by Holy Writt but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto many superstitions Appeal pag. 297. Yet allthough we deny the change so called to be reasonable or intelligible I remember not that we deny it to be possible by God's omnipotence which is not limited by rules of reason and naturall Philosophy in extraordinary transmutations But to say God does it because he can do it is no logicall argument nor holds it any more in this then in a thousand other things within the infinitude of his power which we be sure are not nor do we believe shall be ever actually accomplished And why her H. should be troubled in conscience about that she knew or might have known many learned honest and industrious men on both sides for that is truth had her H. taken time to look about her could never attain to beyond the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess is my wonder yea and so much the more because she had in her own power which was enough to quiet her own Conscience what she alledg'd she wanted for I positively demand who hindred her from believing Transubstantiation if by Revelation or self-perswasion or submission to the opinion of some admired or endeared person she was prevailed with to believe it true or intrinsecally to adhaere to it as if it were Who from paying divine worship after such mis-perswasion or submission to the body and blood of our Saviour when tender'd to her upon her knees The Church directed her R. H. among others what she would have her do according to the Doctrine published in the Confession of it but the Church enquired not after what she thought or with what intention she acted her part in that holy duty and I hope her Conscience was not troubled because others did not upon like principles or in kind compliance what she would have them and tell her H. so at their hazard Our Bishop Iewell quotes D. Tonstall and seemes not to dislike it saying thus Of the manner and meane how this might be whether by Transubstantiation or otherwise perhaps it had been better to leave every man that would be Curious to his own Conjecture as before the Councel of Laterane it was left at liberty Pef. of Apol. pag. 237. And in generall upon like occasion wherein this may be suppos'd included sayes that H. Martyr Archbishop Laud how far that Belief or any other sinkes into a man's heart is for none to judge but God Conf. p. 213. Further yet Her ghostly Father of the Roman Church if none of ours were to be trusted might have instructed her That Suarez among divers other a learned man of great note with them made plain confession That to believe Transubstantiation is not necessary to be taken in to the Doctrine of Fayth and why then should her H. be so much concerned for it And D. Fisher sometime Bishop of Rochester That it cannot be proved by any Scripture Bishop Iewell Repl. And if not thence to be proved her perswasion was groundess and her labour in the search fruitless if not fallicious as to her self for most certain it is those deep-learned Doctours could dive further into the sense of H. Writ then a Lady that meant well but had little skill in Metaphysicks to assist her which Suarez himself sayes this point requires but against private illumination or a self-conceit of it whether so or no I can say nothing In summe the change that does so divide us what e're it be is a secret of God's own making and a secret of God's own keeping wherein her H. might have acquiesced with the like moderation as the Lady Elizabeth shewed before she came to be Queen which she might have read with the other passages in Dr. Heylyn's History very substantially and significantly allthough rhythmically thus expressed 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it I add but one word more The mysteries being so great and the difficulties being so many I much doubt whether the more intelligent sort of Roman-Catholiques do themselves believe Transubstantiation though so earnest for it to obtain the better Character among the more simple Devotes that do which when I was in those countreys I adventur'd to tell some of them who had patience enough to hear it without making a very earnest much less a reproachfull answer and very glad I am that upon this occasion I have met with countenance and am confirmed in my suspicion by a most reverend and able Authour Archbishop Laud Conf. pag. 192. where his Grace declares opinion in these few lines As for the Learned of those zealous-men that died in this Cause in Q. Maries dayes they denied not the Reall presence simply taken but as their Opposites forced Transubstantiation upon them as if that and the Reall presence had been all one Whereas all the Ancient Christians ever believed the one and none but Modern and Superstitious Christians believe the other if they do believe it for I for my part doubt they do not And as for the Un-learned in those times and all times their zeal they holding the Foundation may eat out their Ignorances and leave them safe Be contented with That it is the Body of Christ and do not seek nor define how it is so and we shall not contest nor contend sayes Bishop Mountagu in his Appeal Ch. 31. In which happy medium may both parties meet and be indissolubly or indivisibly for ever reconciled Of Infallibility Her Highnesses next discovery was an Infallibility of the Church but points not to any one or more Texts of Scripture by which she owned her self convinced nor yet teils us what she means by the Church nor in what points or cases she would have it infallible unless she intends all And where is that or those Texts of Scripture that did convince her What concerning Infallibility she might have learned from our most eminent Writers I shall produce for their sakes who may be under the same difficulty and perhaps not so successfull or sodain in meeting with the like satisfaction as our Dutchess did As for the most learned and acute Dr. Ier. Taylour I can not tell whether I were best advise 'em to read first or last of all his 1. Sect. of the second Part of the Disswalive from Popery where he treateth of it at large because if first I am afraid they will meet with such Moeanders uncertain windings and short turnes of subtilty I mean not Sophistry but Scholastike double refined notices which he makes unavoidable in the inquiry as they will hardly have courage enough to consult any other Authour afterward nor submission enough to arrest on him And if they take him last in hand whatsoever Rock of Authority or Reason they may have built on before the sharpness of his
Pen and Fancy will be such as to eat or penetrate into every cleft of it and not onely break it into shivers but multiply them into heapes of Sand which being washed away by the Spring-tyde of his ingenious approaches and irresistible force of his argumentative assaults their building must needs fall and be carryed into an Abyss or Ocean which they can never fathome or sound the depth of Archbishop Cranmer in his Answer to Smith's Preface speakes not home enough to their purpose where he sayth Truth it is indeed that the Church doth never wholly erre for ever in most darkness God shineth unto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he governeth them so with his holy word and spirit that the gates of Hell prevaile not against them This Church is the piller of truth because it resteth upon God's word which is the true and sure foundation and will not suffer it to erre and fall Pag. 405. 406. It is the invisible Church his Grace meanes for of the outward and visible he absolutely denies it and this proves I confess rather the perpetuity then infallibility of the Church Bishop Field recollects several acceptions of the Church Book 4. Ch. 2. First as it comprehendeth the whole number of believers that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh which Church he sayes is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of Divine things that are to be known by revelation The second acception is as it comprehendeth only all those believers that are and have been since the Apostles time which in things that are of necessity to be expresly known by all that will be saved that it should erre is impossible And further thinkes it as impossible that any errour whatsoever should be found in all the Pastours and Guides of the Church thus generally taken Touching the Church as it comprehendeth onely the believers that now are in the world he sayes In things necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it never is ignorant much less doth it erre yea in things that are not absolutely necessary to be known and believed expresly and distinctly it never is ignorant much less doth it erre yea in things that are not absolutely necessary to be so known and believed we constantly believe that this Church can never erre nor doubt pertinaciously c. But because I doubt whether our Princess made reflexion upon the Church in such a diffusive sense and supposing that she wanted such an Oracle of Infallibility as to which there could be access for imediate resolve of scruples and doubts upon all occasions which I fear had her H. lived longer to make triall would have been as much missing in the Roman Church as in ours I must lay aside many other excellent Writers upon this point I have before me or at hand and take up one so learned and Orthodox as the best and him the rather because he useth not to be so nice in uttering his mind freely and learnedly and yet making it consistent with the Article of our Church though in appearance point blanck contradictory to what he resolutely concludes it is Bishop Mountagu I mean who in his Appeal where he justifies what he had said in his answer to the Gagger his Position is this The Church Representative true and lawfull never yet erred in Fundamentals and therefore I see no cause but to vouch The Church Representative can not erre The Church Representative is a Generall Councel not titularly so as the Conventicle of Trent but plenarily true generall and lawfull Points Fundamentall be such as are immediate unto faith Let any man living shew me sayes he any historicall mistakings misreportings where when in what any Generall Councell according to true acception or Church Representative hath so erred in the resolution and decission of that Councell for in the debating of doubts questions propositions the case is otherwise and not the same I conceive and acknowledge but four Councells of this kind that of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon The Church of England may seem to have been of a contrary mind in her determinations For Artic. 21. we read thus Generall Councels when they be gathered together forasmuch as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God they may erre and sometime have erred even in things pertaining unto God Which decision of the Article is not home to this purpose as he particularly proves and hath the approbation of the Reverend Dr. Francis White afterward Bishop of Ely that he found nothing therein in that and his whole Book but what is agreeable to the Publick Faith Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England of whose Doctrine the said 21 Article is a noted part But because the Bishop leaves this Infallibility at above a thousand yeares distance viz the last Generall Councel of Chalcedon attributing no such thing to any the pretended Generall Councels since it is necessary I go seek a supplement somewhere else for the guidance of doubting persons who may be at loss what to think the state of the Church hath been in so long an intervall and if they take Posterity into their care what it may be in a much longer yet to come before such another Generall Councel meet now the Latine Church seemes to be finally settled upon the Lees of the Decisions in the Councel of Trent Among those many I have turned over I find not where to furnish my self better then from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that most glorious Martyr now a resplendent starr of magnitude among the Saints above in his famed Book commended by that Royall Martyr not long before he drank of the same Cup that bloudy Brook in the way to his celestiall Crown Archbishop Laud's Conference with Mr. Fisher the Iesuite where his Grace sayes Whether a Generall Councel may erre or not is a Question of great consequence in the Church of Christ To say It can not erre leaves the Church not onely without remedy against an errour once determined but also without sense that it may need a remedy and so without care to seek it To say It can erre seemes to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the Faith to make unquiet spirits not onely to disrespect former Councels of the Church but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine I said the Determination of a Generall Councel erring was to stand in force and to have External Obedience at least yielded to it till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the Contrary made the Errour appear and until thereupon another Councel of equal Authority did reverse it Pag. 146. 147. In the following Considerations is added with submission to our Mother the Church of England and to the Mother of us all the Universall Catholick Church of Christ That the Assistance of the H. Ghost is
without errour that 's no quaestion and as little there is That a Councel hath it This in the abstract is as home as need to be in the point but this afterward is somewhat moderated by distinguishing the infallibility of the after-Councels from that of the Apostles themselves Acts 15. where they say of themselves and the Councel held by them It seemes good to the Holy Ghost and to us who might indeed well say it but he does not find that any General Councel since though they did implore as they ought the assistance of that Blessed Spirit did ever take upon them to say in-terminis in express terms of their Definitions Visum est Spiritui Sancto Nobis It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Acknowledging thereby as I conceive a great deal of difference in the Certainty of those things which a Generall Councel had after determined in the Church and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sate in Councel But then again though he did not find That they used this speech punctually in terms yet the Fathers when they met in Councel were Confident and spake it out That They had assistance from the Holy Ghost yet so as that They neither took Themselves nor the Councels They sate in as Infallibly Guided by the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were And he saies Valentia is very right in concluding That though the Councel say they are gathered together in the Holy Ghost yet the Fathers are neither arrogant in using the speech nor yet Infallible for all that If other their Writers had used the like moderation perhaps her R. H. had not been so much concerned about it I expect nothing more will be obtained from other our Controvertists towards the satisfaction of any in like condition yet because Mr. Chillingworth had a more peircing eye of reason then most of the rest I will summe up his method so short as I can and see what we can make good out of it This he layes as the groundwork of his Discourse with F. Knott That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kind of the said Points 2. That it is not so prodigiously strange as his adversary thinkes That we will never be induced to give in a particular Catalogue what points be Fundamental Pag. 119. 3. That may be Fundamental and necessary to one which to another is not so Which variety of Circumstances makes it imposible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals and therefore we must content our selves by a general description to tell what is Fundamental 4. It is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the Scripture is true and containes all things necessary for salvation and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it without delivering any particular Catalogue of Fundamentals Pag. 120. 5. Though the Church may erre in some points not Fundamental yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others 6. He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals 7. The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led into all Truths by the Apostle writings sufficienter Pag. 131. led so as that she may follow but not so that she must These assertions of his influence the most part of his long Discourse with the learned Iesuite If ought more there be to strengthen e'm it may fall in with what I have yet to add relating to the invaledity of her R. Highnesses motive for deserting our Church upon account of any assurance she could have of being more firmely and finally settled in this point upon the grounds and principles thereof in the Church of Rome For yeilding pro dato not concesso what the greatest Doctors there would have more particularly those of ours that went over to them before this good Lady I demand what found they there beyond what they had here at home I will fix upon one or two of them in whose conversion they so good as tell us they are most triumphant Let the first be Dr. Vane Chaplain to his late Majesty who in the very entrance to his sixth Chapter of The Infallibility of the Church begins thus Now that the Catholique Church which Society of Christians soever it be is the onely faithful and true witness of the matter of God's word to tell us what it is and what is not it the only true interpreter of the meaning of God's word and the last and finall judge of all controversies that may arise in matters of Religion and that she is not onely true but that she can not be otherwise seeing she is infallible Our Church which is Catholique too in concurrence with that he went to is he knew extended to the first four Generall Councels to the Fathers of the first five or six hundred yeares from whom we receive the Canon we have of the H. Bible and to whose writings we go for the interpretation of any Texts that any way seem doubtfull if necessary to be resolved In others not so considerable for ought I know we leave every man to his own diligence in comparing Text with Text for mutuall illustration and to his own reason for inference of the best truth from the premises he makes himself or if so ignorant he can make none we send him to the lips of his Parochiall Priest or some other at his choyce which certainly should preserve at least so much knowledge as to determine the little difficulties brought to him according to the sense of our Nationall Church if such as whereof she hath taken any notice For Catholique Tradition we go to the Catholique Writers so truely called For what is unwritten we have no infallible living Oracle to consult no more have they for ought I see whereof any use can be made to present satisfaction and therein we may cry quitts as afterward I shall briefly shew The Conclusion herein lay'd down by D. Cressy is as followeth That it belongs alone to the Catholique Church which is the onely Depositary of Divine Revelations authoritatively and with obligation to propose those Revelations to all Christians c. to interpret the Holy Scriptures and to determine all emergent Controversies and this to the end of the world in as much as the Church by vertue of Christ's promises and assistance is not onely indefectible but continually preserved in all truth Of what Divine Revelations the Catholique Church is Depositary I have already owned viz. of the H. Scriptures and the Primitive Fathers in their Writings as being the best and surest Interpreters The difficulty yet sticks at the determining emergent Controversies which may be multiplied in infinitum by too dubious and