Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A34974
|
Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.
|
Cressy, Serenus, 1605-1674.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing C6902; ESTC R1088
|
159,933
|
352
|
to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants 6. However to qualifie a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion or Hyperaspista as he calls it somthing must be said thiâ— hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes And first whereas in all points now in debate between us he so often repeats From the Beginning it was not so He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties Novelties of so great importance as to justifie a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western And that is the time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality but because an Act of Parliament obliges him wherein it is said That such persons Laicks or Ecclesiasticks to whom Queen Elizabeth shall by Letters patents under the great Seal of England give authority to execute any Iurisdiction spiritual or to correct any Errors Heresies Schisms c shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresâ— by the express and plain words of the said Canâ—nical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 7. By this Proviso it appears that though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects who will call all things Novelties which they think are not in express Scripture yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Council that in the Opinion of Commissioners judged Heresy by express Scripture or to future Acts of Parliament judging after the same manner but we are content with and thank him for his allowance 8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion As first Does he submit only to the four first General Councils because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word If the former then he must inform us why only four Councils have such authority which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose If the later then he deludes us and with Presbyterians Independents Quakers c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council than as that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture which whether it does or no who must be Judge Doctor Pierce To answer this Question well will be a great Master-piece I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself as shall be seen before we part too hard I say to resolve so that any rational man can be satisfied with 9. A second Question is Whether to judge of Heresy that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy and what is conformable to Scripture be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners but ordinarily in the Parliament And this not being possible to be denyed then he must be further ask'd since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed That General Councils may and have err'd whether the English judge of Heresy be it the King as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th or the Parliament also as in Queen Elizabeths be infallible or no If he acknowledge it infallible he must resolve us whether the Supreme Temporal Authority with the assent of the Clergy be infalliâ—le only in England or in other Countrys also as Holland Swedland c. If the former he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone If the later then it will follow that that may and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea But if no such Authority be indeed infallible then it will follow that Decisions made by it do not oblige in Conscience and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so I mean oblige not only to non-contradiction but to internal assent The consequences of which Position he may imagin and shal see anon 10. A third Question is Whether since Presbyterians and Independents and all such Reformed Churches following the Heresy of Aerius do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction that is the whole frame of God's Church manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils and as is here affirmed of Divine Right by expresse Scripture whether I say they be not according to this Rule formal Heretics or however Schismatics since to alter this Frame they relinquish'd both this Church and ours And especally for their denying the Supream Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Authority to be in Temporal Governors which yet the Statute tells us in effect is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church If all this do not render them Heretics or at least in the highest degree Schismatics what will become of this Act of Parliament and his Primitive Rule of Reformation If they be such what will become of the English Church which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship and acknowledges them holyChristianâ— Reformed Congregations And on the other side since notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics and this meerly for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception which yet no other Diffenters from this Church though real Heretics and Schismatics either have or I fear will do 10. A fourth Question shall be how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture and mis-applying through the whole Sermon his Text to the prejudice of his Church He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern or Primitive Rule of Reformation and consequently as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal because Ab initio non fuit sic So the Dâ—ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into