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
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
some private men amongst you withstand yours What reason can you alleadge against a Tub preacher Some texts of scripture Canons of Councils Tradition of the Church Laws of the Realme All these stood in favour of our Clergy against the first Reformers as more evidtntly than for you against your dissenters So your Schisme Reformation hath deprived you of all meanes to preserue the Peace of the Church My 5. Is taken from the manner of your Reformation From Rome our Ancesters had received by the same hands a systeme of Faith a body of Ceremonys some Ecclesiastical Laws The whole Faith as necessary to be beleived the Ceremonys as decent to entertaine devotion The laws as convenient to government order And your first Reformers changed all Jn Faith they first rejected the whole vnwritten word Tradition a greate part of the written scripture They secondly perverted many places of this by new interpretations retaining the word without its sense The Ceremonys laws were treated as licentiously throwing out of dores whatsoever they pleased Now why may not another imitate these your Patriarks Cur non licebit Valentiniano quod licuit Valentino de arbitrio suo fidem innovare What was lawfull to Luther is sure lawfull to a Lutheran what was laudable in the sixteenth is not a sin in the seventeenth age to giue new interpretations to scripture abolish other ceremonys repeale more Canons Especially the motiues of reforming being common Which is My 6. Your first reformers rejected some Articles of Faith as being delivered by fallible men some Ceremonys as men's inventions some laws as contrary to Evangelical liberty Now all this holds as strongly against what they Keepe in as what they leaue out for all Canons were imposed by men all Ceremonys prescribed by men scripture it self brought to you continued amongst you by fallible men as much as the real presence Now as you blot this out of your creede why may not another strike out Baptisme a third the Trinity a fourth the Incarnation afifth the vnity of God a sixth the Deity it self so farewell all Faith What reason is there to say that our Roman Missioners sent by S. Gregory were infallible in delivering the mysterys of the Trinity or Incarnation fallible in speaking of Purgatory or the Real presence They say they pared away these Articles because they were not from the beginning were abuses But will not a Monothelit alleadge the same against the distinction of wills in Christ an Eutychian against the distinction of natures a Nestorian against the vnity of Person in him a Macedonian against the Divinity of the Holy ghost an Arrian against that of the son a Manichean against the vnity of the Divine nature a Iew against the new Testament a Libertin and Atheist against both old new God himself These are not wyre drawne conclusions by obscure mediums far fetched illations but natural obvious sequels of the fundamental principles of your Reformation which are inconsistent with any constancy in Faith and settlement in Church government So I must conclude that your Church building is such as no principles can beare your principles are such as can beare no building By which we may guesse from whome your reformers had their vocation from Abaddon Apollion the Destroyer seing their principles are good only to Destroy Churchs not at all to Build them In fine a prudent man without casting a figure might haue seene the fate of the late troubles in their principles which were inconsistent with any setled forme of civil gouvernment would ruin them all successively as they did without any hopes of rest vnlesse these were layd aside the just ancient government restored The like conjecture may be made of Protestantisme its principles being inconsistent with any setled forme of Faith Church government will destroy them all by Schisme Heresyes no probability of a settlement vnlesse these be renounced the Ancient Catholick Apostolical Faith Government restored For a further proofe of this I appeale to experience which is a demonstration A posteriori as the former is A priori which is My 7. Experience shews that t is much easier to destroy than to settle a government ether in Church or State Nothing of Art or Power was wanting to the establishment of the Prelatical Church in England She appeared first with the plausible colours of an Apostolical Reformation was cherisht by Royal favour armed the severest laws imaginable Yet one age had not past over her head when the peccant humours bread within her layd her in the dust the crowne it self with her which it was hoped she would vp hold Both were againe restored yet how soone was the joy of that over both brought againe into a like danger Seeke no where abroade the spring of these mischeifes they rise from the Reformation are inseparable from the Protestant Church My 8. And last reason is drawne from the Protestant Clergy it self which as it is modelled principled can never sufficiently influence the Nation to preserue its vnion in the Worship of God its duty to the King to prevent Schisme in the Church Faction in the State This appeares by experience The reasons I reserue till some further occasion be given 3. D. M. so we shall hereafter call my Lord of Winton says in his Preface pag. 11. A french Iesuit called Mainbourg publisht something as writen by her late R. H. he repeates afterwards four times in the Preface once in his post script Mainbourg the Iusuit when it was Mainbourg the secular Preist who printed it Which that booke of his tells all the world so did the publike Gazets containing his dismission out of the society His superiors did never permit him to print it whilest he was a Iesuit knowing how sacred the secrets of Princes ought to be So that paper crept about only in written copyes seene by few of these not many beleiving it to be hers whose name it beares Now D. M. hath spreade it the rumor of her Change in Religion for his owne vindication so prejudiced his mother the Church of England for I doubt not but her R. H. example will moue more Powerfully to leaue that Church than D. M. S. judgment to retaine men in it He questions the Conference betwixt her R. H. the Bishop which being a matter of Fact must rely on the deposition of witnesses their credit interest She is positiue he conjectural she had no motiue but Truth he concerned for the honour of his Church his owne His topick is if the Bishop answered so he was nether so Learned nor Conscientious nor Prudent as he ought to be Which many will easier grant then that her R. H. in a matter of fact would wittingly tell an vntruth He relates many things in his Preface to little purpose v. c. His coming out of