to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants 6. However to qualifie a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion or Hyperaspista as he calls it somthing must be said thiâ— hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes And first whereas in all points now in debate between us he so often repeats From the Beginning it was not so He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties Novelties of so great importance as to justifie a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western And that is the time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality but because an Act of Parliament obliges him wherein it is said That such persons Laicks or Ecclesiasticks to whom Queen Elizabeth shall by Letters patents under the great Seal of England give authority to execute any Iurisdiction spiritual or to correct any Errors Heresies Schisms c shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresâ— by the express and plain words of the said Canâ—nical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 7. By this Proviso it appears that though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects who will call all things Novelties which they think are not in express Scripture yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Council that in the Opinion of Commissioners judged Heresy by express Scripture or to future Acts of Parliament judging after the same manner but we are content with and thank him for his allowance 8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion As first Does he submit only to the four first General Councils because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word If the former then he must inform us why only four Councils have such authority which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose If the later then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents Quakers c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council than as that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture which whether it does or no who must be Judge Doctor Pierce To answer this Question well will be a great Master-piece I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself as shall be seen before we part too hard I say to resolve so that any rational man can be satisfied with 9. A second Question is Whether to judge of Heresy that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy and what is conformable to Scripture be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners but ordinarily in the Parliament And this not being possible to be denyed then he must be further ask'd since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed That General Councils may and have err'd whether the English judge of Heresy be it the King as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th or the Parliament also as in Queen Elizabeths be infallible or no If he acknowledge it infallible he must resolve us whether the Supreme Temporal Authority with the assent of the Clergy be infalliâ—le only in England or in other Countrys also as Holland Swedland c. If the former he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone If the later then it will follow that that may and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea But if no such Authority be indeed infallible then it will follow that Decisions made by it do not oblige in Conscience and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so I mean oblige not only to non-contradiction but to internal assent The consequences of which Position he may imagin and shal see anon 10. A third Question is Whether since Presbyterians and Independents and all such Reformed Churches following the Heresy of Aerius do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction that is the whole frame of God's Church manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils and as is here affirmed of Divine Right by expresse Scripture whether I say they be not according to this Rule formal Heretics or however Schismatics since to alter this Frame they relinquish'd both this Church and ours And especally for their denying the Supream Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority to be in Temporal Governors which yet the Statute tells us in effect is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church If all this do not render them Heretics or at least in the highest degree Schismatics what will become of this Act of Parliament and his Primitive Rule of Reformation If they be such what will become of the English Church which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship and acknowledges them holyChristianâ— Reformed Congregations And on the other side since notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics and this meerly for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception which yet no other Diffenters from this Church though real Heretics and Schismatics either have or I fear will do 10. A fourth Question shall be how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture and mis-applying through the whole Sermon his Text to the prejudice of his Church He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern or Primitive Rule of Reformation and consequently as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal because Ab initio non fuit sic So the Dâ—ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
Religion of their Fore-Fathers even King Henry the Eighth for all his Headship never pretended so far Of this I dare accept as Judge even Sir Edward Coke himself and Balsamon likewise though a malicious Schismatick therefore the fitter to be quoted by him yet all he sayes is That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches that he can limit or extend the Iurisdiction of Metropolitans erect new ones c. which whether by the ancient Lawes of the Church he can do or no is little for the Preachers purpose I am sure he is not able to prove it or if he could it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn 7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes is that of the Kings of Iuda in which indeed Religion it self was Reformed But withal the Doctor may do well to take notice 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reformed all the Priests or the High Priest or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves 2. They are not said to have reformed the people against the Priests 3. Or without the Priests 4. Yea in several places we read they were by the Priests assisted in their Reformation And therefore Bishop Andrews who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church as might be says only that those Kings did reform citra or ante declarationem Ecclesiae but he saies not contra And to make good his citra or ante hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments a Negative thus There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture ergo there was none The infirmity of which argument is much more visible if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles containing a relation of so many hundred years and chiefly of the actions of Kings not of the Clergy 8. It cannot indeed be denied but that in such publick changes the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual and therefore no wonder if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of especially in so very short a story But certainly according to Gods Institution the Priests lips are to preserve knowledge and it is from their mouths that Kings are to learn Gods Law and what they are to Reform because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now for Reformations or other Ecclesiastical Ordinances made by such Kings as David Solomon c. who besides a Regal Authority were Prophets likewise immediately inspired and so employed by God I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth the young child his Son or youngest Daughter no Prophets surely 9. To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive which as he sayes set on work the English Reformers of happy Memory which was their observing that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partizans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denunciation Gal. 1. 8. 10. But to omit his contradictions charging us with hideous errors in Faith which yet he dare not say are Fundamental lest he ruine his own Church To omit his uncivil language to the Bishops of that Council persons of too honourable a quality to be called by a little Doctor contemners of the Apostles denunciation conspirators liable to a curse To omit his commending the first English Reformers our Kings c. that they consulted not with fleth and blood then which what could be said more unluckily to himself Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual Do not your self confess that Sacriledge and Rebellion help'd Reformation To omit his petty Quibble that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Brittain Directly contrary not only to many of his brother Divines but to the Head of his Church King Iames who in a publick Speech to his Parliament says I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church To omit all these and more I shall desire the Doctor to take notice that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty nor is it a Novelty that the Churches Adversaries should make such an objection concerning which the Reader may please to review what has been said before chap. 20. Sect. 9. 10. 11. 11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers that the Church hath been forced to make such as they call them new Articles of Faith For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to do when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practises were question'd and condemned by Innovators As yet such Doctrines c. having never formerly been opposed except by inconsiderable Hereticks Such as Iovinian Vigilantius c. whose Errors before any Council could take notice of them soon after they appeared withered away again were visible only in the consent and practise of Catholicks But now it was necessary to declare Conciliariter that they were unjustly question'd either of Error or Novelty Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils For fear of new Articles must liberty be given to new Heresies Old Articles such as the Church had formerly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them therefore new ones must be excogitated says the Council New ones that is Old ones further explained Or Old Practises newly declared to be Traditions 12. But surely these which are mentioned by the Doctor and related to in his margin are no new Articles Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils and all were as old at least as Christianity in England For even St. Gregory who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel is accused by learned Protestants of all or most of these very Novelties which the Preacher objects Doctor Humphrey accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium c. that they brought into England Purgatory Oblation of the salutary Host and Prayers for the Dead Relicks Transubstantiation To which Osiander adds That the same Gregory vehemently urged Celibacy of the Clergy Invocation and Worship of Saints nay that the Idolatrous Veneration of Images also was by him approved excused defended To which Carrion in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those dayes adds That when he tragically exclaim'd that he abhorred the Appellation of Vniversal Bishop yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies in his