Defense Doubts Hopes and Reasons for Refusal of the Oath Imposed, Part 2

Defense Doubts Hopes and Reasons for Refusal of the Oath Imposed · Part 2

p. 32THE OATH.

And that I will not endeavour by my ſelfe, or any other, directly, or indirectly, to bring in any Popiſh Doctrine, contrary to that which is ſo eſtabliſhed.

DOUBT 4.

What is meant by Popiſh Doctrine?4. Patricular Doubt.

THE REASON.

BEcauſe it is not yet determined in any ſatisfactory way (at leaſt not ſo determined, that wee may ſweare to it) what opinions are to bee eſteemed Popiſh, either for Doctrine or Diſcipline. Luther (as ſome report of him) was wont to ſay,ſſMaſter Chil. his anſwer to Charity maintained, c. 2. pag. 82. That himſelfe, and almoſt every man elſe, had a Pope in his belly, yet few have it in their heads, to tell what Poperie is.

Many hold, that divers of the Arminians Tenets are nothing elſe but Popery, blanched over with a ſpeciousttThe Kings large Declaration. pag. 319. ſubtlety; and for holding them, have ſome been publickly cenſured as Popiſh: &uuPeltius in Harmon. Remonſtrantium & Socinianorum, Excuſ. Lugd. Bat. 1633. Archb. Laud calleth the Socinian Hereſie an horrid and mighty monſter of Hereſies, in his relat. of his confer. with Fiſher. p. 310. there are, that make the Arminians brothers to the Socinians, in divers dangerous and damnable poſitions. On the contrary, p. 33it is affirmed by farre higher Authority,xxThe Kings large Declaration. pag. 320. That their Tenets could not be accounted Popiſh, concerning which (or the chiefe of which) as learned Papiſts as any in the world (viz. The Dominicans and Jeſuites) did as much differ, as the Proteſtants did; and that thoſe, who adhere to the Auguſtan confeſsion, did hold that ſide of theſe Tenets, which the Arminians doe hold: and therefore farre from being Papiſts, being the firſt Proteſtants: and therefore it was againſt all ſenſe, to condemne that for Popery, which was held by many Proteſtant Churches, and rejected by many learned Papiſts. And whereas the Socinians are ſeverely, and that deſervedly condemned by a particularyyCanon 4. Canon, there is nothing at all decreed againſt the Arminians, either in that or any other Canon of that late Synod: whereof they that make conjecture of the cauſes, bring in ſuch as theſe:

It may bee the Synod thought that it was a better way, for preſervation of the Churches peace, to make no Decree concerning Arminian opinions; or that they were ſlandered, and made worſe then they are, though the Socinian be not: or that enough was done againſt the Arminians at the Synod at Dort; and (if any thing at all) a great deale too little againſt the Socinians: or that it was not for the honour of a Synod of Biſhops, &c. to come after a Synod of meere Preſbyters (one Biſhop onelyonly excepted) and by their own Canons, as it were, to ſubſcribe to Presbyteriall determinations.

And this laſt Reaſon haply prevaileth moſt with ſome Epiſcopall Divines, who (conceiving the ſummoning, preſiding, and voting in Synods by Presbyters, to be a preſumptuous uſurpation of the peculiar p. 34priviledges) have in deep indignation and diſdaine called that Synod not the Synod of Dort, but the Synod of Dirt, as ſome of us have heard: which in part may give anſwer to the doubt, how it cometh to paſſe that, King James having been ſo zealous in the procuring and promoting the happy proceeding of that Synod, for the ſuppreſſion of Arminianiſme, it hath for all that prevailed and advanced higher in England, then it did before that Synod had condemned it: which may be, becauſe diſ-affection diſpoſeth many to contradictory Tenets, as we ſee inzzNon nego me hujus interpretationis auctorem neminem habere, ſed hanc eò magis probo, quàm illam alteram Auguſtini caeterarum alioqui probabiliſſimam, quòd haec cum Calviniſtarum ſenſu magis pugnet. Maldonat. in Jo. cap. 6. ver. 62. tom. 2. col. 652, 653.John 6:62 Maldonate the Jeſuite, who taketh up a new Interpretation of his owne (againſt another, which hee confeſſeth to conſiſt with moſt probability, and Saint Auguſtines Authority) becauſe it is more contrary to the ſenſe of the Calviniſts. But this by the way.

Proceeding directly forwards, we may further obſerve, that the Compilers of the pious**The Homily of the perill of Idolatry. Homilies (preſcribed to bee read to the people in the roome of Sermons, when they are wanting) condemne pictures in Churches, as Popiſh and perillous: And in our daies there bee many of another mind, who profeſſe the contrary, and would take it very ill to be taken for Papiſts. Our chiefe Proteſtants (with our Engliſh Solomon, King James) have held the Pope to bee Antichriſt; and the principall Papiſts endeavour to defend the contrary; and their Apology is eſteemed, by moſt, a maine point of Popery.

But of late there have been ſome, who make themſelves the Popes Compurgators againſt that criminall p. 35charge, and yet with many goe for very good Proteſtants; and in divers other particulars (reputed Popiſh) Papiſts glory in our approaches towards them, and ſticke not to ſay of our Church,aaSo in the Book called, Mercy & Truth, or Charity maintained. See Maſter Chillin. Preface in anſwer to it. pag. 12. That Proteſtantiſm waxeth weary of it ſelfe, bbIbid.and that Calviniſme is accounted Hereſie, and little leſſe (and if we beleeve a lateccforeign, or the vocall Forreſt, at the beginning whereof the Authour hath theſe Verſes: Sometimes the Father differs from the Son, As doth the Goſpel from the Alcaron; Or Loyola from Calvin, which two brands In ſtrange combuſtions burle faire Europes lands. But Biſhop Andrewes ſaith hee was, Illuſtris vir, & nunquam ſine ſummi honoris praefatione nominandus. Bi. Andr. Theol. determinat. de uſura. p. 115. Author of ſome note, nothing leſſe) then treaſon. In ſumme, theſe points of ddMaſter Chil. loco citat.Images, and Antichriſt, with others, as the lawfulneſſe of ſome kind of prayers for the dead, the eſtate of the Fathers ſoule before Chriſts aſcenſion, free-will, predeſtination, univerſall grace, the poſſibility of keeping Gods Commanments, which (for the moſt part of them) have been held as a partition wall betwixt Proteſtants and Papiſts, are taken by ſome (who ſhew themſelves in print as oppoſite to Popery) but for adiaphorall Problemes, diſputed without breach of charity among Proteſtants themſelves. And, as ſome of our learnedeeDoct. Morton in his Catholick appeale. Biſhop Hall his Treatiſe, called, The peace of Rome. Divines have ſhewed, that divers of our Proteſtant Doctrines have been taught by ſome writers of the Romiſh Church: So on the contrary, have ſomeffBrerely his Proteſt. Apology. Papiſts endeavoured to retaliate, and to quit the objection, by bringing in a liſt of Doctrines accounted Popiſh; yet held by ſuch as are reputed and acknowledged (by ſome Antipapiſts) for Proteſtants; and as of Doctrine, ſo concerning Diſcipline, there is doubt, what opinion p. 36may bee reputed Popiſh: For Archbiſh.ggArchb. Whitgifts reply to T. C. p. 299. 559 Whitgift, BiſhophhBiſhop Hall of Epiſcopacy. part. 3. pag. 34. and BiſhopiiBiſh. Downhams Defence of his Serm. …. 1. c. 8. p. 139. Downham conclude Popery upon the Presbytery; and thekkIn the Kings large Declaration. pag. 351. Presbyterian Diſciplinarians on the contrary condemne all Epiſcopall Juriſdiction as Papiſticall.

Here, though wee conceive, that that ſhould bee held a Proteſtant or Popiſh Doctrine, which is carried by the common conſent of allowed Divines of each Church, rather then the particular opinions of private men (which are to the other but as whiſperings in the care, to a loud cry in the aire) wee cannot reſolve of our ſelves what they, who compoſed the Oath, did intend to diſcard as Papiſticall Doctrine.

Object. But the abjuration of Popery in the Oath is generall, and ſo the fitter for ſuch as are zealous Proteſtants to take it.

Anſw. It is true, if zeale without knowledge were ſufficient; but it is neceſſary, they ſhould firſt know what Popery is, and what is not, before they renounce it by ſwearing: and the forſwearing it, without knowing it, hath made ſome to abjure all Epiſcopacy, as taking (and therein miſtaking) it, (as we conceive) to be no other then the Government of Popery.

Object. But doe not the next words clearly diſcover what Doctrine is meant, viz. [contrary to that which is ſo eſtabliſhed?]

Anſw. We make no queſtion but by theſe words, the mind of them who made the Canon, was to bring our Proteſtant Doctrine within the verge of the Sanctuary, and the circle of ſubſcription; ſo that nothing ſhould be received as Proteſtant, or not as ours, or p. 37not as neceſſary to ſalvation, which is not either expreſly, or by conſequence contained in that compaſſe: And alſo to leave a latitude ſufficient for particular opinions, wherein men might uſe freedome of judgement, without infringing of charity; and wee thinke it a meet meanes to preſerve the Churches peace, that the Doctrines be not too many, which are to be received and beleeved of all: and that theſe Doctrines are eſtabliſhed in the Church; but what Tenets are rejected as properly Popiſh, doth not as yet appear unto us, and withall, we doubt.

DOUBT 5.

What eſtabliſhment of Doctrine is here meant,5. Particular Doubt. and how farre it may be ſaid to be eſtabliſhed.

THE REASON.

BEcauſe we conceive that the 35. Article, at leaſt vertually, eſtabliſheth the Doctrine of the two Bookes of Homilies (the one ſet forth in King Edwards the ſixth, the other in Queen Elizabeths raigne) as godly, wholſome, and neceſſary Doctrine; and as fit to bee preached to the people in a Sermon, as read to them in an Homily.

But on the contrary, hee that hath taken upon him to analyze the Articles into ſeverall propoſitions, and to confirme them by Scripture, and otherwiſe (and this by allowance of publick Authority, as the title page of his booke doth teſtifie) ſetteth this Note upon that Article, Touching this Article, the greateſt matter (ſaithllMaſt. Rogers on the 35. Article of Relig. pag. 193. he) is not, Whether theſe Homilies meant and p. 38mentioned, doe containe Doctrine, both godly, wholſome, and neceſſary: but whether Homilies, or any Apocrypha writings at all, may bee read in the open Church, and before the Congregation: Whereof (in reaſon) there needs no more refutation then the reading of the Article, and the ſeverall Titles and Contents of the Homilies annexed to it.

And though we like it well enough, that his Teſtimony is ſometimes excepted againſt, asmmBy the Archbiſhop of Cant. in his anſwer to A. C. p. 47, 48. proceeding from a private man; yet ſince his gloſſe upon that authenticke Text, hath commonly paſſed in the name, and without the note of diſlike of Authority, it induceth us to doubt, what Doctrine in thoſe Bookes may be ſaid to bee eſtabliſhed in our Church; and wee are the more unſettled in our conceipt thereof, becauſe wee ſee the Homily of the perill of Idolatry ſo little heeded, and ſo much liberty of late taken to controll it, with new Pictures in Churches, that if the Homily were read in ſome of them, it might be doubted (by ſuch as conſider no more then what is preſented to their ſenſes) whether there were not one Religion for the eares, another for the eyes: or whether the Laymens bookes, or the Clergy mens were publiſhed with greater priviledge: which hath been an occaſion of Papiſts bragging,nnCharity maintained, ſee Maſter Chil. Preface in anſwer to it. p. 12. That our Churches begin to looke with a new face, and their walls to ſpeak a new language; the face out-facing, and the language contradicting the Doctrine of the Homilies.

We doe not meane hereby to charge thoſe with Idolatry, who have made it their care, and have been at great coſt, to adde the beauty of henour in the walls and windowes of Gods houſe, to the beauty of holineſſe in the Communion p. 39of Saints (who reſort unto it, and performe their ſolemn devotions in it) wee doubt not but they are too wiſe to worſhip the worke of the penſill, or any worke of mans hand: yet wee beſeech their wiſedome to conſider, that the world groweth old, and with age (according to the Proverb) becomes childiſh; and children delight more to looke upon Babies, then on the letters of their bookes, or to learne their leſſons: and ſo that which by them was meant but for adorning, the illiterate (with the mutilation of a letter) may turne to adoring; and what was intended but to be a memorandum of Hiſtory, may be turned by ſome, and taken by others, as a memoriall of the myſtery of Iniquity: whereby the ſubtle may draw the ſimple from ſpirituall piety, to ſenſuall ſuperſtition; which was the evill effect feared by thoſe grave and godly Divines, who compoſed the Homily: and for which cauſe they ſo zealouſly conteſted againſt all Images in Churches: They had read, no doubt (with due regard) the ſaying of St. ooMalè vos parietum amor cepit, malè Eccleſiam Dei in tectis, aedificiiſque veneramini—Anne ambiguum eſt in his Antichriſtum eſſe ſeſſurum. Hilarius contra Auxent. pag. 216. & 217.Hilary againſt Auxentius, Your love is fondly ſet upon faire walls; you doe ill to make your reſpect of the Church, by the outward ſplendour or ſtatelineſſe of ſtructure: know you not that Antichrist will ſet his Throne in ſuch as theſe? But this is his Quaere, none of ours; we goe on.

We had thought, it had been the eſtabliſhed Doctrine of the Church of England (in the Homily of the time and place of prayer) that it is a neceſſary and perpetuall duty (by the fourth Commandement) to celebrate one day in ſeven with religious obſervances; but wee find that Doctrine publickly gain-ſaid by divers, and the Doctrine of the Popiſh Schoolemen as publickly maintained p. 40againſt it, in divers Treatiſes in print. And for the Articles of Religion themſelves (wherein chiefly wee conceive the Doctrine of our Church to be contained, and by Authority, both Civill and Eccleſiaſticall, to be eſtabliſhed) they are much impeached in the power and vigour of their ſtability, by leaving ſuch liberty for the points of free will, predeſtination, and poſſibility of keeping Gods Commandements (as before hath been noted) which by the 10.15. and 17. Articles are reſolved, againſt the opinions of the Papiſts: and much more are they wronged by him, who hath written appFran. à San. Clara his book called Deus, natura & gratia, printed Lugdun. 1634. Booke, and therein hath laboured with much ſubtlety and diligence, ſo to mince them by manifold diſtinctions; and to wrench them from their proper, to a Popiſh conſtruction; as if the Convocation that concluded them, had had no mind or meaning to contradict the Councell of Trent: and that now our 39. Articles were patient, yea ambitious of ſome ſenſe, wherein they may ſeeme Catholick (i. in their ſenſe, Popiſh) as a lateqqSee Maſter Chil. his Preface in anſwer to the Author of Charity maintained. pag. 12. Papiſt with great boaſting hath upbraided unto us: So in the book called Charity maintained.

By expounding and applying of theſe Articles in a new way, hath Franc. à Sanct. Clara troden out a new tracke (though with many intricate turnings and windings) in which men of equivocall conſciences may ſend their faith to Rome, while their affections keep cloſe to their Intereſts in England; and hath taught them to play faſt and looſe (as to their Orthodox and Proteſtant ſenſe) ſo that asrrPlutarch in the life of Alexander. p. 110 Ariſtotle ſaid to Alexander concerning his Phyſicks, they were publiſhed, and not publiſhed; their words being read, and their p. 41meanings not rought; the Articles might be ſaid to be eſtabliſhed, and not eſtabliſhed: eſtabliſhed as a ſacred Text, but not eſtabliſhed by meanes of an ambiguous Comment, turning the Interpretation (like a noſe of waxe) as eaſily to the left hand, as to the right: And how farre this cunning ſtratagem hath prevailed with ſome, we cannot tell; but, as in charity we hope well of thoſe of whom wee know no ill; ſo in godly diſcretion, wee dare not bee ſo confident in our good opinion, as to ſweare what we but thinke, and wiſh to be true.

But, though we cannot make faith upon Oath, how farre our Doctrine is eſtabliſhed, as in oppoſition to Popery, wee doe not deny but that our reverend Fathers and Brethren of the Synod might intend hereby, more firmly to eſtabliſh that Doctrine, which is moſt repugnant to ſuch opinions as they beleeved to bee properly Popiſh: and the rather, becauſe wee have been credibly informed, that the Oath was firſt propoſed, and ſo paſſed in the houſe of Convocation, as an abjuration of Popery onelyonly.

But a ſecond time tendred (as in a ſecond edition) it was augmented, but (as we conceive) not amended, when the Diſcipline or Government was intwiſted in it, as it followeth in the next words.