troverfies of Religion, Evidently decided by that THIS, in Relation to the Infallibility of Chrift, St. Paul calls Cafting down Imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth it felf above (or, againft κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τῇ Θεῖ) the Knowledge of God; and bringing into Captivity every Thought (or, every Understanding av vonua) to the Obedience of Chrift, 2 Cor. 10. ver. 5. But, what if the Evidence be not Unquestionable? what iftwo Texts, or two Books, equally Infallible, appear to Clafh with each other? It is my Duty, to follow the Sureft Lights I can." 33 9. Mr. L. expreffes upon Occafion, a Diflike of Impliof IMPLICIT FAITH. Yet this is a Notion, cit Faith. which all Chriftians muft of neceffity allow. The Belief of the Creed is a very Implicit Faith, of 70 the Lord's Supper, of Chriftian Manners, and of the Bible. As the Belief of the Bible in ge neral, is alfo an implicit Belief of all the Facts andreinfæruments contain'd in it, which a Man hath forgot, or perhaps never knew. What St. Peter faid to our Saviour, S. John 6. ver. 68, Thou haft the Words of Eternal Life, was an implicit Faith of all the Mysteries of Chriftian Religion, which were not then reveal'd to him. Muft this be Ridiculed?, 10. Pag. 15, He tells us, There is not one Word in Scripture, appointing an universal Head in the Chriftian Church: pag.16, After there was a Church at Rame, the Bishops and Fathers of thofe Times, knew nothing of its Supremacy: pag.195, We are verily E per perfuaded, that there is not the leaft Ground for this Univerfal Supremacy, either in the H. Scriptures, or in Antiquity, or in the Reafon of the thing, or in Fact, fince the firft Foundation of Christianity to this Day. This is just as true, as what he adds presently after, that Supremacy is the Foundation of all the Difputes betwixt our Church and his, and all other Christian Churches; as of this with the Greeks for Example, Whether the H. Ghoft proceeds, or not, from the Father and the Son? He tells us, pag. 197, That the Head of the Church, must have an Abfolute Dominion over our Faith, over the Holy Scriptures, and over the Church. Why fo? Has a Bifhop an Abfolute Dominion over the Faith, over the Scriptures, or over the Church of his Diocefs? Hath the King or Queen of England, by Virtue of their Supremacy, any fuch Dominion? 10 2 Pag. 197. He thinks it plain, to a Demontration, that Univerfal Supremacy is a thing Impra ticable; and that if it could be in Fact, it would be of Supre- the greatest Ruin and Oppreffion to the Church, that macy rui- is poffible. ft, Doth the Bishop's Power,neceffa ning the rily tend to Opprefs his Flock? Or, is the Royal Church. Dignity, the Ruin and Oppreffion of the People? 2dly, Grotius, was quite of another Opinion as well as Martin Luther's Fidus Achates, I mean Melanthon: What is the Reafon, fays Grotius, that thofe among Catholicks, who differ in Opinion, Still remain in the fame Body, without breaking Communion; and thofe among Proteftants, who disagree, cannot do fo, however they speak much of Brotherly Love? Whoever will confider this aright, will find how () Firft Reply to Rivet, ad Art. 7. Quæ verò eft caufa, cur qui opinionibus diffident inter Catholicos, maneant eodem corpore, non ruptâ Communione: Contrà qui inter Proteftantes diffident, idem facere nequeant, utcunque multa de Dilectione Fraterna loquantur? Hoc qui recte expenderit, inveniet quanta fit vis Primatûs. great (End of Reftituro. nem Chrifti anorum in unum idemque Corpus, tatam à Gro Exiftimavit pi poffe à great is the Effect ofPrimacy. And (1) As many as know Grotius, know this of him,that he hath always defir'd,bisReply, that Chriftians fold be again United into One, and the fame Body. I was once of Opinion, that this might have been begun, by uniting Proteftants with one another. Afterwards, faw this was impoffible. Not only because the Difpofition of Calvinists is averse to Peace, tio fciunt,qui but becaufe Proteftants have no common Church-Govern- eum norunt. ment in which they are join'd. Which are the Reasons, autem alithat the feveral Divifions of Proteftants, can never quando incimeet in one Body but still more and more Divifions Proteftantiwill be made. Wherefore, I am now abfolutely of this um inter fe Fudgment,and many others with me, that Proteftants ne.Poltea vi cannot be united amongst themselves unless they me dit id plane whited together with those who are in Communion with Quia præ the See of Rome without which no common Govern terquà quod ment in the Church can be hoped for.It is therefore his rum ingenia Wifh, that the prefent Separation, and the Canfes fermè omniof it were taken away. Amongst which Canfes, fays pace funt ahe the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, according to the lieniffima Canans,is not to be reckon d. As (*) Melancthon Con- nullo inter fe felfes, who is of Opinion,that Primacy is even necefI communi Ec Jaryo preferve Union Melanthon's Wonde Conjunctio fieri nequire. Calvinilta un ab omni Proteftantes clefiafticoRe Miantur. Qu caufæ fút,cur tehrantium Imò &,cur thefe, We agree that the Prefiding of Bishop's ver manyChurches and of the Bishop of Rome over all facile Partes Bishops, is a Lawful Form of Government. 'Tis also inunun ProLawful for Kings to give the Church Revenues. And corpus colliif there were not fuch Bishops, they ought to be made. gi nequeant. The Monarchy of the Pope would alfo conduce very portes alia much to preferve amongst different Nations an Agree- atque alia ment of Doctrine. So that we should easily agree about cure. Qui the Supremacy, if all other Points were adjusted. And be une pla Kings themselves might eafily moderate any Enterpri- Grotius, fes of Popes upon the State. Thus Melancthon. finc exurre re nunc ne ita fentic multi cum ipfo, non polle Proteltantes inter fe jungi, nifi fimul jungantur cum iis qui sedi Romanæ coærent, Gine qua nullum fperari potelt in Ecclefia commune Regimen. Ideò optat, ut ea Divulfio quæ evenit & caufe Divulfionis tollantur. Inter eas Caufas non eft Primatus Epifcopi Romani fecundum Canones, fatente Melanthone,qui eum Primatum etiam neceffarium putat ad retinendam Unitatem. (2) In fubfcriptioneArticulorum Smal cald, anno 1 $37, & in Bp. apud J. Boffer, in Hift. Variationum 14. § 39. 1.5. §24. E 2 CAP. I. CHA P. III. Some other Obfervations, upon the Case Stated. ROM what we have feen al ready, fome may be inclin'd to. believe, that THE CASE STA TED was not writ for Scholars, who are able to Examine what bi they read but only for the Gaping Multitude, which takes all upon Trust, and will cafily fwallow the most grofs Abfurdifies The Character of a grave Infenfibility, which is given my Lord, and carried all thorough, is extremely Remarkable. There might be fome what of Policy, in not making him fo wife, that he might be in a Condition to difpute the Victo→ ry. But to make fuch an Errant Block-head of him, was too fevere. Besides that, it renders him incapable of Setting off, with any manner of Grace, the Author's Triumphs. of the Pope's Ex Communi. cating A 2. HAVING frighted him firft with Bell, Book, and Candle, he is made to believe, p.76, that There never, was a Roman-Catholick King in England, or in any other Kingdom, either before the Reformation or fince, but is Excommunicated by the early all Bulla Cane, publifh'd every Year in Rome the Kings Which is very furprising. For feveral Kings in bis Com of England, and other Countreys, have been munion. Canonized by the Pope. Does he then Canonize them first, and Excommunicate them afterwards? AND pag. 77" By all this it appears, that there is thit's al Plow is hardly any Roman-Catholick in the World, above And all o the Condition of a Plow-man, who is not Excommunicated by this Bull. Why fo? Because all are Ex-mot above communicated, who hurt the Ecclefiaftical Liber ties, or Rights of the Apoftolick See, and H. Church of Rome: or attempt any Oppofition,or Contravention to the Bull, pag. 76, 77. 1ft, In what then, do moft Catholicks violate the Rights of the Church? I fear Mr. L. will here want a Machine of Imple cit Faith, to bring either them, or all their Kings within the Reach of this Excommunication, 2dly, The Exception of Plow-men, was beautiful indeed but fince the Bull fays nothing of them, was this Grace given by his Holiness, or by Mr. Leowulf th 1: Rs 4 3. We are told, pag. 76, 78, That the Rights which the Pope claims in Bulla Cœna, §. 24, are bowfoever and whenfoever obtain'd, or to be obtain'd that is, by Mr. L's Comment, you are not to en- By down quire, whether right, or wrong; or look further than right In the prefent Poffeffion, which with him gives Right gives Right justice. when it is for him. Is this the Spirit of the Re formation? The Objection, doth not deferve a ferious Answer. For no Man of Senfe will be lieve, the Pope's meaning is, that whatsoever he acquires, by Right, or by Wrong, mult be guarded by Anathema's. However, the Reader may confult Bonacina, an Italian Divine, writing under the Direction of the Pope; who will tell him, that (1) he is not Excommunicated, who JUSTLY feizes or keeps the Goods of the Roman Church. 4. But now comes the Thunder-bolt. And Bonac, de Bullâ Coenz. Difp. 1. Q. 22. punct. 2. Edit. Lugd. 1684, pag. 140. Juftè invadens vel occupans bona Ecclefiz Romane, non incurrit Excommunicationem. |