the liberty to propose his Argument am ready to heare him SECTION X. 1. The Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. D Morley's argument against it returned vpon him 4. Nether scripture nor Church prejudiced by our Doctrine 4. Nor senses 1. D. Morley The Doctrine of Transubstantiation Or the Church of Rome's Interpretation of those words This is my Body Is that in Sacrament of the Altar the whole substance of Bread is changed into the Body the whole substance of wine into the Bloud of Christ so that after Consecration there Remains nether Bread nor wine but only the Body Bloud of Christ vnder the species or accidents of Bread wine Revisor Why you should say it is the sentiment of the Church of Rome particularly when it is common to all other Oriental Christians is not hard to guesse at you would insinuate what you dare not speake out it is so evidently false that she the Ch. of R. stands alone in this point of Doctrine whereas all other Christian Churchs extant when your Reformation began agreed in substance with that of Rome their mother in this point But let that passe J acknowledge that you represent our sentiment ryght What haue you to say against it 2. D. Morley Against this Position I argue thus that which frustrates all the vse end of scripture cannot be the tru interpretation of any one place of it But that interpretation of those words of scripture frustrates all the end vse of scripture Therefore the Ch. of Romes interpretation of this place of scripture cannot be tru I proue the minor or second proposition thus that which necessarily implyes our Senses are or may be deceived in their proper objects so that what all men's Senses represent as one thing may be is indeed another must needes frustrate all the end vse of all scripture But that interpretation doth necessarily imply that our senses may be are deceived in their proper objects by teaching that to be Flesh Bloud which to all men's Senses appeares to be Bread wine Therefore our interpretation of those words doth frustrate the vse end of all scriptures Revisor I deny the minor or second Proposition of your first syllogisme To the proofe of it 1. I will let the maior or first Proposition passe althô it be not tru for mine all men's senses in the world represent the moone bigger in the east west then in the south which is evidently falfe yet the Scripture is not Frustrated by that Epidemical errour of all men's Senses Our Reason is superiour to Senses doth correct that errour without prejudicing Scripture by it why may not Faith which is superiour to both Sense Reason correct both when they go astray yet Scripture remaine entire seing Faith is but the Doctrine of Sripture as it were its soul Yet I will Gratis admit your Maior 2. I deny your minor or second Proposition for it appeares to no man's Hearing to be Bread wine but Flesh Bloud This is my Body this is my Bloud are the expresse words of Christ now sir you know out of the Apostle I haue minded you of it that Faith comes by Hearing And Hearing is not mistaken in this matter Hence S. Thomas of Aquin. Visus Tactus Gustus in te fallitur Sed auditu solo tuto creditur Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius Nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius We acknowledg that Syght Feeling Tast are mistaken here we correct their mistake by the expresse word of God by Hearing conveyghed to our minds to which word we owe greater obedience than to all our Senses together So your minor is false Thus your Conclusion that Our jnterpretation doth frustrate make voyde the end vse of scripture that came limping in on two bullrushes for crutches fals to the ground one of them being broken the other insufficient to beare such a weyght 2. Now I desire you to shew your skill in sophistry answer this syllogisme by which I draw the same Conclusion out of your Doctrine exposition of Christ's words That interpretation which is plainely contradictory to the expresse words of Scripture doth frustrate the end vse of Scripture But such is your interpretation of those words of Christ Therefore your interpretation frustrates the end vse of Scripture The maior or first Proposition is evident for what vse can be made of Scripture to what intent can it serve if we take the liberty to beleiue teach the direct contrary Doctrine to what it delivers For example if when the scripture says God Created Heauen Earth we say God did not create Heauen Earth When it says The word was in the beginning We say The word was not in the beginning When it says The word was made Flesh we say The word was not made Flesh. And so of the rest What can Scripture signify to what vse to what intent can it serue when such interpretations are made of it Soe my maior stands good The minor 2. Proposition is evident that Such is your jnterpretation of Christ's words For Scripture says That is Christ's Body you say That is not Christ's Body Scripture says That is Christ's Bloud you say That is not Christ's Bloud Let those frame an interpretation more opposit to Scripture who can I confesse my skil in Logicke reachs not to frame any more directly opposite I feare you will find it as much harder to answer this Argument than J shall to answer yours as it is to cure a real than to cure afeigned sicknesse 4. D Morley p. 4. All scripture being written for our learning as S. Paul Says it is there being no other meanes whereby we can come to know what is written in Scripture but our Senses either reading it our Selues or hearing it read if I be not certain of what I see when I reade my selfe nor of what I heare when I am read to by others it is impossible for me to know what the Scripture teacheth by consequence the Scripture it self must be vselesse or to no purpose Thus you Here Goliath like you bring a sword to cut off your owne head We say the words of Scripture are cleere that whither we Reade or Heare them they signify the same thing we vnderstand them in their plaine obvious sense as any man would vnderstand them who is resolved to submit his reason to them which we doe not make them stoop to some of our fleshly Senses as you doe Wherefore your method interpretation frustrates all vse of Scripture ours leaues it in its full force vigour You make Scripture weare the chaines of Senses we bind senses Reason too to the triumphant chariot of Scripture Then you discover an vnexpected concerne for the Church Authority after having spent your whole life in fyghting against it as if that were prejudiced by our Doctrine Not only the scripture
A REVISION OF DOCTOR GEORGE MORLEI'S IVDGMENT IN MATTERS OF RELIGION OR AN ANSWER TO SEVERAL TREATISES WRITTEN BY HIM VPON SEVERAL OCCASIONS CONCERNING THE CHVRCH OF ROME AND MOST OF THE DOCTRINES CONTROVERTED BETWIXT HER AND THE CHVRCH OF ENGLAND TO WHICH IS ANNEXT A TREATISE OF PAGAN IDOLATRY BY. L. W. Permissu Superiorum 1683. THE PREFACE SEing my Lord of Winton is pleased to wipe off that odious aspersion of his being a Papist which myght in the late conjuncture haue cost him his civil endangered his natural life by declaring not only his judgment in matters of Religion but also the grounds on which it relyes contained in severall treatises long since compounded but never till now made publick I presume he will not be offended that with the respect due to his quality of Peere of the Realme these be reviewed Reviewed I say for althô Appellations lye only to hygher Revisions are committed to equal or even inferiour courts He protests he is no Papist I think so too I wish it were as easy to cleere him of Calvinisme of which he ownes pag. XII that he hath beene suspected to it he seemes enclined when he says that God by Miracles promoted the Jdelatrous worship of the Pictures Relickes of Saints This I think in reality is to make God the Authour of sin Which Blasphemy I do not beleiue the Church of England will owne thô it be a choice flower in Calvin's garden He declares his loyalty to the government establisht the Royal Family c. And J beleiue him in this also nay I judge as favourably of the greatest part of his rank moreover that they are loyal not only for their Interest but for conscience out of a sense of their duty to God their soveraigne their country that he they will oppose to their Power Schisme in the Church Faction in the State Yet I think all their endeavours will be ineffectual to prevent ether considering the constitution of the Protestant Church qualifications of its Clergy For as in some natural Bodyes there is a defect which maugre all care of Physitians cuts the thred of life before it be spun to its ordinary length so in some Bodyes Politick that of the English Protestant Church in particular Here are some reasons to proue this 2. The first Protestancy is a Schisme those who liue in it liue in a Schisme It is a Schisme because it is a party separated from the whole Catholick Church Luther was a Schismatick so was Calvin so was Zuinglius so was each Patriark of your Reformation for each of these at their first breaking forth left the Whole Catholick Church or Congregation of Christians of what denomination soever not any one single Person in the whole world to whome he or they did joine himself So that if ever any man was truly Schismatick each one of these was such Wherefore all who joined to them as all Protestants did were Schismaticks Now it is not probable that God will giue that greate Blessing of Ecclesiasticall Peace to Schismaticks who hate it oppose it My 2. is Protestants are Hereticks that is Choosers of the points which they beleiue For the Catholick Church delivered to her children not only what they beleiue but also many articles which they reject Each Protestant takes this complex examins it finding some Articles not to please him he casts them out of his creede Hence one rejects the Real presence another Free will A third Merits a fourth the Possibility of keeping God's Commandments c. Each one culling out what Articles he pleases composing of them not a Catholick but a Protestant Faith not a Faith of the Ghospels but of this time their Phancyes What more evident signes of Hereticks Now if they be such can we think them fit instruments to oppose Heresy who did introduce do still defend it This shall be further confirmed by my fifth Reason My 3. Protestants are a Cadmean broode they sprung out of the Earth armed no sooner did their soveraigne Lords see their faces but they felt their Jron hands Witnesse Germany France Hungary Bohemia Scotland swethland Denmark the Low countryes Geneva Our English Protestants say they are not concerned in these Rebellions but that is not tru for by approving applauding them they make them their owne encourage the Practice by commending the precedent With what force can they teach Obedience to his Majesty who praise Rebellion against other Or divert men from Treason who transforme Traitors into Heroes canonize Regicides My 4. There nether is nor ever was any Authority vnder the Heavens better grounded than that of the Catholick Clergy consisting of the Pope Bishops was before the Reformation It was establisht by Christ setled by the Apostles ratifyed by general particular Councils confirmed by an vninterrupted Possession of almost fifteene hundred yeares backt by all Laws Ecclesiastical Civil acknowledged by all Christians then aliue What gentleman can say so much for his estate What officer for his Authority What King for his crowne What Parson for his Tith What Protestant Bishop for his miter When a Calvin a Luther c. to say no more private men starte vp declame against that Clergy as a humane invention an Antichristian establishment you applaude them with them trample vnder feete the whole sacred Order teach your followers no submission no obedience is due to it When you haue taught them to breake such cables can you expect to bind them to their duty with single threds The English Protestant pretence to Bishops doth no satisfy 1. Because in reality they had no canonical ordination as we say proue 2. Althô they had imposition of hands were real Bishops which we deny See Anti-Haman Chapt. xxxv yet They entred not by the doore but climed vp some other way Iohn X. 1. Were not promoted according to any canonical forme ether ancient or moderne Wherefore what can we judge of them but according to Christ's words Loco citato 3. Your first Protestants promoted their Religion Spreade their noveltyes contrary to all even English Bishops in contempt of them first in Henry VIII his time Tindale others Secondly in Q. Elizabeths time when all the Bishops aliue detested your Reformation were for that stript of their jurisdiction deposed from their seates confined What wonder then your followers doe not regard that Crosier which you haue broken nor honour the Miter which they haue seene you trample vnder your feate Lastly suppose your Bishops wereas validly canonically consecrated as any ever were can you say that their Authority is better grounded than that of all the Catholick Clergy Sure you cannot pretend to better grounds for your Authority than our Clergy had As it was than lawfull laudable to three or four private men to contradict our whole Clergy then in being why may not
for his future subsistance Rev. You boast much of the perfection of your Reformation yet were never able to get it approved by any one externe Church of what denomination soever how many or rather how few do vniversally approue it in England appeares by the number of your Sectaryes Schismaticks At what tribunal haue you not beene condemned whereever you appeared The Pope hath anathematized your Reformation so hath the General Council of Trent that Church representatiue This Amphibium this your Anonimous Preist says you appealed to the Church diffusiue which he gathers by the Apologyes you publisht for all men to see But you haue had as ill successe here as at Trent or Rome having never been able to find any one Kingdome or Province or Citty or any considerable number of particular men who in all things approue your Reformation So that you are in this inferiour to the Lutherans to Calvinists to Anabaptists to Adamists nay to Independents Quakers c. Who all haue in several countryes some of their Perswasion but of yours none out of England how many even there owne their vocation to your Reformation more to the Royal Authority than to the force of the Truth you teach or the Beauty of your Church which you commend D. M. p. 63. Prudence obliges him to the same for He can hardly be safe any where beyond seas by joining with vs he will as also find provision for his subsistence which you say you will vndertake shall not be wanting Rev. You sow the fox's skin to that of a Lyon Spiritual motiues falling short you piece them out with Temporal When we call to mind that within these fifty yeares your whole Church was turned out of God's Blessing into the warme sun that within these fiue yeares she was very neere the same fate we may conclude that there is not much greater assurance of your Temporal than of your Spiritual promises Here I obserue two things The first that Temporal motiues are never omitted when there is any hopes of gaining a Proselit Indeed they are your best Card as appeares by your vsing it so frequently by vsing it you shew what weyght it hath with you The second that in this you differ very much from Papists who propose hopes of eternal life indeed but as for this they promise nothing but what Christ promist his Disciples 30.16.32 In mundo pressuram habebitis you shall be hated calumniated persecuted imprisoned Opprest hanged In this world But better all this than to loose your soul by Schisme Heresy D. M. p. 64. It remaines therefore that being obliged to quit the Communion of the Church of Rome joine with ours of England you are obliged to do this speedily c. Rev. All this falls to the ground for there nether is nor can be an obligation to quit the Church of Rome there being an obligation to conforme to her to submit to her devisions in matter of Divine Truths to renounce all errours contrary to the tru Doctrine of Faith which she teachs will teach to the end of the world Imprimatur Act. in Vïc die duodecima May 1683. De Mand. Ampliss ac RR. adm DD. meorum praefat B. D. SECRET DUARUM EPISTOLARUM GEORGII MORLAEI S.T.D. ET EPISCOPI WINTONIENSIS AD IANVM VLITIUM REVISIO In quâ de Orationibus pro Defunctis Sanctorum Invocatione Dijs Gentilium Idololatriâ agitur AVTHORE IOANNE WARNERO S. I. THEOLOGO M.DC.LXXXIII Superiorum Permissu PRAEFATIO DVae istae Epistolae quarum summam tibi hic exhibeo Erudite Lector vná cum responsionibus ad earum singula capita pars sunt Libri ante quinque circiter menses in Angliâ typis editi á Dom. ac Mag. nostro Georgio Morlaeo S. T. D. Oxoniensi ac Episcopo Wintoniensi qui Regem exulem olim secutus inter Catholicos degens aliqua zeli sui pro matre suâ Ecclesiâ Protestanticâ Anglicana specimina dedit cum vivâ voce tum calamo varia Fidei Ortodoxae capita impugnando Quae omnia libro isto continentur additis alijs quae Patriae postliminio restitutus dixit scripsit Adeoque complexus est hoc vno volumine quod cento vocari potest ex varijs tractatibus conflatus nihil praeter odium in Ecclesiam orthodoxam commune habentibus hoc inquam complexus est quidquid longissimo vitae tempore octogenario major est adversus varia Ecclesiae Romanae dogmata improbo labore continuo studio colligere potuit Putabamus bonum Senem contentionum istiusmodi pertaesum cogitare cogitationes Pacis charitatem potius quám schisma promovere malle vnionem inter discordes Ecclesias illi cordi esse quam Prudentiores multi ex illâ sectâ aut seriò aut simulatè optant Et quidem aetas ingravescens planè capularis vt receptui caneret suadebat turpe fenex miles Cum ecce subitò nemine de certamine ab illo futuro cogitante in arenam descendit seniles lacertos juveniliter jactat de victorijs praeteritis sibi gratulatur easque ita praedicat vt non senili Prudentiâ sed juvenili levitate sortis humanae propriae infirmitatis parùm memor novas laureas futurosque triumphos sibi polliceri videatur Quominus cum hac in re imiter facit rerum humanarum incertitudo propria infirmitas quas prae oculis semper habeo Quo facilius judicium ferat Lector Eximii Domini argumenta ipsiusmet verbis expresla meis responsionibus praemitto non sum mihi conscius me vspiam eorum vim dissimulasse An planè ijs satisfecerjm iudicent alij Novi hominum studia suos cuiquam affectus haud ita facilè avelli nec incompertum quantam isti vim habeant ad judicium inflectendum ne dicam corrumpendum Hinc in causâ nostrâ non praejudico neque veluti de partâ victoriâ in antecessum glorior haud tamen exiguam spem in sinu foveo ex bonitate causae ex assistentiâ Spiritus Sancti Ecclesiae promissâ ex tuâ Lector veritatis amice humanitate responsiones nostras Eruditis aequis Iudicibus à partium studio liberis probatum iri Docet nos Epistolarum Auctor eximius eas ante viginti quatuor annos fuisse scriptas quia posterior data est anno MDCLIX in lucem prodiit tantum hoc anno MDCLXXXIII Vnde non ad novem annos tantum vt consulit Poeta sed ferè ad ter novem eas penes se retinuit Ego verò ne quidem totidem dies ad responsa concinnanda impendi licet variis interea temporis aliis implicarer occupationibus illa siquidem auspicatus sum XI Aprilis I. Maji absolvi Quod non ita accipi velim quasi laudem aliquam ex festinato opere sperem quod novi ancipitis esse ad laudem vituperium aestimationis sed vt ostendam nullam in iis Epistolis
of our Charity Which three vertues are Cheifly or rather solely aimed at in Religion Haec maximè imo vero sola in Religione sequenda sunt Aug. Enchir. c. 4. Now if Moss the cheifest noblest of Religions Actions be Idolatry as you say elsewhere how do you say now it is Lawfull nay Commendable Worthy the imitation If it be so certainly it is not Idolatry But Contradictions are vnavoidable when we combate a known truth which by surprisal will force an acknowledment of it self altho we arm our selues against it when advertised Hence you approue here the same thing in Gross which you condemn in retail I leaue you this bone to pick proceed SECTION II. 1. Conferences to compose differences in Religion seldome successefull why 2. Security of Preists in England danger of Ministers at Brussels D. Morley 1. My lord Andover wisht that some learned moderate men of the Churchs of Rome England might meet debate freely charitably the Differences between the two Churchs which are not so many nor so great but they might find out some expedient to compose them 2. D Morley Sayd it would be imprudent vnsafe for him to disoute of Religion in Brussels thô the Preists in England had often with all boldnesse freedome safety before many witnesses mantained their opinions So vpon my life may you do here sayd F. Darcy be so far from offending me as J shall take it as a favour 1. Revisor Altho I readily grant the capacity of that noble man to be great yet I must beg leaue to dout whether he were a competent Judg of the most ready way to end the Differences in points of Faith betwixt dissenting Churchs this requiring a greater search into points of Doctrine interest then Persons of his quality education are willing commonly to vndergo Truth is ever pretended on both sides but it is onely pretended on the one side which in reality applyes all its industry to suppresse it for ether motives of Passion Interest Envy Spite Reveng what else is contrary to the law of God When these possesse the hart the head is busyed to make Vertu pass for vice vice for vertu to adorn Falshood with the dress of Truth by sophistical reasons make Truth be suspected of Falshood He will by calumayes as black as Hell reader odjoas or contemptible the persons who oppose his Passion thwart his Jnterest Cross his design procure his real good by discovering his errours by that inviting him to return to the ancient Faith Communion of the Church which he broke through want of Charity It is hard to discover the wiles of those Foxes ways of these wolves the fraudulent or fierce enemys of the Churchs Peace to see through that mist which they raise on purpose not to be seen to fathom these Depths of Sathan Apoc. 2.24 Now thò this noble man's capacity was great yet perchance not sufficient for so obscure intricate a work Yet when all the doubling of these Foxes are discovered the secrets of their harts layd open yet the work is not half don The greatest difficulty remaines to wean them from those beloved wandrings it being one of the dismallest effects of these sinfull errours that by secret yet power full charmes they fix the will in the loue of them Hence S. Prosper Tantum nocet error Vt juuet errare veteris contagia morbi Tam blande obrepunt vt quo languetur ametur Such charmes before our eyes doth errour lay That it e'en makes vs loue to go astray Whilst th' evil spreads we vnconcerned go Deceiu'd yet contented to be so The secretary of nature Aristotle never div'd deeper into the hart of man then when he sayd that althô Reason seemes to hold the scales discern betwixt two contending parts yet in reality it is the hart the will which deliberates decides the thing in question Hence comes that variety of judgments on the same individual Action of which one shall make a Panegyrick another a Satyre And thô the lyght of Truth the appearance of God be so cleer as not to be concealed yet this shall be as ineffectual as to all influence on our Actions as if they were dreames a sensual man prefers Pleasure before his Honour A vertuous man the contrary So we judg as we are affected not as we should our will doth not follow but lead nay drag after it our Reason that with so sweet a violence that it is not perceived without much labour great attention strict search into the beginning progresse end of our Actions This is the root of all incoherent discourses illogical deductions of Passion interest or self-loue which in many prevail over Truth controul the inclinations to good make men break all their dutys to God their country to Prince frends Relations thô they see what is better yet do the contrary Video meliora proboque Deteriora sequor This difficulty seemes invincible when strengthned with the content which Proud Ring'eaders find in having their followers harts at a beck being esteemed by them as Oracles a satisfaction sayd St Francis Bacon as much aboue that of Tyrants as mens souls are aboue their Bodys In the whole black list of Heresiarks only two occur to my mind who truly repented viz Eutichius Patriark of Constantinople who denyed the Resurrection of the Flesh was converted by S. Gregory our Apostle Berengarius Patriark of the Sacramentarians Only these two to my remembrance dyed well professing the tru Faith contrary to their several errours Without doubt some if not all other Heresiarks were convinc'd of the vntruth of their doctrines were as the Apostle says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Condemned of themselves or knowing that they deserved condemnation doubtlesse all felt those reproachs of conscience which follows all guilty Actions yet Pride hardened their harts against all Now what can work vpon these men in order to their Conversion set before theyr eyes Truth they know but will not acknowledg it Reproach vnto them their perfidious abandonning God and his spouse the Church the Holy Ghost doth it inwardly they slyght him Threaten Hell damnation to torrify them They are self condemned yet are vnconcerned this opposing known Truth is a sin against the Holy ghost impossible to be forgiven because it is morally impossible to be repented This is proved by Reason confirmed by experience delivered by the Apostle Which is to be vnderstood of Heresiarks such as school men call Formal Hereticks Yet I know many I hope most of those who liue in schism or Heresy do so either by misfortune of their birth or education or by weakenesse of reason or strength of Passion or fear of punishment or loue of goods of fortune rather then hatred to the Church or loue to Heresy therefore are not Formal Hereticks or
as abandon Christ's Body which is the Church according to the expresse words of the Apostle Colos. 1.24 4. Proofe out of Fathers S. Austin l. 4. de Bapt. cont Donat. C. 1. having sayd that the rivers which risse in Paradise watred Mesopotamia Aegipt thô these countryes were not partakers of the happinesse of Paradise so Baptism may be had out of the Church yet could not conveigh eternal Blis but to those who are within It which hath received the keys to bind loose And lib. cont Faustum manich 12. C. 17. Praeter arcam omnis caro c. Out of the Ark all creatures living on the Earth were destroyed by the deluge because out of the Communion of the Church the water of Baptism althô it be the same out as in the Church yet it avayles not to salvation but rather to ruin S. Cyprian hath a long treatise against Schismaticks In it he says they are the work of the devil who finding his Temples abandoned his Altars overturned his sacrifices contemned his rites slyghted his kingdom destroyed by the conversion of the world to Christianity with design to recover his interest on Earth introduced Schismes multiplyed Schismaticks And what opinion he S. Cyprian had of them take in these words Can he retain his Faith who dos not retain the Communion of the Church can any man hope to be in the Church who resists it who abandons the Chair of Peter vpon which the Church is built whosoever leaving the Church cleanes to the Harlot forgoes all promises made to the Church he becomes a stranger a prophane man an enemy God is not a Father to him who ownes not the Church his mother And he assures that nether Faith nor working of miracles nor knowledg of mysteryes not martyrdom it self can entitle a man to eternal life who dyes in a Schism that is out of the Communion of the Church To be short see what the Fathers say severally against the Meletians the Quarto decimans the Novatians the Donatists others With what fervour they plead the necessity of Communion with the Church with what horror they reject the crime of Schism which some think the greatest of crimes My 5. proofe is Remission of sins is necessary to attain Heaven That is not to be found but in the Church Wherefore in the Creed after the Article of the Holy Catholick Church two others are added the Communion of Saints Remission of Sins as being sequels of dependants on that other Which is Calvin's Reflection My 6. Proofe is from the Testimony of such as were actual Schismaticks themselves Calvin l. 4. Instit C. 1. S. 4. says Discamus ex hoc vno matris Elogio quam vtilis sit nobis Eccesiae Communio imo necessaria quando non alius est ad vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in vtero nisi pariat nisi nos alat suis vberibus denique sub custodiâ gubernatione nos teneat donec exuti carne mortali similes erimus Angelis .... Adde quod extra eius gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio nec vlla salus The Church is our Mother out of which title wee may learne how vsefull nay how necessary is our Communion with her seing there is no possibility of attaining to life vnlesse shee conceiues vs in her wombe brings vs forth suckles vs with her breasts protect defends vs till leaving this mortal life we become like vnto Angels .... Out of her bosome no hopes of Remission of Sins nor of salvation Whence he concludes Semper exitialis est ab Ecclesiâ discessio It is always damnable to depart from the Church Thus this grand sower of Schismes the greatest Enemy to Church Communion that ever was whose furious spirit communicated with his writings hath caused more discords Schismes Seditions Rebellions Murthers than all other sects together His followers sometimes wanting Power but never the will to introduce those plagues their ordinary Attendants How odjous this sin is appeares by the industry all Hereticks vse to remoue it from themselves charge it on the Catholicks as knowing it to be of so deformed a nature that nothing can excuse it the stain it leaues of soo deep a dye that a floud of Teares cannot wash it out Thus much to proue the major or first Proposition I passe now to the minor or second 2. That Protestants are out of the tru Church the body of Christ tru Schismaticks is evident Luther their Pratriarck renounced all Communion with the Roman Church nether before nor after communicated with any Church even Schismatick So he separated when he began to Dogmatize from all Christians living for he had not gotten followers consequently had not framed them into a Church Wherefore if ever any one was a Schismatick he was one Such were likewise those who joyned with him in that sinfull separation And he and they continued such till their dying day even when framed into a Congregation for Non firmatur tractu temporis quod ab initio de jure non subsistit Reg. Iuris Processe of time cannot make an Action legal which from the beginning is contrary to law Perseverance in sin is a circumstance which aggravates it it is a Paradox to say that a hainous crime should cease to be such for being long continued as if the devil could become a saint by being obstinate in his wickedness A new way to sanctity vnknown to ancients So my minor is vndeniable So then the first Protestant made a tru Schism those who joined in Communion with him joined in a tru Schisme those who continu in it are in a tru Schisme tru Schismaticks So The guilt of Schisme a sin of the first magnitude lyes at the Protestanes doore they are Say Papists If they liue dye Protestants with out hopes of salvation as living dying in a greivous mortal sin Which is the conclusion of that syllogisme You say 1. that we forced you vpon the Separation by imposing vpon our Communion vnlawfull conditions Which is Gratis dictum sayd without any sufficient proofe for no one point of our faith was ever proved false by you we having much stronger grounds for than you again it So the most you can draw from your reasons is that our doctrine is not absolutely certain whereas nothing can excuse your Schisme but an absolute total certainty that the thing is naught which we enjoine v. c. Prayers to Saints because you ran in to Schisme to avoyd a thing which you know not certainly whether it be good or bad Nay you haue much greater reason to judge good than otherwise 1. for the authority of the past present Church practising it 2. because you rather reproach vs with indiscreet speeches of pious men or some practice of silly women then with the doctrine of the Church defined in our Councils Which shews you haue little to say against our
Church doctrine which is the only thing we enjoin So you are inexcusable Indeed these reproaches of errours are not the cause but the effect of your separation For out of loue to dear lyberty you resolved to renounce all subjection to Christ's vicar vpon earth then to secure this you resolved to separate from his Communion by a Schisme to justify this Schisme these pretexts were invented And by a just judgment of God the disobedient children of your Church haue meeted you the same mesure framed in your bosome another Schisme on the same pretences You say 2. Our excommunicating you was the cause of the Schisme so the causal Schisme is on our side But this is far from satisfiying any thinking man who calls to mind that you had forced the excommunication by precedent justifyed it by subsequent crimes Before any sentence was pronounced against you you had broke the interiour Communion with the Church by altering Faith the exteriour Communion by renouncing obedience to the Head of the Church so the Excommunication was subsequent to the Schisme what did the Reformation begun before but perfected after that clap of thunder Erection of one Altar against another or rather destruction of all Altars profanation of Churchs robbery of all sacred vessels ornaments pursuing with fire sword these who for conscience sake remained in the Catholick Communion Now what hopes of salvation left None vnlesse Schism sacriledge rapine CALVMNY PERIVRY MVRTHER Heresy be venial sins though vnrepented leaue hopes of salvation For the guilt of all these many more ye haue contracted since your separation from the center of Ecclesiastical Communion So your debt contracted by the separation is great but your following demeanour hath enflamed your reckoning to a prodigious summe not to be discharged with any ordinary satisfaction which is yet encreased by a pretence to jnnocency a resolution to justify all these crying sins I acknowledge with S. Austin l. 6. de verâ Relig. C. 6. that some jnnocent persons by Ecclesiastical censures may be cast out of the exteriour Communion of the Church that De facto this hath hapned to some that such Persons interiourly retaine the Communion with the faithfull provided they containe themselves Intra limites inculpatae tutelae do nothing vnlawfull beare their crosse patiently invent no errours practice nothing for revenge attempt not to break open the Church dores to force a readmittance nor barre them vp to hinder it do not endeavour to withdraw others from the Church to encrease the number of separatists make themselves considerable by becoming heads of a Party Giue me such a man thô he seeme to liue dye in a Schisme J shall hope for his salvation with S. Austin Whose words are these Sinit diuina providentia per nonnullas nimium turbulentas carnalium hominum sediditiones expelli de Congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros quam contumeliam vel iniuriam suam cum patientissimè pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque vllas novitates vel schismatis vel haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quam vero affectu quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit Talium ergo virorum propositum est aut sedatis remeare turbinibus aut si id non sinantur vel câdem tempestate perseverante vel ne de suo reditu talis aut gravior oriatur tenent voluntatem consulendi etiam ijs ipsis quorum motibus perturbationibusque cesserunt sine vllâ conventiculorum segregatione vsque ad mortem defendentes testimomio iuvantes eam Fidem quam in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ praedicari sciunt Hos coronat in occulto Pater in occulto videns Thus S. Austin divine providence some times permits that even good men are by turbulent spirits cast out of the Church who if they beare patiently this disgrace wrong for the Peace of the Church without endeavouring to frame a Shisme or broach Heresyes they will by their example teach men with what sincere charity they ought to serue God Such men intend ether to return to the Church when the storme is blown over or if they cannot return ether because the stormes ceases not or to prevent another storm continue quietly without gathering conventicles defending to their Power that Faith which they know is taught in the Church Such as these are crowned in secret by the Father who seeth in secret How many are there of your Party who haue thus peaceably demeaned themselves I meane of the more conspicuous governing or leading part Vix totidem quot Thebarum Portae vel divitis ostia nili Scarce as many as the Muses or even the Graces Soe the number that on this score can pretend to salvation is very inconsiderable For the rest how different is their proceeding from the others of whom S. Austin hopes well these beare the wrong done to them patiently for the loue of peace of the Church you by tongue pen hands shew your Passion These introduces no noveltys cause no Schismes or Heresyes you do the contrary These desire to return to the Church the storme being over you raise new stormes endeavour to perpetuate the separation These defend the Faith preacht in the Church you impugn it Those loue Peace you hate it persecute all promoters of it These are guilty of no crime which may deserue the Churchs censure you haue provoked the Heads of the Church to inflict on you such a punishment These are ready to vndergo any Penalty without deserving it you deserue it will vndergo none Jn fine these are jnnocent you guilty guilty of a great crime aggravate it by glorying in it Peccatum suum sicut Sodoma praedicaverunt So we must conclude that their example serves not to justify but to condemne you who differ so much from them therefore thô we grant with that great saint that There is life in the way of these yet your way leads to Death 3. Wherefore it is both an Vsual saying a Setled judgment of Catholicks that Protestants remaining such cannot be saved Because that name imports two greivous sins Schisme by separation from the Communion of the Church Heresy by beleiving errours contrary to Faith Which two sins taken severally or together make vs despayr of their salvation You pretend Protestants will say the like of Papists I reply it may be so but haue they such strong grounds for that saying as Catholicks haue Jn 1642. the Factious part of the Parliament did vie with the loyal peaceable party in verbal expressions of Duty Allegiance to their soverain But on the one side were only words reality on the other it was J think not necessary to cast a figure to discerne which side only pretended Allegiance but intended the contrary And it is as visible whether side in Religion aimes at Peace maintaines the ancient Faith which innovates the wordes of both partys
being vncyp hered by their actions the best interpreters of them Wherefore F. Darcy's argument remaines in force that it is safer to joine with the Catholicks than with the Protestants as it was safer to avoyd Treason to joine with the king than with the Parliament there being no sin in remaining in the Communion of the Catholick Church two great sins Schism Heresy in joining with the Protestants You say that this Reason would proue that in S. Austin's time it was safer to joine with the Donatists than with the Catholicks seing both sides agreed that the Donatists could be saved the Donatists denyed that possibility to the Catholicks Answer you are here grossely mistaken pardon that word for S. Austin never sayd a Donatist remaining such Could be saved nay a great part of his workes against them is employed to proue that they cannot be saved that their Baptism avayles them nothing but serues for their greater damnation Let me beseech you only to open any leafe any page of the several bookes written against them there is none which will not correct that mistake What you should say is only that both sides owned tru Baptism amongst the Donatists which these denyed amongst Catholicks Which argument the Donatists not only myght but did make vse of to pervert Catholicks as you may see in S. Austin L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 3. l. 2. cont Petilianum c. 108. else where To this I answer that such a reason from a Donatist to a Catholick is of no force he having no good ground at all for that reason to rely on therefore denying Baptisme in the Catholick Church only out of a peevishnesse of nature Religion it was by them sayd with no more cause than Quakers had to say Thou art damned when they had nothing else to say Where as Catholicks proue that Assertion of theirs with jrrefragable reason drawn from those two crying sins Schisme Heresy of which we accuse the Protestants these do not nay cannot sufficiently cleere I haue all ready explicated these reasons That those of the Donatists were frivolous is evident for they sayd some Bishops of the Catholick Communion were Traditores had delivered the sacred bookes to the Persecutors that all Catholicks by communicating with them did contract the same guilt had lost the Holy Ghost And hence they inferred there could be no valid Baptisme in the Catholick Communion for those who haue not the Holy Ghost cannot give him to others To which the Catholicks answered 1. that those Bishops accused of that shamefull compliance with the jmperial Edicts against Christians were jnnocent of that crime which was never sufficiently proved vpon them no man ought to be condemned vnlesse the crime be evidently proved against him 2. They answered that althô the persons accused were really guilty yet their personal guilt could not prejudice all Catholicks communicating with them because another man's sin cannot prejudice me vnlesse J make it my own by commanding or perswading approving defending or imitating it Now the Catholicks were so far from being accessory to that pretended sin in another that they detested the sin always condemned it in all persons who were really guilty of it but never could find sufficient grounds to pronounce those accused by the Donatists guilty of it as those would haue them doe They answered 3. that supposing not granting that the Persons accused were really guilty that guilt had infected the whole body of Catholicks by communicating with them yet their Baptism myght be valid this not depending on the Personal sanctity of its Minister but on the justitution promises of Christ the operation of the Holy Ghost Hence S. Austin sayd he did not regard Peter when he Baptizes nor Paul nor Iohn nor Iudas but he considered the Holy Ghost who is the Baptist who ever he be who washes the body pronounces the words as Minister of that Sacrament You se how frivolous the reasons of the Donatists were to deny the validity of Baptism in the Catholick Church Shew that ours are as frivolous J will grant the parity but this you can never doe So our Reason stands good against you that of the Donatists against vs falls to the ground It seemes not discreet in an English Protestant to mention the Donatists there being so great a resemblance betwixt these two schismatical Churchs that they may seem sisters the later to haue copyed the other which appeares by these paralel points 1. Donatists were no where out of one corner of the world Africa Protestants of the Church of Eng. that is such as agree with her in points of Doctrine Hierarchy no where out of England 2. Donatists sayd theirs was the only perfect vnspotted Church you say yours is the only Apostolical Church perfectly reformed c. 3. Those endeavoured to justify their separation with some pretended faults of particular men you to justify yours alleadg some indiscreet devotions of old women and vnwary words of some otherwise pious Authours 4. Those appealed to some parts of scripture which you vse against vs And the Fathers proved against them the Vniversality of the Church the necessity of Communion with her out of the same texts which we vse against you 5. Donatists called Rome the seat or Chair of pestilence you call it a Pest-house letter to her R. H. P. 17. the seat of Antichrist 6. Those had their Circumcellions who thought to do God good service in murthering Catholicks you haue some of the same perswasion as appeares by their workes Yet I own a great difference betwixt the old Circumcellions the new ones Those when the toy took them would ether break their own necks or force others to cut their throates the new ones in this do not imitate them they loue too much their mothers sons 7. Those had the Maximianists who left them for the same reasons they had broken off Communion with the Church these haue the Presbiterians others who will not conforme with them vpon the same grounds for which they refuse to conform to the Catholick Church 8. And lastly the Non-conformist donatists made evident to the world that the Donatists had no real ground to break the Catholick Communion by forcing them to solue their owne Objections against the Church of which S. Austin l. 2. Retract C. 35. And your Non conformists with the same successe force you to answer all your pretences against vs breake those weapons with which you haue hitherto fought against the Church Those who will take the paines to examin further the Donatists principles will discover more points of agreement betwixt them you These are sufficient to shew that what is now hath been before will be that as the Church sticks constantly through all ages to the same Faith ways of defending it so Factious spirits seditious Brethren break her Communion turn Schismaticks
say you But the Church it selfe also must needes be vselesse because the Ch. as well the scripture teaches vs by no other medium But that of our senses Here is matter indeed for lamentation tho you shew no greate signe of real greife But God be praysed the Church is not brought so low as to want your helpe Her Authority is not prejudiced by such as with Humility receiue her Doctrine but by such as with Pride reject it by Protestants who impugne the sense she received with the words from her spouse his faithfull interpreters the Apostles D. M. p. 5. If I be not certaine that what I see feele tast smell to be bread wine is bread wine but something else by the same reason I cannot be certain that these words this is my body whither I see them written or heare them spoken be indeed those words not some other words of a different or contrary signification Revisor You still go on in a false supposition that we Cartesian like deny all credit to Senses This is absolutely false for we giue credit to our Senses thô not so greate as to Eternal Truth Nether do we doubt of that thing being bread wine which to Senses seemes such except only when God himself tells vs It is his Body Here then is our case A thing is placed on an Altar that Lookes feeles tasts smells like Breade What is that thing God tells me in the Eare It is his Body our Senses tell me It is Bread Whither of these depositions shall I beleiue That of Senses say you that of God says the Church seing it is not impossible our Senses should be mistaken but it is absolntely impossible that God should tell Alye But say you If we doubt of those sensations of bread we may doubt of those of the words whither we reade or heare them Answer Till you shall shew me by an Authority greater then that of God himself those words are something else J will beleiue them to be those words As I beleiue that to be Bread which seemes such vnlesse where God tells me the contrary Do J passe thorough a market by a Bakers shop come into adining toome we giue as full credit to our Senses as you judg that to be Bread which seemes Bread only on the Altar after Consecration we say it is the Body of Christ because Christ says it is such the Church always vnderstood those words as we doe Then you learnedly discourse of Outward signes inward invisible grace Of the Trumpet its sounding of men preparing to battle God blesse vs of Dreames visions jnspirations what not From which if you can conclude any thing against vs J will beare your chaines These rambling phancys are extraordinary in one of your age I wish you to take heede your pen goe not faster than your head as it seemes to doe when you cite those words as of S. Austin Quod non lego non credo what I read not I beleiue not which make against you for We read what we beleiue that it is Christ's Body but we do not read It is not Christ's Body nor It is Bread which is what you beleiue D. M. p. 7. If there be a certainty in the sense of Hearing there must be in that of seing Revisor I admit an equal certainty in both taken by themselues yet Hearing when announcing what God says surpasses Syght all the rest for we are to strike to Faith God's Truth not to any else D. M. p. 8. 9. If there be no certainty of Senses in one thing there is none in any thing vnlesse I know certainly what that one thing is nothing can secure me vnlesse Christ in expresse words tell vs Beleiue your Senses in all things else but only in the Sacrament Revisor Whence so greate a concerne for the Authority of Senses so little for that of the Church All is vndone if the Senses be corrected by the expresse words of Christ whome they contradict no hurt done thô the Church be charged with errour even when she follows the words of Christ yet by the Church we receiue the word of God its meaning too Now why is an errour charged on Senses of so pernicious a nature as to destroy all their credit vnlesse Christ's expresse words are produced to vouch it in all other things one nay many errours charged on the Church by which we receiue Faith no hurt done Js not Faith handed to vs by the Church of as greate consequence as that little scantling of Knowledge which we receiue from our Senses But why is an errour of Senses so fatal to their credit Haue they never deceived you or at least some others of your acquaintance do you therefore renounce them Haue not some men their eyes only representing a greene medow fallen into a quack-mire do you for that reason either pull out your eyes as vselesse or shut them as deceivable when you walke Are these Arguments of such strength as to beate downe the expresse words of Christ Doctrine of the whole Church what times do we liue in to what passe is Christianity brought when a Doctor of Divinity a pretended Bishop fyghts with such straws against Christ's words Faith I Yet because old age is apprehensiue J will giue you a remedy against this groundlesse Feare You require an exception in expresse words J will giue you one at least Aequivalentèr It is a general Rule Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam When an exception is made from a Rule all things not exprest in the exception remaine vnder the Rule Wherefore Christ having excepted only the Blessed Sacrament from the Deposition of Senses he left all other things subject to them So sir althô you hold with vs Transubstantiation when you see a floore you may walke on it without fearing a precipice when you see a Chaire you may confidently sit downe without Fearing it should proue a Cobweb Wherefore Cheere vp deare sir you may be secure thô Christ be beleived SECTION XI OF MIRACLES 1. Whither all Miracles visible 2. What Miracles are 3. The final cause of Miraçles 4. Accidents Changeable the substance remaining 5. Dr. M.'s Paradoxes 1. D. M. p. 9. T is to little purpose to tell vs that this conversion of Bread into Flesh wine into Bloud is miraculous therefore so monstrous as to be a contradiction to Sense Miracles are Appellations to Sense the end of them is by the evidence of our Sense to convince our Vnderstanding of some thing which otherwise we would not or could not haue beleived Revisor You seeme resolved to prevent our retreate by stopping all ways imaginable to it yet your main industry is to misse not to hit that which is most obvious which I haue already taken expect you or any who takes vp the Cudgelles for you in it Yet I will in short review what
you say of Miracles Miracles when done in Confirmation of Faith are designed to giue credit to a man who speakes in God's name whome otherwise we should not beleiue they are by a metaphore proper enough called God's Broade-seale Now as a Broad-seale is indifferent to all deeds authenticates any to which it is annext so a Miracle myght confirme any Truth but is determined by circumstances to some one rather then others For example the man sicke of the Palsy myght haue beene cured in Confirmation of the Trinity or Incarnation but was determined to testify that Christ had power to remit sins by those words That you may know that the son of man hath Power to forgiue sins then he sayd c. 2. I say when Miracles are done in Confirmation of Faith for all Miracles are not done for that end A Miracle is an effect of God's Power acting contrary to second causes Natural effects are conformable to their inclinations as that fire heates Supernatural are aboue them as that water justifyes the soul Preternatural are besides them as motion of parts of water within themselues Miraculous or contra-natural are contrary to them Such was the cure of Ezechias raysing of Lazarus for second causes required the death of the first the corruption of the second Soe S. Austin l. 26. Cont. Faustum c. 3. Cum Deus aliquid facit contra cognitum nobis cursum solitumque naturae magnalia vel mirabilia nominantur When God doth any thing against or contrary to the knowne vsual course of nature we call that thing a miracle Wherefore when S. Thomas some other Divines say Miracles are Praeter besides the course of nature they are to be vnderstood as J sayd Praeter in them is equivalent to Contra. That no Miracles are done but visible in publick you say but can never proue because it is false S. Austin proues this Epist 3. ad Volusianum by Christ's coming into the world without violating the virginity of his Blessed mother his coming out of his sepulcher this remaming shut See S. Thomas 3. p. q. 29. a. 1. ad 2. Of which more hereafter S. 14. Indeed were no miracles done in private it were in vaine for men in deserts to implore God's assistance against a Lyon or serpent which would devoure or sting them But the contrary errour of Protestants in Brevint Burnet Morley is grounded on another erroneous opinion that no Miracles are done but in Confirmation of Faith Whereas it is certaine they are done for other intentions For 3. Whatsoever can moue God to vse his absolute Power in thwarting the ordinary course of Nature may be the Final cause of a Miracle Pharaoth refusing to dismisse the Israelits Miracles were done to shew it was God's will they should be dismist Exo. 7. A doubt being raysed whither the Preisthood were to be confined to Aaron's family God decided it by the miraculous budding of his rod. numb 17.3 Gedeon wanting resolution to vndertake the war against the Madianits was encouraged by the dew on his furre Iud. 6.4 The encrease of Oyle to releiue a poore widow distressed by her creditours 4. 2. Reg. 4.5 Waters causing a curse to ease a husband of his Jealousy numb 5.6 That there were no ill smells in the Temple notwithstanding all the Burnt offrings nor flyes where so much bloud was spilt was in respect to that Holy place The cure of Ezechias for his comfort or the good of the Royal family which wanted an heyre And who can tell how many other even private things may haue moved Almyghty God to dispense in the common law of nature act contrary to second causes How often are miracles done in consequence of that prayer of the Church Ad te nostras etiam rebelles compelle propitius voluntates drawing those to a pious life who had a perfect aversion to it This you will say is no Miracle But S. Anselme says it is S. Thomas 1.2 q. 113. a. 10. reason proues it to be such because it is contrary to the inclination of the will Antecedenter thô Consequenter the will consents being brought ouer strongly thô sweetely by the Grace of God And without all doubt on The greate day we shall see an infinit number of other Accidents wholy miraculous done either for the spiritual or temporal good of both private publicke persons which are at present entirely hidden from the eyes of all men even those in whose favour they are done Whence I inferre that this conversion in the B. Sacrament may be Miraculous yet be observable by no Senses 4. D. M. pag. 10. Moses his Rod turned into a serpent ceased to looke like a rod in all things was like a serpent which the Magicians rods which were not turned into serpents did not water turned into wine ceased to tast or smell like water Therefore all Miracles are perceptible to sense Revisor A false illation out of an insufficient jnduction as if I should conclude that all men walke because Peter Paul walke D. M. pag. 10. There cannot be a change of one thing into another without a mutual change of Accidents as well as of substance because every thing consists is made vp of Accidents as well as of substance Rev. What stuffe is this J perceiue your Metaphysicks are equal to your Divinity Every thing consists of is made vp of Accidents as well as of substance I hope you will say a man is made vp of his cloths too And not be much out of the way if you speake of those of your degree who are compounded of lawne sleeues c. in lieu of the interiour character How grossely are silly Phylosophers mistaken when they define Accidents by their separability from substance without its decay Quod adest abest sine subjecti interitu what cannot a man become swarthy by being exposed to the sun in the summer or cold in the winter but his Substance his Body or soul must be changed Excellent Doctrine And very fit to make vs fall out with Transubstantiation As vnexpected is that other saying There cannot be a change of one thing into another without a mutuall change of Accidents as well as of substance Vnexpected I say from so learned a person it being so far from Truth so contrary to experience that to confute it nothing is necessary but to shew you any newly dead Corps of one knowne to you before Is there no change In substance when the soul is separated from the Body And do not many Accidents remaine so as it seemes rather a sleepe then dead Do not beleiue me beliue your owne eyes for which you pleade so earnestly Js there not the same quantity The same situation of patts The same organization The same colour moles warts skars c. as before How then can you say There is no change in substance without one in Accidents too Do you not see that by
D. M. p. 12. Isaac Could not know his sons Esau Jacob from one another by feeling Iacob's hands being rough like those of Esau but by hearing he myght distinguish them Revisor To what intent this is brought is not easily discernable that Isaac hearing Iacob's voice surmised it to be like to that of Iacob is very tru but that he certainly knew him to be Iacob is not certain nay the astonishment into which the tru Esau asking his Blessing cast him is an evident signe that till then he was not quite free from the errour into which Iacob's goatish hands greasy clothes had brought him You seeme to think it necessary that our Senses either severally or at least conjointly be able to discerne betwixt any two objects proposed I think it were well that they could do so but do not beleiue that any greate danger would hang over the world if the Senses should be found insufficient sometimes They are all together vnable to distinguish betwixt two glasses of water two egges two twins a wolfe some dogs c. as hath beene often observed yet the sun keepes on his course women bring forth at their ordinary time Pompey's father was often taken for his Cooke Monogenes Pompey himself could not be distinguisht from Vibius Publitius both obscure men the later newly made free Comelius Scipio was often saluted by the name of Serapio a poore Sexton These other mistakes are recorded in Valerius maximus l. 9. c. 14. Yet that ignorance of the Romans did not ruin their state Why then are you so solicitous to provide a Remedy against it Or if a remedy be necessary why may not our Vnderstanding act the Apothecary provide it as well as our Senses Methinks it should rather belong to the vnderstanding to compare several objects together state wherein the agree wherein they differ then to the Senses Otherwise we shall find it no easy matter to fix the bounds betwixt these spiritual carnal facultyes for you will adjudge to Senses what hath hitherto owned the jurisdiction of the Vnderstanding as to what will be left to this queene of our facultyes our Reason this shall onely be tenant at will to Senses who by the same Topick may claime the rest leaue the Vnderstanding as the Covenanters left the King 3. D. M. p. 14. 15. Hath along discourse about the conditions necessary to make vs infallibly certain of what we see Viz 1. An eye well disposed 2. The medium betwixt that the object as it ought to be 3. The object at a convenient distance These conditions being observed the syght cannot be deceived in judging of colours or coloratums as such Revisor I would not mingle in this place meere Phylosophical matter with the rest if possible so J passe by these conditions onely proposing some questions 1. what certainty haue we that there are no more ways to deceiue our Syght than these conditions provide against Cannot swiftnesse or slownesse of motions alter the appearance of Colours coloratums Are there not some Colours various according to the situation of the silkes that for example which the french call Du Diable coessé something of the nature of a doves necke Do not Mountebanks find meanes to deceiue the eyes of their spectators thô their eyes be good the Medium distance competent 2. What certainty haue we those three condition be exactly observed As to the first may not our eyes be defectiue we not perceiue it Doth not Seneca write of an old woman who complained of all roomes being obscure yet never would acknowledge any fault in her eyes which were the only faulty As to the second may there not be a considerable difference in the Medium enough to Refract the Visual rays we not perceive it As to the third what certainty haue we that the object is at a competent distance Do we certainly know what is the exactest distance Do not painters direct vs who are vnskilled in that Art what is the proper Distance to see a Picture And in how many other things may the distance proper for such a determinate object be vnknowne to vs Againe what certainty haue we of the tru Distance it self Doth not the moone rising over a house seeme to touch it When a thing is within 20. yeards or a mile of vs we discerne the different distances but can we perceiue the different distances of several parts in the surface of the moone or sun Or of those of Other Planets the fixt stars How can the Distance competent secure our eyes from mistakes when distance it selfe is so obscure vncertaine When you haue answered all these questions I shall require you to answer two more The 1. what vnquestionable certainty you haue of all those Answers Jf you haue none then these conditions cannot secure vs from all possibility of errour in crediting our Senses The 2. whither the certainty of these conditions being exactly observed be equal to that we haue that what God says is tru If the certainty of the truth of God's words be greater then that of those conditions than we must conclude that To appeale to Senses in opposition to God's expresse words is rash dangerous obnoxious to Errour SECTION XIII Reasons for the credit of senses 1. We may rely on our senses 2. Courts of Iustice as free from errour amongst Catholicks as others 3. Depositions of senses subordinate to those of God 4. Our Doctrine doth not ground scepticisme 5. Scriptures Church not prejudiced by Transubstantiation 6. Conclusion 1. D. M. p. 17. What can be more knowne than Bread wine If than we may be mistaken in these what vse what certainly of Senses in any thing else And if there be not certainty of Senses why doth God command the Israelits to remember what they had Seene Heard teach it their Children Rev. J do not see that Faith is lesse taught or lesse strongly beleived where Transubstantiation is taught then where t is rejected Or that seasons would be changed the Earth lesse fruitfull or men lesse wise or lesse knowne to Relations or Freinds should God worke some other Changes vnobservable to Senses reveale it to vs. We credit our Senses as much as you where God doth not reveale the contrary what more can be due to any Created faculty Can we not prefer God's veracity before our Senses but we must absolutely vniversally reject these even where they conforme with Faith All discourse relyes on that principle Eadem vni tertio sunt idem inter se which is hardly reconcilable with the mystery of the Trinity Yet we do not suspect a fallacy in all other discourse because we make no exception but where God excepts he excepts only in that one mystery So we excepting against senses only in this particular where God excepts leaues them at full liberty in full credit in all things else D. M. p.
18. All matters of controversy both Civil Criminal Were by God's appointment to be decided by the Testimony of two or three Witnesses Now how can any man beare witnesse if he be vncertain of what he Heares or sees How is the Iudg certain he doth not condemne an jnnocent man Revisor I suspect it not very prudent to reproach Catholick courts of judicature with condemning Jnnocent men beleiving vncertain depositions of witnesses at this time of the day Those who deny Transubstantiation can take in judgment a dog for a wolf An jnnocent man for a Traitour Peter for Iudas as well as their neyghbours Your Aversion to this insensible change hath left Protestants as obnoxious to errour as other folkes witnesse the Tall slender flaxen hayred D. Iohn the Iesuits house in Paris next dore to the Louure men seene in several places the same time one sworne to be Blundel another to be Hesketh to whome they had no neerer relation then Iaphet as for as we can discover for this I appeale to the Heralds And our last fiue ye ares transactions afford twenty other odde example which I wish were buryed in oblivion recorded no where but in God's booke of mercy amongst the sins forgiuen 3. D. M. p. 18.20 If there be no certainty of Sense why did Christ vpbraide Chorasin Bethsaide for not beleving after having so many Miracles Why doth S. Iohn to proue the word was made Flesh tell vs he saw heard handled it Why did the Angel to proue The Resurrection bid Mary Magdalen come see the place where the Lord lay As inferring if he could not be seene he was not there A shrewd inference against Transubstantiation Why did Christ bid Thomas thrust his hand into his side Why did Christ ascend into Heaven in the syght of his Disciples Why did Luke say he writ what he had from eye witnesses Why did S. Peter say he was an eye witnesse of what he writ Why was the ghospel written or preacht if we are not sure of what we See or Heare Why were tru Miracles anciently done or false ones lately pretended to Why doth the Church proue her owne Being by Notes which if Senses be fallible can ground no certainty Rev. Your Whys at this rate may reach from Genesis to the Apocalypse hooke in to boote all Ecclesiastical Hystory hold vs a long lent's Reading which would haue contributed something more to confound an Ignorant Reader tire out one who would answer you Yet you will misse even of that aime for one answer will satisfy all all your questions being grounded on one false supposition To cleere this J will vse one example We are by Divine Humane laws bound to obey the King his Officers according to their several degrees the Authority communicated to them Yet with this difference that our obedience to the King is absolute without reserue in temporal things that to his Officers is conditional only as long as they continu obedient to the King But if these command vs to take vp armes against the King do what he forbids we cease to be obliged to obey them are obliged not to obey them Jf you say as subjects we are bound to obey them who haue Commissions from the King I grant it as long as they continu in their duty but no further now multiply Queres vpon this subject till Doomes day whither at their command we are bound to take Armes to come to a Rendez vous to stand sentinel shut the gates of a towne open them seize a man dismisse him advance present giue fire retreate c To these questions one answer is sufficient Whilst they command nothing contrary to the Kings will service they are to be obeyd when we are certain they designe a Rebellion rayse men onely to destroy the King build for themselues on his ruins we are not bound to obey them but rather bound not to obey them J answer in alike manner to all your Whys Our Vnderstanding receiues some knowledge from God by either immediate or mediate Revelation some by our Senses It is a general duty to admit whatever truly comes from God We may admit what comes from senses provided it be not contrary to what God averres but if they depose any thing contrary to what God reveales either in his written or vnwritten word we must renounce them stick to the revealed Truth So if they tell me athing is Chalke God tells me it is Cheefe they must pardon me if I rather beleiue God beleiue it to the Cheefe Thus althô contrary to four Senses but not to Hearing I beleiue Transubstantiation because God reveales it I may beleiue that I see a Ship go into it to crosse the seas that I see Bread eate it when I am hungry that J see Wine drink it when J am thirsty that I see a freind rejoice in his company that I see a good action commend it That I see a crime committed procure it be redrest by publicke Iustice that I reade a Hystory or heare a story beleiue it In fine giue as full credit to the verdict of Senses as any Protestant excepting onely that point which God tells me senses are deceived in This well considered I see no reason for those dismal apprehensions from our beleife of Transubstantiation as if by it Laws were made vselesse the sword of justice broken humane society dissolved all Doctrine Divine Humane made voyde of no vse both Church state brought to confusion destruction Rivers may run vnder a bridge winds blow from the same points of the compasse Senses left to their functions we to their direction in all other things though Transubstantiation be beleived D. M. p. 21. To deny the evidence certainty of Sense is in effect to deny all Possibility of Learning or of Teaching or of Knowing or of Beleiving any thing what soever brings a necessity of being a perfect Sceptick not only in other Arts c Sciences but in divinity it selfe also Revisor To secure you against this Phantôme I appeal to common experience to shew where Scepticks in matters of Religion a bound most in the Catholick or in the Protestant Communion let that decide whither Doctrine yours or ours opens a wider dore to Scepticisme What Doctrine Divine Humane haue your Brethren Reformers spared What authority so venerable as they haue not vndermined What law of God so necessary as they haue not rendred ineffectual by teaching all the commandments are impossible What rite so sacred as they haue not derided What Article of Faith fundamental as they haue not questioned rejected And when by your insolent combating Revealed Truths you haue weakned the Church shaked to pieces Faith rooted vp what had been planted by Christ watred by the Apostles growne vp in following ages by this brought into the world
countenanced Libertinisme Atheisme Scepticisme you Charge them on vs just as the late long Parliament charged the civil wars that Iliad of miserys caused by themselues on King Charles 1. Keepe to your selues those deformed brats they are yours the essential Principles of your first Reformers are evident Premisses to these vnavoidable conclusions Your Luther your Calvin your Zuinglius your Ivel eate the sowre grapes which set at all your teeth on edge They layd the egges out of which these cockatrices are hatcht And while you retaine your owne Principles you must expect the same odious encrease of mischeif 5. E. M. p. 21. If there be no certainty of Senses how know they that it is the Body Bloud of Christ By immediate Inspiration or by Seing the Scripture or Hearing the Church They pretend to no immediate Jnspiration Seing the Scriptures hearing the Church cannot be relyed on because there is no certainty of Senses Revisor The first part I admit that we do not rely on any immediate mediate Revelation or jnspiration The rest that we cannot rely on what we See in Scripture and Heare from the Church you know is contrary to our sentiments absolutely false Haec si imprudens facis nihil coecius si prudens nihil sceleratius S. Austin l. cont Adam c. 15. If you reproach vs that Paradox not knowing we abhorre it What is more blind than you If you know we renounce it yet charge it on vs what more wicked than you 6. D. M. p. 21.22 Their Interpretation of this place of Scripture must needs frustrate make voyde the vse end of all Scripture of the Church it self also consequently it is not a tru one Rev. Here is a lame jllation out of two false Premisses as J haue shewed And J appeale to any man who hath but common sense to decide whither make voyde the Scripture we who subscribe to it or you who contradict it Scripture says That is Christ's Body Catholicks say That is Christ's Body Non-Catholicks say That is not Christ's Body Credit your eyes for whome you pleade see whither part Frustrates the end of Scripture we subscribe to Scripture we defend it if we are deceived God hath deceived vs. But he cannot deceiue vs so we are sure we are not deceived As for you you contradict the scripture your Senses delude you you fyght against the scripture or if for it it is only as your Tru protestants fought for the King D. M. p. 22 If there be no Transubstantiation the Papists are as grosse Jdolaters as the Heathens says Costerus a Iesuit Revisor If the Heavens fall we may catch larkes And if an Asse flyes he will moue swiftly But what do these conditional Propositions signify while the conditions ramble in the imaginary spaces of impossible Beings are only the objects of fancifull heads You will go hungry to bed if for your supper you rely on those Larkes you will as soon performe your journy riding on a snayle as if you expect the winged Asse And Papists neede not feare Hell or Purgatory if they haue no other sin to Answer for than beleiving Christ's Body to be where he says it is and Adoring him there solely because they firmely beleiue that he is there having his owne expresse words for their warrant Conclusion of this Book An appeale from the sole competent judge which knoweth can determine to one in competent who nether knoweth the thing in question nor can decide it is an evident signe of a desperate Cause You appeale from the sole competent judge God his Church to one incompetent the Senses which nether know the thing in question the meaning of the words of Christ nor can pronounce sentence in it Therefore your Cause is desperate Otherwise thus A sentence of an incompetent judge is insignificant The Sensations are a sentence of incompetent judges therefore they are insignificant THE THIRD BOOK A REVISION OF THE VINDICATION OF THE ARGVMENT FROM SENSE THE PREFACE I Do not professe my selfe a common champion for all Catholicks that either Attacke Protestants or are Attackt by them Had God called me to that taske he would haue endowed me with a greater strength of mind Body a larger extent of knowledge more leasure from other employments then I haue Wherefore I confine my selfe to a much narrower sphere more proportioned to my abilityes viz to that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Iude verse 3. for which seing all are obliged Earnestly to contend I see my self vnder that general obligation As also to the defence of our Holy mother the Curch by whome we receiue this Faith without whose assistance Faith it self that precious gif of our bountifull lord would fayle As for the sentiments of other private persons the being of the Church the jnnocency of our Doctrine the purity of our Faith not depending on them I think it no necessary duty to make good all they say further than that cannot be destroyed without weakning Faith And in alike manner I do not expect nor desire any should concerne themselues for what I say but only on like occasions that it be such as Faith would receiue some dammage werer it confuted If any one out of an opinion that J go astray or am in an errour in what J write in defense of the Church will take the paines to shew it me with Charity meekenesse J shall thank him for his labour either acknowledge my personal errour if it be such or giue a reason why I do not Hence I was for some time doubtfull whither I should review this Vindication no body being concerned in it besides the namelesse Authour of an obsure Pamphlet whose merits are as obscure as his person namelesse especially some of his opinions being far different from what the Church her felf as well as divines hold if his meaning be sincerely represented by my freind D. M. ryghtly vnderstood by me And I think the Argument from sense low enough whither this Anonimus stand or fall althô M. Doctor page 4. is pleased to say that if this Pamphlet falls his Argument remaines not only vnanswered but vnanswerable as if that anonimus were our Hector our Troy were to be defended by his hand or by none at all Yet I am of opinion that my Reader will find something in my Review of the Argument to which what is here sayd will not giue full satisfaction probably it will scarce be brought within canon shot of it So my Review of this Treatise is a worke of supererogation which J vndertake meerely because there is occasion giuen to handle some few material points which further confirme what I haue sayd if well vnderstood SECTION XIV 1. Division of Miracles 2. Some insensible out of scripture 3. Arguments from Aetymology of words or names frivolous 1. WHo that man was whome p. 1. you call Namelesse is not material but why you
only to diminish the difficulty of the beleife of it by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery You see sir how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contradiction you charge him with for it is no contradiction to say A fire well kindled burnes matter combustible duly applyed in the furnace fire did not burne those three young men Both which we know to be tru one by experience the other by Revelation why may not such an obvious explication excuse this greate Doctor from so shamefull a fault as contradicting himself is That all quantity fills some space is a general rule that in the Sacrament it doth not is an exception from this rule Can you not vnderstand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule 3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas all the rest teach that no other body can be in more places than one at one time yet they say Christs body in the Sacrament is in many places at the same time Thus they mantain what their church hath defined though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only but of Nature sense Reason not without manifest manifold contradictions not of one another onely but even of themselues also Revisor The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas all Catholicks is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places at once that we deny that Any other body can be in two places at once Where your first fault is against Logick for you beleiue these two propositions to be contradictions they are not soe For a contradiction is Affirmatio negatio eiusdem de eodem the same thing must be sayd denyed of the same subject now here is not the same subject for Christs body other bodys are not the same Hence it is no contradiction to say Christs body is personally vnited to the word and no other body is personally vnited to the word Your second fault is more reproachfull a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments You say we teach that No other body but that of Christ can be in more places than one at the same time Which is so far from being tru that I will challenge you or any other in the world to produce any one either Divine or Philosopher of the Catholick communion who denyes to Any body a passiue capacity of being in two places when God shall determine in that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places And if I am disproved in this I am content to be thought the Impostor Had you consulted either our Phylosophers or Divines or even any of our yearly conclusions you would haue found instances enough to correct your mistake if it were not affected which I will not determine I say In that same manner that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensivè Localitèr or Desinitivè in two places the Scotists hold the contrary but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is vnexcusable Your third fault is that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity I know no other at least no better Principles of tru Divinity than Scripture Tradition Definitions of the Church Fathers If you know any better make vs happy by communicating them Now J am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these nay it is grounded on them all this you knew so well that you haue carefully avoyded all mention of them as conscious of your contradicting them all foreseing that they are rockes on which this Sensual Heresy would split it self Scriptures says It is Christs body Tradition says the same so do Fathers so doth the Church so do we Not one Egge more like another than our Doctrine is to theirs What violence then do we do to all the principles of Divinity But it is not vnusual that men who rob cry Theiues You know you cannot proue that we oppose any one principle of Divinity so you never attempt it Yet you would haue it beleived Therefore you beg it Your fourth fault is that you blame vs as faulty for going in matters of Faith against Nature Sense Reason Sir we are Disciples of S. Paul of him we haue learnt To cast downe jmaginations every hygh thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2. cor 10.6 This we practice in this other matters If in this we are blameworthy condemne him who directs vs to do so if you dare not condemne him you must absolue vs. Call to mind S. Austins words mentioned aboue in Epist ad Volusianum Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile si exemplum poscitur non erit singulare If a reason be found out it will cease to be admirable if an example be produced it will not be singular We owne it is Admirable we professe it is Singular So we expect nether Reason nor example to confirme vs in the beleife of it That is we are nether Socinians nor Morleyans Iust so we beleiue the same Christ to be borne of a virgin thô nether Reason nor experience confirme it Yet out of some other places of scripture joyned together it appeares that Christ's body hath been in two places at the same time For we learne out of Ephes 4.10 that He ascended vp far aboue all Heavens whence Heb. 7.26 he is sayd To be Hygher then the Heavens And Act. 13.21 we reade Whome the Heavens must receiue till the time of restitution of all things that is till the vniversal Resurrection he must remaine aboue the Heavens Yet he was seene by S. Paul 1. Cor. 15.8 Act. 9. Therefore he was in two places at the same time In Heaven aboue the Heavens as the scripture says neere the Earth otherwise the Apostle could nether haue seene his Body nor heard his voice You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about Mysteryes Which being nothing to the purpose I leaue it as I find it passe to the your 19. page where I find something in which I am concerned SECTION XVI Transubstantiation is a Miracle MY reason is because it is a worke not only Besides or Aboue but Contrary to second causes Therefore it is a Miracle The illation is evident as being from the definition to the thing defined The antecedent is cleere first from the littlenesse of the space or rather the no space to which Christs Body is reduced Secondly from its being in many places at once Answer this Reason eris mihï magnus Apollo What haue you against this D. M. p. 19. Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sacrament as no doubt it would haue done if there had beene any seing no man can perceiue it Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle but what scripture calls such
an Ismael in Abraham's family an Esau in Isaacs a Ruben in Iacob's an Absalom in David's an Adam in the terrestrial Paradice a Lucifer in the Celestial All which bad men did nether excuse a separation from the Church in which they lived nor prejudice the rest who did not approue or abette the sins as the Church hath long since declared against the Donatists We professe we beleiue the Sanctity of the Catholick Church which consists in her Doctrine her Laws her Rites many of her children not all And it is the goodnesse of God to make vs partakers of all the good workes which any one doth but not of the bad For we beleiue a Communion of Saints not of sinners of merits not of offenses So the guilt of sin is confined to the person sinning but the merits of vertuous actions spreades to all the faithfull who are in the state of grace Wherefore we ought not to think the worse of the Church for any fault committed by any of her children seing she nether teaches nor commands nor approues it But the Protestant Church cannot so easily cleare her selfe from such spots as the sins of her children leaue her Doctrine of the impossibility of God's Commandments that we are nether the better for good nor the worse for bad actions which are nether meritorious nor demeritorious in the praedestinate of Evangelical liberty the roote of all Sedition Rebellion in Church State c. These I say the like having beene taught by same of her children never condemned by her make her answearable for all sorts of sins which are but the natural sequels of those Premisses effects of those causes fruits of that tree which the first Protestants planted their followers water cherish In Catholicks a bad life is contrary to Catholick Doctrine laws in Protestants it is a natural sequel of both J do not say this to excuse any fault with reason charged vpon the persons mentioned except the gun powder plotters or to forestall my Readers judgment in favour of the Church if those accused should be really found guilty There is no cause for such an Apology The faults alleadged against Mr. Cressey are at the worst indiscreete expressions of edjous things which he thought tru D. M. thinks not so And her R. H. did shew in effect that no Wordly consideration should moue her to professe a Religion of which in her conscience she was not Of which more hereafter Who but Atheists Libertins can blame this Which is only a preferring Heaven to Earth Eternity to time the soul to the body God to man the Peace of a good conscience before the reproach of some bad men Those who think all Religions indifferent that the King is to determine which we are to follow the Hobbians may blame this but not a Disciple of Christ his Apostles SECTION XVII Mr. Cressey excused 1. Whither the Kingdome may be sayd to haue taken the Covenant 2. Whither the K. was the only sufferer for his Religion 3. Many of the Protestant Clergy renounc't their Dignityes 4. Whither the Clergy suffred for their Loyalty or their Religion 5. Of the Actings of the English Protestant Clergy in the troubles 1. D. M. p. 7. It is false injurious to say that the Presbiterians did constrain the whole kingdome to forswear their Religion for it must be the whole Kingdomes taking not the Presbiterians imposing generally of the Covenant that must proue this assertion Revisor You take Mr. Cressey's words in a very strict sense that you may accuse them condemne him Yet I think in good Phylosophy divinity too Propositions In materiâ contingenti althô they seeme Vniversal are not such but only Indefinite For example Philip. 2.21 All seeke their owne not the things which are of Iesus-Christ T it 1.12 The Cretans are always lyars evil Beasts slow bellyes These Propositions are as to their forme Vniversal the first with a distributiue particle to Persons All the second with alike particle of time Always Yet nether are truly Vniversal not the first for nether S. Paul nor several of the Apostles then aliue Sought their owne In alike manner amongst the Cretans some were very good sincere vertuous men Such Propositions are frequent in common discourse v. c. All Spainards are Graue All French men civil All Italians cautious All young men rash All women talkatiue All old men morose c. Which are taken as tru because commonly they are so taken Indefinitè But taken as Vniversals they are false seing several instances can be brought in which they are not tru greate warinesse is necessary in applying any one of them to particulars This is my first Answer Another is that the Kingdome by an ordinary figure is taken for the governing part of it so what is decreed by that may be sayd to be decreed by the Kingdome Which is tru thô some of this part oppose it Thus a Peace or Truce is sayd to be made by the Republick Of Venice v. c. when the Senate decrees it or when the major part of Senators resolue it althô some Senators oppose it are for war Livy Vbi semel decretum erit omnibus id etiam quibus ante displicuerat pro bono atque vtili foedere erit defendendum Plinius l. 6. Epist 13. Quod pluribus placuit omnibus tenendum Dionisius Halicarnassaeus Parendum his quae pars maior censuerit Even those who dislike a decree before it be made are bound to approue it after it is made Provided it containe nothing against Conscience Indeed we see in all Assemblyes where things are carryed by plurality of votes all even the NOES are bound to approue the order vnlesse in some cases when they are admitted to a Protestation Now the major part of the then Gouvernours of the Nation or Kingdome decreed the taking of the Covenant the major more conspicuous part of the subjects may be sayd to haue admitted that decree althô very many considerable both for number quality by some industry shifted off the taking of it so the Kingdome may in some sort be sayd To impose the Covenant also To take it Thus we say that England changed its Religion such a yeare thô a very greate number at that time did not admit of any change And we may say that the Oaths are imposed vpon taken by the Kingdome thô several refuse them Were not Mr. Cressey a Papist I beleiue either of these answers would suffice 2. D. M. p. 8. His second crime is his saying The King was almost the only man who remained so constant to his Religion as to hazard for it the losse of his estate life too This is false say you for many thousands did the same Revisor In the ruin of others there was a complicancy of causes which procured it loyalty to their King hatred to their persons for fyghting against them their
Forty yeares a goe it cost them much labour mony bloud time to get their armed Mirmidons about the Kings person within these four yeares few houres were enough to bring 20000. armed men to Temple Barre neere the King's Palace who knows but the next attempt will bring them to or within his gates Deus omen avertat say I as well as you But humanely speaking that can scarce be avoyded without God's opening your eyes to see the mischeife you promote or stirring vp publicke Authority to stop your mouths Otherwise You conceiue chaffe you bring forth stubble your spirit as fire will devour you Isayas 33.11 Now to your sermon In your 16. first pages I see little to the purpose The greatest part is De communi Sanctorum appliable to other things mingled with some slips through inadvertency such J take that to be p. 13. S. Paul saw it with his owne eyes when he says himself 1. cor 1.11 He heard it from those of Chloe 3. D. M. p. 17. This horrid conspiracy to which the Actors were prompted by some Doctrines of their Religion Rev. That it was a Horrid conspiracy J grant but not that the Doctrines of our Religion prompted the Actors vnto it Let experience decide the cause What Kings more absolute in their Dominions then Catholicks In England when were our Kings more honoured readily obeyed by their subjects than when Papists when more beloved by their freinds and Allyes when more feared by their Enemyes than when Papists Popery teachs to giue every one his due to God what is Gods to Caesar what is his that is it teaches to obey both Prelate Prince both spiritual temporal Magistrate Whereas your Reformation quite cast off obedience to the Prelate so weakened that to the Prince that this broke too And althô you haue endeavoured to piece it againe yet the common voice says that without a dose of Popery or Popish principles it can never arriue to its former vigour So different are the judgments of the world from your pretences But what are these Doctrines D. M. p. 19 That of the Popes supremacy not of order or precedency Only but of Authority jurisdiction Rev. That supremacy had been acknowledged 1000. yeares yet Monarchy remained in its vigour so it continues in Spaine France Germany without any bad effect to Monarchy But you lay the faults of your Reformation at our dore Then you cite some hard opinions out of Bellarmin Aug. Steucus who being no Rules of our Faith I passe by them D. M. p. 21. The Clergy was forbidden to marry that they myght haue no tye to their country exempted from secular jurisdiction that it myght depend only on the Pope Rev. You speake more dogmatically than the Pope for in doctrinal points he giues a Reason you giue none You may find other motiues for these two points if you consult our Divines or Controvertists D. M. p. 22. Oaths cannot bind them to their Allegiance Because 1. they take them with Aequivocation 2. The Pope can dispense in them 3. They keepe no faith with Hereticks Rev. Such stuffe myght passe in Oates's narratiue or rayling I. Philips before the Rabble but scarce in one of your degree before such an Auditory If Oaths to vs are such Cobwebs why do so many of vs loose their Estates their Libertys their Liues rather than take some Why doth the Parliament take the Paines to frame impose them You contradict experience I feare your owne Conscience D. M. p. 23. Another horrid Doctrine is the obligation of Preists to conceale what they heare in Confession And you mention Clement Ravaillac Rev. You myght with as much reason haue mentioned Brutus Pausanias for it doth not appeare that ether of these two ever discovered their designe in Confession The secret of Confession may bring a Ruffian to discover his damnable intention to a Preist by whome he may be diverted or the mischeife prevented Divines teach how without breaking the seale of Confession But it giues no advantage to a Preist to communicate bad designes because the obligation of secrecy binds not the Penitent D. M. p. 24. It is not enough to say these are not Doctrines of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Doctors of it because they never were condemned by the representatiue Body of that Church c. Rev. A discourse much below your self your Auditory yet you repeate it againe p. 30. What obligation is there that if one do a thing contrary to his duty all those of his Communion must by some publicke act declare against it Doth a man suspect his son of taking a purse if another doth so Or his wife of being vnfaithfull to him because his neyghbour's wife is so Or you your breth ren to be in a readinesse to take vp Armes against the King because a Bishop did so Because that man's son or wife or the Bishops never declared their abhorrence of those several Crimes Moreover some of the Doctrines you mention are censured by our Church in Santarelli Becanus In France Rome it self which you knew therefore say They were not condemned by the representatiue body of the Church that is a general Council But if you reade the last Chapter of S. Austins fourth book Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum you will find that generall Councils are not always necessary to condemne emergent errours that many more haue beene condemned out of than in Councils that without an absolute necessity all other meanes fayling the Church vses not to haue recours to a general Council Indeed were it not so such Councils must ether be perpetual so the cheife Pastors would be always absent from their flocks or be so frequent that they would scarce ever reside with it Wherefore God hath appointed in the Church for ordinary more frequent occasions inferiour Tribunals some of which haue declared already their dislike of some of these Doctrines others they leaue as likely to wither of themselues Sicut foenum tectorum as hay on the house top some it may be are left as not being legally knowne to those Tribunalls How ever ether there is or is not an obligation to condemne all bad Doctrines If there is none why do you blame our Church for omitting it Jf there is one how can you excuse your owne Church which never complyed with that Duty In reality there is an obligation which being a positiue precept obliges in time place not alwais is so kept by vs not at all by you D. M. p. 25. Bishop Andrews tells vs that Paul IV. offred to confirme all that Q. Elisabeth had done in Church affayres vpon condition she would owne his supremacy Rev. This requires a better proofe than the bare word of one interessed man How ever if it were so the guilt of Schisme sticks closer to you you may see how much you were