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
itching to be as old as the Iulian period begun before the Protoplast Some of them perhaps may have heard of the Palladium of the Conclave but for the Embroidery of the Theopneust Aholiab or the Antiquaryes Keimeliah I believe the Ladies at least were a little puzled on the sudden how to understand them yet if those pompous Sounds were translated into plain English not one of them but would easily see the sense without other Dictionary than their own Cabinet 3. As for the Doctor 's profession in his Epistle Dedicatory That his Resolution was the Sermon should never have been expos'd to the World had not his Majesty commanded it I readily beleeve him for a Victory is easily and very cheaply got if a Controversie be to be decided by a flourishing Speech confidently pronounc'd by a Person in esteem for Learning and Sincerity in a Place where none must contradict especially when he protests he has Proofs unquestionable for all his Assertions But till those Proofs be examin'd the Conquest is only over the Hearer's passions not their reason It may be and I pray God this Sermon was not meant so a good preparation to usher in the Calvinistical zeal for executing severities on innocent Persons who sincerely abhor the crimes deserving such Rigors and the unchristian Principles the Fountains of those Crimes that is on Persons against whom the Law-givers themselves have publickly professed they never intended those punishments This kind of Iustice he may hope for from his Sermon but a rational conviction will never be the effect of it 4. Truly Doctor Pierce must not blame us if we fear he had some such thoughts in his mind when he preached this Sermon so differing from the style of Court-Sermons in the times of his Majesty of glorious memory and of the late as he styles him immortal Archbishop But have we since those dayes deserved such a change in the Tongues and Pens of any Protestants especially the Clergy By what crimes Is it because we have ever since been ready and are so still unanimously to sacrifice our Blood and Fortunes for his Majesty by which also their Church hath been maintained and setled against all the irreconcileable enemies both of monarchy and It Methinks they might forgive us this fault both for past and future For we shall fall into it again if they do not take care by destroying us to prevent it 5. This suspition of ours is much encreased when we reflect on that bitter passage in his Epistle Dedicatory where he sayes I suppose my discourse however innocent in it self will yet be likely to meet with many not only learned and subtile but restless Enemies men of pleasant insinuations and very plausible snares nay such as arâ— apt where they have power to confute their Opponents with fire and faggots Indeed it is possible his Sermon may somewhere fall into some such hands But unlesse he will renounce all Charity justice and humanity he must not impute particular mens actions to Catholic Religion and for their faults expose us to the common hatred and violence Let all the received Canons of the Church be searched and if one be found that justifies the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion he may have some pretence for such an indefinite odious reflexion upon innocent suffering Christians Let all the practises of the World be examined and it will clearly appear 't is not Catholick Religion that 's chargable with these Excesses since in so many places both they are not where it is and are where it is not And though for some few of these later Ages the Civil Magistrates of some Countries have exercis'd a greater severity then anâ—iently was us'd Yet now even they have entertain'd a more calm and tractable Spirit and seem to hope by other Arguments sufficiently to secure their Religion However why must our England imitate the rigidest of other Nations against whom for that very reason we so loudly exclaim rather than the moderate proceedings of those who are nearer us both in scituation temper and interest Why thus continually be harping upon one string that jarres and never touch the rest that move in harmony 6. Our late unhappy wars have made the Preacher and many others besides him Travellers We appeal to their consciences and experience if they would be pleased to speak as Persons of honour and integrity Did they in any Catholick Countries even ROME it self though here much spoken against for cruelty ever apprehend any danger for their opinions or refusal to joyn in the exercise of Catholick Religion so they would abstain from publick scandalous affronts to the Church they had freedom not only with all quietnesse to enjoy their consciences but civilly to justifie their Doctrines All expressions of kindnesse tendernesse and compassion they received from their Catholick Opponents but surely not the least hard usage that might imprint terrour in their minds 7. Thus much may be permitted us to alledge in our own Defence upon this occasion gives us by the Preacher especially considering we are the onely persons expos'd to the publick hatred and rigour though we onely of all the Dissenters from the Religion of the Kingdom least deserve it For we are no Innovators but Professors of the same Religion that made this Nation Christian. A Religion though now too generally decryed yet in those times confirmed by great Miracles as even Protestants acknowledge A Religion which for almost a thousand years was onely known and professed here When the Reformation entred though almost all Subjects were Catholicks yet seeing the change was introduc'd by a Supream Authority no opposition was made to it by any other Aâ—mes but Prayers and Tears Whatsoever Treasons have been acted by a few wretched persons even our Princes themselves have acquitted the generality of Catholicks thereof and our Religion from allowing them There cannot be framed any Formes of professing or acknowledging due Supremacy and Allegiance to our Kings but we are ready to subscribe them in the same sense that the most learned Protestants themselves ordinarily say they intend them Publick atttestations of our fidelity and zeal in serving and defending our Princes and even the Religion of the Kingdom almost destroy'd by a Conspiracy of all other Dissenters have been made in our behalf even by some who now are most sharp against us Yet after all this of them who are not able to alledge any one of these excuses for themselves some are rendered in a capacity to Triumph over our Suffrings unrepentant Traytors are among our Accusers though it is known the thing which most enrages them is our fidelity their Invectives how false soever are believ'd and they hope to become popular for their attempts to destroy us CHAP. II. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics Schism imputed to Catholics Why necessary the Sermon should be refuted by Catholics The Answerers protestation of sincerity 1. THe Doctours Sermon for as much as concerns us Roman
meaning is that it is both dishonorable and dangerous to his Majesties Dominions that any of His Subjects should be permitted to acknowledge such a Supremacy I would I could oblige the Doctor by any exorcisms to discover sincerely the inward thoughts of his heart upon this Subject But having no such power at so great a distance I must be content to argue the Case with him once more because it is a passage that reflects not only upon the honor of Catholick Religion but the safety of all Professors of it 20. He cannot be ignorant how often and how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have protested their renouncing any acknowledgement of the least degree of Temporal power or Jurisdiction as of Right to belong to the Pope over any Subject of his Majesties It is therefore meerly a pure Spiritual authority that they acknowledge in their Supreme Pastor Is this now dishonorable Is it unsafe To whom To all Supreme Princes whether Catholics or not For Catholic Princes they protest against this Opinâ—on either of dishonor or danger If only then to other Princes or States which are dissenters from and enemies to Catholick Religion then Nero and Diocletian had reason and justice on their sides when they persecuted a Religion dishonorable and dangerous to the Roman Empire For evidently neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their Spiritual Authority independent on the Emperors 21. Nay more let the Doctor himself consider lest He and his both Brethren and Fathers the Bishops be not more deeply involved in the guilt for which he desires the Catholics only should suffer They themselves acknowledge in despite of so many Statutes to the contrary a pure Spiritual Authority in their Bishops not derived from the King they promise a Canonical obedience to them they do not so to the King therefore they admit a Jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the Root For tho' for example a publick denunciation of Excommunication in their Spiritual Courts or the conferring of Orders or determining points of Faith c. without the Kings consent may expose them in case they exercise such Functions to some danger from the Law of the Kingdom yet they will justifie such acts to be in themselves valid that is perform'd with sufficient authority See Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort p. 366. Bishop Carleton of Jurisdict Reg. Episcop c. 1. p. 9. c. 4. p. 39 42. Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded p 61 63 92. Answer to Bishop of Chalced. p. 161. Doctor Ferns Discovery of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. Doctor Tailor Episcopacy asserted p. 236 237 239 243 Mr. Thornd Right of Ch. c. 4. p. 234. Epilog l. 1. c. 8. p. 54. l. 1. c. 19 20. l. 3. c. 32. Which Quotations if any intelligent Reader will take the pains to peruse and consider he may clearly see what limitations they make in the sense of that Oath of Regal Supremacy which Oath yet they freely take in the full latitude of its words though these expresse not any of the said limitations Amatter which hath not passed unobserved by Mr. Thorndyke in his Iust Weights c. 20. who there conceives great reason why the Kingdom for this should enact a new Oath 22. But if I should address my Speech now to Presbyterians and their Consistories the Case is far more evident They are so far from permitting to the King a Supremacy of Authority in their Ecclesiastical Courts if such conspiracies may be called Ecclesiastical that they will not so much as allow him any authority at all in such transactions Nay they will exempt him no more than his meanest Subject from subjection to them The like may be said of other Sects which though they are not guilty of the Presbyterian tyranny yet are as averse from granting his Majesty any Supremacy in matters of Religion as either Presbyterians Protestants or Roman Catholics But I am now to deal with the Preacher and his Protestants I therefore desire them to compare themselves and Roman Catholics together as to this point of honor and safety to his Majesty and his Dominions 23. Is it dishonorable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely Spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom this whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity together with the whole Christian world submitted it self as to their Supreme Pastor And is it Honorable that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his Majesties own Subjects Again is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian Vnity's sake should be professed to one Venerable Prelat a 1000. miles off and is there no danger in making the same Profession to so many at home who besides their spitual authority have a right to concur in the enacting and executing Civil laws too and who we see can either exalt or depresse according to their Interests and advantages the Royal Prerogative 2. To resolve such Questions as these but also so to resolve them as becomes a Preacher of the Gospel of peace and truth would be a subject worthy the stating in a Court-Sermon But it must be don without transgressing the precise limits of the question that is by comparing the state of Catholic Religion as professed and practised for example in France Venice Germany c. with the reformed Religion in England the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the former with that of the latter and then judging whether of the two bring more security and honor to their Princes and are more effectual upon the consciences of Subjects to breed them up in peace and obedience For my own part simply as a Catholic my desire and prayers are that Gods divine truth may prevail in all our hearts but so prevail by those wayes of Charity Patience Justice and Piety with which it first conquered the World And as a Subject of the Crown of England my Prayers are that we may be all united in the profession of that only Religion which more perfectâ—y and most indispensibly gives to Caesar the things which are Caesar 's and to God the things which are God's 25. I will row for a farewel to these Testimonies of our Catholic Fathers add the Votes of the Fathers also of the Reformation that he may see how far more ingenuously they write then himself has donâ— touching the Popes Primacy And first I will produce two or three who though they oppose it as he does as a Novelty yet allow a far greater age to it Doctor Fulk most unchronologically says that five or six hundred years before Pope Leo and Pope Gregory that is almost an hundred years before Christ was born the mystery of Iniquity wrought in the See of Rome and then daily encreased they were so deceived with long continuance of error that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles then the Holy Scriptures do allow Archbishop Whitgift assures us that the Papal
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
seen and felt too Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us Nay thanks to such Sermons we see at this day Edicts severe enough published and worse preparing not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion as the Lutherans were against the Empire but against such as the Law-givers and Law-perswaders know mean no harm against such as would be both most watchful assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom Edicts to draw all the remainder of blood out of our veinâ— which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign and the prudent moderation of those about him 16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the gracious clemency of our Kings But the uncharitable Sermons that call for blood inspire fury into mens hearts make compassion esteem'd unlawful and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion The truth is Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom which Sources if they had been open'd by such as Smectymnâ—us whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction Sustinuissemus utique and so we shall do still with the help of Grace by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est quod fecit bonum est Sit nomen Domini benedictum AMEN PSAL. 108. 3. 73. 2. Pro co â—t me dâ—ligerent detrahebant mihi Ego autem or aham Memento Congregationis tue quam possâ—disti AB INITIO FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general Sect. 1 2. What was probably the design of it 3 4. Catholicks persecuted though their best friends 6 7. CHAP. II. Page 8. Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics 2. Schism imputed is them 3. Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted 4 5. The Answerers Protestation of sincerity 6 7. CHAP. III. Page 13. B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor 1 5. Primitive Reformers Acknowledgment 2 3 4. The Doctors Notion of Beginning 6. Questions proposed touching that Notion 8. 9 10 11. CHAP. IV. Page 29. The sum of the Doctors Discourse against the Popes Supremacy enervated by himself 1. 2 3. The Churches Doctrine therein 4. The Text Mark 10. 42. cleared 5 6. CHAP. V. Page 36. The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Popes Authority as exercised during the Four General Councils 1 2. Of the Title of Universal Bishop 3 4 5. Not generally admitted at this day 6 7. CHAP. VI. Page 44. The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church 1 2 3. Supremacy of Iurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors 4 5 6 7. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal 8. Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople Sect. 9 10. CHAP. VII Page 54. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian 1 2. Decrees of Popes their Ancient force 3 4. The Popes Supreme Iurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church 5 6 7 8 9. Appeals to the See Apostolick decreed at Sardiea British Bishops present 11 12. Of the first Council at Arles 13 14. Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained 15. 16 17. CHAP. VIII Page 67. Proofs of the Popes Supreme Jurisdiction before first Council of Nâ—ce 2 3 5. How all Apostles and all Bishops equâ—l and how subordinate 6 7. St. Peter had more then a Primacy of Order 8. 9 10. Of St. Pauls resisting St. Peter 11 12. Objections Answered 13 15. The Popes Supremacy not dangerous to States On the contrary c. 18 20 22. Protestants writing in favour of it 25 26. CHAP. IX Page 89. The Churches Infallibility 2 3 4. The Necessity thereof 8 9. The Grounds whereon she claims it 10 12 14 15. Objections Answered 16 18. CHAP. X. Page 109. Prayer for the dead 3 4 5. It s Apostolick Antiquity 6 7 9. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it 11 12. Objections Answered CHAP. XI Page 121. Transubstantiâ—â—ion 2 3 4 6 8. Iustified by Authority of the Fathers 10. Objections Answered Sect. 12 14 1â— CHAP XII Page 137. Communion under one Species 2. â—onfirmâ—d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions 3 4 5 6. No cause of Separation 7 8. CHAP. XIII Page 143. The Sacrifice of the Masâ— 1. Asserted universally by Antiquity 2 3 4. The true Doctrine concerning it explain'd 5 6 7. CHAP. XIV Page 151. Veneration of Images 1. The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason 2 13. CHAP. XV. Page 163. The Churches prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned 2. 4 5. Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence 6. Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue 7 8. The Causes and Grounds thereof 9. 10. That Pracâ—ise not contrary to St. Paul 11 12 13. CHAP. XVI Page 178. Invocation of Saintâ— 2 3 4 5 6. Proved out of Antiquity 7 8 9 10. Concessions Deductions and Objections Answered â—1 adult CHAP. XVII page 201. Celibacy of Priests 2 3 4. Vows of Chastity 5 6. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both 9 10. Objections Answered 10 13 14 15 CHAP. XVIII page 219. Dovorce and the several kindes of it 2. 3 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Prâ—â—cher 8 to 17. CHAP. XIX page 225. Of Schism Sect. 1. The unpardonableness of that oâ—ime acknowledgâ—d by Antiquity 2 4 6. No cause or pretence can excuse it 7 8. CHAP. XX. page 233. The Preacher vainly endeavâ—rs to excuse his Church from Schism 3 4 5. and chapter 21. Sect. 15 16. Of the Subordination of Church-Governours and Synods 13 The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity 8. Of the decisions of later Councils 9 10 11 12. CHAP. XXI page 249. The Fundamental Rule of Church Government 1 2 Limitations of the Authority of General Councils 5 6. Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd Dr. Field c. 3 4. Of Points Fundamental and non 7 8 12 Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Saâ—hedrim 13 14. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus 17. CHAP. XXII page 265. Limitations of the Churches Authority by A. B. Lawd c. examin'd 1 2 3 4. Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered 5 6. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation 7. 8 9 10 11â— Secular and carnal ends in it 12 13. CHAP. XXIII page 28â— The Doctâ—rs Proofs alledged 〈◊〉 justifie the English Separation answered 1 2. 1. From the independent Authority of our Kings 3. 2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperâ—rs 4 5. 3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings 6.
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