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
thing in order to Christian Peace in things of Ecclesiastical constitution as v. c. The latin service the Sacrament vnder one kind the celibate of Preists thô not in things of Faith such as is the Church's Jnfallibility 3. D. Morley Replyed If by the Church he meant all Christians in all places it could not erre If any particular Church v. c. That of Rome it could erre had erred which he proved thus That Church which formerly held as matter of Faith an errour hath erred can erre But this is the case of the Church of Rome Therefore it hath erred and can erre To proue the minor he inslanced in the Communion of Infants beleived to be necessary to salvation For which he quoted Innocent 1. S. Austin Binius Maldonate This last says for six hundred yeares it was Dogma de Fide vniversalts Ecclesiae 1. Revisor you approved here what J haue at larg proved aboue little good from Conserences in matters of Religion can be expected But you haue a sting in the end when you reject all the fault all the opposition of so great a good as the Peace of the Ch. on vs. Who are resolved to remit nothing A very vncharitable rash judgment And vntru to boote as appeares by F. Darcys reply by that story which Protestants with great confidence relate in Q. Elisabeths time viz that the Pope offred to confirm all she had don in Church affayres vpon condition she would acknowledg him How can you say We will remit nothing when your Brethren assure the Pope was ready to remit all But it is your fashion to say vnsay as you think for your present purpose Then it served your turn that the Pope did not dislike your Reformation to moue Catholicks to embrace it so you spread that report Now it is to your purpose to throw the odium of the division on the Popes inflexibility so you report that The tru only reason that the schismatical Party is resolved never to rest satisfyed with what is remitted So the rebellious Part of the Parliament resolved never to be satisfyed with what soever answer the King gaue to their Addresses for that Reason we might say all Treatys for peace betwixt the King Parliament would proue ineffectual 2. F. Darcys answer shews how desirous the Church is to restore Peace to Christendome being ready for so great a good to remit of her Ryght in imposing ceremonys making Canons In Faith she can change nothing that belongs to a higher Tribunal she receiues it from her spouse in the nature of a Depositum 1. Tim 6.20 which must not be altred But Ecclesiastical Discipline being lef to her determination of her own appointement she may change as the Father sayd will change if by that meanes she could restore to the sheep-fold of Christ all his strayed sheep This is more than the Ch. of Engl. will do seing to reclaime her vndutiful children she will not omit the signe of the Crosse in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament bowing to the Altar all ceremonys of humane jnstitution her own injunction Nay she would not alter some words in her Lyturgy to purchase Peace 3. If the Church diffusivè that is all Christians in all places cannot erre wo be to the first Protestants whose sentiments in matters of Faith were as contrary to those of all Christians in all places as to those of the Roman Church except that one point of Papal Power So if all Christians did not cannot erre the first Protestants did erre all their followers doe erre will erre as long as they retain those sentiments for what is an errour to day will be such to morrow to the end of the world As to the Communion of Infants J acknowledg that for a long time when Baptism was administred solemnly by Bishops to men grown vp Adultis two other Sacraments were administred with it Confirmation the Eucharist That when it was administred by Preists they were ordred to anoint the baptised person not on the forehead but on the crowne That when Infants were baptised because the Sacrament could not without danger be administred to them vnder the species of Bread alone it was giuen vnder the other species the Preist dipping his finger into the Holy Chalice gaue it them to suck or a litle particle of the species of Bread soaked in the consecrated wine was layd on their tongue That the Communion was giuen to Infants out of an opinion that it was necessary to salvation grounded on those words of Christ Ioan. 6. Vnlesse ye eate the Body .... you haue no life in you I grant also that some haply many in some private Churchs beleived that to be the litteral meaning of those words thought consequently that sense was De fide a point of Faith Yet I deny that the vniversal Church did erre in declarations or definitions of Faith for indeed she never made any definition in this matter That Text was exposed with the rest of Holy writ to the view of all Christians left to the interpretation of ordinary Pastors as the rest was Many vnderstood it litterally for that reason extended to Infants the Communion in Baptism ordained to men enjoying the vse of Reason The Church seing no pressing inconvenience in this custome consequently no necessity to make a severe examen of the meaning of those words a censure of an jnnocent errour permits them to go on without interposing her Authority or by any legal definition obliging her children to beleiue either the one or the other part And I doubt not but there are several other texts of scripture commonly vnderstood one way that thought to be the litteral meaning tru sense followed as such some nay many may beleiue that sense to be De fide the Church permits them to beleiue practice so not seing any necessity to call a General Council to decide it the errour being nether destructiue to necessary Faith nor good manners yet this sense may be different from that the Holy Ghost cherfly intended by those texts all this without any prejudice to the Church of Rome's infallibility which never declared any thing in it Such I think is the common way of explicating Anti Christ to be one single man the three yeares a halfe to be litterally vnderstood for forty two months vulgar From alike occasion the error of the Chiliasts or Millenarians had its rise progresse which was not condemned till its Abettars grew troublesome to those who differed from them in the exposition of those words Apoc. 20.4 on which they grounded their error Hence it so lows that what Maldonate says makes nothing against the Churchs infallibility in defining things of Faith for he nether says nor could say with truth that she ever defined any thing in this matter And the practice it self of communicating Infants cannot
being vncyp hered by their actions the best interpreters of them Wherefore F. Darcy's argument remaines in force that it is safer to joine with the Catholicks than with the Protestants as it was safer to avoyd Treason to joine with the king than with the Parliament there being no sin in remaining in the Communion of the Catholick Church two great sins Schism Heresy in joining with the Protestants You say that this Reason would proue that in S. Austin's time it was safer to joine with the Donatists than with the Catholicks seing both sides agreed that the Donatists could be saved the Donatists denyed that possibility to the Catholicks Answer you are here grossely mistaken pardon that word for S. Austin never sayd a Donatist remaining such Could be saved nay a great part of his workes against them is employed to proue that they cannot be saved that their Baptism avayles them nothing but serues for their greater damnation Let me beseech you only to open any leafe any page of the several bookes written against them there is none which will not correct that mistake What you should say is only that both sides owned tru Baptism amongst the Donatists which these denyed amongst Catholicks Which argument the Donatists not only myght but did make vse of to pervert Catholicks as you may see in S. Austin L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 3. l. 2. cont Petilianum c. 108. else where To this I answer that such a reason from a Donatist to a Catholick is of no force he having no good ground at all for that reason to rely on therefore denying Baptisme in the Catholick Church only out of a peevishnesse of nature Religion it was by them sayd with no more cause than Quakers had to say Thou art damned when they had nothing else to say Where as Catholicks proue that Assertion of theirs with jrrefragable reason drawn from those two crying sins Schisme Heresy of which we accuse the Protestants these do not nay cannot sufficiently cleere I haue all ready explicated these reasons That those of the Donatists were frivolous is evident for they sayd some Bishops of the Catholick Communion were Traditores had delivered the sacred bookes to the Persecutors that all Catholicks by communicating with them did contract the same guilt had lost the Holy Ghost And hence they inferred there could be no valid Baptisme in the Catholick Communion for those who haue not the Holy Ghost cannot give him to others To which the Catholicks answered 1. that those Bishops accused of that shamefull compliance with the jmperial Edicts against Christians were jnnocent of that crime which was never sufficiently proved vpon them no man ought to be condemned vnlesse the crime be evidently proved against him 2. They answered that althô the persons accused were really guilty yet their personal guilt could not prejudice all Catholicks communicating with them because another man's sin cannot prejudice me vnlesse J make it my own by commanding or perswading approving defending or imitating it Now the Catholicks were so far from being accessory to that pretended sin in another that they detested the sin always condemned it in all persons who were really guilty of it but never could find sufficient grounds to pronounce those accused by the Donatists guilty of it as those would haue them doe They answered 3. that supposing not granting that the Persons accused were really guilty that guilt had infected the whole body of Catholicks by communicating with them yet their Baptism myght be valid this not depending on the Personal sanctity of its Minister but on the justitution promises of Christ the operation of the Holy Ghost Hence S. Austin sayd he did not regard Peter when he Baptizes nor Paul nor Iohn nor Iudas but he considered the Holy Ghost who is the Baptist who ever he be who washes the body pronounces the words as Minister of that Sacrament You se how frivolous the reasons of the Donatists were to deny the validity of Baptism in the Catholick Church Shew that ours are as frivolous J will grant the parity but this you can never doe So our Reason stands good against you that of the Donatists against vs falls to the ground It seemes not discreet in an English Protestant to mention the Donatists there being so great a resemblance betwixt these two schismatical Churchs that they may seem sisters the later to haue copyed the other which appeares by these paralel points 1. Donatists were no where out of one corner of the world Africa Protestants of the Church of Eng. that is such as agree with her in points of Doctrine Hierarchy no where out of England 2. Donatists sayd theirs was the only perfect vnspotted Church you say yours is the only Apostolical Church perfectly reformed c. 3. Those endeavoured to justify their separation with some pretended faults of particular men you to justify yours alleadg some indiscreet devotions of old women and vnwary words of some otherwise pious Authours 4. Those appealed to some parts of scripture which you vse against vs And the Fathers proved against them the Vniversality of the Church the necessity of Communion with her out of the same texts which we vse against you 5. Donatists called Rome the seat or Chair of pestilence you call it a Pest-house letter to her R. H. P. 17. the seat of Antichrist 6. Those had their Circumcellions who thought to do God good service in murthering Catholicks you haue some of the same perswasion as appeares by their workes Yet I own a great difference betwixt the old Circumcellions the new ones Those when the toy took them would ether break their own necks or force others to cut their throates the new ones in this do not imitate them they loue too much their mothers sons 7. Those had the Maximianists who left them for the same reasons they had broken off Communion with the Church these haue the Presbiterians others who will not conforme with them vpon the same grounds for which they refuse to conform to the Catholick Church 8. And lastly the Non-conformist donatists made evident to the world that the Donatists had no real ground to break the Catholick Communion by forcing them to solue their owne Objections against the Church of which S. Austin l. 2. Retract C. 35. And your Non conformists with the same successe force you to answer all your pretences against vs breake those weapons with which you haue hitherto fought against the Church Those who will take the paines to examin further the Donatists principles will discover more points of agreement betwixt them you These are sufficient to shew that what is now hath been before will be that as the Church sticks constantly through all ages to the same Faith ways of defending it so Factious spirits seditious Brethren break her Communion turn Schismaticks
of reason all considerations of Eternity And if they should be judged weyght by men will God judge so too At the greate day will it be a sufficient excuse for Schisme Heresy to say I was affrayd of loosing my estate of hindring my fortune of offending my freinds of giving advantage to my Enemys Will not Christ answer Seing You haue disowned me my Church before men I will disowne you before my father I will not deny but you haue given satisfaction as to what concernes your self that you are a Protestant Yet J must professe you giue little satisfaction as to your Church Nay I do declare that I would never desire other nor better grounds to vindicate the Truth of Catholick Religion the necessity of living in the Communion of the Catholick Church than what this letter affords For by it we may gather the condition of the Protestant Church to be like that of Laodicea Apoc. 3.17 Wretched miserable poore blind naked I hartily wish you those of your ranke were truly sensible of this Truth that you made a ryght vse of it by seeking ways to returne to the Communion of the Catholick Roman Church so put an end to this horrid Schisme Though the difficultyes to be overcome were greate yet greate difficultyes ought not to fryght vs from so greate so necessary a good as that of the Peace of the Church But in reality they are lesse then apprehended which you must say if you beleiue what you report after Bishop Andrews that the Pope was willing to confirme all that Q. Elizabeth had done in matter of Religion provided she would acknowledge his Supremacy This is then the grand nay the only obstacle Now all who haue been conversant in Catholick countryes see their customes even where that Supremacy is acknowledged see cleerly that this is no such formidable thing as to excuse justify a separation by consequence can be no just hindrance of Peace which the God of Peace grant vs giue all Schismaticks a tru desire of Amen SECTION XX. A Revision of his Letter to a Preist WHo this Regular Preist is you do not tell vs yet what you say of him he of himself describe him by infallible notes You endeavour to proue in this letter to him three things 1. That being so perswaded as he was he was bound in Conscience to leaue the Communion of the Roman Church 2. That he was bound to joine Communion with the Protestant Church of England 3. That he was bound to do it out of hand Which Propositions are built one vpon another the third on the second this on the first Which being Conditional not Absolute supposing his Present perswasion we must see what that is according to this Meridian we must calculate his Duty What this poore man's Perswasion is if he haue any setled is hard to judge of He hath vowed Obedience to his Regular Superiour will not keepe it He hath vowed Poverty breakes that vow He professe the Catholick Faith beleiues it full of Errors nay Heresyes He says he will remaine in the Communion of the Roman Catholick Church yet beleiues her to be Heretick Schismatick He hath beene ordred backe to his Convent he refuses to returne he hath been Canonically admonisht of his extravagances he slights it he hath been Excommunicated he Laughs at it In fine in him Hereticks find a constant freind Schismaticks a sure Advocate Apostates a certaine Patrone Catholicks an implacable Enemy yet he pretends he is nether Heretick nor Schismatick nor Apostata but a Catholick member of the Roman Church Who can square these circles reconcile these Contradictions betwixt his Declarations Actions that so a judgment may be framed of his Tru Persuasion Whither shall we giue credit to his declarations Or his Actions Those speake his being a Catholick he is nothing lesse These declare his hatred to Catholicks their Religion which yet he professeth So we must conclude him a Chimera one composed of contradictions his Religion is made vp of parts mutually destroying one another Or else that he hath no Religion for as a Chimera cannot haue a being In rerum naturâ so there can nether be an Entity composed of Contradictions nor a Religion for the same reason At least at the greate Audit he can never fayle to heare Discede a me c. Begon from me whither so ever Religion he be of his owne words will condemne him Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam What can hence be gathered but that his Perswasion being so vncertain his Religion so dubious or certainly none at all nothing can be thence gathered as to the Communion which he should enter into If you think him well disposed for your Church you discover what kind of men it is composed of Ours that is the Catholick Church doth not desire such nor tolerate them further than there is hopes of their amendment little or none at all being left of this man she hath cast him out by Excommunication As I learne from your owne letter So by what I see I conclude that You haue spoyled a Catholick not made a Protestant Yet to moue him to come quite over you very learnedly distinguish three ages of the Church The first whilest she continued in that Faith which was once delivered to Saints p. 31. The second p. 32. from the time the Pope tooke vpon him the title of vniversal Bishop Yet you are not resolved what time to allow to this Second age whither one thousand or eleven or twelue hundred yeares The third p. 42. from the two Councils of Lateran vnder LEO X. Trent jmplying that all were bound to communicate with the Church of Rome in its first age myght communicate with it in the second must not in the third Jn the first Communion with it was a necessary duty in the second it was lawfull but not necessary in the third vnlawfull a sin And these dreames take vp aboue 30. pages Rev. All this is a dreame for the second age which you speake of is yet to come the Pope never having taken the title of Vniversal Bishop Besides this Christ promist his assistance to the Church not for any determinate time but for all times assured her of his presence till the end of the world now when you shall proue that Christ hath broken or can or will breake his word we will think your second age possible not till then so the first age in which all are obliged to joine in Communion with the Church of Rome is not expired nor will nor can ever expire D. M. p. 62. Having quitted the Communion of the Roman Church he is bound to joine with that of England in Conscience it being the most perfectly reformed Church in the world in Prudence in order to the protection of his Person provision
A REVISION OF DOCTOR GEORGE MORLEI'S IVDGMENT IN MATTERS OF RELIGION OR AN ANSWER TO SEVERAL TREATISES WRITTEN BY HIM VPON SEVERAL OCCASIONS CONCERNING THE CHVRCH OF ROME AND MOST OF THE DOCTRINES CONTROVERTED BETWIXT HER AND THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND TO WHICH IS ANNEXT A TREATISE OF PAGAN IDOLATRY BY. L. W. Permissu Superiorum 1683. THE PREFACE SEing my Lord of Winton is pleased to wipe off that odious aspersion of his being a Papist which myght in the late conjuncture haue cost him his civil endangered his natural life by declaring not only his judgment in matters of Religion but also the grounds on which it relyes contained in severall treatises long since compounded but never till now made publick I presume he will not be offended that with the respect due to his quality of Peere of the Realme these be reviewed Reviewed I say for althô Appellations lye only to hygher Revisions are committed to equal or even inferiour courts He protests he is no Papist I think so too I wish it were as easy to cleere him of Calvinisme of which he ownes pag. XII that he hath beene suspected to it he seemes enclined when he says that God by Miracles promoted the Jdelatrous worship of the Pictures Relickes of Saints This I think in reality is to make God the Authour of sin Which Blasphemy I do not beleiue the Church of England will owne thô it be a choice flower in Calvin's garden He declares his loyalty to the government establisht the Royal Family c. And J beleiue him in this also nay I judge as favourably of the greatest part of his rank moreover that they are loyal not only for their Interest but for conscience out of a sense of their duty to God their soveraigne their country that he they will oppose to their Power Schisme in the Church Faction in the State Yet I think all their endeavours will be ineffectual to prevent ether considering the constitution of the Protestant Church qualifications of its Clergy For as in some natural Bodyes there is a defect which maugre all care of Physitians cuts the thred of life before it be spun to its ordinary length so in some Bodyes Politick that of the English Protestant Church in particular Here are some reasons to proue this 2. The first Protestancy is a Schisme those who liue in it liue in a Schisme It is a Schisme because it is a party separated from the whole Catholick Church Luther was a Schismatick so was Calvin so was Zuinglius so was each Patriark of your Reformation for each of these at their first breaking forth left the Whole Catholick Church or Congregation of Christians of what denomination soever not any one single Person in the whole world to whome he or they did joine himself So that if ever any man was truly Schismatick each one of these was such Wherefore all who joined to them as all Protestants did were Schismaticks Now it is not probable that God will giue that greate Blessing of Ecclesiasticall Peace to Schismaticks who hate it oppose it My 2. is Protestants are Hereticks that is Choosers of the points which they beleiue For the Catholick Church delivered to her children not only what they beleiue but also many articles which they reject Each Protestant takes this complex examins it finding some Articles not to please him he casts them out of his creede Hence one rejects the Real presence another Free will A third Merits a fourth the Possibility of keeping God's Commandments c. Each one culling out what Articles he pleases composing of them not a Catholick but a Protestant Faith not a Faith of the Ghospels but of this time their Phancyes What more evident signes of Hereticks Now if they be such can we think them fit instruments to oppose Heresy who did introduce do still defend it This shall be further confirmed by my fifth Reason My 3. Protestants are a Cadmean broode they sprung out of the Earth armed no sooner did their soveraigne Lords see their faces but they felt their Jron hands Witnesse Germany France Hungary Bohemia Scotland swethland Denmark the Low countryes Geneva Our English Protestants say they are not concerned in these Rebellions but that is not tru for by approving applauding them they make them their owne encourage the Practice by commending the precedent With what force can they teach Obedience to his Majesty who praise Rebellion against other Or divert men from Treason who transforme Traitors into Heroes canonize Regicides My 4. There nether is nor ever was any Authority vnder the Heavens better grounded than that of the Catholick Clergy consisting of the Pope Bishops was before the Reformation It was establisht by Christ setled by the Apostles ratifyed by general particular Councils confirmed by an vninterrupted Possession of almost fifteene hundred yeares backt by all Laws Ecclesiastical Civil acknowledged by all Christians then aliue What gentleman can say so much for his estate What officer for his Authority What King for his crowne What Parson for his Tith What Protestant Bishop for his miter When a Calvin a Luther c. to say no more private men starte vp declame against that Clergy as a humane invention an Antichristian establishment you applaude them with them trample vnder feete the whole sacred Order teach your followers no submission no obedience is due to it When you haue taught them to breake such cables can you expect to bind them to their duty with single threds The English Protestant pretence to Bishops doth no satisfy 1. Because in reality they had no canonical ordination as we say proue 2. Althô they had imposition of hands were real Bishops which we deny See Anti-Haman Chapt. xxxv yet They entred not by the doore but climed vp some other way Iohn X. 1. Were not promoted according to any canonical forme ether ancient or moderne Wherefore what can we judge of them but according to Christ's words Loco citato 3. Your first Protestants promoted their Religion Spreade their noveltyes contrary to all even English Bishops in contempt of them first in Henry VIII his time Tindale others Secondly in Q. Elizabeths time when all the Bishops aliue detested your Reformation were for that stript of their jurisdiction deposed from their seates confined What wonder then your followers doe not regard that Crosier which you haue broken nor honour the Miter which they haue seene you trample vnder your feate Lastly suppose your Bishops wereas validly canonically consecrated as any ever were can you say that their Authority is better grounded than that of all the Catholick Clergy Sure you cannot pretend to better grounds for your Authority than our Clergy had As it was than lawfull laudable to three or four private men to contradict our whole Clergy then in being why may not
of our Charity Which three vertues are Cheifly or rather solely aimed at in Religion Haec maximè imo vero sola in Religione sequenda sunt Aug. Enchir. c. 4. Now if Moss the cheifest noblest of Religions Actions be Idolatry as you say elsewhere how do you say now it is Lawfull nay Commendable Worthy the imitation If it be so certainly it is not Idolatry But Contradictions are vnavoidable when we combate a known truth which by surprisal will force an acknowledment of it self altho we arm our selues against it when advertised Hence you approue here the same thing in Gross which you condemn in retail I leaue you this bone to pick proceed SECTION II. 1. Conferences to compose differences in Religion seldome successefull why 2. Security of Preists in England danger of Ministers at Brussels D. Morley 1. My lord Andover wisht that some learned moderate men of the Churchs of Rome England might meet debate freely charitably the Differences between the two Churchs which are not so many nor so great but they might find out some expedient to compose them 2. D Morley Sayd it would be imprudent vnsafe for him to disoute of Religion in Brussels thô the Preists in England had often with all boldnesse freedome safety before many witnesses mantained their opinions So vpon my life may you do here sayd F. Darcy be so far from offending me as J shall take it as a favour 1. Revisor Altho I readily grant the capacity of that noble man to be great yet I must beg leaue to dout whether he were a competent Judg of the most ready way to end the Differences in points of Faith betwixt dissenting Churchs this requiring a greater search into points of Doctrine interest then Persons of his quality education are willing commonly to vndergo Truth is ever pretended on both sides but it is onely pretended on the one side which in reality applyes all its industry to suppresse it for ether motives of Passion Interest Envy Spite Reveng what else is contrary to the law of God When these possesse the hart the head is busyed to make Vertu pass for vice vice for vertu to adorn Falshood with the dress of Truth by sophistical reasons make Truth be suspected of Falshood He will by calumayes as black as Hell reader odjoas or contemptible the persons who oppose his Passion thwart his Jnterest Cross his design procure his real good by discovering his errours by that inviting him to return to the ancient Faith Communion of the Church which he broke through want of Charity It is hard to discover the wiles of those Foxes ways of these wolves the fraudulent or fierce enemys of the Churchs Peace to see through that mist which they raise on purpose not to be seen to fathom these Depths of Sathan Apoc. 2.24 Now thò this noble man's capacity was great yet perchance not sufficient for so obscure intricate a work Yet when all the doubling of these Foxes are discovered the secrets of their harts layd open yet the work is not half don The greatest difficulty remaines to wean them from those beloved wandrings it being one of the dismallest effects of these sinfull errours that by secret yet power full charmes they fix the will in the loue of them Hence S. Prosper Tantum nocet error Vt juuet errare veteris contagia morbi Tam blande obrepunt vt quo languetur ametur Such charmes before our eyes doth errour lay That it e'en makes vs loue to go astray Whilst th' evil spreads we vnconcerned go Deceiu'd yet contented to be so The secretary of nature Aristotle never div'd deeper into the hart of man then when he sayd that althô Reason seemes to hold the scales discern betwixt two contending parts yet in reality it is the hart the will which deliberates decides the thing in question Hence comes that variety of judgments on the same individual Action of which one shall make a Panegyrick another a Satyre And thô the lyght of Truth the appearance of God be so cleer as not to be concealed yet this shall be as ineffectual as to all influence on our Actions as if they were dreames a sensual man prefers Pleasure before his Honour A vertuous man the contrary So we judg as we are affected not as we should our will doth not follow but lead nay drag after it our Reason that with so sweet a violence that it is not perceived without much labour great attention strict search into the beginning progresse end of our Actions This is the root of all incoherent discourses illogical deductions of Passion interest or self-loue which in many prevail over Truth controul the inclinations to good make men break all their dutys to God their country to Prince frends Relations thô they see what is better yet do the contrary Video meliora proboque Deteriora sequor This difficulty seemes invincible when strengthned with the content which Proud Ring'eaders find in having their followers harts at a beck being esteemed by them as Oracles a satisfaction sayd St Francis Bacon as much aboue that of Tyrants as mens souls are aboue their Bodys In the whole black list of Heresiarks only two occur to my mind who truly repented viz Eutichius Patriark of Constantinople who denyed the Resurrection of the Flesh was converted by S. Gregory our Apostle Berengarius Patriark of the Sacramentarians Only these two to my remembrance dyed well professing the tru Faith contrary to their several errours Without doubt some if not all other Heresiarks were convinc'd of the vntruth of their doctrines were as the Apostle says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Condemned of themselves or knowing that they deserved condemnation doubtlesse all felt those reproachs of conscience which follows all guilty Actions yet Pride hardened their harts against all Now what can work vpon these men in order to their Conversion set before theyr eyes Truth they know but will not acknowledg it Reproach vnto them their perfidious abandonning God and his spouse the Church the Holy Ghost doth it inwardly they slyght him Threaten Hell damnation to torrify them They are self condemned yet are vnconcerned this opposing known Truth is a sin against the Holy ghost impossible to be forgiven because it is morally impossible to be repented This is proved by Reason confirmed by experience delivered by the Apostle Which is to be vnderstood of Heresiarks such as school men call Formal Hereticks Yet I know many I hope most of those who liue in schism or Heresy do so either by misfortune of their birth or education or by weakenesse of reason or strength of Passion or fear of punishment or loue of goods of fortune rather then hatred to the Church or loue to Heresy therefore are not Formal Hereticks or
Schismaticks Many followed Absalom to Hebron without any design against their lawful Monark David althô they were after engaged in the Rebellion And many follow Heresiarks intending no evil but hoping good from such as pretend nothing else who would hate these perfectly if they knew their Hypocrisy or malice who are insensibly engaged in the guilt of separation which they strengthen with their presence These nether having the guilt of a sin against the Holy Ghost vpon their Conscience nor their soulhardned against the Call of God we hope may be reclaimed And a Conference severally to such as these may proue beneficial Though not to the whole body of Separatists vpon which the more factious heads will always haue too great an influence How fruitlesse of old were the Conferences of S. Peter with Simon the magician of S. Athanasius with Arrius of S. Austin with Felix with Pascentianus Felicianus Emeritus or the Arrians of Lanfrancus with Berengarius of S. Bernard with Peeter Abaylardus what good came of the Conference of Catholicks Hugonots at Poissy in France Of those betwixt Catholicks Lutherans in Germany And that betwixt Protestants Presbiterians at Hampton-court brought no good althô directed by K. Iames a learned wise Prince to whom both Partys owed Obedience in Ecclesiastical matters as to one whom both owned to be head of their Church With great reason then Tertullian Prescrip c. 15.16.17 advises out of the Apostles words to Avoyd a Heretick after twice warning him not to meet Hereticks except only to Warn them That much harm may be feared but no good hoped for by Disputes with them That we ought to presse them to declare whence they had the scriptures If from Catholicks as most certainly Protestants had then they must from them also receiue the sense of scriptures Thus he Out of which it doth not follow that Catholicks are bound to receiue the sense of scripture from the Iews from whom they received the Holy scriptures because those same Persons who brought vs the scriptures from them proved their Mission from God declared the blindnesse Apostasy of the Iews warned vs as from God the Authour of Scriptures to be ware of them S Austin 13. cont Faustum c. 12. is of the same mind that all such Disputations are fruitless Hunnericus King of the wandals proposed a conference betwixt his Arrian Bishops those of the Catholick Communion But Eugenius Bishop of Carthage in the name of all the rest rejected the Proposition saying they could not accept it without consent of other Bishops cheïfely of him of Rome Victor of Vtica lib. 2. de Persec wandalicâ The Civil Law forbids all disputations L. Nemo C. de summa Trinitate The same are forbidden to seculars by the Canon law C. Quicumque de Haereticis in 6. For some particular reasons without any prohibition from the Church by common consent Catholicks refused to encounter some Hereticks Such was Sisinnius who because he had a pleasant drolling wit would seeme victor by turning all discourse into ridicule when he had nothing substantial to reply S. Austin when a Manichaean was avoyded for his singular skill in Logick For a like reason J beleiue Christians were warned by the Apostle Colos 2.8 To beware of being deceived through Philosophy Yet we cannot we dare not vniversally blame those who by Conferences or Disputes endeavour to bring back straglers into the way of salvation For Christ disputed with the Pharisees S. Stephen with the Iews in Hierusalem S Paul Apollo with the same else where S. Hilarius with the Arrians S. Austin with the Donatists Manichaeans others This Saint Epist 48. Says Cum Hereticis verbis agendum est disputatione pugnandum ratione vincendum Treate with Haereticks with words fyght them with discourse overcome them with reason Hence Divines do nether absolutely approue nor absolutely condemn such Conferences but hold them law full on some conditions in certain circumstances which may be found in them This honourable man hints at two conditions 1. that the Disputants on both sides be learned moderate 2. That They proceed freely charitably Which are good but scarce sufficient For 1. it is no easy matter amongst those who sincerely haue any Religion to find such as are Moderate in his sense And 2. even the most Moderate men may be so pinioned by jnstructions from those who depute them that their Personal Moderation will signify nothing for they must follow their jnstructions vnder pain of being disowned by their party left to make good their own Acts. Thus Melancthon Bucerus who were esteemed Moderate could effect nothing at the several meetings to which they were deputed The same I say of the 2. condition debating Freely Charitably which signifyes nothing vnlesse the whole Party 1. giue a full power to its deputyes without any reserue oblige it selfe to ratify approue what so ever shall be agreed on consented to by them And 2. would assuredly stand to that Power Do we not see that a separation is first resolved on errours sought out alleadged only to colour it Did not Luther laugh at the labour in vain of the Catholicks who confuted his errours saying that before they had dispacht the old ones he would find them more worke by broaching new And how often are the same objections renewed after a full satisfactory answer That for example of Pagan Idolatry reproached to vs lately by E. S G. B. R. C. but answered so home by T. G. W. E. that it will be layd aside till these are forgotten then we may expect to see some huffing minister thunder all the curses of scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse against the Church of Rome as guilty of the very Pagan Idolatry Thus Trita haereticorum arma colligunt Says S. Prosper They take vp the broken weapons of their brethren As some rivers pass vnperceived for some space vnder ground then rise again so that so other Objections against the Church And if J am not mistaken in the Horoscope of this Argument drawn from sense against Transubstantiation it will run the same fate for while a loue of separation continues these or some other pretexts will be vsed to excuse it Wherefore The only meanes to put a good end to all Disputes in Religion is to procure a sincere Loue of Peace mutual communion The differences says this Lord are not so many nor so great but meanes may be found to reconcile the two Churchs I hope there may be meanes found thó this grounds not my hope for J do on the contrary aver that there never were any Hereticks of one denemination who haue erred in more or more material points then Protestants For to say nothing of several all most all antiquated Heresyes received by them they haue cut off all the vnwritten a great part of the written word of God destroyed
or which is all one confounded the Hierarchy of the Church cast away fiue Sacraments deprived the other two of their efficacy reduced them to the condition of Iewish rites to be Beggerly elements denyed the vniversal redemption banisht Free will introduced stoick Fate changed Hope into Presumption a sin against the Holy Ghost so commended Faith as to destroy charity made good bad workes indifferent by depriving those of merit these of offending God in his elect c. Besides many points of discipline which thô lesse considerable than those of Faith yet are not to be neglected which no Church of England man will deny seing he defends those retained in it against the Presbiterians If these be Small points what are Great And if these be not Many what Herēsy ever had many It will not be enough to say the Church of England doth not oblige her Children to beleiue all these for shee ownes Communion with those who do abetteth her children when they reproach vs with the contrary Truths But suppose there were but Few but One difference that inconsiderable in it self yet if it causes a Schism it destroys all hope of Salvation Now what comfort is it to a wounded man to tell him he hath but one wound that not great if that touch the hart is mortal The Novatians the Miletians the Quarted ci mans the Donatists c. were tru Schismaticks could not be saved altho each of them differred from Catholicks but in one point that not of Faith but of Ecclesiastical Discipline And they were as obstinate in the defense of that one as others in that of many great ones The fewer lesse considerable the points are betwixt vs the Protestants the greater is their guilt in dividing Communion on that score All spiritual temporal jurisdiction the Authority of Prelate Prince is derived from the same fountain God There is no power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 The same persons are subject to both Let every soul be subject to hygher Powers And this out of the same principle of conscience Who soever therefore resists the Power resists the ordinance of God .... Wherefore ye must needes be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake The same motiues are alleaeged to excuse the Disobedience to both Abuses in government heavy vnnecessary Impositions greivances c. The same pretexts serue to make the Rebellious Actions against both plausible Evangelical Liberty Reformation Reestablishment of ancient forme of Government c. Stubbor nesse in the Rebellious is covered with the same fig-leaues Complaints of greivances not harkned to petitions for Redresses vnregarded humble Addresses not effectual Alike Art vsed to conceal a resolution never to be satisfyed what ever Answer be returned for if one request be granted they will demand more if denyed than they perswade their followers they are slyghted that no good can be hoped from such persons that things must be redrest without them Then they teach that all Power is derived not from God as the Apostle says but from the People that their superiours are only their Commissioners accountable to them these having abused their Power may nay ought to be devested of it And so they proceed to change the establisht Government in Church state alleadging the Bible as the Rule of their Actions against the Head of the Church ancient Statutes those against the Prince yet wresting both to their capricios not framing these to those In reality making all Government in Church state subservient to their Interests All which are written with a sun beame in the Hystorys of our civil wars in England those of the first Reformation in Germany France Scotland England too So chang in Church state are begun with lamentations bemoanings of the People greived overcharged carryed on with Humble Addresses Petitions end in confusion destruction Hence it appeares how dangerous it is for a Prince to countenance those Pretences to Liberty against the Prelate with in his dominions What is sawce for à goos is sawce for a gander Both hold their Authority on the same renure what strikes at one wounds the other That Principle which shakes the miter endangers the Crown who breakes the Crozier would crack the scepter for both are made sacred by the same divine Ryght Soe who dares oppose the one is disposed to shake hands with his duty to the other The differences betwixt them being no other but only as of more lesse in the same kind 2. Your care of not exposing your dear self to danger is laudable if that were so great as to exceed that of Preists in England But are Preists so safe in England Ministers in such danger at Brussels Did you blush or smile when you sayd printed this at this time of day Had you sayd it was vnsafe at Brussels it myght haue past your Prudence commended but J doubt whether that comparison was Prudent Look towards Tyburne or Tower-Hill westminister Hall or old Bayly then tell me whether it is so safe in England for Preists c. Then cast your eye back on Brussels see whether in any corner of the town you discover such Tragical scenes J grant that some nay many of the Ch. of Eng. Are so moderate as not to prosecute a Preist though known to be such J beleiue you to be of the number Yet this is no security for a Preist when knowen when any one more Zealous or malicious may cause him to be apprehended brought to the Barr where he shall vnavoydably be condemned And what greater danger can hang over a minister in Madrid or Rome it self before the face of an Inquisitor God will in due time discover the Authours of such crueltys as at certain Periods of time are exercised vpon Preists guilty of no crime vnlesse Preisthood be one I know the cheife Actors in the late Tragedy were as little freinds to the Hierarchy of the Ch. of Eng. to Monarchy too as to that of Rome that those Cricumcellions or Cannibals intended to breakfast on vs dine on the Protestant Clergy sup on the Royal Family Yet those who loue the cause do not hate the effect those who concurred to the making oppose the repealing of the penal sanguinary laws will not break their harts with greife to se them at least some times executed But you cheered vp having F. Darcy's hand word for your security And now begins the dispute SECTION III. 1. Little good from Conference 2. Catholicks ready to comply in what they can 3. Communion of Infants how beleived anciently 1. D Morley sayd There could little fruit be expected from a Conference when one side is resolved to remit nothing 2. F. Darcy Answered they would not be so stiffe in all points for the Church myght alter some
be proved to be vniversal or in vse in the Roman Church Some think the Pelagians introduced that custome that S. Austin proues thence the necessity of Baptism argumento ad hominem By a reason drawn from their own sentiments The same I say of Binius S. Austin for both speake of the practice which they found without citing any publick decree for indeed there was none ever made even by Innocent I. whom you cite For the place you mean is in his answer to a letter written to him by the Fathers of the Council of Milevis in Africa which had condemned Pelagius Celestius who taught there was no need of the grace of God to keep the commandments that children myght be saved without Baptism Innocent approves their decrees proves none can be saved without Baptism because none can be saved Without eating the Body drinking the Bloud of Christ And he addes Qui vitam ijs sine regeneratione defendunt videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare cùm praedicant hos habere quod in eos creditur nonnisi baptismate conferendum Those who hold they the children may be saved without being regenerated seeme to me to take away Baptism it self teaching that they haue without it what we beleiue is not giuen but by Baptism Thus he which words are cited by S. Austin l. 2. cont duas Ep. Pelag. c. 4. so what explicates one will serue the other both saying the same thing Where it is certain that he thinks a Participation of the Body Bloud of Christ necessary to salvation Now whether he meanes a real sacramental Participation by receiving the Sacrament or only a mystical or spiritual Participation which both you we beleiue is attained by the Sacrament of Baptism is the constant doctrine of the Church to this day seemes not so evident You say he meanes the first I say the second this is my reason He doth not speake of the participation by Communion or the Eucharist but of that by Baptism for he doth not say Cum Baptismate conferendum as if some thing different from Baptism administred with it were the medium of that Participation but Baptismate conferendum as if Baptism were the sole cause or meanes of that Participation Now the participation of Christ's body by Baptism is mystical not sacramental Therefore he speakes of the mystical Participation of Christ's Body averres that to be necessary to salvation Which both you I both Protestants Papists do admit for tru Catholick doctrine How can you then hence inferre that the Church hath erred may erre This is my first answer A second is that he S. Austin speake of participation of the Body Bloud of Christ In voto in desire which all haue are bound to haue when they are baptized .... A third is that in decrees of Faith or doctrinal we make a great difference betwixt what is Ex professo directly treated discussed defined such other things as are only accidentally mentioned Infallibility in the later points is by vs esteemed a Priviledge reserved to the writers of Holy scripture not pretended to even by general councils we make likewise a great difference betwixt a decree a reason for making the decree on which it is grounded For example in the 7. general Council it is said that Angels may be painted because they haue bodys We think our selves oblidged to beleiue Angels may be painted but not that they haue Bodys for our Divines commonly teach the contrary Now to your objection J answer that Innocent mentions only accidentally that point of Infants Communion intends by it only to proue that Baptism is necessary to salvation So the real Communion is not held by vs a decree of Faith Thus I haue once again broken that weapon which you brandish a new althô you know it had been broken in Viscount Falkland's hand whence you took it SECTION IV. 1. No possibility of salvation in schisme 2. Protestants truly Schismaticks 3. Catholicks hold their salvation desperate 4. A paralel betwixt Protestants Donatists D. Morley The Iesuit sayd that doubless it was more prudent safe to venture a man's self in that Church where in all agree he may besaved than in one where in all Catholicks say a man cannot be saved The Doctor replyed it was rather the vsual saying than the setled jugdment of all Catholicks for F. knot says the case may be such that a Protestant dying such may be saved which is as much as Protestants grant to Papists And then it would out of this reason follow it were more safe to be of the Donatists perswasion than a Catholick for S. Austin granted that a Donatist could be saved where as the Donatists did affirm that who soever was not a Donatist could not besaved Revisor all the substance of what J will here say is contained in this syllongisme None out of the true Church of Christ a schismatick can be saved The Protestants are out of the tru Church of Christ or schismaticks Therefore they cannot be saved The first Proposition or Major that none can be saved out of the tru Church of Christ is so cleere in scripture in Fathers even in Hereticks themselues that all must see it who do not wilfully shut their eyes My first Proofe the Church is the Body of Christ. Colos. 1.24 For his Christ's Body which is the Church Vpon which words S. Austin discourses thus 1. lib. Cont. Epistolam Petiliani Donat. c. 2. Vnde manifestum est eum qui non est in membris Christi Christianam salutem habere non posse Membra vero Christi per vnitatis charitatem sibi copulantur per candem capiti suo cohaerent quod est Christus Iesus Hence it is evident that who is not part of Christ's body cannot attain to Christian salvation And those are in Christs body who are linked together to their head with the loue of vnion And in his 19. Chapter Ad salutem vitam aeternam nemo pervenit nisi qui habet caput Christum Habere autem caput Christum nemo poterit nisi qui in eius corpore fuerit quod est Ecclesia No man can be saved vnlesse Christ be his Head But Christ can be head to no man who is out of his Body which is the Church My 2. proofe Rom. 8.9 If any man haue not the spirit of Christ he is none of his S. Austin alluding to these words tract 27. in Ioan says Christi spiritus neminem animat qui non sit de corpore eius Christs spirit doth quicken none but such as are in his Body that is in the Church 3. Proofe It seemes the express words of Christ Ioan. 15.6 If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch is withered men gather them cast them into the fire they are burnt This is the doom of such
18. All matters of controversy both Civil Criminal Were by God's appointment to be decided by the Testimony of two or three Witnesses Now how can any man beare witnesse if he be vncertain of what he Heares or sees How is the Iudg certain he doth not condemne an jnnocent man Revisor I suspect it not very prudent to reproach Catholick courts of judicature with condemning Jnnocent men beleiving vncertain depositions of witnesses at this time of the day Those who deny Transubstantiation can take in judgment a dog for a wolf An jnnocent man for a Traitour Peter for Iudas as well as their neyghbours Your Aversion to this insensible change hath left Protestants as obnoxious to errour as other folkes witnesse the Tall slender flaxen hayred D. Iohn the Iesuits house in Paris next dore to the Louure men seene in several places the same time one sworne to be Blundel another to be Hesketh to whome they had no neerer relation then Iaphet as for as we can discover for this I appeale to the Heralds And our last fiue ye ares transactions afford twenty other odde example which I wish were buryed in oblivion recorded no where but in God's booke of mercy amongst the sins forgiuen 3. D. M. p. 18.20 If there be no certainty of Sense why did Christ vpbraide Chorasin Bethsaide for not beleving after having so many Miracles Why doth S. Iohn to proue the word was made Flesh tell vs he saw heard handled it Why did the Angel to proue The Resurrection bid Mary Magdalen come see the place where the Lord lay As inferring if he could not be seene he was not there A shrewd inference against Transubstantiation Why did Christ bid Thomas thrust his hand into his side Why did Christ ascend into Heaven in the syght of his Disciples Why did Luke say he writ what he had from eye witnesses Why did S. Peter say he was an eye witnesse of what he writ Why was the ghospel written or preacht if we are not sure of what we See or Heare Why were tru Miracles anciently done or false ones lately pretended to Why doth the Church proue her owne Being by Notes which if Senses be fallible can ground no certainty Rev. Your Whys at this rate may reach from Genesis to the Apocalypse hooke in to boote all Ecclesiastical Hystory hold vs a long lent's Reading which would haue contributed something more to confound an Ignorant Reader tire out one who would answer you Yet you will misse even of that aime for one answer will satisfy all all your questions being grounded on one false supposition To cleere this J will vse one example We are by Divine Humane laws bound to obey the King his Officers according to their several degrees the Authority communicated to them Yet with this difference that our obedience to the King is absolute without reserue in temporal things that to his Officers is conditional only as long as they continu obedient to the King But if these command vs to take vp armes against the King do what he forbids we cease to be obliged to obey them are obliged not to obey them Jf you say as subjects we are bound to obey them who haue Commissions from the King I grant it as long as they continu in their duty but no further now multiply Queres vpon this subject till Doomes day whither at their command we are bound to take Armes to come to a Rendez vous to stand sentinel shut the gates of a towne open them seize a man dismisse him advance present giue fire retreate c To these questions one answer is sufficient Whilst they command nothing contrary to the Kings will service they are to be obeyd when we are certain they designe a Rebellion rayse men onely to destroy the King build for themselues on his ruins we are not bound to obey them but rather bound not to obey them J answer in alike manner to all your Whys Our Vnderstanding receiues some knowledge from God by either immediate or mediate Revelation some by our Senses It is a general duty to admit whatever truly comes from God We may admit what comes from senses provided it be not contrary to what God averres but if they depose any thing contrary to what God reveales either in his written or vnwritten word we must renounce them stick to the revealed Truth So if they tell me athing is Chalke God tells me it is Cheefe they must pardon me if I rather beleiue God beleiue it to the Cheefe Thus althô contrary to four Senses but not to Hearing I beleiue Transubstantiation because God reveales it I may beleiue that I see a Ship go into it to crosse the seas that I see Bread eate it when I am hungry that J see Wine drink it when J am thirsty that I see a freind rejoice in his company that I see a good action commend it That I see a crime committed procure it be redrest by publicke Iustice that I reade a Hystory or heare a story beleiue it In fine giue as full credit to the verdict of Senses as any Protestant excepting onely that point which God tells me senses are deceived in This well considered I see no reason for those dismal apprehensions from our beleife of Transubstantiation as if by it Laws were made vselesse the sword of justice broken humane society dissolved all Doctrine Divine Humane made voyde of no vse both Church state brought to confusion destruction Rivers may run vnder a bridge winds blow from the same points of the compasse Senses left to their functions we to their direction in all other things though Transubstantiation be beleived D. M. p. 21. To deny the evidence certainty of Sense is in effect to deny all Possibility of Learning or of Teaching or of Knowing or of Beleiving any thing what soever brings a necessity of being a perfect Sceptick not only in other Arts c Sciences but in divinity it selfe also Revisor To secure you against this Phantôme I appeal to common experience to shew where Scepticks in matters of Religion a bound most in the Catholick or in the Protestant Communion let that decide whither Doctrine yours or ours opens a wider dore to Scepticisme What Doctrine Divine Humane haue your Brethren Reformers spared What authority so venerable as they haue not vndermined What law of God so necessary as they haue not rendred ineffectual by teaching all the commandments are impossible What rite so sacred as they haue not derided What Article of Faith fundamental as they haue not questioned rejected And when by your insolent combating Revealed Truths you haue weakned the Church shaked to pieces Faith rooted vp what had been planted by Christ watred by the Apostles growne vp in following ages by this brought into the world
only to diminish the difficulty of the beleife of it by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery You see sir how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contradiction you charge him with for it is no contradiction to say A fire well kindled burnes matter combustible duly applyed in the furnace fire did not burne those three young men Both which we know to be tru one by experience the other by Revelation why may not such an obvious explication excuse this greate Doctor from so shamefull a fault as contradicting himself is That all quantity fills some space is a general rule that in the Sacrament it doth not is an exception from this rule Can you not vnderstand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule 3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas all the rest teach that no other body can be in more places than one at one time yet they say Christs body in the Sacrament is in many places at the same time Thus they mantain what their church hath defined though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only but of Nature sense Reason not without manifest manifold contradictions not of one another onely but even of themselues also Revisor The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas all Catholicks is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places at once that we deny that Any other body can be in two places at once Where your first fault is against Logick for you beleiue these two propositions to be contradictions they are not soe For a contradiction is Affirmatio negatio eiusdem de eodem the same thing must be sayd denyed of the same subject now here is not the same subject for Christs body other bodys are not the same Hence it is no contradiction to say Christs body is personally vnited to the word and no other body is personally vnited to the word Your second fault is more reproachfull a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments You say we teach that No other body but that of Christ can be in more places than one at the same time Which is so far from being tru that I will challenge you or any other in the world to produce any one either Divine or Philosopher of the Catholick communion who denyes to Any body a passiue capacity of being in two places when God shall determine in that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places And if I am disproved in this I am content to be thought the Impostor Had you consulted either our Phylosophers or Divines or even any of our yearly conclusions you would haue found instances enough to correct your mistake if it were not affected which I will not determine I say In that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensivè Localitèr or Desinitivè in two places the Scotists hold the contrary but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is vnexcusable Your third fault is that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity I know no other at least no better Principles of tru Divinity than Scripture Tradition Definitions of the Church Fathers If you know any better make vs happy by communicating them Now J am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these nay it is grounded on them all this you knew so well that you haue carefully avoyded all mention of them as conscious of your contradicting them all foreseing that they are rockes on which this Sensual Heresy would split it self Scriptures says It is Christs body Tradition says the same so do Fathers so doth the Church so do we Not one Egge more like another than our Doctrine is to theirs What violence then do we do to all the principles of Divinity But it is not vnusual that men who rob cry Theiues You know you cannot proue that we oppose any one principle of Divinity so you never attempt it Yet you would haue it beleived Therefore you beg it Your fourth fault is that you blame vs as faulty for going in matters of Faith against Nature Sense Reason Sir we are Disciples of S. Paul of him we haue learnt To cast downe jmaginations every hygh thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2. cor 10.6 This we practice in this other matters If in this we are blameworthy condemne him who directs vs to do so if you dare not condemne him you must absolue vs. Call to mind S. Austins words mentioned aboue in Epist ad Volusianum Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare If a reason be found out it will cease to be admirable if an example be produced it will not be singular We owne it is Admirable we professe it is Singular So we expect nether Reason nor example to confirme vs in the beleife of it That is we are nether Socinians nor Morleyans Iust so we beleiue the same Christ to be borne of a virgin thô nether Reason nor experience confirme it Yet out of some other places of scripture joyned together it appeares that Christ's body hath been in two places at the same time For we learne out of Ephes 4.10 that He ascended vp far aboue all Heavens whence Heb. 7.26 he is sayd To be Hygher then the Heavens And Act. 13.21 we reade Whome the Heavens must receiue till the time of restitution of all things that is till the vniversal Resurrection he must remaine aboue the Heavens Yet he was seene by S. Paul 1. Cor. 15.8 Act. 9. Therefore he was in two places at the same time In Heaven aboue the Heavens as the scripture says neere the Earth otherwise the Apostle could nether haue seene his Body nor heard his voice You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about Mysteryes Which being nothing to the purpose I leaue it as I find it passe to the your 19. page where I find something in which I am concerned SECTION XVI Transubstantiation is a Miracle MY reason is because it is a worke not only Besides or Aboue but Contrary to second causes Therefore it is a Miracle The illation is evident as being from the definition to the thing defined The antecedent is cleere first from the littlenesse of the space or rather the no space to which Christs Body is reduced Secondly from its being in many places at once Answer this Reason eris mihï magnus Apollo What haue you against this D. M. p. 19. Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sacrament as no doubt it would haue done if there had beene any seing no man can perceiue it Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle but what scripture calls such
Then we must blot out of our Catalogue of Miracles a greate part of those recorded in Scripture it self But you say No doubt it would haue called it so I say I doubt of it my doubt is confirmed by many instances of Miracles recorded in scripture without being called so That of rayes for example on Moses I ace But you say this was Sensible which the other is not And J say that is nothing to the purpose as I haue often shewed How ever it is evident enough for it appeares by the words of Christ that he is there our Senses tell vs that he is not visible there D. M. p. 19. It is no Miracle because it is not onely not evident to Sense but moreover it is contrary to Sense Rev. Here you serue vp againe your cold cabbadge which how insipid they were at first we haue Seene now we nauseate them Yet for four pages you afford vs no other foode D. M. p. 23. God never workes a Miracle but for some greate good End which cannot be obtained without it for God doth nothing in vaine Now such a Miracle would be to no purpose for Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing Revisor The Apostles the Fathers the Church the Faith full all over the world had haue a far different opinion of the sacramental Communion of the Body Bloud of Christ than you haue S. Paul makes vse of that consideration to moue men to try themselues before they approach the Divine Table least by receiving it vnworthily they become guilty of the Body Bloud of Christ S. Cyril of Hierusalem says that by it we are Christophori Bearers of Christ jtem Consanguinei his kinsmen S. Chrisostome yOu desire to see Christ to heare his voice to touch the hemme of his garment more is granted to you that you eate him c. Againe when describes a Preist at the Altar with quires of Angels round about him the Heavens open over his head God the holy ghost cooperating with him God the son in his hands to be offred to the Eternal Father who is aboue expecting to receiue that most gratefull offering doth all this avayle nothing Was the centurion moved with the consideration of his owne vnworthinesse being to receiue Christ vnder his roofe is our Faith so dead as to be insensible when he vouchsafes to come into our bosomes What can if this doth not stir vp in vs sorrow for having offended Almyghty God Faith in him whome we beleiue present Hope that he who hath giuen himself vnto vs will not can not refuse vs any thing And an intire sincere Loue of him who hath loved vs doth loue vs so much as to giue himself for all in general to each one in particular Besides acts of Devotion of Adoration of Humility of Zeale c. All which if you esteeme inconsiderable to Profit nothing I desire you to tell me what doth profit in the way of vertu You will say Faith And J will answer we haue that as well as you that quickned strengthned by the consideration of him really present who is both Authour Object or last end the Λ. Ω. of our Faith Jn fine S. Eucherius sayd Tria sibi Deus struxit tabernacula c. God hath set vp for himself three tents the Synagogue the Christian Church Heaven In the first there is nothing but Types of things hoped for in the last Substance without any Types in the Christian Church Substance vnder Types That same Christ who was figured to the Iews is cleerely seene enjoyed by the Blessed in Heaven being really present vnder Types on our Altars And you Protestants by denying this presence of Christ in this Divine Sacrament what do you but degrade your Communion from the dignity of a Sacrament of the new law bring it to the condition of a jewish rite of a base Beggarly element But The flesh profiteth nothing say you I grant it if it be taken carnally without spirit or Faith without discerning betwixt that other Bodily food not otherwise For can you or will you say that That flesh avayles nothing by which we were redeemed Will you say with your late tru Protestant Oracle that we were never the better for Christs being crucifyed for vs D. M. p. 24. 25. Lastly there can be no such Miracle as Transubstantiation because all Miracles are possible Transubstantiation is impossible And you send vs to see this proved in D. Whitaker Bishop Morton Mr. Chillingworth who shew say you that this implyes contradiction such things cannot be done nay it would argue rather an impotency than omnipotency in God to doe such things Revisor You had done vs appleasure Protestants would haue thought your time well spent in producing Reasons to proue this implicancy not to send vs them on this wild goose chacé to find what those learned men say in this point The meane while what you haue sayd proues nothing the beleife of Transubstantiation remaines firme God and his Church Tru. D. M. p. 27. There is therefore no such Miracle as Transubstantiation it being not onely an vselesse thing if it were so but an impossible thing that it should be lo. Revisor That Transubstantiation is a Miracle is a thing so evident to Reason that J never feare to see the Reasons for it answered That it is Vselesse impossible you say but you will never be able to persuade the first to any pious man nor the second to any learned man THE FOVRTH BOOK A REVISION OF D. M.'s ANSWER TO Mr CRESSEY'S LETTER HIS SERMON BEFORE THE KING HIS LETTER TO HER ROYAL HYGHNESSE ET HIS LETTER TO A PREIST THE PREFACE THese three pieces containing not many doctrinal Points controverted betwixt the two Churchs of Rome England will not detaine me long in reviewing your judgment declared in them especially considering that a greate part is personal of Mr. Cressey the Gun powder Plotters her R. H. which kind of things whither tru or false may be let pa se without any prejudice to the Catholick Caeuse For Personal sanctity of all Catholicks spread all over the world is a thing to be wisht not hoped for And althô some faults even of the first magnitude could be proved vpon some of them yet that ought no more to moue any man to abandon the Communion of the Church now than it did to abandon it in the Apostles times when some of her children were Detractors Gluttons Incestuous Contentious Proud Avaritious men as may be seene in S. Paul's Epistles In these indeed mention is made of a Church free from spot wrinkle that we hope for in Heaven But at present there are in the net good bad fish in the feild Corne Darnel in the barne wheate Chaffe in the house Vessells to honour to dishonour Amongst the virgins some foolish amongst the Apostles a Iudas