made betwixt the Ecclesaâ—ic and Secular We have for the same practice the examples of the Godly Kings of â—srael and of Christian Emperours in the Primitâ—â—e Church as will be declared hereafter Chap. XV. 1. And our Doctrine herein being built thus on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets appears thereby to be Catholic and Apostolic And if any Doctrine of ours be not found grounded upon the same foundation of the Apostles and Prophets we are all reaâ—y to make that pious confession of our great King James related by Suarez Chapter XVII n. 15. Ego vero id ingenuè spondeo quoties Religionis quam profiteor ullum caput ostendetur non antiquum Catholicum Apostolicum sed novitium esse ac recens in rebus sc spectantibus ad sidem me statim ab eo dâ—sâ—essurum I do faithfully promise that whensoever any point of the Religion I profess shall be found not to be ancient Catholic and Apostolic but new and modern as to things belonging to Faith I will presently depart from it This much those of the Roman Church cannot say with sincerity and truth since several of their tenents are not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets but are contrary to them as is declared in the second part of this Treatise Therefore our Church and the Faith of it rather then that of Rome is truly Catholic and Apostolic CHAP. V. Of the Succession and lawful Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Reformed Church of England NOthing is affirmed more confidently nothing more blindly believed by most of the Romish party then the nullity of the Protestant Clergy that our Bishops Priests and Deacons are not such effectively but nominally or by title and therefore unable to give Orders they have not or administer Sacraments depending upon such Orders This I find by experience to be the greatest stop many of the more sober and serious of them have in embracing the Communion of the Church of England They see cleerly nothing is asserted by it which may be thought Heretical or erroneous And what it denies of superstructures added in latter Ages by the Roman Church they easily perceive them not to be essential to Salvation Their main scruple is whether in this separation of the reformed Churches from the Roman a lawful succession of Bishops and Ministers was retained and a legal ordination of them continued whether they may live and die confidently relying upon the Ministery of the reformed Ministers for consecrating absolving c. without recourse to a Romish Priest This point I find to be so necessary for setling the minds of many in this wavering age that I thought convenient to examine it exactly as far as may consist with the brevity and clearness I aim at in this writing To relate the reproches and calumnies of Romish Writers against our Ministery were endless and impertinent The shorter and readiest way will be to shew the truth and right of our cause by positive undeniable arguments touching the lawful succession and due Ordination of our Clergy This being established old stories and slanders will fall of themselves Who would not think it impertinent in me to take notice of that very rude and ridiculous fable of the Ordination of Parker and others at the Naggs-head in Cheapside most vigorously and demonstratively refuted many years ago by Mr. Mason and unhappily revived of late by a certain Gentleman to his own great shame and discredit of his cause being evidently convicted of Impostures by the Lord Bishop Bramhal in a separate Treatise printed upon that Subject Such base stuff as this if suitable to ears possessed with fury and blind passion is unworthy of any mention or regard among serious and sober Men. Now coming to the point after much reading and serious consideration upon the matter I wish heartily I could find the succession of lawful Bishops so cleer and not interrupted in the Roman Church from the Apostles times to the Reformation as we are able to shew it in ours from the beginning of the Reformation to our own daies It shall not be my present work to take notice of doubts occurring touching the former It will suffice for my purpose to demonstrate that from the beginning of Henry the Eight his reign when no doubt was of the legality of our Clergy to this day there has bin a lawful uninterrupted succession and due Ordination of Bishops and other Inferiour Clergy in the Churches of England and Ireland If the testimony of an adversary will avail we have that of * Cudsem de desper Calvini causa Cap. 11. pag. 108. Cudsemius who came into England the year 1608. to observe the state of our Church and the order of our Universities Concerning the state of the Calvinian Sect in England saith he it so standeth that either it may endure long or be changed suddainly or in a trice in regard of the Catholic order there in a perpetual line of their Bishops and the lawful succession of Pastors received from the Church for the honour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term not Heretics but Schismatics Bellarmin is peremtory upon the contrary saying of all the Reformed Churches nostri temporis haeretici neutrum habent id est nec ordinationem nec successionem the Heretics of our times have neither ordination nor succession Whatsoever be said of other reformed Churches which I leave to speak for themselves upon this point we have cleer evidences to shew the falsity of the Cardinals assertion as relating to the Reformed Church of England and the more criminal as more wilful calumny of * Bristow Harding Sanders Kellison apud Masonliâ— 1. cap. 2. Vindiciae Eccleâ—ae Anglicanae Bristow Harding Sanders Howlet Kellison and other English Romanists whose malice must be Diabolical or their ignorance supine and unexcusable in slandering their Country with what they knew or easily might know to be an untruth as that stranger Cudsemius with due inquiry came to know For evidencing this point of so great importance * Papists Prisoners in Framblingham Castle in Queen Elizabeths time related by Mr. Mason 1 Book 3. Chap. of his English Edition that it was the cry of Papists to the Protestant Clergy in Queen Elizabeths time and is still the challenge of many among them if you can justify our calling we will come to your Church and be of your Religion I am to premise first as to matter of fact that in all prudence I am to rely with more satisfaction upon the public authentic records of the Church and state of England touching the transactions of both then upon the report of declared bitter Enemies such as those of the Romish faction are known to be Whereas it cannot but appear morally impossible in any impartial judgment that in so grave and wise a Nation as England is known to be the Lords and Officers of Church and State should conspire and agree in deluding
the ancient â—orm pag. 49. CHAP. VIII How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination and wherein they do differ and how absurd the pretention of the Romanists is that our difference herein with them should annul our orders pag. 57. CHAP. IX That the succession of Bishops and Clergy since the Reformation is much more sure and unquestionable in the English Church then in the Romish pag. 6â— CHAP. X. A further cause of Nullity discovered in the Election of Pope Clement the 8 th pag. 75. CHAP. XI Nullities declared in the Popedom of Paul the 5 th and others following pag. 81. CHAP. XII Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England pag. 89. CHAP. XIII Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope pag. 98. CHAP. XIV Of the Jacobites Armenians Maronites and Indians pag. 110. CHAP. XV. A reflection upon the Contents of the three Chapters precceding and upon the pride and cruelty of the Romanists in despising and condemning all Christian Societies not subject to their Jurisdiction pag. 116. CHAP. XVI Inferences from the Doctrine preceeding of this who'e Treatise against the several objections of N. N. pag. 121. CHAP. XVII The Reformation of the Church of England vindicated from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other-Romanists pag. 130. CHAP. XVIII A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian pag. 132. CHAP. XIX N. N. His Book intitled the bleeding Iphigenia examined his abusive language bestowed therein upon persons of Honor and his censure upon the Kings Majesty reprehended pag. 140. CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for subjects to raise arms and to go to war with their fellow subjects without the consent of their Prince The Doctrine of killing men and making war by way of prevention and on pretext of Raligion confuted pag. 148. CHAP. XXI A Conclusion of my discourse with N. N. with a Friendly Admonition to him pag. 171. CHAP. XXII A check to I. E. his Scandalous Libel and a vindication of the Church of England from his false and sâ—anderous report of it pag. 178. The SECOND PART CHAP. I. AN Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts appearing in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland pag. 1. CHAP. II. A vindication of several Saints and worthy Souls our Ancestors from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S. pag. 6. CHAP. III. Mr. I. S. His cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined pag. 14. CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their Doctrine then Papists have pag. 19. CHAP. V. Mr. I. S. His prolix Excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture declared to be impertinent and the state of the question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it pag. 27. CHAP. VI. Mr. I. S. His defence of the Popes pretended infallibility from the censure of Blasphemy declared to be weak and impertinent his particular opinion censured for heretical by his own party pag. 33. CHAP. VII Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected pag. 41. CHAP. VIII Mr. I. S. His horrible Impiety against the Sacred Apostles and malicious impostures upon the Church of England reprehended pag. 46. CHAP. IX Our Adversartes pretention to prescription and Miracles in favour of the infallibility of their Church rejected his impostures upon me and upon the Church of England discovered further pag. 53. CHAP. X. A Check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the 8th Chapter of his book that the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their tenets And his own argument retorted to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ pag. 59. CHAP. XI A Refutation of several other engagements of Mr. I. S. in that 8 th Chapter pag. 66. CHAP. XII Mr. I. S. His answer to my objections against the Popes in fallibility refuted his defence of Bellarmin of the General Council of Constance and of Costerus declared to be weak and vain pag. 70. CHAP. XIII Our Adversaries foul and greater circle committed pretending to rid his pretention of infallibility from the censure of a circle his many absurdities and great ignorance in the pursuit of that attemt discovered a better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant principles pag. 77. CHAP. XIV A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequence of it pag. 85. CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Popes Supremacy declared to be vain their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians whether in Spiritual or Temporal proved to be unjust and Tyranical pag. 92. CHAP. XVI How falsly Mr. I. S. affirms the Irish did not suffer by the Popes prohibiting them to subscribe to the Remonstrance of fidelity proposed to them pag. 100. CHAP. XVII The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his subjects declared to be unjust pag. 103. CHAP. XVIII Our Adversaries essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined his challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered pag. 110. CHAP. XIX Several answers to my arguments against Transubstantiation refuted pag. 118. CHAP. XX. Ancient Schole men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my check to their worship of the hoste a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England declared to be void of sense and ground pag. 126. CHAP. XXI Mr. I. S. His weak defence of their halfe Communion confuted pag. 135. CHAP. XXII The Roman worship of Images declared to be sinfull pag. 142. CHAP. XXIII Mr. I. S. His defence of the Romish Worship of Images from the guilt of Idolatry confuted the miserable condition of the vulgar and unhappy engagement of the learned among Romanists touching the worship of Images discovered pag. 148. CHAP. XXIV Our Adversaries reply to my exceptions against their invocation of Saints declared to be impertinent pag. 159. CHAP. XXV A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory pag. 168. CHAP. XXVI The Argument for Purgatory taken from the 12 th of S. Matth. v. 32. solved 173. CHAP. XXVII The attemt of our Adversary to make the Doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed declared to be vain pag. 185. CHAP. XXVIII How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of Indulgences in the Roman Church pag. 188. CHAP. XXIX The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History touching the Antiquity of Indulgences discovered pag 195. CHAP. XXX Of
say that this severe sentence is not of their making but delivered by Christ against all that will not obey his Vicar upon Earth the Pope of Rome And possible it is that some of the simpler sort may believe it is so But it s long since I knew and proved that none sufficiently conversant in the principles of their own Theology could seriously think it to be so but that according to their principles its blasphemy and Heresy to say without restriction and in general terms as commonly they do that none may be saved out of the communion of the Roman Church And my Antagonist I.S. tells us I did not trespass therein against truth of Doctrine but against policy or prudence as he calls it whereby I put a great stop to the conversion of Protestants if People did think that out of the Romish Communion any may be saved So as the prudence demanded from me was to fashion my Doctrine to the increase of the Popes Dominion be it with truth or untruth and pronounce sentence of damnation against all Christians not subject to him tho I should know no such sentence to be against them in the judgment of God I wish my good Brethren of the Roman Church did reflect upon and acknowledg the great injury they do to themselves in breeding and fomenting this unchristian hostility with the whole Society of Christians separated from their communion so numerous and illustrious as we have seen in the preceeding Chapters imprinting hatred towards all in the hearts of their Children which forceably must beget a return of hatred or disaffection and mistrust How incommodious it s to create to themselves so many Enemies how uneasie and disadvantagious to bereave themselves of the free and amiable society of so many noble Nations and brave People which the apprehension of Heresy makes intractable to them What happened to me with a Spanish young Man that came in my company out of Spain into England makes me more sensible of the misery that Romanists bring upon themselves this way He was of his own disposition chearfull and sociable but as soon as he came among the English People his heart and countenance fell down and he appeared sad and melancholic I inquiring of him the cause of that alteration he answered that he looked upon all those men as Heretics which made their very sight odious to him and their company displeasing The man did not well know what Heresy was and much less did he know whether those Men he saw were Heretics or no. He acknowledged them to be good men just and civil in their dealing and adorned with noble gifts of God yet the prejudice he was in against them by conceiving them to be Heretics made their sight and company odious to him Would not this Man have been more happy in conceiving a better opinion of the People would it not make him live with more ease and comfort among them not to mention now that higher Emolument and duty of maintaining charity towards all Men. CHAP. XVI Inferences from the preceeding Doctrine of this whole treatise against the several objections of N. N. HE that hath not considered the frame I proposed to observe in this treatise and seeth me go through many Chapters of it debating with Suarez and other Romish writers without any mention of N. N. may think I have neglected or forgotten him and his Book But if he will take notice of my purpose made in the beginning of cutting down by the root the whole Fabric of the said Book he shall find I am still upon my intended work The ground and foundation of all the cries and complaint of N. N. against me is a supposition that I have left the Catholic Church and Faith by withdrawing from the communion of the Roman Church and embracing this of England In the whole discourse of this Treatise I have proved that the Church of England is in all propriety Catholic and the Faith professed in it truly Catholic and Apostolic and all this by rules and principles taken from the ablest of Romish Writers for proceeding in this inquiry whereby it remains proved that all the exclamations of N. N. against me went upon a false supposition and consequently are vain and groundless Hence I infer first how vain is his query and more vain his divining answer about what drew me out of Gods house It appears by what is said hitherto and will be further declared in the rest of this Book that in my change I did not leave the house of God but removed to the best and soundest part of it that no private spirit or rash fancy moved me but a sincere acknowledgment of truth by the ordinary means God has disposed for us to come by it I infer secondly how groundless and unreasonable his pretention is that I should have quitted the holy Doctors Gregory Ambrose Augustine and Jerom and all the ancient Fathers and Catholic Doctors He do's not tell how or wherein I have deserted that noble company neither indeed were it easy for him to tell it I live and do firmly resolve to dy in the same Catholic Church which they lived and died in and in the profession of the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith which they professed The same and no other Faith is professed in the Church of England whose communion I have embraced as hath bin sufficiently demonstrated hitherto and I hope by the merits and grace of our Saviour Jesus to enjoy the company of those blessed Saints in Heaven maugreall the censures of Rome Neither was I ever closer with those Holy Fathers in the Romish Church then I am now in the English It is one of the perverse calumnies of our adversaries to give forth that there is not due regard had of them here I see the contrary I have observed diligently the waies of the Universities and method of Study with Learned men in England and Ireland and I see with them far greater application to the study and reading of holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church then ever I saw amongst Romanists Whilst the most learned of these spend their life and forces in speculative notions only serving Schole debates learned Protestants employ their time more happily in the study of the Holy Scriptures of Fathers and credible Histories I infer thirdly how rash and injurious is his censure in saying that by embracing the confession contained in the 39. Articles of the Church of England I have made my self partaker of all the Heresies and an associate of all the Heretics that were from the beginning of the World to this day Of these he makes a great list beginning with Lucifer whom he will have to be the first Heretic before Mans Creation and from him proceeds to Lamech the Gyants all those that entred not into the Ark but perished in the deluge who were all Heretics saies he Then enters Cham with the builders of Babels Esau Jannes and Jambres Corah and Dathan Nadah and
Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences veneration and adoration as well of Images as of reliques as also of the invocation of Saints is absurd and vainly invented nor is grounded upon any authority of Scripture but is rather repugnant to the word of God Upon which Article N. N. delivers this heavy censure that it is false profane and Heretical But in the whole discourse of the second part of this Treatise I will demonstrate God willing that it is rather true Religious and Catholic as also I do intend by the help of God to vindicate the rest of those Articles in a separat Treatise from the cavils of Alexander White and other Romanists whereby N. N. will find how much he is mistaken in taking the said Alexander White 's Book against the thirty nine Articles for unanswerable as certainly he is far mistaken in saying resolutely tho without having any ground for it that the aforesaid White hath bestowed more time and deliberation in quitting those Articles then I have don in deserting the communion of the Roman Church Seven years he saies Mr. White spent in deliberating upon his resolution but certainly I have spent many more years in deliberating upon mine How many they were as it is not easie to demonstrate so it is not material to tell men may deliberate long and err at last in their resolution To my reasons alledged for that resolution which I took I appeal and do willingly expose them to public view and examination that others as well as I may judg of the weight of them Very foul and slanderous also has bin the mistake of our adversary in saying that the Authors of our 39. Articles were only some few obscare men Priests and Friers run out of Germany and that by them the Church and Kingdom of England was governed in the Reformation of their Religion How false their report is may appear by the public Records and Histories of the Land and by several Acts of Parliament passed with great deliberation of all the States of the Kingdom upon the settlement of the Reformation and of those Articles as well in that great Synod or Convocation celebrated under Edward the sixth in the year 1552. above mentioned as also an other no less famous Synod held at London ten years after viz. 1562. wherein the said Articles were reviewed examined and confirmed I have seen among Seldens Books kept in the Bodleian Library of Oxford an Authentic COpy of these Articles printed at London in the year 1563 and a scroul of parchment annexed to it with the subscriptions by their proper hands of the members of the lower house of Convocation being all Deans Arch Deacons and procurators of Clergy which I found to be in number 104 besides the Arch-Bishops and Bishops sitting in the upper house whose names came not in my way to see but I am to suppose they were all the Prelates of the Land as they used to meet in Convocation And is this to shuffle up a Reformation and make Articles in clandest in manner without due examination as our Adversary would make his Reader believe CHAP. XVIII A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian THo N. N. had declared his purpose in the beginning to deal with me not Scholastically but Historically yet it seems he would not part with me without disputing upon the point of Transubstantiation He alledges testimonies and Fathers and miracles in favour of it and pretends it to have bin a Doctrine of more ancient standing then the Lateran Council To all which I have given a full answer in what I have delivered by my discourse formerly printed and in what will follow in the second part of this Treatise from the 18. Chapter forward Only I will reflect here upon two or three very gross mistakes of N. N. in his present discourse with me upon the point The first is touching my belief of this great mystery He saies resolutely without giving any ground for his saying as indeed he could have none for it that I do not believe Christ to be really present at all in this Sacrament why then saies he should he dispute with us about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeing he flatly denies the body and blood of Christ to be really and substantially present in the Sacrament But good Sir where have you seen this flat denial of mine certainly not in my declaration which seems to be the object of your quarrel not in the 39. Articles not in any public Catechism or system of Doctrine generally received by the Church of England nay the Catechism approved by autority and commended to the use of all being inserted into the Common Praier Book delivers the Doctrine quite opposite For to the question proposed touching the inward or invisible part of this Sacrament this answer is returned The Body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper And is this to deny flatly that the Body and blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament as you impute to us When a Jesuite in Germany broached the like calumny in a conserence had with some of the English nobility waiting upon our King in that Country in presence of his Majesty and of a Prince Elector in that Empire both his Majesty and the Noble-Men took offence at his Speech as being a foul Calumny and therefore desired the Reverend and Learned Doctor Cosin Bishop of Durham to vindicate the Church of England from that a spersion as he did abundantly in a very learned Tract published under the title of Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis Wherein he proves by the Articles public Catechisms and by the testimonies of several * Vide Jacobum Armac in resp ad Malon Mont. Norw in Antidiatribis Laud. Cantua in resp ad Fish Hooker Polit. Eccles l. s Joh. Roffens de potest Pap. in prae fat stat Prime Elis. c. 1. 8. Elis. c. 12 13. Elis. c. 1. grave and learned Prelates that all true Protestants especially those of the Church of England do constantly believe and profess that Christ our Saviour is really and substantially present in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist and his Body and blood really and substantially received in it by the faithful and accordingly he alledges the learned Bilson B. of Wincl ester declaring the belief and Doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in the words following Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini sed etiam ipsam veritatem naturam atque sul stantiam in se comprehendere ' That the Eucharist is not only a figure or representation of the Body of our Saviour but that it comprehends also the very truth and nature and substance of his body The very same Doctrine is contained in the 28. Article of the 39. above mentioned in these words The Body of Christ is given or taken and eaten in the
judg of those quarrels I only attend the pernicious Doctrines I see assumed to maintain the interest of one side with intention to rebuke the same as universally false and destructive to the public peace and quiet Neither in truth can I understand which of both parties may fear more prejudice from the Doctrine I am reprehending I see complaints and jealousies upon both sides which of both hath more reason for it as I am not apt to determine so I do conceive that N. N. as also any other may be uncertain to which of the parties he do's prepare ruine by allowing subjects upon suspicion of danger from their fellow subjects to go to war with them without the consent of their Prince If both do complain and fear why may not either party as well as the other fall upon his fellow subjects when opportunity will assist him in conformity with that Doctrine Truly I cannot but wonder how any one living under a Prince or state that hath several Kingdoms Provinces or Societies to govern should dare to publish so pernicious a Doctrine as this I am reprehending If those of Navar and Arragon of Sicily and Sardinia of Brabant and Flanders should renew old quarrels or stir up new ones and run to war about them without the consent of their common Prince how long would the King of Spain be able to keep peace in his Dominions If his Ministers did take notice of this Doctrine and the consequences of it certainly they would have all Books containing it banished out of their territories But all this is sanctified with N. N. by telling us that the war was for Religion and since the law of God and nature do permit a Man to kill an other that pretends to take away his life with the same or more reason he may kill one that means to take away his Religion which ought to be more precious and dear to him then his life Good God whether has the perverseness of men arrived to canonize Murders and the most barbarous cruelties with the sacred name of Religion This language came not from Heaven Christ nor any of his Apostles did never teach it the Church instructed by them did not practise it Lactantius sets before us the maxims and practise of Christians in those times by these noble words Defendenda Religio est non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitia sed patientia non scelere sed fide Religion is to be defended not by killing but by dying for it not by cruelty but by patience not by mischief but by Faith Thus St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles thus did the brave Theban Legion defend their Religion tho able to defend it with Sword as is testified by Tertullian if the Spirit and Doctrine of Christ then steering the Church had permitted it A particular person to defend his life say you may kill by way of prevention an unjust aggressor that pretends to take it from him to this purpose you quote Divines and Civilians and from thence you infer two consequences the first that likewise a community or society may war against and destroy another society from whom it fears the like destruction the second consequence is that a private person or a Society may also by way of prevention set upon and kill another whom he suspects doth intend to take his religion from him You abuse foully the Doctrine above mentioned of Divines and Civilians by misapplying it both your consequences do not only contain a perverse Doctrine against right Divinity and Christian discipline as now declared but also do trespass against the rules of Logic. The former because it is not so easie to surprise a whole society largely dispersed as it is to surprise one particular person Evidences requisit to qualify a prudent fear such as may justify a preventing onset may not so easily be found against a society the threatning words or purpose of one particular or more in a society giveth not so much assurance of the purpose or intention of the whole society as the words of a particular may give of his intention Besides the killing of one particular is not so criminal and hainous nor so much exposed to an oppression of innocents as the killing and destroying of a whole society is therefore it s no lawful consequence a particular person may killby way of prevention another that he fear will kill him ergo a society or great party may likewise by way of prevention destroy another from whom it fears the like destruction Your second consequence above mentioned that if one to defend his life may kill an other that pretends to take it from him he may likewise kill him or them that intend to take his Religion from him this consequence also I say besides the perverse Doctrine it contains is a faulty piece of Logic it is not so easy to take his Religion from a man as his corporal life Your Religion may not be taken from you by a surprise or when you are a sleep or against your will as your corporal life may be Wherefore the same prevention cannot be necessary or lawful for the preservation of both Any that hath true Religion in him due love to God and a sincere and serious desire of his own happiness must take the loss of his corporal life for his Religion to be the greatest gain he can make it being the greatest security he can have of gaining life and glory everlasting for his Soul and body as our Saviour hath declared And is it not a desirable exchange to leave a painful short and wretched life for a glorious blessed and everlasting one Much he hath in him of Earth and little of Christian Spirit who would not wish to be dissolved if he were sure to be after his dissolution with Christ The only reason that can justifie a fear to dy and part with this miserable life is the uncertainty of what may be our doom in the other and the hopes of securing a good one by further living but when a security is given to pass by death to a life everlasting as Christ gives to such as die for God and his holy Faith what Christian consideration can justifie a fear to such a death so far as to kill those that intend to bring us to it Truly N. N. I have so much of kindness and true friendship left in me for you as made me sorry and not a little troubled to see such pernicious Doctrines as these contain'd in your book I took you for a Man better principled and if I had perceived any such errors in your conversation at the time of our acquaintance in Spain I would have refuted them and shewed my dislike to them as freely as I do now I am willing to imagine that non ex tuo haec dicis that it is not your own deliberate sentiment but imposed upon you by some of those fiery emissaries of Rome who will not stick to
saith he that the Pope is infallible If he misliked that doctrine he might have denyed it and remain a Catholic A Catholic I may remain and do but not of their communion that Prop failing for those structures which I saw clearly to be ruinous without it It is an intolerable cavil to say I should speak of the Pope alone or of the Roman Diocess to delude the Reader with impertinent Digressions as often he doth I having clearly expressed my meaning to be that neither the Pope alone nor in a Council such as that of Trent nor the Congregation under his obedience are infallible To say the said Congregation should be the Church Universal which I allow according to St. Pauls Expression to be the pillar and ground of truth is an arrogant begging of a conclusion which will never be allow'd to them all Christian Churches that differ from them which are far the greater part of Christendom crying against their blind presumtion in appropriateing unto themselves the name of the Catholic Church That the Church truly Universal composed of all believers in Christ whether diffusive or representative in a Council truly Oecumenicall and free such as were the first four General Councils and such as was not the Councill of Trent is to have the assistance of the holy Ghost so that tho it be not properly infallible yet it shall not err in things fundamental to mens Salvation I do piously believe and of my meaning therein I gave him no occasion to doubt Therefore if he will speak to the purpose granting it is not an Article of faith that the Pope is infallible in the sense I denyed infallibility to him that is to say in a Council of those depending upon him or out of it it follow 's they have no certainty for their Tenets relying upon the Popes Infallibility which being no article of faith cannot be certain in it self nor consequently give certainty to things depending upon it He only allow's Infallibility to the Pope jointly with a general Council Herein he gratifies the Jansenists who may by this plead for indemnity notwithstanding the definitions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventh against them which being not confirmed or autorized by a general Council in conjunction with the Pope cannot pretend to Infallibility in Mr. I. S. his opinion who hereby must incense against himself all the party adverse to the Jansenists which will prove too hard for him But he saies all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of the Pope and a generall Council Therefore Aquinas Turrecremata and Alphonsus à Castro are in his opinion no Catholics of whom * Can. l. 4. De lo. c. 4. Aquin in 4 d. 6. qu. 1. art 7. in 3. qu. 2. ad 3. Turrecrem l. 2. sum Ecclesiae c. 91. Alphons à Cast de just Haer. pun l. c. 5. gloss interlin in illud Math. 16. portae infer c. Canus relates that the Church even Pope and Council together may err materially in their opinion as I mentioned in the 30. page of my discourse which if he did consider and examine he would not so peremtorily assert that all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of Pope and Councel jointly Neither indeed do's Mr. S. himself sâ—em to be very strong in the belief of this Infallibility for in the comfort he gives his brethren on this account extolling magnificently their happiness herein above Protestants he so orders the matter that their comfort must not be grounded upon the real existence of that Infallibility but upon a strong apprehension or belief of it tho not extant It is a comfort saies he to an unacquainted Traveller to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way tho really your guide were not acquainted with the way if you câ—â—tainly believe that he is and cannot stray c. This is such another comfort as the grand Turk gives to his men that dying in his quarrel they go immediately to Paradise tho it be not so it s a comfort to think it is A sad comfort for the unhappy souls lost but commodious for the Turk to get by these means people to sight desperately and dye for him Thus it is with the Church or Court of Rome To believe they are infallible is a satisfaction to the people and very important for the autâ—rity and grandeur of that Court whether it be so indeed is not material The understanding of this mystery we are to owe to Mr. S. his ingenuity Poor man he has not been well acquainted with the intrigues of that Court they do not love to have arcana imperii the mysteries of their government discovered He will certainly fall short of his expected remuneration for his writing and if a Cap be deputed to him for it sure I am it will not be that of a Cardinal CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their doctrine then Papists have Mr. I. S. his ridiculous exposition and impious contradicting of St. Pauls Text in favor of Scripture rebuked OUR Adversary triumphs upon the aforesaid comfort of Papists in apprehending their Guide to be Infallible tho he be not so indeed which comfort he saies the Protestants cannot have being guided by a Church which they believe is not so well assured of the way but they may err God forbid Protestants should not have a better warrant for the truth of their Doctrine then that he gives to Papists They have the infallible word of God delivering all their doctrine and clearly containing all that is necessary to Salvation and a perfect life as appears evidently by what I delivered in the discourse which Mr. I. S. go's about to oppose and will be further evidenced by shewing how vain and weak the opposition is They have besides in the general tradition of the Church a full and sufficient certainty that the books commonly received for Canonical are the true word of God and therefore are certain of Gods infallible autority assisting in favor of the verities contained in those books which kind of certainty tho only morall touching the existence of Gods revelation in favor of those verities joined with an absolute and undoubted Certainty that whatsoever God reveals is infallible verity makes up all the certainty that a pious and prudent believer ought to expect in matters of divine faith Mr. I. S. talks of a kind of certainty requisite for Divine faith which I doubt muâ—h whether he or any of his party ever had for all those articles they pretend to be of faith He tells us and takes it upon credit of his instructors without much examination as often he does in other matters that for all acts of belief touching revealed truths an absolute certainty is requisite clearing the believer from all manner of doubt If you speak of an objective certainty relating to the mystery revealed all true believers have it being fully assured that God cannot reveal an untruth but
safe way to salsation Is it safe to venture in a leaky Ship upon a stormy Sea But what saies he to the streams of learned Authors of the Protestant Church which Dr. Stillingfleet relates and of the very learned Book he wrote himself proving with irresistible Arguments that the Romish Church in several of her present Tenets and Practices is guilty of Idolatry Is Idolatry of those pious opinions which matter not for salvation And let Mr. I.S. know that I considered long and examined throughly the doctrine of the Church of England before I declared for it and he may spare his labour of catechizing me in the Tenets of it CHAP. X. A check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the eighth Chapter of his Book That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets And his own Argument retorted to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ UNder so pregnant and big promising a title as this That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets c. and that in a Book presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the Earl of Essex under so magnificent a title I say exposed to the view of so great and judicious a person who would not expect a very exquisite discourse to go through so stout an undertaking And behold Reader what Mr. I. S. presents to his Excellency for that purpose For a Foundation of his discourse he will have us premise that Protestants do allow Papists not to err in points Fundamental to Salvation that our differences with them are about points not Fundamental He do's not seem to regard or know which be these points call'd Fundamental or not Fundamental which is a bad beginning to be clear and exact in the present Engagement But he is to suppose with Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Potter and other learned Writers of both Churches * See Chillingworth his Answer to the Book intitled Charity maintained c. c. 4. And Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Fundamentals c. 2. Stillingfleet in his Rational Account Part. 1. cap. 2. B. Laud p. 42. following therein the common opinion of Fathers and Scholemen that the points Fundamental or of necessary belief to Salvation and to the constitution of a true Christian Church are those contained in the Apostles Creed which is a system or summary of Articles which those sacred Founders of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men where the Gospel was preached and necessary to be explicitly believed So as the Council of Trent calls it Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. not the firm alone but the only Foundation Points not Fundamental or inferior truths are all other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or delivered to us by Apostolical Universal Tradition implicitly contained in the Creed where we profess to believe in God and in the Catholic Church and explicitly to be believed when we should be ascertained that they are contained in those Oracles of God called inferior truths not that they are of less certainty and objective Infallibility in themselves then the other called Fundamental but because the explicit knowledg of them is not so necessary or obvious to all men and consequently are more capable of inculpable ignorance of them and errors about them in many men And because the Roman Church do's agree with us in the explicit confession of this Creed it is said not to err in Fundamental points tho found guilty of pernicious errors touching other points not Fundamental And with this Supposition I am confident my Antagonist will not quarrel if you take him here before he sees my reflexions upon his unwary Argument Upon the foresaid Foundation Mr. I. S. builds this Thesis That the Protestant Church as it is condistinct from the Popish Church is not the Church of Christ because saies he it do's not teach the doctrine of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further then it teacheth his doctrine That Protestancy or the doctrine of Protestants as opposite to the Popish is not the doctrine of Christ he undertakes to prove with this Syllogism No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ but Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine Therefore Protestancy as it is properly the doctrine of the Protestant Church is not the doctrine of Christ This Syllogism he chalks out to us in a different Character for remarkable as indeed it is and for unanswerable for it is in Ferio saies he pag. 142. The Major Proposition we allow willingly the Minor to wit that Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine he saies is manifest by virtue of this other no less remarkable Syllogism Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of points not Fundamental but the doctrine of points not Fundamental or inferior truths is fallible doctrine therefore Protestancy is but fallible doctrine and therefore no doctrine of Christ He concludes with these words I confess ingenuously I think this Argument cannot be solidly answer'd If his confession herein be ingenuous indeed let him take in return this other ingenuous confession from me that I think seriously he is a very weak man If he be sensible himself of the fallacy and falsehood of his Argument he is unworthy in beguiling his Reader and unwise in exposing it to a polemical strict debate and thinking we should want a solid Answer to so silly a Sophism not to give it yet a more severe check haply he has that poor excuse in his favor that he knows not what he saies To see whether my Answer be solid let us examine how solid his Argument is The stress of it lies in his latter Syllogism whose major Proposition is That Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of Points not Fundamental This we allow him to take for granted Let us proceed to the Minor But the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths saies he is fallible doctrine Stop here Sir and if Justice were don to you a perpetual stop should be put to your tongue for blasphemons from speaking any more It is a formal Blasphemy and a horrid one to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths in general is fallible doctrine It is to say that the Word of God is fallible Remember what is premis'd a little before and supposed by your self in many places of your present discourse that the Points called not Fundamental are all those other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or deliver'd to us by Apostolical Tradition besides the Points contained in the Creed of equal objective certainty and truth with the other Points They are of a size as
you speak all being the Word of God tho not in the same degree of necessity to be explicitly believed by all men Therefore to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental is fallible is to say that the Word of God is fallible which without Controversy is a formal Blasphemy Poor Logician is this your Argument in Ferio for which you thought a solid Answer could not be found For a Syllogism in Feriâ— to be concluding the Premises must be allowed and will you have us allow your Premises when one of them is found to be a formal Blasphemy But it seems this horrible Blasphemy did not fall from him unawares it was with deliberation He goes to prove it and see how The Church can err and is fallible in Points not Fundamental therefore these Points are fallible This is another goodly piece of Logic which proves that Points Fundamental are likewise fallible Men can err and have erred in Points Fundamental therefore these also are fallible in your Dialect This is not to distinguish Subjective fallibility from the Objective to pass the imperfections of the faculty upon the object Mr. I. S. looks upon the Sun with squint or dim eies therefore the Sun is dim or squint The Pope can err and is fallible in declaring the Word of God therefore the Word of God is fallible Your brethren of Clermont Colledg who defended in their Theses mentioned chap. 6. that the Pope hath the same Infallibility which Christ had may think that consequence legal The Pope is fallible about the Word of God therefore the Word of God is fallible because the Pope hath the very same Infallibility which Christ the very Word of God hath But we that a low no such Equality of truth to men cannot take fallibility in the Word of God for a consequence of mans fallibility about it From the foresaid Position you proceed to the second grand Thesis prefixed to your Chapter That Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets This is sure a rare shew of your wit a product of your own invention never heard of before I confess to have never heard the like and thus you go to prove it Protestancy or the points wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is but a parcel of fallible doctrine but no fallible doctrine can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture therefore Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets Make of the Major what you please for the present what desperate Proposition is that of the Minor That no fallible doctrine may without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture By this all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church all Divines that alledg Scripture for their several opinions which they do not pretend to be infallible nor more then probable opinions are guilty of Blasphemy in your esteem But that this so much solemnized Argument may not be altogether useless I will retort it upon your self with more force and less cavil proving by it that your Church is not the Church of Christ And thus I argue for it in your own terms No Church is any further the Church of Christ then as it teacheth the doctrine of Christ but the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church or in as much as it differs from it doth not teach the doctrine of Christ therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ The Minor Proposition That the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant Church doth not teach the doctrine of Christ I prove thus The doctrine which the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant and opposite to it doth teach is Popes Infallibility and Supremacy over all the Christian Church Transubstantiation Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Indulgences half Communion Liturgy in an unknown tongue prohibiting the people to read holy Scripture c. all which I have declared in my former discourse not to be the doctrine of Christ but all contrary to it and in this present Treatise will more fully declare the same Therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant and opposite to it doth not teach the doctrine of Christ and consequently is not the Church of Christ CHAP. XI A Refutation of several other Attemts of Mr. I. S. in that eighth Chapter YOU are prolix in pretending that Protestants have not unity of Faith with Papists God forbid they should agree in all with them spare bragging that they claim kindred with you It is a great piece of courtesy and charity in Protestants to admit kindred with you or allow you to be a part tho infected and corrupted of the Catholic Church a courtesy I say in some thing like that of Bellarmin in admitting even the most scandalously wicked of men Epicures in manners and Atheists in belief to the Communion of his Church provided they do but exteriourly own the Romish Religion and Obedience to the Pope tho but for temporal ends His kindness to his Lord the Pope and zeal for his grandeur makes him extend thus his courtesy Our love to our Lord Christ makes us admit kindred with you and to take you for Members of the Church Universal in as much as you confess with us tho but verbally the chief Articles of his doctrine contained in the Creed You proceed to exhort Protestants to an examen of their Belief whether they be in the right I wish your party did comply so well herein with their duty or were permitted to do it as Protestants do and are allowed Here they inquire dispute and read carefully Books for and against their Tenets They are permitted to do it and encouraged in it by their Instructors You will not allow your people to read dispute or doubt at all of your Tenets You say Protestants are obliged in conscience to doubt of their Religion while you tell your own people they are obliged in conscience not to doubt of theirs How came your Church by this Prerogative because 't is unerring and unerrable as the Title of your Book saies but the Book do's not prove as we are shewing Why are Protestants oblig'd to doubt of their Religion because it is new say you This was the Argument of Pagans to stop the preaching of the Gospel more improperly and with less ground used by you Our Religion is the Ancient and yours the New as we prove Where was our Religion say you before Luther A question which for one too old should be cast away We answer where yours never was in the Word of God and in the true Records of Primitive Christianity You conclude your heterogeneous Chapter and your first part of your Book with mentioning the Treatise or Paper I penned some years ago in favor of the Salvation of Protestants against your vulgar Teachers damning all to hell for Heretics without reserve or distinction You say the doctrine I delivered was true but it was indiscretion to declare it in