuasions, opportunities, or anything of this nature, though it be done without any cogent necessity, is not a mortal sin with them; and the reason is, because it rests in the man's free will, not to sin mortally, thoughsuch occasions of sinning be offered. Filthy discourse when it is out of lightness and curiosity, without any other ill design; or when it is merely for the pleasure taken in the obscene talk, without any further intention; is no worse than a Venial fault. The filthiness which the Apostle forbids, Eph. 5. 4. Bellarmine understanding thereby filthy words, will have it be but a Venial, and the same he determines, not only of filthy talking, but scurrility; and Cardinal Cajetan before him, says, in its own nature it is not a mortal sin, though he describes it to be shameless mirth; and Alensis refers it to lascivious affection; and in Angelus it is a provoking others to laughter, either by idle or obscene words. A woman sins not mortally, who being moved with the affection of a little vain glory, without any other deadly intention; does paint or adorn herself, although she believe, that some who see her in such a dress, will be inflamed with mortal lust: when it is certain also, that without any disparagement or inconvenience, she might abstain from such a garb; yea though she so tr • ck up herself, that some may be induced to love her honestly but earnally; or with a dishonest affection either, only not beyond the bounds of Venial uncleanness. This being their Doctrine, no wonder if Christian purity be abandoned in their practice. Navar tells us, theres such a deluge of unbridled luxury amongst them, who are so near a kin, that he dares not express it; and amongst the married, and unmarried; amongst Virgins consecrated, and not consecrated: that divine and immense goodness, may send upon them a horrible deluge, of all calamities, not only corporal but spiritual. And because it is not lawful for one to take the profession of a Nun, if she have committed uncleanness before; he says, that there are few grown up that without caution can be lawfully consecrated for Virgins.

SECT. VIII.

FOR theft, they teach, that to steal anything of small value is but a Venial fault; for this is the Rule they universally proceed by, the smallness of a thing in all causes, excuses from mortal sin; and thus far all are encouraged to stcal, not only strangers, but Children from their Fathers, and Wives from their Husbands, and Servants from their Masters.

A Servant may be excused from mortal guilt, if he steal from his Master by little and little; though in time it come to a considerable sum; provided he convert it to his own use; he should not, it seems steal for others too, unless he do it out of Charity.

A Son may steal more from his Father, than strangers or servants may do; he must be regulated herein by his fathers Estate; this love and indulgence to him, the greater that it is, the more he may steal from him. They excuse him if he steal from his Father the sum of three Crowns; they say not, that it may not be a greater, but only it should not be a far greater sum.

Accordingly he may spend what he gets from his Father, in gaming, or in recreations, not only such as are honest, but also luxurious, without anymore guilt.

If his Father allow him not, what others of his condition do, he may filch from him privily, what a prudent Confessor thinks fit. Thus men's Estates will be at the Confessors discretion, and as much may be stolen from them, as their Priests please.

Or if he do business for his Father, his expenses deducted, he may keep to himself as much as a stranger would have for such Service.

Now that we may know, when theft will be a mortal crime, it must be known of what value the thing stolen must be, to make it so: and this not being determined by any law natural, divine or human; they agree, that this must be determined by the judgment of a good man; and who better than the Casuists since they ought, and are presumed, to be, both knowing and Consciencious? let but them conclude (and they have done worse, in many cases) that things of great worth are not of value sufficient, to make the stealing thereof, to be a mortal sin, and then theft neither little nor great will be criminal. Thus this command of God (as the rest are) will be made of none effect by this distinction. An engine which (as they work it) serves to destroy both Law and Gospel; and to sink Christianity, in morals, many degrees below Heathenism. Let us see what progress they have made herein, and whether they have not done it in effect already. They teach, that to steal anything, though in itself small, yet of great value in the account of the owner, and of much consequence to him; so that the damage he suffers by it, and the trouble it gives him, is really great: yet if the thief did not, or could not know it, it is but Venial. Yet the reason, why they count the stealing of a small thing, to be but a little fault; is because, the owner is presumed, not unwilling, the stealer should have it, it being no considerable loss, or trouble to him: but this cannot be presumed in the now mentioned cases. And if theft whether of small or great consequence, whether with or without that, which makes little theft to be Venial, be still no worse than Venial, than will no theft be mortal. They also teach, that those who are in need, though it be not extreme, but such only, as would be counted great, may steal from others for their relief: nor are they bound to make restitution, when they have got a good estate. Thus theft will be made as common as moderate indigence: and the practice being continued, as long as there is need, it may amount in a while, to a considerable sum; yea when the necessitous are grown rich, those whose estates are impaired by such thefts, shall have no reparation. Thus a wide door is opened, for common thievery in considerable quantities; without any restraint, either from respect to sin, or to satisfaction. Further, when so many persons in no necessity, take each of them a little fruit from a Vineyard or an Orchard, or a little corn from a field, that there is nothing at all left for the owner: yet if they did not conspire together to do this, it is a small fault. And thus any men of estates, (since it holds in other cases, no less than those specified) may be utterly impoverished; and yet those that ruin them, be guilty of nothing that they need regard. Moreover, when any one without any need, continues so long in the stealing matters of less worth, from one person or many, that in time they rise to a great value; and the thief thrives into a good estate thereby, without designing it: this altogether, is no more then a Venial fault; nor will it be worse, though he never make restitution, if there was any considerable interval betwixt the acts of theft (say some); no, nor if there were no such intervals (say others.) The consequences of which is, as Lopez observes, that any Inn-keeper or Tradesman may grow rich, and raise a fair estate, without mortal sin, by defrauding all that buy of them, a little, in false measures, and so fleecing a whole Town. And why might not they as well conclude, that he who beats another, so it be but with little blows, though he beat him to death, offends but Venially? these of old were thought alike. They conclude also, that such a quantity may be stolen, as is sufficient to make it a mortal sin, without sinning mortally, if it be for a good end. These are some of the instances they give. 1. A man may steal to give Alms; We need not wonder at this, since they think not much to rob Christ of his honor in all their good works: and so commit the worst kind of robbery (the highest Sacrilege) in their best acts; arrogating that to them, which is Christ's peculiar; satisfaction and merit. And then, that the Charitable thief, if he become rich, is not bound to restore what is stolen, is the common opinion. Also one may steal money from another, rather then he shall venture it in gaming; for it it is good divinity with them (whatsoever it was with the Apostle) that one evil may be done to hinder another, and that not only in other sins (as Friar Joseph would limit it) but such as are intrinsically evil: for example; If one be about to commit adultery, it will be a lawful (a holy act ) to beseech, and persuade him to commit fornication. Or nearer the matter in hand; if one be ready to steal an hundred pounds, I may advise him to steal fifty; and so persuade to a mortal sin with some moderation. They think it not only lawful to persuade a thief to a smaller robbery, but also to accompany and assist him therein. Further, a woman if her Husband be profuse, may against his command take away his goods, and conceal them, to provide for the future. If a man be distracted, or if he be absent, his Wife may spend more of his estate than he would do, if he were sober or present. Bonacin ibio. Finally, they all agree, that to steal anything of what value soever inconsiderately, that is, without full and perfect deliberation, is but a Venial Trespass. And how he can be obliged to restore, it by their Principles, I understand not: since they hold that no man is bound to make restitution, but for a mortal offense. If in a matter that is weighty, the •… ult be Venial, for want of full consideration, it will not be so much as a small fault, not tomake restitution, how much soever be stolen inconsiderately. By these and such like rules, they have opened a way, to make thievery small or great, practicable; without any sin or danger, but what is small and inconsiderable in their account. Scholars and those who count good Books their treasure, are by their Doctrine exposed more particularly, for they teach, that to take away haeretical Books, from such as have not Licence to read them, is no theft; Bonacin. de restit disp. 2. q. 8. punct. 1. n. 1. So that it will be no fault at all, to rob one of the best part of his Library, how valuable soever.

They open as wide a gap, and give as much encouragement to •… eating, and like unconscionable practices. They teach there is no necessity to be regulated in bargaining, by the just value of things: but they may sell for as much as they can extort, and buy answerably; and this they take for a general Rule; a thing is worth so much as it can be sold for. Hence Sylvester concludes it lawful, for any one to sell as dear, and buy as cheap as he can, which unlimited, gives liberty to all to prey upon one another, without equity or conscience. So one may buy a thing of great value though he knows it and the owner understands it not, for a small matter, nor needs be declare it, when he apprehends that it is much more worth; since that may be inquired of others. They conclude, that false measures and weights may be used, though the buyer be hereby deceived and damnified, and the custom itself to be a corruption: yet they are excused who use them, if they do it for their own security, or for moderate gain; as if in case, they should give full measure, the price would be greater, and consequently they would have few or no Customers. So, by their Rules, they may further deceive those that deal with them, by selling one thing for another, or adulterating what they sell; and so cheat them not only in the measure, but in the quality, yea or the substance of the Commodity. Instances hereof we have in Soto: Corn or Wine, when it is more worth than the set rate, the Merchant may fell it by false measure, thereby to get his price. If a man have very good Wine, but people, if they did not take it for Rhenish, would not give so good a price for it; he may sell it at the rate they would g • ve for Rhenish, though it be not. So he may mix his Wine with water, and sell it for pure, taking but a just price; as for example; In case Wine were so dear, that scarce any would buy it at the price it is worth; he may mix it with water, and sell it at the rate they will give. So Cloth or Silks may be sold for that of such a Country which is most esteemed, though it be of another. These conclusions, he says, are collected out of Aquinas, and to complete these Cheats, he tells us that if perhaps the Seller should lie too, in these cases (for example, if he should affirm, that to be Rhenish Wine which is not, or that to be pure which is adulterated, or that to be full measure which is short of it, &c.) it would not be a mortal sin. And Sylvester determines, that a man with perjuries and lies, denying the badness of his Commodities, or making them better than they are; the lies, if they do not much damnify the Buyer, are but Venial. They allow persons also to deceive those who intrust them to dispose of their Estates, or Goods. As, if one be employed to sell what is another's at a certain price, if he sell it for more, he may keep the over-plus to himself; yea, say some, though he had a reward for his pains in selling, yet he may retain to himself the overplus of what is sold.

Further, Panormitan takes notice, that their Canon-law allows of deceit, if it be not extended beyond half the worth of the thing bargained or, (that is, if a man be not cozened of above fifty per Cent. in a bargain) But then to salve the reputation of the Law (which he like a true Canonist, says, was formed by the instinct of the holy Ghost), he will have it understood of deceit in the thing, not of fraud in the persons, and others after him; but Sylvester who sees no ground for that, uses another shift; he says it may be understood, either of deceit in the thing, or fraud in the persons, which their Law tolerates, but approves not. Cajetan grants so great deceit is lawful, by human constitution: but says, it is condemned by the law of God; and so we leave this shameful Deceit, lawful by the Popes Decrees, but damnable by God's Word.

SECT. IX.

LET us see, in the next place, what truth may be expected in Popery, or those that profess it: and whether their Rules, tend not to leave, neither truth in the world, nor amongst themselves, by giving liberty to all falseness, and lying in words and deeds: A lie, as they define it, is an asserting of what is false, with an intent to speak falsely, and to deceive others. Now they teach that to deliver what is false, if not on purpose, though it he without any care whether it be true or false; if it be a fault, is such, as needs not be regarded; unless, where it is in testimony, or upon Oath (and there they will excuse it too, by and by): because this is but a material lie, and not in its formal perfection. But then, a perfect lie with a design to speak what is false, and to deceive the hearers, is as innocent if it be for pleasure or in sport, ridentem dicere falsum quis • etat? to make a sport of violating truth, or in offering it such injury, to please himself, or others; any one may do it out of habit, and make a practice of it, and tell lies when he list, out of mere pleasure to be telling lies: yea or out of malice (though that be the highest aggravation of sin). An officious lie is with them as harmless, they have warrant enough for the most complete and perfect lies, when they are of any advantage to some, and no hurt to others; how much soever truth be injured, or others deceived thereby. So that their true Catholics, need leave no place for truth, either in their heart or words; when the excluding of it from both, will, without hurt, serve either their pleasure or profit. However, herein they use true and plain dealing, in letting the world know, that in these cases, they are never to be trusted, either in matters of Conversation, or Religion. This being their Principle, received by all Catholics, and universally acknowledged; we need not wonder, that it hath been their common practice in several ages, and that they make no conscience of it still, to counterfeit false miracles, to forge false stories, to show false Relics, to divulge false Visions, and Revelations, to obtrude on the world supposititious Writings; to corrupt the Monuments of former times, and expunge out of them all the truth that makes against them; to make even the dead speak lies, or disguise the truth. For, all this falseness is officious, it serves the interest of the Church, it is to commend her Doctrine, and to maintain her authority over men's Consciences; and it does the world no hurt; For it is (they say) the duty of all men, and would be their advantage, to entertain her Doctrine, and subject themselves to her Authority. Now if the rest of mankind, Jews, Turks, Heathens, had retained no more conscience nor reverence for truth, than these Catholics: if upon their supposition (that their way was the best), they had proceeded by their rules and methods to broach any lies for them, or falsify any Records against them: who sees not, that this had been a direct course to have left no truth at all in the world, nor means to come to the knowledge of it? yet this practice with the Romanists (so great friends are they to Truth), is but a Venial fault. Did I say they count it so bad? I do them wrong; it is a great piece of piety, to make lies for their Religion, as some of themselves do acknowledge it has been accounted. To proceed, there are five or six several sorts of lies, (that they may have room enough still to avoid truth), which they may make their practice without danger. It is the pernicious Lye only that need be avoided, that which wrongs others, and is against justice; and thus no violation of truth, no injury to it, how great soever (so tender they are of it) will be a crime, unless withal, it be against Justice: and a Lie, (be it as gross as can be) will not of itself, and in its own nature, be more than Venial, but only by accident; when it so falls out that it does mischief: And it may be as innocent to tell lies as truth, and as criminal to speak truth as lies; there will be no difference as to mortal guilt in their own nature: and by accident they may do hurt alike. However, considering that Truth and their Religion are so much at odds, the world is obliged to them for being so indifferent as to truth and lies, and that these have no more the preference. But then, though none but pernicious Lyes need be shunned, yet not all of this sort neither: they give liberty to tell mischievous lies, as many and as oft as you please, so the mischief they do be not great, though it prejudice others in spirituals or temporals: or though ye do the greatest mischief that can be done, yet if you did not intend it to be great; or if you should not, or did not observe and consider that it would be so; in such cases even pernicious lies will be harmless Venials. They may by their Rules, lie to the prejudice of others in Soul, Body, or Estate, and that deliberately, and with design to do it, provided the damage be not great; but when it will be great, their Casuists cannot well determine; this is not confined to a point, there's a fair latitude, and liberty enough given for less or more, it is much left to discretion: and if he do much mischief instead of little, the Lyar caunot be charged with mortal guilt; for who can condemn any for transgressing bounds that are not set? and how can they think, that any injury done by lying, can be great, who count it better than innocent (as we saw before) to abuse the world with lies in point of Religion? Sure if the injury be not great there, any will be small. And in other matters, they have fair leave to do great hurt by lying, so they do it but by degrees, and be not so hasty as to do it all at once. Take but an instance of it in commerce. To use lies, says de Graffiis, in bargaining, to get a good price, or the using of them to deceive others in a little, is but a Venial fault, though it were a daily practice. Hostiensis thought that this lying to cheat others, if it were their continual practice, might prove mortal: but he is confuted by the common judgment of their Doctors, who hold, that a Veni • l▪ how much soever multiplied or continued, can never become mortal. We see they may lie, and deceive those that deal with them, if they wrong them but a little at once, this they may do daily and continually; and so in time, that little will be much, yet the sin will be no more; the pernicious Lye which does great injury, will be as innocent as any.

Others teach, that lying is Venial in Trading; for Example, if one affirm falsely, that his Wine is so many years old, or of such a Country, which if the Buyer know to be a lie, he would not buy it at all, or would not give so much for it, this seems no mortal sin, provided all circumstances considered it be as good, and as much worth, or not much less. Bonacin. de contract. disp, 3. q. 1, punct. 2. sect. 2. n. 7. Or if the Sellers affirm with a lie, that the thing cost so much, or was sold to others at such a rate, that they may draw the Buyer to a rigorous price: by thus lying for the most part they sin but Venially, and regularly they are not bound to restitution: because such lies are customary, and men commonly know that these are the tricks of Sellers, to which those who deal with them give no credit; and for the same reason the same must be said of Buyers, who affirm (falsely) that they bought the thing cheaper, or had it offered them for less; that they may get it at the lowest rate. Idem ibid. disp. 3. q. 2. punct. 4. n. 3 1▪ after others; yea, if they not only lie but swear false too with some equivocation, they may be probably excused from mortal sin, if no great damage be done thereby to another. But though they have no more regard of truth in common conversation, or in commerce; yet it may be expected that they will be more tender of it in Judgment, and Courts of Judicature; since they cannot but acknowledge that the perverting of truth in Judgment is destructive of human Society, and tends to throw the World into confusion. Notwithstanding they maintain lying there also, and that in many cases, I shall but mention some of them. 1. To lie in Court, if the end of it be but delight, is harmless. Also, Witnesses may lie there seriously, if they do it not as Witnesses, and in matters judicial: and the Judge too, if he lie not as a Judge. Further, they may bear false witness in favor of another; a false testimony for my Neighbor, is not mortal with them; and the reason is, because the Precept forbids false Witness against another, not for him. And upon the same account, Soto says, a false testimony may be excused, when it is to hinder one from doing injury. Likewise, when the matter in Judicial process, is not of great consequence, a lie is Venial, whether it be for, or against another. So Navar and in him Ledesma, (whom he calls the Glory of the Dominican Order) with Soto, (of the same Order and no less renown) maintain, that no lie is mortal in any Court exterior (that of the Judge) or interior (that of the Confessor); which is but Venial, out of Court. So that if the lie be not signally injurious, it is not mortal, however or wherever it be delivered, though by a Witness in a Trial before a Judge▪ in the face of the Country. Moreover, it is as innocent in all those cases, wherein the Lyar is not obliged to speak truth, which are not few. A Lye, says Sylvester in judicial matters, is pernicious and mortal; because it subverts the truth of Judgment, which tends to the ruin of the Universe. But then he adds, this is to be limited to things, in which the Lyar is bound to speak the truth, and not extended to any other. Now they hold, there are very many cases in which they are not obliged to speak the truth, no not in Courts: and in all these by their common Doctrine (not that of the Jesuits only) either they may lie plainly; or (which is all one as to the justice of the practice, and as to the subverting of Judgment), secretly, by equivocation or mental reservation. Antonius Corduba determines, that a person other wise virtuous, being unduly interrogated, whether such a thing was done, which, confessed, might endanger him; he and the Witnesses too, if they cannot otherwise evade, (by saying I know not, or I remember not); may say, though it be false, that it was not done, with this reserve, To discover it unto thee; and says, such Interrogatories may be answered or evaded, by any, with equivocal words, in usual form. So that he is not bound to tell the truth, though he be sworn to declare it. Navar holds that not only virtuous, but any person whatever, may so answer in like case; denying that to be done, which was done, secretly meaning, In such a Month; and this he asserts after Gabriel, Paludanus, Adrian, Vincentius Justinianus, and Lopez after him. Sylvester concludes, when the process is not judicial, or the aceused not subject to the Judge; in this case mentioned, or any other cause whatsoever, though a lie he not lawful, yet it is not mortal, yea it will not be so much as Venial, if answering cautiously, and, as they say, sophistically, he speak that which is false in the Judges sense, and true in his own; since not being under him, he is not obliged to speak truth in his sense, and alleges Henricus de Gandavo, with his reason for it. Soto allows him to use Equivication. Cajetan permits him to deny his Complices, though he had them. If the Judge demand of a Priest upon Oath, whether he knew such a thing by confession? AQUINAS, and all the Doctors conclude, that he may swear he knows it not, though it hath been confessed to him, Because he knows it not as a man. And according to V • r •… cellus, if he cannot otherwise decline the Judge, he may answer be knows nothing, with this inward reserve, AS A MAN; and in this Richard. de Sancto Victore, Bonaventure, Scotus and Panormitan agree; yet Angelus thinks when he swears, he knows it not, it had better be with this reserve, TO DISCOVER IT, because it cannot be denied, but that he knows it AS A MAN: but this, says Sylvester, is said against the judgment of all his Doctors, and against the Canon Law, understood according to their common Doctrine, because the Priest is there said, to know it AS GOD. This needs no aggravation; a Priest rather than speak the truth (though the discovery of it may be nenessary to secure a Prince or a Nation from ruin), may with mental reservation delude Authority, and blaspheme God, and lie, and swear falsely in open Court; and be justified in all, by the authority of the chief Saints and Doctors that Church has had, and such as she gloried in, before Ignatius had any disciples.

But though truth suffer so much by them in civil things; it may be she may find sanctuary in their divine Offices, and be secured there from such shameful violations: no, even there she is prostituted before their Astars, in their Pulpits, and their penitential Tribunals. Their Liturgies have been stuffed with Fables, and Lyes made both the ground and part of their public devotion. Their own Writers take notice of plain lies recited in their daily Prayers. And what store of them there were in the whole, we may guess by a part. Peter Abbot of Cluny declares, that in a Church hymn in praise of Saint Benet, though reading it cursorily, and not marking all; yet he found 24 lies at least. Some reformation hereof was thought repuisite, for shame of the World. But though the old sore smelt noisomly even to the sense of those amongst themselves who had any; yet it must be touched tenderly, and not all the corruption let out, least nothing at all of the old Service should be lest. Melchior Cano, (a Bishop from whom better things might be expected than most in the Council of Trent where he sat), acknowledged some years after, that there are things read in their Church-Service that are uncertain, counterfeit, frivolous and false too; but yet he thought it not advisable, to have this thoroughly purged. Those that attempt it, in his account want prudence. They cure a sore nail, but mischief the head; They bring in grave stories instead of what were false, but they change the Church-Service so far from what it was, that scarce any show of the old Religion seems less in the daily Prayers: whereby he lets us understand what their old Religion or religious Service is, since so little or nothing of it would be left, if no lies or forgeries were left therein. Another learned Bishop of their Church, who survived the Trent-Council, and all the Orders there made for Reformation, not only complains still of false and foolish things there; but of something worse too, in these words: if the Bishop of Lions, says he, who declared that he had corrected superfluous, and ridiculous, and blasphemous things, in their Missalls and Antiphonaries; were now alive, and did behold them: Oh with what terms would be set them out? for our prayert are defiled with most filthy corruptions; but the rest will admit of no reformation, through the fault of the Bishops. He signifies, that there was something worse in their Service-Books, than that idle, false, ridiculous, and blasphemous stuff, which that ancient Bishop Agohardus corrected, in the old Missals and Antiphonaries: declaring expressly, that their prayers now were polluted with most filthy Corruptions, and that without hope of amendment. Nor is truth more secure amongst them, in the Pulpit, though that (where is bears any sway at all) is its Throne. A Preacher may lie, by Cajetans leave, if he does it not as a Preacher, or in things which belong to him as such. In other matters, it seems, he may take his liberty; and lying when he is Preaching, will be but Venial, unless it be scandalous. He may lie in the Pulpit, if he can do it wittily; he may min his Sermons with false stories, (if they be facetious) to please his auditory, that's commonly a Venial- He may tell a tale in his Sermon, or anything ridiculous, if he do it with some wit this is commonly no worse than Venial; no nor so bad, if it be done succinctly, to make the people merry, so the mirth be honest. He may lie too, as a serious Divine; and instill false Doctrine into the people without any fault but what is Venial, if it be done without contempt or scandal, so Summa Angelica, and Rosella, with others, conclude. They limit it indeed, to matters under Counsel; but this does not much straiten them; for practical Divinity being the most proper Subject for Sermons, and virtues, with Christian duties, (and the opposite sins,) being, by their common Doctrine, in a manner all reduced to Counsels, some way or other (as we have showed before): they have liberty enough left them, to do nothing else but lie instead of Preaching. But in any matters of Divinity whatsoever, speculative, or practical; enjoined, or but advised; they may lie at as easy a rate, if it be but done out of a fluent faculty, or without danger, and design of doing signal mischief. Their practice publicly allowed, has outdone their rules; for these, though licentious enough, must have now and then some show of modesty, and caution. Sylvester takes notice of those, who held it was no mortal sin to lie in the Pulpit, and acted accordingly; and thought themselves concerned, only to avoid such monstrous lies as the people would smell out. But this cautiousness, was not always thought needful; he that reads the Legends, which served the people heretofore for Sermons: will find there multitudes of such stories, so absurdly, ridiculously, horridly false; as may fully convince him, that the Spirit which acted them, was seven times worse, than that which inspired Ahab's Prophets. And where they are now disused: its not with any acknowledgment, that such notorious lies, were not fit to be Preached; but for shame of that part of the world, which they could no longer delude, and abuse. And even after their reformation, they could not quite leave their old habit; their Priests since, have this testimony from one of their own Doctors: The law says he, is perished from Priests; for History, they recite fables; for serious things, jests; for truth, lies; for the power of God, feigned miracles, not to say the prodigies of Devils. That such Doctrine, should have some confirmation, is no more than needs: they provided such as was answerable to it, such are their false miracles, which their (now mentioned) Espenceous calls, Divilish prodigies. And false relics, or miracles, they allow to be showed, or published; it is not a mortal sin with them, unless it be done for filthy lucre; and it is not filthy lucre, if it be done principally for a good end, and less principally for gain.

And now I cannot devise where there can be any expectation, that they will be restrained from lying; unless in their Sacrament of Penance: that is, in their account, the holiest Rite, wherein the partakers have liberty of speech: Here they confess sin, and profess to do it with a sincere abhorrence of it, as before God, in order to pardon, which they then expect; one would think, in this act at least they should count themselves obliged, to be far from such a crime, as offering violence to truth; but hereby it appears, that truth can in no wise be fastened to any part of their Religion; they let us know that there is nothing so holy amongst them, where they will not find a place for lying and deceit: and that where-ever they have liberty of speech, they must have leave to lie. 'It is the common Doctrine, that they may lie in confession, which yet they say, is directed principally to God; and they look upon the Confessors chair as the Divine Tribunal. The confient may deny that ever he committed those Venial sins which he is guilty of, or affirm he is guilty when he is not, or he may deny either Venial or mortal sin, to his Confessor, if he be not sufficient. Or he may deny that ever he acted those mortal sins which he has committed; if he has confessed them to another. And thus he may without mortal sin delude and cheat his Confessor, even when he is upon his knees before him and looks upon him as God, and not as man (for so they are taught to do, as we said before.) To this purpose, when their wickedness is too shameful to be made known to a sober Priest; a person may have two Confessors, one a lewd fellow like himself, to whom he may, without shame, confess the worst debauches; and the other more civil, to whom he may confess his lesser sins: denying, if he be asked, that he is guilty of any greater. And as they may abuse their Confessors with plain lies, so likewise with equivocations. Joh. Sanchez (no Jesuit ) offers us several instances; Select. disp. 9. He that is not able to make restitution, may affirm he has done it; if he think his Confessor be ignorant, and would not absolve him without it. He that is accustomed to some wickedness, and thinks the Confessor would not absolve him if he confessed it; may with equivocation deny it is his custom; to this sense, I have no such custom, not absolutely, but which I will confess at present. n. 7. yea he may deny it, though he believe the Priest would absolve him, n. 8. Also he that is in the next occasion to sin, which he cannot avoid without great inconvenience or scandal; may, using equivocation, deny it, n. 9. Or if the penitent be known to the Confessor, who well understands that he has a Sister with whom he commits uncleanness, not removed out of his house, and so will not believe but he is in such occasion to sin: he may feign himself to be another, changing his voice, habit, name, Country, and the like, without plain lying; yet using equivocation ( n. 10. after Navar ) yea though he be a Religious person, he may do thus, and deny his order with equivocation ( ibid. ) And as the penitents may thus delude their Confessors, so they may have their satisfaction on them, and delude them likewise: pretending to absolve them, when they neither do it, nor intend it, Idem disp. 35. n. 1. n. 7, & 8. Antonin. Dian. resol. v. equiv. Let the world judge where we may be assured of truth and honesty in Romanists, that walk by these rules (which the holiest of their Doctors give them); since they think not themselves obliged thereto, in any of the cases specified. If by their Doctrine, they may without danger be false to private persons, to Magistrates, to their Priests, to their God: where can they have credit? if they may practice lying and deceit in common conversation, in commerce, in Doctrine, in Worship, in Courts of Justice, and before that which they count God's Tribunal; where may they be trusted?

SECT. X.

THey give as much liberty to violate Faith, as truth; and no less encouragement to perfidiousness, and breach of promises: either where faith is engaged mutually, as in compacts, and agreements; or singly as in pollicitations. They distinguish perfidiousness as they do lying, and accordingly make the like decisions for both. There is a pleasant perfidiousness, another which they call officious, and a third pernicious: to be perfidious merely for delight, is Venial; to deal perperfidiously, if it be for the advantage of any, and no great hurt to others, is as harmless; and they have ways enow to make that which is pernicious, to pass for innocent. Cajetan gives this reason, why the two former sorts of perfidiousness, are but Venial; because from a simple promise no duty ariseth, but that natural duty of not telling a lie • : for in each is a moral duty, without which moral honesty cannot be preserved, and both are reduced to the same virtue, to wit, that of veracity: and both respect others, being for the society, and advantage, and conversation of mankind. One would think, those who regard natural duty, moral honesty, or veracity, and human society; should for this reason rather judge both to be great crimes, than either of them petty faults. But let us take notice of their rules for conscience in this matter; To make a promise, without an intent to • e obliged, is but Venial, if no great hurt be done or intended to others. He promiseth, but while he is doing it, intends not to perform, though he make others believe so; nor to be obliged to it, by that which should engage any one who has faith and honesty; and yet offends but Venially. If all men should take the liberty, which this rule gives Roman Catholics, human society would disband; all confidence on promises and assurances vanisheth; thereby I can never be sure of another, nor he of me. That which Navar after many others, determines else where, does it more fully. He that promiseth anything outwardly, without any intention to promise; if he be asked, whether he promised, he may deny it, understanding that he made not any promise, that was obliging; and he may swear it too. He may promise, and yet not intend to promise, and so cheat; he may deny that he promised, and so lie; and swear that he did it not, when he did it, and so be perjured innocently, because he promised, as a peefidious knave. Sylvester inquires, whether one by a promise alone or a compact, be obliged in conscience? he answers, he is bound under pain of mortal sin, if it be of important matters signifying that in other matters, it is no mortal sin to break promises or agreements. And Navar expresses their common opinion, when he tells us, that the violation of a promise in a small matter is not mortal, though it be Venial. But why should perfidiousnness be a crime in great things, and not in lesser; since it is no less perfidiousness in one than the other, and faith and truth is equally violated in both? The reason they give is, because in great matters there is injustice, great wrong is done, and so by acccident perfidiousness becomes criminal, from whence it follows, that perfidiousness, how great soever, without the addition of injustice, is no crime, a man may be as treacherous, and faithless as he will, if he be not withal unjust too, there's no danger. And so the world must believe, that they would oblige men to be just, though not to truth or faithfulness: as if those who may by their rules, without scruple be false and faithless; will make any conscience, or find anymore reason, to be just and righteous. However they teach, that they who promise but small things, and perform not, are excused from mortal sin; though they confirm the promise with an Oath or a Vow. Whether the thing promised be little or great, if it be an internal promise, though an Oath be added not to revoke it; yet it obliges not, but may be revoked, without mortal sin. Panormitan. Jason. Rebellus & alii cum Bonacin de contract. disp. 3. q. 12. punct. 2. n. 1. & 3. yea, if it be made in the form of a Vow, yet when it is of a thing indifferent or less good; as if a man inwardly promise to marry such a woman, and promise it to God too, it does not oblige him. Idem ibid. n. 2. And how can it be expected they should be faithful, as to any engagement to man, who think, they are not bound to observe truth or faith with God, how much soever concerned, either as a witness (in Oaths) or as a party (in Vows)? Well but when the matter is of great importance, may they not then break promises, bargains, or compact; may not perfidiousness, which themselves account pernicious, pass commonly for an innocent Venial; yes, they have ways enough ready to make this currant, at so easy a rate. The worst perfidiousness in the world, may be excused from mortal guilt, according to Cajetan, through ignorance of the fact; or through forgetfulness (if one forget to be honest, he may be innocently a knave); or out of confidence in him, to whom he is engaged (the good nature of one party concerned, may be a warrant to the other to break faith with him); or for any cause, which he thinks reasonable. He need have said no more than this, any one may violate all truth, and faith; not only, when there is some reasonable cause; but when there there is any that seems but so to him: when anything will seem so to him, who is disposed to play the knave. This is enough to Licence a world of perfidiousness; but this is not all. Sylvester after others tells us, a man is not obliged to perform, promise or compact, if he had not a mind to oblige himself thereby; yea or if he had a mind to dissemble, (to feign that he is engaged, when he did not mean it): for, says he, though he offend, yet he is not obliged, unless there was a cause from some command, which, of itself, would oblige him: as for Example, if he had promised Cloths to his Father, and he is now starving for cold, in such a case (would ye think it?) one may be bound to keep his promise, to wit, when he would have been a monster, if he had not done the thing, though he had never promised it. He tells us else-where, that a promise does oblige, when it is made to a City, or an University, the Clergy, the Church, or the poor of a certain place, in case it be for some cause, to wit, for the honor of God, or the like: but if there be no cause, it does not bind, though it be made to those foremenrioned; and it does not bind, when it is made to any other besides tbose, though there because for it. Others maintain that a promise or compact does not oblige in conscience to performance, if the cause why it is made be not expressed; so Panormitan, Angelus and Rosella, with others: so that if a man forbear but to mention the cause (which is most commonly done, and may be always), though he bind himself with ten thousand promises or covenants, he may with a safe conscience break them all, by their rules. They hold that the firmest promise does but bind under Venial guilt. Cajetan, Armilla, Rebellus, Garzias, in Bonacin. ibid. n. 12. Or if it did of itself oblige further, yet he that intends to bind himself no otherwise, may break any promise without anymore then Venial guilt, whether the matter be small, or great, which is promised. ibid. n. 11. Lopez, that a promise may bind under mortal guilt, concludes it requisite; that he who makes it, should have a mind to be so bound by it: and so in promising (as he says), unless there be an Oath to confirm the promise, or a writing, as is usual: they are not thought to oblige themselves to mortal sin, and by this, says he, a multitude of scruples is removed. And he says true, for hereby a man may without any scruplc, break any promises that are not under his hand or Oath. But what if he had no mind so to oblige himself by his Oath, or writing? why then, by his own rule, he is no more bound by his written or sworn promise, than by any other. To this purpose he concludes again, that he who promises in word, without mind, or intenion to oblige himself, is not bound in Conscience to perform it: and this is their common Doctrine. So that if a man intend not to be honest, he need not be so, whatever he promise. These rules observed, are more than sufficient to excuse men from all saith and honesty in contracts, and promises of all sorts; to fill the world with cheats and perfidiousness; to take away all confidence and security from men in dealing one with another; to ruin human society; and to render Roman Catholics less conscientious, and more faithless and intolerable to mankind, than sober Heathens; nor are they more like the rules of Christianity, than those which bid defiance to it.

SECT. XI.

HItherto, thus much of deceit and lies, in word and promises, &c. Hypocrisy is a lie indeed, both are equally sinful. Aquinas after some of the Ancients asserts, that it is all alike to lie in deeds, as in words: as that is a composing of words, so this of acts, to signify and make one believe what is false: both are used as instruments of deceit, and it is all one which way you cozen another, so he be but cheated ( as it is all one whether you kill a man with a Sword, or an Axe, as they express it): and both by their Doctrine are made Venial. Sylvester inquires whether to make a false show of sanctity be a sin? he answers that if is he for the Honor of God, and the profit of others, it is no sin: but if it be to palliate his own wickedness; and that he may be accounted good, then it is a sin; because it is a false ostentation of fanctity. But so is the other too, which yet with him, is no sin: either both must be acquitted, or neither. So Cajetan will have it to be evil, though the end be good; because we must not do evil, that good may ensue. But they agree, and it is their common Doctrine that bare Hypocrisy, when one feigns he is good, and is not, or better than he is; is no mortal evil, though it hath the force of a lie, and be designed to deceive others, otherwise it would not be so bad as a Venial. Although he delight in thus playing the Hypocrite, it will not be worse; this is but vanity, not wickedness, unless it be for an end mortally wicked, such as will make an act, otherwise indifferent, to be criminal. But if he made this false and deceiving show, for an evil end; to wit, for vain glory, so long as it is not made his last end (to wit, his God); such vain glorious Hypocrisy will be no worse: for though the sin, says Cajetan, be here doubled; yet the double sin is but a single Venial. And if he do those works, which are naturally ordained for the service of God, with an intention not to serve him, but for glory from men, it is but such Hypocrisy, and that with some extenuation, it is not so bad explicitly, seeing the intention to deceive, is but implicit. They have a reverence for Hypocrisy as a holy art: they honor it and their Church with the same title, both being holy alike (so much alike, some will think, that it is hard to know the one from the other). They extol their great Saints for their holy Hypocrisy. It is amongst the commendations of Saint Deminick himself. Vincentius Bishop of Beauvois, in his praises, spends one Chapter upon this Subject de sancta ejus Hypoerisie, showing that it was not only the practice of their Saint, but that he commended the holy thing to his Brethren (the Friars Praedicaut). Hypocrisy being such a holy quality in their account, and a special ornament of their greatest Saints; no wonder if they be so far, from branding it as a crime, that they declare it meritorious. A Religious person that feigns himself to have more holiness than he hath, that others may be edified, sins not, but rather merits (so Rosella v. Hypoer. n. 1.) Thus they give us warning not to trust any shows of sanctity or mortification amongst them; since they are so far from counting it a sin, that they conclude it meritorious, even for their Religious to deceive others with Hypocritical ostentation of what holiness they have not. Indeed the Romanists are concerned to speak favourably of Hypocrisy, and treat it with kindness; for since they require no more truth and sincerity in their dealings with men, and make no more than exterior shows of piety, (if so much) needful in the worship of God; and yet would be accounted the best, or only true Christians on earth: if they should condemn Hypocrisy as a mortal sin, that Religion and Righteousness; which their Church counts sufficient, would be branded by themselves, as damnably criminal.

SECT. XII.

DIsgracing and defaming others to their face by contumelies, or behind their backs by detraction; reproaching them with charges true or false, to the impairing or ruining of their esteem or credit (though some of them say this is worse than theft or robbery, and others make it worse than adultery; and in the Canon Law, such are called murderers; yet) is allowed under the notion of a Venial, in so many cases, that he who is addicted thereto, may satisfy his humor fully in the practice of it without scruple. 'It is a Maxim with them, that the quality of sins in words, is regulated by the intention. 'It is this that gives this sin, and others besides, their formality, (which Cajetan often inculcates) and without that, they are no sins, or but Venial. Hence he tells us, that the contempt of our Neighbor is a mortal sin, speaking formally, that is, with an intention of contemning him: for no man formally contemns another, but he that despises him, that he may despise him; so no man is a detractor formally, but he that back-bites, that he may back-bite; and no man is formally contumelious, but he that speaks reproachfully, that he may reproach. So that if he intend not thus to sin, let him say what he will against his Neighbor, he is not guilty of the sin formally, and in deed. Accordingly he tells us, that materially, (i. e. without intention of dishonoring another) contumelious words may be spoken, either without any sin, or any but what is Venial. 'It is true, some of them say, words may be a crime, if they grievously defame a person, though they be uttered without a design to do it; but then withal they allow of such reproaches as Venial, which are of no better consequence, but tend to disgrace him effectually. To reproach him with natural defects of mind, or body, or birth, is regularly but Venial; all agree in this says Sairus: To charge him with ignorance, to say he has little wit, and small jugment, to call him a fool, or an Hermaphrodite, or a Bastard, though the charge be false. To report one to be infected with the French-disease is but Venial, because that is no great disgrace. Pet. Navar. Sairus, & alii communiter in Bonacin. ibid. n. 9. Also to charge him falsely with any wickedness, which they count Venial. Thus they may calumniate any man, and without crime charge him falsely, as a Blasphemer, a Thief, a Lyar, a Perjur'd Person, a Cheat, &c, since they count these, in many degrees, Venial: and if they be consistent with the Honor and reputation of Roman Catholics, yet others, either Christian or Heathen, will think their credit blasted with such imputations. Likewise to revile one in such terms as may signify either great or lesser crimes, to accuse him as one greatly proud, covetous, wrathful: or anything whatsoever, which may denote either the natural inclination, and first motions, or the outward acts; this is not mortal; because the hearers are to put the better construction on it. And here is liberty enough, to calumniate in such terms as may ruin any persons reputation; upon a presumption, that all who hear the slander will be always so wise, and good, as any rarely are. Or, if a man be noted for wickedness already, you may charge him with crimes that are not known, and yet offend but Venially: because you cannot hurt his reputation, which is hurt already. As if when a man has dangerously wounded himself, you might give him more wounds, and dispatch him; when life and same are of like account. Or you may charge those falsely for committing a crime, when they did it not; if it hath been their practice before. Or you may charge them with any crimes that are secret, if they be less than those that are known; as if one had been guilty of murder, you may accuse him of theft, and if he hath stolen, you may accuse him of fornication, and if he be a Heretic, you may charge him with anything, since with them nothing is worse than what they count Heresy. Or you may accuse others of any wickedness, which such sort of persons seem to make nothing of: as some young men, of fornication, and others of adulteries. Further, any terms tending to defame others may be used in passion, such as hinders full deliberation: for these will excuse blasphemy against God, much more the worst reproaches of men. Or you may do it in jest with moderate facetiousness, when the reproach is set off neatly, then it is a virtue with those, who learn their Divinity of Aristotle rather then the Apostle: and think if a man have wit, he needs herein have no conscience. Or you may do it out of levity, or pleasure in tattling; unless the words be so exasperating, as to occasion some other deadly evil. Or it may be done by way of recital, suggesting what tends to blast them, as reported by others. Or when the defamer is not believed or gives no just cause of belief. Or for correction; for they may defame others to amend them; and reform them, by making them worse than they are. Or through some want of cautiousness, as amongst women and persons of inferious rank, who vent what reproachful language comes next, how injurious soever. Or when their reputation does hurt, and may seduce others; to defame them, is absolutely lawful eos defamare esse licitum, absolute respondet. Adrianus. in Soto. ibid. q. 10. art. 2. Or (to add no more) if one accuse others, whom they think he ought not, though he impute nothing to them but what is true; they may charge him with false crimes, this will be no worse then a Venial fault. Banns 22. q. 70. art. 3. p. 2. Thus as in other cases, so when anything is said or writ, to the disparagement of their Church or themselves, how justly and truly soever: if they fix upon the Authors the most odious imputations that can be invente • (such as Bolsec and Cochleus would have fastened upon Luther and Calvin ) and divulge them with a design to delude the world into a belief thereof, though their own consciences tell them there is not a syllable of truth therein; yet they incur no fault thereby, that a good Catholic need fear, or make conscience of. This is not only the opinion of the Jesuits, but the common Doctrine of Aquinas his Disciples, as Ledesma a Dominican assures us; and so we may spare those more then 20 Doctors, which Caramuel says, assert it. Hereby they give warning to mankind, that they are no more to be trusted in their charges against their opposers, to vindicate the reputation of themselves or their Church, than such persons will be trusted in a Court, which openly sentenced them to the pillory for false testimony; yea, in this maxim they have as good as set themselves upon a Pillory, and done that justice to the world, as to fix this Inscription upon their own Foreheads: We are they who declare it no crime to caluminate most odiously and falsely, whoever speak ill (how truly soever) of us and our Church. These are some of their methods for destroying, the honor and reputation of others without any fault which they regard; they deliver them in great variety, so that everyone so disposed, may serve himself of such as suit his humor. And as a man may defame others, so he may do the same good office for himself; not only by blazoning his secret wickedness, but by charging himself falsely with crimes he never acted: thus to impair, or utterly ruin his own credit, is but regularly a Venial fault according to Adrian, and Sotus, and others; for prodigality is but a Venial, and this is but to be prodigal of ones credit.

SECT. XIII.

FLattery also (that falseness of every sort, even the vilest, may not miss of their favor and encouragement) is reconciled to common practice under the notion of a Venial. To praise one for the virtue which he has not, or the good that he does not; is little or no fault. To extol the good he does above measure and desert, is as innocent, yea when a man is to to be praised for a good work, though you know he will thereby be transported with deadly pride, such as will destroy his Soul; yet you should not desist, hut may and ought to lay aside the sense of his future ruin: because (says Cardinal Cajetan) there are twelve hours in the day, and a man may in an instant be illuminated and changed by Divine mercy. To applaud one for his sins, if they be not mortal, is as harmless; when it is out of a design to please the sinner, without ruining him; or to gain some advantage by such flattery. So that when it is both wicked and sordid at once, yet will they scarce count it a fault. There's no more hurt in giving flatterers reward, and encouragement. Sylvester inquires if this be a mortal sin? and in him Aquinas answers, no, unless a man affect, as Herod, to be extolled as a God; or design and desire to be magnified for mortal crimes. But it is a virtue to give consent to false flattery, as when a woman who is secretly an adulteress, is praised for faithfulness to her Husband, that scandal may be avoided, and others deluded, by a good opinion of her. And so we may understand how the praises of the Church of Rome for her faithfulness to Christ, come to be a virtue. Or if one be not in so complacent a humor as to flatter others; he may curse them at as easy a rate, for, for it is but a Venial fault to curse in words (if not from the heart) anything, any person (ones own Father not excepted); to imprecate any mischief or misery to them; to wish God's curse on them, or an ill end might befall them, or the Devil might have them. And when he is at it, he may curse the Devil too. 'It is no sin at all, if it be for his fault, and gives the Devil but his due. Cursing may be ones usual practice as innocently. It is scarce so bad as a Venial, when cursing is used for honest recreation. And he may curse the irrational creatures, or the Elements, and if he do it with his mouth only, or with both mouth and heart, without respect either to God or man: in these cases, it is only a Venial fault.

SECT. XIV.

I Have been long in viewing their account of Venial sins; the pernicious use made of it to corrupt the whole body of practical Christianity, and to give liberty to the acting of all sorts of wickedness, with this modification; Will excuse me. They venture hard, to leave in a manner no mortal sin; and so none needful to be avoided. This will be further manifest, by what they determine concerning those few sins, which they style mortal, or capital: they are reduced, in their ordinary reckoning, to seven. Some of these they conclude to be in their own nature, or regularly Venial; in others of them, they state the mortalness so high, that those who will be satisfied with wickedness, which is not rare, and prodigious, may live in the sins, and not reach the mortalness; and so wickedness which is deadly, in their speculative account, may be practiced without mortal danger.

Covetuousness is one of these capital crimes, which in general they heavily aggravate, and inveigh against, as most pernicious: yet when they come to direct conscience, and give particular rules for practice; it is shrunk into a harmless Venial. Covetousness says Cajetan simply and absolutely, is not a mortal sin in its own nature, because it is not against, but besides chartty. To deliver themselves more distinctly, they consider this sin, either, as it is opposed to liberality, or to justice: as it is opposite to the former virtue, they generally determine, it is but a Venial fault; so the same Cardinal, as it is contrary to liberality, and signifies an inordinate desire of money, so commonly it is a Venial sin: thus Navar and Sotus and all after Aquinas. So that by their Doctrine, if a rich man should be so sordidly so monstrously tenacious, as not to perform one act of liberality to himself or others, in all his life; yet would not this be a mortal sin, since the vice which is opposite to all liberality, and wholly exclusive of it, is but a Venial fault. Only when it is opposed to injustice, it may be a mortal sin, that is, when a man gets riches by unjust practices and methods; or detains what he has, unrighteously. Thus covetousness, however it comes into the account of mortal sins; yet it will stand there as a cypher, and signify no such thing, unless injustice be added to it. Let a man have the most extravagant passion for riches, let him be as greedy as Hell, or the Grave; and penurious, as the worst of misers can be: yet if he be not withal, a thief, or a cheat, and attempt not to get or keep an estate by fraud or violence, there's no guilt upon him, that he need regard: In their sense only thieves and robbers, extortioners or cheats, are covetous, when covetousness is a crime. They speak of covetousness as little worse than an indifferent thing: injustice added to an act, otherwise lawful, will make it criminal; and this vice will be no crime, upon easier terms. But is covetousness a mortal sin, indeed, with them, when it is accompanied with injustice? they would seem to say so sometimes; but then they unsay it again in their other decisions. They allow men to gain unrighteously, and to keep what they have so gained. They declare them not obliged to restitution of what they have got by sinful practices, yea, and such as are most abominable. I have showed before what unjust and fraudulent methods of gaming they encourage under the favor of Venial faults; let me here instance in gaming only. This with them is Venial, though it be not only out of an ordinate, but an excessive desire of gaining, if there be no other mortal ingredient; yea, though not only the subservient, but the principal end, be lucre; and so that which is only for recreation, be turned into a trade. And this is not only the opinion of some particular Doctors, but seems to be the persuasion of them all: for says Navar, we see in all parts of the world, all sorts of people play for great sums of money, and the greatest part of them principally for gain; and yet the confessors absolve them, though they sign • fie no intention to give over the practice, which they could not do, if there were any mortal sin in it. And such gaming is allowed, even that which they call Diabolical, in any place, though in their account sacred; at any time, for whole days, even the holiest, that little time excepted wich will suffice the people to hear the chief parts of the Mass, or in any person, even their cloister'd pretenders to perfection, so they omit not divine service. Their mode of devotion needs be no hindrance, for with them it is lawful to make a game of their Prayers. Lopez enquires ( an licitum fit ludere preces sacras ) if it be lawful to play at Prayers. He says it is the practice of devout persons, and that Navar seems to approve it, part 2. c. 32. so does Bonacina after Navar. Rebellus and others, de restit. disp. 2. q. 3. punct. 1. n. 8. and not only at Ave Mari's but other prayers also; and that it will be no irreverence against God to play with their prayers, if they do it reverently, ibid. To say nothing that their Clergy and Monks may be spectators of games and shows that are mortally wicked, if they continue not a long time at it; and yet offend but Venially. They teach further, that it is not needful to restore what is wickedly gained. Sylvester after others, says that filthy lucre (that is, dishonest or shameful gain,) is not necessarily to be restored, 'tis but matter of counsel. But he that hath lost much at unlawful games, may take another course for his satisfaction; for Pope Adrian and others, allow him to steal it from him that has won it, Vid. Lopez. ibid. Or to save himself the trouble of stealing, he may refuse to pay, what he loses; or if he have bound himself by Oath to pay it (not only the Pope, but) any Bishop may release him from the obligation of his Oath, and that without the citation of the party. So Navar. Corduba. Sotus. Penna. & alii in Bonacin. ibid, punct. 3. n. 2. Yea, they will not have those obliged to make restitution who have received anything for acting enormous wickedness, for example, a Judge for passing an unjust Sentence, or a witness for false testimony and perjury, or a man for satisfying the lust of a lewd woman, or any sort of women for prostituting themselves, or an assassinate for murdering, or a rogue for firing Houses or Towns: all are comprised in this conclusion, that which is unjustly received, freely of the giver, where there is wickedness on both parts (as in giving, so in receiving), is not, by virtue of any command, to be restored to any. Only (for the encouragement of covetousness, and injustice together) where money is given for the perpetrating of such crimes, if they be not acted, it is to be restored: but if the wickedness be done, the villanous actor may conscientiously detain it. As the Judge that receives a bribe for a false Sentence, if he pass a just one, he is obliged to restore; but not if he make an unjust award. And a witness if he receive money for a true testimony, is bound to restore it; but not for a false deposition. He that is promised a reward for murdering a man, may not receive or keep it before he kill him: but after the murder is done, he may take it (and need not restore it) upon the account of his labor and hazard in killing him, and because therein he has done a sact profitable and delightful to him that hired him, Idem ibid. n. 5. Pet. Navar. & ali • . So an Astrologer who takes money for telling things, which he cannot know but by the help of the Devil, is not bound to restore it, after diligence and pains to get the Devils assistance therein; because that diligence and pains (with the Devil) is valuable, though it prove ineffectual. But he that pretends but to this skill, and makes no use of the Devil, is bound to restore; Pet. Navar. & alli cum Bonacin. ibid. n. 10. And that the poor may be cut off every way by covetousness, whether it be with injustice, or without it; though they say, what is received for the perpetrating of wicked acts, may be restored to the poor: yet it is a rule with them, that restitution to the poor in this, and other casts, is only a counsel, not a command; so that he who is hired to de villainy, may restore what he received to the poor, if he will; but if he will not, he needs not; he may conscientiously enjoy the fruits of his villainy, and the poor have nothing. In short, not only disquietment of mind through the tumult of worldly distracting cares, and the restless agitation of a covetous humor; but also hardness of heart against the poor, and unmercifulness to them in their distress, (the natural effect of extreme covetousness) is as innocent • s its cause, no worse than Venial, unless, when one is obliged •… der pain of mortal guilt to afford relief, And when is that? only in extreme necessity, when the starving man may sell his own child to get bread; or when it will be lawful to steal from him who would otherwise part with nothing; or when he may be compelled by Law to part with something; then his heart must relent so far, as to let go what he cannot keep: but it is like he may never meet with such a case while he lives, and then the miser is excused; no moment of his life, need be imbittered with one act of charity; he may enjoy the felicity of a petrified heart all his days, and not suffer by one dint in it. Or if he should unhappily meet with one in such extremity, yet may he escape without giving a farthing; it will be enough to exchange, or to lend: yea he may be excused from either giving or lending, if it be but likely that any other may do it. In fine, this unmercifulness, which admits no compassion from the distress of others, is scarce ever mortal; unless it become so (accidentally) by some other mortal acts, and so there is no need to confess • it as a sin. How well does this indulgence to such monstrous covetousness as quite swallows up at once Christian charity, mercy, and morality, become those, who cry up themselves as the sole Assertors of the necessity of good works?

But that they may not be partial, they show themselves as favorable to the crime in the other extreme; pure prodigality is no mortal sin, because • i • is a less fault than covetousness, contrary: to liberality; which is manifestly of itself no mortal sin, and the reason of both i • ▪ neither of them is against charity to God or others, but only besides it. So Cajetan and others. So Navar, prodigality (including both th •… of a man's credit and his estate) is regularly no mortal sin; and this after Aquinas.

SECT. XV.

PRide is another capital crime, they style it the Queen of mo • tal sins; but then they will have it advanced so high, before it be mortal, that the proudest person amongst Christians can seldom reach it; and so all pride which is not of an extraordinary size, and such as is rarely found, must pass for Venial. In Aquinas it is an aversion to God, in that he will not be subject to him •… d his will; not upon other accounts (to wit desire of pleasure or profit, &c. ) but out of contempt. So Cajetan also, •… others after him. Navar says they make it an actual conte •… of being subject to God, and adds, thanks be to God, this is but 〈◊〉 in few Christians, though all are truly proud; so that mortal pride, by that account which the Oracle of their School, and his followers give of it; is rarely to be found in the Christian world, 'It is questionable whether Scotus did count that pride mortal, which Aquinas judged to be so, he says few learned men know in what degree it is deadly, and others are not bound to know it. However Cajetan ventures to tell us what pride is Venial; and his account is worth our view. It is thus at large: He that shows himself so irreligious and ungrateful, as if he had not received all from God, is proud (says he) in the first kind; for of a like effect the Apostle says, what hast thou which thou hast not received? why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received? where by glorying, as the effect, the inward pride is manifested, as though he had not received it. Likewise when one is so affected, as to be s • cure concerning the good he hath, or querulous for the good which is lost; or wonders that he is not heard of God, this is the second kind of pride: because such a one makes account that such things are due to him. But he that prefers himself before others, and is prone to spy in his mind or fancy, the defects of others or to excuse his own naughtiness, and to aggravate that of others, has a third sort of pride; when he will have himself to be great, as if he alone were great. Further, he who caring little for the Hvaeenly country; for the members of Christ, for the expiation of his sins, passing his days as one dreaming, or scarce •… ache, has a fourth kind of pride: for he presumes he is a Heavenly Citi •… h, a friend of God, a Son, a Member; when such negligence and carelessness are no evidence of his favors: the love of God where it is produeing (those) great things. And likewise in reference to his Neighbors crudeness of mind, and incompassionateness to others, counting injuries intolerable, impatience, not enduring to be slighted, indignation, and the like, do show, that the man thinks better of himself than he is, &c. So great a littler of this monster he exposes to our view, telling us its issue is much more numerous; and then strokes all gently over, calling them Venials. These, says he, and many others are a sort of imperfect pride, and are commonly Venial sins for the imperfectness of them, since they occur in the manner of passions, without injury to God or others. Yet (that we may be the more amazed, to see all this pass for a little fault) such sins (he adds) hinder spiritual life exceedingly; being of the stock of pride; when it is written, that God resists the proud. As for that pride which they count mortal, and grown to its full heighth; Aquinas out of Gregory, and others after both, give an account of it in some particulars; the prime are these, When o •… thinks that good he has, is from himself. When he thinks that what he has from God, is for his merits. And when he boasts that he hath what he has not. If their great Azpilcue • a could see none of this most deadly crime amongst Christians, having the merit of congruity and condignity before him; either his sight failed him, or his Church was not visible. Others, with his eyes, can see not only mortal pride, but (as deadly a sin) infidelity, where this is part of a Creed: To make up one article, of two deadly sins, must be a sure mark of the only Church. Seriously, finding so many of their Authors on this head, charging the opinion of merit, with mortal pride; and therein following not only the greatest of their Doctors, but the most infallible of their Bishops; I have wondered why they did not either make that none of their faith, or this no such sin. What sal •… they will find against deadly sin, when it is in their faith, I know not: but if part of their belief had proved arrogance (though that founds like the worst of pride) they might have come off well enough, for arrogance is a Venial sin, except in some rare cases. It is says Cajetan, frequently Venial, when without prejudice of others, a man values himself as having more knowledge, or goodness, or authority than he hath; and again, it is a sin, but it is not mortal, unless when it usurps against God, as the King of Tyre, when he said, I am God (now none are observed to do this, except the Pope, who has the Law in his own hand); or against others by Tyranny (which is so odious as all disclaim it: and affecting it, is no worse than affecting to kill men without consent; which, with him is not deadly): or unless it be made ones ultimate end (which none will own). Accordingly, Angelus determines, that arrogancy is commonly a Venial fault, unless upon the account of something else that is mortal, as when it arises from mortal pride; but that (as he and others define it, we heard before) is scarce to be found amongst Christians.

SECT. XVI.

AMbition was wont to be counted a deadly crime; the world and the Church too, has reason to judge it so, since the most of their miseries and ruins, may be imputed to it; but the Church of Rome and her Champions are concerned not to think so ill of it; stilo curiae, in the sense of the Court, it may pass for Venial. Angelus inquires, whether ambition be a mortal sin? he answers▪ negatively it is not so simply, but may be so, in respect of its end (and so may anything in itself lawful be, if its end be criminal); or it may be so, if the thing affected be▪ a crime; but that is accidental, and still ambitiousness; the inordinacy of the affection is excused, and may transgress all bounds, if the honor and power affected, be lawful. Thus Cajetan he will yield it more than Venial, when one will be honored for a crime, or would be counted a God; accordingly it is resolved by Sylvester, with Navar, regularly an inordinate appetite (or greediness) of Honor, exceeds not the bounds of a Venial fault. Indeed if pride and ambition had been branded as damnable; two Cardinal virtues had been concerned; and, which is more, the Vatican Throne, both in its foundation and supports.

SECT. XVII.

VAin glory is another capital crime in their account, and pregnant with many other; they define it to be an inordinate affecting of human glory; and yet determine, that an inordinate affecting of praise, or favor, or honor, or reverence, or glory, is but regularly a Venial sin; only it may happen to be mortal in some case, as when one would inordinately have glory from others for a deadly end, or for a mortal sin, or that which he makes his last end; in all other cases, this capital evil is but a slight fault. According to their common Doctrine, Cajetan will have it to be mortal then only, when one glories in mortal sin (but to glory in Venials they count it a small fault) or sets his ultimate end in vain glory. Angelus collects out of Alexander and Aquinas, that vain glory of itself imports not anything contrary to the love of God or man. Aquinas himself says, that if love of human glory, though vain, be not perfectly repugnant to charity, it is not Mortal. And Sylvester delivers this as the sense of their Oracle, that the desire of vain glory in its own nature is not mortal. Angelus concludes, that this may be a man's end in all things, but the Scripture and the Sacraments; but this limitation is too strict in the judgment of their Doctors which are of greatest repute: for they determine, that he who does those things which are principally instituted for the honor and worship of God, and the Salvation of Souls for vain glory as his chief end, as for example, he that in Preaching, or Praying, or celebrating, makes vain glory his Principal end, and aims at nothing higher, sins but Venially. Angelus had made it worse, but others had confuted him effectually, and Navar after them. Aquinas the Angel of their Schools, was it seems of this persuasion, that vain glory may be actually our principal end in worshipping God, without any mortal sin: for Sylvester tells us, that Angelus did contradict, not only the truth, but Saint Thomas, in saying it is a mortal evil when those things which were ordained for the glory of God, are done principally for a man's own glory, as the Sacraments and the Scripture. And they are highly concerned to maintain this, for says he, if this were a mortal sin, the whole Clergy in a manner were in an ill condition; he means they were in a state of damnation. So that it was high time for the Roman Doctors to form a Divinity of new Maxims, since those of Scripture and Antiquity, left them in a damnable condition. One would think, that to count it but a peccadillo, to make vain glory the cause or motive without which a man would not Preach, or pray, or perform any worship, should be a prodigious thing for any that calls himself a Christian: but he that will allow it, under no greater censure than that of a petty fault, to be the principal end of worship, and the great concern of Salvation, advances it higher. He that takes a Church-living or Spiritual benefice, principally for honor or temporal profit offends but Venially, unless he be unworthy because of his ignorance, or other defect. So that in their Church, for any or all of them, from the Pope to the meanest officer, to make honor and profit their chief end, in taking the charge of Souls, or other place or employment, which concern the worship of God, or the Salvation of the people, is so slight a thing as needs never trouble them; ten thousand faults of this nature, ten thousand times▪ over▪ would never hazard their Souls. These two last conclusions; will help us to discern of what complexion Popery is upon what it is founded; for what ends they may think it safe to maintain it, and persist in it, without, or against any conscientious or Spiritual consideration: And why they may make Religion all along serve a worldly interest and truckle under it. There's no danger in all this; it's a harmless Venial by their Doctrine, to thrust the great God and his glory into an inferior place, below their honor and profit; even in those things which they say were principally instituted for his Sovereign Honor; this is a fault, with them, next to nothing. If they should in the worship of God, aim at him in the first place, and at their own glory and profit in the next, there might be some danger, lest they should too much oblige him: for thus to join God and their carnal interest together, as their end in any religious concern, is, a meritorious act, according to Aquinas. Further vain glorious boasting, though it be with irreverence to God, and injury and scandal to others, if that be not much; is only Venial, according to Aquinas and Alensis. And a man may vain-gloriously praise himself for something that is good, though it be false; or something that is evil, if it be not deadly; and yet offend but Venially, when he does no great mischief to others.

SECT. XVIII.

AVersation to, or grief at Spiritual and Divine things, is another capital crime in their reckoning, which is called Acedia. The object is God, as to man's friendship and communion with him, and the spiritual acts and duties requisite thereto: the act they express by sloth, and loathness to meddle with these things, coldness tepidness about them, not caring for them, nausiating and accounting them a grievance▪ This some of them do not deny to be a mortal sin, but they will have it mortal only upon such strange terms, that any one may have a great aversation for God, and the things of God, without danger of deadly guilt; for they define it by an agrievedness at what is Spiritual and Divine, quatenus est divinum, as it is Divine, and not otherwise: not because it is laborious or troublesome to the flesh, or any impediment to its pleasures, which are Aquinas words; but under that formality, in that it is divine, as his followers understand it. So that the greatest disaffection to spiritual things, if it be because they are unsuitable to corrupt nature, not agreeable to the flesh it's ease and pleasure (which is the common and ordinary cause of it), if it be not on an account that rarely falls out, as they acknowledge, and which a man can scarce ever deliberately be subject to; it brings him not under this guilt. So Cajetan tell us, if a man not as to his affection, but in effect, be grieved at this (viz) that he is to be a Citizen with the Saints and one of God's family); because he little cares for the happiness of this Divine friendship, neglecting to attain it, because, he gives up himself to other delights; he is not guilty of this sin. Angelus, that he may discover when this disaffection to Spiritual and Divine things is mortal, and when Venial, tells us, that when it consists in the omission of things not necessary to Salvation, it is Venial; that is, it is little or no fault, if all the duties of real worship, all the acts of grace and Christian virtues, are omitted: for we cannot yet discern that they account any of these necessary to Salvation, and by the premises it appears that they do not. It is Venial, says Sylvester, when a man counts the doing of it grievous, but yet omits not what he is bound to. Angelus expresseth it more significantly; by this it appears says he, what is to be said of him, who counts grievous, and abominates Divine and Spiritual things, since unless they be necessary to Salvation, and he declines them or is deliberately disposed to decline them, he sins not mortally. So that Spiritual and Divine things (all that they count not necessary; that is, all in a manner which is requisite for a Christian) may be abhorred, without any mortal guilt. And herein the two sums agree well enough, though they seem to be at some odds. It is false, says Sylvester, (not limitting it to things necessary) that abominating of Spiricual things, is always a mortal sin. Accordingly he determines, that rancor against those who would induce us to Spiritual things (that is, would draw us to God or the things of God), is a Venial fault. It is no mortal sin (say others) to conceive an indignation and loathing of those who persuade to what is Spiritual (so as not to endure to hear or see them), whether Preachers or others. We see by this (as by other instances) that sins so stated, as they are scarce ever practicable, they can be content to have them counted mortal; but common provocations, and such of which there is most danger, must pass for Venials; yea, there are some amongst them, who will have this capital crime, though it have such a deadly aspect, both in itself, and in its effects, to be no mortal sin. Laisius Turrian. ibid. sect. 3. n. 2.

SECT. XIX.

ANger stands in their general account, as another capital crime. I have touched it before; but here let us see how criminal they make it, when in particulars they bring up their reckoning. It is considered in respect of the mode or degree; and the tendency or effects of it. As to the degree of it, how high soever it rise, to what excess soever it transport one, inwardly or outwardly, it is not in its own nature mortal, unless it be so vehement as to bear down both love to God and man, and leave the passionate person, neither which yet it will not do, though it sally out furiously into curses or blasphemies against God or man, if this be but merely Verbal, as we saw before. The tendency of it, that which it leads to, is revenge; and as to that, it will be Venial if the revenge be but little, or it may be great when it can be taken legally; or it may be great and illegal too if the passion he but quick and great enough. The more excessive it is, the more mischief it may do, and be innocent, if the passion prevent deliberation when it comes, and hinder it while it stays: both it, and the effects of it, how horrid soever, will be Venial. So that if one be angry enough, he may Blaspheme God, renounce Christ, perjure himself, kill or burn whom or what he will, with little, or no fault. Thus by their Doctrine, this capital crime seems more like a virtue, than a vice, since the greater is the better; or at least the less it has to do with reason, the more excusable and Venial. Other extravagant passions meet with as favorable measures. Indignation, which makes a man disdain others, as unworthy of his conversation or affable treatment, it is commonly Venial. Audaciousness, in itself, is no worse; nor excessive wrath and immoderate fear, because they are not contrary to Charity, but exorbitant from the right measures of reason. So Intimidity, or Fool-hardiness is Venial, when it proceeds from tolerable foolishness; but the folly may be so great, that the fault will be none. Also incontinent desires, or Lusts: Love likewise, whether of the Flesh, or the World. Of the former thus Angelus; Immoderate self-love, when one excessively seeks the delight of the body, and ease of the flesh, it proceeds from Luxury, yet it is commonly Venial, when it causes not other mortal acts, or neglects. As for love of the world to love it for necessity, is nosin, and to love to stay a long time in the world, for the pleasures of it, is but a venial fault.

Sect. 19.

Envy is another capital crime, and in general they inveigh against it, as a Devilish wickedness; yet when they come to give particular rules for Conscience and practice, they leave room enough for the entertainment of it in the hearts and lives of their Catholics: the general notion of it, is an excessive grief at the good of others, but all are acquitted from mortal quiet, who grieve at others good, because it may be prejudicial to themselves, or because they want it. So far a man may envy all in the world, who have more worth, honor, or power, or prosperity than himself. This may be good or evil, but evil in no other degree, than the desire of temporals, which when it is excessive, is of itself, by their doctrine, but Venial. Or they may grieve at others good, because they think those who have it, unworthy of it. Grief or Indignation at the outward happiness of others, upon this account solely, is of itself a Venial fault with Aquinas and Cajetan. But why evil at all? the reason is because, since that which is grieved at, is neither an evil of sin or punishment, it seems in a manner to reprove God, and to grieve, as though there were injustice in the Dispenser of these things. All the envy in the world may find shelter and security in these decisions as a harmless Venial. If this last mentioned be not Envy, what is? why a grief at the good of others, as it lessens and obscures our proper worth or excellency. But he that thinks others more unworthy, and himself far better, will think it a lessening and obscuring his own worth, to have it so overlooked; and that which they distinguish and mince in speculation, will go down together in practice. However, two limitations they add, which will commonly excuse Envy: it must be betwixt equals , and so Grief at the prosperity of Inferiors, or Superiors at least, will be acquitted. Also, if it be for little things, it is Venial. Now all Temporals are little things to him who has the Eternal in his prospect; so way is made to acquit all envy for outward prosperity, which yet they make the only object of envy. And if envy, upon a small ground, may be excused as a little fault, envy upon a great occasion, will be excusable, as less; except when they derive the sinfulness of an act from its exorbitancy as to reason; that will be less sinful which is more unreasonable. They might as well have concluded directly, and without circumlocution, as Lorca the Dominican doth, that Envy is no more a mortal sin than Vain-glory or Covetousness, which they count Venial, unless heightened with some such circumstance, as will make an act otherwise good to be a deadly evil .

Sect. 20.

Intemperance, which they call Gula, comprizing both Gluttony and Drunkenness, may well pass for a Cardinal crime, yet both together, by an after reckoning, make but a poor Venial . They define it an inordinate appetite of eating and drinking, ( viz. ) to excess, not for necessity but for pleasure. This when it is excessive every way in the charge, the time, the quality, the pleasure, the quantity, is not in its own nature a mortal sin, according to the doctrine of Aquinas, though it be a Capital Vice, and the cause of many other. But then it may be deadly by accident, if it be grievously hurtful to the body. So it becomes those to determine, who are more tender of the concerns of the body than of the soul. Yet that we may understand how the pleasure of sensuality may be preferred before either soul or body, they tell us, that if the damage done to the body by intemperance, be not grievous, or if it prove so great, yet if the Glutton do not observe it; or if the great prejudice done to his health be not so frequent, that he is bound to observe it, it will be Venial still. But Cajetan troubles us not with this respect to health, but concludes it may be Venial (and of a large size sometimes), not only when it brings upon us other inconveniencies, but other sins; and particularly when it is prejudicial to health. He has but one case wherein it will be more than Venial; then only is it mortal, says he, when this pleasure in eating is a man's chief end, and his belly his God; that is, when for the pleasure of it, he (not only transgresses all rules of temperance, but) has no regard of any command of God, or the Church; as if a man will Steal to play the Glutton, &c. It seems this sensual Lust will never be criminal, unless one be so much at its devotion, as to contemn God, and make nothing of any other wickedness to gratify it. And though there be no danger here, but when one makes his belly his God; yet there's no great danger of that, since a man may be a perfect Epicure, like the rich Glutton in the Gospel, and yet escape. When one, says Angelus, for delight of his Appetite, resolves to give up his whole life to such (Gluttonous) pleasures as Dives, &c. this is near to mortal sin. It seems then it is not deadly, but only near it; though it brought the Epicure, not only near Hell, but into the torment of its flames. Yea further, if Intemperance proceed to beastliness, and pollute not only the soul, but the body loathsomly, if the Glutton load himself with more than he can bear, and so burden nature, that it is forced to ease itself in nasty ways, this will be no more a fault, Intemperance, says Navar, is regularly Venial, though without any profit. and out of design, one stuff himself so full with meat and drink, even to Vomiting. If he eat so much till he Vomit, on purpose that he may be at it again the sooner, and so may be still gormandizing, it is no worse Uncleanness, says Angelus, which is the issue of Intemperance, when one provokes himself to Vomit, that he may eat the oftener; or when he eats so much, that he must of necessity Vomit, is commonly a venial fault. Cajetan more fully. Uncleanness is used for the sin of voiding Excrements excessively, as of meat by Vomiting, and the like, proceeding from Intemperance; it is frequently a Venial sin, since it is neither against the love of God nor man; yet it is filthy, since it brings with it even bodily nastiness. So that intemperance, even when it bewrays itself, and vents it filth, by all the passages, that oppressed Nature can find in the Gluttons body, is but a small fault. To be half Drunk is no mortal sin. So Lopez after Aquinas; herein they all agree, says a learned Cardinal. Take their sense in the words of Cajetan . Drunkenness not complete, (when one by drinking Wine is made too merry, or is disturbed i •… his fancy, so that the House seems to whirl round, or the like effect of intoxication befalls him, but he does not quite lose the use of Reason), without doubt is a great sin (but not big enough to be feared) unless it be done for medicine; because it is excessive drinking in quantity or quality, when fallen into it knowingly or negligently: But it is worse, when it is out of design (when one drinks too much, with an intention thus to disorder himself); because then it is almost mortal (there's no danger in all this, since he adds) but yet it is not mortal, since it reaches not the complete notion of Drunkenness, and is wothout signal damage to reason. So that if a man be not dead Drunk, and utterly deprived of the use of reason, he falls short of that perfection which is requisite to make this a deadly evil. In fine, however the Scripture, ancient Christians, and all that are sober, brand Drunkenness as a most deadly Vice; yet the Roman Doctors have discovered two admirable Virtues in it; one is that the full dose, (perfect Drunkenness) will make the highest impieties the greatest Outrages and Villanies to be no sins at all. So Angelus, who proves it by the Canon Law. So likewise Rosella after others. Those of their Writers which seem most cautions, except culpable Drunkenness; as to this only, when such outrages are the usual effects of it. So that unless both Drunkenness, and the criminal issues of it, be customary, this will not be sin, or imputable to the Drunkard. Hereby they furnish the Christian world with a new Argument, to prove Mahomet a false Prophet, seeing he was so greatly mistaken in making his Law so severe against wine; which in its greatest abuse, is of such sovereign efficacy, as to drown so much mortal sin, and to make all crimes whatever, lose their deadly quality. But that Impostors head was not so intoxicated, but he might discern, that such who are guilty in the cause, are chargeable in the effects; nor was he so much a Prophet, as to fore-see, that in after-times, anything under the disguise of Divinity, should stumble at this. The other virtue of this sin, is, that the moiety of it (half Drunkenness) will make any the most horrid crimes to be but small faults. Weakness of judgment (says one) such as they have who are half asleep, or half drunk; though it be enough to make a sin venial, yet not mortal. When those, says another, that are half asleep, or half drunk, perpetrate any wicked thing whatever, since they are plainly under weakness of judgment, they are quitted of mortal guilt. So that if any one will but make himself half Drunk, every morning early (and it will be no worse than a venial to do it purposely); he may, whatever wickedness he acts, be free from mortal sin all his life: and thus, he that lives all his days like a Devil, may escape Hell notwithstanding, and be saved by being daily half Drunk.

There are multitudes of particular sins which they comprise under these seven Capitals, and call them their Daughters, after Gregory and Aquinas; but they need not be taken notice of as mortal, by common Confessors, much less by their Consitents; for such Confessors need not know whether they are mortal or no; as Angelus tells us after Henricus, and so must Absolve Sinners, though they never resolve, or think of leaving their sins.

Sect. 21.

By the premises we may see what, and how many sins may pass for Venial in the Church of Rome, and they have presumed to make them so without evidence from Scripture, as even a Jesuit will acknowledge. The Maxims they proceed on therein (though eternal life or death depend on it) are purely their own conceits; no wonder if they leave them at great uncertainty. Many sins are believed to be venials, which are mortal, says Bonaventure, and it is most difficult to discern them. So that they have no sufficient direction from any rule, no not their own, but they are encouraged to venture upon all this wickedness in the dark and blindfold. The instances I have given, may serve for a taste, there is a world more, nor have I picked out all the worst, more time and diligence may discover more, as bad or worse. But by these we may discern, that whatever the Lord hath forbidden in his Law, they have ways to reduce it to the rank of Venials; for the whole matter of the divine Law, is, in itself, either of less, or greater weight; if it be small, or they please to count it so, they conclude presently upon that account, it is not mortal: whatever appears not to be a grand enormity, whether it be against God, others, or ourselves, must be venial, according to that of Richard de Sancto Victore. Mortal sin cannot be committed by any, but by a grand corrupting of himself, or contempt of God; or grievous mischief of others; all the rest are Venial. Whatever is not in their apprehension, grand and grievous, is next to nothing. Yea, one Member of the three, is in a manner, wholly shrivell'd away into Venials. A man can scarce do anything against himself, which will be big enough to make a mortal sin of. Indeed, it may seem no more than requisite to make it no crime for a man to damn himself, when they animate him to venture on so many damnable things, as if they were nothing. Thus they serve whatever the great God hath forbidden, which they have the confidence to count small; but if they cannot choose but think it great, they have other expedients to level it (according to the exigence of men's Lusts), and diminish it into a Venial. To make it more, they require so very much, that a Sinner may make shift enough to be without some of it, and so scape the mortalness (as they will have him dream) though he practice the wickedness. That any sin may be mortal, there must be judicium integrum an entire judgment, not distracted, not weakened, not disturbed, as they prove out of their Canon Law: Also there must be perfect deliberation, 'tis venial (how grievous soever otherwise), where there is not perfect deliberation: If by any means, deliberation not only in itself, but in its perfection, be either prevented (and the thing be done before the mind take due cognizance of it,) or hindered (while it is under debate) it cannot be mortal. And that deliberation may be perfect, there must be a sufficient presenting of the evil in its object, and its circumstances. If the mind only consider the advantage, or pleasure, and not the sinfulness and danger; 'tis but a semi-deliberation, and not full enough to make a sin mortal. Besides it will require time to perfect it, and here they may favor the Sinner as much as they please by determining what time is sufficient for human frailty; but if he be in hast, and do not stay this time, because he is so forward to sin, he will but sin Venially. Finally, there must be full consent of will. If the inferior and sensual part take never so much complacency in a wicked thing; yet so long as the Superior takes no notice of it, there's no harm , 'tis certainly no more than a Venial: Or if the superior part takes cognizance of it, and be some way inclined to the wickedness, yet that may not make it criminal, for every inclination is not sufficient for this purpose, but full consent of will, such as is perfectly deliberate; neither is a tacit and constructive consent sufficient. A neglect to repel or suppress the delight in sin, with some reluctancy of reason, is with Bonaventure constructive consent, which in the opinion of many Doctors is no mortal sin. Now if there be not a concurrence of all these, the horridest crime that can be perpetrated will be a Venial. If a man should Blaspheme God, or Curse Christ, or renounce the Faith, or Murder his own Father, or Ravish his own Child, or Mother, or fire Citys and Countrys; yet if he did it not with such perfection of judgment, deliberation, and consent, as is expressed; it would be a petty fault. And he may be easily furnished with many things, which will any of them so weaken this, as not to hurt him. Ignorance, drowsiness, disorder by drink, inconsiderateness, negligence, forgetfulness, precipitancy natural or accidental, levity, passion, custom, or habit, and the like, will serve to excuse any wickedness from mortal guilt. Let me but add one more (which serves to make clear work) the opinion of their Doctors, one or more, will make any crime not to be mortal to him that follows it; any person upon this ground may venture upon the most deadly sin, as if it were Venial. It will be no more dangerous, for he is to be Absolved by their Doctrine, though he declares, that he will not forsake such a sin. The Confessor ought to Absolve him, though in his own opinion, and the judgment of other Divines also, it be a mortal crime. This is their common doctrine delivered by multitudes of their Writers. So that hereby a fair way is opened to leave no mortal sin in the world, at least in the Consciences of all that will regard their Doctors. In the mean time, the far greatest part of sins the world is guilty of, are by this and their other maxims, become peccadilloes, and they bid fair for all. The principles, by virtue of which they have done so much already, a little improved (though extended no further than they will reach) would go near to leave no deadly sin at all. To be sure, he that will regulate himself by their maxims, may act any wickedness in the world without fear of deadly guilt. And hereby it appears plainly, how very needless holiness of life is in that Church (which pretends to a Monopoly of all the holiness on earth) since by their doctrine they may not only neglect acts of Piety, Righteousness, and common Honesty; but may live securely in practices opposite to, and inconsistent therewith. They may continue in customary Blaspheming of God, in common Swearing and Perjuries, in Perfidiousness to God and Men, in a neglect of all that is acceptable in divine worship, In a total profanation of all time which is indeed, or in their account holy, in impiousness and disobedience to Parents or Superiors, in divers degrees of uncleanness and Murder, in variety of Cheats and Stealing, in Unfaithfulness as to breach of Promise and compacts, in all Falseness and Lying; everywhere and upon all occasions; in Slandering or Detraction, in Covetousness or Prodigality, which they will; in Unmercifulness and Outragious passions; in Pride and Ambition; in Vain-glory and Hypocrisy; in Flattery or Cursing; in Gluttony and Drunkenness, &c. In Sins against God and Man, against Godliness, Righteousness, Mercy, Charity; in any of these, a little modified▪ in all of them, and many more than I can reckon. They may persist in them impenitently to the death, and yet (if Impostors may be trusted rather than the Word of God) not fall short of Salvation; their doctrine gives them encouragement to live in them without Conscience, and die in them without Repentance. It takes off the motives which might work upon either fear or love (the main principles of such motions in us) to forsake them. They are taught by their best Authors that these sins may stand well with their love to God, that they do not so much as impair the habit of Charity; that they do not hinder the increase of Grace, or the effects of their Sacraments; that they do not stain the soul; that they hazard not God's favor thereby, that they displease not God, that they are not against his will; that they are consistent with a perfect fulfilling of the Law; that they have not perfectly the nature of Sin; that they are not against the Law, but only beside it; or if they be against it in any respect, as some of them think, yet against no precept; the observance of which, is necessary for salvation, or not against the end of the Law, which is Charity; that they are but as specks or motes, we may look on them as nothing, that without the interposal of mercy, they are such in their own nature, as ought to be past by, they deserve pardon. They do not (as they teach) deserve eternal punishment; and the Lord (as they Blaspheme) would be unjust, if he should condemn any for them. So that not only as long as God is merciful, but while he is just, the practice of these sins is safe. Neither love to God, nor fear of his displeasure, nor dread of Hell, nor desire of Heaven, nor a design for perfection, need move them to abandon any one of these sins. They need not fear, how much soever they multiply, or abound in them: if they should commit millions of them in a day, and continue the practice all the days of a long life; this would not damn them: for all the Venial sins in the world, if they meet in one man, would not amount to so much as one damning sin. They may commit them not only out of ignorance or infirmity, but with a high hand out of contempt. They may praise themselves or others for them; they may boast of and glory in them; they may perpetrate them out of malice. They may be so far from resolving to leave them, as it will be but a small fault , to bind themselves by Oath to commit them, and call God to witness, that they will thus sin against him. They may die with resolution to continue therein, if they might live; yea, they may breath out their souls with delight and complacency in these sins, and yet be saved. To conclude, mark how they may act and multiply, and persist in them, and then view the nature and quality, and number of them, or guess thereat by the severals premised; and then suppose a man living after the rules of these conscientious Doctors, and Casuists, and taking but part of that liberty which the Roman Divinity allows; such a man would pass for a good Catholic with them, and be holy enough, according to the Holiness left among them, and made necessary by them; yet even by the rules of Heathen morality, he would appear little better than a Monster. So faithfully do they retain, and so much do they regard the rules of Christ in forming the Maxims of their new Divinity, that sober Heathenism would be ashamed thereof; and so like is practical Popery to true Christianity, in that wherein the reality, and triumphant splendor of it consists, Innocency and Purity. If an Atheist had a mind to render the Christian name odious, and to represent Christianity with a black and detestable visage to the sober part of the world; if he had a design to make men believe that Christ was a Minister of Unrighteousness, and the Gospel a licentious doctrine, tending to debauch mankind; he would need no more, but persuade them that the maxims of the Roman Divines were conformed to the rules of the Gospel; but then, if he should attempt to prove this conformity, he might as easily demonstrate that darkness is light, or the Alcoran the Christian Gospel.

SECT. 1.

I Proceed to those sins which they will have to be no sins, but need not stay long here, having given a large account of those which they make Venial; since betwixt these, and no sins, there is little difference in their Doctrine, and none in their practice. I need not stay to show, how it is no sin with them to vilify the Scriptures (the written Word of God), or to rob him of the sole glory of his Mediation, and to give much thereof to others, in all its parts and specialities, merit, satisfaction, intercession; or to put their trust in others besides God, for things which he alone can give, and for which he only is to be relied on; and this not only in Saints and Angels, but their Images, and their imaginary Relics. And how it is no sin in their account to abide in ignorance, unbelief, impenitency, or to live without the love and fear of God, and the exercising of other graces: by what is already premised, this is sufficiently manifested.

To resist the inspirations of God, drawing us to the observance of his commands, or withdrawing us from wickedness, is no special sin, i. e. we contract no other kind of guilt thereby, than if we had sinned, without any such inspirations to with-hold us from it. Thus it will be no fault at all to quench the motions of God's spirit, inducing us to turn to him, to love him, to repent, &c. or diswading us from Blasphemy, Perjury, Adultery, Murder, or any other crime. And yet if a man be ready to commit any wickedness, it will be no sin for another to invite him to do it. Thus far men may promote all sin in others, & resist the spirit of God, moving against it. As for evil Spirits, they conclude it no sin, for good men, by special instinct or revelation to make use of the ministry of Devils: they tell us that to apply themselves to Devils to know, or obtain anything of them, is to have some familiarity and society with those damned Spirits (unless it be the better to expel them out of the possessed) yet they teach it is no sin to inquire of the Devil in a possessed person; what his name is, and wherefore he vexes that person, and what Devils are his associates, and the like. But he must not believe the Devil, though he tell him for this would be as bad as Necromancy): yet if he believe him not, none can tell how the Devils answering him in those inquiries can contribute anything to his expulsion. They declare also that it is lawful to use adjurations to the Devils, who possess no person, not to assist those that do, or to apply themselves to the great Devils, to cast out the less.

Sect. 2.

So far we see (and further) they may deal with the Devil; how they may deal with God we saw before; though the whole body of Popery be corrupt, yet there is nothing more leprous than their worship; they think it not needful that it should be conformed to the divine rule in anything, either as to the End, or Manner, or Matter, or Object; yet it is transcendently good in their own eyes, no sin in it, even when there is nothing else. For what fordid and wicked ends they think it fit to worship God, we have discovered already, and also in what an irreligious manner. To this latter let me add, what I meet with in Angelus, when he is inquiring, whether attention, or devotion be necessary in their divine service (a strange question it might seem among any called Christians, if their divine Service were the worship of God) he tells us their Gloss maintains that it is sufficient to say it (their Service) with the mouth, though not with the heart, and that many other Canonists agree therein. Thus it seems they understand the Pope's Law for divine worship; so as to approve that in plain terms which Christ expressly, and the Prophets before him, condemns; so as to declare to the world, that the Church of Rome makes no other worship necessary, than what Christ hath openly branded as vain, false, and hypocritical, Isa. 29. 14. and Matthew 15. 7, 8, 9.

The sense of their Divines agrees so well with the Canonists, and as little with Christ (though it be expressed in other terms): that the contradiction to him, is not so open, though it be as full. Angelus himself, and Sylvester after him, with others, determine that wandering in one that observes it, when it is but as to the inward act, though it be temerarious and grievous, is not mortal, unless it be out of contempt; the plain English of which, is this, the departing of the mind and heart from God in worship, willingly and wittingly, how great soever it be, is a small fault, if any, unless to this neglect of God, a greater contempt be added; whereas the contempt of God herein is very great: his reason is, that which others give, because the Church is not to judge of mere inward acts; and therefore if a Minister of the Church, when he is at Service, mind something else, he seems to be no transgressor of the Precept by that act.

He tells us out of Aquinas (what we saw the rest of them do before) that they need not continue actually attentive in worship, but only virtually; id est if they intend to perform Service when they are going about it, that will make them pass for attentive enough all the while, though their minds be carried away after other things, when they are at it, and never heed the worship in hand. This is the common sense of their Authors, as if they should gravely tell us, that a man who goes into company with some intent (actual or virtual) to be sober, but presently falls to his Cups, is overcome and continues Drunk divers hours; yet he may be said to be Sober all the while he is Drunk, by virtue of his first intention. And so we should wrong the Romanists, if we did not think they would have as much of true Worship and Religion in their Service, as that man has of Sobriety, all the time he is dead Drunk.

Sect. 3.

But there is not anymore horrid abuse of divine worship, than that which they are guilty of in reference to its object: for besides what they determine concerning divine worship, to be given to other things, besides God, it is no sin with them to worship the Utensils of their worship, the Vessels, Books, Tables, Linnen and Priestly Vestments, being once dedicated to divine Service, and made holy by the charm of a Consecration. Antonius Corduba says, they are to be worshipped for themselves, and in the judgment of Clychtovius they are to have a worship, distinct from his worship, to whose honor they are dedicated. Vasquez will have them worshipped relatively (as Images to whom he gives Divine adoration) with respect to him, in whose service they are used.

'It is no sin to worship the word Jesus, whether it be pronounced or written, and some will have honor given to the word for itself, so Corduba and others. Some will have the word worshipped together with him, that it signifies: as the Image and the exemplar are both worshipped together; So that they will have the word Jesus to be worshipped, as the Image of Jesus.

'It is no sin to worship the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, where the object worshipped is not only Christ there, nor is it the substance of Bread and Wine (for they say there is no substance left): but that which they worship, is the color, figure, or taste of the Elements. The color, when there is nothing that is coloured: the tartness, when there is nothing that is tart: the roundness, when there is nothing that is round. To these wonderful (not to say monstrous) accidents, some will have a single worship due, but that, the very same worship that is due to Christ, and besides that Divine adoration, which is common to them with Christ, will have also a proper worship given, without reference to Christ: but all of them agree, that they are to be adored with Divine worship, and some say that this adoration is terminated on them, as the worship of the Exemplar upon the Image. They will not only have the Manger wherein Christ lay, and the Thorns wherewith he was Crowned, and the Spear that wounded him, to be worshipped: but the Picture of these, when they are but painted, they are to have the same worship which the true Cross has, that is, Divine Adoration; and so are natural Thorns, or a common Manger or Spear to be worshipped, when they are made use of to adorn the Cross, or to set off the passion of Christ, as they are wont Theatrically to represent it.

'It is no sin to worship anything that Christ touched, or that touched him, how injuriously soever. Therefore they teach that the Ass upon which Christ rode is to be worshipped, hereby it appears, says Vasquez, how rightly the Ass upon which Christ did ride may be worshipped; and that the very lips of Judas (that Traitor and Devil as Christ calls him) for kissing Christ, when he betrayed him; for that very act wherein he showed himself a Traitor and Devil, are to be worshipped. If they had but those Traitors lips, they would reverently and devoutly kiss, that is, adore them; and it is strange if they have them not among their Sacred Relicks, since they say they have the foreskin of Christ, cut off at his circumcision, and his very countenance impressed by him upon a white clothe; for one would think these as hard to come by, however in diverse places they worship something at a venture, which they count so.

It is no sin to worship the imaginary blood, which flows from a Crucifix or Image of Christ, when it is wounded, for they being given up to believe the most ridiculous lies, do believe, that such blood hath issued from a mere Picture or Image, they keep it as a most Sacred Relique, and it is to be worshipped with the same worship they give to Christ himself.

It is no sin to give Divine worship to any man, not only the Saints in Heaven, or holy persons on earth, but any men whatever in the world (the wickedest not excepted) may together with God, have divine worship, as the Image has with the Exemplar, since every man is the living Image of God. This is not only the doctrine of Vasquez, but of Alensis, of Waldensis, and of Cardinal Cajetan. only in the practice of this there must be caution for Albertus Magnus and Aquinas say, there is danger least a man, being of more excellency than an Image, divine worship should be given him, not for God's sake, but his own dignity: but where this danger is not, they would not deny but any man may be so worshipped; even with divine worship. So that if Paul and Barnabas, with the Lycaonians, Act. 14. had but proceeded with the caution of these Doctors; and taken care, that those people should so worship them only for God's sake; they might lawfully have admitted the worship offered them, though they (not learned in this kind of Doctrine,) chose rather to be stoned than so honored.

It is lawful to worship not only rational Creatures, but anything else in the whole world, whether living or lifeless. Any beast or creeping thing may be worshipped as the Image of God, which they hold is to be honored with divine worship. So that not only the Planets, Stars, the Queen and the Host of Heaven, may be thus adored (for which the Lord condemns Israel and Judah as Idolaters): but the vilest Creature that lives on Earth, a Fly, or a Frogg, or a Serpent, or a Toad may be thus worshipped. Yea meaner Creatures than any that have life, any inanimate thing whatsoever, though it be but a wisp of Straw; that is our Authors own instance, whereas, says he, the Wickliffites object, that Christians who worship Images, may as well worship a wisp of Straw (modulum straminis the same Leontius (upon whose Authority he grounds all) would as freely grant this, of a bit of Straw; as he does it of everything else in the World, so far is it from being counted absurd; yea, they may worship not only vile but sordid things, and not only God, but Angels and Saints in them, quaevis alia res mundi, anything whatever in the World, whether lifeless, unreasonable, or rational; may rightly have divine worship with God. And this is not only the judgment of their famous Vasquez, but of Cardinal Cajetan, and in consequence, of them all; for those great wits, well discerned, that the adoration of other things, approved and practiced by the Romanists, could never be defended without extending their principles to such a Latitude. Thus it is manifest, that whatsoever the Apostate Israelites adored, or the Egyptians worshipped, or the Laplanders do worship, or the grossest and the most ridiculous Idolaters in the World, ever made an Idol: all that, with much more and worse, may lawfully be worshipped by Popish principles; there never was any Idolatry so absurd or horrid in the World, but may have Patronage, or excuse by this doctrine.

And now Heaven and Earth being furnished with their Idols, one would think they need go no further, but be satisfied, without seeking Hell for any: yet there is an inquiry which reaches that too. 'It is a question amongst them, if the Devil should appear in a beam of light, or the form of a Crucifix, whether that apparition may be worshipped? Antisiodorensis, Alexander, Aquinas, Marsilius, Adrian and others, will not allow it should be worshipped, unless conditionally, and with a condition expressed: but Vasques is for adoration hereof absolutely, no condition expressed, and he has those, who are otherwise minded, at a great advantage; because they conclude for worship absolutely, in a parallel case: for they will have a consecrated Host to be worshipped, without condition, though the Devil were in it, or lurked under it; and if they think he would be worshipped in the former, without the interposal of a condition; he will be worshipped in the later, where they will have no condition to exclude it. I conclude this with what Holcott determines, a man may merit by a mistaken belief, although it so fall out, that he worship the Devil.

These decisions were necessary to justify their devout persons, who have met with such adventures. A great part of Popery is grounded upon Visions and Apparitions; these were much affected and admired by their reputed holy Men, and Women too, who were admired and adored for them. Satan in the darkness (wherein this mystery did best thrive) had the advantage to put store of Cheats upon them. Many Monks and Heremites (says a Lapide ) were deceived by him. Particularly among the rest Valens the Monk was thus deluded, the Devil frequently appearing to him as an Angel. In fine, Satan in an apparition feigned himself to be Christ, and the Monk went, and for Christ worshipped the Devil ( Idem in 2 Cor. 11. 15.) They are concerned to plead for that worship, which had the same original with much of their Religion.

Sect. 4.

For Oaths or Perjury, I will only instance in those which are Fraudulent. First, they determine, that he who takes an Oath, and intends not to swear, the Oath binds not, it is no sin to go against it.

Secondly, when a man intends to swear, but intends not to be obliged by swearing; there he is not obliged, but may lawfully break it, as the antienter Casuists and School-Doctors generally determine.

There is real evidence for the practice of this from the Conclave: for, as their excellent Historian tells us, in the Vacancies of the Sea the Cardinals use to compose certain capitulations, to reform the Papal Government, which all swear to perform, if they be assumed to the Popedom; though it appear by all precedent examples, that everyone sweareth with a mind not to keep them, in case he shall be Pope. For so soon as he is Elected, he saith, h • • old not bind himself, and that he is at liberty by gaining the Papacy. This was remarkably exemplified in Paul 4. who resolving to break one of the Capitulations he was sworn to a little before, and some of the Cardinals being ready to put him in mind of his Oath, he declared in Consistory, that it is an Article of Faith that the Pope cannot be bound, and much less can bind himself, that to say otherwise was a manifest Heresy: and threatened the Inquisition to any that hold it. It seems it is damnable error, deserving something like a Hell upon Earth, to believe that his Holiness intends to be honest, whatever he swear. It's true, everyone has not the privilege of a Pope, to have it counted Haeresie for any to believe that he can be bound to keep any Oaths, or ever to intend it: but all have this liberty by their Doctrine, that they may take Oaths without any intention to keep them; and are not bound to keep them, if they do not intend it.

Thirdly, to elude an Oath, and deceive those who give it, or are concerned in it, by equivocation, or other artifice of words; yea, or by mental Reservation, is no sin: and that in many cases. As when a man has no mind to swear, and thinks he is not bound to do it; when he is drawn to it by force, or induced by fear, or brought to it by importunity; or when the Judge is incompetent (as they count all that are Heretics or Excommunicate: and that have not lawful jurisdiction); or if the Judges are competent, yet when they proceed not juridically. In these and other cases; either for avoiding harm, or inconvenience; or when it may be for their advantage in any respect, they think it lawful to use these methods of deceit in swearing. Indeed the reason they give to justify the practice • n these cases, will make it as lawful in any other: for they say what is so sworn is true, in their own sense, though not in the sense of the hearers; and so they will have it in strictness to be neither Lie nor Perjury, nor any mortal sin, even when there is no honest, nor reasonable occasion, for swearing or promising, in this fraudulent manner.

And that you may perceive the Jesuits are not the prime Masters of these Arts; I shall instance in other Authors, who were either before them, or not addicted to the Society.

For aequivocations, or other slight of words in swearing, they are justified by multitudes of their Writers, viz. Sairus after Aquinas, and their Gloss, Paludanus, Gabriel, Johannes Major, Adrian, Hen. Gandavensis, Angelus, Sylvester, Soto, &c. The instances which Soto gives, may serve for a taste; as for example when one instead of saying I swear, uses a word which signifies another thing: but so pronounces it as the difference is not discerned. Or if the word GOD in the language wherein the Oath is taken, may signify some other thing; he that swears may mean something else by it, when he that gives the Oath, understands the God of Heaven. Or if the Oath be formed in this order, I swear to you to pay so much Money, he that swears may mean not to pay him, but some other: when he to whom the Oath is made, understands it, intended for himself. Such an Oath says Soto is true, just, prudent, because then simulation is profitable; having said before that it is lawful, with such fraud to deceive one who forces him to swear, since he who puts him to swear, hath no right to do it; and these forementioned, are the very same instances which Sanchez uses; by which we see, the Jesuit was not the inventor hereof, but learned them of a Dominican.

Of mental-reservations justified by their chief Authors, who were no Jesuits, instances might be given in abundance; for example, if a man will have his Wife swear, that she is not an Adulteress, though she be guilty, she may deny it with an Oath, and swear what is false in his sense, if it be true in her own, by the addition of some secret reserve. If a man swear to give another a Hundred Crowns, with this inward reserve, If he owe it him: he sins not, though he swears false, in the sense of him, who is to have the money. A Woman who because of some secret impediment will not live with her Husband, and is Excommunicated for it, she at the point of death, that she may be absolved; being put to swear, that if she recover, she will live with him, may swear it absolutely in show, with this conditional reserve, If she may do it without sin; yet if she do it not, she is not forsworn. So Sylvester and Navar, according to the determination of Aquinas, and Jo. Major. He that in the time of Pestilence comes to a Town, where the Officers, before they admit him, will have him swear, that he came from no infected place; though it be not true, he may swear it, if he think himself have got no infection. If you have not a mind, or are not bound to give or lend anything in your possession, which another desires; you may lawfully swear that you have it not, with this inward reserve, That you have it not, to give or lend. If a man threaten to kill a Confessor, if he will not tell him, whether his Wife hath confessed her Adultery to him; though she have confessed it to him, yet the Priest may absolutely say, and swear, that she has not; with this reserve, So that he should be bound to tell it. He that is examined upon Oath, concerning crimes that he knows, and swears to declare all he knows; may concerning some that are not known to others, though they be to him; swear without Perjury, that he knows them not, with this secret reserve, He knows not to discover them.

If one promise to another, or contract with a Woman outwardly, without an intention of promising; and is demanded of a Judge upon Oath, whether he promised or contracted: he may plainly deny it, because he may have this sense, I promised not with a promise obliging me, and he has just cause so to answer, because since he cannot otherwise prove his want of intention, he will be condemned to pay what he owes not, or to cohabit with her, whom he truly contracted not . A witness, either when he is not interrogated juridically, or when he has good occasion not to bear witness in judgment, as if he fear great damage to himself thereby; may answer, that he knows not, or saw it not, or the like, with a mental Reservation . He that out of necessity, or for any profit, offers himself to swear of his own accord, may therein use such fallacy . He that hath good occasion to hide his goods, lest they should be seized by his creditors, being for his livelihood, and to keep him from beggary; may swear that he has not hid any, understanding not any that he could not hide, or any that he is bound to discover. The same may the witnesses swear for him ( viz. That he hid none) knowing that he hid them lawfully . Such fallacious Oaths may be used also in Contracts and Bargaining. Those who cannot otherwise get a just price of the buyer, may swear, in a sense that he perceives not, that the Commodity cost them so much .

Here are a few instances, but they have rules (some of them are premised) which Licence it in cases innumerable: so that it may be a common practice, and they may use it, upon any occasion which they think reasonable.

These things considered, with others Authorized among them. I cannot devise what course can be taken to bind those who follow their doctrine; or to get from them the least security by an Oath. They have declared, that if you put an Oath upon them, which they think, ought not to be imposed, they may lawfully deceive you if they can, and put a cheat upon you, even in a Solemn Oath. Contrive then what Oath you will for your security, they will take it, so far as you can judge, as much as any man in the world takes an Oath; yet if they did not intend to Swear (which none can tell but themselves) by taking this Oath; they have not Sworn, they are not obliged. Or if they had a mind to swear, as well as to make you think so, yet if they did not intend to oblige themselves thereby, their Conscience by their principles is free, the Oath does not touch them; or if they have a mind to be obliged by that Oath, yet need they not bind themselves to that, it was designed for; but to quite another thing: for they may swear in a sense, vastly distant from what you intend or imagine; and thus they are taught to do: and it is practicable, either by the fly and undiscerned change of one letter in a word, as they may pronounce it, which will turn the sense as far from yours, as burning is from swearing, which is plain in a former instance. Or else by the ambiguousness of some word in the Oath, affording another sense than you are aware of; they may fix upon that, and leave yours to yourself, and so bind themselves to nothing you are concerned for, when you think you have them fast bound to all. Or if such care be taken, that in the Oath there be no ambiguous terms, which may give them the advantage to delude you by a sense foreign to your intendment; yet, do what you can, they may put forth a sense upon it by a mental restriction; for thereby adding something reserved in their mind to what is expressed in the Oath; the sense is quite changed, and the thing they swear is nothing at all, of what you would have sworn.

Yea, or if they swear, that they will observe the contents of your Oath, according to the plain and natural meaning of the words, without any equivocating or mental restriction; yet at the same time they may mean, without any mental restriction, that they will tell you of; and so delude you with a mental reservation, when they are swearing against it: nor is this an imaginary supposition of a thing that they never practice'd; for thus their Priests and others have taken the Oath of Allegiance, and by this art eluded it; and so they are instructed, and may do still, and defeat any Oath that can be devised. Yea, by their doctrine they may do it lawfully, and without sin; for in all this juggling, they teach, that they do not swear false, but by the artifice specified, it's true in their own sense, though not in theirs who give the Oath. Indeed this is a cheat (where God is called to witness) nor do they deny it: But they say such deceit is lawful, as in many other cases so, always when the Judge is incompetent: And that is our case in England, we have none from the Throne to the lowest Bench, that, in their account, have any jurisdiction ; we have none that have power to put an Oath upon them; they may choose whether they will swear or no, or whether they will cheat them all in swearing. No Oath which can be given them, can oblige them, but in their own sense, how distant soever from the true sense of the Oath, or of the Imposer of it. This our Roman Catholics were assured of long since, by instructions sent them from Rome in Queen Elizabeth's time. So that they need make no Conscience (if they will follow the best Guides of their Consciences) to practice all their contrivance upon us in Oaths: (much more in promises, contracts, &c. ) even such as the light of Nature has ever condemned in the world, as not only impious in point of Religion, but destructive to human society, and those which tend to subvert the main grounds and foundations of it. We can never oblige them by Oath at any time, but when they please, nor any further than they list: we can never tell when they swear, though they take Oaths, nor when they are obliged, though they swear: we cannot possibly know when we may be sure of them. When we think them fast, by all the rules that men of Conscience and common Honesty proceed by; yet they can juggle themselves loose by the Roman rules, at pleasure, and make sport with God and man, even in Oaths where God himself is a Witness, and the greatest of men concerned as Parties.

Sect. 5.

There needs no other demonstration of the Irreligion of the Roman Church, and its utter regardlessness of God and the souls of men, than their doctrine concerning the observance of the Lord's day, and all other which they pretend to be set apart for holy employment. If any man would understand what Religion is left among them, he may see it there in short, and needs look no further; since there he may be satisfied that they have no design for the honor of God, or the salvation of souls. For when they have discharged the people from all duties of Religion, at any other determinate times , and reserved all which they make necessary for them, to Holy-days; yet even on these days, by their doctrine, nothing is made their duty, to which any regard of God, or of their souls, is needful. All that they are obliged to, is only to be present at Mass, no other act, or duty of Religion or Worship is necessary; no internal act at all, nor any external, either public or private, but only the Mass: And that may be so external, that neither God, nor any divine thing, need to be minded in it. For this I have produced evidence enough already, let me only add this; they are wont to speak of a three-fold attending at Mass (as before was showed at their divine Service.) One to what is said and done by the Priest, as Sacred: A second, to the meaning of what is said or done: And the third, to God and divine things. Now the first of these, they say, is enough, though it be the worst of all: therefore the second (to regard the meaning of what is said or done); and the third (to mind God or Divine things) is more than needs. So that plainly, all that is required of a Papist, by their Doctrine, in order to the honor of God, and the salvation of his soul, on any of those days, when these ought to be most minded, is only, being present at Mass, without understanding what is said, or done; and without minding God or anything divine. Such is their worship of God, and care of souls, in the Church of Rome; this is the sum of their Religion, when it appears set forth to greatest advantage in its solemn exercises; he that understands it, and can be in love with it, must be under the power of some other consideration, than that of God and his soul.

Having, seen how these days are sanctified, or profaned rather, by their worship, we might view, what observance they have in reference to servile works. And here they have little, but what may be done without sin; and indeed, as they order the matter, it may seem less sin to follow the works of their callings, than to forbear them, since their abstinence from them, is not, that they may better attend the worship of God; (for they think it not needful to worship him, unless he can be said to be worshipped when he is not heeded) but that they may be idle, or worse employed than in their daily business. However, whether it be to indulge their ease, or serve their lusts, or to make show of some rest, (though far enough from a holy rest) they will have some works forborne; but herein they will be regulated by custom, not the divine Law. Paludanus and others will have them excused, who use manual labors on these days, if they omit not the Mass. And Sylvester says, this is reasonable, because Custom, the interpreter of Laws, will have it so. This may so far regulate them, that every Province and City must observe those days, and those alone, in that manner, and so far only, as custom requires. Yea, it must so far prevail, that if it were the custom to observe these days, no longer than till Noon, or only till Mass were ended, (which may be dispatched in half an hour, and that before Sun rise) the rest may be spent in servile works. They account it worse to spend these days in servile labor, than profane divertisements (for this, with them, is only a Venial fault, or none, but that may be a mortal sin); yet they declare there is no sin in the worst, but what custom makes (they are like to make Conscience of it, when their own wills and practices are their rule. This (as many other by their doctrine, which makes void the commands of God at pleasure), is but a sin at discretion; they may make it none when they please, and render all days alike, as easily as they can bring up a custom , such a one, to which nature is forward.

But no wonder, they think not these sacred days violated by working, since they teach, they are not profaned by any acts of wickedness. Their Divines generally agree herein; Contrition for sins, and the avoiding of other sins is not enjoined, says Cajetan. The day is not profaned by Fornication says Soto; nor by Lying, Murder, or Blaspheming, says Bellarmine ; nor by any wickedness whatsoever, is holy time profaned, but only by those opposite thereto (viz.) not hearing Mass and bodily labors. So that the days may be sanctified well enough, according to the holiness of that Church, if after an irreligious presence at Mass for half an hour; (the precept for which may be satisfied without minding God, or abstaining from wickedness, while they are at it) the rest thereof be spent in beastly Drunkenness or Gluttony, in Perjuries, Blasphemies, or Cursing God or Man; in Murders, Whoring, Sodomy, or Bestiality, or the most enormous debauches. And though they are not bound, as they teach, to be at the pains of one good act of mind, or heart, in serving God, at the only time set apart for his Service ( Scotus is almost worried by the Herd of their Divines for seeming to think that a good act of mind towards God was enjoined on these days), yet they may spend their bodies, and toil themselves more in the service of their lusts, without profaning them, than in servile works. The reason why they hold, that no excess of wickness does profane these days, is because wicked acts are not servile works. It seems, slavery to Satan, and the service of the vilest lusts is not servile, whatsoever Christ or the Apostle thought thereof, John 8. 34. Rom. 6. 16. that is consistent enough, with the liberty and honor of such Christians as they are. However, hereby it is manifest, that their Religious observation of all holy times ( and so all the Religiousness which that Church requires of her Catholics ) is consistent with the lewdest acts of ungodliness and debauchery.

In fine, God can have no honor from men, nor they salvation from him without Religion; this cannot be kept up in the world, without the solemn exercises of it; these cannot, (or will not) be performed without time for that end; therefore hath the Lord appointed time to be set apart for these purposes; the Church of Rome hath reduced all religious Exercises at the times appointed by God, or themselves, to the people's hearing of Mass, and there will not have the precept oblige them to any real Religiousness, not so much as to a thought of God, or anything Divine; yea, or the forbearance of wicked thoughts and acts, while they are at Mass. Thus far is Religion (upon which the interest of God and Man so much depends) sunk among them. And it must of necessity sink (all but the shadow or froth) in any part of the world, where these principles prevail. But though they declare them not obliged to serve God any better at this, or at any other time, yet they maintain for them as much liberty to serve the Devil and their Lusts on these Holy times, as any other. Let all concerned, judge of the Roman Religion and Holiness hereby; if there were nothing else, by which the measures thereof could be taken, this would suffice.

Sect. 6.

In the next place, in reference to Heretics; to go no further (for that is far enough, since in their Charity the far greatest part of Christians are no better) all Relatives are discharged of their respective duties enjoined them by the Laws of God or Man. Their Decretal (the Law of their Church which presumes to over-rule all other Law, Natural, Divine, or Civil ) deprives Heretics immediately of all due fidelity, right, duty, observance, which any whosoever do owe them: They lose all which they have by civil right. Subjects owe no Allegeance or duty at all to Princes or Magistrates. Children owe no duty to their Parents; they have (by their Law) no power over them, and this from the first day of their Heresy. Wives owe not conjugal duty to their Husbands; and if they knew they were not Papists, when contracted, they lose their Dowry. Servants are freed from all Fidelity to, and observance of their Masters. Yea, Debtors are freed from paying what they owe to Heretics, though bound thereto, either by Penalty or Oath. They hereby oblige their Followers to make nothing of such duties, without the observance of which, Man-kind would become worse than Bruits.

But this may seem a smaller matter to them; they go higher, and allow any one to kill a Heretic, as though Murder were no sin; they may be killed with impunity, says de Graffiis, and proves it out of their Church Laws. Pope Urban 2. declared that they are not guilty of Murder, who kill any that are Excommunicate: Now all Heretics are Excommunicate by the Council of Lateran, under Innocent the third; and the Sentence which lies dormant there, is roused once a year. The Pope in person denouncing it in a solemn manner, and very gravely with a Peacock-tail on either side his head. We in England particularly are under Excommunication to this day; and Cardinal Barbarin thought fit, not long since, to give special notice of it in a Letter to some of the Irish. They forget not how obnoxious we are, and we may remember, how much we are obliged by them, that any of us are suffered to live, when they may kill us without Murder.