Page images
[ocr errors]

vill prove to be the most foolish, impertinent, jugling, pea
blafphemous and pernicious difcoursesir bat lever were. So
Crely Sed.2. chap.28. that is to say (if we take che non
tion out of this odious dresse ) they used fallacious Argu-
ments: Very good! And is this chao, that Natisticd
Mr Cvelly's confcience? O the modesy of the man!iyou
Tee a little thing facisfies him ; but if he will cheat him
felfe, let him not think to cheat us with such ridiculous

darii 90"; la
1. The utmost of what would follow is that the An.
tient Fachers whose Writings are extano were fallible,
and liable to mistakes : A Proposicion wbich 1 have for
merly proved - and the Popish Doctors themselves
agree with us therein, \ fuppdle M Grefy will not
diffent: none (No. 1€ WOLA WOT TO

2. It upon every impertinent and unconcluding Ară gument produced by Fachers, Councels, or Popes, against Lupposed Hereticks, 1 fhould make this interence ebat they were all fuglers, Blasphemers, çêc. Mi Grifly now think it a very harth censure th1 when their great Lords and Mafters argue at this rate (as he knowes who did y Arife Peter kill

and eat, and here are two words : Ergo, the Pope hath civilland Spirituall power over all ment They that are in the Aeth cannot please God 31. E. Priests should not be married :: God made man after his own Image : E. Images are lawfull

. Will Merily now fay these were all

fuglers, Blasphemers, 062 and their Writings the most foolish, impertinent, pernicious Dil courses that ever were? either then lec Mt Crely qualify his censure there, or apply ic here.

3. If the Fathers were fupposed infallible , yet they might use impertinent and unconcluding Arguments : You must remember our Masters che Romanists while they assert the infallibility of the Pope and Councell they cauciously distinguish becween the conclusion and


the mediums or Arguments to prove its twill onely mind you of him whom they all so highly approve and applaud i. t., Stapleton (whom Mt Crely followes and the rest of them) who (as you saw) limits this infall.bility to the Conclusion, not to the premises or Argument: So if the Fathers were infallible(as you see and the Papists confesse they are not yet this being onely in the Conclufion, it will not at all secure them from impertinency and error in their Arguments or mediums used to con firnc the conclusions, which is all that this Discourse of Mr Crefy pretends to prove: So now judge whether the Printer was not a knavc (for sure the Author could noc be fo since he is a Benediétine) to ser in che front of this Arguments The Validiey, &c. rit.

But you know non omnia poffumbs omnes : Peradrens cure M. Crosspois a better respondent then opponent, and though he cannot at all prove his own affertion, yet he will at least folidly Answer his Adversaries : Buí alas! here he is, for jejune chat it moves my picty; for wheq M Chillingworsh pleaded that these promiles were odiely conditionall, if Christians should make use of Gods means

The Church should continue: Hereto (saith Cressy) the answer is very ready, Oh the benefit of a ready wit when atended wich an calý Conscience! I. There is no warrane from any circumstance in those Texts for Suche new interpresation.

I will not ingage in that Argument, onely I wilt referie a parallel place to his consideration : It is said particularly concerniog Jerusalem (which never was faid concerning Roire) I have hallowed this boule-to put my name therein før evty, and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there , per petually, I Kings 9. 3. And it is again repeated concerning that house, that the Lord bad said, in ferufalem Mall my Name be for every 2 Chron. 33.4. Then (if he have a conscience) let him Answer, whecher there be not

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

as much warrant from these Texts to prove this promise to Jerusalem to be infalible and unconditional, (which they grans it was noc) as from the other Texts to prove them to be fo to the Church of Rome. He need not take day to answer it,

His second answer is wholly ad hominem, (and the 09 Eher you will say was little ad rem,) That Mr. Chilling, worth applies this so future times onely not to past or present, and therefore it.concernes not the dispute in band about the Romane Catholick Church, which all English Protestants acknowledge to be a true Church of Chrift. Just fo they would perswade their Proselyces, that all Protestants grant that theirs is a safe way, and Salvation to be had ordinarily in the communion of their Church ; whereas. neither the one nor the other are true. But what if Proteltants do, and Mr Chillingworth did grant their. Church to be a true Church, doth ic therefore follow, these Texts were pertinently alledged to prove it? or did M. Chillingworth lay, these promises were absolute for time past or present, and conditional onely for the fucure? no such matter : but chese are only his own dreams, and shufflings, who (pro mire) when he cannon answer his Adversary, indeavours to blind his Reader, I have only one thing more to observe upon that (which he cels us Mr Chiling worth saw). That if there were such promises of indefectibility, none could challenge them but the Romane Church; fornace she only claimes obem, all others lag domn their claime. But that also is no more folid then the reft: for since this promise of indefedibility is general and indefinite, it no more belongs to Rome then to any ocher parcicular Church: neicher have they any more interest in the promise, because they boldly claime the Monopoly of it, (since an Userers claime gives him no just Title to the thing.) Nor have other Churches the Iaffe interest in it, because their conscience and modelty


wil not suffer them to appropriate it to themselves, (for though they extend this promise of indefedibilicy to the wbole Church; yet they reap che comfort and benchi of is, in as much as they are true members of that Church, and not upon any local or particulat consideration.)

There is a fourch argument bebind, taken from the Tradition or testimony oi che present Church: buy this I have discouried at large, and I hope. discovered the folly of that new device : thither I refer the Reader.

A fifth argument there is, and that is all I find in Mr. Crelly, (for i have diligently searched him, and God is my witnesse ] have indeavoured to fingle out the Irong. eft and most piausib.e paffages in bim, which I had nog answered before,) and that is taken from the Churches Unity: One Church there cannot be, wir bout one faich; mer one faith differences are irreconcileable; and no reconciling of differences, but by an authority, and that ixfallible. Append. ch.6,n.3. And again : The Sun Shines not more clear ( 1 suppole he means in the Cloysters of bis Convent) then that there is no possible Unity without. AuThority, nor no Christian Uniry without an infallible Aut bon writy, Ch.7.n 2.

Ans. Very well; it being premised," Ihat ther only infa'lible Authority is, as Mr.Cresy states it, the Church 1peaking by a general Councel confirmed by the Pope, Appen.chep 4. num. 9. Chen if this Argument be solid, lec Mr. Crelly take what follows: Then there was neither one Church, nor one Faith, for the first 300 years, when there was no general Councell: then when the Pope dies, or his Sea is vacant other waies (as oft hach been ) and when there is no Councel ( as now there is none) there is no Unity in the Church of Rome : what thinks this man of the Gallican Church, which (unlesse they be throughly Jesuited) do stili hold (as they used to do) that the Pope, personally considered, is not infallible,


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

but onely with a general Councel: will he justifie it in the Assembly of the French Clergy, that they have ac this day no unity among them, and no way to reconcile their differences, because they have no infallible Authoriz ry? But I shall not wast my time any longer with chefe impertinent and miscalled arguments: Ifhalt leave the

point with this short Memorandum, That it is a plainevi 3 dence of the desperateneffe of their cause, that all the greapnut,

and vaft learning, and deep cunning of the Roman Do&ors can furnith them with no better arguments, then these. . And since this is all chat Mr. Crelly can pretend for his Apostacy , I would intreat him in

bis next to furnish me with fome Answers to thofe that há fufpect his change was not from conscience, bur discon

cencor paffion, worldly intereft, ( as affaires then Hood :) "for 1 confesse I am at a loffe, and know not what to say for him and the rather , because the pretended motives of his Conversion are so ridiculously absurd, and incredible, among wbich I find cwo that deserve a special remark. One is the scandalous personal qualities of Luo ther and Calvin which, if all that he faith of them were true and material, (as it is either notoriously false, orinconfiderable,) yet it amounts to nothing against the Protestant caule, since though we owo them for eminenc perfons, and worchy instruments, yet we readily acknows ledge, they were iyable to error , and fubje&t to passions, and infirmities, no leffe chen ocher men; nor did we ever make them the pillars and grounds of the Gospel, or the foundation and rule of our Faith. But that this should occasion his Change, I confeffe is beyond the faith of Miracles to believe. This is prodigious, That chic suppofed mistakes or miscariages of two particular. Protestant Doctors should really have greater influence to turn him from the Protestant Religion , then the real Blasphemies, and abominable filthinesses of their Matters and Pillars

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »