Faith to a doubtfull authority therfore vnless they who pretend to be the Clergy can evidence by vndeniable miracles either wrought by themselves or by their knowen spiritual predecessours that professed the same Faith their iurisdiction and doctrin they can not rationaly pretend to have the charge of soules or any divine authority for determining controversies of Religion Because seeing the principal part of Religion doth consist in a perfect submission of the vnderstanding to diviâ—e authority even against the appearence of sense and the probability of reason vnless the Church or Clergy wherupon we rely doth make it evidently credible by supernatural signs that their authority and doctrin is divine their religion is not rational and therfore no rational person is bound without that supernatural evidence to acknowledg in them a spiritual jurisdiction or to follow their dictamens and forsake his own privat dictamens and principles of probability or the seeming evidence of his senses Some men do require more then this and are of opinion that a Religion can not be rational vnless the truth therof be cleerly discerned or demonstrated by the light of natural reason and judg it a great folly in men to believe what they do not comprehend But this maxim is destructiue to Religion and reason it doth ouerthrow the very foundation of both which consists in acknowlegding an incomprehensible Deity whose perfections are infinit his thoughts and revelations and by consequence the mysteries of Religion inscrutable and therfore to be revered not examined by so limited and imperfect creatures as we are that can hardly diue into the bottom of ordinary difficulties and discern the immortality of our own soules or the nature and composition of any visible body And albeit an excellent wit of our age in a late Treatise hath endeavored to cleere by natural reason the mysteries of Christian Faith and in order to facilitat the beliefe of Transubstantiation doth teach that one body can not be in many places at one tyme nor be penetrated with another body and therfore is for'ct to say that Christ hath as many bodys as there are consecrated pieces of bread yet I think it more agreable not only to Catholik Religion but to natural reason to believe that the very same body of Christ that was born of the blessed Uirgin and is in heaven is also under every consecrated species otherwise it must be sayd that Christ our Sauiour is a monster that hath not only as many heads but as many bodies as there are Consecrations But if this argument be thought more popular then philosophical I hope schollars themselves will judg it unreaâ—â—nable that Divines or Philosophers be too positive in defining the immutable essences of things or which is the same in determining what is possible or impossible for God to do and in deducing conclusions from such notions as they call natures If we consider that we owe all our human knowledg to the evidence of sence which is often fallacious and to reflections of the mind which are alwayes fallible we must grant that we may be frequently mistaken in the ground of our demonstrations and do sometimes take our own fancies and false conceits for true objects which haue no real existance in themselues nor any other immutability in order to Gods power besides that tenacity or obstinacy wherwith men stick to their own opinions This is sufficiently proved by the great discord and diuersity of opinion that is in the schooles euen concerning the essence or nature almost of euery thing and particularly of a body or quantity Wherfore it is more probable that M. r Bonart is as much mistaken in placing the nature or essence of a Body in actual extention as he takes others to be in their contrary opinions concerning the same subject otherwise Christ hath non only as many Bodys as there are consecrated species but also it followeth if his Body can not be penetrated or in the same place with another that he united to his Diuine person a nature which he cannot command to be whersoeuer himselfe as God is pleased to be I am no Vbiquist and therfore I grant that the hypostatical vnion doth not make Christs body to be every where or whersoeuer the Diuinity is but I think all Christians ought to belieue that it is possible for Christ as man to be in any particular place and penetrated with any Body whatsoeuer where his person and Diuinity is And as for Mr. Bonart his way of defending how Christs Body did and may penetrat other Bodys I see no difference between it and that of the heretiks which himselfe derides and condemns Pag 257. but that the Heretiks say he did shew his body to the assembled Disciples through some chinck of the wall or through the Key-hole of the doore and M. r Bonart says Christ shot or thrust his Body in through the indiscernable pores which are in euery body and how the whole or the parts of a human body such as that of Christ then was and now is can be conueyed entire through one or many such litle and distant pores without loosing all human shape if a perfect penetration be not allowed I do not understand And I belieue M. r Bonart will hardly be able to declare how the substance of Christs Body is not lost as well as the shape by Christs passing through the pores for that according to his principles pag. 243. the substance of euery Body consists in such a greatness and figure of the parts as compose that body and upon this ground he proceeds when he sayes ibid. that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Flesh and â—loud of Christ because the greatness and figure of the parts of bread and wine are changed though al the rest doth remain If therfore the greatness figure and by consequence the shape of Christs Body and its parts be changed or proportioned to the pores of the penetrated body as they must of necessity be before they can pass or be shot through them Christs Body and the parts therof do loose the substance as well as the shape of a human body according to M. r Bonartes doctrin Hence we conclude that actual extension doth not so cleerly nor so catholickly declare the essence of a Body but that it must leaue or breed some doubts of Christs humanity of Gods omnipotency and of his Mothers virginity Besides if the least particles or Atoms of a Body are of the same nature with the whole and haue real extension by the addition wherof they make a body greater as this Author holds it can not be well comprehended how the Atoms can be so litle as not to be capable of being lessend by Gods power especially seeing M. r Bonart doth grant one side of an Atom may be toucht and the other side not toucht For if so How can any that believes Gods omnipotency imagin that God can not separat or divide sides
which may be seuerally wrought and wrought upon by a corporeal instrument If an Atom be so thick that a corporeal instrument may touch one side therof and not touch or reach the other side there is ground and room enough for Gods power to separat one side from the other for if one side of a Body or Atom can be wrought upon independently of the other it may exist also or be moued independently of the same and by consequence is distinct and separable from it And indeed if to be toucht and not to be toucht be not contradictions sufficient to prove real distinction between the sides or extremes so denominated no kind of contradictions can inferre real distinction To say as Mr. Bonart doth pag 301.303 passim that to be toucht and not toucht argues only a verbal not a real distinction in the Atom wherof one side is realy toucht the other not realy toucht and to pretend that this is cleerly deduced from the first notion or nature of a Body or extense because forsooth the notion of Parts must suppose not only one extense but many with a certain manner and measure of extension and that therfore an Atom may be extended and yet not partible To maintain this discourse I say seemeth to me a begging of the question and as difficult as any other opinion in this matter For 1. It is not easy to conceiue how any extension whatsoeuer can include in its first notion or nature an exclusion of division 2. In M. r Bonart his own principles it seemeth in-intelligible how any Body or Atom that hath so much extension that is so much length bredth and profundity as to be capable of being toucht on the one side with out being toucht on the other is not composed of parts distinct one from the other For pag 303. he grants that if in the expansion or extension of an Atom did appeare any little line or point that line or point would conclude a real distinction of parts in the Atom Now why the touch of any corporeal instrument suppose of a Painters pencil framed and managed by Gods hand may not leaue an impression of it selfe which impression you may call a line or point in that place or side of the Atom that is toucht no reason can be giuen and by consequence there can not be any for denying real distinction and division of the parts in the Atom Lastly It must be concluded that the Atoms are either partible or penetrated Because if they be not partible they do touch each other wholy and euery where according to their dimension and extensions and if they touch in such a manner they are penetrated or in one and the same place And if they be penetrated or penetrable impenetrability can not be the essence or property of the Body which they compose and wherof it only consists This is only sayd by the way to shew that the best wits may mistake the notion and nature not only of a spirit but also of a Body and that they are not the best Guides when they steere themselues and others more by their own privat discourses then by the common sense of the faithfull in mysteries of faith wherof it is a property to be more credible then cleere But if the euidence of sense be fallacious and the reflections of our mind fallible what certain knowledg can we haue of any thing Must we al turn Stoiks or Sceptiks Shall we doubt of all Geometrical Demonstrations No we haue certain Knowledg of our own existence and of some other euident truths And as for the Demonstrations of Geometry Euclid himself neuer pretended that his notions of a point line superficies perfect circle c. did point at the real existence of any such objects as indivisible points lines perfect cercles c. he knew and Mathematicians confess there are no such things in rerum natura And seing Mathematicians are so ingenuous as to acknowledg that their cleerest notions are not real natures or immutable essences I see no reason why Philosophers whose demonstrations are not so cleere should be so positiue in defining things as if they were defyâ—ing Gods omnipotency to make them otherwise then they haue dictated in the Schooles or published in their Bookes And he that thinks to declare the reasonableness of Christian Religion by making the mysteries therof agree rather with his own Philosophical notions then with the common sense of the Church will involue himselfe into a labyrinth of errours The reasonableness therfore of Christian Religion must not be measured by any cleere euidence of truth that human reason discouers either in the works of nature or in the diuine mysteries for we shall proue herafter such euidence to be inconsistent with faith but rather by the cleere euidence of an indispensable obligation that euery man finds and feeles in himselfe of submitting his judgment to the Church when he reflects upon the signs and sufficiency of its authority in order to propose diuine doctrin To submit our reason to a Church or Clergy that hath no cleere and authentick signs of diuine authority is simple and sinfull credulity not to submit to its sufficient authority that is to authority signed with supernatural signs is heretical obstinacy As for the meanes wherby euery one concerned in this spiritual subjection to the Church and Clergy ought to be informed of their miracles authority and jurisdiction they are the same which all men practise and judg to be sufficient for knowing and acknowledging the true and lawfull Heire of a Kingdom or estate The right to temporal dominion is decerned by succession and that succession by Tradition so also the right to gouern soules and decide Controuersies of faith must be acknowledged to reside in them that by a continual succession of Episcopall hands deriue their spiritual caracter or mission from the Apostles and neuer varied from the Apostolical doctrin of which succession of Caracter and continuance of doctrin the best proof is a neuer interrupted Tradition or Testimony of honest and knowing persons in euery age against whose verdict there can be no Lawfull exceptions That Church or Clergy whose doctrin caracter miracles and jurisdiction is witnessed by this Tradition ought to be obeyed as hauing the spiritual superiority wherunto Christ our Saviour commanded both Soueraigns and subjects to submit their iudgments in the mysteries and Controversies of Religion Though this expedient of a Church and Clergy so qualified ought to be acceptable and satisfactory to lay Princes and people yet modern Politicians stand upon such nyceties that the greatest danger and difficulty which they apprehend in the government of a Christian Commonwealth is to order so affaires that the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction may not clash they feare that by mistake or ambition of the Clergy the temporal may be too far intrenched upon and made not only subordinat but subject to the spiritual and the spiritual at length become
as an essential requisit the vndoubted assurance of the truth of what is proposed by the Church as revealed by God and Protestancy necessarily supposing fallibility or possibility of error in that same Church and proposal Christian faith is ther by rendred impossible and the Protestant Doctrin demonstrated 〈◊〉 be inconsistent with the nature of Catholick Religion with the certainty of Divine faith and with the Authority of Christ's Church Neither is the Protestant doctrin in this particular less consistent with Christian charity and humility then with Catholick faith For what judgment can be more rash injurious and contrary to Christian charity then to assert that so many holy and learned Doctors as have bin and are confessed Papists and even the whole visible Church for the space at least of 1000. years could either ignorantly mistake or would wilfully forsake the true sence of God's word so cleerly shining in Scripture as every petty Protestant doth pretend or what is more repugnant 〈◊〉 Christian modesty and humility then that homely Doctors and half witted wits should preferr their own privat opinions in matters of faith before the common consent and belief of 〈◊〉 Fathers of the Church the Definitions of general Councels the Tradition and testimony of so many ages Jt is both a ridiculous and sad spectacle to see how every student of the University that hath learn'â— to conster 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 or to quibble or scribble some-what in Greek English or Latin takes vpon him to talk of Religion and to censure St. 〈◊〉 St. Austin St. Christom c. and contemn both ancient and modern Catholick Avthors preferring before the whole Church him-self and his Poâ—antick Tutors or Fellows of Oxford and Cambrige Collâ—gâ—s Nay the illiterat people even the women are grown to that height of spiritual pride an infallible 〈◊〉 of Heresy that they pitty our Popish ignorance and fancy they can 〈◊〉 with the Text of their English Bibles falsly translated and fondly interpreted the greatest Roman Divines So true is the saying of St. Hierom in Epist. ad Paulinum Scripture is the only art which all people teach before they have learn't The pratling woman the old doting man c. And therfore advers Lucifer bids men not flatter them-selves with quoting Scripture to confirm their opinions seing the Devill him-self made vse of God's word which consists more in the sense then in the letter How impossible is it to govern peaceably so pratling and presuming a Protestant multitude either in Church or state is too manifest by the last experiences in England wher the endeavours of reducing this Protestant arrogancy to some kind of reason was the occasion and object of the Rebellion King Charles I. and his Councel for attempting to make the inferiors subordinat to their superiors in doctrin and disciplin and the subjects obedient to the laws of the land were aspers'd as Papists and destroy'd as enemies to the Evangelical liberty of Protestancy and as subverters of the fundamental principles of the Reformation Popish rebellions happen because the Promotors therof fall from that fervor of their faith and devotion which they ought to practise but the English Protestant Rebellion was raised and continued by the most devout pure fervent and zealous sort of Protestants in persuance and maintenance of their Religion Other rebellions are commonly vnexpected chances springing from a sudain fury or feare of desperat people but the late Rebellion was and is to this day pretended by many to have bin a pious and sober proceeding the King's murther only excepted of the prudent and Religious men of the Nation assembl'd in Parliament and is so justifiable by the principles of Protestancy that he must be thought not only a wise but a fortunat King of England that can prevent or suppress the like revolution in his Reign so long as Protestancy doth reign with him The reason is as manifest as the experience and the cause as the effect For if a Common-wealth were so instituted that every privat person might pretend by his birth-right or Privilege to admit of no other Iudg or Interpreter of the laws but him-self or at least might lawfully and legaly appeale from all Courts of Judicature even from the highest which is the Parliament to his own privat Judgment what intollerable confusion would it breed what justice subordination peace propriety or prosperity could be expected in such a government The same laws and authority which ought to decide all differences would be the subject and occasion of perpetual quarrells This is the condition and constitution of Protestant Churches and States Every privat person is a supreme Iudg of Religion and sole Interpreter of Scripture he may appeale both from Soveraigns and Bishops from their temporal and Ecclesiastical laws to his own privat judgment or spirit and him-self must determin the difference and conclude whether the Decrees of Church and State be agreable to God's word that is to his own Interpretation therof which commonly is byassed by privat interest or some singular fancy of his own And though the Governors and Clergy of his Church and Country tell him he ought to suspend his judgment and submit the same to 〈◊〉 Parliament or to a general Councel not like that of Trent but to one composed of all Nations and Christian Congregations called by the joynt authorâ—â—y of all temporal Princes but in the mean time he must 〈◊〉 to the Decrees of the Church and state wherof he is a member when they inculcat this lesson vnto a zealous Protestant◠〈…〉 not so simple as to believe that they who read this 〈◊〉 speak as they think or that they believe any such general Councel is possible for that every 〈◊〉 knows temporal Princes will never agree about the President time place and other circumstances of such a Counceâ—â— and though they should and the Turck and other Infidels give way to such a sâ—spitious Assembly of Christians yet when they mâ—tâ— nothing could be resolu'd â—or want of their agrement in a 〈◊〉 of judging of controversies every sect â—â—icking to it 's own principles and proper sence of Scripture So thaâ— every Protestant vnderstands the design of this doctrin to be but a fetch of their own Clergy to make it-self in the mean time solâ— Judg of Religion contrary to the principles and privileges of Protestancy and therfore laugh at the folly of such a proposal and pretext We Roman Catholicks need no such Devices nor delays we are content to submit to such general Councels as may be had our Popes and Councels define according to the tradition and sense of Scripture of the true Church our Censures must suppose known causes and crimes and if with all these cautions the Pop's spiritual jurisdiction is thought to be so dangerous to the soveraignty of Kings and peace of subjects least forsooth it might be indirectly applyed to temporal matters that all Protestants vpon that score renounce the Papal authority with how much more reason
of their Religion which was to recurr to the letter of Scripture conâ—â—â—ning the true sense therof delivered by 〈…〉 and practise of the Catholick Church doctrin 〈…〉 primiâ—â—ve Fathers and General Coâ—â—cells but these vpstarts knowing their new fancies 〈…〉 agreable therunto Insteed of the ancient faith of Christendom they resolved to maiâ—â—ain 〈◊〉 condemned heresies following in this manner of proceeding their first Apostles Luther Calvin c. who would admit of nothing but the 〈◊〉 of Scripture interpreted by themselves after an 〈…〉 manner We will instance 〈◊〉 three Doctor Wiâ—aker Arch-bishop VVhitgift and Doctor Fulk omitting many others Doctor VVhitaker in his answer to Doctor Sanders demonstrations pag. 21. saith we repose no such confidence in the Fathers writings that we take any certain proof of Religion from them because we place all our faith and Religion not in human but in divine authority if therfore you bring vs what some Father hath taught or what the Fathers vniversaly all together have delivered the same except it be approved by Testimony of Scriptures it availeth nothing it convinceth nothing For the Fathers are such witnesses as they have also need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses if deceived by error c. And Yet this same Whitaker vndertook to maintain Bishop Jewell's Challenge by Fathers and Councells Archbishop Whitgift was no less but rather more injurious for in his defence of the Prelatick Church against the Puritan Cartwright pag. 402. 473. he is not ashamed to say that all the learned Bishops and learned writers of the Greek and latin Church for the most part where spotted with the doctrin of free will Invocation of Saints c. And thence inferrs that in no age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops held so perfect and sound doctrin in all points as himself and his fellow Bishops of England To what impiety and impudency are men driven by defending heretical novelties Doctor Bristow alleadgeth the Testimonies of S. Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Austin condemning the heresies of Aerius Iovinian and Vigilantius against fasting days commanded by the Church prayer for the dead prayer to Saints against the honoring of their Reliques against preferring Virginity before Matrimony c. Doctor Fulk answereth that Epiphanius and Augustin were deceived in recording those for Heresies which are not and that Hierom rather raild then reasoned and that Vigilantius was a good man and his opinions sound 〈◊〉 Chrysostom is alledged for the Mass saying the Apostles â—â—creed that in the Sacrifice of the Altar there should be made prayers for the departed Fulk answereth where he saith it was decreed by the Apostles he must pardon us for crediting him because he cannot shew it us out of the Acts and writings of the Apostles And divers other Fathers being quoted to confirm St. Chrysoâ—â—â—m's testimony Fulk says who is witness that this is the Tradition of the Apostles you will say Tertullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more But I would learn why the Lord would not have this set forth by Mathew Mark Luke or Paul why they were not chosen scribes hereof rather then Tertullian Cyprian Hierom Austin and others such as you name This desperat shift of slighting the ancient Fathers Testimony was the ordinary way of answering Catholick Books for many years but some of the Protestant Writers observing how the wise and well meaning persons of their own Religion were not satisfied therewith and that there could no reason be given why any Christian should rather believe a Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza Peter Martyr Thomas Cranmer Chark Fulk Whitaker or VVhitgift then a Cyprian a Tertullian Basil Hierom Chrysostom an Ambrose or an Austin especially in a matter of fact such as our controversies are to wit whether the Apostles and the true Church taught this or that sense of Scripture and doctrin seeing these holy and leaâ—â—ed Fathers lived in the primitive times and more then 12. or 13. hundred years neerer to the Apostles then the aforesayd Protestant Doctors and by consequence might be more easily and exactly informed Some of the Protestant Writers I say observing how much their cause was prejudiced by this conteâ—â—â—â— of antiquity and Fathers resolved 〈◊〉 more to try Iewell 's Method and see whether their impudency in falsifying might have better success then his either for want of courage and means in Catholicks to manifest their corruptions or for the hopes they had to discredit our Testimony and suppress such 〈◊〉 as we should venture to print and publish against themselves and the states Religion which they maintained But no sooner came any Protestant Book to sight but by God's assistance it was answered with all possible speed and it's falsifications discovered and some of our Catholick writers made it their business to manifest the frauds and four beries of Protestant Controversorâ— one of ours say's To declare that this spirit of fals dealing ioyned with necessity and misery of their bad cause is common not only vnto him Morton but vnto many of his brethren and must needs be vnto all them whensoever they take pen in hand to defend the same for that one ly cannot be defended without an other therfore I do produce ten several witnesses two of them called Bishops M. r Iewell and M. r Horn five inferior Ministers M. r Iohn Fox M. r Calfeild M. r Hanmer M. r Chark and M. r Perkins and might have named five times more three lay men also and Knights that have written against us Sir Francis Hastings S. r Philip Mornay and S. r Edward Cook alledging not one but sundry examples out of each of their works and might inlarge myself to a volume in that argument if I would say what I have found in their and their Brethrens works in this kind c. Any man who desires to be rightly informed in this important matter of the Protestant Clergys true or fals dealing in religion may peruse and conferr the Books on both sides I will not detain my Reader longer with Q. Elizabeths Writers being to treat of the same again when we answer the like objections of Protestants against Catholick Writers yet J can not omit to let him see in one person the hypocrisy of many in one I say that professeth as commonly they all do so much sincerity in treating of Controversies as might seem to excuse the necessity of any further inquiry if his fourberies had not bin manifested to the world not only by his accusers but by his own answers so weake and impertinent they are that they conclude nothing but his obstinacy in â—â—thering to his former errors though he be evidently convicted of being an Impostor The writer I speak of is VVillet who as you have seen heretofore makes this protestation I take God to witness before whom I must render account c. that the same faith and religion which I defend is taught in the more substantial points by those Histories
convenient and fit for that Uniformity of faith and union of Hearts which cements the People with their Soveraign and among themselves It is indeed so growing a Religion that it hath spread it self over the whole world not by force of Arms but of truth not by allowing leud liberty or licentiousness but by working miracles by professing and observing abstinence chastity poverty and obedience to spiritual and temporal Superiors by mortifying our Passions and the perverse inclinations of a spiritual pride and proper judgment this pride and property of judgment the source of Heresy we renounce by submitting our opinions to the Church acknowledging in the same God's Infallible assistance and authority and this our submission proceedeth not from simplicity credulity or rashness but we are induced thereunto by evident marks of Gods favour and providence clarly appearing in our Roman Catholick Church and in no other as Miracles Conversion of Nations Succession and Sāctity of Pastors c. whereby the most Learned Men of the World in every Age since the Apostles have been evidently convinced of an obligation to conform their Faith to a Church so supernaturally qualified and therefore did prudently believe that none but God is Author of the Roman Catholick Doctrine and we judge our selves bound under pain of damnation to follow their example For these Signs of Divine Providence are so far above the force and course of Nature and so visible to all the World that not only the Learned but all sorts of people who are not wilfully obstinate must confess a sufficient evidence of Gods Commission and Authority in our Church and by consequence they deny Gods veracity who contradict the Doctrine of a Congregation that hath so notorious and significant badges of his Divine trust for proposing Articles of Faith and composing all differences in Religion So that having for our guide a Church of so Authentick Authority a Testimony to rely upon so visibly confirmed by supernatural Miracles marks of Gods Commission the same Church must needs have his Infallible assistance in discharging her trust of instructing Mankind wherefore we Catholicks may do uniformly agree acquiess in her Difinitions with as little fear of being seduced as of God being the Seducer He must be very unreasonable who after being informed of these motives of credibility or marks of Gods Church will refuse to submit his judgment to so convincing arguments of the Divine Authority and this is the reason why not only the Natives of one Country or the Subjects of one Monarch but whole Kingdoms and Kings of most different tempers and interests do so easily constantly and unanimously submit and adhear to the Roman Catholick Religon both now and in former Ages whereas they who at any time opposed the same could never agree among themselves or with themselves but were and are divided into as many opinions as there are fancies or occasions offered of changing their inclinations or of raising their fortunes And now our States-men may easily conclude which of both Religions is not only most conscientious for the soul but most convenient for the power and peace of the State if they will reflect upon the different ways of planting and preserving both Religions the Catholick and Protestant To omit other examples let them consider how St. Austin our Apostle of England arrived at Kent with forty Monks and Preachers entred into Canterbury as our Adversary Fox confesseth p. 150. in procession with a Crucifix carried before him and singing Litanies and how they converted that Kingdom and all England from Paganism to the very same Roman Catholick Religion we now profess in every particular not by force of Arms or by Frauds of falsifying the Letter and Sense of Scripture but by working confessed Miracles in confirmation of our Roman Text and Sense of Scripture which they Preach'd and by the example of a Godly life How this same Religion continued for almost a thousand years in this Island and in all that time never was there any Rebellion upon the score of our Doctrine or of Interpreting of Scripture much less did the Subjects pretend Scripture or the Word of God to warrant a Superiority over their Sovereign or to try Him by a formal Court of Justice On the other side our Statesmen will find in all Histories and this Treatise that in this one Age since Protestancy began that Reformation hath not entered without Rebellion or Tyrany into any one Kingdom Country or City that he who first Preached this Reformation Luther did see it divided into more Sects than himself had years tho' he lived to be an old Man That never any of these Sects continued long without embroyling the State That never Miracle was wrought to confirm any kind of Protestancy nor the Author of any of these Sects or Reformations lived with the esteem I do not say of holy but of honest conversation No marvel therefore if People so naturally honest as the English cannot be brought to uniformity in a Reformation so unlikely to be Divine that was begun by a dissolute and drunken Friar who had no Rule of Faith but his own fancy the marvel indeed is that any sober man can be persuaded 't is possible to bring pious prudent men to reject the old Religion confirmed with so many supernatural signs renouned for so long successful subjection to Lawful Kings for a new fangled device introduced into England by an Illegitimate Queen in opposition to the Title and known right of our lawful Sovereigns Seeing therefore our Adversaries do confess that the Roman Catholick is a growing Religion even in this groaning and sad condition wherein we are kept in these Kingdoms who doubts but that if made the Religion of the State and countenanced by Law or even tolerated it will soon grow to such a hight that all other persuasions will be rendred contemptible and incapable of thwarting the Designs and Decrees that will be resolved upon by the King and Parliament when Law Religion and Reason walk hand in hand there is no room or pretext left for Rebellion upon the score of conscience And what can be more legal than an Act of Parliament what more agreeable to Religion and Reason than that every man ought to submit his judgment to Authority so Authentikly Divine and so prudently judged to be Infallible as that of the Roman Catholick Ghurch For what more convincing arguments can there be of Divine and Infallible authority than the undeniable Miracles Sanctity Succession both of Doctrine and Doctors Conversion of Kings and Nations c. of the Roman Catholick Church He who denies any of these must consequently resolve to believe nothing and even to doubt of himself of his Parents Country and Relations because no Man hath or can have a more credible Testimony or a more constant Tradition for any one of these particulars concerning his Parents Country c. than he hath for the Miracles wrought in
Confirmation of the Authority Infallibilty and Doctrine of our Church the Sanctity and Succession whereof is as evident also as our converting of Kings Nations from Paganism to Christianity and cannot be contradicted without questioning at least all humane Faith and History A Church and Religion so supernaturally qualified cannot be prudently suspected to be a Cheat or humane Invention And if once I do not say established but permitted in these Kingdoms its Doctrine needeth not be fenced with Sanguinary Statues nor favoured by any Penal Laws and Acts of Parliament for Vniformity all which rigorous proceedings will be superfluous as also the continual care and vast charges of suppressing unlawful Assemblies The absurd gestures and foolish fancies of every humorsom fellow or Hypocrite will not then take with the common people and pass for motions and revelations of the Holy Ghost neither will silly Tradesmen be heard with patience in Pulpits prate non-sense and comment upon Texts of Scripture All these impieties and disorders I say will be quasht when liberty is granted to declare unto the ignorant and misinformed people the Roman Catholick truths and the motives that induce to believe them and no Nations in the World are more inclined to embrace the truth and wholsom documents than these Islands witness the multitude of our antient Saints the magnificence of our Churches even the zeal of the present Seekers and Sectaries in their mistaken way of Salvation By all which it appeareth there would soon be an Uniformity in Religion in these Kingdoms if the Roman Catholick were Tolerated That the King would have a considerable and conscientious Revenue to support the Honour of this Monarchy and suppress all sinister designs by the addition of the Church Livings when resigned by the Roman Clergy needeth no proof I believe there will be found more difficulty in His Majesty to accept than in the Catholick Clergy to offer such a Donative seeing His Piety is now so great towards unlawful Ministers doubtless it would be refined in case He did see the mistake Let us suppose therefore that God hath heard our continual Prayers and will open the eyes of him and of these Nations and that they will acknowledge the Errors of their Education in such a case I say the Roman Clergy ought to press and without doubt will their Revenues upon His Majesty and the Commonwealth 1. To let the World see they seek not so much Worldly Interest as the salvation of Souls 2. Because the Kings Catholick Ancestors and theit Subjects of the same Profession founded all the Bishopricks and Benefices of these Kingdoms and it is a principle and practice of Roman Catholicks that in case of necessity the Heirs of the Founders ought to be maintained and relieved by the Foundations But the principal reason to move His Majesty not to reject and the Roman Catholick Clergy to make so dutiful an offer is the absolute necessity there is of a greater publick revenue then at present the Crown doth possess For though the English Valour should force advantagious Articles of Peace from our Enemies that Peace will not be lasting unless they see we are in a condition to force the performance as well as the Peace if at any time a breach of Articles should happen or new injuries be offered Nothing is more uncertain than the solemn agreement of Princes Their Leagues last no longer than until they be at leasure and recover strength to renew the War and if one of them wants a constant considerable Revenue he and his Subjects will be contemned and his Dominions made a prey to his more powerful Neighbour though lately reconciled Friend The best pledge therefore of a Peace with Foreigners is our own power if we rely wholly upon the word of the French or upon the worth of the Dutch we shall be mistaken and repent our credulity But shall our power so depend of Parliaments that before the Lords and Commons can meet or Taâ—es be rais'd our Enemies may be landed and our selves so distracted that none knows what to do Without doubt our power must depend of Acts of Parliament espicially of one annexing the Church Revenues to the Crown seeing no other found doth appear Never Parliament did give greater proofs of love and liberality to a King than this present but the more people have given the less able they are to give their will is still the same their ability is not what then must Church-men whose profession ought to be poverty especially when the State is empoverish'd think of enjoying Millions of Revenue and see that the Laity is not able to bear the burden of the War or must the Fnglish Monarchy be reduced to such a condition that if the French or Dutch will but send a Messenger to have a Place of importance delivered to them it must be done because the King hath not Money to maintain a War and defend His Subjects I do not say this hath been but I fear it may be the case of England if the King's Revenues be not made much more considerable than they are And how they may be considerably conscientiously and conveniently raised otherwise than I have proposed by the Lands of the Church I do not understand and wish that others find out a better expedient As for relying upon extraordinary Taxes and Subsidies raised from the empoverished and discontented Laity by new Acts of Parliaments according to occasions offered it is not safe for that such Taxes are look'd upon by all wise men to be more dangerous than durable as depending upon a popular Vote and Vogue whereupon neither the secret and solid designs of State nor the Peace of the Monarchy nor the power of the Monarch all which require a constant and sure Revenue can be well built Seeing therefore that extraordinary Taxes cannot be made that ordinary and constant Revenue which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of Peace as well as of War and that the Laity cannot contribute much more than they have done and that the Revenues of the Clergy may be so conscientiously applied to the Crown I see not any scruple of Sacriledge that may deter the King or Parliament from such a resolution There is not one Catholick Divine thinks it Sacriledge to apply sacred things to pious uses and what use can be more pious than the publick safety the defence of King and Country the ease of poor Subjects the maintenance of Soldiers and Sea-men that venture their lives for our repose or then Pensions to their Widows and Children when themselves perish in the Service Seeing I say this is lawful and laudable in all other Countries I see not why our Bretish Clergy should be excepted from so general a rule and excepted from so particular a Duty The Portugal Nation hath been ever most Orthodox and pious aâ—d since their late separation from Spain they have apply'd the Revenues of the Bishopricks to the maintenance of their War against the Castilians
r. known p. 296 l. 29 for Sect. 8. r. Sect. 3 4 8. p. 30â— l. 8 omitted not p 302 l. 18 for reverences r. revenues p. 309 l. 31 for reverences r. revenues p. 315 l. 8 for became r. began p. 326 l. 17 for foundeth r. founded p. 327 l. 31 omitted Lutheran Book p. 328 l. 12 for tought r. sought p. 341 l. 23 for Pabam r. Papam p. 355 marg l. 3 for fol. 30 r. fol. 301 p. 156 l. 26 for greer r. geer p. 367 l. marg l. ult for 993 r 789 p. 371 l. 21 for 57 r. 53 p. 377 l. 2 Institiam r. Justitiam p. 378 marg l. 20 for three r. two p. 393 l. 4 for eidoolan r. eidolon p. 393 l. 32 for with r. which p. 396 marg l. 9 for Mat. c. 17. r. Mat. c. 27. p. 396 marg l. 11 12 13. these words Et in Harm in Mat. 26. ver 39. are to Be expung'd p. 407 l. 18 for 1 Thess. r. 2 Thess. p. 417 marg l. 5 for orgilat r. or great p. 424 l. 27 for he r. I p. 425 l. 4 for notice r. Notes p. 430 l. 24 the word and must be expung'd p. 444 l. 8 for restored r. retorted p. 453 l. 5 for report r. detort p. 457 l. 31 for rot r. not p. 458 l. 10 for Pramhalls r. Bramhalls p. 473 l. 9 for ad r. and p. 475 l. 7 for praeras r. praeeras p. 481 marg l. 19 for Figurinis r. Tigurinis p. 482 l. 13 for ad r. and p. 482 marg l. 13 for le r. de p. 495 marg l. 17 thy r. they p. 503 l. 30 for at r. as p. 528 l. 11 r. mentibay nefas in the same line r. hoc for tue p. 508 for 22 r. 32 p. 515 l 10 for our r. your p. 525 l. 21 after return is omitted to p. 540 l. 31 for them r. then p. 549 l. 23 for Anion r. Anjou p. 560 marg l. 6 for Matth 11.12 r. Matth. 11.21 Ibid marg l. 7 for Joan. 10.26 r. Joan 10.25 Ibid marg l. 9 for Joan 2.23 r. Joan 3.2 p. 562 l. 20 for receive r. revive p. 566 l. 5 for this r. thus p. 571 l. 16 at Waldensis omitted cap. 63. n. 6. p 573 marg l. 24 for Moral r. Dialog p. 584 l. 15 for 1664. r. 1604. p. 613 l. 27 for Regal r. Legal pag. ult of the Conclusion l. 8 for Actions 1. Nations A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT FIRST PART Of the beginning progress and principles of Protestancy in general and of the Prelatick Church of England in particular SECT I. Hovv necessary a rational Religion is for a peaceable Government What Religion ought to be judged rational That the truth of mysteries of Faith is more credible then cleere A digression concerning the Notions and Natures of things and in particular of a Body Hovv unreasonable it is to judg of impossibilities in order to Gods omnipotency because they seeme so to our human understandings How dangerous it is for a temporal Soueraign to pretend a spiritual iurisdiction ouer his subjects and how the Catolick world ever acknowledged the Bishop of Rome his spiritual iurisdiction ouer all Christians AMongst our Adversaries discourses against the Roman Catholick Religion the inconsistency therof with the soueraignty and safety of Princes seemeth to be most applauded The Protestant Ministers ceas not to proclaim from pulpit and press that Kings are but Tenants at will to the Pope and that his spiritual iurisdiction depriues them of all temporall power We shall rid I hope protestant Princes of that iealousy when we treat of this point by manifesting the calumny In this part of our Treatise we confine ourselues to matters of fact reserving to dispute of the right herafter And indeed none can frame a true iudgment of this or of any other Controuersy before he be informed of the historical part therof Therfore our method is to set down in the beginning of this work the state and belief of the visible Christian and Catholick Church untill the yeaâ—â— 1517. wherin the world heard first of protestancy afterwards we shall proceed to examin whether the soul and state may be better gouerned by the principles of protestancy then of Popery We doubt not with Gods assistance to retort against our adversaries their own arguments and to proue that as no Religion is a safe way to salvation but ours so likewise not any is so fauorable to the soueraignty of lawfull Magistracy and to the peacebleness of human gouernment as the same Roman Catholik We need not inculcat to States-men how euer so Irreligious that the support of gouernment is Religion and that thâ—ir own Masterpiece is to keep the multitude in awe of the lawes not so much by force of armes an expedient more dangerous then durable as by a religious fear of God and a firm persuasion that Soueraigns are his Vice-gerents and divine prouidence so concerned in the maintenance of their authority and prerogatives that neither can be opposed without infallibility of eternall damnation to the opposers This persuasion must not be the sole work or word of the Soueraigns themselves or of their state Ministers their testimony would be suspected by the subjects as partial it must be grounded upon authority credibly reported to be divin as among Christians the holy Scriptures explained by the ancient tradition and sense of Councels and Fathers which by another name we call the Church or Clergy that is men to whom God hath committed the charg of soules and commanded us to follow their directions in spirituall matters as being Jnterpreters of the divin Law which Soveraigns must observe There could not be an expedient more satisfactory then the institution of such a Church Clergy and spiritual Court of Iudicature For if interpretation of Scripture had bin left to the Soveraign the subjects would mistrust his sincerity in explaining the same if to the lay subjects the Soveraign would be as diffident of their explications Wherfore to avoid differences and disputes God appointed the Clergy for spiritual Iudges as being by their institution less concerned in temporal affaires and therfore presumed to be more conscientious and less partial in their sentences then lay persons and Tradition for the rule wherby they must direct their judgments to the end their doctrin be Apostolical not arbitrary or altered from the primitive but rather all novelties and differences concerning matters of Faith be still suppressed and therby all unlawfull pretensions which both Soveraigns and subjects frequently claim under the pretext of Religion be remedied or prevented for that souveraignty is as apt to degenerat into tyranny as subjection into rebellion if not regulated by a religion that makes it as vnlawfull for lay men to intermeddle with the doctrin of the Church as it is improper for Church men to intrude themselves into matters of state But because neither Soueraigns nor subjects are bound to submit their judgments in matters of
the Canon of the Iews as if the Jews might not doubt and omitt to put some books divinely inspired into the Canon as wel as the primitive Christians or as if the Apostles might not supply that defect and declare some books of the old Testament wherof the generality of the Jews doubted to be Canonical SVBSECT I. Doctor Cozins exceptions and falsifications against the Councel of Trent's authority answered The difference between new definitions and new articles of faith explained THe Protestant obstinacy is not excusable by the exceptions made against the number of Bishops that voted in the Councel of Trent or against the pretended novelty of the Canon which they decreed As to their number the authority of defining matters of faith in a general Councel is no more limited or diminished by the absence of members legaly summoned and long expected then the authority of a lawful Parliament by the absence of many Lords and commons especialy if there be a necessity of applying present remedies to the distempers of Church or Common-weal Doctor Cozins doth confess that the Catholick Church stood in need of a reformation and that the Councel was too much diferr'd and delay'd After they had met at Trent Seing the Bishops were not as many as the Pope and his Legats expected and wished for the greater solemnity of so important a decision as that of the Canon of Scripture whervpon they were to ground their further definitions they put of that session for 8. months and at the end of them hearing that besids those who were at Trent many Bishops were setting forth and others in their Journey they differred the definition of Canonical Scripture for three months more to the end as many as could possibly come might be present If through neglect contempt age infirmity or other accidents wherof the Pope was not in fault many Bishops were absent that could no more prejudice the authority of the Councel at Trent then the like circumstances disanull the authority or make voyd the Acts of our Parliaments But sure the learned Protestant Pastors cannot but smile at the simplicity of their illiterat flocks when they consider the zeale and earnestnes wherwith they except against the smal number of Bishops and their presumption forsooth in the Councel of Trent For the declaring the Canon of Scripture and other Divine truths and yet them-selves accept the Canon of Scripture and doctrin of their own Churches vpon the bare word of one Luther Zuinglius Calvin or vpon the sole authority of the 12. or seven men appointed by Parliament in the reign of Edward 6. Besids our Canon of Scripture was confirmed by the whole Councel of Trent afterwards together with the other points of faith therin defined And though Doctor Cozins pag. 208. tels how the Princes and reformed Churches in Germany England Denmark c. immediatly set forth their Protestations and exceptions against the Councel aleadging that the caling of this Councel by the Pop's authority alone was contrary to the Rights of Kings and the ancient Customs of the Church That he had summond no other persons thither nor intended to admitt any either to debate or give their voice there but such only as had first sworn obedience to him that he took vpon him most injustly to be Judg in his own cause c. Yet it is sufficiently manifested to the world by the very Acts of the Councel that the Pope did nothing but what his Predecessors had don and the Catholick Princes and Church had approved in the like occasions and that though Protestants were not admitted to vote at Trent yet they were not only permitted but invited in a most secure and civil manner by the Councel to reason dispute and debate their controversies and answer for them-selves and their doctrin and this way of proceeding is no more vnreasonable in a general Councel then it is in a Parliament not to permit any to vote therin before he taks an oath of alegiance not to say any thing of the oath of Supremacy and much less to admit of Lords or Commons accused of treason or rebellion to sit in the House vntil they prove their innocency or acknowledg their fault and obtain their pardon by a dutiful submission and profession of repentance And granted that nothing had bin resolved in the Councel of Trent by the Fathers therof but what first was canvass't at Rome by the Pope and Conclave which is false yet we conceive that to be no more against the constitution or freedom of a Councel then it is against the constitution or freedom of a Parliament that no Bill pass vnto an Act vnless it be first signed by the King and approved by his Councel and yet we know that to have bin the constant custom in one of his Majesties Kingdoms since the reign of King Henry 7. As for the Pope or Church of Rome being Judg in their own cause it is a prerogative so absolutly necessary for the authority and govermnent of Magistracy and the quiet and peace of the people governed that no Monarchy or Commonwealth can want it without falling into great inconveniences and confusion A subject t' is true may sue the King but the sentence must be given in the King's Courts and by his authority notwithstanding any objected dependency or parciality of the Judg explaining the laws and customs in favor of his Soveraign And he who would not acquiesce in such a sentence but would needs have the cause decided by a foreign Prince or People is a rebel If this be reasonable and just in temporal Courts and fallible sentences how much more in spiritual controversies and infallible definitions of the Church which definitions of the Church if not acknowledged to be infallible the Church can not have any jurisdiction or authority in matters of faith as not being able to satisfie doubts and setle the inward peace of Christian souls either perplexed in them-selves or in daunger of being perverted by others whether hereticks or pagans neither of which can be indifferent Judges or competent Arbitrators between the Catholick Church and her Children And seing doubts and differences are vnavoidable in both Church and Commonwealth and that there can be no appeale to Infidels or Foreigners without doubt it is more agreable to Scripture to the law of nature and light of reason that Parents and Pastors be Judges in any cause of their Children and inferiors then the contrary or that there be no Judg at all nor jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal But that which Doctor Cozins and all Protestants most press against the judicature of Popes and the councel of Trent is that they do not judg according to Scripture and to the right sense therof wheras Kings and their Judges are regulated by the laws of the land even when the suit is against the King or his pretended prerogative To this we answer that Popes and Councels are as much regulated by Scripture in their definitions
of the Councel of Nice and most vnconscionably cuts of the words immediatly following where Belarmin says the quite contrary of what Cozins imposed vpon his Readers to make good his English Canon of Scripture The words immediatly following are Excepto libro Iudith quem etiam Hieronimus postea recepit Except the booke of Iudith which also Hierom afterwards received as Canonical So that where Cozins says Belarmin confesseth that S. Hierom sayd the Councel of Nice declared not the book of Iudith Canonical Belarmin in that very place says the quite contrary And in the same page cap. 12. Belarmin proves by S. Hieroms testimony and words that the book of Iudith was declared Canonical in the highest degree by the Nicen Councel It were to be wished that Ecclesiastical promotions had bin better bestowed then upon 139 men whose labour and learning 〈◊〉 altogeather employed in seducing souls concealing the truth of Religion from their flocks and corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers and modern Doctors of the Church for no other reason but because they speak so cleerly against the Protestant Doctrine of these times wherby our Prelatick Ministers are maintained vsurping vast revenues from the Crown and come to the greatest preferments both of Church and State I have not seen any one Protestant Writer free from this fault 't is strange that after so manifest and manifould discoverys as have bin made of Mortons Andrews Fox Sutclif Jewell Barlow Whitaker Willet Vsher Lauds and others falsifications frauds and labyrinths there should be men yet found to follow their examples and much more to be wondred that they should thrive by a trade so base vnconscionable and distructive notwithstanding so manifest and frequent discoveries of their impostures As to this work of Doctor Cosins it may be properly called a Cosenage independently of an allusion to his name had not his book bin sufficiently confuted by the absurdity of his fundamental principles denying that the Apostles or Christian Church could declare any book of the old Testament Canonical which the Iews omitted or rejected and affirming that no parts of the New Testament were ever questioned by any Church ancient or modern I should set down many more of his willful falsifications and weake evasions but that labour being rendred superfluous by the incoherency of his own doctrin and by the inconsistency of his principles with including in that Canon of Scripture which he vndertakes to defend the epistles above mentioned of Peter Iohn Paul and Iude and the Apocalyps for it is evident by the quoted testimonies both of ancient Fathers and learned Protestants that these epistles of Iohn Iude Peter and Paul as also the Apocalyps were doubted of by many Christian Churches for three or foure ages I do not think fitt to trouble the Reader nor my self with a more particular confutation of this rather fantastical then Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture fantastical J say because he fancies to him-self that the authority and sayings of men who writ before this controversy had bin decided by a general Councel and at the same time professed a faith which obliged them so submit ther writings and judgments to the decrees of Councels can be of any force against that general Councel by which the contrary was decided and they would have bin guided by if they had bin now living as St. Austin saith of St. Cyprian in a point of doctrine which was determined by a general Councel against the holy Martyrs opinion long after his death Whosoever can take delight in seing the pittifull shifts and sleights wherby interested writers endeavour to blind mens eyes and vnderstandings let him peruse this book of Doctor Cozins and he will find more sport in observing how he tosses and turns the sayings of the Fathers against them-selves then could be wished in so serious a subject When the Fathers call the books of Macabees Tobie Judith c. sacred and Divine Scripture Canonical Scripture prophetical writings of Divine authority c. Holy inspirations revelations c. he tels you pag. 93. alibi passim all this must be understood in a large and popular sence though the contrary may appeare to any vnbyass'd judgment that will read the words by him cited pag. 92. alibi in the Authors themselves as for example let any one observe how Doctor Cozins mingles and mangles S. Austin's words concerning the controverted books of the Machabees and afterwards see what the St. him-self says he will â—â—rce believe the words are the same and may swear the sense is not For S. Austin lib. 2. de doctr Christ. cap. 8. sets down as his own sense the same Canon of Scripture which the Councel of Trent accepts and confirmeth and he subscribed unto in the third Councel of Carthage And because he knew that this Canon had not bin defined by a general Councel and therfore many Churches and Fathers doubted of some books which he and the 3. Councel of Carthage held for Canonical he gives some instructions how they who do not follow his Canon shall proceed vntill they be more fully informed or the matter decided and these instructions which he sets down for others who doubted and differ'd in opinion from him Doctor Cozins wilfully mistakes and misapplies to St. Austin him-self as if he could be ignorant of his own belief of the Canon He is also troubled that St. Austin doth favour so much the doctrine of Purgatory and the authority of the Catholick Church in declaring books of the Old Testament to be Canonical which were rejected by the Iews as to say lib. 18. de Civit. Dei c. 36. That the books of the Machabees are accompted Canonical by the Church although not by the Jews To weaken this testimony he brings an other that strengthens it and quotes St. Austin's words Ep. 61. ad Dulcitium wherin confuting the error of the Circomcellions who to cloake their self-homicides with text and examples of Scripture excused that doctrin with the examples of Eleazarus and Razias related in the Machabees which pretext St. Austin largly confutes not only in his epistle ad Dulcit but in his 2. book against the epistle of Gaudent cap. 23. not by deminishing the Canonical authority of the books of the Machabees as Doctor Cozins falsly imposeth vpon his Readers pag. 108. seq but by declaring how the Scripture doth indeed relate yet not commend the self-homicide of Eleazarus and Râ—zias nor canonize them Martyrs or propose their deaths to be imitated though it cannot be denyed but that they shew'd great worldly courage and contempt of life Did Doctor Cozins imagin that Dulcitius Gaudentius and other learned Circumcellions were such Coxcombs as to prove their Religion by Scripture and then to quote for Scripture a book which their Adversaries admitted not at least for so Canonical as that controversies of Religion could be therby decided or doth he think that St. Austin would not have put them in
when certain officers known by the vsual marks and badges of their Master's Soveraignty and their own military or civil charges propose his orders either by proclamation letters patents or otherwise so Protestants will acknowledg that all Christians are bound to believe it i◠a sufficient proposal of the 〈◊〉 existence of Divine Revelation and that God speaks or commands whensoever his mind is declared to them by that Church and Ministers who beare at least as authentick marks and badges of God's authority and of their own ministery to evidence their trust and jurisdiction as the Officers of state and Justice do in a Republick or 〈◊〉 Government In a word all that we desire of Protestants is that they will give as much credit and respect to God as to Princes and no less to the Ministers of God's Church then to Senators or to the Officers of a King's Court. But their fundamental distinction dispenseth with all such duties and leads them a quite contrary way 〈…〉 not obliged to believe the mysteries of faith as they are proposed by the Roman Catholick Church though the sayd Church be more authentickly waranted thervnto by God then any Ministers or Magistra◠are waranted to 〈…〉 of state by their Prince vnless it be clearly evident 〈…〉 evidently credible will not serve their turn that God revealed what the Church proposeth as his word and command Such Doctrines of the Roman Church as they fancy cleer or self evident either by their owne privat spirit and discourse or by the vnanimous and general acknowledgment of all Christians such and only such do Protestants believe as points of faith and call them fundamental articles or articles necessary for salvation all others either they hould only as probable opinions and things of indifferency or reject as superfluous and superstitious And because the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are generally professed in these parts of Europe by all Christians though not by all in the Catholick sense but with certain interpretations Therfore the learned Prelatick Protestant Writers both ancient and modern reduce all the articles and the total summe of Catholick faith and of the foure first generall Councells to a belief of the Trinity and Incarnation that is to some Kind of faith though it be but the Arian in JESUS Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world as Doctor Morton Bishop of Duresme and others teach who vpon this score maintain that the Arian Churches and by consequence all ancient hereticks are to be accounpted members of the Church of God We have quoted their words num 3. of the precedent section That no King's Ministers or Magistrats have so authentick marks and badges to evidence in them-selves their Master's authority for exercising their respective charges and jurisdictions as the Roman Catholick Church hath of being entrusted and apointed by God to deliver his Divine doctrin declare his sense of Scripture and decide Religious controversies is manifest by the signs and marks of God's Church compared with the marks and badges of Princes Officiers Omitting many other marks of the true Church J will touch but three which are Conversion of Kings and Nations from paganism to Christianity Succession of Pastors and doctrin from the Apostles to this present and miracles All these are visible only in the Roman Catholick Church and are more authentick because they cannot be easily counterfeited then any human euidences even the most esteemed which is the King's hand and Seale To say because some pretended miracles have bin impostures no miracles at all are true or none ought to be credited is no less vnreasonable then to cry down all current money because there is some fals coyne and is as ridiculous and rebellious as to disobey and reject all royall commissions and orders of Councell because some may or have bin counterfeited and subreptitiously obtained But suppose as Protestants pretend that miracles were ceased I hope the Conversion of so many Nations and Kings of the Gentils to Christianity and a continuall succession of the Roman doctrin and Pastors are neither ceased not counterfeited no other Church but the Roman Catholick hath these signes of God's providence and as non can deny but that they are more convincing arguments and greater evidences of the super-natural Ministery and jurisdiction which the Roman Church doth claim then any human signes badges or commissions can be of the Royal authority exercised by King's officiers either civil or military so likewise it must be acknowledged that there is a cleerer and greater obligation vpon men to submit their judgments and wills to the definitions and Decrees of the Roman Catholick Church and Councells proposing or declaring God's revelations and commands then there can be vpon subjects to obey the orders of temporal Souveraigns published or proclaimed by their chief Ministers and subordinat officers Therfore as it is notorious Rebellion in subjects against their King's authority to contemn his commands when they are proposed by Ministers that shew his commissions so is it manifest heresy and a denial of God's veracity to contemn or doubt of the doctrin proposed as Divine by the Roman Catholick Church so authentickly qualified with the aforesaid supernatural marks And as it is want of duty and alleigance in subjects and a ridiculous excuse for not obeying Orders to pretend they have not cleer evidence that the King signed them or for all they know that his Minister or Officer may be an Impostor and his commission or warrant counterfeit so must it be concluded want of christian belief and excess of hereticall obstinacy in Protestants to excuse their contempt of the Roman Catholick doctrin and authority by pretending a possibility of mistake in the same Church because forsooth they are not convinced of it's infallibility and authority by a Demonstration or revelation so evident that though they would they cannot deny it Such evidences are not necessary nor even compatible with Christian belief as shall be proved herafter less are sufficient to convince them-selves and all rational men of a strickt obligation to believe and obey a temporal Prince and Magistrat and sure they are vnreasonable if they imagin God deserves less belief duty and subjection then Princes That Protestants believe not their own Churches or Congregations with out doubts and feares of being mistaken in the reformed doctrin and authority of proposing the same we do not admire because not any on of their churches doth pretend to infallibility nor could hitherto or can yet shew any sign or seale of God for their sense of Scripture or reformations but that they should think them-selves obliged to take a Herald or Trompeters Coat and a Constable or Cathpol's staffe and other such badges so easily counterfeited for sufficient evidences of the King's authority and yet except against the authentickness of the conversion of Kings and Nations the Succession and sanctity of Pastors and doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church Which are things that cannot be
absolutly necessary for salvation and not to believe it in a matter not absolutly necessary when equaly proposed by the same testimony and authority is as much as to say that God can speak by his Church litle vntruths but not great vntruths or that he may permit his veracity to be violated or vitiated in litle but not in great matters as if forsooth the authority and infallibility of the Church were to be measured by the matter it proposeth and not by the manner and supernatural marks of the proposal and by the dignity of the speaker More over their pretence of the Churches fallibility in not Fundamental articles hath no solid ground for the Protestant Church is either fallible or infallible in saying so and in it's doctrin of Fundamentals if fallible non can prudently rely thervpon either in this or in any other matters of faith if infallible then the Protestant distinction of Fundamentals must be a fundamental article of faith because they admit not any Church to be infallible in articles that are not fundamental And yet the same Protestants say the Roman Catholick Church is also infallible in fundamentals but the Roman Catholick and Protestant Church contradict on the other in this doctrin of fundamentals Therfore one of both must erre and that on must be the Protestant because it maintains that two Churches teaching contradictory doctrins may both be infallible therin Add hervnto that if the Roman Catholick Church be infallible in fundamentals or in all articles necessary for salvation how can Protestants excuse their reformation and separation from the guilt of a grievous sin and schism so vncharitable a breach is not justifiable by less then damnable or dangerous doctrin in the Church that is forsaken And what damnable doctrin or danger of damnation could or can be in adhearing to the Roman Church it being confessedly infallible in Fundamentals that is in all things necessary for salvation If therfore God's veracity is denyed even according to the Protestants doctrin and distinction by saying that the Church is fallible in fundamentals it can be for no other reason but because the fundamental articles are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God and seing the not fundamental articles are proposed by the same Church and testimony and by consequence as sufficiently as the fundamental Protestants must grant that God's veracity is no less denyed by maintaining the fallibility of the Church in not Fundamentals then in Fundamentals So that they must either acknowledg the infallibility of the Church in all articles and matters of faith whether absolutly necessary or not necessary for salvation or deny God's veracity and the foundation of all Christian belief SECT XIII The same further demonstrated and proved that neither the Protestant faith nor the faith lately asserted in a book called sure footing in Christianity is Christian belief where also is treated of the resolution of faith NOt the maâ—â—er believed but the Motive and manner of believing makes a belief Christian There may be an historical or imaginary faith of Christ as well as Divine and real that is men may believe the mysteries of Christianity 〈◊〉 they believe the roman history and fancy that such a belief is not human but Divine This we maintain to be the Protestants case and faith which is not grounded vpon Divine revelation but vpon human persuasion and vpon an imaginary evidence of God's revelation They assent not to the mystery of the Trinity or to any other because God revealed it but because they think it vndeniably evident either by the publick confession of all Christians or by the privat suggestion of their own spirit or by the principles of natural reason or by their pretended cleerness of Scripture that God revealed such mysteries as they are pleased to make choyce of for the Articles or fundamentals of their Reformations And therfore according to the diversity of the evidences wherupon they build their faith the Protestant sects are framed and divided into Prelaticks whose Motive and evidence is the concurrence of all Christians in their fundamentals of Christianity and into Fanatiks amongst whom we include Presbiterians c. who rely vpon the evidence of their spirit and the cleerness of Scripture and into Socinians who make evident reason the rule of their Religion c. That these Protestant persuasions are not grounded vpon Divine revelation or vpon God's Authority and veracity we proove because it is impossible to make an authority the motive of our belief vnless we believe all things that are equaly proposed and delivered to vs as depending of and asserted by that authority St. Austin says non can believe that the Ghospel of St. Matthew is the word of God vnless he doth likewise believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the word of God because they are both delivered as God's word by the same authority The same testimony and the same visible Church which delivered to the first Protestants the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation as revealed by God delivered also to them Transubstantiation Purgatory c. as revealed by God and they or their followers can not pretend to have any other testimony for the engagement of God's veracity in certifying them of the truth and revelation of the articles they retain but the same testimony which delivered to them the articles they reject Therfore the reality and Divinity of the revelation being equally testified and applicable by on and the same testimony to both articles aswell to the retained as to the rejected it is impossible that Protestants can believe those they retaâ—â—â— moved thervnto by God's veracity or for being revealed by God seing the same veracity and revelation is equally and as cleerly applyed by the testimony of the Catholick visible Church to the other articles which they reject as not revealed If you ask a learned Protestant why doth he believe the mystery of the Trinity or Incarnation He will answer as all Hereticks ever did aswell as Catholicks because God revealed it But if you inquire further why doth he believe that God revealed it He will tell you because it is manifest in SVBSECT I. I Am right sorry to number among Protestants and Manichees who hould also this error of believing nothing which they did not fancy to be self evident the Author of a book called sure footing in Christianity who will needs have it self evident by virtue forsooth of tradition that God revealed all the points of our Roman Catholick doctrin Jt's pitty he stumbled so irrecoverably at his very first step pretending to see so cleerly and tread so surely vpon a plain ground had he bin as wary in the choice of his principles as he is witty in deducing his conclusions I should have followed him as an excellent Guide but he striving to raise Christian faith vnto a greater height of evidence then is consistent with it's nature and with our merit and liberty or convenient for the Government of God's
Church he hath fallen into the Fundamental error and foundation of Protestancy but yet with this difference that albeit he agreeth with Protestants in making cleer evidence of the revelation the ground or rule of faith and by consequence in destroying all Christian belief yet he takes a contrary way from them Protestants by reducing their evidence to very few points reject most of the articles of the Roman Catholick Church as incredible but the Author of the sure footing by amplifying and applying his evidence to every article of our faith makes them all more then credible that is self evident He and Protestants agree in the rule but differr in the application Neither of them will believe any thing but what they fancy evident but on party fancies all is evident the other fancies litle or nothing is evident Jf they vnderstand on another they may soon come to an accord and the sequell of their principle will be to take away all Christian belief for Christian belief must of necessity involue some obscurity in that Act or at least formality wherby we assent vnto the mystery believed Otherwise if the essence or nature of Christian faith were consistent with cleer evidence and with the want of all obscurity why may it not be sayd that the blessed have faith in heaven nay why may it not be sayd that the second person of the Trinity hath â—aith ab 〈◊〉 if it be sufficient for faith that on assentâ— to truth for 〈…〉 and speaking of an other though 〈◊〉 evidently 〈…〉 and sees also that the other speaks The sure footing therfore doth faile and 〈…〉 â—eason of the Author 's confounding the evidence of our obligation to belieue the articles proposed by the Church with the evidenâ—e of God's revealing them by the 〈◊〉 proposal of the Church The testimony of the Church confirmed by so many supernatural signes makes it cleerly euident to vs that we are bound to believe God revealed all the doctrin delivered as his by the tradition and testimony of the Church but the tradition or signes of the Church do not make 〈◊〉 or self 〈◊〉 that God hath de facto revealed 〈…〉 which the Church proposeth as Divine It is moraly evident that God revealed it but not Metaphysicaly evident according to Schoolmens expression This moral evidence of God's revealing what the Church proposeth induceth a clâ—â—r and evident obligation vpon the will and soul of man to adheare as vnalterably to the doctrin of the Church as if we had metaphysical or cleer evidence that God revealed the same and the motiue of our faith and of this adhesion is God's veracity because it is manifest by the very light of Nature that we ought to believe God would not permit such a miraculous and moral evidence of his own revealing or speaking the mysteries of christianity by the mouth of our Church vnless he did realy speake by the same Church For want of this doctrin and distinction many vnderstand not how a man can possibly or at least prudently adheare or assent to an object with greater assurance then he sees cleer reason for If by cleer reason for an assent of Divine faith be meant that the truth of the mystery assented vnto must of necessity be cleer to the Assenter either in it self or in it's necessaire connection with the Revelation it is a gross mystake for that the difference between an assent grounded vpon cleer evidence of the truth or of reason and an assent grounded vpon Divine authority is that the first is a cleer intellectual sight of the truth itself the second is not so but a cleer sight of our own obligation of assenting to the truth revealed or related because wee see cleer and convincing signs of the sincerity and veracity of the Author or relator Now our obligation of believing God to be the Author of the doctrin of the Church being evident to ourselves we are bound to assent to the same Doctrin according to the evidence of our obligation that is with greather assurance then appearance of the truth The evidence of our obligation to assent is a sufficient ground for our assurance of the truth assented vnto Wherfore albeit some Catholick Divines have pretended to maintain in their schoole disputations that God by the infinitness of his supernatural power may concurr to an Act of faith though the existence of the revelation itself were evident to the believer yet besides that most of them speak irresolutly and incoherently in that point they all grant that our Christian faith must always involve obscurity in it's assent and that that faith which would have evidence both of the existence of the revelation and of the revealers veracity would be an other kind of faith much differring from our Christian and Catholick Besides we ought to consider that it is one thing to dispute in schooles of what God may do and an other thing to believe in the Church what he hath don In the schooles they dispute even of impossibilities because they make it their business to exercise witt in speculations but in the Catholick Church our chief business consists in believing and practising The reason why Faith doth require a mixture of obscurity or want of cleer evidence is because to believe is to trust him whom you believe for the truth signified by his words and if you did see the truth in it self or know that it cannot be separated from the words spoken you can no more trust the speaker for the truth so connected with his words then trust him for the money you know to be contained in a purse which he delivers vnto your hands for though you do not see the money you see the purse wherin you have cleer evidence the money is contained To believe therfore is to take on 's word for the truth as you do his bond or bill for money for which you have no other security but his worth and veracity and the greater on s worth and veracity is the more you ought to rely vpon it and doubt the less of his performance and therfore if you require any greater assurance or evidence of the truth then his supposed inclination to the same or his veracity you do him a great injury and resolve not to trust or believe him Wherfore God's worth veracity or inclination to truth being infinit we ought not to exact a cleer sight of the truth it self nor of any things evidently connected therwith if we do we neither trust nor believe him his inclination therfore to truth being infinit we ought not to retain the least suspition or feare of being deceived either by himself or by the Church whervnto he gives the charge and signes of declaring and proposing his word to vs because he who is infinitly inclined to speak truth is inclined to do it not only when himself speaks but every way that truth can be spoken or by every person and Organ that may be prudently taken to speak by his
commission The Roman Church therfore being prudently taken for the Organ of God's voice it is as impossible we should be misledd by it's doctrin as it is that God should go against his infinit inclination to truth or should violat his own veracity Had God's veracity bin limited to his own personal or immediat speech and not extended to what-soever he delivers by the mouth and ministery of others and of his Church it had not bin infinit his credit would have ended with Christ's preaching to the Apostles and though they were bound to believe their Master non could be obliged to believe them But seing God's veracity is infinit and his words must continue for ever they can be as little confined to the persons or Pastors of any on certain age as infinit veracity to on particular truth or infinit excellency and goodness to any one degree of perfection Now seing that God's worth and veracity or his infinit inclination to speak truth cannot be greatet in on matter nor in on age then in an other and that according to on 's inclination to any thing must be the application of his power to effect it we must conclude that God is as much engaged by his worth and goodness and as much inclined by his veracity and as much applied by his omnipotency to speak truth by the mouth of the Church as by his own and in the least matter as much as in the greatest and in every succeeding age as in that of the Apostles and that vnless his worth wisdom veracity goodness and omnipotency faile that Church which beareth the miraculous marks of his authority and exerciseth his ministery must be infallible in proposing and declaring his will and word in all Controversies whatsoever So that they who grant the Church 〈◊〉 infallible only in fundamental articles of faith deny Godâ—â—oodness worth veracity and omnipotency and they who believe not the doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church as the word of God because forsooth they have not cleer evidence that it is the word of God do no more believe nor trust God in the other they assent vnto then he who says he believes and trusts a man whose word or writing he will not take for 100. pounds vnless he delivers to him at the same time that summe of money not only sealed but seen in a bag The reason of this last assertion is cleer because one of the differences between the word of God and the word of men is that you mistrust men for the truth though you heare their own voice and have evidence that they speak the imperfection of their nature making their speech subject to falshood and themselves to frailty therfore we may mistrust their veracity and doubt they be mistaken or deceive vs though they pretend and profess to speak nothing but truth It is not so with God whose nature being infinitly perfect and truth it self it is manifest by natural reason that he can neither be mistaken nor deceive vs by his words and by consequence if we knew evidently that him-self speaks or that the words or doctrin vttered by the Church are his we can no more mistrust or not believe him then mistrust his Deity or feare a flaw in his perfections and fraud in his proceedings So that Protestants resolving not to believe the doctrin of the Church of Rome made sufficiently credible by supernatural signes to be Divine vntill it be made cleerly evident to them that it is the word of God resolve their faith into heretical obstinacy because they resolve not to believe or trust God that evidence which they exact not being compatible with the merit trust obscurity and obsequiousness of Christian belief nor with the duty of rationall Creatures They may be compared to some Irish or Scotch Rebells refusing to obey the King's Lieu-tenant and Commissioners because for-sooth they have not clear evidence that the commissions and commands are signed by the King though they see his Majesty's hand and seale for the authority set over them which also is obeyd and acknowledged by the better sort and greater part of both Nations yet the Rebells will not submit to any Orders vnless the King leave England go in person to rule them and satisfie every particular fellow that he hath named such a Lieu-tenant or Commissioner or vnless his Majesty will immediatly by him-self exercise his royal Jurisdiction signe and seale his commissions in their sight c. Some will think there is a great disparity in the comparison for that God may without trouble or prejudice to him-self reveale his will and pleasure to every particular person which Kings can no more do then be in many places at one time Therfore what inconveniency can it be that God make evident to every particular person either by a clear signe of his presence or by an evident proof of his spirit which doctrin is Divine which not without obliging men to believe that the Roman Catholick or any other Church is infallible and can not propose falshood for God's word To this we answer that God might not only reveale his mysteries to every person but save us also without subordination to any Church or Pastors or dependency of Sacraments but all Christians agree that he hath bin pleased not to do so so that the question is not what he could have don but what he hath don But it appears by the light of reason that ther is a certain distance and decorum due to Majesty and superiority by virtue wherof God or even a Creature that is supreme in any government may command his inferiors and subjects by subordinat officers and warant these officer's authority by some outward signes and seales of his Soveraignty which signes though they may be possibly counterfeited yet oblige the People so governed to obey Ministers so qualified as submissively as if him-self had immediatly delivered his own commands Wherfore though it were possible that a King might without trouble write and deliver all his oâ—ders immediatly or without the assistance of Secretaries Ministers and Messengers yet it were not fit And why the Protestant Doctors that write of this subject should think fit that God ought to deprive him-self of a decency and decorum due even to human Majesty to humor their curiosity or to comply with their obstinacy J can not comprehended nor attribute to any other thing but to want of humility and excess of heresy the malice wherof consists in contemning God's authority and denying his veracity when sufficiently appearing in the Church and though not self evidently yet so convincingly as to make our obligation of submitting thervnto evident Jt is therfore agross absurdity to think or say that the reverence due to the Divine authority obligeth vs not to submit or not assent therunto vnless it be more then moraly evident and by consequence more them sufficiently evident vnto us that we can not be mistaken in our submission or assent For hence
protestant principles to the discovery of the frauds and â—â—â—â—â—fications wherwith the prâ—â—atick Clergy doth disguise them and divert their flocks from reflecting vpon those sad effects which they have wrought and must work wheresoever they are 〈◊〉 the Religion of the staâ—e A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT THE THIRD PART Containing a plain discovery of the Protestant Clergies frauds and falsifications wherby alone their doctrin is supported and made credible The conscience and conveniency of restoring or tolerating the Roman Catholick Religion demonstrated SECT I. That either the learned Protestant or Roman Catholick Clergy are Cheats and how every illiterat protestant may easily discern by wich of the two Clergieâ— he is cheated and therfore is obliged vnder pain of damnation to examin so neer a concern and to renounce the doctrin and communion of that Church wherin he is cheated of the true Church being so conspicuous and manifest by such eminent and visible marks Christ might well forbid the faithfull to communicat with Hereticks and Schismaticks for that their conventicles 〈◊〉 never be mistaken for the whole or even a part of the Catholick Church vnless men â—ill be so simple as to take their â—are word when they say Hic est Christus aut illic wheras if it were possible for learned men to be innocently mistaken Christ's command had not bin obligatory for in such â— case we were not bound to believe that Christ is rather in one Church then other seing each Church had reason sufficient to excuse learned parties from schism and â—â—resy But it being impossible that God should command vs to believe on Congregation of Christians and not believe others that pretend also to be the true Church of Christ without confirming the testimony and doctrin of that one Congregation which he bids vs believe and preferr before the rest with such cleer signes of the truth and so evident marks of Divine authority that the others compared therwith can have no probability two things must be granted 1. that the Catholiâ—â— Church of Christ cannot be composed of all or any dissenting Congregations 2. That the one only Congregation which is the true and Catholick Church can never be so eclipsed but that it must appeare much more eminent in sanctity miracles conversion of Nations and much more credible in it's testimonies then any other Wherfore we conclude that either the learned protestant clergy or the catholick must be cheats seing that notwithstanding the evident and eminent signes and marks of God's Church can not be found in both or in any two Congregations dissenting in their doctrin and rule of faith yet each of them make their illiterat flocks believe that their own is the true Church of God whervpon the signes and seales of his authority and veracity do cleerly shine No human art or industry if not born-out with more then ordinary and notorious impudencie can pretend to discredit or darken the spendor of true Miracles Sanctity Successiâ—â— become Masters of the Comerce as shall be proved I hope these considerations will invite and incite them to examin which of both the Clergies the Roman Catholick that petitions for â—r the Prelatick Protestant that opposeth liberty of conscience are the cheats And that they may find it out withouâ— much trouble I have thought sit to lett them know there is not any one controversy between them and vs which hath not bin handled in English and argued to the full on both sides now the summe of our disputes being this whether the primitive Church was Roman Catholick or rather Protestant in the controverted points as Praying to Saints Transsubstantiation Purgatory worship of Images the Canonicall letter and sense of Scripturâ— c. To decide the Controversy each side quotes the words of Scripture Councells and Fathers because the true doctrine hath bin preserved and recorded in these writings Let him therfore that doubts of the sense of the Text and of the sincerity of him that quotes it compare the Authors words with the 〈…〉 he will infallibly find out who is the Cheat. For he that doth corrupt the words or change the sense of Scripâ—â—re Councells and Fathers doth not stick to the doctrin of the primitive Church And because I have spent some time both before and after my conversion to the Catholick faith in examining the falsifications and frauds of Protestants and their objections against Papists in the same kind I may speak with more assurance then others who have not so much experience and do protest that I never thought it possible before I found it was so de facto that men pretending not only to the name of reformed Christianity but to the Reality and Sanctity of an Episcopal caracter and charge of soules could be so vnconsiderable vnworthy and vncharitable in matters of eternity as I have â—ound the Protestant writers and in particular the prelaticks of the Church of England Let any who desires to satisfie his conscience or curiosity pervse and compare either the books of Jevel and Harding or of Bishop Morton and Father Pesons the nature or essence of a body Or whether quantity be a thing distinct from that which we call a corporeal substance SVBSECT I. VVith what impudency and hipocrisy Bishop Ievell and other prelatick writers began to maintain the Protestancy of the Church of England And how they were blamed for appealing to antiquity by some of their own Brethren TO manifest the impudency and hypocrisy wherwith Prelatick Protestancy was broach't and imposed vpon the layty in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign I will begin with Bishop Jevell's famous challenge and his Seconds that offered to maintain the primitive antiquity of Protestancy and the novelty of Popery His words are As I sayd before I say again I am content to yeeld and subscribe if any of our learned Adversaries or if all the learned men that be alive be able to bring one sufficient sentence out of any one Catholick Doctor or Father or out of any old Generall Councell c. for the space of 600. years after Christ c Protesting also that he affirmeth thus much not as carried away with the heat of zeale but as moved with the simple truth least any of you should happily be deceived and think there is more weight on the other side then in conclusion will be found c. And then he brake into this vehement Apostrophe O mercifull God! who could think that there could be so much wilfulness in the heart of man Then exclaimes O Gregory O Austin O Hierom O Chrysostom O Leo O Dionise O Anaclâ—tus O Calixtus O Paul O Christ Jf we be 〈◊〉 acknowledged the impossibility of defending the Protestant Religion by Tradition or by any monuments oâ— examples from antiquity or by the sayings of Fathers and Councells Insomuch that Archbishop Whitgift in his defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. 473. doth not stick to say that almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of
the Greek and Latin Church for the most part were spotted with the doctrin of free will oftner it of invocation of Saints c. And from thence infers that in no age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops held so perfect and so sound doctrin in all points as the Bishops of England at this day And Mr. Fulk in his reionder to Bristow pag. 7. I confess that Ambrose Austin Hierom all three Fathers to whom B. p Iewell appealed held invocation of Saints to be lawfull And B. p Bale acknowledgeth that St. Gregory the first of Iewell 's chosen Iudges by his indulgences established pilgrimages to Images and that St. Leo an other of Ievell's Fathers allowed the worship of Images And Doctor Humfrey Iesuitismi part 1. rat 5. pag. 626. cannot deny but that S. Gregory taught Transsubstantiation And Mr. 〈◊〉 in his Papisto mâ—t edit 1606. pag. 143. saith We are 〈◊〉 that the mystery of iniquity did work in Sâ— Paul's time and fell not a sleep so soon as Paul was dead c. And therfore no mermail though pervsing Councells and Fathers we find the print of the Popes feet And Mr. Napper in his Treatise vpon the Revelation dedicated to King Iames pag. 68. 145. affirmeth that Popery or the Anti-christian Kingdom did continue 1260. years vniversaly without any debatable contradiction The Pope and his Clergy during that time possessing the outward visible Church So that it was not one or two Fathers or Councells but all Christendom which professed the Roman Catholick saith for these 1â—00 years past And even Mr. Whitaker himself lib. 6. contra Duraeum pag. 123. notwithstanding his vndertaking to maintain Ievells challenge and bold assertion was forc'd at length to submit but by a profane expression saying that the Popish Religion is a patch't coverlet of the Fathers errors sowed together have them read their English falsified Scripture the subject of controversies and support of errors and will not permit them to pervse the true authentick translation and all this to the end nothing but fraud and fancy may be the rule of the Protestant faith These and all other the like observations which can not but occurr to them who frequent their Churches or company must needs induce men to suspect the weakness of their cause and the guilt of their conscience though there had bin no evidences that they are Falsifiers But seing their are as many evidences against them as there are Chapters in Catholick Books of controversies and that the Books are easily had and vnderstood I see not how any Protestant how ever so illiterat can be excused from eternall damnation by pretending the integrity of his Clergy or his own insufficiency to examin their sincerity When many accuse a man of high Treason and offer to prove it to his face not only by sundry honest and legal wittnesses but vnder his own hand writing it would be censured treachery or great carlesness in the Ministers of state to slight such an accusation and evidence though the person accused vntill then had bin trusted and reputed a loyal subject This is our case with the Protestant writers we have no quarrel against them but Religion we charge them in publick writing with the highest Treason the murthering of the soules of Soveraigns and subjects with corrupting God's word with rebelling against the Divine authority so authentickly appearing in the Roman Catholick Church And these Treasons we offer to prove face to face not only by legal witness but by their Bibles and Books We have no grudge to them but this only of damning soules by treacherous dealing and desire that so important an accusation may come to a publick hearing If their interest and industry can divert the layty from so great a concern that layty must be treacherous to themselves and censured very carless of their own salvation And to the end it may not be objected that these are are but 〈◊〉 words I have resolved to descend to particular crimes I 〈◊〉 the persons their Books I quote their own words I prove them to be no innocent mistakes but wilfull and wicked falsifications and fraudâ— not committed by one or few 〈…〉 of Religion against vs not in our time but alwayâ—◠〈…〉 but the whole body in their 〈…〉 only by connivance and permission but also by contrivanceâ— and positive approbation not only petty 〈◊〉 differences but of ancient condemned heresies which the Protestant writers maintain as orthodox doctrin notwithstanding that 〈…〉 S. Hierom and other Doctors of God's Church censure the opinions as notorious heresies and the Authors as hereticks This is the summe of the Accusations contained in this third part of our Treatise and if we be not mistaken deserues a Trial as well for the satisfaction of privat 〈◊〉 conscience as 〈◊〉 for the probability there is of publick conveniency it being very improbable that I or any man who pretends to the least degree of worth or witt would charge with so many particular grievous crimes so numerous and poweâ—â—ull a party as the Protestant Clergy is without 〈…〉 undeniable evidences If the Protestant Clergy be found guylty besides the salvation of soules which will be obtained by renouncing their errors and is that we all ought principaly to ayme at these Nations will be happy in this world by their revenues If they be not guilty they and their Religion will gain great credit and I nothing but the infamy of being a notorious Jmpostor I know not what others may think of me but I shall never think that any other can be so witless and wicked as to take so much paines as I have don in composing and be at so great charge of publishing this Treatise without manifest profeâ— of the truth therof for if my allegations be not true I can have no further design or hopes but of infamy to my self and of honor and credit to my Adversaries and an addition of strength to the cause I do impugne all which must follow and fall vpon me if the learned Protestant Clergy be not proved to be as great Cheats as I pretend they are But it s strange what deepe impressions education doth make in mens minds and how partial and passionat these Nations are tendred by Protestancy They will not believe that their Protestant Writers are wilfull Falsifiers as for example that Doctor Jeremy Taylor a man that hath writ so many spiritual Books foorsooth and rules of Morality is guilty of maintaining the Protestant Religion by aboue 150. shamefull vnexcusable corruptions and falsifications in his litle Dissuasive And when he the Author his Jrish Convocation and the English Protestant Church that Applauder of the work are challenged in print by sundry Catholick Writers to make good any one of those falsifications all the world besides Protestants observe they have not a word to answer and by consequence themselves must now confess that their Religion is damnable seing it can not be otherwise maintained then
be 〈◊〉 with in other questions not diligently digested nor yet made firm 〈◊〉 authority of the Church there error is to be born with but 〈◊〉 not to go so farr that it should labour to shake the very 〈◊〉 of the Church The Bishop sayes this can not be 〈◊〉 of the definition of the Church though St. Austin 〈◊〉 expressly of the authority therof but of Scripture But 〈◊〉 afterwards the words might be vnderstood of the 〈◊〉 of the Church or general Councells to the end that 〈◊〉 might not imagin St. Austin thought such definitions were 〈◊〉 or vnquestionable he adds But plain Scripture with 〈◊〉 sense or a full demonstrative argument must have room 〈◊〉 a wrangling and erring disputer may not be allowed it And 〈◊〉 neither of these but may convince the definition of the 〈◊〉 if it be ill founded And to shew that this is no fancy of 〈◊〉 but the doctrin of St. Austin he quotes his words 〈◊〉 see them in the margent with an F. referring the word 〈◊〉 to Scripture So that if you believe the Bishop and rely 〈◊〉 his quotations St. Austin doubted not but that the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general Councells may be contrary to 〈◊〉 and confuted by full demonstrative arguments I confess that when I read this page and part of Bp. Laud's 〈◊〉 with Fisher I found my self much troubled vntill 〈◊〉 the matter and then I resolved never more to 〈◊〉 him or any Protestant writer however so Saint-like or 〈◊〉 by report or in appearance The truth is St. Austin 〈◊〉 place cited by the Bishop hath nothing at all either 〈◊〉 Scripture or evident sense or demonstrative arguâ—â—â—ts but addressing his speech to the Manicheans he writes 〈◊〉 Apud vos autem vbi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac 〈◊〉 sola personat veritatis pollicitatio and then follow the words 〈◊〉 by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. 〈◊〉 truth so bragd of and promised by the Manicheans to 〈◊〉 demonstrated in that epistle called Fundamentum saith St. Austin if it be demonstrated to be so cleer c. is to be preferred where you see St. Austin's quae referred not to Scripture but to that fictitious truth which the Manichees pretended to be in their doctrin Nay St. Austin is so far from doubting of the infallibility of the Church and general Councells in that very place quoted by the Bishop that he disputes ex professo against the possibility of its erring or of its definitions being contrary to Scripture and sayes that if the doctrin of the Catholick Church could be contrary to Scripture he should not be able to believe rationaly and infallibly either the one or the other not the Scriptures because he receives them only vpon the authority of the Church Not the Church whose authority is infringed by Scripture which is suposed to be brought against her Si ad Evangelium me tenes ego ad eos me teneam quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam Quod si forte in Evangelio aliquid in apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris infirmabis mihi Catholicorum authoritatem qui jubent vt tibi non credam qua infirmata jam nec Evangelio credere poterâ— quia per eos illi credideram ita nihil apud me valebit quicquid inde protulâ—ris Quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei Apostolatu in Evangelio reperitur Catholicis potius credam quam tibi si aâ—tem inde aliquid manifestum pro Manichaeo legeris nec illis nec tibi illis quiÌ„a de te mihi mentiti sunt Tibi autem qui eam scripturam mihi profers cui per illos credideram qui mihi mentiti sunt Aug. cont Epist. Fundament cap. 4. Wherfore St. Austin doth not suppose as the Bishop pretends that Scripture or reason can be contrary to the definitions of the Church he professedly teaches the contrary in the very place cited and vses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. only ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Jf an Angell from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed St. Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angell from heaven should teach contrary to the Ghospel and so did St. Austin that the definitions of a general Councel should be contrary to Scripture or reason as appeareth by his own discours against the Manichees Vincentius Liâ—inensis abused by Mr. Laud to prove the fallibility of the Church pretending that learned Father supposed and sayd she might change into Lupanar errorum à strumpet or stewes of errors BUt A. C. tells us further saith Mr. Laud that if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any determination of the Church then may he also against an other and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same divine revelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full authority of the Church which being weakned in any one can not be firm in another First A. C. borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis and as that learned Father vses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applyes it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maxims c. which are properly fundamental but here the Bishop is mistaken for Vincentius speaks also of not fundamentals as of the celebrating of Easter according to St. Victor's decree the not rebaptizing of those who had bin baptized by hereticks c. now in this sense saith the Bishop give way to every cavilling disputer to deny or quarrel at the maxims of Christian Religion c. And why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examin her own decrees and to see that she keep the principles of her faith vnblemished and vncorrupted for if she do not so but novitia veteribus new doctrins be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis may be changed in Lupanar errorum I am loath to english it Hitherto the modest Bishop who quotes Vincent Lirin in his Margent for his lupanar errorum c. and for the whole discours Vincentius Lirinensis is so far from expressing any fear or suspition of danger that the Church should be changed into lupanar errorum a stews of errors by addition of novelties or falling from the primitive doctrin that as if he had foreseen this corruption of his meaning and cutting short his words practised by Mr. Laud he declares in that very place by him quoted that only hereticks and vngodly men can entertain any such thoughts of Christs spouse sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus divina pietas sitque hoc potius impiorum furor