broach Heresyes impugn her defend themselves with the same principles I am now arrived at the end of this real or pretended Conference without omitting any one material point of it I hope I haue given reasonable satisfaction of which others will judge more impartially then my selfe if I am mistaken by judging too favourably of my owne labours my replyes be found vnsatisfactory J desire that defect be charged on my weakenesse not on the cause I defend which is invincible being secured by the promise of Christ from all possibility of errour for Against it the gates of Hell shall never prevayle I haue given a reason in the preface why I take no notice of the Father's answers as they are couched in this Relation My intention is only to defend the Church from the Objections of the Learned Doctor To which it is enough to shew as I think I haue don that his Premisses are false his Jllations incoherent his whole discourse not convincing Thus Wisdome is justified of her children Mat. 11.19 THE SECOND BOOK A REVISION OF THE ARGVMENT FROM SENSES AGAINST TRANSVBSTANTIATION THE PREFACE I Never began to read any Treatise with greater Horrour nor ended with greater Indignation than this which J now come to review Horrour to see doubts of divine Doctrine submitted to the depositions of facultys common to Beasts a jury of the Senses impanelled to decide controversys of Faith set on a throne to judge the judg of the world determine the meaning of the words of eternal Truth of divine veracity althô they are vncapable of vnderstanding the words of the meanest vnderstanding most illiterate Pesant I expect shortly to see some other appeal to Beasts seing many of the better sort of these surpasse man as to quicknesse of Senses which in them are much more perfect then in most if not al men therefore may be sayd to be more competent judges of the objects of Senses then men can be Indeed Seducers proficiunt in peius wax worse worse 2. Tim. 2.13 it is not so great a step from the Senses of men to those of Beasts which are of the same Species are rather more than lesse perfect in their kind J as it is from the Church directed by the Holy Ghost for our jnstruction in Faith to Carnal senses That having something of divine by reason of the Holy Ghost assisting these being meere Corporal below all that hath any thing of Reason A fit judge indeed for such a Church as the Protestant is My horrour changed into Indignation when I heard the Verdict brought in by this Iury the Sentence pronounced by this Vmpire this Brutish judge yet from such a Iudg little lesse could be hoped for in such a matter by which the Scripture is silenced Tradition trampled vnder foot Fathers rejected the Practice Faith of the whole Catholick Church condemned the Communion with all Faith full all the Catholick Church renounced a horrid execrable Schisme authorized And all this vpon the deposition of so vile a witnesse by the Sentence of so contemptible a judg as Carnal sense And this Sentence accepted of recommended by a learned Doctor of divinity a pretended Ryght Reverend Bishop Is Christianity is Divine Faith brought to this Yet J find one sign of Modesty vnlesse it were rather Cunning craftinesse in adorning the stage for this piece of Pageantry disposing for this extravagant judgment that there is ether no mention at all of the grounds of Catholick Faith in this treatise or else it is so silent low a mention that it is scarce perceptible For had you set before the eyes of your Readers the practice of the Church the Testimonys of Fathers the decrees of councils the written vnwritten word of God in fine the vnanimous vote of the primitiue present Church averring that to be Christs Body Bloud the Readers would not haue heard the sentence of this mock judg would haue pulled him off the Bench forced him to yeild the victory to Truth For if we Must pull out our eye if it scandalize vs we must shut our eyes stop our cares renounce all our Senses when thy contradict God's expresse word But if by this you made sure of such a sentence as you wisht you discovered the vnjustice of it by not admitting the plea of the contrary party For qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ aequum licet statuerit hand aequus fuit This argument is not of the Doctors invention it is as old as the Sacramentarian Heresy Berengarius vsed it so did Zuinglius Calvin F. Stillingfleet G. Burnet And the answer is as common To confute this Treatise it were enough to reprint the 33. Chapter of Anti-Haman so no new reply is necessary Yet least he think himself neglected I will review what he says SECTION V. 1. Ancient Fathers re'yed not on sense 2. S. Paul teaches the senses are not to be relyed on 3. Reason convinces the same SEnses no competent judges in this Controversy Are not our Senses the same now as they were a thousand or sixteen hundred yeares ago Are their objects changed Are not the sensations they cause the same now as then Did not Bread tast like Bread wine like wine than as well as now Are not their colour odour the same at all times And had not men then as much reason to rely on their Senses in framing a judgment of their objects as now Sure they had Now what judgments did Ancients frame of this object in debate Let S. Cyril of Hierusalem speak for all the rest Althô it seemes to be Bread yet it is not Bread Althô it seemes to be wine yet it is not wine Thus this great saint ancient Father delivering Christian Doctrine in a Catechisme So this is not his private sentiment but that of the Church not things of his own invention but of publick Tradition Till then Christians retained a sincere entire veneration for the word of God they harkned indeed to Senses but more to God when these two interfered one saying That is Christ's Body the other it is not such It is Bread they did not hesitate which to follow they easily resolved pronounced in favour of Faith subscribed to the son of God Who had words of life even life everlasting Io. 6.69 Animalis homo non percivit ca quae sunt spiritus Dei c. says the Apostle 1. Cor. 2.14 The natural man as your Translation hath-it Receiues not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnesse vnto him nether can he know them because they are spiritually discerned Thus the Holy Apostle is not Faith one thing of the spirit of God Is it not of Faith or revealed Truth preached by the Apostle that he speakes in that place Now if Faith be aboue the reach of the whole Natural man how comes it to be below Senses which
England with 130. l. returning with as much as if he had the blessing of the Israelits in the desert whose cloths did not weare out his serving his Majesty the Q. of Bohemia without putting them to any charge but his diet his catechising their servants preaching to them his journy to Collen returne to the Hague c. what is the publick concerned in all this Vnlesse it be to helpe an Hystorian to write his life But of heroical men even the Cradles Rattles Hobby horses are venerable Pag. viii He says he did not convene with the french Hugonots because if They did not encourage yet they did not at least had not condemned the rebellious proceedings of their Presbiterian brethren in England against the K. Church Which implyes only their being idle spectators of that Tragedy in which many think they were Actors for the worse side many English women in Geneva who followed their husbands thither at the end of the wars were proofe enough I will relate here what I find in Grotius his Discussio Rivetiani Apostolici pag. 88. 89. where having sayd that the publick Peace is disturbed by that Doctrine Licita esse pro Religione subditorum in Reges arma he adds Hoc vir nobilissimus Plessiacus Mornaeus tanquam pietati consentaneum testamento etiam suo inseruit Hinc ille motus Ambaxianus cum Reformatus Renauderius quosdam sui similes in privatum conclave convocasset dedisset eis potestatem Ordinum Regni Hinc Beze conciones pro classico Hinc Rupellensis Conventus impudentia qui omnes in Regno Pontificios deinde etiam Reformatos Regis auctoritatem sequentes declaravit ab honoribus omnibus muneribusque publicis dimovendos praefecturas autem per omne Regnum distribuit quibus voluit◠talium consiliorum auctorem sibi fuisse PETRVM MOLINEVM testatur Theophilus Mileterius vir nobilis illis qui reformatos se dicunt optimè volens Thus he This booke hath beene printed neere these forty yeares never any thing alleadged against these matters of fact that I could heare of How will Monsieur du Moulin Prebend of Canterbury reconcile with this Counsil of his Father that letter which he printed in his fathers name 4. These treatises having beene composed on emergent occasions without any setled designe haue no other order than that of the time they were composed in amongst those of the same language J designed once to draw the matters handled in them into some method which would helpe to their vnderstanding But because that would make my Answer to D. M. lesse satisfactory a thing mainly aimed at I tooke the easier way to follow my Authour as he leades me step by step without omitting any thing material I omit in my Revision the letters of the Regular Preist as not grounding the judgment in matters of Religion of D. M. as also D. M. his letter to Trigland as containing nothing to our purpose For it treates only two points the 1. of Fact that his majesty really was a Protestant To which no answer is necessary The second of Policy that his Majesty was to be restored to his Crowne by an Army of the states To this I cannot answer as never having commenced Batchelour in Policy Yet J will say that God himself found a way to restore his Majesty put an end to the troubles of the State without Armes contrary to the expectation of D. M. And J hope at least it long hath beene is shall be my constant Prayer that the God of Peace put an end to these contentious disputes in the Church that we all may come to compose but One sheepefold vnder One sheperd John X. 16. I thought once to omit his letter against F. Cressey as being cheifly personal yet finding besides a too severe charg on him some Reflections vpon his whole holy Order I tooke leaue to review the grounds of both yet past it lyghtly as entring vpon it vnwillingly That the Reader may with lesse trouble see what the Doctor says to what J answer I giue his owne words commonly at large at least their full sense J marke the page where they are to be found This makes my Revision somewhat longer but that is compensated with the ease of discovering the Truth which both sides pretend to but only one side contends for sincerely the other opposes with all his Power God grant to all a sincere loue of Peace Church vnion then all these disputes will cease Post script What is contained in my fourth Booke pag. 111. that Factious men were prosicients in the Art of promoting mischeife was written in march last 1683. I little dreamed to see my conjecture confirmed so soone in such a notorious manner as it was by The Rye Plot Blunderbusses God hath miraculously both disappointed discovered those Ruffians J beseech him to grant that the Roote at least the pretext or occasion of all these traiterous Practices The hatred of jnnocent men loyal subjects may cease SOME FAVLTS TO BE CORRECTED Pag. 15. line 23. received Read revived Pag. 28. line 26. againe Read against Pag. 44. line 3. it Read him Pag. 86. line 28. Et. Read And. THE FIRST BOOK A REVISION OF THE CONFERENCE BETWIXT D. MORLEY AND F. DARCY AT BRVSSELS THE PREFACE THE first Treatise which occurr's in this collection is the sum of a short Conference with a Iesuit at Brussels I leaue others to judg whether it be an Historical or a Poetical narration or whether it contains only sincerely what was or what might be as not thinking it worth the while to enquire especially when we consider that certainly the greatest part possibly all those present who could inform vs are dead Those who haue been acquainted with F. Darcy know his great abilityes in controversy consider how weakly he is made to answer are apt to guess that our Authour Poet-like brings him others on the stage as he pleases there makes him speak what is easiest to be confuted I rather incline to the contrary that really there was such a Dispute such things in substance alleadged pro con Yet I must beg leaue to say that J beleme the Doctor did not subtract any strength from his own nor ad any to F. Darcy's discourse it being but ordinary that things are so disposed in such relations as the Knight may kill the Gyant Hence I regard little what that Father is reported to haue sayd but attend cheifly if not only to what the Doctor alleadges against the Church which I will defend to my power We shall find his D. Morley's cheife Argument drawn from the Communion os Infants by which he endeauours to proue that the Church can erre seing it hath erred which Vicount Falkland brought against the credit of our Traditions Which hath been already answeared thô this is not taken notice of But let vs hear the Doctor speak SECTION I. 1. The
Forty yeares a goe it cost them much labour mony bloud time to get their armed Mirmidons about the Kings person within these four yeares few houres were enough to bring 20000. armed men to Temple Barre neere the King's Palace who knows but the next attempt will bring them to or within his gates Deus omen avertat say I as well as you But humanely speaking that can scarce be avoyded without God's opening your eyes to see the mischeife you promote or stirring vp publicke Authority to stop your mouths Otherwise You conceiue chaffe you bring forth stubble your spirit as fire will devour you Isayas 33.11 Now to your sermon In your 16. first pages I see little to the purpose The greatest part is De communi Sanctorum appliable to other things mingled with some slips through inadvertency such J take that to be p. 13. S. Paul saw it with his owne eyes when he says himself 1. cor 1.11 He heard it from those of Chloe 3. D. M. p. 17. This horrid conspiracy to which the Actors were prompted by some Doctrines of their Religion Rev. That it was a Horrid conspiracy J grant but not that the Doctrines of our Religion prompted the Actors vnto it Let experience decide the cause What Kings more absolute in their Dominions then Catholicks In England when were our Kings more honoured readily obeyed by their subjects than when Papists when more beloved by their freinds and Allyes when more feared by their Enemyes than when Papists Popery teachs to giue every one his due to God what is Gods to Caesar what is his that is it teaches to obey both Prelate Prince both spiritual temporal Magistrate Whereas your Reformation quite cast off obedience to the Prelate so weakened that to the Prince that this broke too And althô you haue endeavoured to piece it againe yet the common voice says that without a dose of Popery or Popish principles it can never arriue to its former vigour So different are the judgments of the world from your pretences But what are these Doctrines D. M. p. 19 That of the Popes supremacy not of order or precedency Only but of Authority jurisdiction Rev. That supremacy had been acknowledged 1000. yeares yet Monarchy remained in its vigour so it continues in Spaine France Germany without any bad effect to Monarchy But you lay the faults of your Reformation at our dore Then you cite some hard opinions out of Bellarmin Aug. Steucus who being no Rules of our Faith I passe by them D. M. p. 21. The Clergy was forbidden to marry that they myght haue no tye to their country exempted from secular jurisdiction that it myght depend only on the Pope Rev. You speake more dogmatically than the Pope for in doctrinal points he giues a Reason you giue none You may find other motiues for these two points if you consult our Divines or Controvertists D. M. p. 22. Oaths cannot bind them to their Allegiance Because 1. they take them with Aequivocation 2. The Pope can dispense in them 3. They keepe no faith with Hereticks Rev. Such stuffe myght passe in Oates's narratiue or rayling I. Philips before the Rabble but scarce in one of your degree before such an Auditory If Oaths to vs are such Cobwebs why do so many of vs loose their Estates their Libertys their Liues rather than take some Why doth the Parliament take the Paines to frame impose them You contradict experience I feare your owne Conscience D. M. p. 23. Another horrid Doctrine is the obligation of Preists to conceale what they heare in Confession And you mention Clement Ravaillac Rev. You myght with as much reason haue mentioned Brutus Pausanias for it doth not appeare that ether of these two ever discovered their designe in Confession The secret of Confession may bring a Ruffian to discover his damnable intention to a Preist by whome he may be diverted or the mischeife prevented Divines teach how without breaking the seale of Confession But it giues no advantage to a Preist to communicate bad designes because the obligation of secrecy binds not the Penitent D. M. p. 24. It is not enough to say these are not Doctrines of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Doctors of it because they never were condemned by the representatiue Body of that Church c. Rev. A discourse much below your self your Auditory yet you repeate it againe p. 30. What obligation is there that if one do a thing contrary to his duty all those of his Communion must by some publicke act declare against it Doth a man suspect his son of taking a purse if another doth so Or his wife of being vnfaithfull to him because his neyghbour's wife is so Or you your breth ren to be in a readinesse to take vp Armes against the King because a Bishop did so Because that man's son or wife or the Bishops never declared their abhorrence of those several Crimes Moreover some of the Doctrines you mention are censured by our Church in Santarelli Becanus In France Rome it self which you knew therefore say They were not condemned by the representatiue body of the Church that is a general Council But if you reade the last Chapter of S. Austins fourth book Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum you will find that generall Councils are not always necessary to condemne emergent errours that many more haue beene condemned out of than in Councils that without an absolute necessity all other meanes fayling the Church vses not to haue recours to a general Council Indeed were it not so such Councils must ether be perpetual so the cheife Pastors would be always absent from their flocks or be so frequent that they would scarce ever reside with it Wherefore God hath appointed in the Church for ordinary more frequent occasions inferiour Tribunals some of which haue declared already their dislike of some of these Doctrines others they leaue as likely to wither of themselues Sicut foenum tectorum as hay on the house top some it may be are left as not being legally knowne to those Tribunalls How ever ether there is or is not an obligation to condemne all bad Doctrines If there is none why do you blame our Church for omitting it Jf there is one how can you excuse your owne Church which never complyed with that Duty In reality there is an obligation which being a positiue precept obliges in time place not alwais is so kept by vs not at all by you D. M. p. 25. Bishop Andrews tells vs that Paul IV. offred to confirme all that Q. Elisabeth had done in Church affayres vpon condition she would owne his supremacy Rev. This requires a better proofe than the bare word of one interessed man How ever if it were so the guilt of Schisme sticks closer to you you may see how much you were
destructiue to Salvation It is vndeniable that Schismaticks remaming such cannot besaved They shall not haue God for their father who haue not the Church for their mother S. Cyprian And you are in a Schisme I myght alleadge several other things destructiue to Salvation but this one is enough D. M. p. 17. 18. The Papists say there is no salvation out of their Church The Donatists sayd so too And was it not for that saying so that they were pronounced Hereticks Revisor Here are three grosse mistakes of which I haue spoken sec 4. The 1. that the donatists sayd there was no salvation out of their Church Their grande errour was that the Church was lost by communicating with a sinner All their other errours were but sequels of this viz that there was no Church but theirs the rest of the Christians communicating with Cecilianus who had delivered vp the holy bookes 2. That there was no valid Baptisme but in their Communion 3. That the son was lesser than the father the Holy ghost than the son See S. Austin l. de Hereticis ad Quod vult Deum § 69. Epi. Baronij ad annu Dom. 321. n. 4. For these errours the donatists were tru Herticks But for saying that Heresy destroys salvation they could not be Hereticks vnlesse you will make S. Athanasius one who says in his creede Quam fidem nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit absque dubio in aeternum peribit No hopes of salvation where any point of Faith is denyed The 2. That they were pronounced Hereticks for saying so They were pronounced Hereticks for saying other things as J haue shewne The 3. that they were held for Hereticks The Catholick Church held them at first for Scismaticks such they were but not for Hereticks The Catholicks exacted nothing of them but that they should joine Communion with them they offred to that intent that in those cittyes which had two Bishops one of each Communion the surviver which soever it was should governe alone the Diocese that by that meanes the Schisme myght be extinguisht A condition never offred to any Heretick or Hereticks what soever At last indeed they turned tru Hereticks as I sayd on another score D. M. p. 19. For you to conclude in favour of Popery without hearing Protestants is that which cannot be done either in Equity or Conscience Rev. She did not conclude for one side without hearing the other She had heard Protestants from her jnfancy had weyghed maturely what they could say for themselues or against Popery It is wonderfull that a short Conference with some Papist it could be no more if there were so much should be of force sufficient to roote vp all those prejudices against God's Church which you so carefull instill to those vnder your conduct althô they had bin confirmed by long practice reiterated Acts contrary to the Catholick Faith all these backed with almost the greatest temporal interest in the world for on the one side she saw honour Riches the probable expectation of our Imperial crowne on the other Reproaches Calumnyes disgrace probably a tragical End for such had been the fate of her Father-in-law indeed what misery or vnjustice is so evident so greate as a Papist may not feare from a Tru Protestant But Magna veritas praevalet Truth seconded by God's interiour grace assisted by her generous resolution never to admit the whole world into consideration when her soul was concerned overcame all those difficultyes With this Truly Heroical resolution you acquaint vs. For you say to her D. M. p. 21. You your selfe haue told me more then once even since this false report hath beene raysed of you that you would not do any thing whereby you myght seeme to be of a Church or Religion which you are not of indeed no not for any wordly consideration whatsoever And p. 22. you are wont to say that no wordly either Advantage or Prejudice is to be considered when the gaining of the One or the avoyding of the Other comes into competition with the hazarding or securing of our spiritual everlasting jnterest of our souls consequently that if you were convinced there were no Salvation to be had but in the Church of Rome no consideration either of Losse or of Danger here in this world you myght incur by it should keepe you from it Rev. Out of these truly Christian Resolutions often declared to you I gather many material points either vnknowne before or not sufficiently knowne 1. That her R. H. was really enclined to be a Catholick So that Report was grounded 2. That you knew this inclination 3. That you endeavoured to divert her from it alleadging cheifly temporal interest to divert her from becoming a Papist This J gather out of those declarations which she so often made out of this very letter which containes little if any thing at all else 4. That either you which I do not beleiue or some other Protestant advised her to dissemble in matter of Religion professe her self a Protestant thô she were not so What other occasion could she haue to make that declaration that She would not do any thing to seeme to be of a Church of which she was not for all the world Lastly that she was too generous to be fryghted with such Bug beares When her soul lay at stake knowing full well it Would availe her nothing to gaine the whole world if she lost that Mar. 8.36 5. Thus this letter confirmes what was sayd but not commonly beleived of the Religion in which her R. H. dyed that she truly was a Catholick or as you call vs a Papist for you owne her inclination that way you had little to alleadge to divert her from it but temporal interest which was as little able to retaine her as a cobweb to hold a Lion so it is impossible to misse in the conjecture of the event But what judgment will the world make of your Church out of this letter The concerne you writ for was as greate almost as could occurre the retaining within your Communion a person as considerable almost as any whatsoever a person worthily esteemed as greate for her qualifications of mind as to vertu vnderstanding as for her dignity in the Kingdome a person who was a greate ornament to your Church nay a Piller of it So no doubt but all industry was vsed to prevent her leaving you that whatsoever your Art your wit learning could doe was employed to that intent we may guesse that as the cause was common so the concurrence was therefore we may conjecture that all the nerues of the Protestant Church joined to giue this Blow Yet how weake how inconsiderable is it And is then your Glorious Apostolical reformed Church come to this Haue you no motiues to commend her Communion retaine pious souls in it but Temporal will these weygh downe in the scales