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
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
Queen called both a Parliament and a Convocation of the Clergy Which Convocation unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion restored by Queen Mary and publickly declared against such an intended Reformation Particularly the body of the inferiour Clergy composed certain Articles of Religion which they tendred to the Bishops and the Bishops in the Name of the whole Clergy presented them to the Lord Keeper The said Articles were these five 1. Of the real substantial presence of our Lord's body after Consecration 2. Of the non-remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine 3. Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Masse 4. Of the Supreme Spiritual Iurisdiction of the Pope 5. That the power not only of defining but even treating and ordering of Ecclesiastical matters touching Doctrine and Discipline pertains only to Spiritual Pastors and not at all to Lay persons A little after this during the same Convocation there came from both the Vniversities a Writing signed by a Publick Notary by which they both signified their Concurrence to the aforesaid Articles only with a little alteration of the last 10. I have thought fit to annex here the very words of that Convocation as Dr. Fuller transcribed them out of the Synodal Book 1559. Reverendi in Christo Patres as Domini Colendissimi QVoniam Famâ Publicâ— referente ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit â— multa Religionis Christianae Dogmata publico unanimi gentium Christianarum consensu hactenus recepta probata atque ab Apostolis ad nos usque concorditer per manus deducta praesertim Articulos infra scriptos in dubium vocari Hinc est quod Nos Cantauriensis Provinciae inferior Secundarius Clerus in uno Deo sic disponente ac Sereniissimae Dominae nostrae Reginae Decani Capitali Cant Mandato Brevi Parliamenti ac monitione Ecclesiasticâ solitâ declaratâ id exigente convenientes partium nostrarum esse existimavimus tum nostrae tum eorum quorum cura nobis committitur saluti omnibus quibus poterimus modis prospicere Quocirca Majorum nosâ—rorum exemplis commoti qui in similia saepe tempora inciderunt fidem quam in Articulis infra Scriptis veram esse credimus ex animo profitemur ad Dei laudem honorem Officiisque aliarum nostrae curae commissarum animarum exonerationem presentibus duximus publice afferendam affirmantes sicut Deus nos in die Iudicij adiuveâ— asserentes 1. Quod in Sacramento Altaris virtute Christi verbo suo à Sacerdote deâ—ite prolato assistentis praesens est realiter sub speciebus panis vini naturale Corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Mariâ Item naturalis ejus sanguis 2. Item Quod post Consecrationem non remanet substantia panis vini neque ulla alia substantia nisi substantia Dei Hominis 3. Item Quod in Missâ— offertur verum Christi corpus verus ejusdem sanguis Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis 4. Item Quod Petro Apostolo ejus legitimis Successoribus in sede Apostolicâ tanquam Christi Vicario data est suprema potestas pascendi regendi Ecclesiam Christi militantem fratres suos confirmandi 5. Item Quod authoritas tractandi definiendi de iis quae spectant ad fidem Sacramenta disciplinam Ecclesiasticam hactenus semper spectavit spectare debet tantum ad Pastores Ecclesiae quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc in Ecclesia Dei posuit non ad Laicos Quam nostram assertionem affirmationem fidem nos inferior Clerus praedictus vestris Paternitatibus tenore praesentium exhibemus humiliter supplicantes ut quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam et intentionem aliter illis quorum in hac parte interest notificandi Vos qui Patres estis ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis Qua in re officium charitatis ac pietatis ut arbitramur praestabitis saluti gregis vestri ut par est prospicietis vestras ipsi animas liberabitis But what effect had these Declarations and Protestations of the whole representative Clergy and Universities All that could be got was a Disputation the orderly proceeding whereof and conclusion may be seen in Fox and Camden A. D. 1559. Neither can the salvo used by M. Thorndick who proceeds somewhat otherwise in this point then the Arch-Bishop or Dr. Field be rationally admitted here Who first yields that if the Clergy of that time when the Reformation began he means the Clergy in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign had been supported in that Power which by the premises in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy the Reformation could not have been brought to pass and grants that secular power gave force to that which was done contrary to the Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisted But yet justifies the Reformation thus He saith that as the power of the Church obliging Christians to their Dicisions is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the Unity and edification of the Church c. So also there are abundance of other Laws given to the Church by our Lord and his Apostles And that therefore if by injurie of the times the practice of the Church become contrary to these Lawes given by Christ and his Apostles or if those whom the power of the Church is trusted with shall hinder the restoring of such Lawes of Christ and his Apostles the Soveraign Power being Christian may and ought to suppress their power though he grants this their power to be an Ordinance of the Apostles necessary to the Unity of the Church that so their power may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the Superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles A thing saith he throughly proved both by the right of Secular powers in advancing Christianity with penalties and in establishing the exercise of it and in particular by all the examples of the pious Kings of Gods people reducing the Law into practice and suppressing the contrary thereof Thus Mr. Thorndicke takes this way of freeing the English Reformation from Schism upon the just Reforming power of the secular Prince against all or most of his Clergy when he judgeth them to teach or practise against the Doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles But all this while he never so much as asks the question what if the Prince be mistaken in these Doctrines which he calls of our Lord and his Apostles Or be mistaken in what the Ancient Church and primitive times have delivered for such And what if all the Clergy which he opposeth be in the right Nor this What if our Lord hath committed this to the Clergy and Successors of the Apostles to judg and decide for ever when any doubt or dispute ariseth what are the true Lawes of our Lord and his Apostles Or what ancient Tradition hath delivered to posterity for such
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