Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56416
|
An answer to the most materiall parts of Dr. Hamond's booke of schisme: or a defence of the Church of England, against exceptions of the Romanists written in a letter from a Catholique gent. to his friend in England.
|
B. P.
|
1654
(1654)
|
Wing P5; ESTC R220298
|
14,092
|
28
|
Mary to cut off her succession and introduce their own thought fit to strengthen their faction which besides what they might hope from abroad consisted of many Lutherans and Calvenists at home those two Sects having by opportunity of that rupture in H the 8th time spread and nestled themselves in many parts of England Sect 15. Queen Elizabeth being by Act of Parlament recorded a bastard and so pronounced by two Popes and therefore mistrusting all her Catholick Subjects who she feared did adhere to the Queen of Scots title in which she was then likely to be supported by the King of France her Husband was by the advise of men partly infected with Calvinisme or Lutheranisme partly ambitious of making their fortunes cast upon that desperate Councell of changing Religion desperate I say for see amongst what a number of Rocks she was in consequence of that Councel forced to sail witness her adhearing to the Rebels of all her neighbour Kings so provoking them thereby as if the French King had not been taken out of this world and winde and weather fought against the Spanish Armado in all likelihood she had been ruined especially her Catholick Subjects being so provoked as they were by most cruel and bloodie Laws but this by the by though from hence the Reader may judge of reason of changing Religion in her time and what a solid foundation the Church of England hath how far Mr. Mason can justifie the ordination of Queen Elizabeths Bishops Sect 16. I will not now examine but certain it is that the Record if there be such a one hath a great prejudice of being forged since it lay some fifty yeers unknown amongst the Clamors against the flagrant fact and no permission given to Catholicks to examine the ingenuitie of it but howsoever it is nothing to our purpose for whatsoever materiall mission they had by an externall consecration those Bishops who are said to have consecrated them are not as much as pretended to have given them order to preach the Doctrine or exercise the Religion they after did which is the true meaning and effect of mission I cannot end without nothing in his 20 Para the foundation upon which he himself saies his whole defires relyes which is that because the recession from the Romane Church was done by those by whom and to whom onely the power of right belonged legally viz the King and Bishops of this Nation therefore it is no schism that is whatsoever the reason of dividing hath been even to turn Turks or for violating never so fundamental points of Religion yet it had not been schism In his 8th Chapter as far as I understand he divideth schism into formal that is breach of Unitie and material that is breach of Doctrine or Customs in which the Church was united the former he brancheth into subordination to the Pope Sect 4. of which enough hath been said and breach of the way provided by Christ for maintaining the unity of Faith the which he puts in many subordinations without any effect For let us as he Sect 5. if inferior Clergie men dissent from their own Bishops but not from their Metrapolitan in matter of Faith is it schism he will answer No if a Metrapo itan dissent from his Primate but agree with the rest of the Patriarchs is it schism I think he must say No if a Patriarch dissent from the first but agree with the rest is it schisme No if a Nation or a Bishop dissent from the rest of the generall Councell is it schism still I beleeve he will answer No where then is schism provided against or where truly is there any subordination in Faith if none of these are subject and bound to their superiors or Universals in matters of Faith But saith the Doctor the Apostles resolved upon some few heads of speciall force and efficacie to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation Truly I do not know what a Catholick professeth more so that by the word few he meaneth enough to form a Religion and Christian life and will shew us a Church which hath not betrayed the trust deposited for if there be none what availeth this depositing if there be any clear it is that it preserved it by tradition if there be a question whether it hath or no again I demand to what purpose was the depositing so that if the Doctor would speak aloud I doubt he would be subject to as much jealousie as he saith Grocius was I cannot but admire indeed the great temper he professeth men of his Religion have in chusing of Doctrines to wit Sect 7. their submission to the three first Ages and the foure first Councels but I confesse it is a humility I understand not first to profess they know not whether their teachers say true or no that is that they are fallible and then to hold under pain of damnation what they say Another peece of their Humility is in submitting to Ages where very few Witnesses can be found in regard of the rarity of the Authors and the little occasion they had to speak of present controversies A third note of Humility is that whereas the fourth Councel was held about the midst of the fifth Age these lovers of truth will stand to it but not to the fourth Age precedent or that very Age in which it was held so humble they are to submit to any Authority that toucheth not the questions in present controversie but where do they find Christs Church should be Judg in three Ages and fail in the fourth or that the Councels in the fifth Age should be sound but not the Fathers In his 9th Chapter he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of his division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the beleef and practise of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions Sect 4 5. if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he were unjustly out-lawed because he doth not desire it now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing less What then wil they contest it by all grounds a good Orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether Si quis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their major but then their defence is if any ground or Rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a poine in question they will contest that point by those grounds is not this a goodly excuse In his 11 Chapter he
to our purpose to dispute here only this I say that he seems neither to understand the question nor proves what he would he understandeth nor the question which hath no dependancie on the nature of Patriarchs or rearms of gratitude but on the donation of Christ he proves not what he would for he produceth only the act of an Emperor accounted tyrannical towards the Church without proof or discussion whether it was wel or ill done which was requisire to make good his proof neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an actor in the business he addeth an Apocriphal Decree of Valentinian the third for giving of priviledges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bp of Havenna which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch but on the whole matter this is to be observed that generally the Bishops consents were pre-demanded or pre-ordered as in the counsel of Calcedon can 17. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishopricks according to the Emperors changing of his City and when the Emperors did it it is said they did it according to the power given them to wit by the Church so that a few examples to the contrary produced in the Raigns of headstrong and tyrannical Princes as the most of those were noted to be under whom they are urged and as they did The Conqueror was prov'd nothing and if they did yet cannot they be taken as testimonies when these matters of fact are only so attributed to Princes as no way to exclude the Church but whatsoever it was it doth not at all appertian to the question since the Popes authority in the sence he cals him Pope is not properly patriarchal nor hath any dependencie upon or from change of places made by the command of Printes In his 7th Chap. he intends a justification of the breach Begun in H. 8. whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two days short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lo of Charberies book fol. 368 and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherin it was made so the very naming of H 8th is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his Daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for Englands Nero to future posterity Sir Walter Raughley in Preface to History of the World and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian Religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good which he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Universities Convocation or Parlament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witness what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burbey Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly parallel'd to Nero. But me thinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender threed the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz. that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and conclude that they were unwilling laying the whole weight of the Argument upon this that the pretentions for the Popes Supremacie in England must be founded either as Successor to St. Peter in the Universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a Member thereof or upon paternal right respecting St. Augustines conversion or upon concession from some of our Kings c. To which I answer that we relye on the first as the foundation and corner stone of the whole building On the 3d. as an action worthy the Successor of St. Peter which requires a gratefull consideration from us And on the 3d. not as a concession but as a just acknowledgment of what was necessarie to the good of Christian Religion taught our Kings by those who taught them Christian Religion of which belief I mean that the Pope as successor to St. Peter is head and governor of the universal Church we have been in possession ever since the conversion of our English Ancestors then Saxons to the Christian Religion made by Austin the Monk sent hither by Pope Gregory for that purpose untill that good King Henry the 8th out of scrupulositie of conscience no doubt was pleased to cut the guordian knot of those bonds within which all his Ancestors limitted themselves neither shal al that the Doct. and his fellows have said or can say justifie themselves so but that such a possession as I here speak of will convince them of schism though all those replyes which by ours have been 40 times made to everie one of those Arguments the Doct uses shold bear but equal weight in the scale which we think hoyses it up into the air for the arguments must be demonstrative clear to men of common sence that must overthrow such a possession and therefore it is that the Puritans who are much less friends to the Church of Rome then to the Church of England were all disputing out of Antiquity and confess Napier on the Revelation that the Church of Rome hath born a sway without any debatable contradiction over the Christian world 1260 yeers a time that no King in the world can pretend to by succession from his Ancestors for possession of his Crown and yet I beleeve the Doctor would conclude those Subjects guilty of Rebellion which should go about to deprive such a King of his Crown though he could not shew writings evidently concluding for him 13 14 15 or 1600 yeer ago how much more if he could shew them demonstrating his right in the interpretation of as wise and learned men as the world hath and 20 times the numbers of their adversaries Sect 11. Queen Maries titular retaining of the Supremacie untill she could dispose the disordered hearts of her subjects to get it peaceably revoked is no authority for the Doctor she never pretending it to be lawfully done but that she could not do otherwise and by the refusing of a Legat which in all Catholick times and Countreys hath been practised and thought lawfull Sect 13. King Edward a childe of nine yeers old fell into the hands of wicked ambitious Traitors who knowing the Kingdom affected for Religions sake to Queen