<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-03-12</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Sarah Wingo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review over all structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that @types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, HEADNOTE, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, etc. x*Check for GAPs - MISSING and BLANK, MUSIC, MATH, FOREIGN, SYMBOL, INTRUDER x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, oe, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c., -- x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q; startq endq Q x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs x*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A29743">
<STC T="W">B5021</STC>
<STC T="C">R33267</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">13117582</BIBNO>
<VID>97770</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>AN VNERRABLE CHURCH OR NONE BEING A REJOYNDER TO THE UNERRING UNERRABLE CHVRCH Again&s;t D^R Andrew Sall's Repley entituled The Catholic Apo&s;|tolic Church of England.</P>
<P>Written by J. S. and dedicated to the mo&s;t illu&s;trious Prince, James Duke of Ormond, &amp;c.</P>
<Q><P>He pre&s;ented to him&s;elf a glorious Church, not having &s;pot or wrinkle or any &s;uch thing. <BIBL>Ephe&s;. 5. 27.</BIBL></P></Q>
<P>Anno 1678.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.</HEAD>
<P>AFter twelue full months that this Treati&s;e leyes by, ready for the print, it comes to light; too <HI>late</HI> in the Authors opinion; better <HI>late</HI> than <HI>never,</HI> in the judgment of others; and &s;om perhaps will &s;ay, <HI>better never;</HI> each one as he fancies; but the booke, which is a Debitor <HI>Sapientibus</HI> &amp; <HI>In|&s;ipientibus,</HI> to the <HI>Wy&s;e</HI> and <HI>fooli&s;h;</HI> goes neer hand to plea&s;e both: to the <HI>fooli&s;h</HI> who would not have it come out; it's &s;om &s;atisfaction, that its come out &s;o late; to the <HI>Wy&s;e,</HI> who &s;o earne&s;tly de&s;ired it, it's a &s;atisfaction, that it comes out, tho later than they expec|ted it. They who liked the former Treati&s;e, probably will not mi&s;like this: the blind with ignorance or pre|judice will like neither. As it has met with a <HI>forreign</HI> Printer who vnder&s;tands not the language, &s;o it may vnluckily meet &s;om <HI>Homely</HI> Reader who vnder|&s;tands
<PB REF="3"> not the &s;en&s;e of it; the <HI>Fir&s;t</HI> has been &s;o ingenuous as to confe&s;s his <HI>Erratas,</HI> and give you a Catalogue of them in the end of the book; but I do much fear<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the &s;econd will not be &s;o humble, as to acknowledge his Igno|rance: Pardon the fir&s;t, and Pray for the &s;econd.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE James, Duke, Marques, and Earle of Ormond, Earle of Brecknock and O&s;&s;ery, Vi&s;count Thurles, Baron of Arklow, Lord of the Regalities and Liberties of the County Palatin of Tipperary; Chancellor of the Uni|ver&s;ities of Oxford and Dublin, Lord Lieutenant General, and General Governor of his Maje&s;ties Kingdom of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Sommer&s;et, the Citties of Bath and Wells, Lord heigh Steward of his Maje&s;ties Hou&s;hold, one of his Maje&s;ties mo&s;t honorable privy Council, of his Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and Knight of the mo&s;t noble order of the Garter.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>MAY it plea&s;e your Grace,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>The Catholic Religion has been twice char|ged with foul crimes and errors, before the
<PB REF="4"> &s;upream Tribunal of our Nation, in two di&s;|tinct books, pre&s;ented by my Antagoni&s;t to his Excellency the Earle of</HI> E&s;&s;ex; <HI>It's ju&s;t I put in my an&s;wer before the &s;ame Tribunal, which I humbly pre&s;ent to your Grace: and tho I may not expect a favorable doom for the cau&s;e I defend, from &s;o vigorous a &s;tickler of the Church of England, as your Grace has in all occa&s;ions appeared; yet I may expect a check of the affront ca&s;t by my Adver&s;arie vpon your noble Predece&s;&s;or the Earle of</HI> E&s;&s;ex, <HI>and vpon your Grac's own Per&s;on; I accu&s;ed him of impiety in having pa&s;&s;ed his &s;entence of eternal damnation again&s;t his Mecoenas, the Earle of</HI> E&s;&s;ex's <HI>Ance&s;tors, who almo&s;t all dyed in the Roman Catholic Religion, in which, he &s;aies,</HI> ther's no Salvation: <HI>in his Reply he denies that execrable Po&s;ition to have dropt from his pen; but in the 2. Chap. of this Treati&s;e I prove evidently it did, and that it follows vnauoidably out of his Prin|ciples; does not the Author of &s;uch a Po&s;ition de&s;erve your Grac's frown? And tho your generous contempt of the Envious of your glory, may forgiue him the injury he does to your own Per&s;on; but, may it plea&s;e your Grace, you will permit vs to be deeply concern'd for the wrong of &s;o eminent a per&s;on, who, by the general acclamation of our Realm, is the</HI>
<PB REF="4"> Darling <HI>of the</HI> Commons, <HI>the</HI> Ornament <HI>of our</HI> Peers, <HI>the</HI> Cabinet <HI>of our</HI> Soveraign, <HI>the</HI> Oracle <HI>of the</HI> State, <HI>and &s;o prime a</HI> Pillar <HI>of the Prote&s;tant Church (worthie to be of a better.) One of the glories of your mo&s;t illu&s;trious Family, May it plea&s;e your Grace, is to haue had in it a</HI> Saint <HI>of &s;o incomparable a courage in the defence of Gods cau&s;e; of &s;o vndaunted a con&s;tancy in per&s;ecutions and adver&s;ities, as</HI> S. Thomas <HI>Arch B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;hop of Canterbury, by &s;urnam</HI> Becket; <HI>in who&s;e kinred the</HI> Butlers <HI>of Ireland did euer yet religiou&s;ly glorie; the world revered him as a mo&s;t renowned Saint, which name he pur|chas'd with the price of his blood; My Adver|&s;ary blots your Grac's Scutchon, by effacing out of your family this glorious Saint; he was he &s;aies, no</HI> Real <HI>Saint; he was but only a</HI> Titular <HI>one; your</HI> Saints, <HI>&s;aies he,</HI> are but Titular Saints, who purchas'd their Titles by public authority, as Earles and Lords do theirs <HI>pag.</HI> 228.</P>
<P><HI>Nor is this the only injury he does your Grace; the world was per&s;uaded your Reli|gion was</HI> Prote&s;tancy, <HI>and nothing els but</HI> Prote&s;tancy; <HI>and I believe your Grace would e&s;teem it an affront, to &s;ay your Reli|gion is</HI> Quakerie <HI>or</HI> Presbitery; <HI>but D^r. Sall is &s;o kind to your Grace, as to giue it you</HI>
<PB REF="5"> <HI>in print; for he prefixes this Title to his 12. Chap. again&s;t N. N.</HI> The large extent of Chri&s;tian Religion profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of England; <HI>and there runs vpon all the Sects of the world,</HI> Lutherani&s;m, Presbitery, Hugonoti&s;m, <HI>&amp;c. and &s;aies all are the Chri&s;tian Religion profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of England. Your Grac's Religion is the Chri&s;tian Religion of the Church of Eng|land; and the Chri&s;tian Religion profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of England, &s;aies our Doctor, is</HI> Presbitery, Quakerie Lutherani&s;m <HI>and all other Sects; con&s;ider, may it plea&s;e your Grace what a Religion my Adver&s;ary gives you,</HI> One <HI>and the</HI> Same <HI>Religion with the</HI> Quakers, Seekers, Mukhultonians. <HI>No Prote&s;tant in England will deny he is</HI> In, <HI>and</HI> Of <HI>a Fallible Church; but no Prote&s;tant in England, I believe, will, acknowledge he is of a</HI> Fals <HI>Church, actually plung'd in hor|rid errors; but if the Religion of the Church of England be one and the &s;ame with all tho&s;e Chri&s;tian Sects, which profe&s;s contradic|torily oppo&s;it Tenets, it mu&s;t be a fals Church, and deeply plung'd in innumerable errors.</HI></P>
<P>May it plea&s;e your grace, if the Prote&s;|tant Church be &s;uch as my Adver&s;ary &s;etts it foorth, I wi&s;h you out of it with all my &s;oul; and becau&s;e I know its not much better, what
<PB REF="5"> <HI>euer dre&s;s, he or any other may give it, Par|don me, May it plea&s;e your Grace, that without any</HI> If <HI>or</HI> And <HI>I wi&s;h you in that which is the only true and Saving Church; that as your Grace is the Be&s;t of &s;ubjects, you may be the be&s;t of Chri&s;tians, and for an earthly Tran&s;itorie Dukedom, which coms &s;hort to your vnparallell'd Merits, you may enjoy an euerla&s;ting Diadem, which is the con&s;tant Prayer of,</HI></P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>May it plea&s;e Your Grace. Your mo&s;t Dutifull and obedient Servant. J. S.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="6">
<PB REF="6">
<HEAD>THE PREFACE.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THe plau&s;ible out&s;ide and faire cunning dre&s;s of I. S. his di&s;cour&s;e in his Vner|ring Vnerrable Church,</HI> &s;aies our D^r in the fir&s;t Page of his Repley, has put him to the trouble of &s;earching into its hidden di&s;ea&s;es by <HI>Inci&s;ions</HI> and <HI>Di&s;&s;ections</HI> of <HI>Anatomy:</HI> he has &s;pared vs this labor I thank him, the di&s;temper of his di&s;|cour&s;e appears &s;o vi&s;ibly in its exterior parts that wee need no <HI>Inci&s;ions</HI> or <HI>di&s;|&s;ections</HI> to lay it open: but &s;ince he has play'd the part of a Chirurgion, let him give me leaue to act that of a Phy&s;itian and pre&s;ent him a Do&s;s of Pills, which &s;hall have nothing of bitterne&s;s, but what Truth carries with it to ill temper'd Pallats. Tho&s;e rude expre&s;&s;ions, <HI>Scurri|lous, Impudent, Lyar, Impo&s;tor, Profligatly bold,</HI> and &s;uch flouri&s;hs (wherwith his book is thick &s;et) become very well the cau&s;e he defends, which is of no better <HI>Alloy;</HI> yet it cannot but &s;urpri&s;e me, to &s;ee him promi&s;e in his printed &s;ermon &s;uch a gentle temper, challenging only to a &s;ober exchange of Scripture and
<PB REF="7"> rea&s;on; and in his late book I find him &s;o peeui&s;h and boy&s;terous, that he yields to none of his Reformed Wri|ters in their acu&s;tomed &s;tyle; but Alas! he who broke thofe &s;acred tyes which he had to God and his Church; its not to be admired he infringes bonds of a &s;maler &s;ey&s;e: I confe&s;s I am apt to be|lieve this coyn is not of our D^r^s &s;tam|ping; nor yet of any &s;chool man of that noble Univer&s;itie of <HI>Oxford,</HI> as &s;om do imagin; doubtle&s;s it mu&s;t have bin fetcht from <HI>Billingsgate;</HI> but our D^r is to be Blamed for permitting a book &s;o filthily worded to be publi&s;ht in his name, without any thing that might be a baite to the attention of an ingenious Reader, but injuries, tales of Popes, Fryars, parities of turnips, rotten ap|ples, and Spani&s;h Proverbs, &s;aluting Mode&s;tie a far of in his 13. Page; <HI>Par|don me, o Sacred Laws of Mode&s;tie,</HI> and this complement being made, he bids Mode&s;tie <HI>A Dieu,</HI> and no more news of it in all his booke, but rattles and &s;colds beyond mea&s;ure without any thing that reli&s;hs a &s;choller, or an an&s;wer to his Antagoni&s;t; but &s;om little words heer and there (like few grains of corn in a
<PB REF="7"> heape of chafe) without any connex|ion, or &s;en&s;e, either to enervat his Ad|ver&s;ari's arguments or e&s;tabli&s;h his own Doctrin; that you would think it's &s;om old book made to &s;om other intent, and a new Title given it, for to make it an an&s;wer to his Adver&s;aries.</P>
<P>And this is the &s;train of Prote&s;tant Writers, the vnhappine&s;s of their cau&s;e, and the goodne&s;s of ours being &s;uch that they cannot better their own, nor wor&s;e ours, but by pa&s;&s;ion in lieu of rea|&s;on, and invectives and calumnies, in|&s;teed of &s;olid arguments; in which art the two late Champions which Ireland has given to the Church of England, D^r <HI>Egan</HI> and D^r <HI>Sall,</HI> do &s;o excell, that none but the fir&s;t could parallell the &s;econd: and I cannot but admire the particular &s;tudy which D^r <HI>Sall</HI> &s;eems to make of tredding the foot&s;teps of the other, as if he did &s;triue, to copy out his actions; D^r <HI>Egan</HI> ca&s;t of his habit and became a Prote&s;tant; D^r <HI>Sall</HI> &s;oon after did as much; D^r <HI>Egan</HI> goes to England to reape the benefit of his change in Religion; D^r <HI>Sall</HI> runs after him to do the like; D^r <HI>Egan</HI> preachs and prints his &s;ermon, D^r <HI>Sall</HI> mu&s;t do no le&s;s; D^r <HI>Egan</HI>
<PB REF="8"> takes the degree of <HI>Bachiller</HI> in the Univer&s;itie of <HI>Oxford;</HI> D^r <HI>Sall</HI> mu&s;t have that of <HI>Doctor</HI> in the Colledge of Dub|lin; D^r <HI>Egan</HI> &s;tyles him&s;elf <HI>Confe&s;&s;or Ge|neral</HI> of Ireland; D^r Sall think's Iri&s;h Titles to be too mean, and fetchs them from Spain, <HI>Lector of Moral Theologie in the Royal Colledge of Salamanca</HI> &amp;c. God ble&s;s the couple; its no &s;male glorie and comfort for the Church of England to have got them, and I wonder why they begin to be wearie of them.</P>
<P>But tho he be very bitter all along in his book, in no where does his ira&s;cible facultie appear &s;o &s;harpe edged as in the defence of his imaginary Titles of <HI>Profe&s;&s;or of Divinity</HI> in <HI>Tudela</HI> and <HI>Pa|lencia</HI> in Spain; Lector of <HI>Moral Divinity</HI> in the Royal Colledge of <HI>Salamanca; Profe&s;&s;or of Controver&s;ies</HI> in the Iri&s;h Col|ledge of <HI>Salamanca:</HI> He will prove me a <HI>Lyar,</HI> and a <HI>Profligatly bold Impo&s;tor</HI> for di&s;puting him the&s;e Titles; and how? marry by an Epigram made to his prai&s;e by a Prince; By <HI>Te&s;timonial Letters</HI> of the great credit he had in Spain; by a <HI>Letter</HI> of a Venerable Prelat written in his commendation, and by a Lycence vnder the Inqui&s;itor General's hand for
<PB REF="8"> to reade prohibited books, in quality of a Lector of Controver&s;ies in the Iri&s;h Colledge. I be&s;eech you good Reader a&s;k him has he kept the te&s;timonial let|ters of his <HI>Prie&s;tly Ordination;</HI> it's a thou|&s;and to one if he has not lo&s;t them; but the te&s;timonial letters of his great credit and empty Titles he has care|fully pre&s;eru'd. But that you may &s;ee how farr he is from proving me a <HI>Lyar,</HI> and a <HI>Profligatly bold Impo&s;tor;</HI> remember, I pray, what he advanced in his printed, Sermon and ob&s;erve what his te&s;timo|nial letters import.</P>
<P>In his Sermon he told vs he was <HI>Pro|fe&s;&s;or of Controver&s;ies in the Iri&s;h Colledge and his Auditory were Spaniards, french and Iri&s;h:</HI> will not any who reads this, and knows not the D^r^s humor, conceive that this <HI>Profe&s;&s;or&s;hip</HI> of Controver&s;ies was &s;om public imployment, attended by &s;o great an Auditory? I replyed there was no profe&s;&s;or of Controver&s;ies in the Iri&s;h Colledge with Spani&s;h and french Auditors; and this I do again auerr, and will prove it; for I do not deny but that either he, who is there in the office of <HI>Rector,</HI> or &s;om other Ie&s;uit who lives with him, (commonly he is alone) has
<PB REF="9"> the Title and name of <HI>Lector</HI> of Con|trover&s;ies; but this is but an empty Title, (as the Duke of Lorrain is called <HI>King of Ieru&s;alem,)</HI> and never yet had any other exerci&s;e, but to teach half a douzen lads, Collegians of the Colledge; and this very &s;lender exer|ci&s;e it&s;elf, it has it but very &s;eldom; but never yet was it &s;een, or permit|ted that any extern Schoolars either Spaniards, french, or Iri&s;h &s;hould enter into the Colledge to be taught: as I write this I receive a letter from the Rector of the Iri&s;h Colledge of Sala|manca, a Man of credit for his virtue and learning; he writes thus in an&s;wer to my letter. <HI>Some time there has bin in this Colledge the Title of Profe&s;&s;or of Contro|ver&s;ies, but a meer Title without any exerci&s;e, becau&s;e the imployment of that Per&s;on, was only to repa&s;s and expound to the youth of the Colledge, their Dictats, which they write in &s;choole; nor was it ever permitted that any extern &s;chollar &s;hould com into the Colledge to be taught, but only the Dome&s;tic Schollars of the hou&s;e: &s;omtimes perhaps, he that was in that imployment did reade &s;om le&s;son out of Bellarmin or Becan, which Mr Sall might have don; but as for to have bin Profe&s;&s;or of
<PB REF="9"> Moral Divinity in the Royal Colledge of this town; ther's no &s;uch thing; for there was never yet any Profe&s;&s;or of Moral Divinity in it: as for to be Lector of Divinity in Tudela and Pa|lencia; in Tudela there never was any Di|vinity taught; but there is there a Ma&s;ter of Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience, who&s;e Auditory never exceeds the number of four or fiue, and com|monly he has none: in Palencia ther's no Di|vinity taught that euer I could hear of.</HI> Thus goes the letter from the Iri&s;h Colledge of Salamanca, and you may &s;ee, that D^r Sall's cen&s;ure again&s;t I S. of <HI>Profligat bol|dene&s;s</HI> and a <HI>Lyar,</HI> has more of good En|gli&s;h than of truth and common civility.</P>
<P>His te&s;timonial letters of his great credit prove ju&s;t nothing; for Example, a Prince for&s;ooth made an Epigram in his prai&s;e; &s;uppo&s;e that be true; what then? do not wee all know the privi|ledges of Poets and Painters? a Prelat bani&s;ht, meets him in Pa~plona in Spain, and expecting he might be of &s;om &s;er|vice or comfort vnto him in that &s;trange Country, he writes in his commenda|tion, what he would have him write, and he thought might availe for to &s;top him there; what does all that amount vnto? That the Prelat was de&s;irous to
<PB REF="10"> haue a friend and Country man in that Citty; and &s;eeing him teaching Divi|nity, without any further examin be|lieved him a brave man: His lycence vnder the Inqui&s;itor General's hand for reading heretical books as being Pro|fe&s;&s;or of Controver&s;ies; proves, at mo&s;t, that he had that Title; but &s;aies nothing of the exerci&s;e of it; which was no more but to be a <HI>Pedagogue,</HI> as wee have &s;aid, to half a douzen Collegians, and &s;aies nothing of the Spani&s;h and french Auditorie: Our D^r tells vs there are <HI>Several Ie&s;uits now living in Ireland, who were Students in Divinity, when he was a Profe&s;&s;or of Moral Theologie and Controver|&s;ies in Salamanca, who did &s;ee him &s;it with the other Lectors of Divinity examining yearly their &s;ufficiency for promotion.</HI> Never did man &s;peake le&s;s truth and with more courage; had not misfortune fru&s;tra|ted, or at lea&s;t delayed our hopes, of &s;eeing that witty Treati&s;e entituled <HI>Haudkins Letters,</HI> the product of an ex|qui&s;it judgment, and of a no le&s;s learned man; we &s;hould have an exact and plea|&s;ant account of the D^r^'^s great imploy|ment and credit in &s;pain: but &s;ince he has cited &s;om Je&s;uits now living in Ire|land
<PB REF="10"> for &s;pectators of his glorie in Sa|lamanca; I will declare what they de|po&s;e, and I have that &s;atisfaction of their truth and &s;inceritie, that I am &s;ure they would not for any pa&s;&s;ion ei|ther impo&s;e vpon me, or dimini&s;h of any mans credit: two of them knew him in Salamanca, and &s;o far from &s;houlder|ing with the Lectors of Divinity in the Royal Colledge, that his credit did not reach to be thought worthy, to carrie their bookes; never was he of &s;o much credit as to be either invited or permit|ted to argue, as much as in their Dome&s;|tic The&s;es; never was there any Moral Divinitie taught in the Royal Colledge; nor Controver&s;ies in the Iri&s;h Colledge but as we mentioned before; never was he a Coexaminator with the other Lec|tors of Divinitie, but in one occa&s;ion, that &s;ome Lectors of Divinitie being ab&s;ent in the time of examen, they honored the Charge of Rector of the Iri&s;h Colledge which he had, by cal|ling him to be one of the Examinators: and if of this little accidentarie &s;ub&s;|titution he be &s;o full, as to reckon him|&s;elf among the Examinators, and to cope with the Lectors of Divinitie of
<PB REF="11"> that Royal Colledge; likly, if at any time, &s;ome one did con&s;ult him in a ca&s;e of Con&s;cience, when he was in Sa|lamanca is all the ground he has, for to call him&s;elf, <HI>Lector of Moral Theologie</HI> in the Royal Colledge; and by this Rule, if he has heard any on's Confe&s;|&s;ion in &s;pain, he might haue called him|&s;elf <HI>Confe&s;&s;or General of Spain</HI> with as much rea&s;on as his friend <HI>Egan</HI> &s;tiles him&s;elf <HI>Confe&s;&s;or General of Ireland.</HI></P>
<P>But will you &s;ee how this man, who &s;o mightily magnifies him&s;elf, &s;peakes of others; not well, to be &s;ure; for &s;elf admirers, are ordinarily de&s;pi&s;ers of others: in his 5. chap. he touchs that ridiculous Con&s;ecration of his fir&s;t Pro|te&s;tant Bi&s;hops at the <HI>Nags-head Tavern in Cheap&s;ide,</HI> and &s;aies, it's a &s;landerous fable invented by Papi&s;ts, long &s;ince refuted, and lately revived by a Per|&s;on of a greate calling, to his &s;hame and confu&s;ion; being convicted of impo&s;|tures by B. Bramhal: And dare you, D^r, to charge a Per&s;on of &s;o great a cal|ling with impo&s;tures? a Per&s;on of &s;o knowen honor and reputation, with &s;hame and confu&s;ion? if, to have given &s;ignal te&s;timonies of his Duty to his
<PB REF="11"> exiled Soveraign in the mo&s;t renowned Courts of the world; if, to have the whole Royal family for Panegyri&s;ts of his Loyaltie and good &s;ervices, be a &s;hame; you may accu&s;e him of it: if, to have had Rome and Portugal for admirers of his Wit and learning; if, to have given to the world many lear|ned Treati&s;es; if, to have been the only man named in the la&s;t proclama|tion for the bani&s;hment of Prelates and Regulars be a confu&s;ion, and not a proof of his merit, that he was &s;ingl'd out, as the <HI>David</HI> of our Camp; if this be a confu&s;ion, you may charge him with it: if to be honored and e&s;teemed by the be&s;t of Catholics and Prote&s;tants; and hated by none, but by the wor&s;e of both, be a &s;hame and confu&s;ion; you may charge him with it: if to have been e&s;teemed and aplauded in the Commu|nitie, wherof he was once a Member, and from which nothing, but an indi&s;|pen&s;able nece&s;&s;itie of the Church, and king's &s;ervice could &s;eparate him; which he no &s;ooner performed, and the Charge he now has, was offered him; but he religiou&s;ly &s;acrific'd that Emi|nent charge in the hands of the &s;upe|rior
<PB REF="12"> to God, earne&s;tly a&s;king to return to that Communitie; which was denied mo&s;t prudently, becau&s;e it was knowen his Eminent Talents would &s;hine with more lu&s;te to the glorie of God, and benefit of the Church in that great im|ployment, than in a priuat life; if you call this a &s;hame and confu&s;ion, you may charge him with it; but to call his convincing di&s;cour&s;e of the Nullity of your Clergy, his &s;hame and confu&s;ion, and your B. Bramhal's weake Repley a conuiction of his impo&s;tures, is to be|tray your judgment, to be an inju&s;t ba|lance of what is honorable, glorious, judicious and wittie.</P>
<P>And truly you have given no &s;male te&s;timonie of this, in that great Title you give your Booke; <HI>The Catholic Apo&s;|tolic Church and faith of England:</HI> as you hope to be &s;aved, D^r, did not you laugh, when you were writing that Title; if the frights of a bya&s;s'd con&s;|cience can permit you to laugh? when fir&s;t I viewed it, and met in the Fron|ti&s;pice of the book, <HI>The Theater of Ox|ford,</HI> I thought it was a Comedy acted in that Univer&s;itie; but &s;ince that he will have it pa&s;s for a &s;erious di&s;cour&s;e
<PB REF="12"> of Religion, wee mu&s;t demon&s;trat how ill qualified his Church is for to carrie &s;o glorious &agrave; Title; and tho this has been &s;ufficiently evidenc't in my for|mer Treati&s;e, and my arguments in no wi&s;e an&s;wered; yet I will again &s;o en|force the truth in this Rejoynder, that my impartial Reader will I hope be convinc't that the Roman Catholic Religion: is the true Catholic, Apo&s;|tolic Religion; and that Chri&s;t has no Church on earth, if there be not an Unerring Unerrable Church, and as I, to &s;hun a tedious repetition of what I formerly &s;aid, do omit the &s;trong ar|guments of my former book, which con|vincingly prove the points heer hand|led; &s;o I hope my Reader for to be fully &s;atisfied, will not be content with rea|ding this Treati&s;e, but will al&s;o ca&s;t an eye vpon the former: As neither pa&s;|&s;ion nor prejudice has any &s;hare in my intention, &s;o I hope my Reader will lay both a&s;ide in the peru&s;al of my endea|vors, which aime at nothing but his &s;piritual advantage, as being</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>His friend in C. J. <LB>J. S.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="introduction">
<PB REF="13">
<PB N="1" REF="13">
<HEAD>THE INTRODUCTION CONTAINING SOM FEW Reflexions Upon the fir&s;t Part of Doctor Sall's Book in an|&s;wer to his Adver&s;ary N. N.</HEAD>
<P>_THE Doctor has deuided his Book into two Parts; the fir&s;t again&s;t N. N. the &s;econd again&s;t J. S. and tho I am di|rectly concern'd in the &s;econd; yet it might be vnkindly taken by my Rea|der, that I &s;hould let the fir&s;t pa&s;s vn|toucht. I do mo&s;t profundly reuere the eminent pen of N. N and am &s;ufficien|tly per&s;waded he wants not my concur|rence for to an&s;wer Doctor Sall; but I am no le&s;s convinced by the experien|ce I haue of his ciuility, that he will pardon me, that I &s;atisfy the public ex|pectation
<PB N="2" REF="14"> (as I am inform'd) with this brie&s; di&s;cours, whyle him&s;elf prepares a more acompli&s;ht confutation of his Antagoni&s;t in a compleater work: for I do not intend an exact Anatomy of his whole di&s;cours; but &s;om few reflexions vpon the chief heads of it; yet &s;uch as will, I hope, &s;ufficiently refute his er|rors, di&s;clo&s;e his forgery and in&s;ince|rity, and help my Reader to a more perfect vnder&s;tanding of what I di&s;cours in my Book: therefore I premi&s;s the&s;e Reflexions by way of an Introduction to my Treati&s;e.</P>
<P>In his 2. Chapt: again&s;t N. N. he pre|tends to proue the Church and faith of England to be <HI>Catholic Apo&s;tolic,</HI> and di&s;|cour&s;es thus: <HI>Whatever Church that faith is profe&s;&s;ed in, vvhich vvas taught in the fir&s;t called Catholic Apo&s;tolic Church; that Church and faith is trvly Catholic Apo&s;to|&s;tolic: In the Church of England that faith is taught and believed; becau&s;e, &s;aies he, the faith taught in that ancient Church is contained in the Apo&s;tles Creed, and in tho|&s;e of the four fir&s;t General Councils, and the Church of England profe&s;&s;es and belieues all the cont<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nts of tho&s;e creeds; therefore the Church and faith of England is truly Catho|lic
<PB N="3" REF="14"> Apo&s;tolic:</HI> for, &s;aies he pag: 17. <HI>if the contents of tho&s;e Creeds vvere &s;ufficient to gain the name of Catholic Apo&s;tolic to the Ancient Ch&uuml;rch, fir&s;t &s;o called; vvhy &s;hould not they be &s;ufficient to make a Church Ca|tholic Apo&s;tolic in all other ages.</HI></P>
<P>The weakne&s;s of this di&s;cours is evi|denc't by a cleer in&s;tance. In the Apo|&s;tles dayes, when there was no creed but theirs, the faith then taught was the &s;y&s;tem of Articles contained in that creed; the Church was then Catholic Apo&s;tolic by belieuing the contents of it; in what euer Church that Doctrin and faith was taught, that Church was truly Catholic Apo&s;tolic; but when in &s;ucceeding ages the four fir&s;t General Councils delivered their Creeds and declared &s;om Verities oppo&s;ed by He|retics; to be reuealed Truths; then for to be a Catholic Apo&s;tolic Church, it was not &s;ufficient to belieue the con|tents of the Apo&s;tles Creed, but it was needfull to belieue the contents of the four Councils Creeds: Ob&s;erve I pray Reader, that all Heretics will pro|ue their own Church to be Catholic Apo&s;tolic by our Doctors di&s;cours, for (&s;ay the Arrians, Ne&s;torians and Pe|lagians)
<PB N="4" REF="15"> wee belieue the contents of the Apo&s;tles creed, which alone, before any Council of Nice, Con&s;tantinople, &amp;c. gained the name of Catholic Apo|&s;tolic to the Church in the Apo&s;tles da|ies; and &s;ay they, <HI>indeed it mu&s;t appeur &s;trange</HI> (they are your own wonds pag: 17.) <HI>to any impartial man that the &s;y&s;tem of Articles contained in that Creed, vvhich gained the name of Catholic Apo&s;tolic to the Church, fir&s;t &s;o called in the Apo&s;tles dayes, &s;hould not be &s;ufficient to make a Church Ca|tholic in all times.</HI> This is your argument, Doctor which the <HI>Arrians, Pelagians,</HI> and <HI>Ne&s;toria~s</HI> borrow from you to proue their Churchs and faiths to be Catholic and Apo&s;tolic, as well as yours: does it proue them to be &s;uch, or not? if not; nor does it proue your Church to be Catholic Apo&s;tolic: you mu&s;t an&s;wer them, as wee an&s;wer you; that in the Apo&s;tles daies vntill the four fir&s;t Ge|neral Councils, the &s;y&s;tem of Articles contained in the Apo&s;tles Creed was &s;ufficient to give the name of Catholic Apo&s;tolic to the Church which belie|ued them; but when afterward the Church by its General Councils decla|red other Verities oppo&s;ed by Heretics,
<PB N="5" REF="15"> to be reuealed Truths; then for to gain the name of Catholic Apo&s;tolic Church, it was not &s;ufficient to belieue the con|tents of the Apo&s;tles Creed, but it was requi&s;it al&s;o to belieue tho&s;e Verities declared by the Councils to be revea|led Truths, tho not expre&s;&s;ed in the Apo&s;tles Creed: euen &s;o wee &s;ay to you; tho the Apo&s;tles and four fir&s;t Ge|neral Councils creeds were once &s;uffi|cient to giue the name of Catholic Apo&s;tolic; but after that new declara|tions were made of other Verities by &s;ucceeding Councils; for to gain the name of Catholic Apo&s;tolic, its not &s;uf|ficient to belieue the contents of tho&s;e Creeds but that wee mu&s;t belleve all ve|rities propo&s;ed to vs by the Church in &s;ucceeding ages and Councils to be re|uealed Truths: And this our Doctor cannot gain&s;ay, for pag. 60. he con|fe&s;&s;es that Inferiour Verities are not contained in the Creeds; and yet are to be explicitly belieued whenever wee are a&s;certained that they are reuealed Truths.</P>
<P>In the 8. Chapt. of the <HI>Venerring Vner|rable</HI> Church, and in the 9^t^h. Chapt. of this Treati&s;e I proue the Doctrin of
<PB N="6" REF="16"> Prote&s;tancy (as condi&s;tinct from Catho|lici&s;m) to be but meer <HI>Probable</HI> Doctrin; (Read I pray tho&s;e Chapters) but its evident that the Doctrin contained in tho&s;e Creeds, nor the Doctrin belieued by the Ancient Church, which gained it the name of <HI>Catholic Apo&s;tolic,</HI> is not <HI>Probable</HI> Doctrin; therefore its evident that the Prote&s;tant Doctrin, as condi|&s;tinct from Catholeci&s;m, is neiher con|tained in tho&s;e Creeds nor was belie|ued by the Ancient Catholic Apo&s;tolic Church. The Ancient Church belieued S. Peter and his &s;ucce&s;&s;ors &s;upremacy, as I will proue in the 14. chap. of this Treati&s;e; they believed the Canon of Scripture (whither this, or that; it matters not for the pre&s;ent) they belie|ved the Sacrements) if two, or &s;eaven I will not di&s;pute now) their <HI>Matter, form,</HI> and <HI>effects;</HI> you believe <HI>Figuratiue Pre&s;ence; the Kings &s;upremacy; Communion in both Kinds;</HI> and not &agrave; &s;yllable of all the&s;e in the Creeds; how can you then, affirm that all the Doctrin believed by the Ancient Church fir&s;t called <HI>Catholic Apo&s;tolic,</HI> is contained in the Creeds?</P>
<P>In his 3. c. ther's nothing worth the ta|king notice of, but two gro&s;s calumnies;
<PB N="7" REF="16"> the one that Bellarmin l. 3. de Eccle&s;ia. c. 20. (and that book has but 17 chapt) teachs, that to be a member of the Church, it's &s;ufficient to profe&s;s exte|riourly, without any interiour A&s;&s;ent, the Popi&s;h Doctrin and &s;upremacy: the &s;econd is again&s;t two Popes, <HI>Paul</HI> the fourth, and <HI>Pius</HI> the fourth; that they &s;hould haue offered to Queen <HI>Elizabeth</HI> to ratify the <HI>Reformation,</HI> if &s;he did own their Supremacy, and them to be the Authors of the Reformation: &s;uch a ridiculous &s;tory could neuer be better couched than in our Doctor's book. Yes indeed; the Pope would becom a Pro|te&s;tant to currie favor with Queen <HI>Eliza|beth</HI> and make the Emperour, the Kings of Spain, and France, and all Catho|lic Princes his Enemies? the Pope would becom a Prote&s;tant, for to get a Bi&s;|hopric, or Pen&s;ion from Queen Eliza|beth (for this is all he could expect, if perhaps he did not expect to marrie her) and forfeit his Popedom; for &agrave; Pope who becoms an Heretic lo&s;es his Dignitie and reuenews: and can it &s;ink into any mans brains but of D^r. Sall, that an Italian would make &s;uch an ex|change?</P>
<PB N="8" REF="17">
<P>His 4^t^h^. chap. has as little of &s;ub&s;tan|ce as his 3^d^. &s;om few fragments of Sua|rez his Doctrin, without any an&s;wer, but, <HI>Hovv. can Suarez make this out</HI> &amp;c. Suarez proues irre&s;i&s;tably that the Pro|te&s;tant faith, where with they belieue the contents of the Creeds, is no Divin faith for true Catholic Apo&s;tolic faith, mu&s;t be an infallible undoubted A&s;&s;ent; Prote&s;tants can have no &s;uch, wheras they haue no vndoubted infallible Mo|tiue or ground to re&s;t their a&s;&s;ent vpon, as I haue largely and conuincingly pro|ued in the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church</HI> and in the 10. chap. of this Treati&s;e.</P>
<P>From the 5^t^h^. to his 12. chap. he ram|bles vpon the valid and legal Ordina|tioe of his Prote&s;tant Clergy and will not allow that <HI>Pageant</HI> of the <HI>Nags-ead</HI> Con&s;ecration; <HI>a ridiculous forgery</HI> he &s;aies <HI>invented by Papi&s;ts:</HI> but before wee enter into a neerer in&s;pection of this matter, wee will premi&s;s two things; fir&s;t; that for a true and valid Con&s;e|cration of a Bishop, be&s;ids the <HI>Form,</HI> or words of Con&s;ecration pronounced by the Ordainers; <HI>Impo&s;ition of true Bi&s;|hops hands</HI> is requi&s;it e&s;&s;entially; and if this be wanting the Ordination is quite
<PB N="9" REF="17"> Null; &s;econdly it is requi&s;it to tell you the pa&s;&s;age of the <HI>Nags-head</HI> Tavern; it was thus.</P>
<P>Queen <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> to maintain by &s;a|criledge the Royal Diadem, which by iniu&s;tice &s;he v&s;urped again&s;t the vn|doubted Right of the family of the <HI>Stuarts;</HI> recalled the Reformation, which Queen <HI>Mary</HI> had bani&s;ht from the land; and pereiving the <HI>Prelatic</HI> Portie of it, was the mo&s;l v&s;efull for her ends; &s;he re&s;olued to have Bi&s;|hops, and named for that dignity, <HI>Parker, Horn, Grindal Ievvel, Scory</HI> and others: No Prote&s;tant Bi&s;hops Bi&s;hops o~f Henry the VIII. and Edward the VI. were then aliue; that &s;purious Race of Pre|lacy hauing ended in <HI>Ridley</HI> and <HI>Lati|mer,</HI> executed in Queen Maries time for Here&s;ie and Trea&s;on: and our new elected Bi&s;hops were <HI>Non plu&s;t</HI> for to be con&s;ecrated; becau&s;e no Catholic Bi&s;|hop would vndertake it: their fir&s;t ad|dre&s;s was to <HI>Richard Creagh.</HI> Lord Primat of Armagh, then Pri&s;oner in the Tower of London, offering him his relea&s;e if he did lay his hands on them; but he religiou&s;ly preferred an innocent im|pri&s;onment to &s;o criminal a liberty.
<PB N="10" REF="18"> Then they addre&s;&s;ed them&s;elues to B: <HI>Landaff,</HI> a Wal&s;h B: who at their fir&s;t on &s;ett, gave &s;om marks of flexibility; but <HI>Bonner</HI> B: of London threatning to excommunicat him if he attempted any &s;uch thing in his Dioce&s;s; he would not yield to their importunity; they lead him to the <HI>Nags-head</HI> Tauern at <HI>Cheap&s;ide</HI> in London, with a de&s;ign to put him in a merry humor, and thereby to per|&s;wade him: but they came &s;hort of their expectation. <HI>Scory,</HI> a re&s;olut blade, no|thing danted at this repuls, re&s;olued not to let &s;lip a Bi&s;hopric for want of Popi&s;h Ceremonies: <HI>vvhat,</HI> quoth he? <HI>do they think vvee cannot be Bishops if vvee be not greas'd?</HI> (alluding to the Chri&s;m, where with Bi&s;hops are anoynted.) and commanding Parker and his Camerades to kneel, bid them; <HI>Get vp lord Bi&s;horps of England:</HI> and this was that famous Con&s;ecration of the Nags-head Tauern in Cheap&s;ide; without any other <HI>Keyes</HI> but tho&s;e of a <HI>Tavern,</HI> nor any Chri&s;m but &agrave; gla&s;s of Wine. This is no new &s;tory, like that of M^r <HI>Ma&s;on's</HI> forged Regi&s;ters; M^r <HI>Neale</HI> a profe&s;&s;or of Di|vinity in the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who forfeited his chair for not taking the
<PB N="11" REF="18"> Oath of &s;upremacy, was an eye wittne&s;s of the whole Pa&s;&s;age, and related it to &s;eueral Bi&s;hops: Bonner and other Ca|tholic Bi&s;hops then liuing related it to <HI>Kelli&s;on, Per&s;ons, Holyvvood, Champney, Reynolds, Harding, Stapleton,</HI> and other Catholic Writers, who immediatly pub|li&s;ht it in print and cryed out again&s;t the Nullity of <HI>Parker</HI> and his A&s;&s;ociats Ordination, as appears in their Books, and particularly in the <HI>Nullity of the Prote&s;tant Church and Clergy,</HI> writ by the Author of that mo&s;t learned and &s;olid Treati&s;e <HI>of Religion and gouernment.</HI></P>
<P>Now wee will demon&s;trat that this pa&s;&s;age is true, and no invention of Papi&s;ts as our Doctor pretends; and that the Prote&s;tant Bi&s;hops were not other wi&s;e ordained, than as is related. For wee may without offence, and ought to belieue that Parker, Horn, and their other A&s;&s;ociats, in their Ordina|tion acted conformably to the <HI>Lavvs</HI> and <HI>Statuts</HI> of the land; to the <HI>Acts</HI> of Parliament; to the Doctrin generally profe&s;&s;ed by the D^r^s^. of the Reforma|tion; to their own Bible, and 39. Arti|cles of England; is it a calumny, or is it vnlykly that they did? But in that
<PB N="12" REF="19"> Ordination, tho ridiculous it be in it|&s;elf, and you confe&s;s it to be, ther's nothing (the circum&s;tance of a Tavern excepted) but what is warranted po|&s;itiuely, and conformable to all tho&s;e: ob&s;erue Reader that if that Ordination was in a Tavern (which the Author of the <HI>Nullity of the Prote&s;tant Clergy</HI> convin|cingly proues) is not material for our pre&s;ent Controver&s;y; the Choking bit is not that; but if that Con&s;ecration was performed without any impo&s;ition of true Bi&s;hops hands, only by virtue of the Queens letters Patents, and Ele|ction; and this I will proue by the Acts of Parliaments, by the Doctrin of the Church and State, by the Prote&s;tant Bible and by their 39. Articles of En|gland.</P>
<P>That ther's no other <HI>Prie&s;thood</HI> in the law of Grace but <HI>Bapti&s;m;</HI> that all Chri&s;|tians as well Women as Men are Prie&s;ts and equally impower'd. For to admi|ni&s;ter the Sacraments and to exerci&s;e Spiritual functions; this Doctrin I &s;ay &s;prung vp with the Reformation, and was generally taught and practis'd by the <HI>reformed Brethren,</HI> grounded vpon that text of S. Peter 1. 2. <HI>Chri&s;t made vs</HI>
<PB N="13" REF="19"> <HI>all a holy nation, a Royal Prie&s;thood, and Prie&s;ts to his father. Who&s;oeuer is a Chri|&s;tian,</HI> &s;ayes Luther l. de capt. Babyl. <HI>let him belieue vvee are all equally Prie&s;ts; that vvee haue all the &s;ame povver for to admini&s;ter the Sacraments.</HI> Zuinglius, Pe|ter Martir, and many other Reformed Writers, quoted by Brierly tract. 2. c. 2. &s;ec. 10. deliuer the &s;ame Doctrin: this Doctrin was commonly taught ad prac|tis'd in king Henry the VIII. and Edward the VI. time; for tho Henry the VIII. was no Prote&s;tant, yet his pa&s;&s;ion again&s;t the Pope was &s;o outragions, that he per|mitted this Doctrin to be preached and practis'd; and in his and king Edwards time, <HI>Latimer, Ridley,</HI> and <HI>Barlovv</HI> wi|thout any con&s;ecration by impo&s;ition of Bi&s;hops hands, exercis'd the fun|ctions of Bi&s;hops, and &s;ate in Parlia|ment in that quality; and <HI>Fox</HI> in his Martirol pag. 1064. relates that when <HI>Latimer</HI> and <HI>Ridly</HI> were &s;entenc'd to death, in Queen Mari's time; Doctor Brooks Bi&s;hop of Gloce&s;ter, who de|graded them, declared they were de|graded of their Prie&s;thood, and not of their Epi&s;copacy, becau&s;e they had not been duly and truly con&s;ecrated.</P>
<PB N="14" REF="20">
<P>Nor was this the practice and Doc|trin of the fir&s;t Reformers only, but al&s;o of the whole Prote&s;tant Church, de|clared in their 39. Articles, which is the &s;tre&s;s of the whole Prote&s;tant Reli|gion, and the Creed of their Church: <HI>Crammer</HI> and his A&s;&s;ociats in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ings Ed|wards time compo&s;ed them; in the 25. Article they declare fiue of the Sacra|ments, (wherof <HI>Holy Oder</HI> is one) to be none, as hauing no vi&s;ible &s;ign, and con&s;equently no impo&s;ition of hands, in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t for their admini|&s;tration: and in the 23. Article they de|ny any Caracter of Prie&s;thood (and con&s;equently of Epi&s;copacy) but Bap|ti&s;m, and that the office of Prie&s;thood is common to all Chri&s;tians. But <HI>Parker</HI> and his Camerades newly con&s;ecrated Bishops by Virtue of the Queens Let|ters Patents and Election, iudging that <HI>Crammer</HI> had not &s;ufficicienly declared the &s;ufficiency of the Prince or Magi|&s;trats Election for Epi&s;copal Con&s;ecra|tion, and the v&s;ele&s;&s;ne&s;s of impo&s;ition of Bi&s;hops hands, they a&s;&s;embled togi|ther the year 1562. and &s;et out a new Impre&s;&s;ion of the 39. Articles, and cor|rected the 25^t^h^. wording it thus: <HI>Tho&s;e</HI>
<PB N="15" REF="20"> <HI>fiue commonly called Sacraments, that is to &s;ay, Confirmation, Pennance, Order, Matri|mony</HI> and <HI>Extrem-Vnction, are not to be counted Sacrements of the Gho&s;pell, being &s;uch as have grovven partly of the corrupt follovving of the Apo&s;tles; parily are but &s;ta|tes of life allovved in Scripture, but yet haue not the nature of Sacraments, as Bap|ti&s;m and the lords &s;upper, for that they haue not any vi&s;ible &s;ign or Ceremonie (ob&s;erue ordained by Chri&s;t.</HI> You &s;ee that not only the fir&s;t Reformers and D^r^s^. of the Church of England, but that the fir&s;t Prote&s;tant Bishops and 39. Articles or Greed of their Church declare that no vi&s;ible &s;ign or Ceremonie, con|&s;equently no impo&s;ition of Bishops hands was in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t, or is needfull for Epi&s;copal Con&s;ecration, It's al&s;o the Doctrin of their Reformed Bible; for <HI>Parker, Horn, Ievvel</HI> and the re&s;t, not contented to correct the 39. Articles, corrected al&s;o the Bible; they&s;et out a new tran&s;lation of it that very year 1562. interpreting the word <HI>Kirotonia</HI> which S. Hierom and all An|cient D^r^s^. interpreted <HI>Impo&s;ition of Hands;</HI> they turn'd it, <HI>Ordination by Election</HI> to make good, that the Princes <HI>Election</HI>
<PB N="16" REF="21"> was &s;ufficient without any Impo&s;ition of Bishops hands; and this Interpreta|tion held vntill king James his time, then the true letter was re&s;tored to the Bible and <HI>Impo&s;ition of hands</HI> put in.</P>
<P>Now it remains wee &s;hew that this <HI>Ordination by Election</HI> without any Impo|&s;ition of hands, is warranted by the laws of the Land and Acts of Parlia|ment; which if wee do evidence, our Doctor is much to be blamed for &s;aying that Ordination of <HI>Parker</HI> and his Ca|merades at the <HI>Nags-head</HI> Tavern was ri|diculous, and incredible; for what can there be more Credible, than that <HI>Par|ker</HI> and his A&s;&s;ociats did, in their Ordi|nation, conform them&s;elues to the Laws of the kingdom, to the Doctrin of their Bible, Church and 39. Articles? and how can D^r Sall or any Prote&s;tant &s;ay, an Ordination that is conformable to all the&s;e, is <HI>ridiculous.</HI> But to the point: Bee plea&s;ed to reade the Stat. 8. Eliz. 1. its thus: <HI>And by the &s;ame Act and Statut there is giuen to the Queen, her heirs &amp;c full povv<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rand authority by Letters Pa|tents vnder the great &s;eal of England from time to time to a&s;sign, name and authori&s;e &s;uch Per&s;ons or Per&s;on, as &s;he and they &s;hall</HI>
<PB N="17" REF="21"> <HI>think convenient and meet for to exerci&s;e v&s;e, occupy and execute vnder her Heigh|ne&s;s all manner of Iuri&s;dictions, Privileges, Preheminences and authority in any wi&s;e touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical power or Iuri&s;diction within this Realm.</HI> You &s;ee by this Statut that the Queen might haue authori&s;ed <HI>Scory Cou|erdale</HI> or any privat Per&s;on or Per&s;ons, for to ordain Bishops: why then do you &s;ay its incredible that the&s;e Blades, &s;hould in virtue of the Queen's let|ters Patents only, haue con&s;ecrated one an other?</P>
<P>But hear yet the Queens Commi&s;&s;ion to ratify and confirm that which you call ridiculous Con&s;ecration, di&s;pen|&s;ing with any defect in them or any of them in their <HI>State, condition</HI> and <HI>faculty: Wee do &s;upply by our Soueraign and Royal Authority, if any thing be, or &s;hall be wan|ting in the&s;e things which yee are to do by our commands, either in your &s;elues or any of you, or in your condition &s;tate or faculty which by the &s;tatuts of this our kingdom, or by the laws of the Church are required or nece&s;&s;ary; the time and nece&s;sity of affairs exacting this.</HI> And if you will know what <HI>thing</HI> was this which <HI>was wanting</HI> in the
<PB N="18" REF="22"> Per&s;ons commi&s;&s;ioned by the Queen for to Con&s;ecrat Parker; what <HI>nece&s;sity of time and affairs obliged her to di&s;pen&s;e in the&s;e things;</HI> reade <HI>Holywood de inue&s;ti|ganda Chri&s;ti Eccle&s;ia,</HI> and you will be &s;atisfied; he relates that D^r <HI>Alaba&s;ter</HI> a&s;kt M^r <HI>Brancrof<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> B. of London in the be|ginning of king James his raign how his fir&s;t Prote&s;tant Bishop <HI>Parker</HI> was ordai|ned and by whom? <HI>Brancroft</HI> an&s;wered, <HI>I hope in ca&s;e of Nece&s;sity a Prie&s;t may be &s;ufficient for to ordain a Bi&s;hop;</HI> granting tacitely thereby, that <HI>Parkers</HI> Con&s;ecra|tors were no Bishops but Prie&s;ts; and there was a nece&s;&s;ity as the Queen her|&s;elf confe&s;&s;es of making v&s;e of a Prie&s;t for ordaining; becau&s;e there was no Bishop who would con&s;ecrat him: by this you may &s;ee what was wanting in the &s;tate and condition of <HI>Parkers</HI> Con|&s;ecrators, and what was the nece&s;&s;ity of time and affairs which forced the Queen to di&s;pen&s;e with them. And be|cau&s;e that immediatly after this con&s;e|cration of Parker and his Companions in the <HI>Nags-head</HI> Tavern, &s;om exclaimed again&s;t the Validity of it, becau&s;eit was don without Bishops, the Queen for to &s;ylence all &s;uch exceptions, and allay
<PB N="19" REF="22"> all doubts, declares in the &s;ame Statut.</P>
<P><HI>And further for to auoid all ambiguities and que&s;tions that might be obiected again&s;t the lawfull con&s;ecrations, inue&s;tings, and Confirmations of &s;aid ArchBi&s;hops and Bi&s;|hops</HI> (that's to &s;ay <HI>Parker</HI> and his fellows) <HI>her heighne&s;s in her Letters Patents vnder the great &s;eale of England directed to any ArchBi&s;hop, Bi&s;hop, or others</HI> (ob&s;erue the word <HI>Others,</HI> that's to &s;ay neither ArchBishop nor Bishop) <HI>for the con&s;ecra|tion, inue&s;ting, and confirming of any Per|&s;on elected to the office or dignity of Arch-Bishop or Bishop, hath not only v&s;ed &s;uch words and &s;entences, as are acu&s;tomed to be v&s;ed by king Henry and Edward, her Ma|ie&s;ties father and Brother, in their like let|ter Patents made for &s;uch cau&s;es; but al&s;o hath v&s;ed and put in her Maje&s;ti's letters Patents many other words and clau&s;es wherby her Maje&s;tie by her &s;upream Authority hath di&s;pen&s;ed with all cau&s;es, doubts, or any im|perfection or de&s;ability that can or in any way may be objected again&s;t the &s;ame, as by her Maje&s;ties letter Patents remaining of Record more plainly may be &s;een.</HI></P>
<P>Lay prejudice a&s;yde, <HI>&amp; quando ani|mo&s;itatem qua teneris Viceris, tunc Verita|tem poteris tenere, qua vincaris;</HI> S. Agu&s;t.
<PB N="20" REF="23"> l. 6. cont. Jul. c. 2. lay &s;aies the &s;aint vnto you, that animo&s;itie and prejudi|ce a&s;ide which po&s;&s;e&s;&s;es you, and you will po&s;&s;e&s;s the Truth, which is Victo|rious again&s;t you; for if pa&s;&s;ion does not pinfold your rea&s;on you cannot but &s;ee in the&s;e Statuts; fir&s;t that the Parlia|ment profe&s;&s;es a power in the Queen for to <HI>authori&s;e</HI> not only ArchBishops and Bishops, but <HI>Others,</HI> who are nei|ther, for to <HI>Con&s;ecrat Ordain</HI> and <HI>inue&s;t Bishops;</HI> &s;econdly you &s;ee the Queen in her commi&s;&s;ion did di&s;pen&s;e in the ina|bility and incapacity of the <HI>Con&s;ecrators</HI> by her &s;upream Power; which incapa|city the Commi&s;&s;ion &s;aies was in their <HI>&s;tate</HI> and <HI>condition:</HI> can it be denied but that they were by their <HI>State</HI> and <HI>condi|tion inable</HI> and <HI>incapable?</HI> and wherefo|re? but becau&s;e they were not Bishops;</P>
<P>Again&s;t &s;uch cleer evidences of the Nullity of your fir&s;t Prote&s;tant Bishops Ordination; and of the truth of the Nags-head &s;tory, our D^r Brings no|thing, tho he keeps a great bu&s;tle in ma|ny Pages, but M^r <HI>Francis Ma&s;ons</HI> Re|cords, which relate the place time, cir|cum&s;tances, and names of the Con&s;e|crators of <HI>Parker,</HI> who were <HI>Barlow Hod|kings,
<PB N="21" REF="23"> Scory</HI> and <HI>Couerdale,</HI> who by <HI>Impo|&s;ition of hands</HI> ordained <HI>Parker</HI> in <HI>Lambeth Chappel:</HI> but to &s;ay nothing, if tho&s;e Con&s;ecrators were them&s;elues true Bi&s;|hops, I will &s;hew that tho&s;e <HI>Ma&s;onian</HI> Regi&s;ters are forged, and as fals, as their Prelatic Ordination is Null: for, Parker's Ordination was the year 1559. as tho&s;e Regi&s;ters do relate; not only M^r <HI>Neale;</HI> an eye witne&s;s of that pa&s;&s;a|ge exclaimed again&s;t the Nullity of it, but Bishop <HI>Bonner</HI> ad many other Ca|tholics both of our Clergy and layetie; whervpon tho&s;e Statuts of Parliament were made to &s;ilence them, <HI>Harding Champney Fit&s;imons, Holywood</HI> and other Writers, printing again&s;t it, challenged <HI>Parker</HI> and <HI>Iewel</HI> to name the place and Per&s;ons by whom they were ordained; <HI>Wee &s;ay to you M^r Iewel</HI> (&s;aies Harding in Confut. Apol. printed an. 1566. <HI>and to each of your Companions, &s;hew vs the Regi&s;ter of your Bishops; &s;hew vt the letters of your Orders; but Orders; you haue not; for who could giue you that, of all your new Mini&s;ters, which them&s;elues had not</HI> This was the challenge; this was the clamor of our Authors; thus they pre&s;&s;ed tho&s;e new mock Bishops <HI>Parker</HI> and his Came|rades
<PB N="22" REF="24"> to name their Ordainers; that their Ordainers were no Bishops, and con&s;equently could make none: If any &s;nch as <HI>Ma&s;ons</HI> Regi&s;ters were then ex|tant, relating the Pomp of Ceremo|nies, the concurs of Nobility at <HI>Lam|beth</HI> Con&s;ecration, why were not tho&s;e Regi&s;ters produced then? was there any thing more obuions than to pro|duce them, and by them, &s;ylence, and confound our Writers, and a&s;&s;ert the credit of the Prote&s;tant Church, which &s;tood at the &s;take? But not a word did <HI>Parker, Iewel, Horn</HI> or any other Pro|te&s;tant Writer &s;peake of tho&s;e po&s;t-da|ted, enchanted Records; nor did ever any Catholic hear of them, vntill the year 1613. that is 54. years after Parkers Con&s;ecration: do not the&s;e Regi&s;ters think you, &s;mell &s;trongly of forgerie?</P>
<P>Our D^r tells vs, that in all prudence wee are to rely, as to matter of fact, vpon the public Records of the king|dom; its very true D^r, when the Re|cords are not ju&s;tly &s;u&s;pected, and car|rie, &s;uch vi&s;ible marks of forgerie. But good D^r, &s;tand to that Principle, that, <HI>as to matter of fact wee are to rely on the public Records of the Kingdom.</HI> And which
<PB N="23" REF="24"> do you judge to be the mo&s;t authentic and public Record? <HI>Ma&s;on's</HI> Regi&s;ters, which, as they lay hid for 54. years (if any there were) in a privat mans hands; &s;o they might haue been ea&s;ily corrup|ted ad changed? or the <HI>Statuts</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of Parliament, which are kept with the care and vigilancy wee all know from corruption? ther's no man of com|mon &s;en&s;e but will rely with more &s;a|tisfaction vpon the&s;e &s;econd: &s;ee then what <HI>Ma&s;ons</HI> Records &s;ay; <HI>that Parker was con&s;ecrated by true Bi&s;hops:</HI> and what &s;ay the Statuts of Parliament? <HI>that his Con|&s;ecrators were defective, inable, and inca|pable by their &s;tate, condition and faculty, for to ordain.</HI> Ma&s;ons Record import <HI>that the Con&s;ecrators needed no di&s;pen&s;ation from the Queen, for to con&s;ecrat Parker, becau&s;e he was ordained by true Bi&s;hops:</HI> the Acts of Parliament import that <HI>they did need a di&s;pen&s;ation; and that tho Queen did di&s;pen&s;e with them in their State and Condition.</HI> Which of the&s;e two will you belieue, <HI>Ma&s;ons</HI> Records, or the Sta|tuts of Parliament?</P>
<P>Our D^r &s;aies the&s;e Records were &s;he|wen to divers of our Churchmen the year 1614. yes; but why not the year
<PB N="24" REF="25"> 1600. and the other years vpwards vn till Parkers Ordination, when they we|re &s;o earne&s;tly called for by our Wri|ters? becau&s;e they were not then hat|cht: he &s;aies tho&s;e Churchmen, after hauing peru&s;ed and examined tho&s;e Records, judged them to be true; and what then? that proues not the truth of your Regi&s;ters, but their &s;incerity; for men of &s;incerity and honor are &s;low in belieuing &s;uch a horrid forgery, vn|till they &s;ee good proofs for it: and tho they had judged them to be true, what doth their opinion &s;ignify, who liued 54. years after, again&s;t the te&s;ti|mony of M^r Neale who was an eye wit|ne&s;s of the pa&s;&s;age; again&s;t the te&s;ti|mony of B. Bonner who liued then, and in London; again&s;t the te&s;timony of &s;o many illu&s;trious Writers, who immedia|tly writ again&s;t it, challenged to pro|duce their Records and letters of their Otders, and were neuer an&s;wered? you know it's a &s;acriledge to reordain a Prie&s;t or Bishop duly con&s;ecrated; you know al&s;o it's our practice to or|dain &s;uch of your Mini&s;ters as are con|verted, and will be Prie&s;ted; and would B. <HI>Bonner,</HI> would M^r <HI>Neale,</HI> Har|ding,
<PB N="25" REF="25"> <HI>Kelli&s;&s;on Fits&s;imons</HI> and the re&s;t of our Catholic Prelats, and Authors, who liued in <HI>Parkers</HI> time, and &s;uffered &s;o much for their Religion and con&s;|cience, induce the whole Church, by misinformation and impo&s;tures to or|dain your Mini&s;ters converted had they not a&s;&s;urance that your Parker and A&s;&s;ociats Ordination was Null and ridiculous.</P>
<P>Nor are wee Roman Catholics only who pleade again&s;t this Nullity: Re|member that in the long Parliament, the Bishops were excluded out of the hou&s;e of Lords; and an Independant Lord made a &s;peech to proue that ex|clu&s;ion to be ju&s;t, becau&s;e the Prote&s;|tant Bishops were no true Bishops for want of Ordination. Remember the <HI>P&uuml;ritans</HI> reproach again&s;t your Church, that <HI>the profane Order and con&s;ecration of Prote&s;tant Bi&s;hops had its beginning in a corner:</HI> Do they allude think you to the Chappel of <HI>Lambeth&punc;</HI> or to the <HI>Nags-head</HI> Tavern? looke with an impartial eye vpon this whole di&s;cours, and if pa&s;&s;ion does not prodigiou&s;ly blind you, you will confe&s;s, the Nags-head &s;tory to be no more ridiculous than true; your
<PB N="26" REF="26"> Con&s;ecration to haue been without <HI>any impo&s;ition of hands;</HI> and con&s;equently Null; and wheras all your Prelats de|riue their <HI>caracter</HI> from <HI>Parker</HI> and his A&s;&s;ociats, your Clergy is but a Mocke|ry, and your Bishops but laymen with Rockets.</P>
<P>But our D^r is re&s;olved to be quits with vs, &s;ince that wee have made his Bishops <HI>Leymen,</HI> he will not re&s;t till he dethrones our Popes: Not one true Pope does he grant vs &s;ince Grego|rie the XIII. The Elections of all the &s;ub&s;equent were quite Null: this is a rare and new di&s;couerie: but he &s;aies it's not new; for he &s;aies it was made long &s;ince by a learned pen, &agrave; Roman Catholic, (he does not name him) who pre&s;ented &agrave; book to king James, and by him to the re&s;t of the Chri&s;tian Prin|ces, &s;hewing the nece&s;&s;ity of gathering a Council again&s;t Paul the V. the Nul|lity of who&s;e Election, and of his Prede|ce&s;&s;ors he pretends to proue; and our D^r makes it a convincing argument of the &s;trength and truth of this book, that it was never an&s;wered by any of our Church; and I think its rather a con|cluding argument of the <HI>Non&s;en&s;e</HI> and
<PB N="27" REF="26"> frivolou&s;ne&s;s of the book (if any &s;uch book was) that no Catholic Author did think it worth his labour to an&s;wer it: and if that book did make out, or with any appeerance of rea&s;on did &s;hew the Nullity of the Elections of tho&s;es Po|pes, and particularly of Paul the V. then living, I know none to whom it would be more wellcom than to &s;om ambitious Cardinal, who in hopes of getting the <HI>Tiara</HI> for him&s;elf would pa|tronize and publish it: But when, not|with&s;tanding the many enemies the Popes haue in England, to advance any thing that might be to his de&s;advanta|ge, wee &s;ee, that that book was in its fir&s;t birth &s;o little applauded, that it never de&s;erued to peep out of En|gland, for ought wee know; that it neuer de&s;erued any an&s;wer from Ca|tholics, nor yet to haue been in any great Vogue among Prote&s;tants; this indeed is &s;ufficient to per&s;wade vs, that the book, if any &s;uch has been, had as little of &s;ub&s;tance, as the author of it had of wit and Religion.</P>
<P>For was the man in his Wits, or what an opinion did he expect could the world haue of his Religion, who went
<PB N="28" REF="27"> to a Ptote&s;tant king for to haue a Council conuen'd again&s;t the Pope? could it &s;ink into his brains, if he had any, that a Prote&s;tant Prince could be &s;o fit an in&s;trument for that vnder|taking; as the Emperour, the kings of France and Spain, or &s;om Catholic Monarch? This is the Book, and this book and Author is the warrant our D^r giues you for all the clutter he keeps in many leaues he &s;pends in pro|uing the Nullity, for&s;ooth, of our Popes; and if the book it&s;elf de&s;erued no an&s;wer, much le&s;s do the fragments of it copied out by D^r Sall de&s;erue any.</P>
<P>To his 12^t^h^. Chap. he prefixes this Ti|tle; <HI>The Va&s;t extent of Chri&s;tian Religion Profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of England;</HI> and in four long Chapters he runs vpon the Sects in England, Holland France, Po|land, Ru&s;&s;ia, and what part not of Eu|rope; nay he reckons vp all the Schi&s;|matic's of <HI>Greece,</HI> and all the&s;e he &s;aies, are <HI>of the Religion profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of England.</HI> And is not the Religion of the Church of England a mon&s;truous Body that is compo&s;ed of &s;o many members, and &s;o deformed? be a Pre&s;|biteran
<PB N="29" REF="27"> be a Lutheran, be a Quaker, be a Seeker, be what you will, &s;o you be not a Roman Catholic; you are of the Religion of the Church of England. Reade I pray the fir&s;t Chapter of this Treati&s;e where I proue out of the D^r^s^. own Conce&s;&s;ions that the&s;e Sects are Here&s;ies; reade al&s;o the 8. Chap. of my former Treati&s;e of the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church,</HI> where I convincingly proued that &s;ince the Roman Catholic faith is a true &s;aving faith, as the Church of En|gland confe&s;&s;es; and that there is but one &s;aving faith as S. Paul &s;aies; any Church of faith which differs from her in any Article or Doctrin, euen tho&s;e which yee call <HI>Inferior Truths,</HI> mu&s;t be an Heretical and heterodox Church and faith, which if you had well read, D^r, and vnder&s;tood well, you would not haue troubled vs again with this ri|diculous Doctrin, <HI>of &s;aluation in any Chri&s;tian Society;</HI> or you &s;hould haue been &s;o ju&s;t to your Adver&s;ary as to an&s;wer to his di&s;cours vpon that &s;ub|ject; but I &s;ee you de&s;ignedly &s;tep a&s;i|de wheneuer you find your&s;elf <HI>Non|plu&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>When I read this Paradox of our
<PB N="30" REF="28"> D^r I jndged the Catholic and Prote&s;|tant Church to be perfectedly repre|&s;ented in the two Women conte&s;ting about the living Child before <HI>Salomon;</HI> &s;hee who was the true Mother would not haue the Child devided, but to live entire and vndeuided; &s;hee who was not the true Mother would haue him devided and &s;hared betwixt both: <HI>Salomon</HI> adjudged the Child to her who would not con&s;ent to that inhuman di|vi&s;ion; &s;he was the true Mother: This is our ca&s;e; the Controver&s;y is, which is the true Religion and faith; the Ca|tholic Church cannot endure to hear of any divi&s;ion of the Church and faith of Chri&s;t into many oppo&s;it Sects; &s;he will haue but one Congregation vna|nimou&s;ly profe&s;&s;ing One Doctrin, One Lyturgy, Rites and Ceremonies; The Prote&s;tant Church by the mouth of D^r Sall, and other Writers cry out, <HI>Dividatur Infans; neither yee Catholics alone, nor wee Prote&s;tants only, nor any Con|grcgation &s;eparatly from the other, is the Church and faith of Chri&s;t; each mu&s;t haue ashare; the faith of Chri&s;t is deuided betwixt vs:</HI> Is not the Catholic Church think you to be judged the true Mother of
<PB N="31" REF="28"> the faithfull, which dete&s;ts this Barba|rous divi&s;ion of the faith of Chri&s;t into &s;o many Sects? and are not Sectaries to be e&s;teemed Tyrants, who rent and teare it into &s;o many peeces?</P>
<P>But I cannot omit a notorious ca|lumny of our D^r^. in his 12. chapt. where magnifying the great power and extent of his Prote&s;tant Religion in &s;eueral kingdoms, he coms to &s;peak of <HI>France; In France &s;aies he, tho&s;e of the Religion haue 70 towns with Garri&s;ons of &s;oldiers gouerned by Nobles and Gentlemen of the Prote&s;tant Religion: they haue 800 Mini&s;ters who retain Pen&s;ion out of the public Finance and are &s;o di&s;per&s;ed throughout the kingdom, that in the Principalites of Orange and Poi|tou, allmo&s;l all the inhabitants; a in Ga&s;|cony the one half; in Languedoc Normandy and the We&s;tern Prouinces a &s;trong party profe&s;&s;es the Prote&s;tant Religion; be&s;ides the Ca&s;tles and forts belonging to the Duke of Bullon, Count of Naual, Duke of Trimoulle Mon&s;iour de Cha&s;tillon, Mare&s;hal de Di|guiers, Duke de Sully and others.</HI> When I read this peece of <HI>Romance</HI> in our D^r^s^. book I turned pre&s;ently to the fronti&s;|pice of it, to &s;ee in what year it was printed, for I &s;u&s;pected it might haue
<PB N="32" REF="29"> been in king Henry the fourth's time, when indeed the Hugonots were po|werfull; but finding it was printed the year 1676. I admired the Authors Bold|ne&s;s, and in&s;incerity in beguiling his Reader.</P>
<P>For not one town, garri&s;on, fort, or Ca&s;tle, haue the Hugonots in Fran|ce this day; not one Mini&s;ter which re|tains Pen&s;ion out of the <HI>Finance</HI> but liues by the gratuity and alms of their Flock, as our Clergy in Ireland: It is true the Hugonots are more nume|rous in the Prouince of Poitou, than in any other in France, but to &s;ay, that almo&s;t all the Inhabitans are Hugo|nots; its agreat impo&s;ture: I declare what I &s;ee, and what I hear from french men as well Catholics as Hugonots, that there is not one Hugonot for a hundred Catholics in that Prouince; about <HI>Nyort, S. Maixance, Fonten&eacute;e, Lu|cinian,</HI> and all along from Poitiers to Rochel, the mo&s;t part of the Gentry who liue in the Country are Hugonots; but of the common People and the In|habitants of the towns, the Catholics are incomparably more numerous: The Dukes of Bullon, Rouan, Trimoulle &amp;c.
<PB N="33" REF="29"> which he reckons as Hugonots, are all Roman Catholics; nay for our D^r^s^. comfort, let him know, that there is not one, of the Prime families of Fran|ce this day a Hugonot exceptone, that's the <HI>Count de Ru&s;ste,</HI> a Cadet of the hou&s;e of <HI>Rochfoucaut:</HI> Of the Nobility of the &s;econd rank, there are &s;om; neither is there any Hugonot this day in France of any Vogue, either in the Court, Ar|my, or civil government except Ma|re&s;hal de <HI>Zumbert,</HI> who is no French man. By this you may judge what little credit our D^r de&s;erues in what he tells vs of the va&s;t power, and extent of his Brethren Sectaries in Poland, Tran&s;il|uania Ru&s;&s;ia &amp;c.</P>
<P>He mo&s;t gro&s;ly abu&s;es his Reader in telling him the Greek Church agrees with Prote&s;tants in oppo&s;ing Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation Purgatory &amp;c. again&s;t Ro|me; for in Luthers time, when <HI>Ieremy</HI> the Patriark of Con&s;tantinople vnder&s;|tood that Luther boa&s;ted, his Doctrin was profe&s;&s;ed by the Greek Church; the &s;aid Patriark a&s;&s;embled a Council of the Greek Prelats, and &s;olemnly pro|te&s;ted again&s;t, and condemned Luthers Errors; declared they belieued Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation,
<PB N="34" REF="30"> Purgarory, Prayers to Saints &amp;c. as Rome did: and the Acts and Decrees of this Council were printed and publisht by the Patriark him&s;elf, who&s;e book is extant in many Libraries in France, and el&s;where: and about ten years agon by occa&s;ion of a di&s;pute betwixt Mon&s;ieur <HI>Arnaud,</HI> and Mon&s;ieur <HI>Claude</HI> a Hugonot Mini&s;ter; the Mini&s;ter ob&s;tinatly auerring, that the Greek Church and other Schi&s;ma|tics in the Turki&s;h Dominions denyed Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation and other Catholic Tenets; Mon&s;ieur <HI>Arnaud</HI> procured by means of the french Emba&s;&s;ador in Con&s;tantinople an authentic public De|claration from the Patriark and Prelats of the Greek Church and other Schi&s;|matics, declaring Vnanimou&s;ly their belief of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation and other Tenets of the Church of Rome, which Declaration is common in France, to be read in Mon&s;ieur Arnaud's booke <HI>De la Perpetuit&eacute; de la Foy &amp;c.</HI> &s;o that tho the Grecians be Schi&s;matics, its appa|rent their Doctrin of Tran&s;ub&s;tantia|tion Purgatory and other Tenets con|troverted betwixt vs and Prote&s;tants, is the &s;ame with that of Rome.</P>
<PB N="35" REF="30">
<P>From his 16^t^h^. Chap. to the end of his fir&s;t part he has nothing worthy of any Reflexion but a di&s;cour&s;e of Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation, which wee will examin in our 15. and 16. Chapt. He runs much vpon the vnlawfullne&s;s of Subjects rai&s;ing Armes again&s;t their Prince; and I wi&s;h he could print this Doctrin deeply in his fellow Sectaries hearts; but he will not per&s;wade them &s;o im|portant a truth (as I will proue in the II Chapt. vntill the Church of England giues her Profe&s;&s;ors an other Rule of faith, and not Scripture arbitrarily interpreted, belieued and practis'd as each one vnder&s;tands it, without any &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to a &s;upream Pa&s;tor from whom wee mu&s;t receiue the true &s;en&s;e of it. Now it's time wee examin his di&s;cours again&s;t J. S.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="book">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<PB REF="31">
<PB N="37" REF="31">
<HEAD>CHAPTER I.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"><HI>A SVRVEY OF THE DOCTORS Dedicatory to the Earle of E&s;&s;ex; Sectari's Di&s;&s;ention in faith, The Reformers, Re|formation and Reformed Brethren briefly de&s;cribed.</HI></HEAD>
<P>_ALL Chri&s;tian Sects, &s;aies our Doctor to his Mecae|nas are joyned with the Church of England; they haue all but one and the &s;ame faith; and that faith profe&s;&s;ed by that louely Company is the Primitive Catholic Apo&s;tolic faith; they differ &s;aies he Chap. 12. again&s;t N. N. only in Rites and Ceremonies; and there is not one of the&s;e Sects but is as different from the other, and exclaim again&s;t one an other as much as again&s;t Popery:
<PB N="38" REF="32"> a&s;k the Presbiterians what they think of Prote&s;tancie? they &s;ay, its Popery in Engli&s;h; a&s;k the Quakers their opi|nion of them both? they are Limbs of Satan: a&s;k the Anabapti&s;ts what they judge of all three? they are Children of Perdition.</P>
<P>But I pray D^r what is the faith of the Church of England as to the Canon of Scripture? it belieues S Pauls Epi&s;|tle to the Hebrews, the Epi&s;tles of Iames and Jude, the &s;econd and third of S. John, and the 2. of S. Peter to be true Canonical Scripture; and what is the Lutherans of Germani's faith as to this point? that they are not Canoni|cal: and is this difference but in Rites and Ceremonies? does not the Prote&s;|tant Church belieue the Adoration of the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t, and the v&s;e and prayers before Images to be downright Idolatry; and Lutherans &s;ay its not? and do you make but a Ceremony of Idolatry? does not the Prote&s;tant Church belieue the firgurative only Pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t's Body in the Sacra|ment; and the Lutherans belieue the Real pre&s;ence, which you &s;ay is an Er|ror incon&s;i&s;tent with Salvation? and
<PB N="39" REF="32"> is this but a Ceremonie? or will God condemn men for a meer Ceremonie? does not the Church of England be|lieue the Nece&s;&s;ity of both kinds in the Communion, and the Hugonots of France in their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;ciplin ch. 12. art. 7. deny it, and &s;ay it may for ju&s;t rea&s;ons be giuen in bread alo|ne? This is no Ceremonial difference betwixt your Church and ours; for its, you &s;ay, one of our Errors incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation; and why it &s;hould be a Ceremonial bu&s;ine&s;s betwixt Prote&s;|tants and Hugonots I know not: Nor are the Prote&s;tant Bishops of England &s;o prodigal of their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical reue|news as to &s;ay that <HI>Epi&s;copacy</HI> is but a Ceremony which they belieue to be de <HI>Iure Divino</HI> and the Presbiterians deny it: &s;ee you Reader with what ap|pearance of truth our D^r can &s;ay that the Church of England and the other Sects are joyned in one faith.</P>
<P>O! but, &s;aies he ch. 12. again&s;t N. N. they all agree in the chief heads and fundamental points of Chri&s;tianity; and what be they? Ble&s;&s;ed be God, that in&s;pired to our good D^r to tell vs what be tho&s;e fundamental points and chief
<PB N="40" REF="33"> Articles wherin Prote&s;tant Writers do &s;o often tell vs that all mu&s;t agree for to haue true faith; and that all other points are but inferior Truths, Rites and Ceremonies: Our D^r then tells vs the chief heads and fundamental points of Chri&s;tianity nece&s;&s;ary to Salvarion; The Holy Scripture; the &s;acred Trini|ty, the Per&s;on of the Son of God, God and man; The Providence of God, &s;in, free will, the Law, the Gho&s;pell, Ju|&s;tification by Chri&s;t; faith in his name; Regeneration; The Catholic Church, and &s;upream head of it, Chri&s;t; The Sacraments, their number and v&s;e; The &s;tate of Souls after death; the Re|&s;urrection and life Etetnal; the&s;e are the chief heads and Sub&s;tantial points and in the&s;e all the Reformed Churchs agree with that of England, &s;aies our D^r in that 12. Chapt. again&s;t N. N.</P>
<P>But my Reader will not I hope be &s;o ea&s;ily per&s;waded of this aggreement betwixt the&s;e Sectaries, euen in the&s;e Chief heads and fundamental points: for the Prote&s;tants belieue S. Pauls Epi&s;|tle to the Hebrews and the other Epi&s;|tles mentioned but now, to be Canoni|cal Scripture; the Lutherans vtterly
<PB N="41" REF="33"> deny them: The Lutherans in the Con|ference of Lyp&s;ia, the Magdeburgen|&s;es, and the Lutheran Divins in the Conference of <HI>Ratisbon</HI> belieue Seauen Sacraments; nor do they agree in the <HI>v&s;e of the Sacraments</HI> for the Hugonots of France as I ob&s;erved, belieue the Lords &s;upper may be taken in one kind, the Church of England belieues it mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be taken in both; in their Doctrin of Gods Providence they are all al&s;o far a&s;under; for not only the Gomari&s;ts in Holland following the Doctrin of Calvin, but al&s;o many Hu|gonot Churchs in France belieue that antecedently to any good or bad work of man, God has created and ab&s;olut|ly Decreed &s;om men to be eternally damn'd and others to be &s;aved; the Church of England, the Arminians in Holland and many Hugonots of Fran|ce deny this cruel decree in God, and belieue none is damn'ed by Gods ab&s;o|lut Will and decree, but for his fins. You &s;ee Reader how the Church of En|gland and other Sectaries are at ears not only in Rites and Ceremonies; not only in Inferior and not Fundamental Articles, but euen in tho&s;e which our
<PB N="42" REF="34"> D^r him&s;elf calls the chief points, and Fundamental Heads of Chri&s;tianity: How can our D^r &s;ay they are all joyned in one faith? or how can he &s;ay the faith profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of En|gland and in the other Sects is the Ca|tholic Apo&s;tolic faith; if he will not &s;ay that one Apo&s;tle taught and belie|ued two Sacraments as the Prote&s;tants do; and an other Apo&s;tle Seaven Sa|craments as the Lutherans of Lyp&s;ia and Rati&s;bon did; one Apo&s;tle taught that &s;uch Epi&s;tles were Canonical Scrip|ture; and an other belieued they we|re not.</P>
<P>But D^r do not you confe&s;s that the Church of England differs from Luthe|rans, Pre&s;biterians and other Sects in inferior and not Fundamental Verities? and no true Prote&s;tant of England who vnder&s;tands well his Catechi&s;m will &s;ay that Prote&s;tants and Catholics differ in more than in Inferior Verities; what greater Vnion then can you pretend with Lutherans and other Sectaries than with vs Catholics? moreouer Doc|tor you &s;ay that errors again&s;t the&s;e in|ferior Verities are incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;al|uation if ignorance does not excu&s;e
<PB N="43" REF="34"> them; your Brethren Sectaries therefore will be as Deep in hell as Catholics, Becau&s;e they hold errors again&s;t your Inferior Verities as well as Catholics; and if they haue ignorance it mu&s;t be <HI>gro&s;s, Willfull</HI> and <HI>ob&s;tinatly blind,</HI> as that of Papi&s;ts becau&s;e they haue the Scrip|ture which you &s;ay, plainly declares your Doctrin to any that is not <HI>willfully and ob&s;tinatly blind:</HI> la&s;tly D^r you &s;ay in your Dedicatory that <HI>the true nature of Here&s;y con&s;i&s;ts in Doctrin oppo&s;it to Scriptu|re:</HI> but all the Doctrin that Lutherans, Pre&s;biterians &amp;c. hold in oppo&s;ition to your Doctrin of England, is quite and plainly oppo&s;it to Scripture; becau&s;e you tell vs a thou&s;and times ouer both in your Sermon, and in your Book that your Doctrin of Prote&s;tancy, figurati|ve Pre&s;ence, Communion in both kinds two Sacraments &amp;c. is plainly &s;etdown, and &s;een in Scripture to any that is not <HI>willfully blind;</HI> therefore the re&s;t of Sectaries, (who deny your inferior Ve|rities) faith and Religion is plain Here&s;y: behold Reader the faith and Religion wherin the Church of England and the re&s;t of Sectaries are joyned.</P>
<P>Our D^r goes on in his Dedicatory
<PB N="44" REF="35"> Epi&s;tle, and tells his Mecaenas that the Prote&s;tant Curhch and other Sectaries are Reformed Churches; that the faith of the Church of Rome was once prai&s;ed throughout the World; its his and the Reformed Churches wi&s;h, he &s;aies, that wee may return to our primitive lu&s;tre and joyn hart and hand with them to the edification and encrea&s;e of Chri&s;|tianity; But they being &s;o &s;eparated and diuided in Doctrin among them|&s;elues as wee haue &s;howen; its impo&s;&s;i|ble for vs to joyn with them vntill they agree among them&s;elues, and tell vs with which of them &s;hall wee joyn; for with whatever Sect of them wee joyn, wee &s;hall haue all the re&s;t on our backs, and &s;o neuer be at re&s;t: the Pre&s;bite|rians will neuer con&s;ent that wee joyn with Prote&s;tants; nor the Prote&s;tants will neuer conde&s;cend that wee ioyn with Lutherans; and &s;o D^r Sall's Wi&s;h that wee joyn with the Reformed Chur|ches is ridiculous.</P>
<P>Nor is it le&s;s ridiculous to call his Sects <HI>Reformed Churches.</HI> Ob&s;erve Reader who be tho&s;e they call <HI>Reformers;</HI> who be they, that are called Reformed Brethren, and what is that they call
<PB N="45" REF="35"> <HI>Reformation;</HI> and you will confe&s;s no Names were euer more abu&s;ed. As for the fir&s;t and Chief Reformers, the Au|thor of that learned Treati&s;e of Reli|gion and Gouerument, in his fir&s;t book, and N. N. in his Dolefull fall of Andrew Sall giues you an exact de&s;cription of them; D^r Sall very wi&s;e|ly declins their vindication from the wicked life N. N. &s;aies they lead; for he &s;aies the Reformation may be very good in it&s;elf, tho Luther and &s;om other Reformers were naught; as in the Apo&s;tolical Colledge, &s;aies he there was a Judas; it's very true D^r, but if all the Apo&s;tolical Colledge was but a pack of <HI>Iuda&s;es,</HI> and not one hone&s;t man among them; could any man in his wits be per&s;uaded to belieue their Do|ctrin was from God? this is your ca&s;e D^r, wee defy you to name as much as one among your fir&s;t Reformers, who was as much as an hone&s;t man; do you name Luther? he was an Apo&s;tat Fryar, learned his Doctrin again&s;t Ma&s;s, pra|yers to &s;aints &amp;c. from the Deuil with whom he was frequently conver&s;ant as him&s;elf confe&s;&s;es to. 7. Wittemb. an. 1558 de Mi&s;&s;a Privata fol. 228. &amp; to. 6.
<PB N="46" REF="36"> Germ. Ien. lib. de Mi&s;&s;a angulari. Do you name Calvin? he was a &s;odomit burnt in the &s;houlder for that crime at Noyon, lived a continual Scandal to the world at Geneue, and dyed a horror to nature as his own bo&s;om friend Bol&s;eck relates in his life: do you name Beza? a man pro&s;tituted to lu&s;t and &s;en&s;uality as the &s;ame Bol&s;eck who knew him relates: Zuinglius, Oe|colampadius Carolo&s;tadius, Goodman, Jacobus Andreas were of the &s;ame &s;tamp. Neither were your fir&s;t Refor|mers of England of a better alloy; Cranmer a meer contempori&s;er who married and vnmarried Henry the VIII. as often as he plea&s;ed; in his time he writ a Treati&s;e in favor of Tran&s;ub&s;tan|tiation, for to plea&s;e his Prince; and in king Edward the VI. time Zuinglia|ni&s;m being the &s;waying Religion, he al|tered his note, and writ an other Trea|ti&s;e again&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; Zuin|gliani&s;m he profe&s;&s;ed vntill he was &s;en|tenc'd to death for here&s;y and Trea&s;on by Queen Mary; then in hopes to &s;aue his life he declared for the Catholic Religion, but &s;eeing the &s;entence was not repealed, he renounced again this
<PB N="47" REF="36"> and dyed a Zuinglian. Ochinus of a Ca|puchin became a Reformer, and &s;o good an one, that he ran further and became a Jew. Martin Bucer, of a Dominican Fryar became a Lutheran, of a Luthe|ran became a Zuinglian; he became again a Lutheran, and returned again to be a Zuinglian: Hooper and Rogers both runagat Monks; Couerdale an Augu&s;tin Fryar; Bale a Carmelit; Pe|ter Martir a Chanon Regular, all mar|ried, and the&s;e were your Reformers, judge you what the Reformation could be; and tell vs D^r can you name any one of this company that was famous for his Virtue, Miracles, or holy conver|&s;ation; nay any that was an hone&s;t man.</P>
<P>And you will be no le&s;s &s;urpri&s;ed Reader when you con&s;ider what kind of men are called Reformed Brethren; Monks fryars and Prie&s;ts, as wee haue lately &s;een run from the Catholic Church to Prote&s;tancy; and why? be|cau&s;e Popery is full of Errors for&s;ooth; Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Images, Purgato|ry, &amp;c. and out of a tender con&s;cience and loue of Truth they for&s;ake the&s;e errors, and &s;nper&s;titious practices of
<PB N="48" REF="37"> Rome. Very well; let vs &s;uppo&s;e tho&s;e Articles of Popery are Errors, and ma|ny practices of the Church of Rome are Super&s;titions and again&s;t Gods Word; let vs commend and prai&s;e you for re|nouncing tho&s;e Errors: but why do you renounce and lay by, other practices, Doctrins, ad Devoirs to which you we|re obliged by Vow in the Catholic Church, and which in the judgment of all the Church of England are Holy, commendable and conformable to the Word of God? Be it &s;o, let Purgatory be again&s;t Gods Word; renounce it; but its not again&s;t Gods Word to fa&s;t from fle&s;h in lent and other dayes, your Common Prayer Book commands it; Why then do not you, Fryar, who obli|ged your&s;elf vnder &s;in to fa&s;t the grea|te&s;t part of the year from fle&s;h, why do you lay a &s;yde this practice? you re|nounced but the errors of Popery con|trary to the Word of God; this is no|ne: let Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation be an error; renounce it; but its no error, nor con|trarie to Gods Word to &s;ay your Office, your Matins and Laudes; to di&s;ciplin your &s;elf &s;omtimes in the week; to liue in pouerty without any rents or reue|news;
<PB N="49" REF="37"> to liue in Cha&s;tity; the&s;e prac|tices are no Errors nor Super&s;titions; why do you for&s;ake them? let Prayers to Saints and before Images be Idola|try; &s;or&s;ake them, if you will be mad; but its no error nor profane or Super&s;|titious practice, but the Coun&s;el of Chri&s;t and the Practice of his Saints to for&s;ake richs, lands, e&s;tates, Honors and dignities for Chri&s;t his &s;ake and li|ue in povertie and humility for his lo|ue; this you vowed to do when you were a Roman Catholic; why do not you keep that part of Popery; If the king and Parliament did enact (and it would be Much to the credit of the Prote&s;tant Church, it were enacted) that there &s;hould be a hou&s;e in &s;om Country town wherin all Monks and Fryars who becom Prote&s;tants &s;hould liue togither in Community vn|der Obedience to &s;om Superiour as they did in the Catholic Church, (this is not again&s;t Scripture,) that none &s;hould be permitted to eate fle&s;h in lent nor fa&s;ting daies, but fa&s;t as they did in their re&s;pective Orders (nor is this again&s;t Scripture) that none &s;hould be permitted to haue any Eccle&s;ia&s;tical
<PB N="50" REF="38"> Benefice nor any Rents, but live vpon the charity of the People as they did when they were Catholics (nor is this again&s;t Scripture) that none &s;hould be permitted to marry, nor to weare but meane attyre (nor is this again&s;t Scrip|ture) that all of them &s;hould be obli|ged to &s;ay their Divin Office, or a num|ber of &s;palms equivalent to it euery day, and Di&s;ciplin them&s;elues &s;omti|mes in the weeke as they were acu&s;tomed or obliged to do in their Orders; in &s;uch aca&s;e indeed wee might think that &s;uch as reuolted from the Catholics and be|came Prote&s;tants were moued by devo|tion and a tenderne&s;s of Con&s;cience, and they might with &s;om appearance of truth be called Reformed Brethren; But that a company of Fryars &s;hould run from the retirement of their con|vents to the court and hou&s;es of great ones, from pouertie and beggery to look for Benefices and rents; from fa&s;ting, and other au&s;terities to which they are obliged, to eate and drink and cheri&s;h their fle&s;h; ca&s;ting a&s;yde their Breviaries and Meditations, and marrying; what half witted man in the world will call &s;uch men Reformed
<PB N="51" REF="38"> men but rather men pro&s;tituted to li|centiou&s;ne&s;s and bankrupts in Hone&s;|tie.</P>
<P>By this di&s;cours you may perceiue how little or rather nothing the Prote&s;|tant Church has for to de&s;erue that plau&s;ible name of <HI>Reformation;</HI> no name in the world more vnbecoming it: for a Reformation is a change of a large life into a &s;trict one; its a Profe&s;&s;ion of a more au&s;tere life, and of more mode|ration than formerly was: how then can <HI>Prote&s;tancy</HI> be called a Reformation of the Catholic Religion; put the ca&s;e in Luther, Calvin, and the re&s;t of Prie&s;ts and Fryars who change the Catholic for the Prote&s;tant Religion: its evi|dent by what I &s;aid and by what the world &s;ees, they leaue a narrow, &s;trict, and au&s;tere manner of life, for a more ea&s;y large and plea&s;ant one; for in the Catholic they were obliged vnder &s;in to &s;ay their Breviary euery day; to fa&s;t the greate&s;t part of the yeare, to &s;eve|ral au&s;terities of ry&s;ing at midnight to the Quyre, of Di&s;ciplin and haire|cloths; never to marry, neuer to haue any rents but liue in poverty, to liue vnder Obedience of their Superiors
<PB N="52" REF="39"> with a total &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion of their Wills to his; they were obliged to confe&s;s their &s;ins to a Prie&s;t, to &s;ubmit their judgments in matters of Religion to the Pa&s;tor of the Church, to obey the Precepts of the Church. This manner of life is it which they vere obliged to lead in the Catholic Religion: And they for&s;ook this for Prote&s;tancy, whe|re they are not bound to any Breviary, nor other Prayers vnder &s;in; where they can without a remors of con&s;cien|ce make good cheer all the yeare; whe|re they can marry and get a good Por|tion and an Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Benefice be|&s;ids; where they are not obliged to con|fe&s;s, nor obey any Commandments of the Church (none obliges them in con|&s;cience;) where they may belieue what|euer they judge is the Doctrin and &s;en|&s;e of Scripture, let their Pa&s;tors and Church belieue what they li&s;t: who can deny but this exchange of life is from an au&s;tere to a large, from a rigid to a more ea&s;y, from a &s;trict to a more plea&s;ant life: and is this it wee call Reformation? In the Catholic Church wee can haue but one faith; wee are obliged to profe&s;s one and the &s;ame
<PB N="53" REF="39"> Doctrin, practice Vniformly the &s;ame Rites and Ceremonies; in the Refor|mation you haue many different faiths; you may with a &s;afe con&s;cience profe&s;s what Doctrin you plea&s;e, either the Lutheran, Pre&s;biterian, Calvinian &amp;c. for what euer of them you belieue you will be &s;till of the Reformation. And can this be called a Reformation? which de&s;troies vnity, rents the Flock into &s;o many Sects, and giues vs &s;uch liberty to belieue as wee fancy?</P>
<P>Perhaps our D^r may an&s;wer that Pro|te&s;tancy is a <HI>Reformation</HI> of the <HI>Doctrin</HI> of Popery, becau&s;e this &s;warms with many Errors; but what is <HI>Doctrin</HI> for, but for to reform our lyues? and how can that be a <HI>Reformation</HI> of Doctrin, which leads to &s;uch a corruption of Manners?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="54" REF="40">
<HEAD>II. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>THAT THE DOCTOR HAS IN HIS Sermon pa&s;&s;ed his &s;entence of Damnation again&s;t our Saints; he retracts this Sen|tence in his Booke; but cannot in his Principles.</HI></HEAD>
<P>OUR Doctor in his two fir&s;t Chap|ters again&s;t J. S. pretends to ca&s;t that impious po&s;ition from his doore. <HI>That in the Catholic Religion ther's no &s;aluation;</HI> he &s;aies wee may; and when he &s;aies, &s;aluation may be had in our Catholic Church, any man would think he intended to grant a grater capacity for &s;aluation in our Religion, than in <HI>Turci&s;m,</HI> or <HI>Pagani&s;m;</HI> but not a iot grea|ter: for if you a&s;k him how a Roman Catholic can be &s;aved, our Tenets being as he &s;aies, <HI>incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;alua|tion;</HI> he an&s;wers that by <HI>Ignorance</HI> or Re|pentance, and auers very po&s;itiuely that Prote&s;tants allow no &s;aluation in Popery, if either of the&s;e two does not protect vs: and &s;o much capacity for &s;alvation, the Roman Catholics, who
<PB N="55" REF="40"> are accu&s;ed by him and his fellows to be vncharitable for denying &s;aluation out of their Church, do grant to Pagans and Turks; it being the Doctrin of mo&s;t learned Divins, for not belieuing the Bible to be Gods Word, for not belie|uing the Sacraments, nay nor the In|carnation and Pa&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t, a man will not be damn'd, if he has invincible ignorance of the&s;e Mi&s;teries, or Repen|tance of his Errors: and this is that great charity of Prote&s;tants beyond Catholics, when they &s;ay that Roman Catholics may be &s;aued in their Reli|gion; that's to &s;ay, that they are in as great a capacity for &s;aluation as Pa|gans and Turks.</P>
<P>He &s;crues vp the peggs of his indi|gnation again&s;t me for making him au|thor of that wicked Po&s;ition, <HI>That in the Roman Catholic Church a man cannot be &s;aued,</HI> and to proue him the Author of it, there needs no more, than to hear him &s;peake: Page 116. of his Sermon he &s;aies, <HI>No learned Prote&s;tant does allow the Popi&s;h Religion generally and ab&s;oluty &s;pea|king to be a &s;ecure way of &s;aluation; for all do agree that many of their Tenets and pra|ctices are incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation; tho</HI>
<PB N="56" REF="41"> <HI>ignorance may haply excu&s;e &s;om of the Simple &s;ort, but not &s;uch as know, or with due care and enquiry may know their Errors.</HI> Now you &s;hall &s;ee him, like the Dogs head in the pot as in the po&s;t-&s;igns, &s;trugling to get out, and cannot: <HI>Many of their Tenets</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>are incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;alua|tion;</HI> and is not this, as much as to &s;ay in good Engli&s;h, that wee cannot be &s;aued? But he ads that Ignorance may &s;aue &s;om of <HI>the &s;imple &s;ors;</HI> by your fa|vor he does not &s;ay ab&s;olutly that igno|rance may &s;aue <HI>euen &s;om of the &s;imple</HI> &s;ort; <HI>Haply</HI> it may, &s;aies he, that's to &s;ay, <HI>perhaps</HI> it may; nothing Sure as to that: Tenets incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation ab&s;o|lutly block vs the entrance into heauen, if ignorance does not de&s;ob&s;truct it; and its not certain that ignorance can do it, <HI>Haply</HI> it may, &s;aies our Doctor &s;o that if Catholics do not renounce their Errors by repentance, it's a thou|&s;and to one, if any of them euer goes to Heauen.</P>
<P>And ob&s;erve he does not &s;ay this Ig|norance it &s;elf will<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, as much as Haply excu&s;e all Catholics; No but <HI>&s;om;</HI> and what <HI>&s;om? of the &s;imple &s;ort,</HI> but not lear|ned men, <HI>who know, or with due care and</HI>
<PB N="57" REF="41"> <HI>enquiry may know their errors;</HI> &s;hutting vp heauens gates to all wi&s;e men; igno|rance will not excu&s;e them: How D^r? but <HI>&s;om of the &s;imple &s;ort?</HI> haue you ma|de no <HI>Proui&s;o</HI> for that noble Prince, who made the Epigram in your prai&s;e? or will you rank him among the <HI>&s;imple &s;ort,</HI> for beiug &s;o &s;imple as to make an Epigram in your prai&s;e? No <HI>Proui&s;o</HI> for &s;o many Earles, Lords and Per&s;ons of heigh quality your own bo&s;om friends with whom you were &s;o conver&s;ant and familiar? no Provi&s;o for Bernard, A|quinas, Bonaventure and other Saints, Pillars of the Church, and Eagles of the Schools? had I not rea&s;on, Reader, to &s;ay our D^r denied Saluation in the Catholic Church, fir&s;t becau&s;e he grants no greater Capacity For &s;alua|tion in her, than in Turci&s;m and Paga|ni&s;m; &s;econdly becau&s;e it appears by his own words that all wi&s;e and learned Catholics are excluded by him from &s;aluation, wheras he &s;aies that nothing but <HI>ignorance</HI> can &s;aue &s;om of <HI>the &s;imple &s;ort;</HI> thirdly becau&s;e he does not grant it to be an a&s;&s;ured Verity that igno|rance may excu&s;e &s;om <HI>of the &s;imple &s;ort it &s;elf: Haply it may,</HI> and no more but
<PB N="58" REF="42"> &s;o. And is it not a pretty thing to &s;ee our D^r of &s;o &s;queami&s;h a &s;tomack, as not to endure that propo&s;ition &s;hould be fa|ther'd on him <HI>That there is no &s;aluation in the CatholicChurch:</HI> My good friend what do you driue at in your whole Sermon and new book, but to proue wee are Idolaters for our Adoration of the con|&s;ecrated Ho&s;t, Images and Prayers to Saints? and will you boggle at &s;aying Idolaters cannot be &s;aued?</P>
<P>You haue heard our D^r &s;ay <HI>our Tenets are incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation;</HI> and no|thing but <HI>Ignorance</HI> can excu&s;e their Profe&s;&s;ors from damnation; and this &s;auing <HI>Ignorance</HI> he granted it only to &s;om of the <HI>&s;imple &s;ort</HI> in his printed &s;er|mon; but not at all to <HI>&s;uch as know,</HI> or with due care and enquiry may know their Errors: and being aduerti&s;'d by J. S. what an impious thing it was to pa&s;s his &s;entence of damnation again&s;t S. Thomas of Aquin, S. Bernard and the re&s;t of our learned D^r^s and Saints; he retracts in his book what he aduan|ced in his &s;ermon, and &s;aies that &s;aving Ignorance reachs al&s;o to learned men, to Aquinas, Bernard, and others; they were he &s;aies ignorant, and by
<PB N="59" REF="42"> their ignorance they were &s;aued: &s;ee you Reader what &s;treights our D^r is put into; either to &s;ay that Aquinas, Ber|nard, Scotus, Bonaue~ture, and our Saints and D^r^s were damn'd knaues, or Igno|rant Coxcoms; and to ca&s;t &s;uch an af|front vpon two, the learnede&s;t Schools in the world, <HI>Thomi&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Scoti&s;ts,</HI> as to &s;ay their Ma&s;ters were <HI>two ignorant Dolts.</HI> Who can pretend to know if &s;uch men, e&s;teemed the Oracles of the world, were ignorant? or who can expect to ouer|com his ignorance, if the ignorance of &s;uch men was invincible, after &s;o much time &s;pent by them in reading and &s;tu|dying the Scripture, fathers, and Coun|cils: but Ignorant they mu&s;t haue been &s;aies D^r Sall, or they neuer went to heauen: and the mi&s;chief is that he does not grant them Ignorance it&s;elf; for tho he &s;aies they were Ignorant and &s;aued through Ignorance, yet I will evi|dence out of the Church of England, and the D^r^s own Principles, they could not haue invincible Ignorance; con&s;e|quently that acording our D^r and his Churchs Principles they mu&s;t haue bin vnauoidably damn'd.</P>
<P>Our D^r pag. 9. of his Reply giues vs
<PB N="60" REF="43"> the Definition of <HI>Invincible Ignorance; Its &s;uch as one cannot remedy by means obvious to him acording his &s;tate and condition.</HI> He therefore who has the means obuious to him acording his &s;tate and condition of life for to remedy his <HI>Ignorance,</HI> and remains &s;till ignorant; his Ignorance cannot be called <HI>Invincible,</HI> but <HI>Supin</HI> and <HI>gro&s;s,</HI> becau&s;e he does not make v&s;e of tho&s;e <HI>Means obuious vnto him;</HI> But Aquinas, Bernard and all our learned Saincts and Doctors had the &s;ufficient and nece&s;&s;arie <HI>Mcans</HI> obuious to them for to remedy their Ignorance; for they had the Scripture which our D^r &s;aies pag. 29. of his &s;ermon, and al&s;o often in his book, <HI>abounds with all heauenly light</HI> and cleerly &s;ets down the Prote&s;tant Tenets to all tho&s;e who are not <HI>willfully blind.</HI> If therefore they were Ignorant, their ignorance was not invincible; they did not v&s;e the means they had, <HI>they did not &s;earch with due care and enquiry,</HI> and Ignorance will not excu&s;e, &s;aies our D^r, <HI>tho&s;e who Know, or with due care and enquiry may Know the truth.</HI> Is it not by Scripture alone that Luther and Calvin e&s;pied out the Errors of Rome? is it not by Scripture, Councils and fathers
<PB N="61" REF="43"> our D^r &s;aies, him&s;elf was convinced of the truth of Prote&s;tancy? S. Tho|mas Aquinas, Bernard and the re&s;t of our D^r^s and Saints had the Scripture Councils and fathers and &s;tudied them more than D^r Sall; they had therefore the Means obuious to their &s;tate and condition for to remedy their Igno|rance; it was not therefore invinci|ble.</P>
<P>I doubt if any but our D^r would vt|ter &s;uch &agrave; Paradox, and I am &s;ure none would prove it more ridiculou&s;ly; Aquinas &s;aies, he pag. 8. and the re&s;t were invincibly ignorant, <HI>becau&s;e the errors of the Church of Rome were not &s;o many in his time as now; they increa&s;ed day|ly; they were not &s;o knowen and cleered in the crucible of public oppo&s;ition; none dared to check them, and &s;o they kept credit; they be gan to be in v&s;e in his time or &s;om what before and were not oppo&s;ed.</HI> Was there euer &s;uch a wild ramble of talk, and &s;uch a heap of vntruths coucht in &s;o few lynes? wee mu&s;t not attempt to retort him by the te&s;timony of any Catholic Doctor, for hee'l &s;ay they are all Ignorant as Aqui|nas; but I hope he will giue credit to his own illuminated Brethren Humfry
<PB N="62" REF="44"> in Je&s;uit. par. 2. rat. 5. Caron in Cronol. l. 4. pag. 567. O&s;iand. in Epit. Cent. 6. witne&s;s, that S. Gregorie Pope and Au&s;tin the Monk (our D^r will &s;ay they were al&s;o Ignorant) brought into England Ma&s;s, Purgatory, Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation Prayers to Saints, Indulgences and the re&s;t of our Catholic Tenets about the year 600. was this but <HI>In,</HI> or but <HI>Som|what</HI> before Aquinas his time, wo liued the yeare 1270? <HI>O&s;iander</HI> Cent. 8. wit|ne&s;&s;eth that Venerable Bede who liued the year 730, was plunged in all the points of Popery wherin wee now differ: <HI>Perkins</HI> in Expo&s;it. Symb. pag. 266. ack|nowledges that Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation and other Popi&s;h Here&s;ies were &s;pred ouer the world the year 900. and Fox <HI>Acts and Monum.</HI> pag. 1121. &s;aies, it was an Article of faith the year 1060. and Be|rengarius condemned an Heretic for denying it; was all this but <HI>In</HI> or a lit|tle before Aquinas his time? But where was the D^r^s Memorie or ingenuity when he &s;poke thus? is it not the vniform &s;aying of Calvin and all Heteredox Writers that the Church of Rome fell into the Errors they accu&s;e vs of, Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation, Purgatory, Prayers, to
<PB N="63" REF="44"> Saints, Indulgences &amp;c. &s;om &s;ay the fir&s;t 300. yeares, others the fir&s;t 500. others the fir&s;t 600. and our D^r has the courage to tell vs they began but <HI>In</HI> or <HI>&s;omwhat before Aquinas his time?</HI></P>
<P>To &s;ay our Tenets were not examined nor publickly oppo&s;ed, nor arguments and books again&s;t them permitted to come to our &s;ight, is a gro&s;s ignorance of the tran&s;actions of ages: did not Be|rengarius as your own <HI>Fox</HI> acknowled|ges, and before him the Bi&s;hop of Sans, and many others, their Abettors, pu|blickly oppo&s;e and write again&s;t Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation? did not <HI>Aetius</HI> condemned by S. Augu&s;tin, <HI>Vigilantius</HI> condemned by S. Hierom, the <HI>Henricians</HI> condem|ued by S. Bernard, the <HI>Witcleffians</HI> and <HI>Hu&s;sits</HI> condemned by the whole Church, publikly oppo&s;e Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Prayers to Saints, Veneration of Re|licks, Purgatory, Communion in one Kind &amp;c. and do not you your&s;elf con|fe&s;s. chap. 20. again&s;t J. S. that Scotus, Durand and Ocham did examin nar|rowly and found great difficulties a+gain&s;t Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation yet belieued it? where haue you or your Camerades better arguments again&s;t our Tenets
<PB N="64" REF="45"> than your Predece&s;&s;ors Heretics haue, and you find in Bellarmin, Peron, Be|can and our Catholic Writers; but &s;up|po&s;e S. Thomas Aquinas and the re&s;t of our Saints and D^r^s had no other Books nor arguments again&s;ts our Tenets but the Bible, Conncils, and Fathers; do not you &s;ay that the Bible alone plainly convinces our Errors, and abounds with heauenly light to &s;uch as are not will|fully blind; they had the Bible, you cannot deny it; why then did they not find out our errors? or how could their ignorance be invincible?</P>
<P>Let any Impartial Reader judge if I haue been inju&s;t to our D^r in &s;aying that its his opinion, and a nece&s;&s;arie &s;equele from his Principles, that all our Saints and learned Doctors who dyed in the Profe&s;&s;ion of our Tenets (incon&s;i&s;tent, he &s;ayes, with Saluation) are damn'd: the Po&s;ition is impious; but mu&s;t be &s;u&s;tained by him; for he leaues no manner of means for &s;aluation in the profe&s;&s;ion of our Te|nets but <HI>Invincible Ignorance;</HI> this, I proued they could not have had, both by rea&s;on and by the D^r^s own Princi|ples; becau&s;e they had &s;ufficient means
<PB N="65" REF="45"> obuious to them acording their &s;tate and condition, for to remedy their ignorance, and they did not; therefore their ignorance was not invincible, and they were vnauoidably damn'd.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>III. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>SEVERAL OTHER ATTACKS OF our Doctor again&s;t the Saints: the Prote&s;tant Kalender of Saints examined.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I Found Aquinas and others, &s;tyled by the name of <HI>Saints</HI> in our D^r^s. Ser|mon; and reioyced to &s;ee him retain that re&s;pect for their glorious memory; but it &s;oon repented him of his devo|tion; he learned in <HI>Oxford</HI> that was not the true <HI>Reformed</HI> language; the purer Brethren Anabapti&s;ts, Presbiterians and Quakers judge it to be Popi&s;h; and the D^r. to giue them &s;atisfaction for the &s;candal they might haue taken at his &s;tyle; corrects it in his new Book: he was not in earne&s;t, he &s;aies, when he called them <HI>Saints;</HI> it's but an Honora|rie title, as the Compiler of London
<PB N="66" REF="46"> <HI>Gazets</HI> calls the Popes, <HI>his Holyne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>In the Conclu&s;ion of the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church</HI> I argued, that any wi&s;e man tender of his &s;aluation ought to chu&s;e that Church where many Saints eminent for their Virtue and glorious for their Miracles liued and dyed, ra|ther than that, where neuer any man was knowen eminent for either; as you would chu&s;e to &s;tudy in a &s;chool, where many men eminent for learning were educated, rather than in a &s;chool where no learned man was ever knowen: Hence I concluded the Catholic Church ought to be chu&s;en before the Prote&s;|tant; wheras in that wee reckon &s;o ma|ny eminently holy and miraculous Saints and D^r^s, <HI>Aquinas, Bernard, Bona|venture, Gregory Au&s;tin</HI> &amp;c. and in this none was euer heard of: Our Doctor an&s;wers, our Saints are only <HI>Titular</HI> ones, no <HI>Real</HI> Saints; <HI>they purchas'd their Titles</HI> (&s;aies he pag. 228.) <HI>by public Authority as Dukes and Earles do theirs.</HI> Is not this a re&s;pectfull Child of Gods Church? who pulls down the Pillars of Chri&s;tianity, and &s;trips them of the honor exhibited to them by the Orthodox world.</P>
<P>I pray Reader if you chance to &s;ee
<PB N="67" REF="46"> him before he reads this book, a&s;k him his opinion of tho&s;e Saints recorded in his Prote&s;tant Kalender prefixed to the Common Prayer book: are they al&s;o but <HI>Titular</HI> only and no <HI>Real</HI> Saints? was it by their merits they purchas'd their Titles, or by public Authority as Dukes and Earles did theirs? if this &s;econd; a&s;k him what public authority was that? if a Popi&s;h authority; how com the Church of England to profane their kalender with the foorberie of Rome, and propo&s;e to the re&s;pect at lea&s;t, if not adoration of the flock a company of fellows who are no Real Saints, and place them in the &s;ame Catalogue with Chri&s;t, his Mother and the Apo&s;tles; and the kalender being ordained only for to eterni&s;e the memorie of men Eminent in Santitie and virtue, and ju&s;tly reputed Saints by the Church, how com they to &s;tuff it with men who are not real but Titular only Saints: if it was a Prote&s;tant public Autority? &amp; <HI>Vos in eadem damnatione e&s;t is.</HI> Are yee al&s;o guilty of that foul practice, as through a vain o&s;tentation of your Churchs holyne&s;s to put in your kalen|der a company of fal&s;ly reputed Saints,
<PB N="68" REF="47"> who are but <HI>Titular</HI> ones, and <HI>Honorarily</HI> called &s;o, as the London Gazet calls the Pope, <HI>his Holyne&s;s?</HI> Are the Saints recorded in the Prote&s;tant Kalender truly and Really Saints, or not? if they be not, what a ridiculous thing was't to put them there, more than <HI>Cromwell,</HI> or <HI>Arrius,</HI> or <HI>Luther;</HI> if they were, I'l proue they were Saints of our Church, and con&s;equently proue your Po&s;ition, <HI>that our Saints are only Titular and no Real Saints,</HI> to be impious.</P>
<P>You haue in the Month of March in your Kalender, S. Gregorie Pope who liued the year 600. and brought into England, as I related out of your own Hi&s;torians, Ma&s;s, Purgatorie, Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation &amp;c. if he was not &agrave; Pa|pi&s;t, ther's none in Rome; and he is a Saint of your Kalender, <HI>and yee haue no Titular only, but real Saints,</HI> as you &s;ay pag. 228. you haue in the &s;ame month S. Benedict Monk, who liued the year 540; famous for his Monachi&s;m, au&s;te|rity of life, and Religious order: can the Prote&s;tants challenge him to be theirs, who hate Monachi&s;m as the De|uil hates Holy Water. You haue in the &s;ame month in your Kalender (but
<PB N="69" REF="47"> in ours, its the fifth of Ianuary) S. Ed|ward king of the Saxons who liued the year 1066. Ancient Cronicles beare witne&s;s of his devotion to S. Peter and S. John, his vow of Cha&s;tity, his vow of pilgrimage to Rome and the di&s;pen|&s;ation of this vow granted by the Po|pe; and the Mona&s;tery of Win&s;me&s;ter he built for the Benedictian Friars: was this a Ptote&s;tant Saint think you? yet he mu&s;t be a real Saint, becau&s;e he is in your Kalender.</P>
<P>You have in the month of April S. Ri|chard Bi&s;hop of Chiche&s;ter, who lived the year 1255. he was con&s;ecrated Bi&s;hop by the Pope him&s;elf again&s;t all the en|deauors of king Richard, who &s;ent his Emba&s;&s;ador to Rome to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hinder his con&s;ecration; and the king was obliged by the Pope to put him in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of his Bi&s;hoprick: all this &s;mells &s;trongly of Popery: I pray tell vs, why was he put in your Kalender? was it becau&s;e he was a Bi&s;hop? and why were not Cran|mer, Ridley and Latimer, put there; becau&s;e he was of an other mold; an Eminent, and not only a Titular Saint.</P>
<P>You haue in your Kalender in the month of May S. Dun&s;tan ArchBishop
<PB N="70" REF="48"> of Canterbury who lived the yeare 988. when there was no Prote&s;tant, nor any thing like it, he went to Rome to get his Pall from the Pope, which &s;ufficiently evidences he was no Prote&s;tant; and a Real Saint he mu&s;t be, or why &s;hould he be put in your Kalender. You haue in the &s;ame month S. An&s;tin Monk, A|po&s;tle of England, &s;ent by S Gregory to preach the Doctrin which now you per&s;ecut</P>
<P>You haue in the month of June S. Bo|niface B. and M. who liued the year 754. he was no Martir of Fox's Kalender; nor did he &s;hed his blood for Luthera|ni&s;m or Prote&s;tancy.</P>
<P>You haue in the month of September S. Gyles an Abbot of a Mona&s;tery and a Prie&s;t: it was his good luck he dyed the year 550. for had he liued till the Reformation he had forfeited many hundred Marks, and his Mona&s;terie too, for the many Ma&s;&s;es he &s;aid; he liued much in the exerci&s;e of corporal au&s;terities, feeding commonly on roots and herbs; lodged many years in a Caue, without any bed but the bare ground; this Saint is nothing like a Child of the Reformation.</P>
<PB N="71" REF="48">
<P>You haue in the month of November S. Leonard Confe&s;&s;or who liued the yeare 559. built a Chappel to the ho|nor of the B. Virgin and con&s;ecrated an Altar in it to S. Remigius; the&s;e practices &s;ufficiently evidence he was no Prote&s;tant; and his being recorded in your Kalender, marks he was a Real Saint, for in your Kalender there is no other. You haue in the &s;ame month S. Brice Bi&s;hop; Nephew to S. Martin and a Catholic he mu&s;t haue bin; wheras, being bani&s;ht from his Bi&s;hopric he had his recours to the Pope for to be rein&s;talld.</P>
<P>You haue al&s;o in the &s;ame month S. Hugh Arch Bi&s;hop of Canterbury a Car|thu&s;ian Fryar who liued the year 1200. a notorious Papi&s;t; not only becau&s;e he was a Carthu&s;ian; but becau&s;e he was &s;o au&s;tere in his manner of liuing and mortificacions, that being made a Bi&s;hop he would neuer eat fle&s;h, and euen at his dying houre had no other bed, but the bare ground wheron he cau&s;ed him&s;elf to be laid, wrapt in a haire cloth and a&s;hes.</P>
<P>I know the Nativity of <HI>our gratious Soueraign</HI> is mentioned in your Kalender
<PB N="72" REF="49"> for to mind vs to pray for his long and happy life; al&s;o <HI>Gounpounder Trea&s;on</HI> day, for to giue God thanks, for the Pre|&s;eruation of the king and Parliament again&s;t that horrid plot, but why tho&s;e Saints &s;hould be recorded in your Kalender, but for hauing bin men of Eminent and knowen Holyne&s;s, and for our example and encouragement to the imitation of their Virtues, you neuer can tell; it would be therefore an im|piety in you to deny they were true and real Saints, and it would be want of &s;en&s;e and judgment in you to deny they were of the Roman Catholic Church, for how can the Prote&s;tants challenge, Carthu&s;ians, Monks, Abbots, Bishops con&s;ecrated by the Pope, and appea|ling to him in their greeuances, to be of theirs.</P>
<P>Now if you will act the part of a De|fender of your Church, (and the credit of it, depends of your good &s;ucce&s;s heerin) you mu&s;t &s;hew vs, &s;om Saints, or one Saint of knowen publickly repu|ted Holyne&s;s of life and conver&s;ation, who cofe&s;&s;edly was a Prote&s;tant, and whom wee cannot with any appearance of rea&s;on deny to be yours; as you
<PB N="73" REF="49"> cannot deny tho&s;e Monks, Abbots, Carthu&s;ians &amp;c. named in your kalen|der to be ours: you &s;ay Fryars Monks and Abbots are &s;uper&s;titious <HI>Bigots,</HI> and foorbs; for all that, there haue been &s;om of that Profe&s;&s;ion &s;o hone&s;t men, as to haue de&s;erued a place in your ka|lender; which is a manife&s;t proof, that the Tenor of life which they profe&s;&s;ed is not &s;uper&s;titious, nor the Tenets of Religion they belieued, are not <HI>errors incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation:</HI> I pray &s;hew vs any one Mini&s;ter or Bi&s;hop of the Pro|te&s;tant Church, &s;ince the beginning of the Reformation; &s;hew vs any of the <HI>Image breakers, ryflers of Mona&s;teries, Per|&s;ecutors of Prie&s;ts and Fryars, believers of Figurative Pre&s;ence, Scoffers of Indulgences</HI> and Purgatorie (this is Prote&s;tancy) that was &s;o hone&s;t a man as to haue de&s;erued a place in your kalender: and if you can &s;hew none; then the prudent Reader will judge my di&s;cours to be good that any wi&s;e man tender of his &s;aluation ought to liue and dye in the Catholic Church, where many Emi|nent and illu&s;trious Saints haue bin; rather than in the Prote&s;tant, where neuer any was knowen.</P>
<PB N="74" REF="50">
<P>But our reckoning is not at an end D^r; you remember that old charge again&s;t your Reformation, neuer yet an&s;wered; that your Separation from the Catholic Church was a Spiritual Rebellion, a formal &s;chi&s;m: your an|&s;wer is that the Schi&s;m is <HI>Cau&s;ally</HI> ours; that by our Idolatry, and many other errors, wee forced you to &s;eparat from vs; That wee &s;eparated from the Doctrin of Chri&s;t, and therefore you &s;eparated from vs. But all this appears to be an idle talk without any &s;en&s;e; for, Eminent Saints, glorious for their virtues, Holyne&s;s and Miracles, are not to be found, but in the Profe&s;&s;ion of the true faith of Chri&s;t; if therefore in our Church &s;uch Saints of knowen Sanctity be found; its a manife&s;t and vndeniable proof, that the true faith of Chri&s;t is in our Church: Now I a&s;k you and your Camerades; when did our Church &s;eparat from the Doctrin of Chri&s;t? &s;om of you &s;ay, in the fir&s;t 300. years; others of you &s;ay, that about the fir&s;t 600. This appears to be manife&s;tly fals; for in the en&s;uing ages all along vntill the year 1255. (then Richard Bi&s;hop of Chiche&s;ter liued)
<PB N="75" REF="50"> there were Eminent Saints of knowen and renowned Holyne&s;s and Miracles in our Church; (for all tho&s;e foremen|tioned Saints recorded in your kalen|der were ours as I haue proued) there|fore the true faith and Doctrin of Chri&s;t continued &s;till in our Church, and your Schi&s;m is not <HI>cau&s;ally</HI> ours, but without any cau&s;e yours.</P>
<P>And truly whateuer you may &s;ay of your Separation; I cannot imagin how your Church or you will excu&s;e your Ouer&s;ight in prefixing that kalen|der to your Common prayer book: I do not think there could be a more &s;hame|full reproach to your Church: Qua|kers were never &s;o tempted to &s;weare, that this kalender &s;mells more of a Po|pi&s;n Con&s;piracy than Gunpounder Trea|&s;on day; they will neuer belieue but that &s;om Papi&s;t had a hand in making it; for can he be a Child of the Reforma|tion, who pur <HI>Gregory</HI> Pope, and <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> the Monk in <HI>Our Reformed Kalender,</HI> for being the fir&s;t who brought Popery in|to England; and left out Luther, Cal|vin, Peter Martyr and others who fir&s;t preached the Reformation? can he be a Reformed Child, who put <HI>Benedict,</HI>
<PB N="76" REF="51"> and <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> Monks and Hugh a Carthu|&s;ian Fryar in our Reformed kalender, and in the mean time wee hang men in Tyburn for following their Profe&s;|&s;ion, and Tenor of life: Either the Reformation had any one Eminent Saint &s;ince its fir&s;t ry&s;e, or not? if it had; why haue not you put him in your kalender? if it had not? had it not been more to the credit of your Church, to haue made no kalender; than by making one, giue fo public a te&s;timony to the world, how poor your Church is of Saints, that to furni&s;h your kalender you mu&s;t borrow them out of our Bre|viary: be&s;ids D^r, euen for the Refor|mation of particular Citties, and Pro|uinces, God makes v&s;e of Holy men, of an exemplar life; and to &s;ay that God &s;hould haue intru&s;ted the Refor|mation of the whole Church, to a com|pany of turbulent Spirits, and not as much as one man in the whole compa|ny to be of Eminent Holyne&s;s, nor exemplar life: its again&s;t the grain of Man's rea&s;on to belieue it.</P>
<P>Our D^r not content to attack the Ti|tles of our Saints; coms with a fre&s;h charge again&s;t their manner of life: for
<PB N="77" REF="51"> I argued in the Conclu&s;ion of the <HI>Vner|ring Vnerrable Church,</HI> that Chri&s;t's Coun|&s;els, of for&s;aking lands, e&s;tates, and means, and embracing povertie; was commended, preached, and practis'd in our Chutch, witne&s;s the many Reli|gious Orders, where &s;eueral Per&s;ons haue for&s;aken their plentifull e&s;tates; and no &s;uch Doctrin was euer preached or practis'd in the Prote&s;tant Church; al&s;o Chri&s;t's Coun&s;el (recommended to vs by S. Pauls Doctrin and example) of corporal Au&s;terities, Di&s;ciplins haire|cloths, &s;leeping on the bare ground, ry&s;ing at midnight to &s;ing P&s;alms in God's pray&s;e, &amp;c. was and is practis'd frequently by all &s;exes and ages in our Church; and what Mini&s;ter or Prote&s;|tant was euer heard of that ry&s;es at midnight to &s;ing Gods pray&s;es; that di&s;ciplins him&s;elf, &amp;c. Hence I conclu|ded, that to be the Church of Chri&s;t, which followed his Coun&s;els, and con|&s;equently the Catholic to be Chri&s;t's Church. Our D^r an&s;wers like a good Chri&s;tian, that our corporal Au&s;terities and mortifications are like to them of Pagans and Heathens, tending to the de&s;truction of Body and Soule; that the
<PB N="78" REF="52"> Prote&s;tants v&s;e corporal au&s;terities, but <HI>di&s;creetly:</HI> that our Au&s;terities are de&s;perat and indi&s;creet. And what Chri&s;|tian will hear with patience, Chri&s;tian Au&s;terities vndertaken for the loue of God, and practi&s;ed by the greate&s;t Saints of the Church; to be lykned by D^r Sall, to the Au&s;terities of Pagans, to be condemn'd as de&s;tructiue to Body and Soule? The Au&s;terity of the great Bapti&s;t, &s;o much commended in the Gho&s;pell, exceeds far that of our Monks and Fryars; and if theirs be de&s;tructiue to Body and Soule, the great Bapti&s;t is vndon: the Au&s;terity and Mortifica|tions of David &s;urpa&s;&s;ed far, that of our Monks, Fryars and Nuns; and if the&s;e haue de&s;troyed their bodies and Soules by their Mortifications; if their Au&s;terities be indi&s;creet and de&s;perat; if they be like the au&s;terities of Pagans: in what a condition will Dauid be?</P>
<P>Henceforth I hope, he will not pre|tend that S. Benedict was a Prote&s;tant (tho in his kalender) but a Catholic or a Pagan, for ry&s;ing at midnight to the Quire to &s;ing Gods Prai&s;es as David did; for his many indi&s;creet and de&s;perat au&s;terities like them of Pagans; to
<PB N="79" REF="52"> which he obliged his Monks by the Ru|les of his Order. S. Gyles al&s;o mentio|ned in the Prote&s;tant kalender mu&s;t ha|ue bin a Papi&s;t or a Pagan; &s;o indi&s;creet and de&s;perat he was in his au&s;terities de&s;tructive to body and &s;oule, sleeping on the bare ground for many years, feeding on herbs and roots; no Prote&s;|tant was ever &s;o indi&s;creet. To conclu|de, none who for&s;ook &s;ilks and &s;attins for a poore habit; good cheer for a poore portion; pomp and vanity for a retyred and au&s;tere life as the great Bapti&s;t did, and innumerable of our Church; none I &s;ay of them were Pro|te&s;tants, they are not &s;o indi&s;creet and de&s;perat: D^r Sall indeed was once &s;o indi&s;creet, as to haue vndertaken this cours of life; but now in his old age, he is become wi&s;e, and has changed his habit for good attire; his &s;cant and poore fare, for good cheer; his reli|gious retirement for a court; his po|vertie for Rents; his religious humilia|tion for a <HI>Deanry</HI> (which they &s;ay he has) his Obedience to Superiors, for a full po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of his own Will; his au&s;terities and mortifications, for more plea&s;ure and &s;atisfaction than cuer
<PB N="80" REF="53"> he had; and this is the Di&s;cretion of Prote&s;tants, and the way to Saluation.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>IV. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>OVR DOCTOR'S CONFVSED DISCOVRS of our Rule of faith: a Parallell of Prote&s;tants and Ancient Heretics.</HI></HEAD>
<P>HE perceiued the main Controver|&s;ie wherof the re&s;olution of all others depend, to be that of our Rule of faith, and the nece&s;&s;ity of a liuing Judge for to determin our doubts in Religion: therefore I &s;o carefully han|dled this point in my former Treati&s;e and with &s;trength of rea&s;on and Scrip|ture proued, that Scripture alone, wi|thout an infallible liuing Interpreter was not our Rule of faith. But my An|tagoni&s;t, re&s;olued to continue, rather than to end wrangling, hand les this que&s;tion &s;o &s;uperficially and &s;o con|fus-edly that he does but hint at it heer and there in &s;eueral Chapters; nor can wee fixedly perceiue what Rule of faith he e&s;tabli&s;hs for him&s;elf. For Now, he
<PB N="81" REF="53"> &s;aies Scripture alone is his Rule; then he layes that a&s;ide, and &s;ets vp the Apo&s;tles, and four fir&s;t General Coun|cils Creeds; again he waues that, and brings in a third Rule; that's to &s;ay for fundamental points nece&s;&s;ary to &s;a|luation, <HI>the Apo&s;tles Creed</HI> alone; and for points not fundamental or inferior Truths the <HI>Word of God,</HI> whether <HI>Written</HI> that's the Bible; or <HI>vnwritten</HI> that's Tra|dition: thus he hops from branch to branch much indeed to his credit; for when others find it a &s;ufficient ta&s;k to hit on one Rule of faith; his wit is &s;o fertil as to find three, but his luck is naught that none is good.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t Rule is <HI>Scripture alone;</HI> this he a&s;&s;erts pag. 29. of his Sermon and page 24. again&s;t I. S. in his new book; and what is to be admired in &s;o fertil a Wit, that he could not hit on any proof for &s;o con&s;iderable a point, whereof the re&s;olution of &s;o many Controver&s;ies depends, but that only Text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3. <HI>Holy Scripture is able to make vs wi&s;e vnto &s;aluation, that the man of God &amp;c.</HI> out of which he concludes pag. 29. of his Sermon, <HI>that Scripture alone is &s;uffi|cient; abounding with all heavenly light for</HI>
<PB N="82" REF="54"> <HI>in&s;truction to tho&s;e who are not willfully blind;</HI> and this alone, and nothing els of Scripture or rea&s;on he an&s;wers to my two long Chapters again&s;t the &s;ufficien|cy of Scripture for our Rule of faith: and tho I proved in my former Trea|ti&s;e, by many in&s;tances, that this Text of S. Paul does not prove the &s;ufficien|cy of Scripture; I haue no other an&s;wer from him, but that I am a <HI>Twice Impious Sophi&s;ter; that I mend the text in&s;teed of in|terpreting it;</HI> that <HI>I giue the Apo&s;tle the lie:</HI> truly his mi&s;take is in &s;om mea&s;ure par|donable; for the Apo&s;tle was once cal|led <HI>Saul;</HI> our D^r haply, mi&s;took <HI>Saul</HI> for <HI>Sall;</HI> and thought I corrected the text of Saul the Apo&s;tle, when I checkt the inference from it, of <HI>Sall</HI> the Apo&s;tat.</P>
<P>I an&s;wered the Apo&s;tle did not &s;ay Scripture <HI>alone</HI> was able for to in&s;truct vs; and be&s;ides the many proofs I de|livered for this in the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church;</HI> I do now again prove it: for its manife&s;t Sctipture cannot in&s;truct vs to &s;aluation, if it be not rightly vn|der&s;tood; its al&s;o manife&s;t that the true vnder&s;tanding of Scripture is not had with a&s;&s;urance, without an infallible
<PB N="83" REF="54"> Interpreter; for &s;aies S. Peter 2. Epi&s;t. 1. 20. <HI>No Prophecy of Scripture,</HI> (that's to &s;ay a&s;&s;ured interpretation) <HI>is of any pri|vat interpretation; for Prophecies came not in old times from the Will of men, but the holy men of God &s;poke as they were in&s;pired by the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> Therefore its manife&s;t that Scripture alone, interpreted by privat Per&s;ons, and without an Infalli|ble Interpreter is not able to in&s;truct vs to &s;aluation. He replies its ridiculous to &s;ay, <HI>Scripture is able,</HI> if Scripture <HI>alone</HI> be not able; as it would be <HI>ridicu|lous, &s;aies he, to &s;ay you are able to carrie two hundred weight; and when you com to the tryal you mu&s;t haue a hor&s;e to help you:</HI> And by this Dialect, wee mu&s;t affirm the D^r was not able to an&s;wer J. S. his book, becau&s;e when he came to the trial, he mu&s;t go to <HI>Oxford</HI> for Englih; nor mu&s;t wee &s;ay he is able to reade, be|cau&s;e without &s;pectacles he cannot; and it will be ridiculous to &s;ay you can make a voyage to England, if you cannot go alone without &s;hip and &s;eamen. Pray Sr. was the Apo&s;tle ridiculous when he &s;aid <HI>Men are &s;aued by Hope</HI> Rom. 8. 24. for its evident his meaning was not that Hope <HI>alone</HI> can &s;aue vs: was he
<PB N="84" REF="55"> ridiculous when he &s;aid <HI>wee are ju&s;tified by faith;</HI> for its apparent that faith alone does not ju&s;tify vs: and why &s;hould it be ridiculou&s;ly &s;aid by him that <HI>Scrip|ture</HI> is &s;ufficient for to in&s;truct vs, tho Scripture alone be not &s;ufficient? O but, &s;ay you, in other places the Apo&s;tle &s;aies wee mu&s;t haue charity and other Virtues; and thence it appears his meaning was not that <HI>Hope</HI> alone, and <HI>faith</HI> alone can &s;aue vs; and &s;o do I &s;ay, the Apo&s;tle in other places bids vs hold Traditions, and the Scripture in &s;eve|ral places bids vs con&s;ult in our doubts, and hear the Church; con&s;equently S. Paul when he &s;aid Scripture was able to in&s;truct vs, his meanning was not that Scripture alone was able.</P>
<P>Wi&s;e men haue more than one &s;tring to their bow; our D^r fore&s;eeing this Rule of faith was not &s;ufficient; &s;ets vp an other, which is the Apo&s;tles Creed alone: pag. 10 again&s;t N. N. and pag. 60. again&s;t J. S. <HI>Points nece&s;&s;arie to &s;alua|tion,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>and to the con&s;titution of a true Church are tho&s;e contained in the Apo&s;|tles Creed, which is a Summarie of Articles, that tho&s;e &s;acred fountains of Chri&s;tianity thought fit and &s;ufficient to be propo&s;ed to all</HI>
<PB N="85" REF="55"> <HI>men, and nece&s;&s;ary to be belieued explicitly.</HI> After hauing thus magnified the &s;uffi|ciency ef the Apo&s;tles Creed alone; in the &s;ame place again&s;t N. N. he alters his note, and will not have it alone to be a &s;ufficient Rule of our faith, but joyntly with the Creeds of the four fir&s;t General Councils; and as he wavers in his Doctrin, &s;o his proof is ab&s;urd, which coms but to this; <HI>That it's &s;trange any man not blinded with partiality &s;hould imagin the Apo&s;tles intru&s;ted to preach &s;auing Doctrin to all the World &s;hould not haue giuen &s;ufficient notice of it in the &s;y&s;tem of Articles they left vnto vs: that tho&s;e Venerable fa|thers of the purer ages of Chri&s;tianity congre|gated in the four fir&s;t General Councils &s;hould giue vs but a Diminut account of Catholic beliefe.</HI></P>
<P>But S^r if the Apo&s;tles Creed alone contains all nece&s;&s;ary Articles to &s;alua|tion, as the fir&s;t part of your di&s;cours pretends, what need had you to ad the Creeds of the four Councils as a part of your Rule of faith? and if the Creeds of the Councils contain any thing ne|ce&s;&s;arie to &s;aluation, which is not ex|pre&s;&s;ed in the Apo&s;tles Creed; then that of the Apo&s;tles alone is not a &s;uffi|cient
<PB N="86" REF="56"> Rule: I pray D^r is this a good di&s;cours, Chri&s;t intru&s;ted to teach vs to &s;aluation preached a Sermon to his di&s;ciples Math 18. therefore all in&s;truc|tion, and Articles necc&s;&s;ary for our &s;aluation is expre&s;&s;ed in that Sermon; &s;urely you will &s;ay this is a very frivo|lous and Silly di&s;cours; giue me leaue to &s;ay &s;o much of yours, which is this; The Apo&s;tles and Councils intru&s;ted to teach vs to &s;aluation, delivered vs the&s;e Creeds; therefore all Articles and in&s;|truction nece&s;&s;ary to &s;aluation are con|tained in them.</P>
<P>Moreouer, when you &s;ay that tho&s;e Creeds of the Apo&s;tles and Councils contain all nece&s;&s;ary points to &s;alua|tion to be explicitly believed, and are a &s;ufficient Rule of faith; Do you mean, that to be &s;aued it is nece&s;&s;ary to be|lieve explicitly all the contents of tho&s;e Creeds? what &s;ort of men do you &s;peake of? if of Per&s;ons who neuer had any in&s;truction, you require too much; for no Divin will &s;tick to grant that men, euen after the promulgation of the Gho&s;pell may be &s;aued, believing ex|plicitly the Mi&s;teries of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Pa&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t for
<PB N="87" REF="56"> our Redemption, tho they &s;hould ignore explicitly other Articles expre&s;&s;ed in the Creeds: if you &s;peake of Per&s;ons &s;ufficiently in&s;tructed in Chri&s;tian Reli|gion; wee mu&s;t know, how far they are in&s;tructed; if only of the contents of tho&s;e Creeds; then indeed it is &s;ufficient to their &s;aluation to belieue the con|tents of tho&s;e Creeds, and no more is requi&s;it to be belieued explicitly; but if they be in&s;tructed al&s;o of other Ve|rities, which you call inferior Truths, as Infants Bapti&s;m, Epi&s;copacy, Com|munion in one kind, the Canon of Scrip|ture, and two Sacraments; then indeed tho the&s;e Verities be not contained ex|plicitly in them Creeds, its needfull to &s;aluation to belieue them explicitly; and I hope I need no more proof to convince you of this truth, than your own conce&s;&s;ions; for pag. 60. you &s;ay, <HI>that the&s;e inferior Verities are of equal ob|jective certainty with fundamental Verities and are to be belieued explicitly when they are &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to vs to be revealed Truths:</HI> you cannot deny but that tho&s;e inferior Verities are &s;ufficienrly propos+ed to you and to your Church; for you &s;ay they are cleerly contained in
<PB N="88" REF="57"> Scripture; you engage to prove them by Gods Written Word; in &s;o much that you &s;ay its an error incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation to deny them; therefore what|euer you may &s;ay of Pagans or ill in&s;|tructed Chri&s;tians, its evident in your Principles that you and your Church are obliged to belieue explicitly tho&s;e inferior Truths, becau&s;e they are &s;uf|ficiently propo&s;ed vnto you to be re|uealed Truths; but not one of tho&s;e Truths is explicitly contained in the Creeds; therefore all points of nece&s;|&s;arie explicit belief to your, and your Church's &s;aluation are not explicitly contained in the Creeds.</P>
<P>Mi&s;take me not D^r, the que&s;tion is not what may be a &s;ufficient Rule of faith to Per&s;ons who are not well in&s;|tructed; who neuer heard, but little of Religion: I haue, and do again grant that the Creeds contain all points of nece&s;&s;ary explicit belief to the &s;alua|tion of &s;uch Per&s;ons, who haue bin in&s;|tructed of no more, but what is contai|ned in them, nay I &s;ay more, that in regard of &s;om Per&s;ons who neuer heard of tho&s;e Creeds, and were in&s;tructed only of the Mi&s;tery of the Trinity, In|carnation
<PB N="89" REF="57"> and Pa&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t; tho&s;e Creeds contain more than is nece&s;&s;ary to be explicitly believed by them: But the que&s;tion is, what is a &s;ufficient Rule containing all points of nece&s;&s;ary expli|cit Belief to your Church and ours, which abound with light and in&s;truction to faith? whether the Creeds alone con|tain all points which your Church is obliged vnder pain of damnation to be|lieue explicitly? and its evident they do not; for you &s;ay you are obliged to believe explicitly tho&s;e Inferior Truths, becau&s;e they are &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to you to be <HI>Reuealed;</HI> its an error in|con&s;i&s;tent with &s;aluation to deny them, you &s;ay; and yet they are not ex|pre&s;&s;ed in the Creeds: therefore the Creeds are not a &s;ufficient Rule of faith to you and your Church.</P>
<P>I haue in my former Treati&s;e evi|denc't the in&s;ufficiency of Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter for to regulat our faith; and becau&s;e our D^r does boa&s;t much of the confor|mity of his Church in Doctrin with the fir&s;t and pure&s;t ages, I will briefly &s;hew, their Conformity with the fir&s;t and impure&s;t Heretics; for who regulat
<PB N="90" REF="58"> their faith by one and the &s;ame Rule; tho they may differ in &s;om material points of Doctrin, they haue one and the &s;ame faith. The Ancient Heretics would haue no Rule of faith but Scripture; and that, not as interpreted by the Church, but as each one vnder&s;tood it; what they found, acording their be&s;t vnder&s;tanding in Scripture; that they belieued; what they did not find ex|pre&s;&s;ed there, they rejected; tho the Councils or Church did teach it. <HI>The&s;e things are not found in Scripture</HI> (&s;aid the Arrians di&s;puting again&s;t the Con&s;ub&s;|tantiality of the &s;on of God with the father) <HI>and what is not read there wee reject.</HI> Athan. in Epi&s;t. de Syn. Arm. &amp; Seleu. <HI>If you bring</HI> Scripture (&s;aid Ma|ximinus to S. Augu&s;tin) <HI>wee will li&s;ten vnto you; but the&s;e Words which are not in Scripture wee do not value. In what Scripture are two Natures of Chri&s;t mentioned</HI> (&s;aies Eutyches) <HI>wee follow nothing but Scrip|ture, and care not what expo&s;ition of it the Church giues. Let vs belieue what wee read in Scripture</HI> (&s;aie the Pelagians) <HI>and what wee do not read in it, let vs not believe it.</HI> This was the precincts of Ancient Heretics belief; Scripture alone, their
<PB N="91" REF="58"> Rule of faith; thus they trampled the authority of the Church, for to vent their fancies without curb.</P>
<P>If you read the Doctrin and books of our Modern Sectaries, you will &s;u&s;|pect a Tran&s;migration of &s;oules; and that the old Heretics are com again vpon the &s;tage to act of the new, in the per&s;ons of Luther, Calvin, &amp;c. what they haue already don in former ages. <HI>Our Rule of faith,</HI> &s;aies Luther l. de Ser. Arb. &amp; to. 2. Wittem: <HI>is but Scripture as each one interprets it; wee receiue nothing but Scripture. Wee are not to &s;ubmit our judgments to the Deci&s;ions of Synods or Coun|cils</HI> (&s;aies Calvin, l. 4. In&s;tit. c. 9.) <HI>if after hauing examined Scripture, wee do not find their interpretation and Doctrin to be according the Word of God. Its needle&s;s</HI> (&s;aies Barlow, in Defen&s;. Religionis Prote&s;t pag. 199.) <HI>that either Pope or Council, Man or Angel &s;hould teach vs; the Spirit Working in our hearts and the Scrip|tures are to each one a&s;&s;ured Interpreters Our Rule of faith is Scripture, as each Per&s;on of &s;ound judgment in the Church vnder&s;tands it:</HI> &s;aies the Church of England in the 39. Art. Did euer any egg re&s;emble more an other, than our Sectaries do
<PB N="92" REF="59"> the Ancient Heretics in their Rule of faith? &s;o far from agreeing with the fir&s;t and pure&s;t ages, that the Primi|tive fathers expre&s;ly denyed Scrip|ture alone to be our &s;ufficient Rule of faith; which I will prove with &s;om few pa&s;&s;ages; it would be tedious to relate many.</P>
<P>S. Denis Areop. de Eccle&s;. Hier. c. 1. &s;aies <HI>Som things haue been recorded in Holy Writ; other heigher and more &s;ublime Mi&s;te|ries, our holy Leaders and Ma&s;ters, haue from hand to hand, by preaching and Doctrin without any written Word delivered to Po&s;|terity.</HI> So far he was from belieuing Scripture alone contained all nece&s;&s;ary points to &s;aluation; that he &s;aies the mo&s;t &s;ublime mi&s;teries are not contai|ned in them: and of this &s;entiment is al&s;o S. Chry&s;o&s;t. Ho. 1. in Act. <HI>Of the mi&s;teries of the Trinity and Divin Nature of Chri&s;t, the Apo&s;tles writ but very little</HI> and again S. Chry&s;o&s;t. ad 1^a^m^. The&s;. c. 2. orat. 4. <HI>It's cleer the Apo&s;tles did not de|liver all their Doctrin in writing, but many points without any Writing, which al&s;o are to be belieued</HI> Origen lib. 2. cont. Cel|&s;um, S Ba&s;il l. de Spir. Sancto. c. 27. and Eu&s;eb. Demon&s;tr. Evang. l. 1. c. 6.
<PB N="93" REF="59"> expre&s;ly teach, that the Apo&s;tles did purpo&s;ely omit to write plainly of the mo&s;t excellent and heigh Mi&s;teries of our Religion, contented to teach them lightly, becau&s;e the Vulgar &s;ort was not capable of &s;uch &s;ublime Doctrin, and therefore committed them to the Pa&s;tors of the Church to be declared more particularly, as occa&s;ion required and time permitted: Epiph. Haere&s;i 61. &s;aies, <HI>All things cannot be taken from Scrip|ture; the Apo&s;tles haue declared &s;om things by writing, and &s;om by Tradition.</HI> Of the Nature, form, Matter, and effects of the Sacraments, (Points without doubt of nece&s;&s;ary belief to &s;aluation) wee know &s;o little, that they are knowen to vs, only by Tradition, as S. Augu&s;tin ob&s;erved lib. 1. de Fide &amp; Oper. c. 9. vpon the pa&s;&s;age of the Eunuch bapti|zed by Philip, <HI>The Evangeli&s;t &s;ignified all things were fullfilled in that action; which tho for brevity's &s;ake they are &s;ylenc'd in Scripture; wee know by Tradition they ought to haue bin don.</HI></P>
<P>And will our D^r per&s;wade vs, that Scripture alone is &s;ufficient for our in&s;truction to &s;aluation, again&s;t &s;uch emphatical expre&s;&s;ions of the Ancient
<PB N="94" REF="60"> fathers? No; he has a greater re&s;pect for them; tho he has hitherto &s;o eager|ly a&s;&s;erted the &s;ufficiency of <HI>Scripture alone;</HI> then of the Apo&s;tles Creed alone; then again of the Apo&s;tles Creed joyntly with tho&s;e of the four fir&s;t Coun|cils; now he quits the&s;e engagements, and runs vpon an other as de&s;perat.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>V. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>OVR DOCTOR'S THIRD RVLE OF FAITH, Tradition as de&s;cribed by Lirine<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;is: his Opinion of the true Church.</HI></HEAD>
<P>PAg. 84. he re&s;olues his faith into its vltimat Motiue wheron it re&s;ts: <HI>I belieue,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>the &s;on of God was made Man, becau&s;e I find it in Scripture</HI> (ob&s;erve he &s;aies, <HI>becau&s;e I find it,</HI> not becau&s;e the <HI>Church finds it,) I believe what's written in Scripture becau&s;e its the Infallible Word of God; I belieue its the Word of God becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles preaching it, did confirm it by many Miracles; and finally, that they confirm'd it with Miracles; I be|lieue it in force of Vniver&s;al Tradition, accor|ding
<PB N="95" REF="60"> the celebrated notion of it deliuered by Lirinen&s;is, Quod vbique, quod &s;emper, quod apud omnes e&s;t creditum, what was allwaies, in all places and by all men believed, that is to be taken for Vniver&s;al Tradition.</HI></P>
<P>The vltimat motiue therefore of his faith, and Rule of his Belief is Univer|&s;al Tradition, as wee haue heard him de&s;cribe it; <HI>To this,</HI> (&s;aies he pag. 29.) <HI>wee are re&s;olued to &s;tand, or fall, as well for di&s;cerning the Canon of Scripture, as for Vnder&s;tanding the truc &s;en&s;e of it. A Dieu</HI> henceforward S. Paul's text, and &s;o many pages of good Engli&s;h vnfortu|natly &s;pent to defend the &s;ufficiency of Scripture alone for our Rule of faith: now our D^r has pitcht vpon an other; he will belieue no Scripture, no &s;en&s;e of Scripture; no revealed Truth, but what is warranted by this <HI>Apo&s;tolic Liri|nen&s;is</HI> (as he vnder&s;tands it) Tradition; that is to &s;ay, but what is believed in all places, in all times and by all Chri&s;|tians: whatever was denied in any time, in any place, or by any Chri&s;tians, our D^r will not belieue it, no, he'l &s;ooner hang; becau&s;e it's not of Apo&s;tolic Tradition; and hence it follows, as you &s;hall &s;ee that you may hide all our
<PB N="96" REF="61"> Doctor's faith in a Nut's &s;hell.</P>
<P>For if he will belieue nothing that was denied in <HI>any time</HI> and by <HI>any Chri&s;|tians,</HI> he mu&s;t not belieue S Paul's Epi&s;tle to the Hebrews, James and Ju|des Epi&s;tles, nor the &s;econd and third of S. John, nor the &s;econd of S. Peter, becau&s;e all are denied by the Lutherans the Older Brethren of the Reformation: nor mu&s;t he believe the Old Te&s;tament, denied by the Valentinians and Mani|cheans; nor the Gho&s;pels becau&s;e they were denied by the Marcioni&s;ts, all as Good Chri&s;tians, as our Sectaries: fi|nally as I haue &s;hewen in the 2. Chap. of the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church,</HI> hardly any part of Scripture but was denied in &s;om time, &s;om place and by &s;om Chri&s;|tians. Nor mu&s;t he believe figurative Prefence denied by Luther and his &s;ect; nor the king's &s;piritual &s;upremacy, de|nied by Calvin, as I have proved in my former Treati&s;e; nor Epi&s;copacy de|nied by the Presbiterians; al&s;o hardly any &s;en&s;e of Scripture but was denied by &s;om Chri&s;tians, and in &s;om time; and con&s;equently if he will belieue no Scrip|ture nor &s;en&s;e of Scripture, but what is believed by all Chri&s;tians, in all times
<PB N="97" REF="61"> and places, his faith will &s;hrink to the bulk of a <HI>grain of Mu&s;tard,</HI> and Pro|te&s;tants may expect he will with it, <HI>moue mountains,</HI> and work other Miracles in confirmation of their new Religion.</P>
<P>But wee are not to quarrel with our D^r for this ridiculous Rule of faith for di&s;cerning Scripture and the true &s;en&s;e of it; in quality of a Defender of his Church, he could do no le&s;s, wheras the 6. Article of the 39 of England &s;peakes thus <HI>In the name of holy Scriptures wee vnder&s;tand tho&s;e Canonical books of the old and new Te&s;tament of who&s;e authority there never was any doubt in the Church, and by the word Church they mean, as the Doctor, the whole Conhregation of Chri&s;|tians: &s;o that whatever Book the Lutherans, Valentinians, Calvini&s;ts, Ebionits, or Mar|cioni&s;ts euer doubted of (and hardly</HI> any but they did) <HI>mu&s;t be vtterly denied to be Canonical.</HI></P>
<P>Our Doctor's mi&s;take &s;prings from the misunder&s;tanding of that Notion of Apo&s;tolical Tradition, delivered by <HI>Lirinen&s;is:</HI> if it be rightly vnder&s;tood, its a true Notion, and may be a good Rule of faith&punc; the true meaning of it is; that what was believed in all times,
<PB N="98" REF="62"> and places; by all Orthodox Chri&s;|tians &s;ufficiently in&s;tructed, is of Apo&s;|tolical Tradition, and nothing is of Apo&s;tolic Tradition, that was denied at any time or place, by any Ortho|dox Chri&s;tians &s;ufficiently in&s;tructed: for if a Doctrin was, or was not be|lieued or denied by Hetherodox Chri&s;|tians, or heretics, matters not a pin for to be of Apo&s;tolic Tradition; What is <HI>Apo&s;tolic Tradition</HI> but the <HI>Depo&s;itum</HI> of Chri&s;t's pure Doctrin delivered by the Apo&s;tles to their &s;ucce&s;&s;ors; and for to know which is Chri&s;ts true Doctrin, wee mu&s;t not go to Heretics, Turks, or Pagans. Let our Rule of faith then be Apo&s;tolical Tradition; now it re|mains wee di&s;tingui&s;h true Apo&s;tolical Tradition from what's not &s;uch;</P>
<P>The Apo&s;tles deliuered all Chri&s;tian Verities either in their Written Word, which is Scripture; or their vnwritten Word, which is <HI>Tradition;</HI> The &s;uccee|ding ages began to doubt, if this or that was the Apo&s;tles <HI>Written Word;</HI> that's to &s;ay, if this or that was true Canonical Scripture; &s;o al&s;o they began to doubt, and do this day doubt, if this or that Doctrin, or <HI>vnwritten Word,</HI> be
<PB N="99" REF="62"> <HI>Apo&s;tolical Tradition:</HI> And by what te&s;t did the Ancient Fathers di&s;tingui&s;h Apo&s;to|lical <HI>Written Word,</HI> from not Apo&s;tolical? and Apo&s;tolical vnwritten Word, or Tra|dition? S. Augu&s;tin l. 3. conr. Cre&s;c. di&s;cerns the Apo&s;tolical Written Word, or Scripture from not Scripture by the judgment of the Church; <HI>Evangel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o non crederem, ni&s;i me Eccle&s;iae commoveret au|thoritas.</HI> I would not belieue the Gho&s;pel to be &s;uch, if the authority of the Church did not moue me: where, by the <HI>Church,</HI> he did not mean all Chri&s;|tians; for he knew that as well in his own time, as in precedent ages, many Chri&s;tians denied &s;om parts of the true Canon; but he meant the true Orthodox part of Chri&s;tianity: And by what te&s;t did the Ancient Fathers di&s;cern the Apo&s;tolical vnwritten Word, or <HI>Tradition,</HI> from not Apo&s;tolical? by the te&s;timony of the Church al&s;o; for in S. Cyprian's time, he and his Abet|tors held that Rebaptization of Here|tics, was of Apo&s;tolical Tradition; S. Augu&s;t. l. de Bapt. cont Donat. &s;aies it was not; and how does he proue it was not? by the Authority of the Church: <HI>Multa non inveniuntur in Scriptura,</HI> &amp;c.
<PB N="100" REF="63"> <HI>Many things are not found in the writings of the Apo&s;tles, nor in ihe Councils of their Suc|ce&s;&s;ors, but becau&s;e they were ob&s;erued by the Church they are belieued to be delivered by the Apo&s;tles.</HI> He did not belieue the Va|lidity of Heretics Bapti&s;m to be of Apo&s;tolical Tradition, becau&s;e it was belieued in <HI>all times</HI> and by <HI>all Chri&s;tians,</HI> (for he knew it was denied by S. Cy|prian and many others) but becau&s;e it was belieued by the Church, to which (&s;aies S. Augu&s;tin) S. Cyprian, without doubt would haue &s;ubmitted, had he liued to heare the judgement of the Church vpon the Controver&s;y. Our D^r therefore, &s;ince he has pitcht vpon Apo&s;tolical Tradition for to be his Rule of faith; for to know what Apo&s;tolical Tradition is; and if this or that Doc|trin be truly of Apo&s;tolical Tradition, mu&s;t go to the Infallible Church for to be a&s;&s;ured; and if he does not he will never re&s;t &s;atisfied, nor the contro|ver&s;y be ended: which appears in con|trover&s;ies betwixt the Prote&s;tants and other Sectaries; for Prote&s;tants &s;ay Epi&s;copacy is of Apo&s;tolical Tradition; Presbiterians &s;ay its not; Lutherans &s;ay its of Apo&s;tolical Tradition to adore
<PB N="101" REF="63"> the Con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t; Prote&s;tants &s;ay its not: That the Epi&s;tle of S. Paul to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture, Prote&s;tants &s;ay its Apo&s;tolical Tradi|tion; Lutherans &s;ay it is not: I pray D^r when will yee decide the&s;e Contro|ver&s;ies? when will yee agre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> among your&s;elves? never whyl&s;t the world is world, vntill yee com to &s;om Infalli|ble living Judge (which is the Church) to whom it apertains to declare which is the Apo&s;tolical Written Word, or Scripture; and which not: which is the Apo&s;tolical vnwritten Word or Tradi|tion; and which not.</P>
<P>It's therefore I ptoued in the <HI>Vner|ring Vnerrable Church,</HI> Chap. 4. the Ne|ce&s;&s;ity of a liuing Infallible Judge, and that to be the Catholic Church, for to in&s;truct vs as well in this as in other doubts of Religion: but our D^r cannot endure this arrogance and pride of ours. appropriating to our&s;elues the name of <HI>Catholic and Ox<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hodox,</HI> excluding all other Chri&s;tia~ Societies from any &s;hare of that, Title: No &s;aies he <HI>you are but a part of the Church, and a corrupt one of the Church Vniver&s;al, which is compo&s;ed of all Chri&s;|tian Societies:</HI> this is our D^r^s opinion of
<PB N="102" REF="64"> the true Catholic Church, declared in the fir&s;t part again&s;t N. N. 12 Chapt. and often in &s;everal Chapters of his &s;e|cond part again&s;t J. S. Nor did this Pa|radox drop fir&s;t from out D^r; D^r Mor|ton in his book of <HI>the kingdom of I&s;rael</HI> pag. 91. &s;aies, <HI>The Arian Church is to be e&s;teemed a true Church becau&s;e it holds the &s;ub&s;tance of Chri&s;tian Religion, which is faith in Ie&s;us Chri&s;t &s;on of God, and Redeemer of the world:</HI> and again in his 4 Chap. who&s;e Title is, <HI>Heretics are Members of the true Church</HI> he &s;peakes thus; <HI>who&s;oeuer belieues in Ie&s;us Chri&s;t, tho by wickedne&s;s of life, or here&s;y in Doctrin he &s;hould err, he is &s;till a member of the Church.</HI></P>
<P>It was neither Wit nor maiice that put our D^r vpon &s;uch a de&s;perat engage|ment but want of memory; for had he remembred many propo&s;itions ad|vanced by him&s;elf, he would not have ouerthrowen them all by this one. Pag. 63. he tells vs Prote&s;tants <HI>are Members</HI> of the Catholic Church; hecau&s;e they received that dignity in their Bapti&s;m, and it is not lo&s;t but by formal <HI>Here&s;y</HI> or <HI>Infidelity:</HI> Therefore by <HI>Here&s;y</HI> that di|gnity is lo&s;t, and Heretics are not mem|bes of the Church: Now I a&s;k you
<PB N="103" REF="64"> what do you call <HI>a formal Here&s;y?</HI> you an&s;wer in your Dedicatory Epi&s;tle to my Lord of <HI>E&s;&s;ex;</HI> that it is an ob&s;tinat adhe&s;ion to a Doctrin oppo&s;it to Scrip|ture: But all Chri&s;tian Societies di&s;tinct from yours, and who&s;e Tenets are oppo|&s;it to yours, hold ob&s;tinatly and will|fully Doctrins oppo&s;it to Scripture; for you &s;ay often, that your Tenets are plainly &s;et down, and their Errors cleerly convinc't by Scripture, which abounds with heavenly light to all tho&s;e who are not willfully obtinat; there|fore all tho&s;e Congrations are guilty of <HI>formal Here&s;y</HI> and con&s;equently are not Members of the Catholic Church.</P>
<P>Again; had our D^r remember'd what he &s;aid in his 10. Chapt. an&s;wering to my &s;yllogi&s;m in <HI>Ferio,</HI> that <HI>the true Church of God is obiectevely Infallible;</HI> that's to &s;ay cannot teach any Doctrin <HI>obiectiuely</HI> fals; certainly he would ne|uer haue &s;aid, Chri&s;t's Church is com|po&s;ed of all tho&s;e Chri&s;tian Societies: becau&s;e the Tenets of tho&s;e Congre|gations are contradictorily oppo&s;it; Lutherans hold <HI>Real Pre&s;ence;</HI> Calvini&s;ts deny it; Lutherans hold that S. Paul's Epi&s;tles to the Hebrews is not Canoni|cal;
<PB N="104" REF="65"> Prote&s;tants &s;ay it is &amp;c. there|fore &s;om of tho&s;e congregations do hold Doctrins <HI>Objectiuely</HI> fals; therefore &s;om of them are not the true Catholic Church, nor any patt of it; for he con|fe&s;&s;es the true Catholic Church cannot teach any Doctrin <HI>objectiuely</HI> fals. The Catholic Church al&s;o as he acknow|ledges is the <HI>Pillar of Truth,</HI> and its cleer, that tho&s;e Chri&s;tian Societies taken all togither, are not the Pillar of Truth, being guilty of &s;o many errors.</P>
<P>La&s;tly it's evident, and our D^r will not deny it, that any congregation which holds fundamental errors again&s;t the chief and prime Articles of Chri&s;|tianity, is no part of the Catholic Church: its no le&s;s evident that &s;om of the&s;e Chri&s;tian Societies hold Errors not only again&s;t <HI>Infertor Verities</HI> but al&s;o again&s;t the Fundamental and chief Ar|ticles of Chri&s;tianity, as I haue proved in the <HI>Introduction</HI> of this booke and as your own Brethren the Lutheran Writers do expre&s;ly confe&s;s, as you may reade in Brierlie trac. 2. c 2. &s;ect. 10. &s;ub 13. reade Samuel Huberinus (a Lutheran) his book, who&s;e Title is <HI>An ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">he&s;is Lutheranae &amp; Calvini&s;ticae Doctrinae
<PB N="105" REF="65"> in praecipui fidei Articulis; the Contradic|tion of Lutherans and Calvini&s;ts in the chief Articles of faith.</HI> Reade Conradus de Theol. Calvin. l. 1. art. 18. <HI>The Calvi|ni&s;ts have pa&s;s'd &s;o far, as to bring in doubt, no &s;male number of chief Articles of Chri&s;|tian faith; the omnipotency of God; the Per|&s;onal Vnion of the two Natures in Chri&s;t; the Communication of names in the Ble&s;&s;ed Trini|ty; the glorious Body of Chri&s;t; his A&s;cen&s;ion; the difference of Sacraments, of the old and new Te&s;tament; the force and efficacy of Grace; the Prerogative of Infants born of Infidels, the Lords &s;upper, and Prede&s;tina|tion:</HI> in all the&s;e (which our D^r will not deny to be chief and Fundamental Ar|ticles of Religion) the Lutherans and Calvini&s;ts di&s;agree; and therefore the &s;ame Conradus writ three books of the irreconcilable difference betwixt Lutherans and Calvini&s;ts, and in his &s;econd book: art. 13. &s;aies, <HI>nos negamus inter nos &amp; Calvini&s;tas in Doctrinae funda|mento e&s;&s;e con&s;en&s;um; Wce deny any agree|ment betwixt vs and Calvini&s;ts in Funda|mental Articles:</HI> and therefore Stanca|rus a Lutheran, l. cont. Calvin: adver|ti&s;es his Reader; <HI>Beware Chri&s;tian Reader of the Books of Calvin, e&s;pecially in the Arti|cles
<PB N="106" REF="66"> of the B. Trinity; the Incarnation, and Mediation of Chri&s;t; the Sacrament of Bap|ti&s;m and Prede&s;tination; for that they contain impious Doctrin, and Arian Bla&s;phemies.</HI> And in his book cont. Mini&s;t Genu. &s;aies, <HI>that the Church of Geneva and Zurich are Arians:</HI> and Nau&s;erus, who of a Cal|vini&s;t becam an Arian, and of an Arian became a Turk in his Epi&s;tle ad Gerla|chium a Prote&s;tant Preacher, &s;aies. <HI>I know none of our age who becam an Arian, who was not fir&s;t a Calvini&s;t; if you will &s;hun Ariani&s;m, you mu&s;t beware of Calvini&s;m:</HI> Go now Doctor and tell vs, that your Sects agree in all the chief and Funda|mental Articles of Religion; Go and tell vs, that all the&s;e Sects &s;o mon&s;|truou&s;ly devided, compo&s;e the Catho|lic Church.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="107" REF="66">
<HEAD>VI. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>MY ARGVMENTS FOR THE NECESSITY of a living Infallible Iudge of Contro|ver&s;ies, and that to be the Church, vnan&s;wered.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IN my former Treati&s;e I argued thus; either 'its lawfull to each one to fol|low that &s;en&s;e of Scripture which <HI>bona Fide,</HI> after mature con&s;ideration and prayers to God, he thinks to be the &s;en&s;e of the text; and if &s;o all the world, tho at ears for their different Tenets, are in a good Religion; and the Gene|ral Councils haue bin ra&s;h in condem|ning Arius, Ne&s;torius &amp;c. becau&s;e all Here&s;iarcks and Heretics will &s;ay (and why &s;hould not wee belieue them) that they judge in their Con&s;cience before God, their own &s;en&s;e of Scripture is the true: Or God has required of vs, that wee &s;hould all believe and profe&s;s one only &s;en&s;e of Scripture; that, and no other, which he has reuealed; and if &s;o; certainly he has apointed and com|mi&s;&s;ioned
<PB N="108" REF="67"> &s;om &s;upream Authority for to teach vs what &s;en&s;e of Scripture is that which he will haue vs belieue; and wee are bound to acquie&s;ce and yeld to that &s;upream authority, tho the &s;en&s;e he propo&s;es, may not &s;eem to our privat judgement to be the be&s;t: for if God has not appointed &s;uch an Authority, how &s;hall I know, which of the different &s;en&s;es giuen to the text, is that which God has reuealed: and if wee be not obliged in con&s;cience to obey that Authority, and belieue the &s;en&s;e propo&s;ed by it; then I may, and &s;o may euery other, without any &s;cru|ple reject that &s;en&s;e, and each one hold his own, and &s;o there will be no imaginable way for vs to be of one and the &s;ame faith. This &s;upream Authority I proved to be the Church, and I haue no an&s;wer from my D^r to all my di&s;cours but a very civil complement pag 29. he &s;aies; if he thinks Scripture is not &s;uf|ficient for to decide our Controver&s;ies, wee will admit with S. Augu&s;tin, the Authority of the Church, and Tradi|tion as expounded by <HI>Lirinen&s;is:</HI> But this compliance to my di&s;cours &s;ignifies nothing, if by <HI>Church</HI> and <HI>Tradition,</HI> he
<PB N="109" REF="67"> Under&s;tands all Chri&s;tian Societies; for if wee mu&s;t belieue no &s;en&s;e of the text but what they all agree in, we mu&s;t belieue none at all. I proued by convincing ar|guments that this <HI>Teaching</HI> and <HI>Propo&s;ing</HI> Church mu&s;t be the Roman Catholic Church; and my D^r an&s;wers, that <HI>Iam a fool</HI> as <HI>the great Turk for calling him&s;elf king of kings:</HI> a&s;&s;uredly this is a &s;hort and &s;mart methode of an&s;wering, had Bel|larmin and &s;tillingfleet di&s;couered this methode of anfwering, they might haue reduced their great books to a few &s;heets of paper.</P>
<P>I proued our obligation of &s;ubmit|ting to the Doctrin of this &s;upream Au|thority; becau&s;e Chri&s;t laid his com|mands, not only vpon the Apo&s;tles, but al&s;o vpon their &s;ucce&s;&s;ors in &s;uc|ceeding ages, of preaching, teaching and ruling the flock; and laid his com|mands on the flock not only of the Apo&s;tles daies, but on the flock of all &s;ucceeding ages, of hearing, believing, and obeying their Pa&s;tors and Leaders, for to be conueyed all into one faith: Our D^r an&s;wers in the tone of a graue man; <HI>What he ads of Obedience due from the flock to their Pa&s;tors, is right, &s;peaking of each
<PB N="110" REF="68"> flock in regard of their ordinary lawfull Pa&s;|tors:</HI> This re&s;triction, <HI>&s;peaKing of their or|dinary lawfull Pa&s;tors,</HI> was foi&s;ted in for &s;om mi&s;chief: doubtle&s;s it was to ab|&s;olve the flock of England from any Obedience to the Pope.</P>
<P>But Pray D^r when Luther and his merry Companions began to vent their Novelties, was there not a Church ex|tant, and con&s;equently Ordinary and lawfull Pa&s;tors, to whom they owed Obedience? were they not obliged to obey tho&s;e Ordinary lawfull Pa&s;tors, and acquie&s;ce to their Doctrin as Chri&s;t commands vs by S. Paul, that wee <HI>liue in Vnity of faith</HI> and not be <HI>carried away with euery wind of Doctrin?</HI> were they not then, Schi&s;matics, for not &s;ubmitting to tho&s;e lawfull Pa&s;tors? this obliga|tion of &s;ubmitting to that Authority de&s;cended to the Lutherans; for that Church and Authority which he was obliged to obey is &s;till the &s;ame; and has &s;till the right of exacting obedience from the flock; con&s;equently the Lu|therans are Schi&s;matics for not &s;ub|mitting to it: and if the Lutherans be guilty, the Church of England is no le&s;s; becau&s;e you were then vnder the
<PB N="111" REF="68"> &s;ame Authotity and ordinary Pa&s;tors, to which you owed Obedience, and therefore you are obliged to return.</P>
<P>It was to eneruat this di&s;cours that my Antagoni&s;t in&s;erted that word, that each particular flock owes obedience <HI>to th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ir lawfull Ordinary Pa&s;tors;</HI> preten|ding that the Church or flock of Eng|land owes Obedience only to the Pa&s;|tors of England; that as the king in each kingdom is the head of the Church &s;o the Pa&s;tors of each kingdom are the lawfull Ordinary Pa&s;tors in that king|dom to whom the flock owes Obe|dience; the flock of England mu&s;t obey the Pa&s;tots of England; the flock of France, the Pa&s;tors of France and &s;o of the re&s;t. And if you a&s;k what way imaginable is there then, to keep vs in Vnity of faith; for it may happen that the Pa&s;tors of England, France, and Spain may deliuer different Doctrins; the one believe the Divinity of Chri&s;t, the other deny it; the one belieue the true Canon of Scripture and the other deny it: this may, and does happen; in this ca&s;e all the flock of the&s;e king|doms are obliged to haue one and the &s;ame faith: which Pa&s;tors mu&s;t they
<PB N="112" REF="69"> belieue? does rea&s;on or Scripture ob|lige the flock of Spain to belieue the Pa&s;tors of France? or that of France the Pa&s;tors of England? No: why then in this ca&s;e you haue nothing to an&s;wer, but that each flock is bound to obey their own Ordinary Dome&s;tic Pa&s;tors, and &s;o be all of three different Reli|gions one from an other; or that there is one Pa&s;tor aboue them all, to which as well the flock as the Pa&s;tors are bound to &s;ubmit, and obey.</P>
<P>And this wee will proue out of the Church of England: for, in Ireland as there is in each Pari&s;h a Pa&s;tor to watch ouer the flock; &s;o there is in each Bi&s;|hoprick a Bi&s;hop to rule the &s;ubordinat Pa&s;tors; in each Province there is an ArchBi&s;hop who&s;e care is to keep Vnitie of Doctrin and Di&s;ciplin among the Bi&s;hops; in the kingdom there is a Primat who has a &s;upream Juri&s;diction ouer all the Pa&s;tors and Prelats. Now as Controver&s;ies may arri&s;e betwixt the Pa&s;tors of one kingdom, &s;o there may betwixt the Pa&s;tors of different Na|tions; why therefore, as be&s;ides Scrip|ture and Chri&s;t our <HI>invi&s;ible</HI> head you admit a &s;upream <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> head ouer all
<PB N="113" REF="69"> the Pa&s;tors of each kingdom, will not you grant a vi&s;ible Vniver&s;al Pa&s;|tor ouer all the flock of Chri&s;t and ouer all the Pa&s;tors of different Na|tions, for to keep them in Unity of Doctrin: for if you read the Scrip|ture, you &s;hall not find that Chri&s;t &s;hould have made any mention of any particular Pa&s;tor for each particular flock; but he made mention of One &s;upream Pa&s;tor for to gouern his whole flock, <HI>Vnum Ouile &amp; Vnus Pa&s;tor:</HI> this One flock which Chri&s;t &s;poke of, cer|tainly is compo&s;ed of all the particular flocks of divers kingdoms; therefore that <HI>one Pa&s;tor,</HI> which he &s;poke of is the Pa&s;tor of all kingdoms.</P>
<P>The Church of England, and our D^r pag. 60. tells vs <HI>Inferior or Not fun|damental</HI> Truths implicitly contained in Scripture, are of &s;o great con&s;e|quence to our &s;aluation, that it is a damnable error to deny them; that all Nations are obliged to belieue them when they are &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to vs, to be revealed Truths; &s;urely the&s;e Truths were revealed that they might be propo&s;ed to, and belieued by all Nations: therefore God has apoin|ted
<PB N="114" REF="70"> &s;om Authority in the Church for to propo&s;e vnto all Nations, and oblige them all to belieue tho&s;e Truths pro|po&s;ed by that Authority: there mu&s;t be therefore &s;om Authority which has a power ouer all Nations; but the Pa&s;tors of any particular kingdom are not impower'd to oblige the flock of an other kingdom; therfore there mu&s;t be one Pa&s;tor who has Authority and power ouer all. Nor will it be a &s;ati&s;|factory an&s;wer to &s;ay that God gaue the Scripture to all Nations, wherby to learn all Truth; fir&s;t becau&s;e be&s;ides Scripture, its needfull that in each par|ticular kingdom there be one &s;upream Pa&s;tor, who has authority ouer all the Pa&s;tors of that kingdom, as wee haue di&s;cour&s;ed but now; &s;o likewi&s;e be&s;ides Scripture there mu&s;t be one &s;upream Pa&s;tor, who&s;e charge is to teach and rule all Pa&s;tors of all Nations; for Chri&s;t gaue his commi&s;&s;ion for to teach certain Truths of Religion to all Nations; <HI>Ite, praedicate Evangelium Omni creaturae, in Vniver&s;um mundum;</HI> as therefore for to teach Particular kingdoms, you grant be&s;ides Scripture, one Supream Pa&s;tor in that kingdom; why not one Supream
<PB N="115" REF="70"> Pa&s;tor ouer all kingdoms? Secondly, its not a Scripture or a Written book which Chri&s;t gaue to teach; (for as I ob&s;er|ucd in my former Treati&s;e, Chri&s;t gaue no Scripture, nor any Commi&s;&s;ion to his Apo&s;tles to write it;) but Liuing Pa&s;tors and teachers: thirdly I haue proued and its evident that Scripture does not contain all Truths which all Nations are obliged to belieue: la&s;tly becau&s;e the true Canon it&s;elf of Scrip|ture is doubted of by many Nations: there mu&s;t be then a &s;upream Autho|rity for to an&s;wer to this doubt, to whom all Nations are obliged to ac|quie&s;ce. This &s;upream Authority was belieued by the Chri&s;tian World to be in the Pope and Council before Luther and Calvins revolt, to this Authority they gaue obedience then, and now they deny it; they are therefore guilty of Schi&s;m, and bound to return to that Obedience.</P>
<P>I proued in my former Treati&s;e of this &s;ubject that it was the practice of Gods Church in all ages, when euer any Controver&s;y in Religion arri&s;ed betwixt two Parties; it was never de|termin'd by their altercations, di&s;putes
<PB N="116" REF="71"> and Interpretations of the Text; but the que&s;tion was deuolued to the Church conven'd in a General Council, to which both Parties were obliged to &s;ubmit, and he e&s;teemed an Heretic who would not acquie&s;ce to the Deci&s;ion of the Council: That no Apellation nor Pro|te&s;tation again&s;t the Council vnder pre|tence of being a Partie, or of being of the contrarie Doctrin to the Per&s;on ac|cu&s;ed, was admitted; but he was obli|ged to &s;ubmit his Doctrin to the judg|ment of the Council. I proued al&s;o at large that this was the practice of the Reformed Church, in the Synods of <HI>Dordrect</HI> and <HI>Delph</HI> in Holland; where <HI>Arminius</HI> prote&s;ted again&s;t the Synod, as being a Partie becau&s;e it was com|po&s;ed for the mo&s;t part of <HI>Gomari&s;ts:</HI> but the Synod declared him a Schi&s;matic, if he did not waue his Apellation, and &s;ubmit him&s;elf to its Judgment in that Controver&s;y, and declared it&s;elf to be the competent Judge in that cau&s;e. I inferred hence, the obligation of Lu|ther and the whole Reformation that he ought to haue &s;ubmitted him&s;elf to the Church convened in the Council of Trent, to which the Deci&s;ion of the
<PB N="117" REF="71"> Controver&s;ies apertained. My good D^r an&s;wers pag. 31. that the Pope and Council of Trent, were the Partie ac|cu&s;ed; that Luther nor the Reforma|tion did not therefore, nor ought not to &s;ubmit vnto them: this was the an&s;wer of Arminius to <HI>Dordrect.</HI> And Dordrect judged him to be a Schi&s;matic for &s;o an|&s;wering; this was the an&s;wer of Arius and all Heretics again&s;t the Councils who condemned them; and they were judged Schi&s;matics for not &s;ubmitting; and mu&s;t not our Doctor al&s;o be judged a Schi&s;matic with his Ma&s;ter Luther, if they do not waue this Prote&s;tation.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>VII. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>OVR DOCTOR'S DESINGENVITY IN HIS Replies to my Di&s;cours of Church Infallibility.</HI></HEAD>
<P>AFter I had proued the Nece&s;&s;itie of a Living Judge of Controver|&s;ies, and it to be the Church; and for to auoid all Cauils I purpo&s;ely adver|tis'd, I did not &s;peake of the Pope
<PB N="118" REF="72"> alone; becau&s;e his Infallibility was no Article of faith but a &s;chool que&s;tion denied by many Catholics, and affir|med by many; I declared I would &s;peake only of the Infallibility of the Church, both Diffu&s;ive, and Repre|&s;entative, in the Pope and Council togither: and becau&s;e our D^r objected our Catholics were diuided in the Doc|trin of Church Infallibility, and quoted <HI>Turrecremat, Alfon&s;us a Ca&s;tro,</HI> and <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> to haue &s;aid, that even the Pope and Council joyntly could err mate|rially; I an&s;wer'd that our Article of faith was, that they could not err nei|ther formally nor materially in <HI>Doctrin of faith and manners;</HI> and challenged him to &s;hew me any one Orthodox Doc|tor which euer &s;aid the contrary; and that <HI>Turrecremat, Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Alfon&s;us a Ca&s;tro</HI> only &s;aid they could err <HI>materially in matter of fact,</HI> but not of Doctrin: I haue for Replie from my D^r: that tho&s;e Authors &s;ay, <HI>the Pope and Council joyntly can err materially;</HI> and no &s;quint ey'd man but &s;ees this is an impertinent an|&s;wer, wheras my challenge was, to &s;hew any D^r who &s;aies they can err mate|rially <HI>in Doctrin.</HI></P>
<PB N="119" REF="72">
<P>But what does he an&s;wer to my ar|gument for the Infallibility of the Church Diffu&s;ive, or Repre&s;entative? a &s;tory of a myle long, of Clermont Colledge and <HI>Sorboni&s;ts;</HI> the one defen|ding in public The&s;es; and the other impugning the Infallibility of the Pope alone without a Council: And what is all this to our que&s;tion in hand? for our que&s;tion was of the Infallibility of the Pope and Council joyntly: did not I grant in my 7. Chapt. that many Ca|tholics denied, and many a&s;&s;erted the Popes Infallibility, and therefore I &s;aid it was but a School que&s;tion, and I would not &s;peake of it, but of the Infallibility of the Pope and Council joyntly? you are de&s;ingenuous D^r: and decline the que&s;tion: but I mu&s;t not complain; you are very kind to me: you are afraid that my Brethren of <HI>Clermont</HI> will take it <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ill I deny the Infal|libility of the Pope alone to be an Ar|ticle of faith: for how will the Jan&s;eni&s;ts be e&s;teemed Heretics, wheras they were condemn'd by the Pope alone, without any Council, and its no Article of faith the Pope is Infallible? I thank you for your kindne&s;s; but your fear is pan|nick:
<PB N="120" REF="73"> for its not only the Church Re|pre&s;entative in the Pope and Council is Infallible; but al&s;o the Church Dif|fu&s;ive, as it comprehends all the Pa&s;|tors and Prelats; and Jan&s;eni&s;m was not only condemn'd by <HI>Innocent</HI> the X. and <HI>Alexander</HI> the VII. but their Sentence was aproued by the Univer&s;al Church Diffu&s;ive and &s;o Jan&s;eni&s;m is as legal|ly condemned as Prote&s;tancy.</P>
<P>But is't po&s;&s;ible D^r that wee have forgot the Controver&s;y of the Infalli|bility of the Church, which was the que&s;tion in debate? and fallen into that of the Pop's infallibilitie which is quite out of our road? not one argu|ment or text does he bring to proue the fallibilitie of the Church, but that thredbare &s;yllogi&s;m which I an&s;wered in my former Treati&s;e: <HI>Infallibilitie</HI> &s;aid he in his Sermon (and is not a&s;ha|med to &s;ay it again in his new book) <HI>is an Attribut proper to God; but it's a formal bla&s;phemie, &s;aies S. Thomas Aquinas to giue Gods proper Attributs to any creature; there|fore its a bla&s;phemie to &s;ay the Church is in|fallible.</HI> The &s;exton of his Pari&s;h of <HI>Swoords</HI> would haue &s;aued him his voyage to <HI>Oxford</HI> for this argument and the
<PB N="121" REF="73"> an&s;wer of it; for doubtle&s;s he knows the Apo&s;tles and Prophets were infalli|ble, and con&s;equently there is a va&s;t difference betwixt Gods Attribut of In|fallibility and that which is giuen to Creatures. I an&s;wered him that <HI>Intrin&s;ic</HI> Infallibility by nature and proper Per|fection, is Gods Attribut, it being im|po&s;&s;ible to him in any ca&s;e or &s;uppo&s;i|tion to deceiue or be deceiued: This is not challenged by the Church of Rome; &s;he is infallible only by Gods Pro|tection who has promi&s;ed not to &s;uffer her to teach or embrace any Error; the Apo&s;tles were thus infallible, and the Church in <HI>fundamental points,</HI> as Prote&s;tants confe&s;s; and where is there any thing like a <HI>bla&s;phemie</HI> in this? or where is our D^r^'^s &s;incerity in not taking notice of, or replying again&s;t this an&s;wer, and repeating again his old &s;yllogi&s;m as if no an&s;wer had been giuen to it?</P>
<P>But he lets flie &s;om <HI>Queries</HI> again&s;t vs; fir&s;t, if God can lend his Attribut of Omnipotency to his Creatures? and thence concludes he cannot giue his Infallibilitie: but the good Man is mi&s;|taken in thinking wee pretend that God giues his Infallibilitie to his Church;
<PB N="122" REF="74"> its not his Attribut of Infallibility he giues; but his promi&s;s of not &s;uffering her to err in Doctrin of faith and Man|ners, as he did to the Apo&s;tles: D^r can you deny, but that he gaue this kind of infallibility to the Apo&s;tles? and dare you &s;ay he gaue them his Omnipoten|cy? His &s;econd <HI>Quaere if it be not</HI> a damnable arrogance <HI>to parallell the Church with the Apo&s;tles, Gods &s;acred Organs, as all the world acknowledges?</HI> hold D^r; not all the World, for the greate&s;t Oracles of your Reformation (and by this my Reader will &s;ee what a pretty Reforma|tion our D^r has choo&s;en) &s;ay they were not only fallible, but they actually and foulie erred in what they writ and taught. <HI>Zuinglius</HI> to 2. cont. Cataph. fol. 10. <HI>Its a great ignorance to belieue any infallible authority in the Gho&s;pels and Epi&s;|tles of the Apo&s;tles: Clebitius</HI> a learned Scribe of the Reformation, Vict. Verit. ar. 5. <HI>Lukes relation of Chri&s;t's Pa&s;sion is not true, becau&s;e it does not agree with that of Mathew and Mark, and more credit is to be giuen to two, than to one.</HI> Luther your grand Reformer to. 5. Wittemb. printed. an. 1554. and Epi&s;t. ad Gal. c. 1. &s;aies <HI>that Peter liued and taught extra Verbum</HI>
<PB N="123" REF="74"> <HI>Dei, beyond the Word of God:</HI> and again l. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de Extr. Vnct. &s;aies <HI>S. Iames &s;poke fooli&s;hly of extream Vnc|tion,</HI> Calvin your Reformed Apo&s;tle &s;aies (in Cap. 2. ad Gal. that <HI>Peter ad|ded to the Schi&s;m of the Church, and ouer|throw of Chri&s;tian Liberty and Chri&s;ts Grace.</HI> Whitaker a Hector of your Church de Eccl. cont. Bellarm. Contr. 2. que&s;. 4. &s;aies <HI>its evident that after the de&s;cent of the Holy Gho&s;t, the whole Church even the Apo&s;|tles erred; and that Peter erred not only in manners but in Doctrin.</HI></P>
<P>Now D^r tell vs that <HI>all the World reueres the Apo&s;tles as Gods Oracles;</HI> had you &s;aid indeed that all the Orthodox World beare that re&s;pect vnto them, wee would believe you; but when you hear D^r^s of your own Reformation &s;peak as I have related, and many more of them &s;peak as ill, whom I omit for brevity &s;ake, you need not be proud of your good opinion of the Apo&s;tles, nor accu&s;e me of in&s;olence and damnable arrogance for parallelling the Church in the point of Infallibility with them: if it be in|&s;olence in me &s;o to do, S. Gregorie was as in&s;olent as I: <HI>I Embrace,</HI> &s;aid he, <HI>the four fir&s;t General Councils, as the four Gho&s;|pels.</HI>
<PB N="124" REF="75"> Parallelling the Church of the four fir&s;t ages with the Evangeli&s;ts in the cer|tainty of their Doctrin; and truly by all I can perceiue of your opinion this cen&s;ure of damnable arrogance reachs to your&s;elf as much as to me; for you parallell the Church with the Apo&s;tles; all the Prerogative you grant to the Apo&s;tles is, that they are <HI>Gods Vnerring Oracles;</HI> I haue with particular reflexion ob&s;erved and cannot find in your whole book that you &s;hould haue called the Apo&s;tles <HI>Infallible Orales,</HI> but pag. 36. you &s;ay they are <HI>Vnerring Oracles:</HI> al&s;o pag. 15. you call the Church <HI>Vnerring; Not properly Infallible,</HI> &s;ay you, <HI>but by the a&s;si&s;tance of the H. Gho&s;t, &s;hall not err in fun|damental points;</HI> and el&s;s where you call her <HI>Vnerring Oracle:</HI> the &s;ame Prerogative of certainty and &s;ted fa&s;tne&s;s in Truth which you grant to the Apo&s;tles, you giue it to the Church, and no more, nor no le&s;s: &s;ee you, may I &s;ay that you are <HI>damnably arrogant</HI> in parallelling the Church with the Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>But wee mu&s;t not let pa&s;s this word <HI>Vner|ring,</HI> newly coyned by our Adver&s;aries for to e&s;cape the force of our Catho|lic Arguments for Infallibilitie; they
<PB N="125" REF="75"> will not grant the Church, nor the Apo&s;tles, for ought wee can &s;ee by our D^r to be <HI>Infallible</HI> or <HI>Vnerrable;</HI> but they &s;ay the Church is <HI>Vnerring:</HI> and if by the word <HI>Vnerring</HI> they vnder&s;tand any thing vnder <HI>Vnerrable</HI> &s;o as to &s;ay the Church and Apo&s;tles are not Infallible or Vnerrable, wee will demon&s;trat their impiety and <HI>damnable arrogance;</HI> and that the Apo&s;tles and Church are not only <HI>Vnerring</HI> that's to &s;ay, <HI>will not err;</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Vnerrable,</HI> that's to &s;ay cannot err. For the Apo&s;tles were not only <HI>Vnerring,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Vnerrable</HI> in what they writ; other wi&s;e Scripture would not be Gods <HI>Infallible</HI> Word: and who can deny but that they were as infallible in what they taught verbally, as in what they writ? wheras S. Paul &s;aies Gal. 1. 8. that the word he preached to them, was not of man, but of God. The &s;ame wee mu&s;t &s;ay of the Church: fir&s;t becau&s;e no text of Scripture does warrant the Infallibi|lity of the Apo&s;tles (as wee haue &s;he|wed in my former Treati&s;e and will ap|pear in the next en&s;uing Chapter) that does not al&s;o warrant the Infallibility of the Church: Secondly you grant the Church is <HI>Gods Vnerring Oracle,</HI> that
<PB N="126" REF="76"> by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods H. Spirit it will not err: I a&s;k; is this a reuealed Truth, that God has promi&s;ed that A&s;&s;i&s;tance to his Church, or not? if it be not reuealed; why do you belieue it? or what warrant have you for to &s;ay it? if it be revealed; then the Church is infallible as wee pretend: for all the <HI>Infallibility</HI> wee claim for our Church, is that God has Promi&s;ed in Holy Writ, to lead the Church into all truth, &s;o as neuer to &s;uffer her to err; which pro|mi&s;s being made its as impo&s;&s;ible the Church &s;hould err; as it is that Gods promi&s;s &s;hould faile.</P>
<P>In his 3. Chap. he rallies plea&s;antly turning one of my Arguments into ridi|cule: I. S. &s;aies he, <HI>&s;eems not to be very &s;trong in the belief of Infallibilitie,</HI> becau&s;e all the proof he giues for to per&s;wade his Brethren to his belief is an imagi|nary comfort they haue in belieuing their Church, which guides them, to be infallible, <HI>which comfort</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>mu&s;t be grounded, not vpon the real exi&s;tence of that infallibility, but vpon a &s;trong appr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hen&s;ion or belief of it, tho it be not extant;</HI> and to giue &s;om plau&s;ible appearance to this calumny, he chops my di&s;cours and
<PB N="127" REF="76"> relates the one half of my words: but that my Reader may judge if my argu|ment be as ridiculous, as my Antago|ni&s;t is de&s;ingenuous, I will propo&s;e my di&s;cours which was thus: If wee con&s;i|der the te&s;timonies of Scripture, the con&s;ent of ages, the multitude of Uni|ver&s;ities, D^r^s and fathers, which teach <HI>Infallibility;</HI> its as likely (to &s;ay no more) that you are mi&s;taken in believing Church <HI>Fallibility,</HI> as that I am mi&s;ta|ken in belieuing <HI>Infallibilitie:</HI> as to the truth therefore of this Doctrin you haue no more a&s;&s;urance of the truth of your Tenet than I have of mine: thus far we are equal: but I haue a huge ad|vantage in believing the Doctrin of In|fallibility which you cannot haue in be|lieuing fallibility; for <HI>faith</HI> is our roade to &s;aluation, you trauel in one faith or roade, I trauel in an other, wee are doubtfull of the roade; my advantage is, that I am guided by a Church which I firmly belieue and am fully a&s;&s;ured is infallible, cannot err, cannot be mi&s;taken, cannot bya&s;s me: I am like a Traveller, who tho he does not know the roade, he is fully per&s;waded, and without the lea&s;t doubt that his guide
<PB N="128" REF="77"> who vndertakes to leade him is &s;o knowing in the way that he cannot mi&s;s it; the Traveller goes on in his journy, follows his guide, his mind is at re&s;t, he is fully &s;atisfied, and has not the lea&s;t feare of being bya&s;s'd: &s;o a Catholic being fully per&s;waded and be|lieuing the Infallibility of his Church, liues with a quiet mind free from doubts and fear of going a&s;tray becau&s;e he is per&s;waded the Church which guides him cannot err; and tho really the Tavellers guide were not &s;o throughly acquain|ted with the roade, but that he may &s;tray, yet the Traveller being fully per&s;waded that he cannot; travells with &s;atisfaction without any feare or doubt.</P>
<P>But if a Traveller did not know the roade, and were per&s;waded that the guide which leads him, is not &s;o expert but that he may go a&s;tray; truly he mu&s;t be allwaies fearfull, dubious, and without re&s;t of mind, doubtfull if he goes well, or if he be by a&s;s'd. So it is with the Prote&s;tant in his faith which is the roade to, Saluation he knows not the way well; he is guided by a Church, which he belieues may err in the roade,
<PB N="129" REF="77"> ought not he to live and walk in conti|nual feare? Hence I inferred that any wi&s;e man ought to choo&s;e the Doctrin of Infallibility before that of fallibili|ty: for in believing Infallibility he does not hazard his &s;aluation, becau&s;e in the actual Profe&s;&s;ion of our Roman Tenets a man may be &s;aued, &s;aie the Prote&s;tants; &s;econdly becau&s;e in the belief of fallibilitie it's as likely the Prote&s;tants are deceiued, as the Ca|tholics in believing Infallibility: the Catholics run no greater hazard of believing an vntruth, than the Pro|te&s;tants; <HI>it may be</HI> (the Prote&s;tant will &s;ay) <HI>there is no &s;uch thing really, as Infal|libility; and &s;o the Catholics wil be deceiued. And it may be,</HI> &s;aies the Catholic to the Prote&s;tant, <HI>ther's no &s;uch thing as fallibi|lity, and &s;o you will be deceiued: and &s;ince I hazard nothing by it, and I am as likely to belieue a true Doctrin as you; why will not I choo&s;e the Tenet of Infallibility, which giues me re&s;t of mind without any doubt or feare in the full a&s;&s;urance of the truth I profe&s;s; rather than your Tenet of fallibility, which leaues you doubtfull and &s;u&s;pen&s;e if what you be|lieve, be true or fals; if the roade you walk in, be the right roade or no?</HI> Let my Rea|der
<PB N="130" REF="78"> be judge if this di&s;cours be &s;o ridi|culous, as D^r Sall thought to repre|&s;ent it;</P>
<P>To my argument for Church Infalli|bility, drawen from her long Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of that prerogative, neuer denied to her but by knowen Heretics; therefore not to be denied to her now without evident proof, of her being an vnju&s;t po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or, wheras po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of 1500. years is a weightie argument in all Commonwealths to maintain the Po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ors, if evident proofs be not produ|ced to proue him an in ju&s;t v&s;urper: My D^r an&s;wers that heer I prepare a Sanc|tuary for Robbers and Theeves; and that what was Lawfull in the beginning, by continuance of time growes not to be lawfull; and without any more, pa&s;&s;es by, without proving (as he ought to have don) that our Church is a Rob|ber or Theef of this prerogative; and that in progre&s;s of time her po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion was forfeited, which in the beginning was lawfull: He tells vs in his 25. chapt. that a Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or may be que&s;tioned for his <HI>Title;</HI> and if he does not proue it mu&s;t forfeit his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion: Wee an&s;wer; our Title is this, that our Church in
<PB N="131" REF="78"> the bnginning was &s;ettled in the po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t's true Doctrin; (for the Prote&s;tants acknowledge, &s;hee wee once the true Church,) that Chri&s;t pro+mi&s;ed her the conduct of his a&s;&s;i&s;ting &s;pirit <HI>vntill the Con&s;ummation of the world,</HI> and that the gates of Hell &s;hould not prevaile again&s;t her. By virtue of this promi&s;s &s;he continued her po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion by your acknowledgment, for many ages: &s;hee was attackt by &s;everal Heretics from time to time, accu&s;ing her to haue fallen from the truth: &s;he was hono|rablie di&s;charged by General Councils, and never yet condemned by any; but her Title approued and her po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion continued. Now our D^r &s;tarts vp to que&s;tion this &s;o ancient and &s;o often approved a Title: mu&s;t he not bring evident proofs again&s;t her, or be hi&s;s'd out of Court like a wrangler.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="132" REF="79">
<HEAD>VIII. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>HIS ANSWERS TO THE TEXTS alleadged for Church Infallibility examined.</HI></HEAD>
<P>NOt a word of an&s;wer have I from my D^r to all the texts of Scrip|ture, which I alleadged for Church In|fallibility, but what replies I made my &s;elf again&s;t them, and I an&s;wered: and his an&s;wers are two; the fir&s;t, that what texts import the a&s;&s;urance of Gods in|fallible &s;pirit, are not appliable to the Church, but only to the Apo&s;tles; which an&s;wer I refuted in a full and large Chapt. proving that the Church even in &s;ucceeding ages to the Apo&s;tles was and is &s;till infallible and not a &s;yl|lable does my D^r an&s;wer to this Chapter: and its to be admired the D^r &s;hould giue this an&s;wer, if he were not &s;o much acu&s;|tomed to co~tradict him&s;elf; for he &s;aies the Church, is God's Vnerring Oracle through the A&s;&s;i&s;tance of God's &s;pirit; this he cannot know but by &s;om texts of Scripture; therefore tho&s;e texts
<PB N="133" REF="79"> are appliable, and if they proue infal|libilitie; they proue that of the Chuch: but let vs hear &s;om of tho&s;e texts; the fir&s;t is that of Math. 16. <HI>vpon his Rock (meaning Peter) I wil build my Church, and the gates of hell &s;hall not prevaile again&s;t her.</HI> What Church is that which Chri&s;t built vpon Peter? is it the Apo&s;tles alone? or his <HI>Vniver&s;al</HI> Church, which was to continue in &s;ucceeding Ages after them? if <HI>the Apo&s;tles;</HI> then you mu&s;t acknowledge (and that Pro|te&s;tants will be loath to do) that Peter is the foundation, head, and chief of the Apo&s;tles, that their faith is groun|ded vpon him: If the <HI>Church Vniver&s;all,</HI> which was to continue in &s;ucceeding ages? then the text is appliable to the Church, and by it wee are a&s;&s;ured, that the <HI>gates of Hell,</HI> that's to &s;ay Error or Here&s;y, &s;hall not prevaile again&s;t her; which is to be infallible.</P>
<P>An other Text Jo. 14. <HI>If you ask any thing in my name I will do it; and I will pray the father; and he will giue you an other Comforter that will abide with you for euer, euen the &s;pirit of Truth.</HI> Three things are promi&s;ed by this Text: and all three appliable to the Church in all ages, as
<PB N="134" REF="80"> well as to the Apo&s;tles: the fir&s;t is; <HI>If you ask any thing in my name I will do it.</HI> This promi&s;s vndoubtedly relates to the whole Church, and it were ridicu|lous and erroneous to &s;ay that it was made to the Apo&s;tles and to none els. The &s;econd; <HI>If you lone me keep my Com|mandments;</HI> was this &s;aid to the Apo&s;|tles alone? was the ob&s;ervance of the Commandments required only of them in te&s;timonie of their loue? The third; <HI>and I will pray my father, and he will giue you an other Comforter who will abide with you for euer, euen the &s;pirit of Truth.</HI> If the&s;e words be appliable to the Church, its evident the text proues the Infallibilitie of the Church, as con|vincingly as that of the Apo&s;tles; And that tho&s;e words are appliable to the Church, it &s;eems vndoubted &s;ince that the precedent words of the &s;ame text are appliable to her; particularly that the later words import the Comforter's abyding <HI>for euer</HI> which cannot be &s;aid of the Apo&s;tles own per&s;ons, who were not to be <HI>for euer;</HI></P>
<P>The third Text Mat. 28. <HI>Go teach all Nations, Baptizing <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hem in the name of the father &s;on and H. Gho&s;t; loe I am with you</HI>
<PB N="135" REF="80"> <HI>vntill the Con&s;ummation of the world.</HI> Blind|ne&s;s it &s;elf cannot but &s;ee that this text proues Infallibilitie, and is appliable to the Church, for, whom is he to be with, vntill the Con&s;ummation of the World? with tho&s;e to whom he gaue his commi&s;&s;ion for to <HI>Baptize, Teach</HI> and preach: and who were they to whom Chri&s;t gave this Commi&s;&s;ion? not only to the Apo&s;tles; but to the Church in &s;ucceeding ages; therefore this text is appliable; and the Promi&s;s of Chri&s;t's aboade vntill the Con&s;ummation of the world was made, not only to the Apo&s;tles, but to the Church which &s;uc|ceeds in all ages: Nor will you e&s;cape the force of this text, by &s;aying <HI>the aboad of God's &s;pirit</HI> promi&s;ed to the Church <HI>vntill the con&s;ummation of the world,</HI> was only <HI>conditional,</HI> if they liued in God's loue and ob&s;eruance of his Commandments; becau&s;e it would follow, that the Commi&s;&s;ion al&s;o giuen them in the &s;ame text of preaching, Baptizing and teaching was only <HI>condi|tional, if they liued in Gods loue,</HI> and ob&s;er|vance of his commandments; and &s;o none could exerci&s;e tho&s;e functions, but when he is in the &s;tate of Grace.</P>
<PB N="136" REF="81">
<P>And what is to be admired is, that our D^r brings no kind of proof, for to proue that the&s;e texts are not appliable to the Church, but his word, and a little quillet which weighs as little as his word: for I quoted a text out of S. John. 15. <HI>When <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">he Paraclet &s;hall come whom I will &s;end from my father vnto you euen the &s;pirit of truth; he will giue te&s;timonie of me, and yee will giue te&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">monie.</HI> From which text I argued thus: the wittne&s;&s;es apointed by Chri&s;t to give te&s;timonie of him and his Doctrin were the &s;pirit of God, and the Church; the te&s;timony proceeds from both joyntly, from the Paraclet inwardly in&s;piring, and the Church outwardly declaring; therefore this te&s;timonie is infalliblie true: No, quoth our D^r the texts relate only to the Apo&s;tles; and not at all to the Church: no man in his &s;en&s;es will &s;ay otherwi&s;e: and why &s;o? Becau&s;e, &s;aies he, the Apo&s;tles only and not the Church, <HI>were with Chri&s;t &s;ince the begin|ning,</HI> and the text in its la&s;t words &s;aies they were to giue te&s;timonie of him, <HI>who were with him from the beginning,</HI> which la&s;t words of the text, he &s;aies, I fraudulently left out, and corrupted
<PB N="137" REF="81"> the text: Reader I'l be judged by you if our D^r has not lo&s;t his &s;en&s;es as well as his rea&s;on; <HI>Only the Apo&s;tles he &s;ates, were the witne&s;&s;es apointed by Chri&s;t for to giue te&s;|timonie of Chri&s;t, becau&s;e they alone were with him from the beginning, No man in his &s;en|&s;es will &s;ay other wi&s;e.</HI> Therefore the Church of England giues no te&s;timo|nie of Chri&s;t nor his Doctrin, becau&s;e &s;he was not with Chri&s;t from the begin|ning; Nor S. Paul was with Chri&s;t from the beginning; nor the four fir&s;t General Councils; nor a word of the new te&s;ta|ment. Therefore none of them were competent witne&s;&s;es for to give te&s;timo|ny of Chri&s;t or his Doctrin; <HI>No man in his &s;en&s;es will &s;ay they were.</HI> And by this you may &s;ee it was neither fraud nor deprauation of the text made me omit tho&s;e la&s;t words of the text, but becau&s;e they did not concern the controver&s;y in hand. And this little quillet is all the an&s;wer wee haue from him to proue tho&s;e texts are not appliable to the Church.</P>
<P>If our D^r did contradict but in the end of his book what he &s;aid in the be|ginning of it; it would be pardona|ble; but to tell vs in his 7. Chapt. that
<PB N="138" REF="82"> the texts importing Infallibilitie are not at all appliable to the Church: and then again in the &s;elf &s;am Chapt. to tell vs they are <HI>appliable</HI> to the Church con|ditionally if &s;he be in God's loue and grace; argues a mightie want of memo|rie: but ju&s;t now he &s;aid, No man in his &s;en&s;e could applie tho&s;e texts to the Church: the man, &s;urely, has lo&s;t his &s;en&s;es; for pag. 44. of that Chap. he &s;aies tho&s;e texts relate to the Church, and were pronounced by Chri&s;t in her favor, but &s;till conditionally that &s;he continue in Gods loue and grace: and becau&s;e the Church has fayled in this condition by the many crimes of her Pa&s;tors and Prelats; &s;he has forfeited the conduct of Gods a&s;&s;i&s;ting Spirit of Truth, and is no more infallible.</P>
<P>From this Paradox it follows that tho&s;e Promi&s;&s;es were al&s;o <HI>Conditional</HI> in regard of the Apo&s;tles; for neither Scrip|ture, nor any thing but a groundle&s;s fancy can per&s;uade, that tho&s;e Promi&s;|&s;es were <HI>Ab&s;olut</HI> in regard of the One; and <HI>Conditional</HI> only in regard of the other: read the Texts and you &s;hall &s;ee it: and wheras in the Apo&s;tles time there were many and grieveous &s;inners
<PB N="139" REF="82"> in the Church, (tho they were Saints them&s;elves) it follows that the Church in their time did forfeit her Infallibi|litie becau&s;e &s;he was not in the loue of God, and ob&s;ervance of his Command|ments. Secondly it follows the Church now has not the A&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods &s;pirit in fundamental Points, and &s;o &s;he is fallible in them; which Prote&s;tants will not &s;ay: thirdly it follows the four fir&s;t General Councils had not that a&s;|&s;i&s;tance, which is contrary&punc; to the Doc|trin of the Church of England.</P>
<P>But let vs proue directly the ab&s;ur|dity of this conditional Promi&s;s: This Propo&s;ition is now ab&s;olutly true, and independently of any condition; <HI>The Church is the Pillar and foundatio~ of Truth;</HI> not|with&s;tanding the &s;ins of Pa&s;tors and Pre|lats, this propo&s;ition is true; as D^r Sall him&s;elf confe&s;&s;es as well in his Sermon, as in his Book: al&s;o he &s;aies in his 15. pag. again&s;t J. S. that the Church, tho it be not properly infallible yet it &s;hall not err in fundamental Doctrin, becau&s;e the Church Vniver&s;al has, and is to haue the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Holy Gho&s;t: there|fore the Church now, notwith&s;tanding all the &s;ins and tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions of our
<PB N="140" REF="83"> Pa&s;tors and prelates, has the A&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods infallible &s;pirit; for if you take the Church &s;eparatly from the A&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods &s;pirit; it is not, nor can it be called The <HI>Pillar of Truth:</HI> &s;ince there|fore it is now truly the Pillar of Truth notwith&s;tanding all our &s;ins; it has now the A&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods &s;pirit notwith|&s;tanding our &s;ins; therefore that A&s;&s;i&s;|tance of Gods &s;pirit was not promi&s;ed <HI>Conditionally.</HI></P>
<P>And what is execrable to be &s;aid (as I ob&s;erved in my former Treati&s;e) is, that if Gods promi&s;s of his a&s;&s;i&s;ting infallible &s;pirit, be only <HI>conditional,</HI> wee cannot be &s;ure that the Gho&s;pels are infallible: for if the Evangeli&s;ts when they writ them were not in the &s;tate of Grace, they had not the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods infallible &s;pirit; as the D^r &s;aies; and in the principles of the Church of England nothing a&s;&s;ures vs that they were in the &s;tate of Grace then; for Prote&s;tants will take nothing for &s;ure but what's expre&s;&s;ed in Scripture; and no text of Scripture mentions their being then in the &s;tate of Grace: con|&s;equently nothing a&s;&s;ures vs that the Gho&s;pels are infallible. Our D^r rings a
<PB N="141" REF="83"> greate peale of in&s;olent impietie again&s;t me for this execrable Po&s;ition, <HI>That no|thing a&s;&s;ures vs the Evangeli&s;ts were in the &s;tate of Grace;</HI> the cen&s;ure of in&s;olent impietie is mo&s;t de&s;ervedly pa&s;t; but its not pardonable, that the D^r &s;hould lay it at my doore, the Po&s;ition not being mine, but an vnauoidable &s;e|quele out of his Church's Principles.</P>
<P>As it is an vnauoidable &s;equele out of their Principles, that wee are a&s;&s;u|red the Gho&s;pels are not infallible, be|cau&s;e the Evangeli&s;ts in the principles of the Prote&s;tant Church were not in the &s;tate of Grace; wheras it's the Pro|te&s;tant Doctrin, that it's impo&s;&s;ible to keep Gods Commandments. Heer our D^r will da&s;h out my brains, (if ratling can do it) for &s;o great a Calumnie: <HI>he neuer heard any Prote&s;tant vtter &s;o de&s;pe|rat a Po&s;ition.</HI> Haply he did not; he is but a yong Prote&s;tant. But D^r do not you tell vs in your 12. Chapt. again&s;t N. N. that the Religion of England is the &s;ame with the Religion of your &s;ec|taries in Holland, and France? and do not you know that the <HI>Rigid Calvini&s;t,</HI> and the <HI>Gomari&s;ts</HI> of Holland do believe Gods Commandments to be impo&s;&s;ible?
<PB N="142" REF="84"> in ca&s;e you do not; reade the Acts of the Synod of <HI>Dordrect;</HI> reade Luther to. 1. Edit. Jen. pag 46. Cal. Harm. Evang. in Luc. c. 10. &amp; in Math. c. 22. &amp; lib. 2. In&s;tit. c. 7. reade <HI>W<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lle<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> in Synop. Papi&s;. pag. 564. O! but &s;ay you the Prote&s;|tants of England dete&s;t this Doctrin: I an&s;wer that they do, and they do not: <HI>they do,</HI> becau&s;e in their Catheci&s;ms and in mo&s;t of their Authors they denie it: <HI>They do not;</HI> becau&s;e they and you with them embrace the Calvini&s;ts, Gomari&s;ts and others who belieue this abomina|ble Tenet, to be your Brethren of one and the &s;ame Religion with you; that their faith and belief is a &s;auing faith: and is not this, as much as to approue that Doctrin as Orthodox and tolera|ble?</P>
<P>But D^r did you never reade the 39. Articles of the Church of England? did not you meet in the 6. Art. and in your <HI>Catholic Doctrin of the Church of Eng|land</HI> pag. 103. that the Rule of faith of the Church of England is, <HI>Scripture as each Per&s;on of &s;ound judgment in the Church vnder&s;tands it:</HI> if this be your rule of faith, you'l never giue a more exact definition of your <HI>Prote&s;tant Doctrin</HI> than
<PB N="143" REF="84"> this; <HI>Whatever any of &s;ound judgment in your Church interprets to be contained in Scripture:</HI> Luther, Calvin, Willet, Go|marus and his Di&s;ciples, were men of &s;ound judgment and of your Church, (for you &s;ay all Chri&s;tian &s;ocieties are of one Church;) and they all teach the Impo&s;&s;ibilitie of Gods Commandments to be contained in Scripture; there|fore this is the Doctrine of the Prote&s;|tant Church: I confe&s;s Prote&s;tants in England deny it; but I &s;ay they mu&s;t and ought to believe it, or change their Rule of faith and 39. Articles.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>IX. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>MY SYLLOGISM IN</HI> FERIO, <HI>PROVING the Prote&s;tant Church, not to be the Church nor any part of the Church of Chri&s;t, vindicated and enforced again&s;t Doctor Sall.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IUndertook to prove in the 8. Chap. of my former Treati&s;e that the Pro|te&s;tant Church is not the Church of Chri&s;t nor any part of it, becau&s;e it does
<PB N="144" REF="85"> not teach his Doctrin; and no Church can be called the Church of Chri&s;t fur|ther than it teachs his Doctrin: That Prote&s;tancy or Doctrin of the Prote&s;tant Church, as it is condi&s;tinct from Cathole|ci&s;m, or the Doctrin of the Roma~ Church, is not the Doctrin of Chri&s;t nor any part of it, I proved it with this &s;yllogi&s;m in <HI>Ferio.</HI> No fallible Doctrin is the Doctrin nor any part of the Doctrin of Chri&s;t; but Prote&s;tancy as it is condi&s;tinct from Catholeci&s;m, (that's to &s;ay the Doc|trin wherin they differ from vs, and for which they &s;eparated from vs) is altogither fallible Doctrin; therefore Prote&s;tancy is not the Doctrin nor any part of the Doctrin of Chri&s;t. That Pro|te&s;tancy is altogither fallible Doctrin, I proued it; becau&s;e the Doctrin wher|in Prote&s;tants differ from vs, is alto|gither of <HI>Inferior Verities, of Points not fundamental;</HI> This, no ingenuos Prote&s;|tant will &s;tick to grant; for its the ex|pre&s;s confe&s;&s;ion of Prote&s;tants, that Catholics and Prote&s;tans agree in fun|damental points; and therefore they pretend wee are all of one Religion as to the &s;ub&s;tance, and that wee may be &s;aued in our Religion, becau&s;e our
<PB N="145" REF="85"> <HI>Errors</HI> are only in <HI>Inferior</HI> and <HI>not funda|mental</HI> Doctrin, which &s;hocks not the foundation of Religion; But the Doc|trin of <HI>Inferior Verities,</HI> and Points <HI>not fundamental</HI> is altogither fallible Doc|trin; Nor will any Prote&s;tant deny this Propo&s;ition who vnder&s;tands well the Doctrin of his Church; for its the con&s;tant Doctrin of Prote&s;tants, and D^r Sall him&s;elf &s;aies it pag. 15. again&s;t J. S. that the Church cannot err in fun|damental points of faith, but that it may and has erred in points not fun|damental or Inferior Truths. There|fore Prote&s;tancie or the Doctrin wherin Prote&s;tants differ from vs is but falli|ble Doctrin, and con&s;equently not the Doctrin of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>It's a pittifull thing to &s;ee how my poor D^r is entangled in this argument: his fir&s;t, and be&s;t an&s;wer is to &s;ay my <HI>The&s;is is In&s;olent, and a big promi&s;ing Title;</HI> but if his an&s;wer be not good, it will proue as <HI>performing</HI> as it is <HI>promi&s;ing:</HI> let vs hear his an&s;wer: <HI>He will haue vs pre|mi&s;s</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>that Prote&s;tants alow Papi&s;ts not to err in points fundamental.</HI> What &s;hufling, and ambiguous terms be the&s;e? <HI>He will haue vs premi&s;s;</HI> what? do you
<PB N="146" REF="86"> think I beg that of you as a favor? is it not your own acknowledgement in your Dedicatory Epi&s;tle to the Earl of E&s;&s;ex, that the Church of Rome was once the true Church? is it not al&s;o your ack|nowledgement pag. 15. that the true Church is to have the continual a&s;&s;i&s;|tance of the Holy Gho&s;t for not to err in fundamental points of Religion? do not you acknowledge in the beginning of your book that Roman Catholics may be &s;aved in their Religion? and can any be &s;aved in the profe&s;&s;ion of fundamental errors? I proued in my former treati&s;e that almo&s;t all your &s;ectaries confe&s;s rhis truth, and it is the con&s;tant Doctrin of the Church of England.</P>
<P>He goes on, but quite out of the Road, and tells vs, <HI>that fundamental points are tho&s;e which are contained in the Creed;</HI> and this is nothing to our purpo&s;e; for to an&s;wer my argument, it matters not a pin's head to know where the funda|mental points are contained; or what they are; what avails vs, is to know that the Doctrin wherin you differ from vs, is only the Doctrin of, <HI>not fundamen|tal points:</HI> after his long rambling he
<PB N="147" REF="86"> comes at la&s;t to my &s;yllogi&s;m: He grants the Major propo&s;ition, <HI>that no fallible Doctrin is the Doctrin of Chri&s;t;</HI> he denies the Minor, <HI>that Prote&s;tancy is all fallible Doctrin:</HI> to the &s;econd Syllogi&s;m he, gives me for granted (and no thanks to him for it) <HI>that Prote&s;tancy, or Doctrin wherin they differ from vs is altogither of points not fundamental;</HI> but the Minor &s;tings him, <HI>that the Doctrin of points not funda|mental is fallible Doctrin; &s;top heer,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>and an eternal &s;top &s;hould be put to your tongue:</HI> but what will it availe you to &s;top my tongue, if you do not cut of my fingars? and why mu&s;t my poor tongue be &s;topt? becau&s;e he &s;aies it's a formal bla&s;phemy to &s;ay the Doctrin of points not fundamental, or Inferior Truths is fallible: Indeed? and why is it a bla&s;phemy? becau&s;e quoth he, <HI>it's to &s;ay the Word of God is fallible, for inferior Verities are implicitly contained in God's Written Word and Tradition.</HI> Stop heer D^r and an eternal &s;top &s;hould be put to your Logic: my Argument is this; Infe|rior Verities are fallible Doctrin and therefore not the Word of God, nor to be found in Scripture; and you an&s;wer me, Inferior Verities are infallible Doc|trin
<PB N="148" REF="87"> becau&s;e they are Gods Word co~tain|ed in Scripture: is this your Logic? to give your Conclu&s;ion in debate, for a rea&s;on? you challenge me to acknow|ledge often in my book, that points not fundamental are Inferior Verities con|tained in the Word of God: for &s;hame D^r; you impo&s;e vpon me, and deceive your Reader; you &s;hall not find any &s;uch acknowledgment in all my book; nay pag. 147. of the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church,</HI> I deny any di&s;tinction of fun|damental and not fundamental points in our Catholic Principles'; becau&s;e any Doctrin which is &s;ufficiently propo|&s;ed to vs to be a revealed Truth, is to vs a fundamental point of nece&s;&s;arie belief to &s;aluation; and whatever Doc|trin is not &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to be a revealed Truth, is neither a fundamen|tal, or not fundamental point of faith.</P>
<P>But let vs &s;ee how did I prove the Doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior Truths to be fallible Doctrin; for in this con&s;i&s;ts the force of my argu|ment: I proued it by the Prote&s;tants own Principles, for the Church, &s;ay they, can err, and hath err'd in the Doctrin of points not fundamental; therefore
<PB N="149" REF="87"> the Doctrin of points not fundamental is fallible; con&s;equently not the Doctrin of Chri&s;t: Ob&s;erve Reader, that my Con&s;e|quence is not, as the D^r di&s;ingenuou&s;ly draws it <HI>The Church can err in teaching points not fundamental, therefore points not funda|mental are in them&s;elves fallible.</HI> No, that's not my con&s;equence; but thus: The true Church may err in teaching points not fundamental; therefore the Doctrin or teaching (mark I &s;ay the <HI>Doctrin,</HI> not the points them&s;elues) of tho&s;e points not fundamental, is fallible and con&s;equent|ly not the Doctrin of Chri&s;t: for that a Doctrin may be truly called the Doc|trin of Chri&s;t, its not enough that the points delivered and propo&s;ed be in them&s;elves objectively true, but that the propo&s;al, teaching and deliverance of them by the In&s;tructor or Teacher be infallibly true; becau&s;e our Act of faith or a&s;&s;ent to Chri&s;t's Doctrin is infallibly true, and this infallible a&s;&s;u|rance of it, is not bottom'd only on the objective real truth of the points propo&s;ed, but on the Authority of the Proponent or Teacher; its therefore requi&s;it he be infallible in teaching.</P>
<P>And that you may &s;ee howfar he is
<PB N="150" REF="88"> com &s;hort of an&s;wering my &s;yllogi&s;m, I will &s;hew you how he plainly grants all that I pretended to proue by it: for as well in his 10. Chapt. where he prete~ds to an&s;wer it, as in his 4. Chapt. he di&s;|tingui&s;hes <HI>Subjective</HI> and <HI>Objective</HI> Infal|libilitie; and tho he mumbles like one that's a&s;ham'd or a fraid to &s;peake; yet he gives vs to vnder&s;tand, that the Church is <HI>Objectively</HI> infallible, that's to &s;ay the Verities and Tenets &s;he teachs, whether <HI>fundamental</HI> or <HI>not fundamental,</HI> are certainly and infallibly true; but the Church is <HI>&s;ubjectively</HI> fallible; that's to &s;ay the <HI>Teaching, delivering</HI> and <HI>propo|&s;ing</HI> of tho&s;e Verities by the Church, is fallible: and this is a downright con|ce&s;&s;ion of all I pretend; for I never pretended by my &s;yllogi&s;m to proue that the Tenets, or points delivered are objectively fallible or fals; but that the Teachers in delivering them, their propo&s;ing and Doctrin of them, is fallible; and before wee pa&s;s further, My D^r will not take it ill, tho I be but a Ma&s;ter of Grammer, as he &s;aies, to give him a peece of in&s;truction which he wants: that di&s;tinction he makes of <HI>Objective</HI> and <HI>Subjective</HI> Infallibilitie is
<PB N="151" REF="88"> very improper, and reli&s;hes nothing of a &s;choolma~ for the <HI>Obiects</HI> in them&s;elves are not <HI>fallible</HI> or <HI>infallible, Probable</HI> or <HI>Evident;</HI> wee do not &s;ay <HI>This is a Probable &s;tone,</HI> or <HI>this is a fallible hors:</HI> tho&s;e terms are not appliable to the objects <HI>a parte rei;</HI> but to the Vital intellectual Acts of our mind, which tend to the Objects: only the propo&s;itions or Acts of our vnder&s;tanding which wee elicit on the Objects, are &s;aid to be fallible, infal|lible, probable, or improbable; and &s;o our D^r^s di&s;tinction of <HI>Objective</HI> and <HI>Subjective</HI> infallibilitie, is pure non &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>But &s;ince it has been our D^r^s bad luck to hit on this di&s;tinction, wee will make it &s;erue for to better our cau&s;e; he grants therefore that the Church is <HI>&s;ubiecti|vely fallible:</HI> I'l propo&s;e him an other &s;yllogi&s;m and it &s;hall be in <HI>Ferio,</HI> for I &s;ee he is vnluckie in that figure and Mode: <HI>No Church Subiectively fallible, that's to &s;ay in teaching and delivering her Doctrin, is the Church of Chri&s;t; But the Prote&s;tant Church, as our D^r confe&s;&s;es now, and I hope will remember it next yeare, is &s;ubiectively fallible in teaching her Doctrin; therfore the Prote&s;tant Church is not the</HI>
<PB N="152" REF="89"> <HI>Church of Chri&s;t.</HI> I proue the Major propo&s;ition: <HI>The Church of God is to be believed before an Angel, who would teach vs the contrarie Doctrin to what &s;he delivers,</HI> as S. Paul &s;aies Gal. 1. 8. <HI>But if the Church were fallible in teaching, wee ought to believe an Angel rather than the Church:</HI> therefore the Church is not &s;ubjectively fallible. That an Angel is to be believed before any fallible Church, it's manife&s;t: for that Church <HI>&s;ubiectively</HI> fallible mu&s;t not have the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of Gods infallible &s;pirit in teaching; if it were guided by Gods &s;pirit when it teachs it could not err; it mu&s;t be a congregation of men, left to their own wi&s;dom and prudence for to deliver what they judge to be the be&s;t Doctrin: and who doubts but that an Angels judgment, which is of &s;o &s;ublime and piercing an vnder&s;tanding, in|comparably &s;urpa&s;&s;ing all human intel|lects, is to be preferred before the opinion of all congregations of men?</P>
<P>By the way let me a&s;k my Adver&s;a|rie; Is his Church fallible <HI>&s;ubiectively</HI> in teaching <HI>fundamental</HI> points? probably he will &s;ay, No, for pag. 15. he tells vs, <HI>the Church is to have the a&s;si&s;tance of the Holy Gho&s;t in fundamental points:</HI> It is
<PB N="153" REF="89"> &s;ubjectively fallible therefore only in teaching <HI>Not fundamental</HI> and <HI>Inferior Truths;</HI> which is the Doctrin wherin Pro|te&s;tants differ from vs; therefore the Church of England has not the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Holy Gho&s;t in teaching what Doctrin &s;he differs in from vs (for to be fallible in teaching, and not to have the A&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Holy Gho&s;t in tea|ching, is the &s;ame thing) therefore the Church of England does not teach the Doctrin of Chri&s;t when &s;he teachs <HI>Infe|rior truths;</HI> now it remains, that our D^r tell vs, by what &s;pirit is his Church guided and in&s;pired in teaching Infe|rior Truths wherin they differ, and for which they have &s;eparated from vs; if &s;he be not in&s;pired and guided by the &s;pirit of God?</P>
<P>I prove again that <HI>Major</HI> propo&s;ition, tbat no Church <HI>Subiectiuely</HI> fallible is the Church of Chri&s;t; The Church of Chri&s;t e&s;&s;entially requires not only Divin Ve|rities objectiuely infallible, but Tea|chers infallible in teaching, propo&s;ing, and delivering them to vs; I proue it; for, the <HI>Word of God,</HI> as D^r Sall him|&s;elf &s;aies, is <HI>Written;</HI> (which is Scrip|ture) and Vnwritten (that is <HI>Tradition)</HI>
<PB N="154" REF="90"> both are of equal infallibilitie; God's <HI>Written</HI> Word is not only infallible <HI>ob|iectively</HI> in the Verities it containes; but al&s;o <HI>&s;ubiectively</HI> in the <HI>Recitall, Relation,</HI> and <HI>rehears</HI> of them to vs; otherwi&s;e what re&s;pect would there be due of vs to Scripture, more than to any other profane book, which would contain tho&s;e Verities; or to our Ca|theci&s;ms, and Commentaries vpon Scripture: therefore Gods <HI>Vnwritten</HI> Word, or Tradition is not only <HI>obiective|ly</HI> infallible in the Verities it contains; but al&s;o <HI>&s;ubiectiuely</HI> infallible in the Re|lation, teaching and propo&s;ing of tho&s;e Verities vnto vs; this <HI>Relation, pro|po&s;al</HI> and deliverance of the&s;e Verities is the Doctrin of the Church, which hands them from age to age to Po&s;te|rity; therefore the true Church is not only <HI>Obiectiuely,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Subiectiuely</HI> in|fallible.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="155" REF="90">
<HEAD>X. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>PROTESTANT FAITH, NOT DIVIN: a Suruey of the Reformation's &s;en&s;e and letter of Scripture, not able to convert any to Chri&s;tianity.</HI></HEAD>
<P>ANcient fathers and Divins were &s;o deeply per&s;waded of the ab&s;o|lut and infallible certainty of Divin faith, that it was the common Ma|xim among them, <HI>Scientia plus habet lu|minis, &s;ed fides plus habet firmitatis &amp; adhae|&s;ionis: Science</HI> has more of light and per|&s;picuitie, but faith has more certaintie and a&s;&s;urance; for, all the certaintie that <HI>Science</HI> has, is grounded vpon Prin|ciples of Nature; and that of faith vpon Divin Authority, which &s;urmounts the certainty and a&s;&s;urance that Nature can give: that Prote&s;tants haue not this certaintie in their faith, I proued it in my former Treati&s;e, bccau&s;e they re&s;t their faith vpon Scripture as inter|preted by them, and tho Scripture, rightly vnder&s;tood be infallibly true,
<PB N="156" REF="91"> yet Scripture <HI>as interpreted by them,</HI> can have no more a&s;&s;urance than the falli|ble interpretation of them who inter|pret it: I propo&s;ed my &s;yllogi&s;m thus: He who can err relying vpon a Princi|ple, can neuer be &s;ure he does not err, whyle he relies on that Principle only, and vpon no other: but Prote&s;tants re|lying on Scripture as interpreted by them, comparing one text with an other, may err (for they confe&s;s the Church may err in the interpretation of Scrip|ture) and they will not bottom their faith vpon any other but Scripture, as interpreted by them comparing one text with an other: therefore Prote&s;|tants can never be &s;ure they do not err; their faith therefore has no ab&s;o|lut infallible a&s;&s;urance.</P>
<P>Our D^r an&s;wers in his 4. Chap. and in &s;everal other places of his book; <HI>Wee haue for &s;ecurity of our faith, Gods in|fallible Word, cleerly containing all nece&s;&s;arie points to &s;alvation and a good life; Wee have al&s;o in the general Tradition of the Church, a full and &s;ufficient certainty that God has revealed the&s;e Verities.</HI> But how <HI>full</HI> is that a&s;&s;urance? how great is that cer|tainty you haue, that God reuealed
<PB N="157" REF="91"> (for example) his Son's Incarnation? <HI>Wee haue a moral certainty,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>which ioyned with an ab&s;olut certaintie, that what|ever God revealed, is true; makes vp all the certaintie a pious and prudent Believer ought to de&s;ire:</HI> I am much mi&s;taken if I will not evidence, that our D^r has not a crumm of Divin faith: for heer is his Belief; He has <HI>Ab&s;olut infallible</HI> certainty that Chri&s;t's Incarnation is true, if God revealed it; and this is no faith, but meer <HI>Science:</HI> He has no <HI>Ab&s;olut infallible</HI> certaintie that God revealed the Incar|nation; he has but <HI>Moral certaintie</HI> of it; &s;o that the act of faith wherwith he believes the Incarnation, is but <HI>Morally</HI> certain; but a faith only Morally cer|tain is no Divin faith; for take Moral certainty in it's highe&s;t pitch you can imagin, it implies a po&s;&s;ibilitie of being fals; for example, that there is a king|dom extant called England, from which wee departed but three daies ago; is &s;o morally certain, that it excludes all rea&s;onable doubts of it's being true; yet in effect its po&s;&s;ible there may be no &s;uch kingdom, but drown'd all in water: &s;o that Moral certaintie, tho it excludes all rea&s;onable doubts of its objects
<PB N="158" REF="92"> exi&s;tence; yet it does not a&s;&s;ure vs that the object cannot be otherwi&s;e than as it affirms; but an act of Divin faith is of a heigher certaintie, for it not only a&s;&s;ures vs of its object's being &s;o, but that it cannot be otherwi&s;e; it not only excludes all doubts of its objects not being; but it excludes all thoughts of judging the object can be otherwi&s;e than as it repre&s;ents it to be: what is Morally certain is true, and can in effect be fals; what is of Divin faith is true, and cannot be fals: therefore what is only morally certain is not Divin faith. That an Act of faith is not only true, but that it cannot be fals; it's lamen|table that blind pa&s;&s;ion, and a de&s;pe|rat engagement in an error has hur|ried men &s;o far as to doubt of it: what mans heart will not tremble to think it may be fals, that the &s;on of God be|came man, that he dyed for vs, final|lie that all the mi&s;teries of our Religion may be fables? yet all is &s;o, if faith be but Morally certain; for what is only Morally certain may be fals.</P>
<P>And to what purpo&s;e do you and your Church &s;o earne&s;tly pretend God's infallible Word for to warrant your
<PB N="159" REF="92"> faith? your Reformation has from the beginning rejected Traditions as being human inventions, Fathers, Councils, con&s;ent of ages, nothing will &s;erve you for a te&s;t of faith, but Scripture, Gods Infallible Word; and what to do? if your faith be only Morally certain; would not a ground only Morally cer|tain &s;uffice for to re&s;t it on? what needs an infallible ground for a fallible Act, if that infallible ground does not com|municat its Infallibilitie to the Act? either it gives to the Act all the a&s;&s;urance it can give it, or not? if not; what is it good for, more than a fallible ground? if it does, therefore it makes the Act ab&s;olutly infallible.</P>
<P>And if your faith be only morally certain, and your Church and Religion fallible; I commend the prudence of your Church in never hauing attempted the conver&s;ion of Pagans and Hea|thens: for its impo&s;&s;ible any wi&s;e man &s;hould embrace your Religion, if it were propo&s;ed vnto him in the colours wee have &s;een you &s;et it out, in the&s;e precedent Chapters: Imagin two Re|formed Preachers did go from England with their Bible to convert the king of
<PB N="160" REF="93"> China, and let them preach to him, what wee have heard our D^r &s;ay hitherto: S^r Wee are ab&s;olutly &s;ure that whateuer God has revealed is true; Our faith and Religio~ is ground vpon this book, which wee belieue to be the pure Word of God, and all the contents of it are infalliblie and ab&s;olutly true; becau&s;e they were revealed by him; yet it's not ab&s;olutly certain, they were reuealed by him; but we are Morally certain of it, and therefore wee belieue them; this book &s;aies, our God is one in Na|ture and three in Per&s;ons; and the &s;e|cond Per&s;on of the Trinitie became Man, dyed for vs vpon a cro&s;s, and aro&s;e again from death; of all this we are only Morally certain, and wee firmly belieue it. This &s;econd Per&s;on God and Man, e&s;tabli&s;ht a Church on earth wherin his Doctrin and faith &s;hould be taught, wherof his Apo&s;tles were the chief Ma&s;ters; he gave to this Church in his Apo&s;tles time; his infal|lible Spirit for to lead and conduct her into all truth; but &s;oon after the Apo&s;|tles time, he withdrew from the Church his Infallible Spirit, and &s;he fell into many erroneous Doctrins; and now wee
<PB N="161" REF="93"> haue no other guide to direct vs, but this Bible; the &s;en&s;e of it is very doubt|full, but wee are certain, that &s;en&s;e of it which wee hold is the true &s;en&s;e; and of this wee have only Moral cer|taintie: and tho it be ob&s;cure and the &s;en&s;e of it &s;o doubtfull, that many &s;ects of Chri&s;tians differ from vs, and vn|der&s;tand it in a quite contrary &s;en&s;e to that which wee hold; wee will admit no judge for to allay the&s;e doubts and decide the&s;e Controver&s;ies but the Bi|ble it &s;elf: There is a kind of people among vs, which they call the Popi&s;h Church; which was the Church e&s;tabli&s;ht by the &s;on of God, and was once a pure and Orthodox Church; But Martin Luther a learned man, arro&s;e and found that the Doctrin profe&s;&s;ed by this Church for many hundred years before, was erroneous; our kingdom of England followed his example, and wee do not approve either the Doctrin of that Church; nor that of Luther; wee have made a new Reformation of both; there are many other &s;ects in England who have &s;prung from vs, and are, as &s;o many Reformations of our Church; but our Doctrin is the be&s;t of
<PB N="162" REF="94"> all, and of this wee are Morally cer|tain, In the Popi&s;h Church there haue been in all ages many men e&s;teemed by the world of eminent &s;anctitie, and holy life and conver&s;ation, which has gained the~ the name of Saints through|out the world; wee &s;ay they were all hypocrits and no true Saints; and wee do confe&s;s our&s;elves never had any man of publikly knowen Sanctitie, e&s;teemed &s;o by the common vogue of Chri&s;tians; in that Church there has been in pa&s;t ages, and in the&s;e la&s;t ages &s;ince wee are in the world many Mira|cles, and &s;upernatural &s;igns wrought by the Profe&s;&s;ors of her Doctrin, in confirmation of her Tenets; and the wy&s;e&s;t men and greate&s;t of the world, have been eyewitne&s;&s;es of many of them, and judged them to be true Mi|racles, and recorded them in their books for &s;uch; but wee &s;ay they were no true Miracles, and that &s;ince the Apo&s;tles time there has been none; it's certaine no Miracle was ever wrought in our Church: there have been very many in that Church in all precedent ages, who were e&s;teemed the Oracles of their times in learning, and who&s;e
<PB N="163" REF="94"> Books are highly e&s;teemed by vs; and wee &s;ay they were Ignorant Soules, becau&s;e they taught the Popi&s;h Tenets contrary to ours. This is our faith and Religion which wee are com to preach vnto you, and of all this faith, and all that wee belieue, wee have only Moral certainty: if you belieue our faith and Tenets God has promi&s;ed, you &s;hall be &s;aued; and perhaps you may not be &s;aved, for its but <HI>Morally</HI> certain that God has made any &s;uch promi&s;s; and what is only <HI>Morally</HI> cer|tain may be fals: if you do not believe our Doctrin, but the quite contrarie you may al&s;o be &s;aved, for wee are &s;o charitable as to belieue that all the other Chri&s;tian Sects who hold quite contrary Tenets to ours, may be fa|ued; all is but Morally certain; all may be fals.</P>
<P>Now let my Reader con&s;ider if all this be not pure Prote&s;tant Doctrin, and what wee haue heard D^r Sall &s;ay in the precedent Chapters; and let him judge if the king would not be &s;urpri&s;ed at the boldne&s;s of the&s;e men in obtruding &s;uch a faith vpon him, and would an|&s;wer them; my friends, you confe&s;s
<PB N="164" REF="95"> you haue but <HI>Morall</HI> certainty of the truth of what Doctrin you deliver; and what is but only morally certain, im|plies a po&s;&s;ibilitie of being fals; there|fore po&s;&s;ibly all you have &s;aid, may be fals Doctrin, and why would you have me change my Religion for yours, which for ought you and I know, may be wors than my own: you &s;ay that whatever God has revealed is ab&s;olutly and infallibly true; I do, and did ever believe the &s;ame; you &s;ay it's morally certain he revealed all the contents of your booke, I &s;ay al&s;o its morally certain he revealed all the Tenets of my Religion; If God has withdrawen the conduct of his infallible Spirit from the Church, and that the Popi&s;h Church has fallen into &s;o many Errors, you may al&s;o fall into as many; and I would com to be in as bad a condition in your Church, as I am in, in my own Religion: I &s;ee no proof you have of the truth of your Doctrin; nor any encouragement for to embrace it, not any proof, for the Bible which you &s;o much e&s;teem, is challenged by your fellow &s;ectaries and by your Popi&s;h Church as well as by you, and what
<PB N="165" REF="95"> have you, befides your bare word for to prove your &s;en&s;e of it, is better than that of your fellows? particularly that you confe&s;s I may be &s;aved by believing their &s;en&s;e of it, as well as by believing yours: and if your God has left no Judge to decide your Con|trover&s;ies, and who by a definitive Sentence &s;hould declare, which is the true &s;en&s;e of it; it's a mark that he is equally plea&s;ed with any &s;en&s;e that is given and believed of it; or if; he in|tended to oblige all to be of one &s;en&s;e and meaning of that Bible, he mu&s;t haue apointed &s;om judge for to declare what &s;en&s;e is that: neither do I &s;ee any encouragement you give me to embrace your Religion; for its no com|mendation of it beyond the Popi&s;h Church, which you haue for&s;aken, to tell me that you never had any Mira|cles, and that the Popi&s;h had; which tho you &s;ay, they were no true Mira|cles; yet you confe&s;s many e&s;teemed by your&s;elves to have been eminent men in learning, and e&s;teemed by your forefathers to have been no le&s;s emi|nent in &s;anctitie; that the&s;e men I &s;ay have judged them to be true Miracles;
<PB N="166" REF="96"> and why &s;hould not I believe their opi|nion before yours: finally &s;ince you acknowledge there is but Moral cer|taintie, both of the truth of your Reli|gion, and of &s;aluation in the belief of tho&s;e Truths; what is only Morally certain, may be fals, and &s;o all your Doctrin and Religion may be a meer cheat.</P>
<P>Now you &s;hall &s;ee Reader how im|po&s;&s;ible it is to per&s;wade any Pagan to Chri&s;tianity, or any Chri&s;tian to piety by the Letter of Scripture which the Reformation v&s;es: you mu&s;t know, that the Reformation thought it needfull to reform the <HI>Letter</HI> of Scripture, as well as the &s;en&s;e of it; and purge the Bible of &s;om words &punc; which &s;melt as they judged, of Popery; and &s;ub&s;titute in their place new terms; for examble in&s;teed of <HI>Prie&s;ts,</HI> they put <HI>Elders;</HI> for <HI>Church</HI> they put <HI>Synagogue;</HI> for <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> put <HI>Holy Wind;</HI> for <HI>Chri&s;t, Anoynted;</HI> for <HI>Our Lord and Ma&s;|&s;ter, Baal and rayn;</HI> for <HI>Bapti&s;m, Wa&s;hing;</HI> for <HI>Soul Carcas;</HI> for <HI>Grave, Hell;</HI> for <HI>Sa|crament Secret;</HI> for <HI>Altar, Table;</HI> for <HI>Beelzebub, Lord of a fly;</HI> for <HI>Angels, Me&s;&s;engers:</HI> this famous exchange of
<PB N="167" REF="96"> terms, you &s;hall find in their Ancient Bibles, particularly of Queen Eliza|beth and before her time; now they are a&s;hamed of them, as Doctor <HI>Harding</HI> ob&s;erves, who di&s;cour&s;es wittily vpon this &s;ubject thus.</P>
<P>Let a Preacher &s;peake to his con|gregation in the old Catholic terms of the Bible thus; <HI>I that am a Prie&s;t, placed in the Church by the Holy Gho&s;t, for the feeding of your &s;ouls, do denounce vnto you in the name of Chri&s;t our Lord and Ma&s;ter, that if you be not regenerated by Bapti&s;m; and prepared for the Sacrament of the Altar, you &s;hall be condemned body and &s;oul into hell, and your portion &s;hall be with the Deuil, I &s;ay with Beelzebub and his Angels.</HI> This &s;peech indeed has good &s;en&s;e and might make &s;om im|pre&s;&s;ion in the Auditory. But if our Dr. &s;teps into a Pulpit, and &s;peakes in the new coyn'd terms of the Reformation; <HI>I who am your Elder placed in the Synagogue by the Holy Wind, for the feeding of your Carca&s;&s;es, do denounce vnto you in the name of our Anoynted, Baal and rayn; that if you be not regenerated by Wa&s;hing. and prepared for the &s;ecret of the Table, you Shall be con|demned body and Carca&s;s to the Graue, and</HI>
<PB N="168" REF="97"> <HI>your portion &s;hall be with the Lord of a fly, and his Me&s;&s;engers.</HI> Would not the Auditory think, our D^r raved; and in lieu of compunction, bur&s;t out into laughter? by this you may &s;ee how impo&s;&s;ible it is for the Reformation to convert any Pagan to Chri&s;tianity, or Chri&s;tan to piety, if they v&s;e their own &s;en&s;e and language of Scripture.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>XI. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>OVR DOCTORS REFLEXIONS AGAINST my Re&s;olution of faith, a Check of his impiety again&s;t the Miracles of our Church.</HI></HEAD>
<P>FRom pag. 177. to pag. 184. I re&s;ol|ued my faith thus: I belieue the mi&s;terie of the Trinitie, becau&s;e God revealed it; I belieue God revealed it, becau&s;e the Church by which God &s;peakes, tells vs he revealed it; If you a&s;k why I believe God &s;peakes by the Church; I an&s;wer, becau&s;e the Church it &s;elf, by which God &s;peaks, &s;aies he &s;peaks by her; and I am bound
<PB N="169" REF="97"> to belieue he &s;peaks hy her, as &s;hee &s;aies, becau&s;e he credits her with &s;o many Miracles, which make it evi|dently credible he &s;peakes by her; &s;ee if you plea&s;e this Re&s;olution proved at large in the place quoted: My An|tagoni&s;t &s;aies it has as many Circles, as it has words; but not one Circle does he as much as attempt to &s;hew, like a Phy&s;itian who would tell you are dangerou&s;ly &s;ick, but not mention any di&s;ea&s;e you have, nor pre&s;cribe you any remedie: He fancies I contradict my &s;elf, making Miracles &s;om time the vltimat rea&s;on of believing the Church: and &s;omtime &s;aying they are not a &s;ufficient motive of the credibi|litie of her Doctrin. But I need no more proof to convince him of a mi&s;take, but my Readers labour in reading the place I cited aboue, of my former Treati&s;e; there I expre&s;ly &s;ay, (and in nowhere any thing to the contrary) that Mira|cles cannot be the Motive of our faith; becau&s;e if they be ab&s;olutly evident, they cannot be the Motive of our faith; which of its own nature is ob&s;cure; if they be <HI>Morally</HI> evident Miracles, they cannot be a Motive of faith, becau&s;e
<PB N="170" REF="98"> its Motive mu&s;t be infalliblie true.</P>
<P>My D^r read in the la&s;t line of my <HI>Re|&s;olution,</HI> the word <HI>Miracle;</HI> and without any more reflexion, believed I gave Miracles for a motive of our faith: but there I di&s;tingui&s;h two Motives, as my Reader may &s;ee; the fir&s;t is, of my Act of faith, why I believe God &s;peakes by the Church; and this I &s;ay is nothing els, but becau&s;e the Church it&s;elf, by which God &s;peakes, tells vs that he &s;peakes by her: the &s;econd Motive is of my obligation of belie|ving this truth, and my judgment of its <HI>Credibility;</HI> and this I &s;ay, are the Miracles wrought by the Church; for the&s;e make it evidently credible to vs, that God &s;peakes by her, as &s;he &s;aies, and when &s;uch Miracles intervene, wee are obliged to belieue God &s;peakes by her: Our Adver&s;arie &s;aies this di&s;tinction of Motives, the one for <HI>our Act of faith;</HI> and the other for <HI>our Iudgment of Credi|bility and obligation of believing, is but a patch to couer the incoherencie of my Doctrin, and needle&s;s for any thing els; for the &s;ame rea&s;on which makes me believe, makes the faith credible, and &s;hews me my obligation of believing.</HI> This is prettie good Engli&s;h,
<PB N="171" REF="98"> but very bad Divinity; for before wee elicit the <HI>Act</HI> of faith, the judgment of its credibility mu&s;t precede, and our obligation of believing mu&s;t be made knowen to vs; the Motive therefore of this Credibilitie and obligation, is diffe|rent from the Motive of the Act it&s;elf; for after that this Motive of Credibi|litie is a&s;&s;ented vnto, and our Obliga|tion acknowledg'd, the Act of faith may be denied, through willfullne&s;s and Ob&s;tinacy; and thus men becom Heretics: but our D^r does not loue to diue into the&s;e &s;ubtilities; its to <HI>flay a flea,</HI> he &s;aies.</P>
<P>Now you &s;hall &s;ee a new di&s;covery of the Church of Romes impietie made by my Antagoni&s;t in my <HI>Re&s;olution</HI> of faith: pag. 184. I &s;aid, the chief and la&s;t motive, wheron our faith doth re&s;t is the Word of God &s;peaking to vs by the Church; the Church I &s;ay, by which God actually &s;peakes vnto vs in this pre&s;ent age; for wee do not be|lieue becau&s;e God did &s;peake by the Church in the 1. 2. and 3. age, but be|cau&s;e he &s;peakes now vnto vs by her, as he did to the primitive Chri&s;tians in tho&s;e ages. <HI>A plain confe&s;sion,</HI> quoth
<PB N="172" REF="99"> the D^r <HI>of the guilt of the Church of Rome: they exclude the primitive Church of the three fir&s;t ages, from being the Mi&s;tre&s;s of our faith, and &s;ub&s;titute the corrupt Church of this age;</HI> and heer he rattles at the Pope and Rome. For my part, I &s;ee no di&s;couerie heer, but of his di&s;ingenui|tie, &s;hutting his eyes that he might not &s;ee; for I &s;ay, that God &s;peakes to vs by the Church of this pre&s;ent age, as he did &s;peake to the primitive Chri&s;|tians by the Church of the fir&s;t ages; where then do I exclude the Primitive Church from being the Mi&s;tre&s;s of our faith; the Church in the primitive ages was the Mi&s;tre&s;s and Oracle, by which God &s;poke in tho&s;e ages; the Church in this pre&s;ent age is the Oracle by which he &s;peakes to vs, the Church in all ages is the &s;ame, and &s;peakes but the &s;ame; but it's not enough for vs in this age that the Church &s;poke this Doctrin, but wee mu&s;t have the te&s;timonie of the Church of this age, that this is the Doctrin that was taught by the Church in tho&s;e former ages, for to confound Heretics and Nouel|lers, who deny our Doctrin was taught in the primitive ages; and this is the rea|&s;on,
<PB N="173" REF="99"> why I have &s;aid, that the motive of our faith is the Word of God &s;pea|king by the Church, not in the 1. 2. and 3. age, but in this age; for it would little auaile vs for our faith, that God &s;poke by his Church in tho&s;e ages, if the Church of this age did not a&s;cer|tain vs that the Church then did &s;peake, as now&s;he does</P>
<P>An othet &s;cruple troubles our D^r that I &s;hould &s;ay wee are bound to belieue God &s;peakes by the Church, becau&s;e he credits her with Miracles; <HI>and vhere be tho&s;e Miracles,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>wrought by the Council of Trent, which make it credible to me that God &s;peakes by it?</HI> if a Council <HI>were conven'd now, to condemn Ian&s;eni&s;m, I mu&s;t believe God &s;peakes by the Church in that Council; and are you &s;ure to find Miracles at hand, as &s;oon as the Council is joyned?</HI> Our D^r rallies merrily; let vs follow his mode and help him to &s;port; Do not you pretend, that your Prote&s;tant Doctrin delivered in this age is evidently cre|dible by the Miracles of the Apo&s;tles, and the old Te&s;tament? &s;o you would per&s;wade vs pag. 56. have you any Mi|racles of this age to credit it? had the Parliament Miracles at hand, cut and
<PB N="174" REF="100"> dry, when it framed the 39. Articles? No; you &s;ay your Doctrin of this age is the &s;ame which was taught by the Apo&s;tles; and its &s;ufficiently credited by the Miracles, you &s;ay, which the Apo&s;tles and Moy&s;es wrought, when they preacht it: pray D^r take the like an&s;wer from vs: our Doctrin delivered by the Council of Trent, of Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation, Purgatorie &amp;c. is the &s;ame which S. Bernard, Bonaventure, Gre|gorie, S. Au&s;tin, preached and Con|firmed with Miracles; what obligation then has Gods Providence; or what Title has our curio&s;itie for to expect new Miracles for the confirmation of the &s;ame Doctrin? be&s;ides D^r rhat the Doc|trin of the Council of Trent was prea|ched in this our age, by that great Apo&s;tle of the Indies S. Francis Xave|rius; and confirmed by him with innu|merable Miracles; pray &s;hew vs but one Miracle wrought in this, or any of the precedent ages in confirmation of yours. Three things I proued in my former Treati&s;e; fir&s;t that Miracles are vncontrolled proofs of the Infallibi|litie of the Church's Doctrin; it being impo&s;&s;ible rath God &s;hould confirm the
<PB N="175" REF="100"> lea&s;t vntruth by a Miracle: &s;econdly I related &s;om Miracles related by S. Au|gu&s;tin, S. Bernard, Godfredus, John Hiero&s;olimitanus; and believed by them to be true Miracles: thirdly I proved our obligation of believing them to have been true Miracles. Our D^r^'^s fir&s;t an&s;wer is; <HI>Let not I. S. expect from me to be&s;tow my time in examining the truth of his Miracles:</HI> and ought not any man to expect it? you confe&s;s pag. 56. Mi|racles are a mo&s;t congruous way and a &s;trong proof of the true Church; when I alleadge therefore this congruous way and &s;trong proof for my Tenets; ought not you to be&s;tow your time in weakenning them, rather than in &s;col|ding and railing?</P>
<P>His &s;econd an&s;wer is that all our Miracles are but a &s;tock of <HI>Romances;</HI> I gue&s;t wee &s;hould have this &s;hort an|&s;wer; and therefore I did not only re|late &s;om Miracles, but proved convin|cingly they were true Miracles, and that no man in his &s;en&s;es could deny them to be &s;uch; if my Antagoni&s;t had remem|bred the duty of a Di&s;putant, he &s;hould have endeauored to invalid my proofs, and not be contented to tell vs they
<PB N="176" REF="101"> are but <HI>Romances;</HI> Can any man in his wits deny, but that S. Augu&s;tin, S. Ber|nard, S. Gregorie and many Ancient fathers of the Church had as good Wits as D^r Sall? they could therefore di&s;|cern betwixt a Miracle and a <HI>Romance as</HI> well as he; they relate the Miracles produced by me in the <HI>Vnerring Vnerra|ble Church;</HI> they were eye witne&s;&s;es of &s;om of them; they judged them to be true Miracles and recorded them in their books for &s;uch: which will you be|lieve Reader, D^r Sall who &s;aies they were Romances: or tho&s;e Saints, who &s;ay they were Miracles? I de&s;ired our D^r that he &s;hould tell vs, by what art did he and his Church come to know, tho&s;e Miracles were not true ones; for its &s;trange that S. Augu&s;tin and other Saints and learned men who lived when they were wrought, did not di&s;cern it; and our D^r after &s;o many years has found out they were but fourberies? &s;ure he mu&s;t be a conjurer; but not a &s;yllable does our D^r an&s;wer; <HI>ip&s;e dixit,</HI> they are <HI>Romances,</HI> and ther's all: I a&s;ked would not he be e&s;teemed a mad man, who would &s;ay there was no &s;uch man in the word as Julius Cae&s;ar, of
<PB N="177" REF="101"> which truth wee have no other a&s;&s;urance, but the te&s;timonie of Heathen Wri|ters; S. Augu&s;tin and our other Saints, are as credible witne&s;&s;es, I hope, as they; if therefore they tell vs they have &s;een Miracles wrought, is it not great ob&s;tinacy in our D^r to deny them, and &s;ay they are all <HI>Romances.</HI></P>
<P>Is this the man who profe&s;&s;es &s;o much Veneration to the fathers of the Church, to make them <HI>Romance</HI> Writers? fourbs, who recorded &s;trange pa&s;&s;ages which never happen'd; or fools who knew not to di&s;tingui&s;h them from a Leger|demain? when wee hear &s;uch an irreve|rence again&s;t the Pillars of Chri&s;tianitie, and the workes judged by them to be Miracles, irreligiou&s;ly parallell'd with the wonders related by <HI>Valerius Maximus</HI> and <HI>Titus Livius</HI> in confirmation of their Heatheni&s;h &s;uper&s;tition, what can wee &s;ay but with S. Augu&s;tin l. de Vtil. cre|dendi c. 18 <HI>Ni&s;i pietas &amp; pax mentis acce|dat, de fide nihil pro<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;us intelligi pote&s;t:</HI> where the Will is not piou&s;ly inclined, and the heart free from prejudice, nothing can be vnder&s;tood of faith: <HI>Excaecavit eos malitia eorum,</HI> (&s;aies God Sap 2. <HI>&amp; ne&s;cierunt Sacramenta Dei,</HI> their
<PB N="178" REF="102"> pa&s;&s;ion pinfolds their rea&s;on, and they cannot &s;ee the &s;acred mi&s;teries of our Religion; Our Devotion to them is Hipocri&s;ie; our Au&s;terity of life, is Heatheni&s;h exce&s;s of rigor; our Images are Idols; our Sacraments are human inventions; our Miracles are Roman|ces; our Indulgences, Proce&s;&s;ions, and Lyturgie are but &s;uper&s;titions: this is the humor of our age to &s;coff and ieer; to turn into ridicule, and again&s;t rea&s;on, what their rea&s;on cannot grapple. Since our D^r is becom of this humor let him, with his merry companions &s;coffers of Miracles, prepare &s;port for this, which he will call a <HI>Romance,</HI> and S. Aug. reckons as a Miracle l. 22. de Civit. Dei cap. 4. Apoore Man, &s;aies S. Aug. named Florentius, having lo&s;t his cloake and having no monies to buy one, betooke him&s;elf to the 20. Martirs who&s;e Memorie (&s;aies he) was with vs very famous, and praied to them with a loud voice, a&s;king a Cloake of them; &s;om yongmen, who were pre&s;ent, ieered the godly man's &s;implicitie, as if he did expect monies from the Saints; probably our D^r will keep them company in their merriment: the poore man departed,
<PB N="179" REF="102"> betook him&s;elf to the &s;ea &s;ide to walk, and found agreat fi&s;h on the &s;hore; he took it and &s;old it; the Per&s;on who bought it opening its belly found in it a gold ring, and hearing what had happend to the good man, gave him the ring, &s;aying, behold how the 20. Martirs do cloath thee; If our D^r will read more <HI>Romances</HI> of this kind, let him read Nazian. l. 11. de obitu Gorgo|niae; S. Nilus Epi&s;t. ad Athan. S. Cy|prian in Serm. de Lap&s;is; Chry&s;o&s;t. de Sacerd. l. 6. and Theodoret c. 8. de Graecis Affect.</P>
<P>Our Doctor's la&s;t an&s;wer to my proof of Miracles for the truth of our Tenets, is that he accepts willingly a trial of our Religion by Miracles: Very good; couragiou&s;ly D^r; let's &s;ee, produce your Miracles, <HI>Wee have,</HI> &s;aies he pag. 56. <HI>in favor of our belief all the Miracles recor|ded in the Old and new Te&s;tament.</HI> But to whom do you &s;peake D^r? if you &s;peak to a Pagan, he will replie, as you do to vs again&s;t our Miracles; that the Miracles of the Old, and new te&s;ta|ment, prove no more the truth of your Religion than the Wonders related by Valerius Maximus prove the truth of
<PB N="180" REF="103"> Pagani&s;m; if you &s;peake to vs Catho|lics, wee a&s;k you; what right have you to tho&s;e Miracles more than Arians, Ne&s;torians or Pelagians? and who will not laugh to heare the Miracles of the Old te&s;tament, or tho&s;e of the new, alleadged to prove Prote&s;tancy: yes indeed; Moy&s;es his miraculous fa&s;ting for 40. daies, and the great Bapti&s;ts miraculous au&s;teritie of life and fa&s;ting from wine and &s;trong liquor; was to prove the Prote&s;tant Tenet of not fa&s;|ting; Eli&s;aeus his rai&s;ing the dead, by the touch of his bones, was to prove the Prote&s;tant Doctrin again&s;t the Venera|tion of Saints Relicks; the Miracles of the Ark of the te&s;tament (God's Image as Calvin him&s;elf calls it) were directly to credit the Prote&s;tants contempt of Images; Chri&s;t turned the Water into Wine for to prove he could not turn the bread in the &s;upper into his body; and that miraculous puni&s;hment of Ana|nias and Zaphira &s;truck dead at S. Pe|ters feet, for retaining a part of their goods, which by vow they had con&s;e|crated to God's &s;ervice; was to prove the Prote&s;tant Tenet and practice, that fryars, who have made a &s;olemn vow
<PB N="181" REF="103"> of Povertie, may breake that vow, and look for Rents and Benefices in the Prote&s;tant Church. Can any thing ap|peare more ridiculous, than to pretend the&s;e Miracles were wrought to prove Prote&s;tant Doctrin?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>XII. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>IF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN Catholic Religion, be incon&s;i&s;tent with Subject's Loyaltie to their Prince?</HI></HEAD>
<P>THe Pulpits in England did ring for a long time with bitter invectives again&s;t Popi&s;h Idolatry; again&s;t the Pope as an Antichri&s;t; again&s;t Rome as the whore of Babylon: the&s;e were for a time our Adver&s;ari's grand charge<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;care-crows for to &s;tricke popular &s;oules into a feare and hatred of our Reli|gion; the wy&s;er &s;ort perceiuing the weakne&s;s of it, and that Roman Catho|lics are not &s;o deuoid of common &s;en&s;e, as to adore Images, and Saints as God; nor the Pope &s;o mon&s;truou&s;ly wicked, as to be an Antichri&s;t; they relent in this attack, and &s;peak but lowly of it in
<PB N="182" REF="104"> corners, and vulgar ears in &s;o much that D^r <HI>Stillingfleet</HI> is blamed by his greate&s;t friends for engaging his pen in that ca|lumny, now hi&s;s'd at by all &s;ober Prote&s;|tants. Now the calumny in Vogue is that our Catholic Religion is not con&s;i&s;tent with the &s;afetie of Soveraigns; that our Obedience to a forreign &s;piritual father, cannot be matcht with that which wee ow to our Prince; that if the Pope be our &s;upream head in Spiritual affairs, wee mu&s;t have two Soveraigns in one kingdom; that wee allow Popes may vn|throne kings, and con&s;equently kings are but Tenants at Will to him. This is the firebrand which has kindled the combu&s;tions of our kingdoms; this pre|text of &s;ecuring our Loyaltie by an oath of Supremacie, made our Princes, again&s;t their innate benignitie, &s;evere to their be&s;t de&s;erving Subjects; drowned our land in &s;ubjects blood, and render'd our kingdoms and government odious to neighbouring Princes, who &s;ecure their peace and &s;afetie in the due obedience of their Subjects without oaths or other oppre&s;&s;ions of their con&s;ciences.</P>
<P>Wee mu&s;t then di&s;abu&s;e the World by examining, how far are the Princi|ples
<PB N="183" REF="104"> of Prote&s;tancie con&s;i&s;tent with the &s;afetie of Princes, and Loyaltie of Subjects; and demon&s;trat that tho&s;e of our Catholic Religion are incompara|blie more; that tho Prote&s;tants be in effect as Loyal Subjects as any others; its that aw which Nature has printed in the hearts of Subjects to be &s;o; Its com|mon hone&s;tie and rea&s;on leads them to be &s;o. The Tenets of their Religion leade them to the contrary. For to know what is the Doctrin of the Church of England, wee are not to be &s;aid by D^r Sall, D^r Stil|lingfleet, or other particular Dr^s who contradict one an other, and them&s;elves at every turning of a leaf; Wee are to &s;ee the Rule of faith Vnanimou&s;ly re|ceived by the whole Reformation; and by it to judge what Doctrin they pro|fe&s;s: the Rule of faith and fundamen|tal Principle wheron the whole Refor|mation re&s;ts, is expre&s;&s;ed in the 6. Art. of the 39, of England; <HI>Our Rule of faith is nothing els but Scripture as each per&s;on of &s;ound judgment in the Church vnder&s;tands it.</HI> Luther looked vpon this Rule, (and he was a Per&s;on of &s;ound judgment, you will &s;ay) and delivered his Doctrin vpon it thus, Tom. 2. Germ. de &s;aecul.
<PB N="184" REF="105"> Pote&s;t. &amp; tom. 7. Wittemb. fol. 327. <HI>Among Chri&s;tians none ought to be a Magi&s;|trat, all are equal, none &s;uperior but Ie&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> Zuinglius read this Rule, and delivered his Doctrin to. 6. in Expl. Art. fol. 82. <HI>Kings ought to be depo&s;ed by their Subjects, if they do not govern well:</HI> Calvin read this Rule, and delivered his judgment in Dan. c. 6. ver. 22. <HI>Kings if they be &s;inners forfeit their power; ought to he &s;corn'd rather than obeyed:</HI> Beza, Fox, Knox, Bucanan, and others of the fir&s;t Reformers, defended by Scripture, as they interpreted it, that it is lawfull for Subjects to rai&s;e arms again&s;t, and depriue their Prince of his kingdom and life, if he does not e&s;tabli&s;h the Refor|mation; reade Bryerly's Apologie trac. 3. &s;ect. 2. and that you may not want Dome&s;tic Abbettors of this execrable Doctrin reade the <HI>Trial of the Regicides</HI> wher you will find in the Trial of <HI>Par&s;on Peters</HI> innumerable texts of Scripture, which in &s;everal Sermons he preached, for to exa&s;perat the people again&s;t the authority and life of their king; reade <HI>th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Hue and Cry of Iudge Cook</HI> proving by Scripture and rea&s;on the ju&s;tice of that vnparallell'd Murther of our gratious
<PB N="185" REF="105"> king: was not this the general Doctrin of all England in tho&s;e daies; and I appeale to the con&s;ciences of your Bre|thren of the Scotch <HI>Kirk,</HI> if there be any pure Brother among them, that is not per&s;waded, (tho he may be &s;o wi&s;e as not to &s;ay it) that the <HI>Scotch</HI> did very well and like good Chri&s;tians, when they entred into England with the Bible in one hand, and the &s;word in the other, for to a&s;&s;ert Presbitery, again&s;t the kings de&s;ign of e&s;tabli&s;hing Prote&s;tancy.</P>
<P>And, do not tell vs that the&s;e Doc|tors and Incendiaries were not Prote&s;|tants, but Lutherans, Presbiterians and Calvini&s;ts; for, fir&s;t you have been &s;o kind to them, and to all other Sec|taries, as to &s;ay they all have one and the &s;ame faith profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of England; this is their faith and Doctrin; you mu&s;t not then de&s;own it; &s;econdly, call them by what name you will; you haue one, and the &s;elf &s;ame Rule of faith with them, <HI>Scripture as each Per&s;on of &s;ound judgment in the Church in|terprets it:</HI> this is the Rule of Prote&s;|tancy as well as of Pre&s;bitery and Lu|therani&s;m; put the ca&s;e (and this is not any thing impo&s;&s;ible) that a zealous
<PB N="186" REF="106"> Prote&s;tant of &s;ound judgement, did in|terpret Scripture as Par&s;on <HI>Peeters</HI> and <HI>Iudge Cook</HI> did; he will teach and act as they did; and remain &s;till a true Pro|te&s;tant, and act nothing again&s;t the principles of Prote&s;tancy for he acts acording Scripture as he interprets it, and this is his Rule of faith.</P>
<P>Is it not confe&s;&s;edly your Prote&s;tant Doctrin, that Scripture alone as each Per&s;on of &s;ound judgment interprets it, is your Rule of faith; that each Per&s;on is lycenc't by Scripture it &s;elf to reade Scripture, to judge of the &s;en&s;e of it, to hold and follow that &s;en&s;e of it, which in his con&s;cience he thinks to be true; that none is obliged to belieue any &s;en&s;e of Scripture again&s;t his own judg|ment; there is not a word in all this but the cream of Prote&s;tancie: take away the arbitrary interpretation of Scrip|ture, and oblige men to follow and be|lieve what &s;en&s;e of it is propo&s;ed to them by the Councils, King, &s;tate Bi&s;hops or Pa&s;tors and down falls Pro|te&s;tancy, and the whole Reformation; it's the &s;piritual birthright of any Pro|te&s;tant to believe and act as he vnder|&s;tands Scripture; which being true, as
<PB N="187" REF="106"> Ptote&s;tants mu&s;t confe&s;s, its apparent, no Prince can have &s;ecurity of his kingdom or life in the Principles of Prote&s;tancy; for what hinders but that wee may have again in England, (as wee had Cromwell' in the year 40.) a bold ambitious Subject with a Par&s;on <HI>Peeters,</HI> and Judge <HI>Cook</HI> of each &s;ide? the multitude is &s;till capable of any im|pre&s;&s;ion; let them &s;peake to the Mul|titude, that Popery has crept into the Prote&s;tant Church; that the lu&s;tre of the Gho&s;pell is clouded with &s;uper&s;ti|tious Rites and Ceremonies; that the Bishops and Mini&s;ters have degenera|ted from the purity of the Reforma|tion; and all this they think to be true by Scripture as Presbiterians and Qua|kers do: what then if the&s;e Zelots did per&s;wade the Multitude to demand a Reformation of the&s;e abu&s;es; an extir|pation of Popi&s;h-like Ceremonies; and if they could not get it by faire means, to ri&s;e in armes and get it by the edge of their &s;words, and per&s;wade them not to be amu&s;ed by king or &s;tate, Bi&s;hops or Mini&s;ters; that the birthright of a Prote&s;tant was, not to be con&s;trained in their con&s;ciences, but
<PB N="188" REF="107"> to have free liberty for to &s;erve and wor&s;hip God; not as others will pre|&s;cribe, but as wee think in our Con|&s;cience the Scripture does warrant; and then would cite as many texts of Scrip|ture as Par&s;on <HI>Peeters, Calvin, Knox</HI> and <HI>Zuinglius</HI> did, and vnder&s;tand them as they did (this has happen'd once, and why not again and again) that kings mu&s;t be con&s;trained by force of arms, if need be, to e&s;tabli&s;h the Reforma|tion, to give libertie of Con&s;cience, to bani&s;h Popery and &s;uper&s;titions: what &s;ay you D^r in this ca&s;e? heer is a multitude who are per&s;waded by Scrip|ture as they vnder&s;tand it, that your Church is &s;uper&s;titious and erroneous; they are per&s;waded al&s;o by Scripture as they vnder&s;tand it, and as it is ex|pounded to them by your be&s;t Doctors, that it is lawfull for them to take arms again&s;t their king for to reform your Church: can they rai&s;e arms or not? if not, then you mu&s;t change your Rule of faith and deny that Principle, wher|vpon Prote&s;tancy and all the Reforma|tion is cemented; <HI>That it is lawfull for each one to believe, and act as he vnder&s;tands and interprets Scripture;</HI> if you &s;ay it is
<PB N="189" REF="107"> lawfull for him to rai&s;e arms again&s;t his king, becau&s;e he vnder&s;tands by Scrip|ture that he is bound in this occa&s;ion to do it? behold a Rebellion warranted by the Doctrin and Principles of your Reformation; and may be every year rai&s;ed; for wee &s;hall never want in a commonwealth, a giddie multitude, an ambitions &s;pirit to head them for to fi&s;h in troubl'd waters, and deluded &s;oules who mi&s;vnder&s;tand the Word of God: and what a&s;&s;urance can there be of Subjects Loyaltie, or of the Princes &s;afetie in &s;uch Principles? This is vn|doubtedly true, that an Arbitrarie in|terpretation of Scripture, and libertie for to believe what wee judge is the true meaning of it, is the e&s;&s;ence and foundation not only of Prote&s;tancy but of all the Reformation: this is al&s;o no le&s;s certain, that wherever that Ar|bitrary interpretation is permitted, and libertie a&s;&s;umed for to believe what your own judgment &s;ugge&s;ts vnto you to be the &s;en&s;e and meaning of Scrip|ture, a Prince can never be &s;ure of the Obedience of his Subjects; for they can, at any time and often have, inter|preted Scripture to his di&s;advantage
<PB N="190" REF="108"> vnder &s;om fals pretext of piety and Religion: therefore its vndoubted that the Principles of Prote&s;tancie is not con&s;i&s;tent with the &s;afetie of So|veraigns and obedience of Subjects.</P>
<P>No &s;ooner was this Arbitrary Inter|pretation of Scripture &s;et vp, and li|bertie for belieuing what each one thought to be the true &s;en&s;e of Scrip|ture, but you dethroned the Pope; Scripture as interpreted by you, was a &s;ufficient warrant to you for &s;o doing; and I do not &s;ee why may not you make it a &s;ufficient warrant for to dethrone your Spiritual Head of England, as you did with Charles the fir&s;t: and pre|tend you as much difference as you will, betwixt your &s;elues and the Scotch <HI>Kirk,</HI> but in this you agree, that your Rule of faith is the &s;ame which they haue; <HI>Scripture as yee vnder&s;tand it;</HI> nei|ther are you more infallible in the In|terpretation of it than they; as there|fore they judged by Scripture, that they ought not to receive that Vnifor|mitie of Rites and Ceremonies, with the Church of England, and that &s;ub|ordinatio~ to Pa&s;tors and Prelates, which king Charles the fir&s;t endeauored to
<PB N="191" REF="108"> bring them into; and entred into Eng|land with a powerfull Army for to a&s;&s;ert their Evangelical Libertie; why may it not be allwaies feared that you may do the like when the Spirit moues you?</P>
<P>Now let vs &s;ee if our Catholic Doc|trin be &s;o incon&s;i&s;tent with Loyaltie; I &s;ay our <HI>Doctrin;</HI> for the &s;ini&s;ter practices of &s;om of our Church, is not to be im|puted to the Church, but to their ma|lice: all you can &s;ay of our Doctrin is, that wee believe Popes may ab&s;olve &s;ubjects of their allegiance to their Prince, and deprive him of his king|dom: and what Power do you grant to the Prote&s;tant Church? Was it not the Prote&s;tant Church which excluded Quee~ Marie, the true Heire&s;s of the Crown, and rai&s;ed the Lady Jean Grey to the throne? was it not the Prote&s;tant Church repre&s;entative in the Parliame~t, which excluded Queen Marie of Scot|land and the family of the <HI>Stuarts,</HI> and &s;ub&s;tituted Queen Elizabeth; and what for? but to exclude Popery, and e&s;ta|bli&s;h the Reformation? was it not the Prote&s;tant Church repre&s;entative in the Parliament, which depo&s;ed King Char|les
<PB N="192" REF="109"> and &s;ub&s;tituted Cromwell; and was it not one of the chief cau&s;es again&s;t him that he was (as they apprehended) inclined to Popery?) thus you rai&s;e your Reformation vpon the ruin of the Popes, and fanatici&s;m vpon the ruin of kings) and was it not the fear of the like effects from the &s;ame Principles of depo&s;ing Princes not favorable to the Reformation, which obliged our pru|dent State&s;men to make it a haynous crime, to &s;ay the king's a Papi&s;t or inclin'd to Popery? did all the Popes for 1600. years depo&s;e &s;o many Princes in England, as your Reformation has in one age? or did England euer &s;ee in 6. ages of Popery, &s;o many in&s;urrec|ctions, privat con&s;piracies, &s;uch fre|quent attempts, &s;uch open Rebellions again&s;t Regal authority, as wee have &s;een in one age of Prote&s;tancy? what then do you talk to vs of the power of depo&s;ing Princes in the Pope, when wee &s;ee a more illimitated power a&s;&s;umed by your&s;elves, and &s;o frequently exer|ci&s;ed?</P>
<P>In our Catholic Doctrin only the Pope has that power, not of depo&s;ing Princes, but of declaring them to be
<PB N="193" REF="109"> <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> depo&s;ed as Divins &s;ay; in ca&s;e they &s;hould force their &s;ubjects to em|brace his error; but in our Prote&s;tant Principles, ther's n'ere a Prote&s;tant in England but has it; for wheras you all have by the principles of your Religion, the libertie of reading and interpre|ting Scripture, and following with a &s;afe con&s;cience what &s;en&s;e of it you think to be true; if a Prote&s;tant judges by Scripture that Prote&s;tancy, as now it is profe&s;&s;ed, has any mixture of Popery; if the &s;pirit moves him to demand a re|formation of the Church, he wants but a &s;ea&s;onable occa&s;ion and power for to a&s;k it of the king, and if he will not grant it; to oblige him by force of arms to do it: moreover this power of depo&s;ing Princes belongs not to the Pope, as our Divins &s;ay, only becau&s;e the Prince is an Heretic, pro|vided he does not pretend to force his &s;ubjects to his Error; and this being &s;o, certainly our Doctrin is far le&s;s favorable to the Pope, than to &s;ecular Princes, for a Pope if he becoms an heretic, tho he never &s;hould endeavor to pervert others, he is <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> depo&s;|ed from his Papacy. Finally if the
<PB N="194" REF="110"> Popes power were &s;o dangerous as our Adver&s;aries blow in their Pro&s;elites eares, certainly Catholic Princes, who are as tender of their &s;afetie and Au|thority as Prote&s;tants; would be more jealous of his &s;upremacy than they are: and by the way let me adverti&s;e my Reader, how much our Adver&s;aries do injure the <HI>Frencb,</HI> in &s;aying they deny this power in the Pope; its mo&s;t fals, for tho they may pretend by the Pri|viledges of the <HI>Gallican</HI> Church, to be exempted from that Power; but the Power they do not deny; but all di&s;|putes of that point are &s;everely prohi|bited.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>XIII. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>THE OATH OF SVPREMACIE VNLAW|full; and not needfull nor &s;ufficient for the &s;ecurity of our Princ's Intere&s;t.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THe Prote&s;tants them&s;elves who &s;o vigorou&s;ly pre&s;s this oath vpon vs, more for hopes of getting the goods and imployments of them who refu&s;e it,
<PB N="195" REF="110"> than for any devotion to their Religion or &s;afetie of the king, are a&s;hamed to believe it lawfull in the genuin and na|tural &s;ignification of it; but do give it a far different &s;en&s;e from that which the words of the Oath import, and their Acts of Parliament and Oath of Ho|mage, exhibited by their Bi&s;hops in their Con&s;ecration, give it. For the Oath imports in the general apprehen|&s;ion of Prote&s;tants the kings &s;upream &s;piritual &s;upremacy in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical affairs, as wee believe it in the Pope; which implies a Power in the king (as in the Pope duely elected and con&s;e|crated wee believe) for to con&s;ecrat Bi&s;hops and Prie&s;ts, for to admini&s;ter the Sacraments, preach, and all other Eccle&s;ia&s;tical functions; for if the king be &s;upream Head of the Church, as wee believe the Pope to be; it's from the king, as their &s;piritual Head, and the fountain of all Spiritual Juri&s;dic|tion, that the Bi&s;hops and the re&s;t of the Clergy, mu&s;t derive their Character, their Juri&s;diction, and their power for admini&s;tring the Sacraments; and if they derive it from him, he mu&s;t have it in him&s;elf; for none can give to an
<PB N="196" REF="111"> other, that which he has not. That the king &s;hould have any &s;uch Power in him&s;elf, it appears &s;o ridiculous to the Prote&s;tants them&s;elves to vtter it, that none will dare &s;ay it; and therefore they give other different &s;en&s;es to the Oath, nor do they agree well among them&s;el|ves in what &s;en&s;e it is to be vnder&s;tood; but when they tender the Oath to the people, and force them to take it, they never trouble them&s;elves to mollify it with any interpretation, but wee mu&s;t take it, vnder&s;tand it as wee plea&s;e.</P>
<P>That the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Oath is to believe the &s;piritual &s;u|premacy of the king, as wee have decla|red it, and which the very Prote&s;tants them&s;elves this day judge to be ridi|culous; it appears by the very Words of the Oath; and tho by crooked and far fetcht interpretations, &s;om Doctors may give it a more myld and tolera|ble &s;en&s;e, yet the Oath mu&s;t be jud|ged vnlawfull, becau&s;e the genuin, natural and common &s;en&s;e of the words, is vnlawfull, and heterodox; &s;econdly becau&s;e the &s;en&s;e of the Oath intended by the Church of England which exacts it, is not that myld and pa&s;&s;able &s;en&s;e
<PB N="197" REF="111"> which this or that privat D^r gives it; the Church of England intends by that Oath to per&s;wade vs the Spiritual Su|premacy and power of the king for to con&s;ecrat Bi&s;hops, give Spiritual Juri&s;|diction, authority and power for to admini&s;ter the Sacraments, and exer|ci&s;e other Eccle&s;ia&s;tical functions; and that this is the &s;en&s;e intended in the Oath by the Church of England, it evi|dently appears; fir&s;t, by their Statuts and Acts of Parliament which I cited in the <HI>Introduction</HI> to this Treati&s;e, which I pray reade; &s;econdly by the Oath of Homage which Prote&s;tant Bi&s;hops take in their Con&s;ecration, confe&s;&s;ing that <HI>they derive their Epi&s;copal and Spiritual Iuri&s;diction wholy and &s;olely from the king.</HI> Thirdly I have proved in the Introduc|tion that all the Spiritual Juri&s;diction, and Epi&s;copal Character your Church has, is derived from Queen Elizabeth: fourthly king Henry the VIII. who was the fir&s;t that v&s;urped this &s;upremacy, which now you pretend; made <HI>Cromwell,</HI> a Layman, his Vicar General in <HI>Spiri|tualibus,</HI> and exerci&s;ed that office by the authority derived from him; and king James di&s;pen&s;ed with ArchBi&s;hop
<PB N="198" REF="112"> <HI>Abbots</HI> in the Irregularity he incurred by killing a man; la&s;tly if by that Oath the Church of England intended only an a&s;&s;urance of our Allegiance to our king, and intended nothing prejudi|cious to our faith, why would not they be content with an Oath of Allegiance worded without offence to our Con|&s;ciences: and it cannot be denied but that the Church of England intended by that Oath, wee &s;hould acknowledge that &s;upremacie to be in the king which wee Catholics do believe to be in the Pope, and thereby denie any Spiritual Supremacy in the Pope; it al&s;o inten|ded wee &s;hould believe that Supremacy to be in the king, which king Henry the VIII. a&s;&s;umed to him&s;elf; and this was no other than that &s;upremacy as wee expounded, <HI>for to Con&s;ecrat, give power to cthers to con&s;ecrat, inve&s;t</HI> and <HI>Confirm Bi&s;hops, Admini&s;ter Sacraments, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Now that &s;uch a &s;upremacy cannot be attributed to any &s;ecular Prince, is a point &s;o often, &s;o &s;olidly, and &s;o largely proved by innumerable of our Authors, and not only the texts, and examples of Primitive Princes quoted by D^r Sall in his 17. Cap. but all that
<PB N="199" REF="112"> the Prote&s;tant Writers have &s;aid for them&s;elves in this point, &s;o cleerly an|&s;wered and refuted, that it would be a lo&s;s of time to me and to my Reader to an&s;wer my Antagoni&s;ts little trivial objections; and repeat again what has been &s;o often &s;aid, and is &s;o knowen even to vulgar Readers; particularly that as I have &s;aid, no Prote&s;tant of judgment will now pretend that kind of &s;upremacy in the king: Calvin &s;aies they were madmen who flattered the king of England &s;o far as to rai&s;e him to that &s;upremacy; Presbiterians, Ana|bapti&s;ts, Quakers, Independents, and the re&s;t of your &s;ectaries in England and out of England vtterly di&s;claim it, and will not take that Oath; and only Ro|man Catholics are per&s;ecuted, and pu|ni&s;ht with lo&s;s of imployments, goods and e&s;tates for not taking it.</P>
<P>My Antagoni&s;t in his 17 Ch. brings &s;om texts of S. Paul and &s;om &s;entences of S. Bernard, and S. Chry&s;o&s;tom to prove this &s;upremacy; and whoever reades them in the places quoted by him, will plainly &s;ee, they only prove that wee ought to obey, and &s;ubmit to the heigher power and authority vnder
<PB N="200" REF="113"> which wee are; and this none does or can deny; but what has that to do with our Controver&s;ie? for tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages quoted by my Adver&s;arie, do neither di&s;tingui&s;h Powers (and my D^r I hope will not be &s;o &s;en&s;ele&s;s, as to deny there are &s;everal powers vnder which wee are, and to all which wee are obliged to obey) nor do they determin or declare, wherin tho&s;e di&s;tinct Powers are: there is no doubt but that wee are obliged to obey all Powers vnder which wee are, beccau&s;e all Power is con&s;tituted, derived and ordained by God; but if our D^r will be &s;aid by S. Bernard. S. Chry&s;o&s;tom, S. Augu&s;tin and the ancient fathers, he will &s;ee in my next en&s;uing Chapter that the &s;upream Spiritual Power, is in S. Peter and his &s;ucce&s;&s;ors; and as he believes S. Bernard when he reprehends the disorders of the Roman Court, which he does in that 42. Epi&s;t. quoted by our D^r and in &s;everal other places, I hope he will believe him al&s;o when he &s;aies, as wee &s;hall &s;ee that the Pope is the &s;upream Pa&s;tor Prince and chief of all the Bi&s;hops: and my Reader will &s;ee in my en&s;uing Chapter, how much my D^r is to be blamed for di&s;|covering
<PB N="201" REF="113"> his ignorance, when he &s;aies in his 15. Chapt. <HI>that wee &s;hall never find in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;torie any mention of any claim S. Peter &s;hould have of any power ouer S. Iames in Ieru&s;alem, S. Andrew in Achaia or any other of the Apo&s;tles in their re&s;pec|tive Provinces, and that none of tho&s;e More worthy fir&s;t Bi&s;hops of Rome for five hundred years did pretend to any &s;upremacy.</HI></P>
<P>But before wee proceed to the proof of our D^r^s ignorance in this point, wee mu&s;t &s;ee, if this Oath of &s;upremacie be needfull, and &s;ufficient for our &s;ove|raigns &s;afetie; not needfull, wheras wee &s;ee all other Soveraigns, as well CathoIies as Prote&s;tants, judge them|&s;elves &s;ecure without any &s;uch Oath from their &s;ubjects: and when wee are ready to give to our Prince as much &s;ecurity of our fidelity, as any &s;ubjects of the world, give to their re&s;pective Soveraigns, why &s;hould our con&s;ciences be oppre&s;&s;ed with an oath of &s;upremacie repugnant to our faith; or our peace di&s;turbed by Remon&s;trances and oaths again&s;t the Popes <HI>indirect Temporal Power,</HI> obtruded vpon vs by turbulent &s;pirits; wheras &s;uch Oaths are altogither need|le&s;s for the &s;ecuring of &s;ubjects in their
<PB N="202" REF="114"> Loyaltie, as will appeare by this di&s;|cours: wherin I would have my Reader ob&s;erve that I do not pretend to prove that any &s;uch Power is in the Pope, as I let it pa&s;s in my former Treati&s;e, &s;o I do now; but I intend to prove, that tho &s;uch a Power were granted to be in the Pope, neither the Oath of &s;upre|macy, nor that Remon&s;trance or Oath di&s;claiming that indirect Temporal Power in the Pope aboue Princes, is needfull nor &s;ufficient to &s;ecure the &s;ubjects in their Obedience.</P>
<P>For &s;uppo&s;e there is &s;uch a Power in the Pope; where leyes the danger to the Prince who has the affection of his &s;ubjects? in the exerci&s;e of that Power, you will &s;ay, if the Pope &s;hould ab&s;olve vs from our Allegiance, and command vs vnder pain of Excommunication not to obey him, and to ry&s;e in arms again&s;t him: but I will demon&s;trat, its a ca&s;e <HI>Morally</HI> impo&s;&s;ible, and a <HI>Metaphi&s;ical</HI> ca&s;e, as the &s;chools &s;peake, that &s;ub|jects may be obliged to obey any &s;uch command or feare any &s;uch Excommu|nications, but may lawfully and con|&s;cientiou&s;ly re&s;i&s;t, and pay their Obe|dience to their Soveraign; for its a
<PB N="203" REF="114"> Principle vnanimou&s;ly received by Mo|ral Divins, that no Eccle&s;ia&s;tical pre|cept obliges in con&s;cience, if in &s;aid Obedience wee hazard our life, our for|tunes, or our honor; for example the Church commands vs to fa&s;t in Lent; you are &s;ick; you cannot fa&s;t without a notable prejudice to your health; you are not obliged; the Church commands you to hear Ma&s;s on &s;undaies; yo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> can|not without hazarding your life be|cau&s;e you are &s;ick; without hazarding your e&s;tate by rea&s;on of a Per&s;ecution; you are not obliged: Now, the Pop's command and excommunication again&s;t our Obedience to our Prince, is but an Etcle&s;ia&s;tical Precept at mo&s;t; there|fore it cannot oblige &s;ubjects with the hazard of their lyves&punc; fortunes, or ho|nor; but it is morally impo&s;&s;ible but that they &s;hould hazard all three, if they &s;hould deny Obedience and re&s;i&s;t their Soveraign; for &s;uch a di&s;obe|dience or in&s;urrection mu&s;t ca&s;t them into a warr, or a mo&s;t evident danger of a warr, where all is expo&s;ed, there|fore it's a <HI>Metaphi&s;ical</HI> ca&s;e and <HI>Morally</HI> impo&s;&s;ible that &s;ubjects can be obliged by any command or cen&s;ure of the
<PB N="204" REF="115"> Pope to deny obedience to their Prince: Say then what you plea&s;e of that <HI>Power;</HI> many learned Diuins convincingly prove, it annoyes not the &s;afetie of Prin|ces; the very Heterodox Soveraigns do not care for it: nor are yee who take it e&s;teemed better Subjects, than they who refu&s;e it.</P>
<P>But you reply; tho Subjects be not <HI>obliged</HI> to obey &s;uch Commands and Cen|&s;ures of the Pope, yet they may lawfully obey them; and &s;o the Prince mu&s;t de|pend of the Subjects courte&s;ie; for being lycenc't once by the Pope, no|thing is wanting to the execution but their Will and plea&s;ure:</P>
<P>To this our Divins do commonly an|&s;wer, that for to &s;ecure Subjects that they <HI>May not,</HI> the way is not to force vpon them an <HI>Oath</HI> di&s;avowing the Power in the Pope; but an <HI>Oath</HI> of never co~curring to the exerci&s;e of that Power, if any he had; that's to &s;ay, of never takeing arms, or denying Obedience to their Prince vpon any command or Cen|&s;ure of the Pope: which Oath, as it does not affirm or deny any Power in the Pope (let the Divins di&s;pute it out) &s;o it rids Con&s;ciences from Scruples of
<PB N="205" REF="115"> &s;wearing, what they do not know to be true or fals; and &s;ecures them from any <HI>Fact,</HI> or exerci&s;e of it prejudicious to their Prince; which, and the many &s;ignal te&s;timonies of the Loyaltie of his Catholic Subjects; and their willingne&s;s to give his Maje&s;tie any pledge of their fidelitie which does not &s;hock their con|&s;ciences, would abundantly &s;atisfie our clement Prince and prudent &s;tate&s;men, if &s;ome ouer-bu&s;y &s;pirits did not trou|ble our re&s;t; which trouble the Iri&s;h in|deed did &s;uffer, as the D^r &s;aies in his 16. Chap. not from his Maje&s;ty, nor from his Grace his Lieutenant, (who mo&s;t ju|diciou&s;ly approved the &s;atisfactio~ which was offered him by Per&s;ons of knowen loyaltie, honor and learning in a con|ference had with them, Mr Peter Wal&s;h being pre&s;ent) but from &s;om who were too too officious and vnrea&s;onable in pre&s;&s;ing Oaths vpon Catholic and Iri&s;h &s;ubjects, as if for being Catholics and Iri&s;h wee mu&s;t be &s;u&s;pected aboue all others of di&s;loyaltie: but &s;ay you again, if &s;uch a <HI>Power</HI> be granted in the Pope: he may declare a Prince depo&s;ed, and expo&s;e his kingdom to any forreign Prince who is plea&s;ed to invade it: I an|&s;wer: if that &s;hould be; how can any Oath
<PB N="206" REF="116"> what&s;oever of &s;ubjects hinder that a for|reign Prince &s;hall not invade our Prince? is it becau&s;e wee &s;weare the Pope has no &s;uch Power, that the forreign Prince will de&s;i&s;t from invading, if the fancie takes him? what our Divins pretend, is to &s;hew, that the Oath of &s;upremacie is needle&s;s to &s;ecure Subjects in their Loyaltie.</P>
<P>Now I will &s;hew that as that Oath of &s;u|premacy is needle&s;s, &s;o it is not &s;ufficie~t to &s;ecure Subjects in their Loyaltie; and this I will &s;hew in the Principles and prac|tice of the Church of Engla~d and D^r Sall: Our D^r has made a Solemn Vow or Oath of Povertie obliging him&s;elf never to have any Rents or revenews; al&s;o a So|lemn Vow of never pretending or ac|cepting any Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Dignitie; he made other Vows of Cha&s;titie, Obedie~ce &amp;c. Now he &s;aies, tho&s;e Vows or Oaths do not oblige him: and why? becau&s;e &s;aies he pag. 181. again&s;t N. N. <HI>I made a former Vow of Religious Obedience in my Bap|ti&s;m to God; if I find the later Vow made to the Pope, not to con&s;i&s;t with the compliance of the former made to God, then I mu&s;t &s;tand to the former made to God, and re&s;cind the later made to the Pope.</HI> And ju&s;t &s;o may any Prote&s;tant, or Child of the Refor|mation &s;ay, after taking the Oath of
<PB N="207" REF="116"> &s;upremacy: for as wee proved in our 12. Chapt. their Rule of faith being Scripture <HI>as each Per&s;on of &s;ound judgment vnder&s;tands it;</HI> after &s;wearing the Oath of Supremacy, if you reade and &s;tudie the Scripture, and the Spirit, or your ignorance moves you to vnder&s;tand by the text, that the Rites, Ceremonies and practices of the Prote&s;tant Church are degenerated into Popery,) as Pre&s;|biterians, Anabapti&s;ts, and Quakers judge) and you pa&s;s further, and meet &s;om texts as Zuinglius, Calvin, Par&s;on Peeters, and Beza did, and interpret them, that you ought to demand a Re|formation of tho&s;e abu&s;es, and in ca&s;e of a repuls, to rai&s;e arms again&s;t the king and force him to it; then you will &s;ay that in your Bapti&s;m you made a vow of Obedience and Religion to God, according his Word; that your Oath of &s;upremacy does not con&s;i&s;t with the compliance of this former; and that you mu&s;t re&s;cind the later and &s;tand to the former; what then does your Oath of &s;upremacy &s;ignifie in the Prote&s;tant Religion?</P>
<P>La&s;tly this Oath is not advantagious, but de&s;tructive to the Government; for
<PB N="208" REF="117"> it being made the <HI>di&s;tinctive &s;ign</HI> of Loyal|tie, and none being admitted to the king's Service in Civil or military im|ployments, but &s;uch as will take it; his Maje&s;tie is deprived of many &s;tout and gallant &s;ubjects who are not per|mitted to &s;erve him, becau&s;e they will not &s;train their Con&s;ciences with an Oath: And be&s;ides the offices of tru&s;t in the kingdom being open to tho&s;e who are ready to take an oath, and there being men in all times and common|wealths who wil never &s;tick to take an oath, for to advance their fortune; the places of tru&s;t will com to the hands of tho&s;e pro&s;tituted con&s;ciences; who, as they &s;old their faith for their intere&s;t, will betray their tru&s;t and king when any good bargain pre&s;ents: and who does not &s;ee how de&s;tructive this is to the government? Innumerable expe|riences &s;hew vs, particularly &s;ince the year 40. who were the more faithfull to the king; the Catholics who refu&s;ed the Oath, but never drew &s;word again&s;t him; or the Prote&s;tants who freely tooke it, and fought again&s;t him.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="290" REF="117">
<HEAD>XIV. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>THE POPES SVPREMACY ASSERTED.</HI></HEAD>
<P><HI>ALl the combu&s;tions and di&s;mal conten|tions of our kingdoms for a whole age did proceed from the Pop's preten&s;ion to &s;u|premacie,</HI> &s;aies our D^r: All D^r? The combu&s;tions of England, when <HI>Dudley</HI> Duke of Northumberland beheaded <HI>Seamor</HI> the Protector; poy&s;oned the yong king; ray&s;ed the Lady <HI>Iean Grey</HI> to the throne; and married her to his &s;on; was all this (and the Tragical cir|cum&s;tances which acompanied it) be|cau&s;e the Pope did pretend to &s;upre|macie? or was it not rather an effect of Prote&s;tancie which <HI>Dudley</HI> endeavored to e&s;tabli&s;h, for to rai&s;e his family vpon the oppre&s;&s;ion of the true Monarch? Was the Murther of king James in Scot|land, and the violence of her &s;ubjects again&s;t Queen Marie? was the impri|&s;onment and death of that Queen by Queen Elizabeth; becau&s;e the Pope pretended to &s;upremacie? or was it not
<PB N="210" REF="118"> an effectof Queen Elizabeth's ambition of &s;ecuring her&s;elf in the Crown, and excluding the family of the <HI>Stuarts?</HI> was it becau&s;e the Pope would be head of the Church, that the Parliament rebelled the year 40. again&s;t the king? <HI>It was not any alteration of Ceremonies, or language in Divin Service</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>which mini&s;ter'd fewell to this fatal fire, all would have been granted by the Pope if wee did own his &s;upremacie;</HI> and not one word of proof of all the&s;e hallucinations, but that one <HI>Twi&s;den</HI> (a <HI>chimaera</HI> for ought the world knows) &s;hould have &s;aid the Pope of|fered to conde&s;cend with Queen Eliza|beth in all points of the Reformation, if &s;he did but own his &s;upremacie, to which, &s;ee my an&s;wer in the <HI>Introduc|tion.</HI></P>
<P>He pur&s;ues his invective again&s;t the Pop's &s;upremacie and tells vs <HI>S. Gregorie</HI> dete&s;ted and di&s;claimed the Title of <HI>Vniver&s;all Bi&s;hop,</HI> which he &s;aies, is a commendation of his Mode&s;tie, and a check of the vnlimited ambition of the Popes of Rome. Its true S. Gregorie, lib. 4. Epi&s;t. 32. 34. 36. and 38. writes again&s;t that name of <HI>Vniver&s;all Bi&s;hop,</HI> but not in his 4^t^h^. book, 60. and 67. Epi&s;t. as my
<PB N="211" REF="118"> Adver&s;arie cites, for that book has but 57. Epi&s;tles; and what S. Gregorie condemns is not the name, but the &s;en&s;e and meaning, in which John that ambitious Patriarck of Con&s;tantinople v&s;urped it: for it may have two mea|nings; the one is, the Chief and fir&s;t Bi&s;hop, &s;upream in Power and Juri&s;|diction, Chief Governor of the Church; in this &s;en&s;e S. Gregorie did not con|demn it: the &s;econd meaning of that name is, to be the Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop of the Church, that's to &s;ay the only Bi&s;hop of the Church; &s;o as that the re&s;t of the Bi&s;hops are not properly Bi&s;hops, but admini&s;trators or Vicars vnder him: In this &s;en&s;e did <HI>Iohn</HI> the Patriark of Con&s;tantinople a&s;&s;ume that name, and S. Gregorie did check his ambition, as appears in his 7^t^h^. book Epi&s;t. 71. <HI>Hoc in totius Eccle&s;iae injuriam &amp; omnium, &amp;c. In this he injures the whole Church, and de&s;pi&s;es you all, for if one be the Vniver&s;al Bi&s;hop, as he vnder&s;tands it, then none of you all is a Bi&s;hop.</HI> Again l. 4. Epi&s;t 38. <HI>De&s;pectis fratribus, appetit &s;olus Epi&s;copus vocari: De&s;pi&s;ing his Brethren he ambitions to be called the only Bi&s;hop.</HI> You know very well D^r that the Pope does
<PB N="212" REF="119"> not pretend to be called, and that wee do not call him Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop in this &s;en&s;e, as if he did pretend to be, or wee &s;hould be &s;o &s;en&s;ele&s;s as to &s;ay, he is the only Bi&s;hop in the Church; and the re&s;t of the Bi&s;hops are not truly and properly Bi&s;hops.</P>
<P>But in the &s;en&s;e that the Pope a&s;&s;u|mes that name, that's to &s;ay to be the chief Bi&s;hop in power and Juri&s;diction aboue the re&s;t, the &s;upream Governor of the Church, S Gregorie did never blame, nor condemn it; nay l. 7. Epi&s;t. 65. &s;peaking of the Sea of Rome he &s;aies, <HI>In &s;aying he is &s;ubject to the Sea of Rome, I know no Bishop but is &s;ubject to it,</HI> and S. Leo Epi&s;t. 48. calls the Chair of Peter, <HI>the Seate of the Vniver&s;al Church;</HI> and S. Gregorie l. 4. Epi&s;t. 32. &s;aies, and D^r Sall confe&s;&s;es, that the name of Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop was offered by the Council of Chalcedon Act. 3. and Act. 16. to Leo Pope; this was one of the four fir&s;t General Councils, which our D^r reveres for a Holy and &s;acred Coun|cil; and mu&s;t con&s;equently confe&s;s, that that name of Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop, which it offered to Leo, was Orthodox and lawfull; or that the Concil erred
<PB N="213" REF="119"> foully and irreligiou&s;ly in offering it: Its true as S Gregorie &s;aies. The Popes before him did not a&s;&s;ume, but refu&s;e and dete&s;t that name, but that was be|cau&s;e it was an odious name, by rea&s;on of the &s;en&s;e in which John the Patriark, and others did a&s;&s;ume it; therefore they would not v&s;e it: not becau&s;e it was not ju&s;t and lawfull in the true &s;en&s;e meaned by the Church.</P>
<P>And if wee can prove that S. Peter was the chief in power and authoritie aboue the Apo&s;tles, the &s;upream in Ju|ri&s;diction; ther's no difficultie in be|lieving that his Succe&s;&s;ors are the chief and &s;upream in Power and Authority aboue the other Bi&s;hops. Our D^r &s;aies pag. 31. he does not read that Peter &s;hould have any Authority aboue An|drew in Achaia, or Thomas in the In|dies, or the other Apo&s;tles in their re&s;pective Provinces and this proves no more, but that either his Librarie is ill furni&s;ht with books, or that he does not &s;tudie, nay nor reade carefully the Bible: of all the Texts it affords, I will produce but three with the glo&s;&s;es of &s;om fathers vpon them.</P>
<P>In two &s;everal occa&s;ions, Chri&s;t
<PB N="214" REF="120"> &s;peakes particularly of the power he was to give the Apo&s;tles for to tye and vntye: the fir&s;t, Math 16. he &s;peakes to Peter alone, <HI>tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, quodcunque ligaveris &s;uper terram, erit ligatum &amp; in caelis, quodcun|que &s;olveris &s;uper terram, erit &s;olutum &amp; in caelis. To thee I will give the keyes of the Kingdom of the Heavens; what&s;oever you &s;hall bind on earth &s;hall be bound in the Heavens; what&s;oever you &s;hall vnbind on earth &s;hall be vnbound in the Heavens.</HI> Again &s;peaking of this power he was to give to his Apo&s;tles, Math. 18. he &s;aies, <HI>whatever yee &s;hall bind on earth &s;hall be bound in Heaven, and whatever yee &s;hall bind on earth &s;hall be bound in Heaven, and whatever yee &s;hall vnbind on earth, &s;hall be vnbound in Hea|ven:</HI> Origen Hom. 6. in Math. ob&s;erves the great difference expre&s;&s;ed in this text betwixt Peter and the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles. <HI>Non modica differentia e&s;t, quod Petro datae &s;unt claves non vnius caeli, &s;ed multorum cae<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">orum; &amp; quae ligata &s;unt &s;uper terram, e&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nt ligata non in vno tantum caelo, &s;ed in omnibus caelis; ad eos autem qui multi &s;unt ligatores &amp; &s;olutores in terra, &s;ic dicit vt &s;oluant &amp; alligent, non in caelis, &s;icut Petrus, &s;ed in vno caelo, quia non &s;unt in tanta perfectione &s;icut Petrus, vt alligent &amp;</HI>
<PB N="215" REF="120"> <HI>&s;oluant in omnibus caelis. It's no &s;male diffe|rence that to Peter are given the keyes, not of one heaven but of many, and that what is bound on earth</HI> (by him) <HI>&s;hould be bound not in one heaven, but in all the heavens. But to the re&s;t, who are binders and vnbin|ders on earth he &s;aies, that they can tye or vntye, not in all the heavens as Peter, but in one heaven; becau&s;e they have not that power that Peter to tye and vntye in all the heavens.</HI> For the cleerer vnder&s;tanding of this pa&s;&s;age, S. Gregorie tells vs Hom. 12. in Evang. <HI>Per regnum caelorum in &s;acro eloquio prae&s;entis temporis Eccle&s;ia de&s;ignatur: by the Kingdom of the Heavens, is vnder&s;tood in Scripture, this militant Church on earth.</HI> Its a <HI>kingdom,</HI> compo&s;ed of <HI>many heavens,</HI> that's to &s;ay, <HI>many Chur|ches:</HI> now Origen's ob&s;ervation cleerly convinces Peter's &s;upremacie for he had the Power of tying and vntying in <HI>all the Heavens;</HI> that's to &s;ay in all the Churches, his Juri&s;diction reached to <HI>all;</HI> each of the other Apo&s;tles had a power of binding and vnbinding <HI>in vno caelo tantum,</HI> in <HI>one heaven,</HI> only, in <HI>one Church</HI> but not in <HI>all:</HI> S. Hierom and S. Augu&s;tin ob&s;erved that when Chri&s;t &s;peakes to S. Peter and gives him the
<PB N="216" REF="121"> Power Math. 16. he gives him the keyes, <HI>tibi dabo claves;</HI> but when he gives the Power to all the Apo&s;tles Math. 18. no keyes are mentioned, <HI>Soli Petro,</HI> &s;aies S. Aug. in P&s;. 108. <HI>dictum e&s;t, tibi dabo claves,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>quia figuram gerebat Eccle&s;iae, propter primatum Apo&s;tolatus, totius Eccle|&s;iae gerebat Per&s;onam: to Peter alone it was &s;aid to thee I will give the keyes &amp;c. becau&s;e he repre&s;ented the Church; for the primacy of his Apo&s;tleship he repre&s;ented the whole Church,</HI> It's very true all the Apo&s;tles and the whole Church teceived the keyes, &s;aies S. Hierom, l. cont. Jouin. <HI>Cuncti Apo&s;|toli Claves acceperunt;</HI> but &s;aies S. Augu&s;t. tract. 24 in Joan. <HI>Tota Eccle&s;ia accepit in Petro,</HI> they all received the keyes in Peter, as being the chief and Prince of all; they all have the Power of <HI>tying</HI> and <HI>vntying,</HI> but they mu&s;t call to Peter for the keyes.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Text Luc. 5. <HI>Duc in altum &amp; laxate retia; Lanch out into the Deep, and let your nets drop for a draught.</HI> S. Am|bro&s;e ob&s;erves <HI>Soli Petro dicitur, Duc; omnibus imperatur vt laxent retia: to Peter only it's &s;aid lanch out and lead the boat; all are commanded to drop the nets:</HI> all mu&s;t work and labor, Peter alone mu&s;t go|vern
<PB N="217" REF="121"> the boat: hence it is, that S. Hie|rom having &s;aid l. cont. Jouin. <HI>Super omnes Apo&s;tolos ex aequo fortitudo Eccle&s;iae &s;olidatur; that the &s;trength of the Church is equally founded vpon all the Apo&s;tles;</HI> he ads immediatly in the &s;ame place (which our Adver&s;aries fraudulently let pa&s;s in &s;ylence) <HI>Tamen inter duodecem Vnus eligitur, vt Capite con&s;tituto &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">hi&s;matis tol|leretur occa&s;io; but among the twelve one is cho&s;en, that a Head and chief being pointed, all oca&s;ion of &s;chi&s;m might be avoided:</HI> and that you might not &s;u&s;pect that Peter was ordained the Head and Chief, only of the re&s;t of the Church, but not of the Apo&s;tles; hear S. Greg. l. 4. Epi&s;t. 38. <HI>Certe Petrus Apo&s;tolus primum membrum Vniver&s;alis Eccle&s;iae e&s;t; Paulus. Andreas, Ioannes, quid aliud, ni&s;i &s;ingularium plebium capita &s;unt, &amp; tamen &s;ub vno capite</HI> (&s;cili|cet Petro) <HI>omnes membra &s;unt Eccle&s;iae. Trulie Peter is the chief member of the Church Vniver&s;al, Paul, Andrew, Iohn, what are they, but heads of particular flocks, and they are all but members of the Church, vnder one head,</HI> which head is S. Peter, &s;aies S. Greg. again l. 4. Epi&s;t. 32. <HI>Omnium Apo&s;toloru~ Principi Petro Vniver&s;alis Eccle&s;iae cura commi&s;sa e&s;t; Peter, the Prince of the</HI>
<PB N="218" REF="122"> <HI>Apo&s;tles to whom the care of the Vniver&s;al Church was committed.</HI> Al&s;o S. Cyprian. l. de Unit. Eccl. having &s;aid, <HI>Omnes Apo&s;toli pari con&s;ortio praediti &s;unt &amp; hono|ris &amp; dignitatis: the Apo&s;tles were equallie endowed with power and honor;</HI> he added immediatly (which our Adver&s;aries al&s;o di&s;ingenuou&s;ly omit) <HI>&s;ed exordium ab Vnitate profici&s;citur, Petro Primatus da|tur, vt vna Chri&s;ti Eccle&s;ia &amp; vna Cathe|dra mon&s;tretur; but the beginning &s;prings from Vnitie, the Primacy is given to Peter, to denote the Vnitie of Chri&s;ts Church, and the Vnitie of the Chaire,</HI> and S. Cyprian him&s;elf &s;aies, as wee'l &s;ee immediatly, that by denying this Unitie and Prima|cy, wee run into here&s;ies and &s;chi&s;ms.</P>
<P>The third Text Luc. 22. <HI>I have praied for thee Peter, that they faith may not faile, and you being converted, confirm they Bre|thren.</HI> He gawe Peter the charge of &s;trengthning his Brethren in their temp|tations, and hence Theophil. commen|ting vpon this text concludes that he made him the Chief head of the Apo&s;|tles; <HI>Manife&s;tus Verborum &s;en&s;us e&s;t, quod cum te di&s;cipulorum Principem fecerim tu cum po&s;t negationem fleveris &amp; re&s;ipueris, confirma fratres tuos; hoc te decet qui po&s;t me</HI>
<PB N="219" REF="122"> <HI>Eccle&s;iae Petra &amp; fundamentum es. The &s;en&s;e of the text</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>is cleer; that wheras I made you Prince of the Di&s;ciples, when you have lamented your Denial, &s;trengthen your Brethren; this becoms you, who are after me, the Rock and fundation of the Church.</HI> S. Augu&s;tin is no le&s;s expre&s;s in his glo&s;s vpon that text, Serm, 124 de Tem. <HI>To|tius corporis morbum in ip&s;o Capite curat Ec|cle&s;iae; in ip&s;o componit omnium membrorum &s;anitatem. He heales the di&s;ea&s;e of the whole in the very head of the Church; in him he places the health of all the members:</HI> Behold how di&s;tinctly he calls him the <HI>Head</HI> of the whole Church; and admire the bad luck of our good D^r that he could not meet, he &s;aies, any mention in the Pri|mitive fathers of the fir&s;t fiue hnndred years of Peters &s;uptemacy ouer Andrew in <HI>Achaia,</HI> Thomas in <HI>Indies,</HI> or the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles: if but now, that wee have furni&s;ht him with the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages, he did open his eyes to the light of Truth; if he did reade Chry&s;o&s;t. <HI>Hom. 55. in Math.</HI> he would find Peter called the Top of the Apo&s;tolical Colledge; and again hom. 87. in Joan. <HI>Petrus os e&s;t Apo&s;tolorum, totius cae<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">us vertex, &amp; Magi&s;ter Orbis, qui Iacobum Hiero&s;olimis prae|po&s;uit.
<PB N="220" REF="123"> Peter is the Mouth of the Apo&s;tles, the Top of the Apo&s;tolical Colledge, the Ma&s;|ter of the world who made Iames Bi&s;hop of Ieru&s;alem;</HI> and again, hom. 3. in Act. commending Peter's mode&s;tie, that tho he was the chief and &s;uperior of the Apo&s;tles, yet he would not alone, with|out the approbation and con&s;ent of the re&s;t, chu&s;e <HI>Mathias</HI> to the Apo&s;tle&s;hip, <HI>quid,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>an non licebat illi &s;oli eli|gere? licebat quidem; &amp; maxime licebat; verum id non fecit; nihil authoritate &s;ola, nihil cum imperio. Could not he alone chu&s;e Mathias? yes he could; but he would not; nothing by his proper Authority; nothing by command;</HI> let our D^r read <HI>Optatus</HI> l. 2. cont. <HI>Parmenianum. Omnium Apo&s;tolorum Caput Petrus Romae Sedit, vt in illa vna Ca|thedra, vnitas ab omnibus &s;ervaretur, ne caeteri Apo&s;toli &s;ingulas Cathedras &s;ibi qui&s;que defenderet. Peter the head of all the Apo&s;|tles, &s;its at Rome, that in that one Chaire, Vnitie &s;hould be kept by all; lea&s;t that each of the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, &s;hould claim each of their cbaires proper to them&s;elves,</HI> with|out any &s;ubordination to their head. And becau&s;e our D^r flatters him&s;elf with the per&s;wa&s;ion of S. Bernard's judg|ment again&s;t S. Peter's Supremacie,
<PB N="221" REF="123"> let him reade the Saint l. 2. de Con&s;id. ad Eug. <HI>Tu quis es? Summus Sacerdos, Pon|tifex magnus, tu Princeps Epi&s;coporum, tu haeres Apo&s;tolorum, tu primatu Abel, guber|natu Noe, Patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchi&s;edech, dignitate Aaron, Authorita|te Moy&s;es, Iudicatu Sam&uuml;el, Pote&s;tate Pe|trus, Vnctione Chri&s;tus: tu es cui claves traditae, cui oues creditae &s;unt; &s;unt quid<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m &amp; alij coeli Ianitores &amp; gregum Pa&s;tores, &s;ed tu tanto glorio&s;ius, quanto differentius, vtrumque prae caeteris nomen haeredita&s;ti: ha|bent illi &s;ibi a&s;signatos greges, &s;inguli &s;ingu|los, tibi Vniver&s;i crediti, Vni Vnus; nec mo|do ovium, &s;ed &amp; pa&s;torum tu vnus omnium, Pa&s;tor. Who are you?</HI> (&s;aies S. Bernard to Eugenius Pope) <HI>You are the great Prie&s;t; the Heigh Bishop, the Prince of Bishops, the heire of the Apo&s;tles, by Primacy Abel, by government Noe, by Patriarchship Abraham, by Order Melchi&s;edech, by Dignitie Aaron, by Authoritie Moy&s;es, by Iudicature Samuel, by Power Peter, by Vnction Chri&s;t: to you the keyes were given, to you the &s;heep were com|mitted: here are al&s;o other Porters of Heaven and Pa&s;tors of the flock; but you with &s;o much the more excellencie, by how much the more differently aboue all others you po&s;&s;e&s;s tho&s;e names: they have their flocks apointed for</HI>
<PB N="222" REF="124"> <HI>them; each one his own particular flock; to thee all are delivered, one flock to one; nor are you only the Pa&s;tor of the &s;heep, but you are the only and &s;ole Pa&s;tor of all the Pa&s;tors:</HI> and a little beneath; <HI>Aliorum pote&s;tas cer|tis arctatur limitibus, tua extenditur &amp; in ip&s;os qui pote&s;tatem &s;uper alios acceperunt. The power of others is confin'd within certain bonds, but your power reachs ouer tho&s;e who haue power aboue others.</HI></P>
<P>And that nothing may be wanting for a full conviction of this truth, hear S. Hierom in Dial. ad Lucif. proving the nece&s;&s;itie of this Papal Supremacie; <HI>Ni&s;i &s;upereminens quaedam, &amp;c. if there be not a &s;upereminent and &s;upream authoritie in the Church, there will be as many &s;chi&s;ms in the Church, as there are Prie&s;ts:</HI> and tho you may attribut that confu&s;ed di&s;traction of &s;ectaries in England and el&s;where to other cau&s;es; but S. Cyprian l. 1. Epi&s;t. 30. gives you the genuin rea&s;on of it; <HI>Non aliunde na<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ae &s;unt haere&s;es, aut orta &s;chi&s;|mata, quam quia non agno&s;cun<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> vnum Vice-Chri&s;ti ad tempus Iudicem, cui Vniver&s;a fra|ternitas obtemperet. Here&s;ies and &s;chi&s;ms, have no other &s;ource, but becau&s;e they do not acknowledge one Iudge Vicegerent of Chri&s;t to which all the flock &s;hould obey.</HI> Judge
<PB N="223" REF="124"> you now Reader with what truth our D^r &s;aies that no mention is made by an|tiquitie of S. Peters &s;upremacy which has been &s;o cleerly delivered as I have &s;howen, by Origen, Cyprian, S. Augu&s;t. Ambro&s;e, Hierom, Chry&s;o&s;tom, Ber|nard, Theofilact, and Optatus; and to who&s;e judgment will you &s;tick, either of &s;uch Oracles who teach Peter's &s;u|premacie, or of a Luther, a Calvin, a Beza, who to live without curb, re|bell'd again&s;t Authoritie; &s;ee which you will prefer; or the vnanimous con|&s;ent of ages vpward to the Apo&s;tles; or this our la&s;t age di&s;tracted by Mu&s;h|rom &s;ectaries; &s;ee with whom you will believe; with the Vniver&s;ities and in|numerable D^rs and fathers of the pa&s;t and this pre&s;ent age, or with a hand|full of ob&s;cure and vnknowen people.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="224" REF="125">
<HEAD>XV. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>MY SYLLOGISMS FOR TRANSVBST AN|tiation enforced again&s;t the Doctor and the Doctrin proved again&s;t his &s;en&s;e and Rea&s;on.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I propo&s;ed a &s;yllogi&s;m in my former Treati&s;e pag. 188. for our Tenet of Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, grounded vpon the text of S. Luke 22. <HI>Take eat this is my body which is given for you:</HI> the text denotes, he gave to them &s;omwhat to eate; I proved it was his reall Body; for; He gave <HI>to</HI> them to eate, what he gave <HI>for</HI> them; the Text &s;aies it, <HI>take eat this is my body which is given for you;</HI> but he gave <HI>for</HI> them his real body; therefore he gave <HI>to</HI> them his Real bo|dy: for as I advertis'd, the Text makes no difference betwixt what he gave <HI>To</HI> them, and what he gave <HI>for</HI> them: by what principles then mu&s;t we in|terpret the text, and &s;ay that what he gave <HI>to</HI> them was a figure only, and what he gave for them was his Real
<PB N="225" REF="125"> body? will it not be as lawfull to <HI>Mar|cion</HI> to interpret the text as to you, and &s;ay that as the text in the fir&s;t part im|ports only a figurative body given <HI>to</HI> them; &s;o in the &s;econd part it imports but a figurative body given <HI>for</HI> them.</P>
<P>His an&s;wer is that my argument <HI>is not worth a ru&s;h; that with a peece of his Logic he will prove it a paralogi&s;m;</HI> and rai&s;es &s;uch a thick mi&s;t of &s;chola&s;tical terms &s;o often repeated in few lynes, that I defy you read his di&s;cours and your head not to ake: after a great deal of tittle tattle again&s;t the <HI>form</HI> of my &s;yllogi&s;m; the vp&s;hot of his an&s;wer is, that tho the text does not di&s;tingui&s;h betwixt what Chri&s;t gave <HI>To</HI> vs in the &s;upper, and what he gave <HI>for</HI> vs yet our eyes do di&s;|tingui&s;h betwixt both, for we &s;ee what he gave to vs, was but <HI>Bread,</HI> and what he gave for vs on the Cro&s;s was an Or|ganic Body. This an&s;wer I did for&s;ee and replied again&s;t it in my former Treati&s;e; but not a &s;yllable does my Antagoni&s;t an&s;wer again&s;t my replies, as if I had made none.</P>
<P>But its well he has attempted to &s;ay &s;omwhat; he confe&s;&s;es plainly the text makes no difference betwixt what
<PB N="226" REF="126"> he gave to his di&s;ciples in the &s;upper and what he was to give for them vpon the cro&s;s; our eyes he &s;aies di&s;tingui&s;h betwixt both; becau&s;e they did &s;ee but bread in the &s;upper; and they did &s;ee an Organic body, vpon the cro&s;s. Very well: I pray D^r, the night that Chri&s;t was at the &s;upper, when he took the bread and vttered tho&s;e words, <HI>take eat&punc; this is my Body which is given for you.</HI> Did the Apo&s;tles &s;ee with their eyes that night Chri&s;t's <HI>Organic Body</HI> given for vs vpon the cro&s;s! No, for he was not then cru|cified: What did they believe then, that Chri&s;t would give <HI>To</HI> them to eate? the figure only of his Body &s;aies our D^r, real bread; becau&s;e their eyes did &s;ee but bread: and what did they be|lieve then, that Chri&s;t would give <HI>for</HI> them on the cro&s;s? an <HI>Organic Body</HI> &s;aies he; why &s;o? for the text as you confe&s;s, makes no di&s;tinction betwixt what he gave <HI>To</HI> them, and <HI>For</HI> them; our eyes you &s;ay make the di&s;tinction; then, in the night of the &s;upper their eyes did not &s;ee his Organic Body on the cro&s;s; how could they therefore di&s;tingui&s;h then, what he gave <HI>to</HI> them to eate, from that he was to give <HI>for</HI>
<PB N="227" REF="126"> them on the cro&s;s; O but &s;ay you, the next day after they did &s;ee his Organic Body <HI>for</HI> them vpon the cro&s;s: its true; but I &s;peake of the &s;upper the night be|fore; then, as they believed that Chri&s;t's Body was given <HI>To</HI> them, becau&s;e Chri&s;t &s;aid, <HI>take eat</HI> &s;o they believed at the &s;ame time his body would be given <HI>for</HI> them on the cro&s;s, becau&s;e he &s;aid in the &s;ame text, which is given <HI>for</HI> you; and my difficultie is, &s;ince they did be|lieve that the bodie given <HI>to</HI> them, was only a figurative body, by what Prin|ciple did they di&s;tingui&s;h that the body which would be given for them was an Organic Body? for by virtue of the text, as you confe&s;s, they could not Di&s;tingui&s;h there two different bodies; nor by their eyes, becau&s;e they did not &s;ee the Organic Body on the cro&s;s.</P>
<P>The like may be &s;aid of Abraham, I&s;aac, and the ancient Patriarks; they believed that Chri&s;t would give his Body <HI>to</HI> vs in the &s;upper, and <HI>for</HI> vs on the cro&s;s; doubtle&s;s the&s;e Mi&s;teries were revealed to them: did they be|lieve it was a figurative only body was given <HI>to</HI> vs in the &s;upper, and an Organic real body on the cro&s;s? by
<PB N="228" REF="127"> what principle did they make this di&s;|tinction of what was given <HI>To</HI> vs, from what was given <HI>for</HI> vs? not by any text or &s;upernatural revelation; for &s;ure you will not &s;ay he &s;poke to them of the Ancient law in more expre&s;s and emphatic terms, than to tho&s;e of the law of Grace; nor by their eyes or &s;en&s;es, for they did not &s;ee Chri&s;t in the &s;upper, nor on the cro&s;s: you mu&s;t conclude then, that either they be|lieved his figurative only Body was to be in the &s;upper and on the cro&s;s; or that his true real and &s;ub&s;tantial Body was to be in both.</P>
<P>It's a gallant re&s;olution of our D^r in his pag. 116. Sr &s;aies he, <HI>wee are ready to captivat our &s;en&s;es and rea&s;on to faith in God where&s;oever we find him to declare his will vnto vs, without any further examin:</HI> but hang the <HI>Good town of Swords,</HI> who&s;e Pari&s;h makes him break<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> this re&s;olu|tion: I pray D^r an&s;wer me to a que&s;tion I propo&s;ed to you pag. 144. of the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church,</HI> which you dropt vnder the table like a naughtie card; but I'l tak it vp: Can you deny but that God might, if he were plea&s;ed, turn the &s;ub&s;tance of the bread into
<PB N="229" REF="127"> his fle&s;h and blood, and give vs his true and real Body vnder the accidents of bread? as he turned the Water into wine, and as our &s;tomack turns the Vic|tuals we eat into our fle&s;h and blood? you will not deny, but that he might, if he were plea&s;ed: If Chri&s;t were really intended to do it; and to give vs his real true body vnder the accidents of bread, how could he declare his intention in cleerer expre&s;&s;ions than taking bread, and &s;aying, <HI>take eat this is my body, truly my fle&s;h;</HI> what cleerer expre&s;&s;ion can any man expect in a &s;erious con|ver&s;ation betwixt hone&s;t men? He &s;poke then, as if really he intended to give vs his real body vnder the acci|dents of bread; for if he had really in|tended it, he could not &s;peak other|wi&s;e: Can you then doubt, but that Gods Will is &s;ufficiently declared vnto you in this point? and yet you will not captivat your &s;en&s;es nor rea&s;on; you will not, notwith&s;tanding the plain and cleer &s;en&s;e of Gods Word, believe it's his true body, becau&s;e your eyes and ta&s;t find its bread<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> and is not this to captivat Gods Word to your &s;en&s;es rather than to captivat your &s;en&s;es to
<PB N="230" REF="128"> his Word; when you contradict the plain natural &s;en&s;e of his Words, becau&s;e your &s;en&s;es and rea&s;on contradict it?</P>
<P>Let vs hear how &s;ar is the D^r from the faith of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, and from their &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to Gods word in this ineffable mi&s;terie: S Chry&s;o&s;t. &s;peakes thus Hom. 60. ad Pop. Ant. <HI>Let vs obey God in all things, and not gain&s;ay him, tho what he &s;aies con|tradicts our &s;en&s;es and imaginations; let his Word obtain more credit from vs, than our thoughts and &s;ight: let vs not con&s;ider only what leyes before our eyes, but hold fa&s;t to his Word; for his Words are infallible and our &s;en&s;es are ea&s;ie to be deceived: his words never faile, but our &s;en&s;es frequentlie mi&s;take; becau&s;e therefore he &s;aies, this is my Body, let vs obey believe and behold him with the eyes of our Vnder&s;tanding.</HI> And again in the &s;ame place; <HI>What Pa&s;tor feeds his flock with his own blood? but he feeds vs with his own proper blood.</HI> S. Cyril is no le&s;s expre&s;s in excluding our &s;en&s;es from being Judges in this Mi&s;terie Orat. 4. Cath. <HI>do not look on this as naked bread, for it is the Body and blood of Chri&s;t him&s;elf, and although &s;en&s;e does &s;ugge&s;t vnto thee that this is bread, yet let faith confirm thee: do not</HI>
<PB N="231" REF="128"> <HI>judge of it by they ta&s;t, but know and hold for certain, that this bread which is &s;een of vs, is no bread, though the ta&s;t iudges it to be bread, but the body of Chri&s;t; and the wine which &s;eemes to our ta&s;t to be wine, is no wine but the blood of Chri&s;t.</HI> S. Epiph. in Acor. circa Medium &s;peakes of this Mi&s;|terie, <HI>Wee &s;ee its neither equal, nor like in proportion to his flesh, but yet becau&s;e he was plea&s;ed to &s;ay through grace, this is my flesh, every one believeth, notwith&s;tanding what wee &s;ee, for his &s;aying; and everie one who believeth not, it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace.</HI> Thus the an|cient fathers captivated their &s;en&s;es to faith, notwih&s;tanding the evidence of their eyes: And not only the example of the Fathers, but &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages of Scripture manife&s;tly prove, that we mu&s;t believe the plain and natural &s;en&s;e of the word of God, again&s;t the evi|dence of our eyes; as S. Jo&s;eph belie|ved his Spou&s;e the B. Virgin to be a Virgin vpon the te&s;timonie of the An|gel, again&s;t the evidence of his eyes, which did &s;ee in her the marks of a Wo|man. Tobias al&s;o did &s;ee in his fellow Traveller but the Accidents of a human nature, yet again&s;t the evidence of his
<PB N="232" REF="129"> &s;en&s;e which did &s;ee nothing but a man; he believed him to be a Spirit: &s;o al&s;o tho our eyes &s;ee nothing but bread in the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t, yet we believe again&s;t the evidence of &s;en&s;e, that it is no bread but the Body of Chri&s;t, be|cau&s;e the words of Chri&s;t, <HI>This is my Body,</HI> is of a more infallible a&s;&s;urance than our eyes and other &s;en&s;es.</P>
<P>But &s;aies our D^r this Mi&s;terie is quite repugnant to human rea&s;on; becau&s;e thence it would follow, that Chri&s;t's Bodie would be at one time in as many different places, as there are con&s;ecra|ted ho&s;ts; and rea&s;on &s;hews a Body can|not be at one time, but in one place. If he had read carefully S. Paul's l. Epi&s;tle to the Corint. chap 15. this dif|ficultie would not have &s;tartl'd him: there the Apo&s;tle di&s;tingui&s;hes two kind of Bodies (or rather one and the &s;ame body in two different &s;tates and condi|tions) a &s;piritual, and an earthly natu|ral body, which two bodies are not &s;ub|&s;tantially different, or two different &s;ub&s;tances, but one and the &s;ame body vnder different qualities and accidents; for he &s;aies, this our naturall corrup|tible Body &s;hall be changed in the Re|&s;urrection
<PB N="233" REF="129"> of the dead; into a &s;piritual body that's to &s;ay purified from earthly qualities; it &s;hall be &s;pirituali&s;ed, and becom immortal, impa&s;&s;ible and ador|ned with &s;piritual qualities. Our D^r knows well that a &s;piritual &s;ub&s;tance can be in many places, and &s;omtimes in a &s;mal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;pace, &s;omtimes in a greater, as our &s;oule is wholy in each part of our Body: allow therefore (which is fals) that this our earthly corruptible body may not be in many places, but when it is &s;pirituali&s;ed and has changed its earthly natural qualities into &s;piritual qualities, and becom as it were a &s;piri|tual, immortal impa&s;&s;ible incorruptible &s;ub&s;tance, as glorious bodies are, why may it not have that qualitie and capa|citie, as &s;pirits have, of being in many places; and being &s;omtime in a great, &s;omtime in a &s;male place: and there|fore we &s;ay that Chri&s;t's bodie by virtue of its &s;piritual qualities, becau&s;e it's &s;piritualized as glorious bodies are, may be in many places; even as the Body of Chri&s;t entred into the Cenacle the doores being &s;hut, whether that was by the chinks of the doore or the keye hole, or penetrating the door; this is
<PB N="234" REF="130"> no le&s;s repugnant to rea&s;on, and to the exigence of a natural earthly Ma&s;&s;ive Body, than to be in many places; and how did that happen? S. Epiph an&s;wers Haer. 64. <HI>Our Saviour ri&s;ed from the dead, not taking an other body, but the &s;elf &s;ame body, which he had, changing it into a &s;pi|ritual &s;ubtilitie, or &s;piritualizing it, by which he entred the door being &s;hut. He who entred,</HI> &s;aies S. Ambro&s;e l. 10. c. 24 in Luc. <HI>had a true real body; how then did he enter the door being &s;hut? by the qualities of a &s;pirit which he received in his Re&s;urrection; the body is &s;owen a natural, corruptible, earthly body; it ri&s;eth a &s;piritual, heavenly incor|ruptible one.</HI> By the&s;e Principles of Scrip|ture and con&s;ent of ancient Fathers, we can al&s;o vnder&s;tand, that tho the&s;e our natural, earthly corruptible bodies, cannot be at one time in many places; yet glorious bodies, being &s;piritualized, by virtue of their &s;piri|tual endowments, may be in many pla|ces, as &s;piritual &s;ub&s;tances are.</P>
<P>An other repugnance again&s;t rea&s;on our D^r pretends in this mi&s;terie, that the accidents of bread would exi&s;t with|out their &s;ub&s;tance to &s;upport them: yet we have &s;everal examples in Scrip|ture
<PB N="235" REF="130"> of the exi&s;tence of <HI>Accidents</HI> without their <HI>Sub&s;tances:</HI> fir&s;t the ta&s;t of all vic|tuals was in the <HI>Manna,</HI> and our D^r will not pretend the &s;ub&s;ta~ces of all victuals were there: &s;econdly Tobias did &s;ee vi&s;ibly the Accidents of a human na|ture in his fellow Travaller; and Scrip|ture a&s;&s;ures vs he was no man, but an Angel: thirdly Scripture tells vs the Apo&s;tles did &s;ee the Accidents of a Pigeon in <HI>Iordan;</HI> and the &s;ub&s;tance of a Pigeon was not there to &s;upport them; the I&s;raelits Exod. 13. did &s;ee a Pillar of a cloud, which lead them by day, and a Pillar of fire which lead them by night, and there was no &s;ub&s;tance either of a cloud or of fire, but only the Ac|cidents: and why may not the acci|dents of bread be in the Sacrament, tho their &s;ub&s;tance be not there to &s;upport them?</P>
<P>It's time we examin our D^r^'^s an&s;wer to my &s;econd &s;yllogi&s;m: he &s;aies he can reckon as many vices in it as in my fir&s;t; but what was expected was, not to tell vs what he could do, but to point out tho&s;e vices: it was vpon that pa&s;&s;age of John, 6. when Chri&s;t &s;aid, <HI>my fle&s;h is truly meate my blood is truly</HI>
<PB N="236" REF="131"> <HI>drink;</HI> the Jewes repleyed, <HI>this &s;aying is hard, how can this man give vs his fle&s;h to be eaten:</HI> I propo&s;ed two &s;yllogi&s;ms, the fir&s;t was thus; The Jews thought im|po&s;&s;ible what Chri&s;t affirmed; but what the Jews thought to be impo&s;&s;ible, was that he &s;hould give his true fle&s;h to be eaten; for no man ever yet apprehen|ded any impo&s;&s;ibilitie in giuing the fi|gure of his body to be eaten; e&s;pecial|lie the Iews, who eat yeerly the Pa&s;chal lamb, which they believed to be the fi|gure of Chri&s;t; therefore what Chri&s;t affirmed, was that he would give his true and real fle&s;h. My Adver&s;arie very ci|vily lets this &s;yllogi&s;m pa&s;s in &s;ylence. And any man would think its a pinching argument.</P>
<P>My &s;econd &s;yllogi&s;m vpon that pa&s;|&s;age was; A damnable vnbeliever is he who denies a Truth, &s;ufficiently pro|po&s;ed to him to be revealed; for tho a man may be an Vnbeliever for denying a Truth, but not a <HI>Damnable one,</HI> if it be not &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to him to be revealed: but the Jews in this occa|&s;ion are called damnable vnbelievers, and what they denied, was a real fle&s;hy eating of Chri&s;ts fle&s;h, as Catholics be|lieve
<PB N="237" REF="131"> it: therefore Chri&s;t &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed a real fle&s;hy eating of his bo|dy, as we believe it: My Adver&s;arie quarrels with the <HI>Minor</HI> of the &s;econd pro|po&s;ition, which he conceits to be a para|logi&s;m becau&s;e he &s;aies its compo&s;ed of two different propo&s;itions: but this is but a poor &s;hift to divert his Reader, and draw breath; for the &s;en&s;e of the Minor appears to any half eyed man to be this, <HI>The Iews were called damnable vn|believers, becau&s;e they denyed the fle&s;hy eating of Chri&s;ts body:</HI> what &s;aie you to this Propo&s;ition D^r? He denies it, and this is the whole and &s;ole an&s;wer we have from our D^r a naked denial, with|out giving any textor rea&s;on, why; but tells vs they were called <HI>damnable vn|believers not for denying the fle&s;hy eating of his Body, but becau&s;e they mi&s;under&s;tood Chri&s;t, and did not vnder&s;tand that he &s;poke only of his figurative fle&s;h.</HI> But the <HI>non</HI> &s;en&s;e of this an&s;wer is threefold; fir&s;t for to be a damnable vnbeliever it's nece&s;&s;arie to deny a <HI>truth,</HI> as our D^r him&s;elf con|fe&s;&s;es, and as all rhe world mu&s;t con|fe&s;s; but the Jews did not deny the <HI>fi|gurative Pre&s;ence,</HI> for our D^r him&s;elf, both in his printed &s;ermon and in his
<PB N="238" REF="132"> Book, pag. 115. &s;aies that they did not aprehend that Chri&s;t at all &s;poke of his figurative Pre&s;ence, but of his reall fle&s;hy Pre&s;ence; and how could they deny or affirm, what they did not as much as dream was &s;poken of? &s;econdly to be a <HI>Damnable</HI> vnbeliever, The truth mu&s;t be &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to the de|niers; and our D^r him&s;elf acknowledges that nothing of a figurative Pre&s;ence was &s;ufficiently propo&s;ed to them; wher|as he acknowledges, that they did not apprehend that Chri&s;t &s;hould have &s;po|ken of his figurative Pre&s;ence, but of a real fle&s;hy eating of his body; Chri&s;t's meaning therefore was not &s;ufficiently declared vnto them; how could they therefore be damnable vnbelievers: thirdly he &s;aies <HI>They did mi&s;aprehend Chri&s;t's Words, and did not vnder&s;tand him to have &s;poken of his figurative Pre&s;ence.</HI> And is it therefore they mu&s;t be called dam|nable vnbelievers, becau&s;e they did not vnder&s;tand what Chri&s;t &s;aid? will you call your Auditorie damn'd Here|tics becau&s;e they do not vnder&s;tand you when you preach? to call a man a Dolt or a dull headed fellow, becau&s;e he does not vnder&s;tand, may pa&s;s; but
<PB N="239" REF="132"> we are all in a &s;ad condition, if we mu&s;t be called damnable vnbelievers becau&s;e wee do not vnder&s;tand a Prea|cher or Teacher: I pray Reader con|&s;ider this di&s;cours, the Jews are called vnbelievers; therefore they mu&s;t have denied &s;om revealed Truths, but they denied no other but the real fle&s;hy ea|ting of Chri&s;t's body, for the D^r him|&s;elf &s;aies, they vnder&s;tood Chri&s;t did &s;peak of that, and of nothing els; therefore they are damnable vnbelie|vers for denying the fle&s;hy eating of Chri&s;ts body.</P>
<P>For to prove that Chri&s;t &s;poke of the figure of his fle&s;h, our D^r brings not a &s;yllable of Scripture but that text which he cited in his Sermon and I an&s;wered in my former Treati&s;e <HI>The fle&s;h profiteth nothing, it's the Spirit that quickneth; my Words are Spirit and life.</HI> He &s;aies Chri&s;t gave them to vnder&s;tand by the&s;e words, that he was to give them a fi|gure of his Body, and that it was a check for vnder&s;tanding him to have &s;poken of his true and real fle&s;h: and if you will not believe this vpon his bare word, you may choo&s;e, for he will give you no other ptoof: But that you may
<PB N="240" REF="133"> know how much our D^r is mi&s;taken, you mu&s;t know that the <HI>Capharnits,</HI> to whom Chri&s;t &s;poke, did not vnder&s;tand the Doctrin which S. Paul delivered vs; that this our natural earthly &s;en&s;ual body, &s;hould in the Re&s;urrection ri&s;e &s;piritualized, incorruptible, purified, and refined from our material earthly qualities; and &s;hould be incorruptible as &s;pirits, Agil as &s;pirits, invi&s;ible as &s;pirits, able to abridge it &s;elf to a nar|row, or enlarge it&s;elf to a great &s;pace as &s;pirits: the Capharnits vnder&s;tood nothing of this, but imagined the body could not be otherwi&s;e, than as we &s;ee it with its material earthly qualities; and when they heard Chri&s;t &s;ay he would give them his fle&s;h to eat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, they concei|ved he mean't his Body as they did &s;ee it vnder tho&s;e earthly material quali|ties, and that he would cut it in mor&s;els and give it to them: this carnal &s;en&s;ual manner of vnder&s;tanding is what Chri&s;t checkt; <HI>the fle&s;h profiteth nothing,</HI> that's to &s;ay according their carnal &s;en&s;ual imagination of it; that they ought to vnder&s;tand him &s;piritually; that his fle&s;h &s;hould be given in a &s;piritual way: Hear S. Augu&s;t. vpon this &s;ubject to. 9.
<PB N="241" REF="133"> tract. 27. in Joan. <HI>What means the fle&s;h profite<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">h nothing? it profiteth nothing as they (the Capharnits) vnder&s;tood it; for th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">y vnder&s;tood it, as one cuts it in mor&s;els when the Body is dead, or as it is &s;old in the But|cher's &s;tall, and not as it is &s;piritualized: Again S. Augu&s;t. in P&s;. 18. Our &s;aviour has given vs to eate the &s;ame fle&s;h, which was born of the Virgin, wherin he conver&s;ed with vs on earth, but in a &s;piritual manner.</HI> S. Chry&s;o&s;t. is no le&s;s expre&s;s Hom 24. in 6. Joan. <HI>How doth be fle&s;h profit nothing, withou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> which none can have life? ob&s;erve that this is not &s;aid of Chri&s;t's <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">rue fle&s;h, but of their (Capharnits) fle&s;hly &s;en&s;ual vnder|&s;tanding of his words.</HI></P>
<P>I expected to meet in my Adver&s;ari's book &s;om text of Scripture directly pro|ving his figurative Pre&s;ence, that he had not alleadged in his Sermon; but our D^t is a <HI>Spaniard,</HI> he &s;ticks to his old fa&s;hion, nothing of new will you hardly find in any of the points he treats, but what he &s;aid before in his Sermon: he cites again S. Paul calling the bread after its con&s;ecration, <HI>Brea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">;</HI> and takes no notice of the an&s;wer I gave him in my former Treati&s;e, that when a thing is converted into an other, it
<PB N="242" REF="134"> often retains the name of what it was; as <HI>The bl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nd &s;ee, the lame walk</HI> &amp;c. after they recouered their &s;ight and limbs, they are &s;o called, becau&s;e they were &s;o: and becau&s;e the texts are &s;omtimes to be vnder&s;tood in a Metaphorical &s;en&s;e &s;omtimes in a literal, I gave a rule for to di&s;tingui&s;h the one from the other: when a word is equivocal bea|ring two &s;ignifications; putting it in a propo&s;ition, its determined to &s;ignifie that &s;en&s;e of which, and of no other, the Predicat can be verified: as the word <HI>Man,</HI> is indifferent to &s;ignifie a true real Man or a painted one, put it in a Propo&s;ition, <HI>A Man is a rational creature;</HI> there it is determined to &s;ignifie a true real Man, becau&s;e of him only, the Predicat, <HI>Rational crea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ure,</HI> can be ve|rified: The word <HI>Bread</HI> al&s;o is indiffe|rent to &s;ignifie true material bread, or bread only in appearance: will you know which &s;en&s;e it beares in S. Pauls di&s;cours? &s;ee what Predicats are &s;aid of that bread; <HI>The bread which I &s;hall give is my fle&s;h for the life of the world,</HI> this Predicat <HI>fle&s;h which I &s;hall give for the life of</HI> the world cannot be &s;aid of true material bread; therefore that bread
<PB N="243" REF="134"> which S. Paul &s;peakes of, is not true Material bread: Chri&s;t &s;aies he is a <HI>Vine,</HI> a <HI>Lamb</HI> put them in propo&s;itions; <HI>Chri&s;t is the true vine, which yields fruit to life euerla&s;ting; the lamb which takes away the &s;ins of the world;</HI> the&s;e Predicats can|not he verified of a material <HI>vine</HI> and <HI>lamb:</HI> therefore they mu&s;t be taken in a Metaphorical &s;en&s;e. Our D^r without doubt would have been &s;o kind as to have advertis'd vs, if he had found this Rule did faulter; but tho he nibbles at it, he cannot weaken it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>XVI. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>TRANSVBSTANTIATION PROVED by the con&s;ent of Fathers.</HI></HEAD>
<P>NOt one of the fir&s;t Reformers but exclaimed again&s;t the Ancient Fa|thers as Fautors of Popery, carried away with the deluge of errors which ouerflowed the whole Church this they preached and printed, toxicating the brains of their Pro&s;elites with the con|tempt of Fathers and vndervalue of
<PB N="244" REF="135"> their authority, not only in the fir&s;t beginning of the Reformation, but for &s;om years after: but Po&s;terity, as men reclaimed from a Phren&s;y, began to think, how heatheni&s;h a crime it was to pull down the Pillars of Chri&s;tianity; and particularly the Church of England feeling the attacks of the <HI>Presbiterians</HI> again&s;t Epi&s;copacy, and &s;om practices of theirs; for which they can &s;hew no other warrant but Tradition, began to revere the authority of the ancient Fa|thers, but &s;o fraudulently, that where they &s;eem to drop any word which fa|vors them, they are brave men; but &s;hew them whole Treati&s;es in favor of our Catholic Tenets; they were blind, and carried away with the errors of their time: Who but Augu&s;tin? the greate&s;t D^r of the Church, when he calls the Euchari&s;t a Sign of Chri&s;t's body, (tho not as they pretend;) but produce his book, <HI>De cura pro Mortuis</HI> where he vigorou&s;ly proves Purgatory; &s;hew his expre&s;s words, for Prayers to Saints, and the Miracles of our Church which he relates; he was, they &s;ay, deceived by his Mother <HI>Monica,</HI> and hurried away by the errors of his time:
<PB N="245" REF="135"> S. Bernard was, they &s;ay, a mo&s;t Holy Orthodox Saint, when he bitterly checks the Pomp and Vanitie of the Court of Rome; but when he prai&s;es Monachi&s;m, teachs Purgatorie, prea|ches Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; he was Igno|rant, &s;aies D^r Sall, he was fouly de|ceived: S. Gregorie the great, was an incomparable man, when he &s;poke again&s;t John the Patriark of Con&s;tan|tinople, for v&s;urping the Title of <HI>Vni|ver&s;al Bishop;</HI> but tell them that he brought Popery into England, <HI>Ma&s;s. Purgatorie</HI> &amp;c. Fox &s;aies, he is in hell for his pains.</P>
<P>Now you are to ob&s;erve, Reader, that the ancient Fathers, &s;omtimes de|&s;ignedly &s;poke ob<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">urely of the Mi&s;te|ries of our Religion, and particularly of the holy Euchari&s;t; &s;pecially when they did &s;peake in pre&s;ence of <HI>Pagans</HI> and <HI>Cathecumens;</HI> becau&s;e, they not being received into the Church, nor &s;ufficiently in&s;tructed, might be &s;urpri|&s;ed and deterred from following Chri&s;t by the &s;ublimitie of this Mi&s;terie: as the Capharnits were, when it was pro|po&s;ed to them: this wee know by Theod. quoted by D^r Sall, Dial. 2, where &s;peak|ing
<PB N="246" REF="136"> of this Mi&s;terie he &s;aies; <HI>Non opor|te<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> haec aperte dicere; e&s;t enim vero&s;imile ad<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;e aliquos Initiatos: its not expedient to &s;peake more openly of the&s;e things, for pro|bably there may be &s;om Cathecumens pre&s;ent.</HI> S. Augu&s;tin, in p&s;al. 109. &s;aies the &s;ame, and Serm 46. de Verb. Dom. and our D^r and his fellow wranglers take an ad|vantage from hence, &s;natching &s;om of their ob&s;cure tetms, and gleaning heer and there &s;om little fragments, di&s;mem|ber'd from their cleer words, and from the end and &s;cope of their di&s;cours as wil appear by few examples; My An|tagoni&s;t cites Theodoret Dial. 2. and Gela&s;ius Pope de Duab. Natur. who &s;ay <HI>The &s;ymbols are not chan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed in their nature, but abide in their proper &s;ub&s;tance, figure, and form and are toucht and &s;een as before.</HI> Heer our D^r &s;tops, and very di&s;inge|nuou&s;ly omits the immediatly following words of Theodoret; <HI>Tho&s;e my&s;tical &s;igns are vnder&s;tood to be, what th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y are made to be, a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d hey are believed and adored as being tho&s;e things which h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y are believed to be.</HI> Could any man who profe&s;&s;es to &s;peake ob&s;cu|rely, &s;peakes in cleerer terms? he &s;aies they are <HI>believed</HI> and <HI>adored as being what they are made to be:</HI> if they are made to be
<PB N="247" REF="136"> a figure only of Chri&s;t's body, they are not <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o be adored</HI> in the Prote&s;tant Doctrin, which denies the adoration of Images: they are not changed he &s;aies, but abide in their <HI>nature &s;ub&s;tance, form</HI> and <HI>figure,</HI> and yet he &s;aies <HI>hey are made to be</HI> an object of our <HI>Adoration;</HI> certainly the Phy&s;ical true &s;ub&s;tance of bread is no object of <HI>Adoration; they are toucht and &s;een</HI> as before; and the true <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> of bread is not toucht or &s;een; only the Accidents of created <HI>&s;ub&s;tances</HI> are the Objects of our &s;en&s;es: whence it ap|pears, that by <HI>Nature, Sub&s;tance, Figure,</HI> and <HI>Form</HI> Theodoret vnder&s;tands the Accidents of bread which remain in the con&s;ecrated ho&s;t in their proper na|ture as before; and the Nature of a thing may be called it's &s;ub&s;tance.</P>
<P>By the way, take notice, that our D^r in his printed Sermon impugning our Tenet of Infallibility, directed his ar|rows at the Infallibility of the Pope alone: I advertis'd him, this was not our Tenet of faith, but a &s;chool que&s;|tion; that our Article of faith was, the Infallibility of the Pope and Council joyntly, and of the Church diffu&s;ive: In his 3. and 5. Chapt. of his booke he
<PB N="248" REF="137"> railes at me, that I impo&s;e vpon him in &s;aying he &s;hould have &s;poken of the Pope alone; <HI>It's an intolerable cauill, &s;aies he of I S. to &s;ay, I &s;houl &s;peake of the Pope alone's Infallibility; a gro&s;s mi&s;under&s;tanding of my meaning, for which I gaue no ground in my Writings: I &s;peake of the Infallibility of the Pope and Partie following him, whether congregated or di&s;per&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d.</HI> Have you heard him prote&s;t, that when he impugns our Tenet of Infallibility, he does not mean, nor &s;peak of that of the Pope alone? Heare him again reproach our Religion and faith as ridiculous, for believing the Infallibility of the Pope alone; (tho he knows, as it appears by his former words, this is not our Article of faith, nor bottom whervpon we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> re&s;t our faith.) Chap. 19 after having cited Ge|la&s;ius his &s;entence, <HI>that the Sub&s;tance and nature of bread and wine remains in the con|&s;ecrated Elements,</HI> as if, for being the judgment of a Pope, wee mu&s;t yield be|cau&s;e wee believe him Infallible; <HI>Will you find a way &s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">es he, for to decline &s;uch a &s;en|tenc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">?</HI> Yes D^r three waies; fir&s;t you mu&s;t prove again&s;t Bellar. Baron. and &s;everal others, that he was a Pope; &s;econdly you mu&s;t prove he delivered that Doc|trin
<PB N="249" REF="137"> after his in&s;tallment, and not be|fore he was made Pope; thirdly you mu&s;t prove he delivered that Doctrin ex <HI>Cathedra;</HI> that is to &s;ay as Ma&s;ter and Pa&s;tor of the Church, propo&s;ing to the flock what they ought to believe; for a Pope who &s;peakes his privat &s;en|timents, as a particular Doctor, may err: Moreouer D^r tho the Pope alone were infallible, and tho the Pope and Council joyntly be infallible; what they &s;ay only occa&s;ionally and tran&s;iently in their Decrees is not infallibly true; for tho their Decrees in matters of Doctrin be true, but the rea&s;ons, arguments, and &s;imilitudes by which they expound their Doctrin, are not infallible Veri|ties; and if you have read Gela&s;ius, or if you be at lea&s;ure to read him; you will find that the Subject and &s;cope of his di&s;cours, was of the <HI>Two Natures of Chri&s;t,</HI> proving it again&s;t <HI>Euthyces</HI> and <HI>Ne&s;torius,</HI> and that he &s;poke of the Mi&s;|terie of the Con&s;ecrated Bread tran|&s;iently, as a parity or &s;imilitude by which he pretends to prove the exi&s;tence of both Natures, Divin and Human, in Chri&s;t: la&s;tly, &s;uppo&s;e the words of Gela&s;ius prove evidently the &s;ub&s;tance
<PB N="250" REF="138"> of bread to remain in the Sacrament; what are you the neerer to prove your figurative Pre&s;ence? for the Lutherans will grant the bread is there; but that Chri&s;t's body is al&s;o there, togither with the bread, as both Natures, hu|man and Divin, are in Chri&s;t</P>
<P>And to &s;hew you our D^r^s di&s;ingenui|tie and fraud, heare him conclude his 19 Chapt. <HI>Conclude Reader from this pa&s;|&s;age of G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">la&s;ius what hopes wee may have of peace, and end of Controver&s;ies, by allowing the Pope to be infallible, when the cleer and plain words of a Pope are &s;ubject to &s;uch mi&s;|con&s;tructions:</HI> giving his Reader to vn|der&s;tand, that we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> bottom our faith on the Infallibility of the Pope alone, and make him only, the infallible Judge to decide our Controver&s;ies <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> and this our D^r &s;aies, after all his Prote&s;tations, that when he impugns and rebukes our Doctrin of Infallibility, he does not &s;peak of, or mean that of the Pope alone; as if wee had not plainly de|clared that our Catholic Tenet is not of the Infallibility of the Pope alone, but jointly with the Council.</P>
<P>He cites S. Augu&s;tin al&s;o who often calls the Euchari&s;t a &s;ign and type of
<PB N="251" REF="138"> Chri&s;t's Body; It's true he does; but it's no le&s;s true that he did not meane the Euchari&s;t was a <HI>pure</HI> and <HI>only</HI> &s;ign; but a Sign, and the thing &s;ignified: the Body of Chri&s;t in the Euchari&s;t, is a &s;ign of it&s;elf as it was on the cro&s;s; and, that this was S. Augu&s;tins mean|ing, our D^r could not doubt of't, had he read S. Augu&s;tin in P&s;al. 33. where glo&s;&s;ing vpon the words of the Pro|phet <HI>He was carried in his own hands,</HI> he &s;aies, <HI>Wee do not find that this was literal|ly verified of David, but we find it literal|ly verified of Chri&s;t, when, he &s;aied, this is my Body, he carried his Body in his hands.</HI> S. Augu&s;tin, as you &s;ee, &s;aies, that text, <HI>this is my Body,</HI> mu&s;t be vnder|&s;tood <HI>literally,</HI> and was <HI>literally</HI> verified of Chri&s;t, when he pronounced it; but if what Chri&s;t carried then in his hands was a pure, and only a &s;ign of his body, the text would not be literally verified of him; it's not his body he would car|rie in his hand, but a &s;ign of his Body: nor would S. Augu&s;tin have &s;aid, as we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> quoted him in the precedent Chapter, <HI>that our Saviour gave vs to ea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> the &s;am fle&s;h which was born of he Virgin, and wher|in he conver&s;ed with vs on earth:</HI> But where
<PB N="252" REF="139"> our adver&s;arie &s;ounds a perfect Victorie again&s;t vs, is in the pa&s;&s;age of S. Au|gu&s;tin in P&s;al. 38. <HI>You mu&s;t vnder&s;tand Spiritually, what I &s;aid; you &s;hall not eate this body which you &s;ee, nor drink this blood which &s;hall be &s;pilt by tho&s;e who will crucifie me; I have recommended vnto you a Sacra|ment which (&s;piritually vnder&s;tood) will give life; it is needfull it be celebrated vi&s;ibily; but it mu&s;t he vnder&s;tood &s;piritually:</HI> take the&s;e words of the Saint &s;eparatly from the &s;cope and end of his di&s;cours, and they may &s;tartle you: but if you con|&s;ider that, as I have related aboue, he checked the &s;en&s;ual material vnder&s;tan|ding of the Capharnits, who judged Chri&s;t intended his Body to be eaten vnder tho&s;e material earthly qualities as it appeared to their eyes, S. Augu&s;|tin mean't nothing els but to rectifie their error, telling them they were not to eat that fle&s;h and blood of Chri&s;t which they did &s;ee, as they did &s;ee it vnder tho&s;e accidents and qualities; but in a &s;piritual manner, as glorious bodies exi&s;t, as we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> declared in the pre|cedent Chapter; and that S. Augu&s;tin did not think of denying Chri&s;t's true and real fle&s;h &s;hould be given, it ap|pears,
<PB N="253" REF="139"> wheras he &s;aies, <HI>he would giue vs the &s;ame fl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;h to eat, which was born of the Virgin, and wherin he conver&s;ed with vs on earth.</HI></P>
<P>Our D^r cites al&s;o <HI>Dioni&s;ius Syrus,</HI> vpon the fir&s;t Chap. of S. John tran&s;lated into Engli&s;h by D^r Loftus; affirming the <HI>Word was made fle&s;h without any change in the Di|vinity, as the bread is changed into the Body of Chri&s;t without any change in its nature:</HI> the Tran&s;lator I honor for his learning and erudition; the works of Dioni&s;ius Syrus I have not &s;een, but allow he has &s;poken as he is tran&s;lated; fir&s;t this, and all you have hitherto &s;aid, Favors Lu|thers opinion of Con&s;ub&s;tantiation, more than the Prote&s;tant Doctrin of Fi|gurative Pre&s;ence; for all you have &s;aid proves only, that the &s;ub&s;tance of bread remains; but how do you prove again&s;t Luther or again&s;t vs, that the Body of Chri&s;t is not &s;ub&s;tantially and really there? if Dioni&s;ius Syrus be of &s;o great weight with you, you mu&s;t &s;ay, that as the Word of God being made fle&s;h; <HI>bo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h</HI> natures and &s;ub&s;tances remain in Chri&s;t; of <HI>fle&s;h,</HI> and of the Divinity, &s;o when the bread is made the Body of Chri&s;t, there mu&s;t remain both natures
<PB N="254" REF="140"> and Sub&s;tances of Chri&s;t's&punc; body and the bread, in the Sacrament; and this is Luthers Doctrin, nothing a kin to the figurative Pre&s;ence of England: Secondly what do you talk to vs of a Dioni&s;ius Syrus, or of Gela&s;ius, an vnknowen Author? put both, and more of their rank, if you can get them, in one balance; and put S. Augu&s;tin, S. Chri&s;o&s;tom, S. Ambros, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and the re&s;t of the knowen, renowned, and mo&s;t illu&s;trious Doctors and Pillars of Chri&s;tianity in an other; and tell me which of them weighs mo&s;t? reade S. Ambro&s;e l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. <HI>You will &s;ay my bread is v&s;ual bread; No, this bread which is bread before the Sacramen|tal Words, when the con&s;ecra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ion is perfor|med, of bread is made the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t;</HI> and to preuent our Adver&s;aries cauil of a figurative fle&s;h, he &s;aies l. 6. de Sacram. c. 1. <HI>as our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t is the true &s;on of God, not as men are by grace, but as the &s;on of the &s;ub&s;tance of his father; &s;o, it is his very true fle&s;h, as him&s;elf has &s;aid, and his very true blood wee eat and drink:</HI> I do not wonder that Calvin wi&s;ht, (as they &s;ay he did) that the De|vil had &s;truck the pen out of S. Ambro&s;e
<PB N="255" REF="140"> his hand when he was writing of this Mi&s;terie; for there can be nothing more cleer again&s;t his figurative Pre|&s;ence: and again l. de <HI>Initiandis</HI> c. 9. he &s;aies <HI>the bread is changed into the Body of Chri&s;t, as Moy&s;es his rod was turned into a &s;erpent, as the waters of Egipt were turn'd into blood; and the water into wine in the Marriage of Cana of Galilee, the word of God which made of nothing, that to be, which was not; can not it change that which was, to be that which it was not before?</HI> Face the&s;e words of S. Ambro&s;e with tho&s;e of Dioni&s;ius Syrus and &s;ee which of both is of mo&s;t credit in the Chri&s;tian world, Ambro&s;e or Dioni&s;ius:</P>
<P>And if you think Ambro&s;e does not outweigh him, add S. Cyprian, &s;erm. de Coen. Dn~i; <HI>The bread which our Lord gave to his di&s;ciples was changed, not in ap|pearance but in nature, and by the Omnipo|tency of his Word was made fle&s;h.</HI> Eu&s;eb. Emi&s;&s;. Serm. de Corp. Dn~i, <HI>The invi&s;ible Pri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t Ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;t, do<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s change by his invi&s;ible power the vi&s;ible creatures to the &s;ub&s;tance of h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> Body and blood: when the vi&s;ible creatures are put vpon the altar, before the invoca|tion of the Holy Gho&s;t for to ble&s;s them, the &s;ub&s;tance of bread and wine is there; but</HI>
<PB N="256" REF="141"> <HI>after the con&s;ecration, the Body and blood of Chri&s;t; we mu&s;t judge of this Ho&s;t not by our &s;en&s;es, or exteriour appearance, but by our faith.</HI> S. Hierom. in Epi&s;t. ad Hebr. quae&s;t. 20. <HI>Let vs vnder&s;tand that the bread which Chri&s;t gave to his Di&s;ciples, is the body of Chri&s;t; Moy&s;es did not give the true hread</HI> (yet he gave the Manna, which was a figure of Chri&s;t) <HI>but Chri&s;t gave it; Chri&s;t him&s;elf is the gue&s;t and the banquet; he him|&s;elf is he who eates, and is eaten,</HI> Add to the&s;e the te&s;timonies of S. Augu&s;tin, S. Chry&s;o&s;tom, S. Cyril, and S. Epiph. which I produced in the precedent, and I will produce in the next en&s;uing Chapter; and pretend not for &s;om half &s;entences pickt heer and there out of &s;om Ancient Fathers work, and wre&s;ted to a crooked &s;ence which they never thought of; pretend not I &s;ay, that the Ancient Fathers do favor your Error; it would be more ingenuity in you to &s;ay, as your Ance&s;tors, the fir&s;t Reformers &s;aid, that the Ancient Fathers were blind, and carried away with our Po|pi&s;h &s;uper&s;titions; and as you for&s;ook the Church with them, to renounce to the Fathers as they did.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="257" REF="141">
<HEAD>XVII. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>THE ADORATION OF THE HOST; and Communion in one Kind.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THer's no need of an Antagoni&s;t for to contradict our D^r. for in every chapter almo&s;t, he contradicts him&s;elf; in the perclo&s;e of his 20. chap. he blends vp two contradictorie propo|&s;itions in one paragragh; <HI>I do not ignore nor doubt, &s;aies he, that if your Doctrin of Chri&s;t's per&s;onal pre&s;ence in the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t be true, ther's as much rea&s;on for to adore &s;uch an Ho&s;t as to adore Chri&s;t him&s;elf, both being the &s;ame thing in &s;uch a &s;uppo&s;i|tion:</HI> then again he ads, <HI>It's an intolerable boldne&s;s to &s;ay, the matter &s;tanding as now it doth, doubtfull and controverted, there is as much rea&s;on to adore Chri&s;t in the con&s;ecra|ted Ho&s;t, as there is for adoring him in his own per&s;on, &s;ince that for adoring Chri&s;t wee haue an expre&s;s command, but no command of adoring Chri&s;t in the Sacramental bread even &s;uppo&s;ing him to be corporally pre&s;ent there.</HI> You &s;ee how in one breath the
<PB N="258" REF="142"> D^r &s;aies wee are obliged to adore the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t &s;uppo&s;ing Chri&s;t to be there per&s;onally pre&s;ent, and that yet &s;uppo&s;ing him to be there per&s;onally pre&s;ent we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> are not obliged to adore him: But the rea&s;on he gives why we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> are not obliged to adore him, tho he &s;hould be there per&s;onally pre&s;ent, is very pretty; becau&s;e &s;aies he, that for adoring Chri&s;t in his own per&s;on we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> have a po&s;itive command, but we have no command for adoring him in the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t, tho he &s;hould be there per&s;onally pre&s;ent: as if the ge|neral command of adoring Chri&s;t in fle&s;h, did not reach for to oblige vs to adore him where&s;oeuer he is really pre&s;ent in fle&s;h; doubtle&s;s he mu&s;t &s;ay the three kings were intolerably bold for adoring him in the Manger, becau&s;e there was no particular co~mand of ado|ring him in a manger; But D^r, is there any particular command of not adoring Chri&s;t in the Ho&s;t, tho he &s;hould be there per&s;onally pre&s;ent? No; and will not a general co~mand of adoring him in fle&s;h per&s;onally pre&s;ent oblige vs to adore him, where&s;oeuer he be per&s;onally pre|&s;ent, if there be not a particular com|mand
<PB N="259" REF="142"> excluding &s;uch and &s;uch ca&s;es where he mu&s;t not be adored? If the Ble&s;&s;ed Trinitie did appear to you in the &s;hape of three yong men, as hap|pen'd to Abraham, and that you were a&s;&s;ured by a revelation it was the Ble&s;|&s;ed Trinitie, would not you in virtue of the General Command of adoring the Trinitie, hold your&s;elf obliged to adore it, tho there be no particular command of adoring it vnder the &s;hape of a man? The general command laid vpon vs of having no commerce nor dealing with the Deuil, does it not oblige vs not to have any commerce nor dealing with him if he &s;hould appear unto vs in the &s;hape of <HI>a great black Dog;</HI> tho there be no particular command, forbidding any communication with him in that &s;hape?</P>
<P>But &s;aies he, it's an intolerable boldne&s;s to adore him in the Ho&s;t, the ca&s;e &s;tanding as it does doubtfull and controverted if he be there or not; be|cau&s;e we expo&s;e our&s;elves to a mani|fe&s;t danger of committing material Idolatrie at lea&s;t; Ju&s;t as if you did &s;ay when the Arians denied the Divinitie of Chri&s;t, it was intolerable boldne&s;s
<PB N="260" REF="143"> in the Council of Nice to adore Chri&s;t as God, the matter being doubtfull and controverted: you mi&s;take in your &s;up|po&s;ition S^r, we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> are not doubtfull, your doubts, denial, or controver&s;ies creat no doubt nor &s;cruple in vs; we are certainly a&s;&s;ured that Chri&s;t is there really pre&s;ent, and wee pittie your Ob&s;tinacie in denying &s;o a&s;&s;ured a Te|net; and we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> fear not the hazard of a material Idolatrie, even in ca&s;e that the Ho&s;t were not duly con&s;ecrated for want of intention in the Prie&s;t for to con&s;ecrat, or becau&s;e he is no true Prie&s;t, or what other defect you plea&s;e: I had rea&s;on to &s;ay D^r, that you did not well vnder&s;tand our Doctrin, and I may &s;ay now you do not vnder&s;tand what <HI>ma|terial Idolatrie</HI> is, when you &s;ay, that it might happen that the Prie&s;t &s;hould not have an intention of con&s;ecrating, and then the Ho&s;t would not be con&s;ecra|ted, and our Adoration of &s;uch an Ho&s;t would be a Material Idolatry; and to this danger we are, you &s;ay, dayly expo&s;ed. I be&s;eech you D if ever you write again, do your Reader the ju&s;tice as to repley again&s;t your Adver&s;ari's an&s;wers to your arguments; you pro|po&s;ed
<PB N="261" REF="143"> this argument in your Sermon, and I plainly refuted it, by &s;hewing you had as much rea&s;on to doubt of the Chri&s;tianity of all the world, and of the truth of your Prote&s;tant Clergy, for tho you do not make your Bapti&s;m or Ordination to depend of the intentio~ of the Mini&s;ter, yet you make them depend of other e&s;&s;ential requi&s;its, and you have no greater a&s;&s;urance of tho&s;e requi&s;its to have been applied, than we have of the Intention of the Prie&s;t in the Con&s;ecration of the Ho&s;t.</P>
<P>And &s;uppo&s;e that the Prie&s;t in effect had not an intention, but that the Ho&s;t remains vncon&s;ecrated, we are not as much as materially Idolaters for adoring it; for Idolatrie whether Ma|terial or formal is when adoration is giuen to a Creature fal&s;ly believed to be God; the Pagans are Idolaters, for adoring the Sun, and the I&s;raelits for adoring the Golden Calf, which Sun and Calf they belieued to be a Sun and a Calf, and yet a God; for they never pretended that the Sun and Calf cea&s;ed to be &s;uch, and were converted into invi&s;ible Deities; but they attributed Divinitie to them, remaining in their
<PB N="262" REF="144"> proper Being of a Sun and a Calf: for to make vs therefore either formally or Materially Idolaters, you mu&s;t proue that our Adoration is given to bread; remaining bread, and fal&s;ly believed by vs to be God; and if you &s;ay &s;o, you widely mi&s;take our Doctrin and practice: for as your own D^r Tay|lor &s;aies in his <HI>Liber<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">te of Prophecying,</HI> c. 20. and your D^r Thorndick, <HI>in his Iu&s;t weights&punc;</HI> c. 19. our Adoration is &s;o far from being directed to bread, that wee believe the Object we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> adore is no bread, but God; Our Will goes by ado|ration to the Object, as it is in our Un|der&s;tanding, and in our Under&s;tanding its no bread but God; we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> do not adore bread believed to be God, but we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> adore God, believed to be no bread: where then leyes the danger of our ma|terial Idolatrie in adoring the Ho&s;t con&s;ecrated? becau&s;e it remains vncon|&s;ecrated bread? but we do not adore what it remains to be, but what wee believe it is made by due con&s;ecra|tion.</P>
<P>And that you may &s;ee how ra&s;h you were in your cen&s;ure of <HI>Intolerable bold|ne&s;s</HI> for adoring the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t,
<PB N="263" REF="144"> pray hear S. Augu&s;tin who &s;aies in P&s;al. 98. &s;peaking of the foot&s;tool of our Lord, <HI>That foot&s;tool is the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t, wherin he walked on earth, and which he gave vs to eat, no man eateth that fle&s;h, who fir&s;t hath not adored it, and wee do not only, not &s;in in adoring it; but wee &s;in in not ador|ing it.</HI> S. Ambro&s;e l. 3. de Spir. Sancto, <HI>wee adore the fle&s;h of Chri&s;t in the mi&s;teries, which the Apo&s;tles adored in Chri&s;t our Lord:</HI> S. Chry&s;o&s;. hom. 24. in 1. ad Corin. <HI>The wi&s;emen adored Chri&s;t in the Manger; let vs imitate them wee &s;ee him not in the Man|ger, but on the Altar.</HI> Had the&s;e Saints any &s;pecial command for adoring Chri&s;t in the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t? no, but the general command of adoring him in fle&s;h, and they believed his fle&s;h to be there: and if they were not intolerably ra&s;h and bold for adoring it, why will you condemn vs?</P>
<P>In the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church</HI> I have proved at large the &s;ufficiency of one kind in the Communion, by Scripture, rea&s;on, and authority of fathers; and wheras I find nothing in my Adver&s;aries repley that either weakens my di&s;cours, or &s;trengthens his own Tenet it's better to remit my Reader to what I have &s;aid
<PB N="264" REF="145"> there, than to weary his patience with a tedious Tatalogie: only I mu&s;t adver|ti&s;e, that it's &s;trange a <HI>Church of England</HI> man, &s;hould &s;ay the Cup is &s;o indi&s;pen|&s;ably requi&s;it by Chri&s;t's In&s;titution, that it cannot vpon any con&s;ideration be retrencht; &s;o our D^r &s;aies pag. 136. condemning the Council of Con&s;tance for Pretending any rea&s;on for ordaining the bread alone &s;hould be taken; <HI>This is &s;ufficient to me,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>that the Coun|cil &s;hould pretend any rea&s;on for inverting the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, which ordained al&s;o the Cup &s;hould be taken:</HI> Is it not &s;trange I &s;ay&punc; that a Church of England man &s;hould &s;peake &s;o? after that the Statut of 1. Edward VI. goes thus; <HI>We com|mand that the Sacrament be commonly taken in both kinds, if nece&s;sitie does not require otherwi&s;e:</HI> Do not tho&s;e words of the Statute <HI>Commonly,</HI> and, <HI>if nece&s;sitie does not require otherwi&s;e</HI> import that &s;omtime for ju&s;t rea&s;ons and nece&s;&s;itie, we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> may be di&s;pen&s;ed with, and receive in one kind? nor is it only the Church of En|gland by its Head king Edward, has declared this, but al&s;o the Church of France in their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;ciplin printed at Saumur 12. Chap. Art. 7.
<PB N="265" REF="145"> &s;aies thus, <HI>The Mini&s;ter mu&s;t give the bread in the &s;upper to them who cannot drink the wine, provided it be not for contempt.</HI> And tho the Lutheran Church v&s;e both kinds in the Communion, yet Luther plainly declares, it might be taken in one, and that its an indifferent thing: l. de Capt. Babil. c. de Euch. <HI>They &s;in not,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>who receive in one kind only, &s;eeing Chri&s;t hath not commanded to v&s;e both:</HI> and again Epi&s;t. and Bohaem. in declar. Euch. &amp; Serm. de Euch&punc; <HI>although it were an excel|lent thing to v&s;e both kinds in the Euchari&s;t, and Chri&s;t hath commanded nothing in this point as nece&s;&s;arie; it were better to follow peace and Vnity, than to conte&s;t about the kinds.</HI> Melancton al&s;o has expre&s;ly the &s;ame Doctrin in Con&s;il. Theol. ad Mar|chionem Elect. de v&s;u vtriu&s;que partis, pag. 141.</P>
<P>I appeal now to any prudent vnpre|judic'd mans judgment, who is in the wrong, D^r Sall, or I: the D^r &s;aies, the Cup is of Divin in&s;titution &s;o indi&s;pen|&s;ablie needfull that it cannot for any rea&s;on be omitted, and blames the Council of Con&s;tance for pretending a ju&s;t rea&s;on for retrenching it and the D^r has of his &s;ide the Church of Eng|land,
<PB N="264" REF="146">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="265" REF="146">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="266" REF="147"> as now it is; I &s;ay, the Cup is not indi&s;pen&s;ably requi&s;it for the inte|grity of the Communion; that Chri&s;t has left it arbitrary to the Church, to give either the bread alone, or the bread and cup togither; as time and nece&s;&s;itie &s;hall require; and I have on my &s;ide not only the whole Catholic Church, but even Luther and Melanc|ton, and the Church of England in king Edwards time, and the Church of France this day; for tho the Hugonots vul|garly are in that per&s;wa&s;ion, I know not by what charm, that both kinds are needfull; yet their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;ciplin, as I quoted, plainlie &s;ets down they may for ju&s;t rea&s;ons receive in one kind; have I not think you the advantage aboue the D^r? I pray read my former Treari&s;e, where you &s;hall find this Tenet &s;olidly proved by Scrip|ture and rea&s;on.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="267" REF="147">
<HEAD>XVIII. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>IMAGE WORSHIP NO IDOLATRIE.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IF you con&s;ider the vndertaking, or the proofs of the vndertakers, in no where will you find the Prote&s;tants more vnju&s;t, than in their charge of Idolatry again&s;t vs for the wor&s;hip of Images: for Idolatrie being the adora|tion of a creature as God; or the Image of a fals God; can there be any thing more vnju&s;t than to charge vs with that &s;in, who plainly avow Images are but creatures and no God; who look vpon them, as the Images of the only God of Heaven and earth, and of Je&s;us Chri&s;t who is no fals, but a true God; wee a&s;k nothing of them; we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> place not our hopes in them, but we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> a&s;k of, and place our hope in him whom they repre|&s;ent. Where is there any thing of Ido|latry in this? or what can there be more conformable to rea&s;on, than that we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;hould honor the picture of God, whom we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> adore; as the picture of the king is
<PB N="268" REF="148"> honored aboue that of any &s;ubject; and there is none but will think the in|jury or honor don to his picture, for being his repre&s;entation, to be an in|jurie again&s;t his own Per&s;on: This charge is al&s;o inju&s;t, becau&s;e the Prote&s;|tants allow &s;alvation in the Catholic Church, and the actual profe&s;&s;ion of its Tenets, if ignorance does not excu&s;e vs; and how can &s;alvation be allowed in the actual profe&s;&s;ion of Idolatrie; or ignorance be pretended amid&s;t &s;o much of Chri&s;tianity and light of the Gho&s;|pel? It's al&s;o inju&s;t becau&s;e wee are no more guiltie in this Tenet, than Luthe|rans who revere Images as much as wee; nay no more than Prote&s;tants, who as I have ob&s;erved in my former Treati&s;e, religiou&s;ly re&s;pect the Lords &s;upper which they &s;ay, is but a figure or Image of Chri&s;t's Body: which S. Paul recom|mends 1. Cor. 11. <HI>Let a man examin him|&s;elf, and &s;o let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he who eates or drinks it vnworthily eates and drinks damnation to him&s;elf not di&s;cerning the body of the Lord he is guil<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ie of the body and blood of our Lord.</HI> You &s;ee what an honor what a re&s;pect, what a puritie of heart, you are to
<PB N="269" REF="148"> haue, and you your&s;elves confe&s;s you mu&s;t have, for to receive that which you &s;ay is but a figure, and an Image of Chri&s;t's body, and a repre&s;enta|tion of his Pa&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>My D^r is put to his &s;hifts by this ar|gument, and mo&s;t de&s;peratly &s;aies <HI>there is no &s;ign nor in&s;inuation of adoration, to be given to the Communion bread, in that text of S. Paul; its a work of my fancy he &s;aies, no di&s;covery of common &s;en&s;e.</HI> My God? how much a Polemical animo&s;itie blinds a man? Is there any Prote&s;tant in Eng|land &s;o impious, take him out of the heat of a Polemical di&s;cours, but will &s;ay the Con&s;ecrated bread is to be wor&s;|hip'd? or is there any, but D^r Sall, who will &s;ay there is no &s;ign or in&s;innua|of that whor&s;hip in tho&s;e words of S. Paul? that purity of mind, that &s;cru|tiny of our defects, that cleanlyne&s;s of heart which he enjoyns, is not this an in&s;inuation and &s;ign of the reverence wherwith wee ought to aproach to that Mi&s;terie? and is not that reverence a wor&s;hip, and honor wee pay to that bread? and why becau&s;e in receiving it vnworthily, wee di&s;honor the body of Chri&s;t: Chri&s;t therefore is di&s;hono|red
<PB N="270" REF="149"> in his figure; wee de&s;erve damna|tion by di&s;honoring it; and why are wee damn'd, but for our injurie to Chri&s;t? wee are guiltie of the body of Chri&s;t; is it not an evident &s;equele out of this, that the injurie, di&s;honor and irreverence don to Chri&s;t's figure (which you &s;ay is the Communion bread) is don to Chri&s;t's own Per&s;on? why will you then deny that God is honored or di&s;honored in his picture?</P>
<P>Wee have heard S. Augu&s;tin, S. Am|bro&s;e S. Chry&s;o&s;tom in the next prece|dent Chapter &s;ay, that the con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t is to be adored, and that it is a &s;in &s;aies S. Augu&s;tin not to adore it; ca&s;t an eye back on the words of the&s;e Saints in the former Chapter, whyl&s;t I a&s;k my D^r what does he believe to be in the Communion bread? if the true an real fle&s;h of Chri&s;t, that tho&s;e Saints would have vs adore, then he mu&s;t ack|nowledge Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, if it be but Bread repre&s;enting figuratively Chri&s;t's Body, what they would have vs adore; then he mu&s;t confe&s;s, its no Idolatrie to adore the figure and Image of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Our D^r after his acu&s;tomed fa&s;hion,
<PB N="271" REF="149"> does but repeat what he &s;aid in his Ser|mon again&s;t this Tenet, and takes no notice of what I an&s;wered: he tells vs God commanded in <HI>Exodus, Thou &s;halt not make to thee any graven Image-thou &s;halt not bow down they &s;elf to them:</HI> and where is there any mention heer of not worshipping Images? for the letter of the text is, <HI>not to make any graven Image;</HI> and if the making of an Image be Idola|trie or adoration, you are no le&s;s guiltie than wee; the text &s;aies <HI>thou &s;halt not bow they &s;elf</HI> to them; Jo&s;ue and the I&s;ra&euml;lits did &s;o to the Ark, as you acknowledge, and you do it to the Image of our Prince, and &s;o we are all Idolaters. But &s;aies he, when <HI>the I&s;raelits did look on the Serpent in the De&s;ert, and were thereby healed; and when Io&s;ue and the I&s;raelits fell down on their faces before the Ark, they did not adore it, otherwi&s;e when we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> pray before the Bible and an Altar we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> mu&s;t adore them:</HI> was there euer the like Childi&s;hne&s;s? He does not vnder&s;tand, or at lea&s;t will not vnder&s;tand my di&s;|cours vpon tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages; which is this: It's manife&s;tly declared in Scrip|ture that the <HI>bra&s;en Serpent</HI> was erected vpon a Pole by Gods command, and it
<PB N="272" REF="150"> appears Jo. 3. 14. that this Serpent was an Image of Chri&s;t Crucified, S. Aug. de Pecc. Mort l. 1. 32. <HI>exaltatus Ser|pens e&s;t mors Chri&s;ti;</HI> hence it follows that it's not again&s;t Gods commandment to make Images of Chri&s;t; &s;econdly its apparent that when the I&s;raelits looking on this Serpent were healed, they came before it, and looked on it with re&s;pect, reverence, and devotion, being the in&s;trument which God v&s;ed to heal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> them; and tho the vulgar &s;ort of the people were perhaps ignorant of the mi&s;terie repre&s;ented by that Serpent elevated vpon a heigh Pole; doubtle&s;s Moy&s;es and the learned of the people did know it was a repre&s;entation of Chri&s;t vpon the cro&s;s, by whom man kind &s;hould be healed from the venom of the infernal &s;erpent, as all the in|terpreters &s;ay: &s;o that an ingenuous Reader will not doubt, but that that Serpent was wor&s;hiped and deuoutly revered by the wounded I&s;raelits, as now wee Catholics do revere and wor&s;|hip a <HI>Crucifix:</HI> all this was don by Gods command; wherby its manife&s;t that the wor&s;hip of Chri&s;ts Image; our acce&s;s and prayers to him before his Image; and
<PB N="273" REF="150"> our belief, that Chri&s;t by his Images, before which we pray, does confer many ble&s;&s;ings vpon vs, as God did vpon the Jews by the bra&s;en Serpent) is not idolatrous &s;uper&s;tition or again&s;t Gods command; moreouer that God &s;hould have commanded kings. 18. that Serpent to be broken by Ezechias, when the people pa&s;s'd the bonds of devotion, to adore it as God, and not as the Image of God, convin|ces plainly that what God forbids in the fir&s;t Commandment, is the Ado|ration of Images or Similitudes as Gods; for whil&s;t the people looked vpon it as Gods Image, their devotion was per|mitted, and rewarded by God with mi|raculous cures; but when they looked vpon it as a God; then God was angrie, and commanded it to be de&s;troied.</P>
<P>This and the example of the Ark (which all Interpreters declare to be God's Image) before which Jo&s;ue and the people did pro&s;trat them&s;elves reverently on the ground; and which David honored with proce&s;&s;ions and ma|ny other marks of devotion, demon&s;|trats the v&s;e of Images not to be forbid den by God, nor to be Super&s;titious or
<PB N="274" REF="151"> Idolatrous in vs; and your little quillet is ridiculous; <HI>then</HI> &s;ay you, <HI>when wee look on a Church; or the Bible, or the Altar wee adore it:</HI> certainly D^r you will not be &s;o impious, as to deny, that there is a &s;pecial reverence due to a Church, more than to an other hou&s;e, becau&s;e it's particularly dedicated to Gods &s;er|vice; and a particular Veneration for the Bible, becau&s;e it contains the Hi&s;to|rie of Chri&s;t's Pa&s;&s;ion and Divin Truths, more than for <HI>Titus Livius,</HI> or <HI>Lucius Florus;</HI> and why will not you have a greater reverence for the Image of God, and his Saints, for being their repre&s;entation, than you have for the kings picture and chair of &s;tate before which you dare not be couer'd in the chamber of Pre&s;ence. O but &s;ay you this is no adoration: <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pi&s;h D^r what a Childi&s;h cauil is this; It's a religious ve|neration, re&s;pect, honor and wor&s;hip which wee exhibit to the Image for being a repre&s;entation of God; call it adoration, or not; this wee vnder&s;tand by Adoration: what do you call, your being bare headed before the king? will not you call it a wor&s;hip and reve|rence to the king? and what will you
<PB N="275" REF="151"> call your being bare headed in the Chamber of Pre&s;ence, before his pic|ture and chair of &s;tate? you mu&s;t call it a wor&s;hip al&s;o, and reverence given to the picture and chair for the kings &s;ake which they repre&s;ent: even &s;o your bowing on your knees to God, your offering donaries to him, your proce&s;&s;ions for his &s;ake do not you call this wor&s;hip, an <HI>adoration</HI> of God; &s;o lik|wi&s;e your kneeling, praying, and other marks of devotion before an Image, is a wor&s;hip and adoration of the Image, for being the Image and type of God.</P>
<P>You are tedious in telling vs again that Azor, Va&s;q. and our Schoolmen &s;aie, Images of God and the Saints mu&s;t be adored with the &s;ame degree of adoration, that the Saints are ado|red with, and &s;o Images of God mu&s;t be adored <HI>Cultu Latriae,</HI> which is Idola|trie: but whoeuer reades our School Divins, will find that they who &s;ay Images mu&s;t be adored with the &s;ame adoration that is giuen to their Proto|tipes, <HI>Latria</HI> to Chri&s;t's Image, <HI>hyper|dulia</HI> to the B. Virgins Image, and <HI>Dulia</HI> to Saints Images, they plainly and di&s;|tinctly di&s;tingui&s;h a <HI>Relative</HI> and an <HI>Ab&s;o|lut</HI>
<PB N="276" REF="152"> Adoration; and &s;ay that the &s;ame adoration which is given to the Pro|totype mu&s;t be given to the type, but differently; to the Prototype an <HI>Ab&s;olut</HI> adoration; to the Type, a <HI>relative;</HI> &s;o God is adored with an ab&s;olut <HI>Latria,</HI> that's to &s;ay for his own &s;ake; his Image is to be adored with a Relative <HI>Latria,</HI> that's to &s;ay not for its &s;elf, but for the relation it has to God, in as much as it is his repre|&s;entation. The adoration of <HI>Latria</HI> given to God, as an ab&s;olut &s;ource of all goodne&s;s and an infinit Deytie, is gi|ven to none but to him; to his Image wee give a greater adoration, re&s;pect, and honor, than to the Image of the B. Virgin or Saints, becau&s;e it's a re|pre&s;entation of God; and this we call a Relative <HI>Latria:</HI> and when our Doc|trin apears to be &s;o innocent, and our practice in our adoration of Images, is &s;o cleerly declared by our Councils and Schoolmen; its vnbecoming any man of honor and &s;incerity to be nibbling at our words, and wre&s;ting them to ma|licious &s;ences, and little &s;pani&s;h Pro|verbs and Idle &s;tories of abu&s;es that he has &s;een in Spain or read in <HI>Ludovicus</HI>
<PB N="277" REF="152"> <HI>Vives,</HI> in <HI>Polydorus Virgilius and Ca&s;&s;ander,</HI> which &s;erve but to give the Printer work, and render the Author ridiculous: yes indeed <HI>Polydorus Virgilius,</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;&s;ander</HI> and <HI>Ludovicus Vives</HI> mu&s;t be believed, when they tell vs &s;om abu&s;es of the vul|gar people in the adoration of Ima|ges; and S. Augu&s;tin, S. Bernard, S. Gregorie, S Damian, and other Saints and Doctors of the Church, mu&s;t not be credited, when they tell vs many Miracles wrought in defen&s;e of the wor&s;hip of Images: O but &s;aies our D^r <HI>our adoration of Images ob&s;tructs the Con|ver&s;ion of Pagans: for how will they be di&s;|&s;waded from adoring &s;tocks and &s;tones, by vs, who do the &s;ame?</HI> and will not his Reader laugh, to &s;ee Prote&s;tants &s;o much concern'd for the Conver&s;ion of Pagans? a people who never &s;ent one Preacher to convert Infidels: but D^r we &s;ee, notwith&s;tanding your opinion of our Image Wor&s;hip, God has even in this our age converted many Pagans, and kingdoms of Infidels by our Image-Wor&s;hippers, and he never made v&s;e of your Image Breakers to convert any one Pagan.</P>
<P>In his 15. Chapt. he pretends to prove
<PB N="278" REF="153"> that it is not only Idolatrie to adore an Image as God, but to adore God in an Image, or by an Image; <HI>Give that Wor+&s;hip,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>what name you plea&s;e, to wor&s;hip them at all, is a formal tran&s;gre&s;sion again&s;t Gods precept:</HI> this, he &s;aies, and no other, was the Idolatrie of the Jews; not for that they did believe the Calf was God, for who can believe, they were &s;o de&s;titut of Common &s;en&s;e as to judge that Image, made before their own face, and of their own Gold, was a true God? their Idolatrie then did con&s;i&s;t in adoring the Calf as God's Image, or adoring God in that Image: the like he &s;aies of the Pagans, &s;uch wi&s;e cleer &s;ighted men, as many of them were, did never imagin the &s;tocks and &s;tones which they adored to be true Deities, but Images of the true God which he proves they adored by that text of S. Paul Acts. 17. <HI>whom you igno|rantly wor&s;hip, him I declare vnto you.</HI> Whence its apparent the Idolatrie of the I&s;raelits and Pagans did not con|&s;i&s;t&punc; &s;aies he, in wor&s;hipping fals Gods, but in wor&s;hipping God in an Image again&s;t God's Ordinance; and this is our guilt, and wee are all Idolaters.</P>
<PB N="279" REF="153">
<P>But Abulen&s;is, Chry&s;o&s;tom, S. Au|gu&s;tin, and aboue all the Scripture will comfort vs again&s;t our D^r^s di&s;cours; for Chry&s;o&s;t. hom. 5. de Poenit. &s;peaking of the I&s;raelits Idolatry &s;aies; <HI>After the people had heard tho&s;e word<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, I am they Lord they God, they made a Calf, they reiected God, they did not acknowledge him to be their God:</HI> and as if he had fore&s;een our Adver&s;aries difficultie, <HI>how could &s;uch wi&s;e men be &s;o &s;en&s;ele&s;s, as to believe a Calf made by them&s;elves to be a God;</HI> he pro|po&s;es this que&s;tion in the &s;ame place; <HI>If they were Gods, why did they &s;ay Make; how could tho&s;e be Gods which are made?</HI> he an&s;wers, <HI>Sic malitia excaecans &s;ibi ip&s;i re|pugnat, &amp; &s;eip&s;am extinguit; &s;o blind is malice, that it contradicts it&s;elf, and refutes it&s;elf:</HI> it was a contradiction, to be a <HI>God,</HI> and to <HI>be made;</HI> but their malice pinfolded their rea&s;on, that they owned both tho&s;e contradictions in their Calf: <HI>Abulen&s;is</HI> &s;peaks to the &s;ame purpo&s;e in Exod. c. 32. q. 3. and S. Augu&s;t. in p&s;al. 133. &s;aies, <HI>the wi&s;er &s;ort of Pagans adored Idols as the Vulgar did; but did not be|lieve they were God's, but Images and Sym|bols of what they believed to be Gods;</HI> and in the &s;ame place declares, what they
<PB N="280" REF="154"> believed to be Gods; <HI>They give this in|terpretation of their Images; by the Image Tellus, they &s;ignified the Earth; by the Image Neptunus, the Sea; by that of Iuno, the Air; by that of Vulcan, the fire: and if you Vrge again&s;t them; tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> then they wor&s;hip Bodies for Gods, the Earth, the Sea &amp;c. they an|&s;wer they do not wor&s;hip the Bodies them&s;el|ves, &s;ed quae illis regendis prae&s;ident numina; but the Deities and Spirits, which govern them bodies:</HI> and in p&s;al. 69. he proves the&s;e Spirits were Deuils: But Scripture &s;peaks yet more plainly, Deut 32. 15. <HI>They for&s;ook the true God, they &s;acrificed to the Devils not to God; to Gods they knew not, to n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w Gods, that came newly vp, they for|&s;ook the true God who made them.</HI></P>
<P>By this you may &s;ee how much our D^r is mi&s;taken in &s;aying the I&s;raelits and Heathens Idolatrie con&s;i&s;ted, not in adoring Images of fals Gods, but the true God in an Image; for if you read S. Pauls &s;peech to the <HI>Athenians</HI> Act. 17 24. you will find two things, fir&s;t that they had &s;om confu&s;ed knowledge of <HI>an only</HI> and <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rue</HI> Deitie, which appears by their Altar con&s;ecrated <HI>Ignoto Deo</HI> to <HI>the vnknowen God:</HI> but this knowledge was &s;o confu&s;ed and erroneous, that
<PB N="281" REF="154"> they believed this vnknowen God was like Gold or &s;ylver or &s;tones, and the very text of S. Paul &s;uppo&s;es they were in this opinion for he argues thus, <HI>God who made the world and all things therin &amp;c. therefore wee ought not to think that the Godhead is like to Gold or &s;ylver or &s;lo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e gra|ven by Art or man's d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">vice:</HI> and therefore they were Idolaters becau&s;e they ado|red a God which they conceited to be as created things: Secondly it's apparent that be&s;ids this <HI>vnknowen God,</HI> they ado|red al&s;o other Gods; for of them as of other Heathens S. Paul &s;aid Rom. 1. 22. that the invi&s;ible God being knowen by the Vi&s;ible creatures which are made, <HI>They changed the glorie of the immortal God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four footed bea&s;ts, they changed the truth of God into a lie, and wor&s;hipped and &s;erved the Creatures more than the Creatour.</HI> Their Idolatrie did con&s;i&s;t in that they adored the&s;e Creatures, Gold, &s;ylver, birds, four footed bea&s;ts &amp;c. not as Gods, for the wi&s;er Heathens were not &s;o &s;en&s;ele&s;s as to believe they were Gods; nor as Images of one, true, invi&s;ible God, as Chri&s;tians believe, for you &s;hall not
<PB N="282" REF="155"> find among the Ancient Philo&s;ophers any, who &s;aies they adored One God; but as Images of fals Gods, who truly were but Devils or debauch wicked men, who cau&s;ed them&s;elves to he adored: and this is evident, not only by the te&s;timony of S. Augu&s;tin which I have quoted, but al&s;o by the te&s;timonie of Arnobius contr. Gent. l. 6. where you may reade the an&s;wer of the Heathen Philo&s;ophers to Arnobius checking them for adoring &s;tocks and &s;tones: <HI>You err, &s;ay they, O Arnobius in what you affirm; for wee do not think the matter of bra&s;s, &s;ylver, and gold to be God and adora|ble Deities of them&s;elves: No wee are wi&s;er than &s;o; but we honour and wor&s;hip the Gods or Deities in tho&s;e &s;acred Statues, whom the Virtue of &s;acred Dedication hath brought into them, and made to dwell in tho&s;e Images made by Art:</HI> You &s;ee Reader, what the Heathens adored; they adored the Images not for them&s;elves or any Deitie they &s;hould have of them&s;elves; but for the <HI>Gods</HI> or <HI>Deities,</HI> which by <HI>Sacred Dedication</HI> were brought to lodge in them; and S. Augu&s;tin l. 8. de Civit. Dei c. 23. tells you, <HI>that Sacred Dedication</HI> was <HI>Magical incantation,</HI> by which the
<PB N="283" REF="155"> Devils or wicked men's &s;oules were <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">vocated,</HI> and obliged to live in tho&s;e Statues. Judge you Reader what has this to do with our Wor&s;hip of Images; and how far our D^r coms &s;hort of prou|ing that the Adoration of the true God in an Image is Idolatrie.</P>
<P>He perclo&s;es his 25. chapt. with an exclamation again&s;t our Church, for giu|ing adoration of <HI>Latria</HI> to Jmages, which error and Jdolatrous practice he &s;aies has crept &s;o much among our Vul|gar people, and is countenanc'd by our learned men, rhat it would &s;trick a hor|ror to you, if you did know the &s;infull ab&s;urditie of it: and J do admire but it &s;tricks a horror to our D^r^s^. con&s;cience, to beguile his Reader with &s;uch foul mi&s;re|pre&s;entatio~s of our Doctrin, and with &s;uch willfull fal&s;ifications of our words and meaning; wheras he knows in his heart, our Adoration of <HI>Latria</HI> given to Chri&s;t's Image, is but Relative, not re&s;ting in it, nor for its &s;ake, but pa&s;&s;ing to the Prototype which wee adore in it: as the honor don to the Kings Chair of &s;tate, pa&s;&s;es to the kings per&s;on, the reverence we have for the Bible, and the name of <HI>Ie&s;us;</HI> that David had to the Ark; the
<PB N="284" REF="156"> I&s;ra&euml;lits to the Bra&s;en Serpent (before their Idolatrie) pa&s;&s;es to God repre&s;en|ted in them: for to prove vs grieveou&s;ly Idolaters, you bring that Hymn of the Church to the Cro&s;s</P>
<LG>
<L><HI>O Crux ave &s;pes unica,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Hoc Pa&s;&s;ionis tempore,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Auge pijs ju&s;titiam,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Rei&s;que dona veniam.</HI></L>
</LG>
<P>And if this convinces vs of Idolatrie, what will you &s;ay of S. Augu&s;tin, who &s;peakes to the cro&s;s thus, Serm. in Para&s;c. <HI>Crux nobis totius cau&s;a Beatitudinis e&s;t: haec nos &agrave; caecitate liberat erroris: haec &agrave; tenebris reddidit luci: haec alienos Deo conjunxit: haec di&s;cordiae amputatio e&s;t: haec bonorum omnium abunda largitio, &amp;c. The Cro&s;s is the cau&s;e of all our bli&s;s; this cro&s;s frees vs from blind|ne&s;s of error: it brought vs from darkne&s;s to light: it's it which cuts of all di&s;cord; it's it which vnits tho&s;e who are &s;trayed, to God; its the &s;ource of all goodne&s;s.</HI> Know then D^r. that wee are no more Idolaters in ado|ring the cro&s;s, than S. Augu&s;tin and innumerable other Saints who&s;e words would be tedious to rehear&s;c.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>JHS.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="285" REF="156">
<HEAD>XIX. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>ADORATION, AND INVOCATION OF Saints, no Idolatry.</HI></HEAD>
<P>OUr D^r often charges vs with <HI>Ido|latrie</HI> for our Adoration of the Con&s;ecrated Ho&s;t, for our Adoration of Images, and for our Adoration of Saints: to the two fir&s;t parts of this ac|cu&s;ation we have an&s;wered; it remains we prove the Adoration of Saints to be no crime: and I cannot better prove it than by a Text which our Adver&s;aries frequently bring for to prove the vnlaw|fullne&s;s of this practice: when the Angel Revel. 19. appeared to S. John, the Apo&s;tle fell flat on the ground for to adore him; the Angel forbid him, &s;ay|ing he was his fellow &s;ervant: if the Adoration of an Angel or Saint be Ido|latrie; therefore the Apo&s;tle was an Jdolater; nay which is wors, a relaps Jdolater; for again he fell on the ground to adore the Angel ch. 22. and the Angel prohibited him the &s;econd
<PB N="286" REF="157"> time: hence its manife&s;t, that either the Apo&s;tle fell twice into Jdolatrie or that adoration of Angels, and Saints is none: but &s;ay you why did the Angel forbid him? J an&s;wer, out of his re&s;pect to Human nature, &s;ince his Lord and king had a&s;&s;umed it: this rea&s;on S. Greg. gives, Hom. 8. in Evang. <HI>Ante Redemptor is adventum, Angeli adorantur &amp; iacent; &amp; po&s;tmodum adorari refugiunt; quod naturam no&s;tram qu&agrave;m prius de&s;pexe|rant, po&s;tquam illam &s;upra &s;e a&s;&s;umptam con&s;piciunt, pro&s;tratam &s;ibi videre perti|me&s;cunt. Before the coming of Chri&s;t, the Angels received adoration from men; but after he took our Nature, they would not &s;ee pro&s;trated before them, that Nature which was exalted aboue them.</HI> Or if this rea&s;on does not plea&s;e you; its &s;ufficient to my purpo&s;e to prove, he did not prohibit it becau&s;e it was Jdolatrie; for if you &s;ay the Angel did judge it to be Ido|latrie, I &s;ay the Apo&s;tle did judge it was not; and in our in&s;truction for God's Worship and Religion, wee are to be|lieve the Apo&s;tle, rather than the An|gel according the advice of S. Paul Gal. 1. 8. <HI>tho an Angel from Heaven &s;hould preach vn to you an other Gho&s;pel, than that</HI>
<PB N="287" REF="157"> <HI>which we have preached, let him be ac|cur&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P>The Invocation of Saints I have proved in the <HI>Vnerring Vnerrable Church</HI> by &s;everal Pa&s;&s;ages of Scripture, convin|cing that Saints departed from this life know our affaires on earth, that they pray for vs; that many have re|ceived favours and ble&s;&s;ings by their in|terce&s;&s;ion: I pray Reader read my di&s;|cour&s;e there, and &s;pare me the labour of repeating it; and you will admire the courage of my Adver&s;arie who complains, as if he had ju&s;tice and rea&s;on on his &s;yde, that I do not an|&s;wer his arguments vpon this &s;ubject; and not one argument does he bring ei|ther in his Sermon, or book, but that text of S. Peter Act. 4. <HI>that there is no &s;alvation in any other but Ie&s;us Chri&s;t; nor any other name vnder Heaven given among men whereby wee may be &s;aued:</HI> where he concludes, we cannot a&s;k the mediation of Saints, without robbing Chri&s;t of his prerogative of Mediator&s;hip. Jt's not pardonable in him to repeat again, what has been &s;o cleerly an&s;wered, as my Reader may &s;ee in my former Trea|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;e: in hopes we may never any more
<PB N="288" REF="158"> hear of this thred bare &s;torie, let him take this &s;yllogi&s;m: <HI>We</HI> believe the Vnity of Chri&s;t's Deyty, as much as the Vnitie of his Mediator&s;hip: but its not again&s;t our belief of his Deitie, to call the Saints, as well of Heaven, as of earth Gods; for David calls all Ju&s;t men Gods: <HI>I &s;ay yee are all Gods, and the &s;ons of the heighe&s;t all,</HI> therefore its not again&s;t our belief of his Mediator&s;hip, that wee &s;hould call the Saints, as well in heaven, as on earth, our Mediators: and who does not &s;ee the weakne&s;s of our D^r^s di&s;cour&s;e; for if becau&s;e Chri&s;t is our only Mediator, we mu&s;t not a&s;k the prayers of the Saints in heaven; neither mu&s;t we a&s;k any Mediator on earth, which is evidently again&s;t the practice of all congregations; for we a&s;k one an other to pray for vs: <HI>But how come this argument to prove,</HI> (&s;aies our D^r) <HI>as I. S. pretends, that we mu&s;t not a&s;k the prayers of the Saints on earth.</HI> Did ever Lo|gician make the like Quere? do not you pretend by the text, that Chri&s;t is our <HI>onely</HI> Mediator becau&s;e there is no other name vnder Heauen (thats to &s;ay on earth) where by we may be &s;aued? if therefore the text proves any thing
<PB N="289" REF="158"> again&s;t the mediation of Saints, it proves again&s;t the mediation of the Saints <HI>vnder</HI> heaven, that's to &s;ay on earth. We acknowledge, as I have &s;aid in my former Treati&s;e, Chri&s;t to be our onely Mediator by <HI>Redemption,</HI> becau&s;e he alone did, and was able by his death to reconcile vs to God, and re|deem vs; but he is not our only Me|diator by <HI>interce&s;&s;ion,</HI> becau&s;e others pray for vs; tho he in a far more excel|lent degree.</P>
<P>He perceived it &s;eems the weakne&s;s of this charge, and quits it; and runs all along vpon an other point, proving our exce&s;s in our devotion and wor&s;hip of Saints; and all he brings to prove it, is reduced to three heads, and all three have not one dram of brains; the fir&s;t is his Prudence, that for ought we know many of tho&s;e we e&s;teem Saints, are wicked and damn'd wretchs; therefore we mu&s;t not pray to any Saint: I hope he does not meane the B. Virgin, nor the Apo&s;tles, nor S. Augu&s;tin, S. Hie|rom, and &s;uch others; let him there|fore give vs leaue to pray to them; and let him point out what Saint is he, of tho&s;e whom we wor&s;hip, of who&s;e San|titie
<PB N="290" REF="159"> we have not as much a&s;&s;urance; as we have of S. Augu&s;tin and S. Hie|rom; and then we will not wor&s;hip them: but to &s;ay we mu&s;t pray to none: becau&s;e &s;om reputed Saints are not &s;uch; is as much as if you did &s;ay, we mu&s;t not e&s;teem and honor any men on earth for their great Virtue and learning, be|cau&s;e &s;om reputed to be Virtuous and learned, are but Hypocrits and Idiots. The &s;econd exce&s;s is that we build more Churches to Saints than to God; and he will not take our an&s;wer, that what Churchs we build to the Saints, we build them to God, becau&s;e its for his &s;ake we honor the Saints: for &s;aies he, <HI>if a king did con&s;titut his Son Sollicitor general for his Subjects, it would not be well taken by the king, that the Subjects &s;hould make their application to the Servants in Court, neglecting their application to the Prince:</HI> but D^r what if the king were di&s;po&s;ed to honor, not only his &s;on, but al&s;o the Servants at Court for his Son's &s;ake (if any man &s;erves me, my father will honor him Jo. 12.) if he decreed to grant whatever his &s;on would a&s;k, for his Subjects, and not only what him&s;elf would a&s;k, but what
<PB N="291" REF="159"> any of the Servants in Court would a&s;k in his name: certainly the power of the &s;on would be the greater.</P>
<P>The third exce&s;s is, that we call the B. Virgin our <HI>Savioure&s;s,</HI> our <HI>Redeemere&s;s;</HI> de&s;perat expre&s;&s;ions he &s;aies, again&s;t the text of S. Peter which &s;ayes, there is no name vnder heaven whereby we can be &s;aved, but that of Je&s;us Chri&s;t: The&s;e indeed are de&s;perat expre&s;&s;ions in the meaning you take them, but not in the meaning our Church gives them: if you go to the Dictionarie, or the Grammer to looke for the &s;en&s;e of tho&s;e words, you may render our Doc|trin and practice ridicule; but if you go to the Church, and be inform'd in what &s;en&s;e &s;he takes them, you will find they are religious: God calls Moy&s;es the <HI>God of Pharao;</HI> if you take the word in its proper and v&s;ual &s;ignification, its a bla&s;phemy, wherof I hope you will not accu&s;e God: David calls the Ju&s;t, <HI>Gods and the Sons of the Heighe&s;t;</HI> a de&s;perat expre&s;&s;ion if you take the words in their gramatical &s;en&s;e, but religious, if you take them in David's meaning: The great Bapti&s;t was not the <HI>Light,</HI> but a <HI>witne&s;s of the Light,</HI> &s;aies the Evangeli&s;t;
<PB N="292" REF="160"> Chri&s;t was <HI>the true Light for to illuminat the world;</HI> yet Chri&s;t him&s;elf calls his &s;er|vants <HI>the light of the world;</HI> is this a de&s;|perat expre&s;&s;ion? Chri&s;t is the only foundation of the Church, &s;aies S. Paul, yet in Revel: c. 21. wee read the twelve Apo&s;tles are the twelve foundations of the Cittie of God: you will not &s;tick to &s;ay Chri&s;t is the only Mediator and reconciliator of Man with God, as S. Paul &s;ayes; and yet Wisd. c. 4. <HI>Noe</HI> is called not only <HI>Reconciliator,</HI> but the <HI>Reconciliation</HI> betwixt God and man: And you mu&s;t acknowledge the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions are not de&s;perat in the &s;en&s;e and meaning of tho&s;e who vt|tered them, tho in a gramatical &s;en&s;e they may be: &s;o you mu&s;t confe&s;s the expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>Savioure&s;s, Redeemere&s;s</HI> &amp;c. are Catholic and Religious in the &s;en&s;e of the Church, which is not any other, but that the B. Virgin is the chief in|&s;trument after Chri&s;t for our Redemp|tion: Do we call her <HI>Redeemere&s;s?</HI> wee &s;peake with S. Cyril, Hom. cont. Ne&s;t. <HI>By thee Holy Mother of God, all creatures that wor&s;hipped Idols have been converted to the knowledge of truth: prai&s;e be to thee, O Holy Trinitie; prai&s;e be to thee al&s;o o B.</HI>
<PB N="293" REF="160"> <HI>Virgin.</HI> Do wee call her, <HI>Queen of Hea|ven, glorie and happine&s;s of mankind?</HI> wee &s;peake with Greg. Nazian. in Trag. Chri&s;. Mor. to. 2. pag. 298. <HI>You who are ju&s;tly &s;eated aboue all the cele&s;lial Hierar|chies, Queen, Mi&s;tre&s;s, and happine&s;s of human kind.</HI> Do we &s;ay, <HI>Haile B. Virgin thou alone ha&s;t de&s;troied all Here&s;ies,</HI> wee have heard S. Cyril &s;ay as much: &s;eek not then, D^r by your <HI>bug-bears</HI> of <HI>de&s;pe|rat expre&s;sions,</HI> to beat vs from our De|votion to her; we &s;peake with the Pro|phet David, we &s;peake with the Ancient Fathers of the Church, we &s;peake with God him&s;elf.</P>
<P>And it is but a peece of your accu&s;|tomed confidence to &s;ay, that in the fir&s;t ages there was no mention of this wor&s;hip of Saints: you have heard S. Cyril, and Greg. Nazian. hear yet S. Augu&s;tin cont. fau&s;tum, l. 20. c. 21. <HI>Fau&s;tus checks vs for honoring the memorie of our Martirs, &s;aying we change God, into Idols: but we Chri&s;tians do celebrat the me|morie of our Martirs with religious &s;olemni|tie, for to &s;tir vs vp to their imitation; for to partake of their merits, and for to be help'd by their prayers; but &s;o as that we do not offer &s;acrifice to the Martirs; but to the God</HI>
<PB N="294" REF="161"> <HI>of Martirs in memorie of them.</HI> S. Ambro&s;e de viduis l. 4. &s;peaking of S. Peter and S. Andrew's prayer for their Mother in law; <HI>What then they did for her, by rea&s;on of their kinred, now they can do for vs, and for all, we mu&s;t pray to the Saints, we mu&s;t pray to the Martirs, from whom we may ex|pect protection and favor, having with vs the pledges of their bodies, they can pray for the remi&s;sion of our &s;ins; the Martirs of God are our Protectors, and &s;pectators of our lyves and actions.</HI> S. Vict Utic. l. 3. de Per&s;ec. Vand. having praied to the Angels to repre&s;ent vnto God the mi|&s;eries of Africk, he addre&s;&s;es his Pra|yers to the Saints. <HI>Pray, Patriarks from who&s;e &s;eed the Church Springs, which now is per|&s;ecuted; pray, o Prophets who &s;ee the Church of whom you prophecied, now &s;o di&s;tre&s;&s;ed; in|tercede, O Apo&s;tles for that Church which you e&s;tabli&s;ht by your labours; and in particular O Peter, pray for that flock which your Ma&s;|ter recommended to you.</HI> Nay our D^r in the end of his chapter quotes the te&s;timo|nie of Origen contr. Cel&s;. l. 5. and &s;aies, that by Origen's words it appears, how Angels do a&s;&s;i&s;t vs, and pray for vs; the te&s;timonie of Origen ends thus (it would be tedious to repeate it wholy)
<PB N="295" REF="161"> <HI>when men pray vnto God, many thou&s;ands of the &s;acred powers pray together with them vncalled for;</HI> and our D^r very wittily picks vp that word, <HI>vncalled for,</HI> and argues thence, that the Angels and Saints do indeed pray for vs, but that we mu&s;t not a&s;k them to do &s;o; becau&s;e, they pray for vs <HI>vncalled for;</HI> if you call to them to pray for you, you'l &s;poile all, if you believe our D^r; but believe S. Gregorie rather, who adui&s;es you to pray vnto, and call the Saints to a&s;&s;i&s;t you; &s;peaking of the la&s;t Judg|ment; <HI>In illo conventu cau&s;a no&s;tra di&s;cuti|tur, &amp; tamen nos patronos modo non requiri|mus, quos tunc defen&s;ores habeamus; ad&s;unt defen&s;ores no&s;tri Sancti Martires; rogari vo|lunt, &amp; quaerunt vt quaerantur: hos ergo ad|jutores ve&s;tris orationibus quaerite; hos pro|tectores ve&s;tri reatus invenite, quia ne pu|nire peccatores debeat, rogari vult &amp; ip&s;e qui judicat.</HI> Hom. 32. in Evang. <HI>In that great meeting our cau&s;e will be examin'd and we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> do not now &s;eeke Patrons, who then may defend vs: the Holy Martyrs are our Pro|tectors; they de&s;ire to be intreated; they a&s;k, that they may be a&s;ked; a&s;k them therefore to a&s;&s;i&s;t your prayers; procure they intercede for your &s;ins, &s;or he who is to be the judge of</HI>
<PB N="296" REF="162"> <HI>&s;inners, de&s;ires he be praied not to puni&s;h them.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>XX. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>PVRGATORIE AND INDVLGENCES.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I Thought I had don my D^r a kindne&s;s in a&s;&s;erting a Purgatorie in the other life, where he might be &s;o happy as to &s;oiourn a whyle; for he may go further, and &s;peed wor&s;e. But he has met &s;om what in my former di&s;cour&s;e vpon this point that has nettl'd him; for he powers out &s;uch a deluge of injuries again&s;t me, that you would think he dipt his pen in Gall. No, hee'l not heare &s;peake of a Purgatorie; he is re&s;olu'd not to &s;top or &s;tand in the road; if God will not haue Heauen's gates open for him at his departure from this life, hee'l take vp his lodging in hell. <HI>Let not I. S &s;aies he, expect to put me of with &s;tra|tagems of &s;chooleboyes, I mu&s;t keep him to the point: the point is whether the te&s;timonies of Scripture alledged by your Church be con|vincing proofes of the exi&s;tence of a Purga|torie:</HI>
<PB N="297" REF="162"> This indeed is to &s;peake like a Ma&s;ter; but you'l &s;ee hee'l com of like a &s;chool boy: what is <HI>the Point</HI> D^r? <HI>whether the texts alleaged by our Church be convincing proofs of Purgatorie:</HI> I told you, how he would com of: what? we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> loudly profe&s;s that our Rule of faith is not Scripture alone; that tho there were no convincing text of Scripture, yet we are obliged to believe Purga|torie vpon the te&s;timonie of our infal|lible Church interpreting Scripture; and yet you will tell vs the Point is, if our text alledged be convincing? No D^r, you have mi&s;taken the point; The point is, why you for&s;ook the Catholic Church and became a Prote&s;tant? you &s;ay, for our Errors, wherof Purgatorie is one; you vndertook in your Sermon to prove the&s;e Errors by plain and cleer Scripture: <HI>let me keep you to the point</HI> D^r; let vs &s;ee your cleer and plain texts denying Purgatorie: you who&s;e Rule of faith is <HI>Scripture alone,</HI> which, you &s;ay, cleerely &s;hewes our Errors; you are to be demanded cleer and plain texts to prove ther's no Purgato|rie: but we are not to be challeng'd to produce convincing texts, becau&s;e our
<PB N="298" REF="163"> Rule of faith is not Scripture alone; but Scripture as interpreted by the Church; &s;o its &s;ufficient for vs to produce a text, which the Church interprets to import the exi&s;tence of a Purgatorie.</P>
<P>You have quite &s;weru'd from the point D^r, the point was to &s;hew by con|vincing texts, that there is no other receptacle of &s;oules in the other world but <HI>Heaven</HI> and <HI>Hell</HI> of the damned, as you &s;ay, grounded vpon that text, <HI>where the Tree falls there it &s;hall remain:</HI> for I proved convincingly there is an other place, by S. Peter 1. Epi&s;t. 7. 19 &s;pea|king of Chri&s;t's de&s;cent into hell, he &s;aies; <HI>Dead in fle&s;h, and quickned in Spirit he de&s;cended to the Spirits which were detained in pri&s;on</HI> (there was a Pri&s;on therefore, where Spirits were detained) <HI>to preach vnto them</HI> (certainly it was not to the damn'd &s;ouls he went to preach) <HI>which he relea&s;ed, leading Captivity Captive,</HI> &s;aies S. Paul. Ephe&s;. 4. 8. (&s;ure it was not the damn'd &s;oules he relea&s;ed) why did not you an&s;wer to this text D^r? you clapt it vnder deck, becau&s;e it was the Point, and it you re&s;olved not to touch. The point al&s;o was, to examin if after the &s;in is forgiven, either by Confe&s;&s;ion,
<PB N="299" REF="163"> or perfect Contrition; the &s;inner re|mains &s;till lyable to Gods ju&s;tice for &s;om temporal puni&s;hment; and in ca&s;e he died before he di&s;charged that debt, if there was not a pri&s;on in the other world, where the &s;oule &s;hould be de|tained vntill it paid to the la&s;t far|thing; this I proved by the Go&s;pel, and &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages of Scripture: why did not you an&s;wer? no it was a naughtie card that &s;poyl'd your game, you dropt it a&s;ide, and to divert your Reader, you make Heaven a Receptacle of &s;oules actually polluted with &s;ins, &s;aying, that with their infamous &s;ins they may enter thither; and bring no proof for this paradox, quite oppo&s;it to the text, and &s;entiments of all the Chri&s;tian world, but a pa&s;&s;age of Origen which you fouly mi&s;interpret. The point was to examin the true &s;ence of the Article of our Creed <HI>He de&s;cended into Hell;</HI> what Hell was that? the Grave as &s;om of your fra|ternitie ab&s;urdly interpret; or the Hell of the damned, as Calvin and many of your authentic Catechi&s;ms interpreted, &s;aying he &s;uffered the pains of the dam|ned; or &s;om part of Hell where &s;oules were detained in pri&s;on expecting their
<PB N="300" REF="164"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">edemption: you pretend to fob vs of with a tale of a tub, that &s;om &s;aie, that Article was not in the Creed in the fir&s;t four hundred years; I will not di&s;pute this point, becau&s;e it matters not if it was or not; &s;ince that now it is, and owned by vs, as well as by you; then you would render my di&s;cour&s;e in&s;ignificant, as if my argument were, <HI>He de&s;cended into Hell, therefore there is a Purgatorie,</HI> which con&s;equence you &s;ay is ridicu|lous; and &s;o it is indeed; but it's of your own making, you &s;hall not find it in J. S. His con&s;equence goes thus; <HI>He de&s;cen|ded into Hell, according our Creed, to preach to tho&s;e who were in pri&s;on, according S. Peter; to relea&s;e them; leading Captivi|tie Captiue according S. Paul; therefore there is a Pri&s;on in Hell, where &s;oules were in re&s;traint; where Chri&s;t preached; whence he relea&s;ed captives:</HI> is this the Hell of the damned think you? and if it be a third place, di&s;tinct from Hea|ven and Hell of the damned, what will become of your Doctrin, which denies Purgatorie, chie&s;ly becau&s;e &s;ay you the <HI>Tree</HI> mu&s;t fall to either of tho&s;e two places? This was the point you &s;hould have &s;tuck vnto D^r and not to rattle at
<PB N="301" REF="164"> J. S. and keep a bu&s;tle about the texts of Scripture which he quoted, and which the reader will cleerly &s;ee you have not an&s;wered, if he faces your replies with my di&s;cour&s;e vpon them.</P>
<P>And tho, as I &s;aid, wee had no con|vincing text for this, or our other Te|nets; our Doctrin &s;tands vn&s;haken vpon the te&s;timonie of our Church, and vpon the vnanimous con&s;ent of precedent ages: wee are in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of this Doc|trin the&s;e 1600. yeares; our long po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ion &s;ufficiently credits our Doctrin; you are Aggre&s;&s;ors, you mu&s;t bring evident proofs again&s;t vs; as Defen|dants; its our duty but to an&s;wer to your allegations: But my D^r replies, that they are Defendants of their libertie; that we are Actors who inuade their li|bertie and impo&s;e vpon them Doctrins which are not in the Word of God: yee <HI>Defendants,</HI> D^r and not Actors? who were born but ye&s;terday, who pu&s;ht vs out of our Churchs and e&s;tates for our Doctrin: you &s;ay we inuade your liber|tie can you have any libertie for not believing a Doctrin wherof the world was po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed for &s;o many ages? It's you who inuade our Libertie, by for|cing
<PB N="302" REF="165"> vpon vs the belief of two Sacra|ments, a figurative pre&s;ence, &amp;c. never yet knowen in the Orthodox Church, and we mu&s;t &s;tand for our Libertie, vn|till you produce Gods Word to prove it: but the Ancient po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of our Doctrin is &s;ufficient to maintain vs in it; and you can have no libertie for to deny it, vntill you prove the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion to be inju&s;t: you &s;ay our po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion may by que&s;tion'd, and if we do not prove our, Title our po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion will be forfei|ted: And if we &s;hould forfeit our Po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion, I would gladly know, what are Prote&s;tants the neerer to prove theirs to be the true Church or Doctrin? The Arrians and Pelagians will have as good a claim to it as you: But D^r we have allready proved our Title: we were once put in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the true Doc|trin by Chri&s;t: this is our Title, and this you confe&s;s becau&s;e you &s;ay we were once the true Church: now its your dutie to prove we fell from that Doc|trin, and vntill you prove this evi|dently our Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion is ju&s;t, and our Doctrin mu&s;t be believed.</P>
<P>You are much plea&s;ed with that Scho|la&s;tical &s;ubtilitie, that prayers for the
<PB N="303" REF="165"> dead (which you allow to be commen|dable) may be made for other ends, than for to draw Soules out of the fire of Purgatorie; becau&s;e &s;ay you, that God for&s;eeing the prayers which in future times will be made for per&s;ons decea|&s;ed, as he is infinitly liberal and good, may anticipat the reward of tho&s;e pra|yers, to the benefit of the Per&s;ons prayed for; by giuing them a good death; And our D^r according his old mode &s;aies not a word of my an&s;wer to this di&s;cour&s;e, which my Reader, if he reads my former Treati&s;e, will find to be &s;atisfactorie and &s;olid; it would be tedious to repeate it: but let me a&s;k one que&s;tion of my Adver&s;arie: does he &s;e|riou&s;ly believe, that the Jews knew this &s;chool &s;ubtilitie? they praied for the dead, as I have proved, and certainly they knew not that quillet; but their practice was regulated by their beliefe, that &s;oules depart from this life often times with &s;ins, which mu&s;t be expiated in the other world, which the very Text &s;ignifies <HI>vt a p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ccatis &s;olvantur.</HI> Nor is it credible, that the practice of the Church for &s;o many ages &s;hould be grounded on &s;o weak a bottom, as that
<PB N="304" REF="166"> &s;ubtilitie of &s;om few Modern Divins, which probably may be fals. I do not &s;ee what this &s;chool &s;ubtility may be good for, but for to comfort our D^r^'^s co~|&s;cience in a &s;cruple which he ought to have; for ifhe believes ther's no Purga|tory from whence &s;ouls may be relea&s;ed, then he is obliged in con&s;cie~ce to re&s;tore all the monies he received why l&s;t he li|ved in the Catholic Church, for to pray for &s;ouls in Purgatory and their relea&s;e from thence; for, his being of a per&s;wa|&s;ion that there was a purgatorie when he received the monies, does not ex|cu&s;e him now from the obligation of re&s;titution, &s;ince he is convinced ther's none; but I do fear our D^r will not be &s;oon per&s;waded to re&s;tore that monie; probably he will tell vs the Per&s;ons he prayed for, got a good death by his Prayers.</P>
<P>But to &s;trick the nail in the head, we will prove that Prayers for the dead have been practi&s;ed by the Church and Ancient Fathers directly for this end, to draw Soules our of the &s;ire of Purga|torie: S. Gregorie in <HI>P&s;alm. 3. Poenit. Scio futurum e&s;&s;e</HI> &amp;c. <HI>I know that after this life &s;om will be clean&s;ed by the fire of Purgatorie;</HI>
<PB N="305" REF="166"> <HI>others will be eternally damn'd.</HI> And in P&s;al. 1. <HI>po&s;t mortem carnis alij aeternis de|putantur &s;uplicijs, alij ad vitam per ignem <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ran&s;eunt purgationis: after the death of our body, &s;om are deputed to eternal torments; &s;om to life, do pa&s;s by the fire of purgatorie.</HI> Again S. Greg. Dial. l. 4. c. 39. <HI>for &s;ome &s;male faul<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s wee mu&s;t believe there is a pur|ging fire, before the day of judgment: And after hauing reckoned &s;ome &s;male venial &s;ins,</HI> he ads, <HI>quae cuncta etiam po&s;t mortcm gravant, &s;i adhuc in hac vita po&s;itis, non fuerunt relaxata. All which are a loade vpon the &s;oule euen after death, if they be not for|given whyle wee are in this life.</HI> And again Dial. l. 4. c. 25. <HI>Sunt quorumdam Iu&s;torum animae, quae &agrave; caele&s;ti regno, quibu&s;dam adhuc man&s;ionibus differuntnr, in quo dilationis damno, quid aliud innuitur, ni&s;i quod de per|fecta ju&s;titia aliquid minus habuerunt: Some Soules there are of Iu&s;t men, which are kept out of heaven for a time in certain habit a|tions; by which puni&s;hment of delay, what is &s;ignified, but that &s;omwhat was wanting to them, to be per&s;ectly Iu&s;t.</HI> Theodoret in Schol. Graecis in 1. Corint. 3. <HI>Hunc Pur|gatorium ignem &amp;c. Wee believe this purging fire, wherin the &s;oule departed will be tried and purged as Gold in the fournace. S. Greg.</HI>
<PB N="306" REF="167"> <HI>Ni&s;&s;. Orat. pro mortuis: Vel in prae&s;enti vita</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Man mu&s;t be clean&s;ed in this life; or after his death mu&s;t be purged by the fournace of purgatorie fire:</HI> S. Augu&s;t. in P&s;alm. 39. &amp; l. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 16. &amp;c. 24. and in &s;everal other places &s;peakes ex|pre&s;ly of the fire of Purgatorie after this life, through which the &s;oules de|parted mu&s;t pa&s;s to be clean&s;ed: hear him l. 1. de Gen. cont. Manich. c. 20. <HI>Qui forte agrum,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>He that has not cul|tivated his field in this world; in the other life mu&s;t go either to the fire of Purgatorie, or to the fire of Hell.</HI> Now D^r remember that pag. 182. you grant with Origen, that Soules departing carrie with them &s;om &s;tains of &s;ins and notes of infamy; you will have me believe with Origen, as you &s;ay, (but Origen in his words which you quote &s;aies no &s;uch thing) that the Soules carrie the&s;e &s;tains and notes of infamy with them to Heaven; expre&s;ly again&s;t the Word of God, who &s;aies, no polluted thing &s;hall enter thither: let the Reader judge if it be not more ju&s;t, more rea&s;onable, and more &s;uitable to the opinion all Chri&s;tians have of Gods aver&s;ion to the lea&s;t &s;in; and of the pu|ritie and cleanne&s;s of that Heavenly
<PB N="307" REF="167"> Cittie, that I &s;hould believe, S. Aug. S. Gregor. Theodoret, and innumera|ble other Fathers, which, to &s;hun te|diou&s;ne&s;s, I pa&s;s in &s;ilence, who affirm, that tho&s;e &s;oules which carrie with them &s;tains and &s;ins to the other life, mu&s;t be clean&s;ed and purged by a purging fire before they can enter into Heaven; than to believe Origen (tho he &s;hould &s;ay it, as he does not) who &s;aies they will carrie tho&s;e &s;tains and &s;ins with them thither.</P>
<P>From Purgatorie he coms to attack our Tenet of Indulgences; and that you may &s;ee with how little ju&s;tice, I will declare briefly our Doctrin in this point: fir&s;t it's an vnque&s;tionable Veri|tie, that any one, of the many penal works performed by Chri&s;t, was &s;uffi|cient for the Redemption of this, and many other worlds, one drop of his blood was of infinit merit; whence it appears, that by the great heape of &s;atisfactorie and penal works, which he exerci&s;ed in this world, he exhibited an infinitly greater &s;atisfaction for our re|demption than was needfull: al&s;o it's apparent, that the many penal works of the B. Virgin, of the Apo&s;tles and
<PB N="308" REF="168"> innumerable other Saints, were a grea|ter &s;atisfaction for their &s;ins and imper|fections, than was needfull to expiat them and &s;atisfie Gods ju&s;tice; and this we learn by <HI>Iob's</HI> words c. 6 v. 2. <HI>V<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">inam appenderentur peccata mea quibus iram merui; &amp; calamitas quam patior in &s;tatera, qua&s;i arena maris haec gravior ap|pareret. O! that my &s;ins for which I de&s;erved anger and the calamitie which I &s;uffer, were weighed in a balance; as the &s;ands of the Sea, this</HI> (my calamitie) <HI>would appear greater.</HI> Of the&s;e &s;uperabundant &s;atis|factions of Chri&s;t and Saints workes, wee &s;ay there is a trea&s;ure in the Church; for certainly tho&s;e works, though need|le&s;s for the <HI>Workers,</HI> are not without value and e&s;teem in Gods &s;ight; and are not fruitle&s;s to the Church; for that Article of our Creed, <HI>the Commu|nion of Saints,</HI> imports that the faithfull do partake, and benefit by the good works one of an other; <HI>Particeps ego &s;um timentium te, &amp; cu&s;todientium mandata tua,</HI> &s;aies the Prophet David P&s;. 118. <HI>I am a partaker of the works of tho&s;e who feare you, and keep your Commandments;</HI> and &s;o we mu&s;t &s;ay, that tho&s;e &s;uperabundant &s;atisfactorie penal works of Chri&s;t and
<PB N="309" REF="168"> his Saints, are a trea&s;ure of the Church, wherof the faithfull do partake: And thus we expound how they partake of it: Tho the &s;in, whether Mortal or Ve|nial, be remitted by Confe&s;&s;ion, or Contrition; yet a temporal puni&s;hment remains due of the &s;inner to Gods Ju&s;|tice, which I proved by Scripture and rea&s;on in my former Treati&s;e, for the Penitent mu&s;t not only &s;atisfie the pen|nance enjoyned by the Confe&s;&s;or, but we are exhorted to other penal works and pennances for to &s;atisfie for our &s;ins: and therefore by the Ancient Ca|nons of the Church, great and &s;evere penances were impo&s;ed, according the qualitie of the &s;in; &s;om of &s;eaven years pennance; others of more; others of le&s;s: the&s;e penal works the Penitents mu&s;t perform; or &s;om other mu&s;t per|form them for him, if he be not in a capacitie to do it; becau&s;e Gods ju&s;tice mu&s;t be &s;atisfied, who as he mercifully remits the eternal pains due for our &s;ins, by virtue of the Sacraments, &s;o he requires a temporal puni&s;hment for to &s;atisfie his ju&s;tice: This &s;atisfaction may be made either by the Penitent him&s;elf, by exerci&s;ing as much penal
<PB N="310" REF="169"> works in this life, or &s;uffering in Pur|gatorie, as much as is due of him for to &s;atisfie Gods ju&s;tice; Or by offering to God, and applying to that Penitent, as much of the trea&s;ure of Chri&s;t, and Saints &s;atisfaction and penal works as he owes.</P>
<P>This then wee call Indulgence, <HI>A remi&s;son of the temporal pains due of man to God's ju&s;tice, through the merits and &s;atisfac|tions of Chri&s;t and his Saints applied to him.</HI> Which Indulgence and application of tho&s;e merits and &s;atisfaction, wee &s;ay is in the power of the Pope; for tho&s;e &s;uperabundant &s;atisfactions and penal works of Chri&s;t and his Saints, being a trea&s;ure of the Church, and appliable to the v&s;e and benefit of the faithfull, as we have di&s;cour&s;ed; to whom &s;hould the di&s;tribution, of that trea&s;ure be|long, but to the Prince, Chief Stee|ward, and Governor of the Church; to him to whom the keyes were given to open and lock, to bind and unbind? Nor are the&s;e Indulgences appliable only to the living, but al&s;o to the Soules departed; for, as when one is in pri&s;on for a debt, for to get out, and the creditor to be indemnified, the
<PB N="311" REF="169"> Pri&s;oner mu&s;t pay the debt out of his own pur&s;e, or &s;om one mu&s;t pay it for him: &s;o when a &s;oule departs this life, either with Venial &s;ins only, or without having don pennance &s;ufficient for the mortal &s;ins forgiven him by the Sacra|ment; he mu&s;t pay to Gods ju&s;tice the temporal Puni&s;hment which he ows, and this is don either by <HI>Satispa&s;sion</HI> &s;uffering the pains of Purgatorie for a certain time; or by the &s;uffrages and penal works of the Living which they apply to him; or by Indulgence, applying from the trea&s;ure of the Church, that's of the &s;uperabundant Satisfaction of Chri&s;t and his Saints, as much as will an&s;wer to the pains which they are to &s;uffer there.</P>
<P>It's certain, the Pope mu&s;t have a cau&s;e, and as &s;om &s;ay proportionable to the quantity of the Indulgence he grants; for want of which, the grant would be null; which gives occa&s;ion to our Adver&s;aries to &s;narle, as our D^r Sall does, again&s;t the profu&s;ne&s;s of the Pope, for granting Plenary Indulgen|ces for euery triflle, as they &s;ay: but in this they &s;peake immode&s;tly, and temerariou&s;ly; fir&s;t becau&s;e it's an in|tolerable
<PB N="312" REF="170"> arrogance in Subjects to ex|po&s;tulat again&s;t their Prince, and ac|cu&s;e him of prodigality, when he ex|pends the trea&s;ure of the kingdom to the advantage of his Subjects, becau&s;e for&s;ooth they do not co~ceive nor know, whether the Princes de&s;ign be advan|tagious or not: its the Dutie of a &s;ub|ject to believe the king has ju&s;t rea&s;ons to do what he does, if the contrary does not evidently appear: &s;o its our dutie to believe the Pope has a ju&s;t cau&s;e for granting Indulgences, when he grants them; for tho the motive he has, may &s;eem to you or to me to be but &s;male and in&s;ufficient; yet it may be in it&s;elf weightie and great: and at lea&s;t we are in charitie obliged to believe, that he thinks the cau&s;e he has, is ju&s;t and proportionable to his grant; and that his intention is not, &s;aid Indul|gence &s;hould be valuable further than as the cau&s;es de&s;erves it.</P>
<P>Our D^r^s reflexion, that the&s;e grants are a powerfull means to facilitat &s;ins, is vulgar, and an&s;wered in my former Treati&s;e, where I &s;hewed how the Pro|te&s;tant Principles do much more faci|litat them, wheras they require no
<PB N="313" REF="170"> more for to be cleans'd of them, but a <HI>Lord have mercy vpon me</HI> betwixt the &s;in|ner and God; when to the contrary for a good Confe&s;&s;ion, &s;o many things are required by vs; and for obtaining In|dulgences, be&s;ides Confe&s;&s;ion and Com|munion; alms, prayers, and other pious exerci&s;es: all the D^r has be&s;ids in his di&s;cour&s;e of Indulgences, is but rallery, and &s;port vpon our Divi&s;ions of Indul|gences, and a <HI>Bull</HI> of Indulgences, granted by Clement the X. which he has tran&s;lated into Engli&s;h, lykely to oblige the <HI>Coffie</HI> hou&s;e Ma&s;ter, with a &s;ubject of merriment for his Cu&s;tomers: and it may be feared, that in time our D^r may give his profane Reader more &s;port; for if, as Ochinus, of a Capuchin Fryar became a Reformed, and from the Reformation pa&s;s'd to be a Jew, and &s;everal other revolted Prie&s;ts and Fryars, of Calvini&s;ts, became Turks and Jews; if I &s;ay our D^r &s;hould chance, as he renounced the Catholic faith, to renounce al&s;o Prote&s;tancy for Paga|ni&s;m or Judai&s;m, he will as ea&s;ilie ieer the practices and Doctrin of Chri&s;|tianity, as now he does them of Po|pery.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="314" REF="171">
<HEAD>XXI. CHAPTER.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub"> <HI>A BRIEF SVRVEY OF HIS FOVR LAST Chapters.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IN his 31. Chap. of prayers in an vn|knowen language, he points his ar|rows &s;o vnfixedly, that we<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> know not what he would be at; &s;omtimes he would have it to be ab&s;olutly needfull, the <HI>Lyturgie</HI> &s;hould be in a language vn|der&s;tood by the people; lea&s;t they may an&s;wer <HI>Amen</HI> to a knave, who would vtter bla&s;phemies: and not a &s;illable does he an&s;wer to my reply, that if the Lyturgie mu&s;t be in a language vnder|&s;tood by the Auditory; then the <HI>Dutch,</HI> and <HI>French,</HI> who do not vnder&s;tand Eng|li&s;h, mu&s;t not go to the Prote&s;tant Ly|turgie; and the Deaf, and &s;uch as are at &s;o great a di&s;tance from the Mini&s;ter, as not to hear him, mu&s;t quit the Con|gregation; nay if the Mini&s;ter does not vnder&s;tand the p&s;alms, through the in|tricatne&s;s of their Phra&s;es (and but few Mini&s;ters do) he mu&s;t return home and
<PB N="315" REF="171"> &s;om of the neighbours, more learned than he, mu&s;t officiat for him.</P>
<P>Somtimes he pretends only a greater advantage and Spiritual comfort of the flock, for the increa&s;e of devotion in praying in a knowen language; but the way for to prove this, would be to con|vince the world, that Prote&s;tants are more devout than Roman Catholics; and I thank God the world is convinced of the contrary: ther's nothing more &s;ure, than that the frequent v&s;e of prayers, is a mark and &s;ign of devotion in praying; ther's none more a&s;&s;iduous in praying, than he who feels &s;piritual comfort, and con&s;olation in them; he who finds but tepidity and coolne&s;s, praies but &s;eldom: now, it's vi&s;ible, our Catholic Church praies a hundred fold more than yours: you meet in your Churchs but vpon Sundaies, and &s;om other od daies in the year; the other daies of the week, your Churchs are &s;hut vp; or if open, they &s;erve but for a walking place, or for boyes to plaie at Ball: and if in &s;om few Citties, a few Churchs are open, (and they are but very few) for Wedne&s;day and friday prayers, your congregations are &s;o thin,
<PB N="316" REF="172"> that ther's hardly any to an&s;wer <HI>Amen</HI> to the Mini&s;ter; Our Congregations are numerous every day in the week, our Churchs very many con&s;tantly open, frequently a&s;&s;i&s;ted, not onely by a mul|titude of the Clergy, e&s;pecially in the Cathedral Churchs, and Convents of Fryars and Nuns, morning and Eve|ning, and at midnight &s;inging Gods pray&s;es; but by a numerous multitude of our Layety: is not the Pomp and Maje&s;tie of Divin &s;ervice in our Church, our frequent Proce&s;&s;ions, our many holy daies, a mark that wee pray more frequently than you? and a frequent cu&s;tom of praying, being a vi&s;ible mark of devotion, as I have &s;aid; its Vi&s;ible our Church and flock has more devo|tion in Latin, than yours in Engli&s;h.</P>
<P>I proved prayers in any language to be lawfull in it&s;elf; becau&s;e the intent of nature when wee &s;peake, is that the hearer may vnder&s;tand vs; when wee pray, God is our Hearer, and not the congregation; its to him wee &s;peake; and wheras he vnder&s;tands all lan|guages, wee may pray in any: Our D^r fancies, that this argument proves directly again&s;t me; <HI>becau&s;e,</HI> &s;aies he,
<PB N="317" REF="172"> <HI>the Lyturgy is an exchange of &s;peech betwixt God and his people; he &s;peakes to them in the Epi&s;tle, Gho&s;pel and p&s;alms; and the people are the Hearers; they &s;peake to God in prayers, and thanks giving: Gods &s;peech therefore mu&s;t be in a language vnder&s;tood by the peo|ple who are the Hearers:</HI> But S^r tho the Gho&s;pel, Epi&s;tles, and p&s;alms be Gods &s;peech to the people, I hope you will not &s;ay, its a prayer of God to the peo|ple; to what purpo&s;e then do you bring this in&s;tance? for the que&s;tion now de|bated is, <HI>If Prayers mu&s;t be in a knowen language:</HI> But &s;aies he, tho it be not a Prayer of God to the people, its an exhortation of his, and I confe&s;s, with S. Paul, that the exhortations to the people mu&s;t be in a language knowen to them becau&s;e they are the <HI>hearers:</HI> Neither in this do you hit right D^r; God is not the immediat in&s;tructor of the people; he in&s;tructs and exhorts vs by the Mini&s;ters and Pa&s;tors of the Church; the Gho&s;pell therefore, Epi&s;tle, le&s;&s;ons, and p&s;alms in the Lyturgie, are not properly Gods exhortation to the Con|gregation, but a &s;ubject and matter for the Pa&s;tor or Mini&s;ter for an exhorta|tion to the people; and for to prove
<PB N="318" REF="173"> this its enough, that be&s;ides the Ly|turgy, you have in your Churchs, Ser|mons and exhortations when you meet on the Sabaoth day; its needle&s;s there|fore the Epi&s;tle, Go&s;pel, le&s;&s;ons, and P&s;alms be in a knowen language, be|cau&s;e they are not intended in the Ly|turgy for an immediat exhortation to the people; but for a Subject or argu|ment for the Mini&s;ter to exhort vpon: its evident they are a part of the Lytur|gy, which is a prayer of the people to God; the peoples prayer as wee proved may be in any language; becau&s;e God, who is the Hearer, vnder&s;tands any: therefore the Epi&s;tle, Gho&s;pel, le&s;&s;ons and p&s;alms may be in any language the Church plea&s;es. And it is pre&s;umption in any privat Per&s;on, as <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Sall,</HI> or in any particular Province or Con|gregation, to alter the language pre&s;|cribed by the Church vnder pretence of a &s;piritual advantage or increa&s;e of devotion; the Church, and not any privat Per&s;on or Gongregation, being the guide and Mi&s;tre&s;s which God has appointed, as we have proved, for to teach vs, what rites, ceremonies and manner of Wor&s;hip we are to &s;erve
<PB N="319" REF="173"> him with: but our D^r &s;aies, its an ab&s;urd thing, that J. S. &s;hould pretend wee &s;hould &s;ubmit our judgments in this to the Church, <HI>our pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s,</HI> quoth he, <HI>being to check the abu&s;es of the Church:</HI> and ju&s;t &s;o will the Pre&s;biterians and Quakers an&s;wer, its a ridiculous thing in the Prote&s;tants to a&s;k them to con|form them&s;elves with the Church of England, becau&s;e their bu&s;ine&s;s is, to check the abu&s;es of that Church.</P>
<P>In his 32. Chap. he pretends to prove its cruelty to forbid our common peo|ple from reading Scripture, and ma|gnifies the happine&s;s his flock reapes from the contrary practice; and &s;aies not a word to this purpo&s;e, but what I refuted in my former Treati&s;e: but alas! the lamentable effects of this arbitrary reading and interpretation of Scrip|ture, are but too vi&s;ible; and he might have better called it the &s;parke of Hell fire, which kindled and con&s;er|ves the combu&s;tions of our Church and &s;tate, than our Obedience to the Pope: his vulgar reproach of our Divi&s;ions and di&s;tinctions of Rites and Ceremo|nies, among Dominicans, Franci&s;cans, and Je&s;uits, is not worth the taking
<PB N="320" REF="174"> notice of; it was want of matter for to fill his Chapter made him &s;toop to &s;o trivial an in&s;tance.</P>
<P>His attempt in his 33. chapt. again&s;t the Immaculat Conception of the B. Virgin, is no more, than what he &s;aid in his Sermon and I refuted in my former Treati&s;e: The words of S. Augu&s;tin quo|ted by me to prove the obligation of confe&s;&s;ing, not only every &s;in wee are guiltie of, but the circum&s;tances of time, place, and qualitie of the Per|&s;ons, with whom wee commit them, &s;tarrles him: he will not believe I have the lea&s;t tincture of a Divin, or that I am acquainted, or was ever bred among learned men of the Roman Church; and very re&s;olutly &s;aies, that our Di|vins teach, its not the duty of a peni|tent to confe&s;s the circum&s;tances of time, place and quality of the per&s;ons, wherin and wher with the &s;in was com|mitted: and no man of judgment will ever a&s;k a better proof for to believe, that our Doctor never was a <HI>Profe&s;&s;or of Moral Divinity,</HI> nor that he ever read any of their works, or if he did, that he had not the memorie of a Chick to retain what he read: for he might have
<PB N="321" REF="174"> met in Alexan. 3. p. q. 32. art 2. Anton. 2. p. tit. 9. c. 7. Ro&s;el. Verbo Confe&s;&s;io. n. 7. and in &s;everal other ancient Authors, that a &s;in committed in the Sabaoth day, takes a particular malice again&s;t the Virtue of <HI>Religion,</HI> from the circum|&s;tance of the time: becau&s;e its a profa|nation of a day con&s;ecrated to the Wor&s;hip of God; and ought to be &s;pe|cified in Confe&s;&s;ion: this Doctrin is now ab&s;olet: but as to the circum&s;tances of the place and qualitie of the Per&s;ons, it has been allwaies, and is &s;till the Doctrin of all Divins, that there is an obligation of Confe&s;&s;ing them; It's theft to &s;teale out of a Merchants &s;hop; but its a &s;acriledge to &s;teale out of a Church; nor will you &s;atisfie the dutie of a Penitent by &s;aying you &s;tole; if you do not mention that you &s;tole out of a Church. Its Murther to kill, but if you kill a Prie&s;t, its a &s;acriledge, and you mu&s;t expre&s;s it in your Con|fe&s;&s;ion: but I do not wonder our D^r &s;hould not minch, nor chaw the&s;e di&s;|tinctions of &s;ins and circum&s;tances; &s;ince he is becom of the Church of England, acu&s;tomed for &s;o many years, to plunge its hands in the blood of the Clergy,
<PB N="322" REF="175"> and ryfle Altars and Churchs, without any di&s;tinction of Per&s;ons, or pla|ces.</P>
<P>His 34. Chapt. is a Spring tide of in|juries which in &s;male &s;howers he povred out again&s;t me in every chapter of his book; to which my an&s;wer will be &s;y|lence, and that patience to which Chri&s;|tians are obliged by the example of him who being brought as a &s;heep to the &s;laughter, was dumb before his &s;hearers and opened not his mouth. He flatters him&s;elf with the opinion of &s;om Divins of his Church, who &s;ay, the Vows he made of Povertie, Obedience, and Cha&s;|titie in the Roman Church, nor the Precepts of that Church do not oblige him now, &s;ince he is a Prote&s;tant; and the &s;ame he &s;aies pag. 181. again&s;t J. E. in his fir&s;t part again&s;t N. N. and for this he gives two rea&s;ons; fir&s;t he &s;aies, he has demon&s;trated evidently he cannot keep tho&s;e Vows and Precepts of the Church of Rome, without infringing them of God, becau&s;e they are oppo&s;it: But in the fir&s;t Chapter of this Treati&s;e I have &s;hewen this to be fals; for there is no Divin Precept commanding vs to have a good Pari&s;h to have Rents,
<PB N="323" REF="175"> honors and dignities: &s;ince therefore you have made a &s;olemn vow of having no Rents, no Honors, no Pari&s;h, but to liue in pouertie; how can you &s;ay this vow does not oblige you? with what Diuin precept is the complyance of this vow incon&s;i&s;tent? allow the Pre|cept of the Church of hearing Ma&s;s does not oblige you, becau&s;e in it we adore the Ho&s;t; allow al&s;o your vow of Cha&s;titie, is not con&s;i&s;tent with S. Paul's coun&s;el of marrying, rather than to burn; becau&s;e you may find by expe|rience you cannot contain; but again&s;t what Divin precept or coun&s;el is it, to &s;ay your Divin Office, <HI>Matins</HI> and <HI>Laudes</HI> euery day? why do not you obey this Precept of the Church? with what Divin Precept is the fa&s;t of lent, the fa&s;t of fridaies and Saturdaies incon|&s;i&s;tent? why do not you ob&s;erve the&s;e Precepts of the Church? particularly that your own Prote&s;tant Common Prayer book exhorts you to the&s;e fa&s;ts.</P>
<P>His &s;econd rea&s;on, becau&s;e tho&s;e vows he made, and his Obedience to tho&s;e Precepts, were grounded vpon a blind Obedience to the Pope of Rome,
<PB N="324" REF="176"> including a di&s;obedience to Gods laws; and con&s;equently the vows are Null: But I have &s;howen his vows, and tho&s;e Precepts include no di&s;obedience to God's law: and I will &s;hew, tho he made tho&s;e vows vnder the Pope, yet now, for&s;aking the Pope, he mu&s;t &s;tick to the vows: for I a&s;k you D^r, are not you &s;till bound to the Duties of a Prie&s;t (whateuer that duty be) tho it be vn|der the Popes Obedience you received your Prie&s;t hood? are not you, I &s;ay, &s;till a Prie&s;t? can you di&s;own your ca|racter, becau&s;e you receiued it vnder the Pope? and why can you di&s;own your other obligations contracted vn|der the Pope; if you cannot &s;how they are incon&s;i&s;tent with Gods Laws? you were vnder the Obedience of the Pope, it's true, when you made a vow of Pouertie, Cha&s;titie and Obedience; but it's not the Pope commanded you to make them; it was a free voluntarie act of your own, and therefore whe|ther you liue vnder the Popes Obe|dience or not, you remain &s;till obliged, as you remain &s;till a Prie&s;t and with the obligations of a Prie&s;t.</P>
<P>Remember that Pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Ananias</HI>
<PB N="325" REF="176"> and <HI>Saphira</HI> Act. 5. they &s;old their lands, they &s;acrificed the price of it at the Apo&s;tles feet to God; it was by no Command of S. Peter; it was a volun|tarie free action of their own; this oblation (whether it vas a vow of pouertie or not) obliged them in con|&s;cience, and they tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, by detaining a part of that which they had &s;acrific'd to God: whether Peter, vnder whom they liued when they made this oblation, was <HI>Pope</HI> or not; <HI>&s;upream h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ad</HI> or not of the Church; the &s;acrifice and oblation they made, obliged them in con&s;cience; for it was a voluntarie free action of their own; therefore they &s;inn'd in tran&s;gre&s;|&s;ing again&s;t it: this ca&s;e is as like yours, as you can paint one: whether the Pope, under whom you liued, when you made a &s;olemn vow of pouertie, of cha&s;titie and obedience, a &s;olemn vow of neuer admitting any dignitie or ho|nor in the Church; whether I &s;ay, the Pope was &s;upream head of the Church or not; that excu&s;es you not; you made that &s;acrifice of your &s;elf to God, you made tho&s;e vows, not by con|&s;traint or command of the Pope; it was
<PB N="326" REF="177"> your own voluntarie free action; it obliges you &s;till, let the Pope be what he wilI: li&s;ten now D^r to S. Gregorie l. 1. Epi&s;tol. 33. writing to <HI>Venantius</HI> an Apo&s;tat, who for&s;ook his Convent and religious life to become Chancellor of Italie: <HI>Ananias pecunias Deo vouerat, quas po&s;t, diabolica fraude victus, &s;ub&s;traxit; &s;ed qua morte mulctatus e&s;t, &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">is; &s;i ergo ille mortis periculo dignus fuit, qui <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">os quos de|derat nummos Deo ab&s;tulit; con&s;idera quanio periculo in divino judicio dignus eris, qui non nummos, &s;ed teip&s;um Deo omnipotenti, cui &s;ub Monachali habitu te devoveras &s;ub&s;tra|xi&s;ti? con&s;ider a judicium Dei, quid merea|tur, qui &s;emetip&s;um Deo vovit, continuoque mundi de&s;iderijs irretitus, mentitus e&s;t quod vovit. Ananias &s;acrific'd his monie to God, which he afterward, ouercom by Satans in&s;ti|gation, &s;tole from God; but you know with what death he was puni&s;hed; and if he, who took from God the monies he &s;acrificed vnto him, de&s;erved &s;uch a death, in what a dan|gerous condition will you be before the tribu|nal of God; who ha&s;t withdrawen from God, not your monies, but your&s;elf, after you had con&s;ecrated your&s;elf vnto him in a Mona&s;ti|cal life? con&s;ider Gods judgment: what he de&s;erves, who has con&s;ecrated him&s;elf to God,</HI>
<PB N="327" REF="177"> <HI>and en&s;nared by worldly de&s;ires, h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s di&s;a vowed what he h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s vowed.</HI> Change but <HI>Sall</HI> for <HI>Venantius</HI> and <HI>Chancellor of Italie,</HI> for <HI>Par&s;on of Swords;</HI> and S. Gregories words come pat to our D^r.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="conclusion">
<HEAD>THE CONCLVSION.</HEAD>
<P>DOctor had you begun the carrier you are now in, fiftie years agon, it would be &s;till criminal in you, but le&s;s admired by the world; but now in your crawling years, to abandon your&s;elf to your liberty, when you cannot enjoy it but for &s;o &s;hort a time; to indulge your pa&s;&s;io~s in the <HI>Autumn</HI> of your daies, which you curb'd in the <HI>Spring</HI> of your life; to pro&s;titute your&s;elf to tran&s;ito|rie plea&s;ures, when you &s;tand with one foot in the grave, at the brim of eter|nitie; to faune at the world in &s;uch an age, when men are de&s;pi&s;ed by the world; neuer could Satan have begui|led you in a wor&s;e time, nor you have changed your religion to le&s;s of world|lie advantage. Had you intended in this change of Religion to better your
<PB N="328" REF="178"> life and &s;ecure your &s;aluation, as you pretend to per&s;wade vs, you might an&s;wer, that they who came to the Vyneyard at the eleaventh houre, were as well rewarded, as they who entred at the third houre; but Alas? you have too much of rea&s;on for to believe you could better your&s;elf; and too much of judgment for to think any man can be|lieve this was your aim: I appeale to the know ledge of any impartial man; if there be any among you of le&s;s edi|fication, of le&s;s con&s;cience and honor, than tho&s;e, who of Prie&s;ts and Fryars, become Prote&s;tants; and if they be|come not more debauch and riotous li|bertins, than formerly they were. What man of them can you produce, who by his exchange of religion became more devout, more reformed in his life, and more given to Meditations, prayers, and other religious exerci&s;es, and au&s;terities of life than before? and you will tell vs, it's to reform your life, and &s;ecure your &s;alvation you have quitted your religious Order, and become a Prote&s;tant?</P>
<P>You exhort me to con&s;ider the mi&s;e|rable condition wee are in, dazl'd with
<PB N="329" REF="178"> the &s;plendor of the <HI>Roman Grandeur, and baited with the &s;trong allurements of it, de|ceiving the world with colours of Sanctity, when ambition and avarice is the Primum Mobile of all our actions, and the Soule which animates all our motions.</HI> I pray S^r, what &s;hare of this <HI>Grandeur</HI> and <HI>worldly allure|ments</HI> had you, when you were of your former Profe&s;&s;ion? or have the Car|tu&s;ians, Capuchins, and other religious orders of both &s;exes now? was it to encrea&s;e the worldly Pomp of the Italian court; was it ambition or ava|rice that moued &s;o many Noble men and women of rich e&s;tates, to quit their plentifull life, their honors and digni|ties, their numerous retinue of Ser|vants, &s;acrific'd all at the feet of Chri&s;t's Cro&s;s, and con&s;ecrated them|&s;elves to a religious Cell, to a life of continual mortification, of Di&s;ciplins, hair-cloths, fa&s;ting, a&s;&s;iduous duties of a Quyre, and begging their food from doore to doore? had they left their own e&s;tates and gon to Rome to be Popes or Cardinals, you might &s;u&s;|pect the puritie of their intentions; but to &s;ay it was Ambition, Avarice, and allurements of worldly plea&s;ures car|ried
<PB N="330" REF="179"> them to be Carthu&s;ians, Capu|chins, Nuns, &amp;c. is to make them wor&s;e than mad men: I pray was it <HI>ambition</HI> that moved you when you made a vow neuer to pretend or accept any Digni|tie? or may not wee judge it was <HI>ambi|tion</HI> moved you to infringe that vow, and pretend and have the Dignity of Dean of S. Patrick's Church (if you be Dean, as they &s;ay) was it avarice that moved you, when you made a &s;olemn vow of pouertie, and never to have any Rents or revenues? or was it not ava|rice that moved you to break this vow, and accept a good Pari&s;h and rents as they &s;ay you have?</P>
<P>I pray tell ingenuou&s;ly, what worldly allurements had you to continue in the Profe&s;&s;ion you were of for &s;o many years in Ireland? you may &s;ay perhaps, you had great allurements in &s;pain to be of that profe&s;&s;ion; the great credit, and impolyments of honor, you &s;ay you had, might have been an allure|ment vnto you; but what allurements had you for to continue in that pro|fe&s;&s;ion in Ireland for &s;o many years? your allurements was pouertie, having no other &s;ub&s;i&s;tance but the charitie
<PB N="331" REF="179"> and alms of the people; no other exer|ci&s;e of your great (as you imagined) Talents, but to preach &s;omtimes and teach the Catechi&s;m, commonly to poore people; wandring vp and down to friends hou&s;es, to pick vp a liuelyhood; &s;omtimes wellcom, and &s;omtimes not; to fare at other mens tables, &s;om|times ill, and &s;omtimes well; &s;omti|mes decently clad and &s;omtimes your pouertie not affording you to be &s;o: your allurements be&s;ids this, was to &s;ay your Breviary dayly for about an hours time; an hours meditation or mental prayer euery morning; be&s;ids other devotions which you were obliged by your Rules to perform; to fa&s;t in Lent, Fridaies and Saturdaies, and glad to hit &s;omtimes on bread and milk or butter; other corporal au&s;terities, if you &s;atisfied your dutie; continual feare of impri&s;onment or bani&s;hment; an abnegation of your own Will to the conduct of your Superiors command again&s;t your inclinations; the&s;e were the allurements you had to be of that Religion; &s;ee whether ambition or ava|rice could have a &s;hare in the choice of &s;uch a life and Religion: you tell me
<PB N="332" REF="180"> you will never again return to that Re|ligion; that you will continue in Prote&s;|tancy; and truly if nothing but Ambi|tion, Avarice and worldly allurements gouern you actions, your are far better where you are, and will do very ill to return where you were; the allurements are &s;trong for your continuance in Pro|te&s;tancie; you have a good Pari&s;h with good rents, and Judas betrayed his Ma&s;ter for a &s;maler intere&s;t; in&s;teed of milk and eggs on fa&s;ting dayes, you have a good peece of beef and better cheer, and are not beholding to your neighbours, (if you plea&s;e) for you may have a table of your own; you have neither Breviary, nor beads nor meditation nor Ma&s;s to trouble your re&s;t, but may &s;leep eat and drink at will and plea&s;ure, and in&s;teed of an audi|torie of poore people, you can preach in Chri&s;t Church, and have acce&s;s to great ones: the&s;e indeed are &s;trong (but earthly) allurements to keep you in Prote&s;tancy, and bid a figg for Po|pery.</P>
<P>But I be&s;eech you once more, good D^r, reflect if this be the life you are obliged by your Vows to lead? con|&s;ider
<PB N="333" REF="180"> if by your three &s;olemn Vows, of pouertie, you have not &s;acrificed your riches to God, prote&s;ting you would neuer have any; if by your vow of Obedience you have not &s;acrific'd your Will to God, giving it wholy to the conduct of your Superior; if by the Vow of Cha&s;titie you have not con|&s;ecrated your body to God denying it worldly plea&s;ures; and con&s;ider, how your pre&s;ent life is a violation of all the&s;e three Vows; of pouertie by the Pari&s;h and rents you enioy and are di&s;|po&s;ed to receive more if you can get it; of Obedience, by &s;ub&s;tracting your &s;elf from your Superiors conduct, and living at your will; of Cha&s;titie, if not by marrying, by holding marriage is lawfull for you: and after the&s;e Con|&s;iderations, li&s;ten to S. Ba&s;il. in Regul. Interrog. 14. <HI>Si po&s;tquam intra reliquorum Fratrum Societatem admi&s;&s;us e&s;t, factam &agrave; &s;e jam profe&s;sionem re&s;ciderit, is perinde a&s;pici debet, vt qui in Deum peccaverit, cui &s;o|lemni &s;e voto obligavit: etenim qui &s;emel &s;eip&s;um Deo devouit; is, &s;i ad aliud vitae genus tran&s;ierit, &s;acrilegij &s;e crimine ob&s;trin|xit, vtpote qui &s;eip&s;um Deo, cui &s;e con&s;ecra|verat &s;ubterfuratus e&s;t. He who after being</HI>
<PB N="334" REF="181"> <HI>received into the communitie of the re&s;t of the Brethren, &s;hall re&s;cind the profe&s;sion he has made, is to be looked vpon as a tran&s;|gre&s;&s;or again&s;t God, to whom he has obliged him&s;elf by Vow: for he who has con&s;ecrated him&s;elf to God, if after, he &s;hould pa&s;&s; into an other Kind of life; he is guil<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ie of &s;acri|ledge, as having &s;toln from God, what he had con&s;ecrated vnto him.</HI> O! D^r &s;hould not your heart tremble at the&s;e words? you have re&s;cinded the profe&s;&s;ion you made; you have con&s;ecrated your &s;elf to God, and have for&s;aken that, and pa&s;t to an other kind of life; that Pa|ri&s;h, tho&s;e Rents, that libertie, that plea&s;ure you enioy are &s;tolen, and robb'd from God to whom you con&s;e|crated them by &s;olemn Vows; re&s;tore them again o Doctor returning to that pouertie, Obedience and Cha&s;titie which you Vowed; if, as a fraile man, you fell; arri&s;e as a Chri&s;tian, <HI>Huma|num e&s;t cadere, Chri&s;tianum re&s;ipi&s;cere, Dia|bolicum per&s;everare;</HI> Hell was not created for &s;in if repented, but for ob&s;tinacy in our tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion; nor was Heaven created for the innocent only; but for the penitent &s;inner.</P>
<P>Lift vp your eyes to the top of a
<PB N="335" REF="181"> Pillar thirtie foot heigh; there you &s;hall &s;ee that Miracle of Chri&s;tian au&s;|teritie <HI>Simon Stellites,</HI> fa&s;ting without any manner of food 28 Lents in imi|tation of Chri&s;t; having no &s;helter again&s;t the &s;torms of Winter, or heat of Summer, but his con&s;tancy; his body couered with a rude haire-cloth, his bed but the bare top of the Pillar, and his fle&s;h battered dayly with di&s;ciplins to blood&s;hed: look vpon Antonie the Abbot, &s;hut vp in a caue for the &s;pace of twentie years; feeding on bread and water; &s;leeping on the bare ground; clad with bea&s;t's Skins, and &s;earching all occa&s;ions of mortifieing his fle&s;h: Con&s;ider S. Benedict and S. Francis, the one wallowing him&s;elf in thornie bu&s;hes, the other in heapes of &s;now for to ouercom impure thoughts, which a&s;&s;aulted them: look on S. Francis Xaverius in the ho&s;pital, wa&s;hing the Vlcers and Soares of the Sick, and drinking the water wherwith he had wa&s;hed them; to check the loath&s;om|ne&s;s which his body conceiued at that filthred. Con&s;ider S. Louis Gonzaga Surrounded in Court with many allu|rements of impuritie; and for to pre|&s;erve
<PB N="336" REF="182"> his &s;oule vn&s;potted, how he girded his &s;ydes with wheels of &s;purs to curb his fle&s;h; To be brief look into the Convents of both Sexes, their Cells ring with the <HI>Eccho</HI> of their di&s;ciplins; their beds afford more pain than ea&s;e to their tyred bodies; their food &s;erves for to liue, to &s;uffer more; their life is a continued di&s;tribution of the day into &s;eueral houres of &s;piritual exerci&s;es: is it Avarice, is it Ambi|tion, is it allurements of worldlie plea|&s;ures, is it for to encrea&s;e the Roman &s;plendor and Grandeur think you that men liue &s;o in the Catholic Religion; as if it had been the <HI>Italian Policy</HI> that pre&s;cribed that &s;ort of life, and not Je&s;us Chri&s;t: is not this retirement from the world; this abdication of wordlie Pomp and vanitie; this humiliation and renunciation of honors, e&s;tates and riches; this au&s;teritie of life, and mortification of our pa&s;&s;ions recom|mended to vs in the Gho&s;pell, preached by S. Paul, practis'd by David, the great Bapti&s;t, the Apo&s;tles and the eminent Saints of Chri&s;tianity?</P>
<P>Reade what the Gho&s;pel relater of the cour&s;e fare, of the gro&s;&s;e attyre, of the
<PB N="337" REF="182"> great retirement of S. John Bapti&s;t; <HI>Omni naturae nece&s;sitate &s;uperata</HI> (&s;aies Chry&s;o&s;t. in cap. 11. Math. Hom. 38.) <HI>mirabile quoddam iter peregit: &s;emper in Hymnis, &s;emper in or ationibus fuit; nulli hominum, antequam ad Bap|tizandum accederet, &s;ed &s;oli Deo &s;ua &s;emper offerebat colloquia: non lacte nutri|tus: non lecto &s;u&s;ceptus, non tecto, non alia re humana v&s;us e&s;t. Having ouercom all the want and exigencies of Nature, he walked in a mo&s;t admirable cour&s;e of life: he lived al|waies in Hymns and prayers</HI> (is not this like the Quyres of our Churchs and reli|gious orders)? <HI>he had no conver&s;ation with men, but all with God alone,</HI> (is not this the religious retirement of our Monks and Nuns?) <HI>He did not feed on Milk (nor wine or &s;trong liquor, but wild Honnie and Locu&s;ts) nor did he &s;leep on a bed, nor dwelled vnder any roof, nor did v&s;e, what men commonly v&s;e.</HI> (Is not this the au&s;te|ritie of life, the mortifications and pen|nances of our Church, which you call de&s;perat and indi&s;creet au&s;terities de&s;|tructive to Body and Soule?) Read the Haire-cloths of David, his eating of a&s;hes with his bread, his fa&s;ting, his ry&s;ing at midnight to &s;ing p&s;alms, and
<PB N="338" REF="183"> the like Au&s;terities commended by Scripture in &s;everal others; and let the Impartial Reader judge, if the Te|nor of life profe&s;&s;ed by our Religious Orders, if the corporal mortifications and au&s;terities, of Di&s;ciplins, of haire|cloths, of our Quyres, of &s;leeping on the bare ground, of cour&s;e attires, of poore and &s;cant fare, practi&s;ed fre|quently in our Church by all ages and &s;exes, be not more conformable to what Scripture prai&s;es, to what Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles recommended, to what the Saints of the new and old Te&s;|tament practis'd; than the Tenor of life, Doctrin, and practice of the Prote&s;tant Church.</P>
<P>Summon now your rea&s;on D^r, and a&s;k your own con&s;cience, if you be not guiltie of as many &s;ins and imperfec|tions, as tho&s;e Saints; and conclude if they did &s;o much to expiat their &s;ins, what you ought to do? a&s;k if you be not as prone to temptations, and as weake to re&s;i&s;t them as they were; and if they, to prevent temptations, did &s;o much; how com you to for&s;ake that profe&s;&s;ion wherin you might and were obliged to imitat them? a&s;k, if you
<PB N="339" REF="183"> have a greater claim to heaven, than they had? and re&s;olve for to purcha&s;e heaven, to do more, and return to your devoir; &s;ince that they, for to purcha&s;e it have don &s;o much? or conclude, that Chri&s;t, when he &s;aid the kingdom of heaven &s;uffers force, and the violent &s;hall carrie it, he &s;poke to them, and not to you: their lot is eternal con&s;olation in the other life, becau&s;e heer they mourned and wept in pennance: their lot is everla&s;ting full&s;omne&s;s, becau&s;e heer they &s;uffered hunger and thir&s;t: their Soules are now in a height of glorie, becau&s;e their Bodies were heer in the depth of afflic|tion; We may parallell the Body and Soule to two &s;cales; the one &s;cale will never ry&s;e, if the other does not fall; if this mounts, the other will &s;ink: that the &s;oule may ri&s;e, the Body mu&s;t fall; if the Body be kept high, the &s;oule will fall low; witne&s;s the &s;oule of the Rich Glutton burning in the depth of hell; <HI>epulabatur quotidie &s;plendide;</HI> his body was kept high; the &s;equele was, <HI>&s;epul<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">us e&s;t in inferno:</HI> his &s;oule was buried in hell: &s;ee D^r in what degree your body was kept, by the &s;tate of religious life
<PB N="340" REF="184"> you profe&s;&s;ed; you for &s;ooke that &s;tate; you have rai&s;ed your Body to a great hight; feare, lea&s;t it may be &s;aid of you &s;om day, <HI>&s;epultus e&s;t in inferno.</HI></P>
<P>For Man's life is often termed in holy Writ, a <HI>Dream;</HI> and it is remarkable, that after a merry plea&s;ant dream, we awake with &s;orrow and &s;adne&s;s; but after a heavy &s;ad dream we awake with ioy and content: <HI>&s;atius e&s;t amara &s;omniare quam dulcia, &s;aies Petrarchus, amari enim &s;omnij exitus dulcis e&s;t, &amp; dulcis amarus? Its better have a &s;ad bitter dream, than a &s;weet plea&s;ant one; becau&s;e the &s;equele of a &s;weet dream is bitter; of a bitter one, is &s;weetne&s;s:</HI> You dream that your Spou&s;e is trea|cherou&s;ly &s;natcht out of your bed, and murthered before your face; you cry out, <HI>Murther;</HI> you awake, but with ioy, that all was but a dream; you dream you have hit on a great pur&s;e of Gold for to relieve your wants; you rejoyce; you awake, but with &s;orrow, that your content was but a dream: Jo|&s;eph dreamed the Sun, Moon, and Stars, pro&s;trated at his feet, did adore him; he awakes from this dreamed felicity, and meets a check from his Father, per|&s;ecution from his brethren, &s;lavery
<PB N="341" REF="184"> from the Madianits, and impri&s;onment from Putiphar; what a heape of &s;orrow followed his plea&s;ant dream. Our life is but a dream, D^r, from which wee will awake in the other world by death; we will awak to &s;orrow or content, ac|cording the qualitie of our dream: &s;ee what life you have for&s;aken, which by your profe&s;&s;ion you ought to have lead; a life of religious povertie, li|ving by charitie and alms, and often wanting; of religious Obedience and Cha&s;titie; a life of pennance and au&s;te|ritie, of fa&s;ting, prayers, per&s;ecutions, afflictions, this was a &s;ad dream from which, if you had continued it, you might have expected to awake in the other life with ioy: &s;ee what life you lead in the Prote&s;tant Church? it's a merry plea&s;ant dream, plenty of mony; liberty without any check, good attire, well lodged, no obligation of fa&s;ting, of other mortifications, of a Breviary; a iouial dream; but feare that you may awake in the other life to eternal grief and &s;orrow, and you may &s;ay with the Debauched mentioned Sap. 5 <HI>What has the pride of our life auailed vs, or the abun|dance of our riches profited vs;</HI> do not
<PB N="342" REF="185"> hazard eternitie for a time, and a real felicitie for a dreamed happine&s;s.</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>ERRATA CORRIGENDA.</HEAD>
<P>PAg. 4. lin. 6. appeur. Read appear. lin. 7. wonds. R. words. p. 6. l. 19. Sacrements. R. Sacraments. p. 8. l. 17. Ordinatioe. R. Ordination. l. 19. Nags|ead. R. Nags-head. p. 9. l. 10. pereiving. R. perceiving l. 11. Portie. R. Partie. p. 13. l. 14. outragions. R. outragious. l. 21. iu. R. in. p. 15. l. 4. Sacrements. R. Sacraments. p. 21. l. 23. vt. R. vs. p. 22. l. 4. &s;nch. R. &s;uch. l. 9. obvions. R. obvious. p. 23. l. 6. ad. R. and. l. 23 <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ho. R. the p. 26. l. 10. leymen. R. laymen. p. 27. l. 6. tho&s;es. R. tho&s;e. p. 30. l. 1. indged. R. judged. l. 2. perfectedly. R. perfectly. p. 38. l. 25. firgurative. R. figurative. p. 50. l. 9. &s;palms. R. p&s;alms. p. 55. l. 26. ab&s;oluty. R. ab&s;olutly. p. 69 l. 8. Win&s;me&s;ter. R. We&s;tmin&s;ter. p 70. l. 8. An&s;tin R. Au&s;tin. p. 102. l. 5. out. R.
<PB REF="185"> our. l. 17. maiice. R. malice. p. 103. l. 13 obtinat. R. ob&s;tinat. l. 14. Congrations. R. Congregations. l. 20. obieteuely. R. obiectiuely. p. 104. l. 5. patt. R. part. p. 105. l. 1. praecipui. R. praecipuis. p. 131 l. 1. bnginning. R beginning. p. 133. l. 2. chuch. R. church. l. 4. his. R. this p. 134. l. 7. lone R. loue. p. 160 l. 5. ground. R. grounded. p. 245. l. 18. obcurely. R. ob&s;curely. p. 246. l. 27. &s;peakes. R. &s;peake. p. 266. l. 20. Treari&s;e. R. Treati&s;e. pag. 304. l. 26. our. R. out.</P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
