to it Ceremonies and Acts of Religion as having some relation to religious Actions yet he expresly distinguishes between the Parts of Worship and the external Adjuncts and Instruments of it and therefore does not call our Ceremonies Acts of Worship as that signifies a part of God's immediate Worship but in a more lax sense to include all external Adjuncts and Solemnities of Worship And therefore the Church of England never had any occasion to justifie her Worship by such distinctions as the Church of Rome has invented of Primary and Secondary Essential and Accidental Proper and Improper Worship whereby they endeavour to justifie that Worship they pay to Saints and Angels and Images which we have no use of because we Worship none but God. And our Author is a very pleasant Man who would justifie the Worship of Images under the Notion of Ceremonies surely the Church of England is not agreed with them here too for we know no such Ceremonies as are the Objects of Worship and that an Image is in the Church of Rome we use some indifferent and significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God but we do not worship our Ceremonies III. The AGREEMENT ABOUT IMAGE-WORSHIP THIS will be Answered in a few Words He forms his Argument from a Passage in the Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery and from another in the Discourse against Transubstantiation p. 21. and from the Ceremony of Kneeling at the receiving the Lords Supper The Answerer says that to pay the External Acts of Adoration to or before or in Presence of a Representative Object of Worship as Representing is the very same thing In the Discourse against Transubstantiation it is observed That the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Christ was started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the Year of Christ 750. did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of Himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make 〈◊〉 other Image of our Lord. In Answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the Year 787. did Declare That the Sacrament after Consecration is not the Image and Antitype of Christs Body and Blood but is properly his Body and Blood. And then the Church of England has enjoyned Bowing or Kneeling at the Reception of the Lords Supper for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgments of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue From these Premises our Author thus Argues So that Kneeling is Expressive of the inward Reverence of the Heart to Christ and so is an Act of Religious Adoration the Kneeling then before the Sacramental Signs is the same with Kneeling to them Bowing before them is the same with Bowing to them a Worshipping before them the same with giving a Religious Worship to them Which sufficiently shews that in one great Instance the Church of England retains the same kind of Image Worship with the Roman-Catholicks and so far are we agreed with them In very good time But there is one thing yet remains to be proved which he has conveniently dropt And that is That the Church of England owns the Sacramental Bread to be the Image of Christ and the Representative Object of Worship This he knew he could not prove and therefore says nothing of it for it does not follow that because the Council of Constantinople affirmed that the Sacramental Bread is the Image of Christ's Body therefore the Church of England teaches so I am sure that Author say no such thing and if we should allow it in some Sense to be the Image as that signifies the Sacramental Figure of Christ's Body Does it hence follow that it is the Representative Object of Worship And thus his To and before and in Presence is all lost because the Bread according to the Doctrine of the Church of England is no Representative Object of Worship and therefore we neither Bow To nor before nor in Presence of the Bread as a Representative Object and therefore the Answer that Author gave that we do not Kneel to the Sacrament but receive it Kneeling is a very good Answer still Thus I have considered all his Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which they are as unfortunate at as they are at Representing And methinks it Argues some distrust of their Cause that they dare not down-right defend it but are forced either to represent it away almost into Protestant Heresy or to shelter themselves in their Agreement with a Protestant Church but the better way is to turn Protestants themselves and then we will own our Agreement with them THE END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituléd Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condem his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommedation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestane and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensut Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Ser Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 281 c. Defence p. 572. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. Barrow Supremacy p. 189 c. Quarto Hieron ad Marcel Ep. 54. Vindicat. p. 15. 217. Vindic. p. 162. Ibid. p. 157. Agreement Pag. 7. Vind. P. 36. See Vindication of the Defence p. 329 c. Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. de unitate See the Defence p. 208. c. Unus Episcopatus Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus Cypr. ad Antonian Ep. 52. Pam. Quando Ecclesia quae Catholica una est scissa non sit neque divisa sed fit utique connexa cohaerentium sibi invicem Sacerdotum glutino copu lata Cytr Ep. 69. ad Florentium Pupianum Cypr. ad Ste phan Ep. 67. Vindic. p. 124 c. Episcopi nec potestatem habere potest nec honorem qui Episcopatus nec unitatem tenere voluit nec pacem Cypr. ad Anton. Ep. 52. Agreement p. 13. Vindic. p. 195. 196. Vindic. p. 396. Maximè cùm jampridem nobiscum cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam Cornelius Collega noster decreverit Cypr. cp 68. Pam. Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in unâ communionis societate concordat Opt. l. 2. See Vindicat. p. 131. c. Cassand Consult de pontifice Rom. Agreem p. 18. c. Marcae per Archiepiscopum Burdegalensem Regis nomine imperatur ut adversus â—â—nc libellum Optati Galli scribut sed ea mâ—thodo ne libertates Ecclesiae â—â—llicanae quas per latus non occultè petebat Optatus aliquam paterentur injuriam quinimo id sedulo ageret ut omnes intelligerent libertates illas nihil â—etrahere de reverentia quae debetur Romanae sedi quam prâ— cunctis semper nationibus 〈◊〉 constantissimè retinuerunt Baluz vita Petr. de Mar. Agreement p. 33. Offendit tamen quis crederet hic liber Romana ingenia nullam aliam ob causam ut Marca existimabat quà m quòd in fronte operis admoneret hîc agi de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae Unde Romanis quorum aures teneritudine quâ—dam plus trahuntur promptum suit sibi persuadere illum libertati ecclesiasticae adversari qui de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae proh nefas agebat ex professo Baluz in vita Petri de Marca p 9. Agreement p. 61. The Catholick Hierarchy p. 77. Agree p. 62. Hierar p. 77. Agree p. 65. Hierar p. 77. Agreem p. 67. Cath. Hierar p. 79. Agreement p. 61. Cath. Hierar p. 80 81. Agree p. 74. Hierar p. 83. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornelium Agreem p. 77. c. Cath. Hier. p. 85. c. Agreem p. 80. Cath. Hier. p. â—7 Agreem p. 81. Cath. Hier. p. 87. Agreem p. 84. Cath. Hier. p. 89. Vetus trat decrâ—tum Ne 〈◊〉 Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur nisi a Senatâ— probatus Apud vos de humano arbitratu Divinitas peâ—sitatur nisi homini Deus 〈◊〉 Deus nonerit homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit Tert. Apol. p. 6. Paris 1664. Agreem p. 85. Cath. Hier. p. 8â— Agreem p. 87. Cath. Hier. p. 92. Agreem p. 36. Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent B. 7. P. 570 c. Agreem p. 47. Agreem p. 50. Covel's modest Examination c. 6. p. 55. Ibid. p. 56. P. 58. Agreem p. 48. Answer to Papists Prot. p 81.
this was all I undertook to prove of the French Church That whatever Liberties they pretended still they owned the Pope to be the Supream Pastor and Head of the Universal Church for which I appealed to Petrus de Marca Let us then consider what is my Fault Our Author gives us an account that the French Church teaches as the Council of Basil did That though the Pope be greater than particular Churches and Bishops yet he is not greater than the whole Universal Church and that the Authority that is granted him in the Interval of Councils doth not in the least suppose him to have any Superiority or Preheminence above the Universal Church whence it is that whenever from the Ecclesiastical Courts in France any References Suggestions or Consultations were made to the Pope if the Popes Rescripts were contrary to the old Canons the French always looked on it as abusive and made an Appeal from the Pope called Appellatio ab Abusu provoking him to the old Canons Now he says Dr. Sherlock is bold enough to deny all and to bring no less person than the learned Petrus de Marca for his Voucher But where do I deny one word of this or alledge Petrus de Marca's authority to prove it I had no occasion to deny this for all that I was to prove was that the French Church did own the Pope to be the Supream Head and Governour of the Church and that they did so I proved from Petrus de Marca Does not then Petrus de Marca say what I charge him with Yes that he owns What is my fault then Why truly only that I say that Petrus de Marca wrote in defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church and is not this the Title of his Book De Concordia Sacerdotii Imperii seu de Libertatibus Ecclesioe Gallicanae Of the Agreement of the Priesthood and the Empire or of the Liberties of the Gallican Church Yes this he grants but the Archbishop was perswaded to add this Title by the Bookseller to make it sell the better and I ought to have known for all this if I had looked any farther than Titles and Margins that he wrote against the Liberties of the Gallican Church and will he say that I ought to have said so too That had been a great piece of modesty indeed as great as it is in this Author whoever he be I am sure very inconsiderable in comparison of this great man to charge him with down-right Knavery For my part I am of that mind still that the Archbishop who was as great a man as that Age bred did firmly believe that he had truly stated the Liberties of the Gallican Church though he differed from some who had stretched those Liberties very much to the prejudice of the Roman See which the King himself expressed his sense of when he imposed that task on him of writing this Book for he charged him to take care that the Gallican Liberties might suffer no Injury and that he should let all men see that these Liberties did not diminish that Reverence which the French have most constantly maintained for the Roman See above all other Nations from whence also we may observe that the Subject he was to write on by the Kings Command were the Gallican Liberties which was therefore a proper Title for his Book though he was unwilling to have given it that Title for fear of offending the Court of Rome as it accordingly hapned and he was to take care so to assert the Gallican Liberties as not to detract from that Reverence which the French Church as the King affirms has always paid to the Roman See. This Province he undertook and discharged to the abundant satisfaction of that King who employed him who was jealous enough of the Gallican Liberties as far as they were consistent with the Reverence of the Apostolick See but this work was not so well relished at Rome for as the King rewarded him with a Bishoprick for it so the Court of Rome kept him out of it for several Years and one would guess by this Usage he met with at Rome that they had a very jealous eye on these Gallican Liberties even as De Marca had stated them But our Author observes that Baluzius who wrote De Marca's Life positively affirms that none amongst the French no nor amongst the Spanish and Italian did more eloquently and with greater Authority of the Ancients exalt the Roman Chair to a greater height than De Marca did This Baluzius does not say so absolutely as our Author reports but adds a Qualification which he out of his great Exactness in quoting thought fit to leave out viz. qui modo intra limites oequi constiterit that no man who kept within the bounds of Equity and Moderation ever exalted the Authority of the Roman Bishop more which argues that De Marca did not fly so high as some Flatterers of the Roman Greatness have done but yet gave him as great Power as any man could honestly give him and this I hope he might do without betraying the Gallican Liberties Tho'as Baluzius observes the Romans whose Ears are very tender in such matters could not bear the Title of his Book of the Liberties of the Gallican Church for they suspected that he must be an Enemy to the Ecclesiastical Liberties who wrote professedly for the Liberties of the Gallican Church which he brands with a proh nefas as a thing ridiculous and absurd In the same place Baluzius falls severely upon Faget who also wrote the Life of De Marca for making him a Deserter and betrayer of the Gallican Liberties He gives an Account of the Roman Arts to perswade him to condemn some parts of his Book and to insinuate that the mistakes of that Book of Concord were not owing to his own Will and Choice but to the importunate Commands and Ambition of others this Condition he absolutely refused though it was proposed by Cardinal Barberini as the easiest Expedient to obtain a dispatch of his Affairs at Rome This he was frequently solicited to and as constantly refused firmly resolving while he was in health rather to renounce all Right and Claim to his Bishoprick than remit any of the Priviledges of the Gallican Church till at last they taking advantage of a great fit of Sickness when his mind might be supposed as weak as his Body he subscribed a Paper wherein he recanted every thing in his Book which was contrary to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Immunity as it was taught by the Church of Rome an account of which Baluz gives us in his Life p. 16. 17. From whence it appears that though De Marca did not so much depress the Pope nor extend the Gallican Liberties as some French Lawyers had done yet he honestly and sincerely maintained with constancy and resolution excepting this subscription in his sickness against all the Arts and Solicitations of the Church of Rome what he
thought to be the true Liberties of the Gallican Church and this surely was reason enough for me to say as he himself says in the Title of his Book and as the French King and the Court of Rome thought he did that he wrote for the Liberties of the Gallican Church how our Author will defend himself for saying that he wrote against them with any modesty and reverence for the Honesty Learning and Judgment of that great man he had best consider I cannot pretend to understand the Gallican Liberties so well as to say who is in the Right but I would still prefer the Judgment of De Marca who was both a great Lawyer and a great Divine before any of his Adversaries And yet I was not concerned to judge of this matter whether De Marca or the Pragmaticks were in the right where they differ from each other all that I alleadged his Authority for as I observed before was to prove that the Gallican Liberties did not exclude the Authority of the Pope as Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor in the Government of the Church This is what the Council of Basil it self owns and to deny it would be an Ecclesiastical Liberty with a witness but not a Popish but a Protestant Liberty This is my Crime which he says Ought to be a caution to all Readers how they take up any thing upon trust from me and though I have done nothing to forfeit my Credit yet I do not desire any Readers should trust me but see with their own Eyes and if they would serve us all so I know what would become of such Writers as this Author And he wishes it may be a means to engage me to more modesty and an abatement of my contemptuous way of writing if I write any more for the time to come I perceive he thought this discovery would have broke my heart for ever but I have ventured to write once more and may do so again and very modestly too when I meet with modest Adversaries I thank God I contemn no man living but it is a little in my nature to contemn Knavery and Nonsence and therefore if our Author tasts a little of it still I must beg his pardon for I cannot help it As for what follows I have nothing to say to it it is all a Dispute against the Popes Supremacy which I like very well only I wonder if he be in good earnest why the Oath of Supremacy should stick in his teeth I have only one Request to him to tell me which was the Infallible Council that of Basil or Trent for the first subjects the Pope to a Council the last makes him superior to it and it were very strange if Contradictions should be Infallible AN ANSWER TO THE Necessity of AGREEMENT Between the Church of England AND THE CHURCH of ROME c. BEfore I proceed to Answer his second Section of the Agreement between the two Churches about some of their imposed Terms of Communion I shall in a few words rid my hands of that terrible Appendix which the Prefacer ascribes to another Author to prove the Necessity of an Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evidenced from the Nature and Constitution of a National Church Episcopally Established Thus first they prove that we are agreed and then they prove that there is a necessity we should agree But what need to prove that we must agree did they believe that we were already agreed So that this Appendix is indeed a confutation of the Book which he Entitles An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome Whereas this proves that of necessity we ought to agree if we will be true to our Principles which supposes that whatever our Principles are we are not yet agreed How well he has proved our Agreement I have already shewn and now shall briefly examine how he proves our Necessity of Agreement But I must observe by the way that though the Prefacer does ascribe this learned Piece to another Author yet he has concealed the true Father His other Author is a good Roman Catholick who disputes in good earnest from the Subordination of Pastors in the Church to prove the Supremacy of an Oecumenic or Universal Pastor but the true Author was an Independent Protestant from whom this honest Romanist borrows every Argument and almost every word excepting such little variations as a Papist must of necessity make in an Independent's Writing without ever confessing his Benefactor or owning from whence he had it The Title of the Book is The Catholick Hierarchie or the Divine Right of a Sacred Dominion in Church and Conscience truly Stated Asserted and Pleaded Printed for Sam. Crouch at the Princes Arms in Pope's Head-Alley in Cornhil and Tho. Fox at the Angel in Westminster-hall 1681. In the 14 Chap. of which Book p. 76. being a Digression concerning the Subordination of Pastors whoever has the curiosity may find this entire Treatise of the Necessity of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome onely with this difference that the Independent disputes against the Subordination of Pastors by this very Argument That the Asserting the Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth by all good consequence infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenical or Universal Pastor This Popish Plagiary takes his Book and makes a quite contrary use of it to prove from the subordination of Pastors which is and ought to be in the Church as the Church of England owns the necessity of owning an Oecumenical Pastor they both indeed dispute against the Church of England but the first Author disputes for Independency the Plagiary for Popery Now why might not the Independent had he not had more Wit than his Transcriber have entitled his Chapter The Necessity of Agreement between the Church of England and Independents because they both agree in rejecting an Oecumenical Pastor and therefore ought to agree in rejecting the subordination of Pastors which infers an Oecumenical Pastor as well as this Author calls it A Necessity of Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome because they both agree in the subordination of Pastors and therefore as he thinks ought to agree in an Oecumenical Pastor Nay he had but served his Independent Authour right had he stiled it The Necessity of Agreement between the Independents and the Church of Rome because they both agree in this Principle that if there be a subordination of Pastors there ought to be an Oecumenical Pastor which is the nearest Popery of any Principle I know for there is nothing to be done in order to this Agreement but to prove a subordination of Pastors which is a thousand times easier than to make good that Consequence from a subordination of Pastors to an Oecumenical Pastor But let this Authour make the best he can of his Independent Arguments and call his Book what he pleases my business is only to show that there is
I am sure he can't then the Reader knows what to judge of him and his Argument too As for the Controversie between the Church of England and Dissenters about the use of Ceremonies in Religion it is nothing to our present Dispute and though our Author has a mind to revive these Disputes among us he shall not draw me into it It is sufficient we dispute against them and against the Church of Rome upon very different Principles Against them we defend the lawful use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship though there be no express command for it in the Word of God if they serve the ends of Order and Decency which are expresly commanded Against the Romanists we never object that their Ceremonies have no Divine Institution that they are not commanded but either that they are forbid or that they are so numerous that they are very burdensom or that they are abused to superstitious purposes or that the signification of them is so dark and obscure that they are of no use in Religion Which is best expressed in the words of our Church Concerning Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church and have had their beginning by the Institution of man and therefore our Church from the beginning never quarrel'd with Ceremonies because they had not a Divine Institution Some at first were of godly intent and purpose devised and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition some entred into the Church by undiscreet devotion and such a zeal as was without knowledge and for because they were winked at in the beginning they grew daily to more and more abuses which not onely for their unprofitableness but because they have much blinded the People and obscured the glory of God are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected other there be which although they have been devised by man yet it is thought good to reserve them still as well for a decent Order in the Church for the which they were first devised as because they pertain to Edification whereunto all things done in the Church as the Apostle teacheth ought to be referred With a great deal more to the same purpose which every body may see who will turn to the beginning of his common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book And yet I deny not but our first Reformers might as we do at this day condemn all Uninstituted Worship and condemn several practices of the Church of Rome under that Notion such as Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images c. but she never took her Ceremonies to be any acts or parts of Worship but only some Adjuncts and external Circumstances for the decent and orderly performanee of Religious Worship And to say as this Author does that the Dissenters did at last prove to the conviction of the Church of England Clergy that the controverted Ceremonies were parts of external Worship and that we were forced to fall in with the Roman Catholick in denying that Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous to speak softly is not true The Dissenters themselves never thought that external Circumstances were parts of Worship but endeavoured to prove that our Ceremonies were not meet Circumstances of Worship but Sacraments but I never heard of any Divine of the Church of England that allowed them to be so or that thought they had proved it What the sense of the present Clergy is may be learned as from a great many other excellent Books so especially from The Case of indifferent Things and The Church of England's Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Which are in the Collection of Cases lately Written for the satisfaction of Dissenters when the Government thought fit for other reasons to require a vigorous execution of those Laws against them which had lain Dormant for some time To show the World at that time what persecuting Spirits they were of they used their utmost diligence both by private Conferences and publick Writings managed with all the softness and tenderness that any Dispute is capable of to satisfie their Scruples and thereby to prevent their Sufferings which could be prevented no other way and let our Author try his skill if he pleases to find out in those Cases such an Agreement as he pretends between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which I believe he may as soon do as find out that persecuting Spirit in them he so much talks of unless good Arguments and soft Words may pass for a Persecution But Dr. Covel he says calls Ceremonies the external Act of Religion I grant he does so and I think it a very loose definition of a Ceremony But then we must consider that he plainly enough tells us what kind of Acts of Religion our Ceremonies are that they are only to make the Act of Devotion to be more Solemn and that Solemnity is in some measure a necessary adjunct to all publick Service And if Solemnity be but an Adjunct and Ceremonies but for Solemnity they cannot be in a strict Notion Acts of Religion but Adjuncts of publick Worship And as he calls them The Hedges of Devotion and thô not the principal Points yet as some of the Fathers call them the Second intention of the Law intermediate means not to be despised of a better and more religious Service Which plainly enough shows what distinction he made between Ceremonies strictly so called and Acts of Worship And therefore he tells us that there are Three Acts of Religion 1. The Internal which is the willing desire to give unto God his due Worship and Honour 2. The External Answering to this which is no otherwise good or commendable than that it vertuously serveth to this end 3. The commanded Act that is the Act of every Vertue ordained by Religion to God's Honour The Second which is the external Act and includes the whole external Worship he calls Ceremonies not as Ceremony now signifies among us the external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship but as it was anciently used to signifie all external Worship And therefore he afterwards distinguishes between these Ceremonies That 1. Some were for Iustification such as the Law commanded in place whereof afterwards sacceeded those that were for Ornament and to signifie such Vertues as were requisite in those Parties that rightly used them These are those Ceremonies which before he told us were only external Solemnities and in some measure necessary Adjuncts of Worship which are the only Ceremonies in dispute among us and the Dissenters which he calls Adjuncts and Solemnities as we do He adds 3. Some are parts of the immediate Worship as Sacrifice Prayer Adoration and such like some only dispose as Fasting austere Living some are only Instruments as Churches Altars Chalices and all those which religiously being separated serve only to make the Worship more Solemn and that Solemnity more Holy. So that thô he calls the whole external Worship and every thing that belongs
IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Vindication of Some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity c. Nov. 16. 1687. Guil Needham R mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacris A VINDICATION OF SOME Protestant Principles OF Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion From the Charge of Agreement with the CHURCH of ROME IN ANSWER To a late PAMPHLET Intituled An Agreement between the Church of ENGLAND and the Church of ROME evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over-against St. dunstan's-Dunstan's-Church in Fleet-street 1688. TO THE READER I HERE Present thee with a Book which the Importunity of our Roman Adversaries has extorted from me I had rather have employed my Pen upon some moré useful Argument but in such a state as this we cannot always be our own Chusers The Design of the Book I Answer seems to be To revive some Old Disputes between us and the Dissenters and to raise New Jealousies in them if not of our Inclination to Popery yet of a great deal of Popish Leaven yet remaining among us which ought to be purged out for there is nothing such men dread more than that the Dissenters should at this time entertain any kind Thoughts of the Church of England The Plot I confess is well enough laid were not all Wise Men of both Parties aware of it and that makes it ridiculous enough and indeed the Book it self is an odd kind of mixture he gives very good words to the Dissenters and at the same time uses no other but their own Arguments against the Church of England to establish some main Points of Popery which whether it be a piece of Courtship to them or a sly Affront ought to be considered As for our Agreement with the Church of Rome if I have not sufficiently baffled that Pretence I will never write more but this of it self was too mean a Design to confute that which no body not the Objector himself believed and therefore I will be bold to say that I have abundantly confuted the Popish Supremacy from those very Principles on which this Author would found our Agreement I intended a Preface to have explained some Notions about the Church which might have been of use to ordinary Readers for the better understanding this Answer but it swell'd so much upon my hands that by the advice of some Friends I have reserved it for a distinct Treatise which shall quickly follow W. S. AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE SINCE this Author has thought fit to single me out as an example of this pretended Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome I shall undertake my own defence which will give me no other trouble but a short diversion from some better designs which I suppose is all that was hoped for from this Pamphlet For whoever this Author be which I am not curious to know I cannot think him so weak as to hope at this time of Day that he could perswade our Dissenters That the Clergy of the Church of England are not the Chief if not the only Opposers of Popery and Defenders of the Protestant Religion or that notwithstanding all their appearing Zeal against Popery they are still Papists in their hearts and are ready to embrace a Cassandrian accommodation whenever the Government pleases and therefore I could be very well contented such suggestions as these should pass without an Answer as far as I am concerned in them for let any man that knows me think me a Papist if he can I am pretty confident this Author believes me far enough from it or else I might have expected better words from him but it is fit that such little arts as these should be exposed to the scorn and contempt of Mankind and that our Dissenters should be made sensible what a mean Opinion such Writers have of them who hope to impose upon them by such mean arts For to begin with that great Cry of late that the Clergy of the Church of England are now the Chief if not the only opposers of Popery and Defenders of the Protestant Religion Is there not good reason for it Have they not defended the Church of England against all the little arts and shifts of the Church of Rome What is that then which he calls the unlucky mistake and which the unwary Readers of Books are to be warned against That those unanswerable Books which have of late been written against Popery were not writen by the Clergy of the Church of England That he dares not say What is the mistake then That these men who confute Popery are not Protestants but Papists Methinks their confuting Popery is no great sign of their being Papists especially when Papists are not able to defend their Religion against them I am sure if their Arguments will keep men from turning Papists they are notable opposers of Popery and defenders of the Protestant Religion whatever they are themselves and what hurt it would do any man to be confirmed in the Protestant Religion though it were by the Writings of concealed Papists I cannot guess Should the Pope himself write a Book against Popery if the Arguments were good I should like the Book never the worse for the sake of the Author I deny not but such things may be done Papists may write against Popery and Protestants for it with an intention to betray the Cause which they undertake to defend but if this were his rule of guessing there would be much more just cause to suspect that our late Popish Writers were Protestants than that our Protestant Writers were Papists When they are able to Answer their Books against Popery we will give them leave to call them Papists still but could they have done that they would have allowed them to have been Protestants still But what course does our Author take to undeceive unwary Readers at this time and to prove these Confuters of Popery to be Papists Why by acquainting them with the avowed Principles of some of our Clergy about those Points wherein the very life of Popery consists and on which the whole System of that Religion is founded In doing which he hath with some clearness demonstrated the agreement of Opinion between the Church of England men and the Church of Rome to be so exact and full that if the Government should so design it were but dictum factum according to their Doctrine and a Cassandrian Peace might be patch'd up presently with Rome This is a notable discovery indeed Do any of these men then embrace any Doctrines of the Church of Rome No but it seems they agree with the Church of Rome in some Fundamental Principles whereon the whole System of Popery is founded That shall be examined anon But suppose it at present Do they draw the same Conclusions from these Principles which the Church of Rome does No but they
among us are better known by the name of Arminian Controversies now suppose they thought fit to give a latitude of Sense in their defining these Controversies have they positively defined nothing Has not the Church of Rome in express terms decreed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of worship of Saints and images of the Adoration of the Host of Seven Sacraments of Purgatory c. And has not the Church of England as positively determined against them And where is the agreement then between the Two Churches The truth is there cannot be a worse thing said of any Church than what this Author charges both upon the Church of England and the Church of Rome that they purposely penn'd their Decrees in such loose terms that men of different Opinions might expound them to their own sense Which is to make a show of deciding a Controveesy with an intention all the while to leave it undecided which is such a juggle as unbecomes the Sincerity of a Christian Church There may be a great many nice Philosophical disputes which a wise Church may think necessary to leave undecided but there never can be any good reason instead of determining Controversies to lay the foundation of endless disputes between the Members of the same Communion by doubtful and ambiguous expressions And therefore I absolutely deny that the Church of England has done this or ever intended to do it She has indeed used that temper and moderation in those Articles which relate to the Five points as only to determine what is substantial in them and necessary to be believed by all Christians without deciding those Niceties whereon the Controversie between the Calvinist and the Arminian turns and therefore both of them may subscribe these Articles because the Controversies between them are determined on neither side and the appeasing such heats as may be occasioned by those Disputes is left to the prudence of Governours which was thought a better way than a positive decision of them This I think I could make appear were it a proper place for it and therefore have always thought that the Church of England was wronged on both sides while both the Calvinist and Arminian have forced her to speak their own sense when she intended to speak neither And no man can blame this conduct who remembers that this is only a reviving that old Philosophical dispute about Necessity and Fate which always has been a dispute and is likely to continue so and though these different Opinions have very different effects on our minds and form very different apprehensions in us of Almighty God which may be a just reason to prefer one before the other yet they are both consistent with the belief of all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity as I have shewed at large in that Book to which this Author so often refers But now the Church of Rome has truly used this art which this Author charges her with such a latitude of expression and ambiguous terms as might satisfie their differing Divines that the cause was determined on their side when there was no other way to end their disputes and allay their heats and that in many concerning points too as any one may see who reads Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent and if this be intolerable in a fallible Church it is much more intolerable in a Council which pretends to Infallibility Certainly they distrusted their own Authority either did not believe themselves to be Infallible or knew that their Divines did not think them so for otherwise the Authority of the Council might have over-ruled their Disputes and there had been no need of cheating them into an assent But what expectation is there that the decrees of those men should be Infallible who so often intended to decree nothing This is a Mystery which I suppose our Author would not so freely have confessed at another time but it was necessary to allow this latitude of sense in the Decrees of the Trent Council now to bring off Mr. De Meaux and the Representer who do indeed expound the Decrees of the Council to a great latitude of sense But it is not a little matter will help them out the latitude of one side of the Line will not do but it must reach from Pole to Pole. There is another ingenious confession of this Author which is worth the noting That among the Romanists about the great Doctrine of Predetermination there are the Durandists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and Scotists that very much differ in Opinion and yet are still of the same Church and yet these are the men that quarrel at the reformation because there are differing Opinions among them when there are the same Disputes among themselves managed with as great heat and contention These are the men who tell us that we must have an infallible Judg to end our disputes when an infallible Pope and infallible Councils dare not undertake to end theirs but as for what he adds that there are in the Church of England Calvinists Arminians Socinians and Antinomians who subscribe the same Articles of Religion as terms of Unity and Peace As for Calvinists and Arminians I will grant they may both subscribe our Articles whether any Socinians do I know not no more than they know when a secret Iew or one who does not believe Transubstantiation is receiv'd into holy Orders by them but I am sure an honest Socinian cannot subscribe our Articles unless he can subscribe the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds but this was only designed to propagate that groundless calumny That the Divines of the Church of England are infected with Socinianism Having thus as well as he could delivered himself from ingaging in that Dispute about our agreement in doctrinal Points which he knew he could make nothing of he says He will confine himself to the agreement there is between both Churches about Government and Worship and threatens to show how we have disputed against Dissenters upon Roman-Catholick Principles both in proving their Obligation to Communion with us and in vindicating the terms of our Communion from being sinful This is what he undertakes to prove and we are bound to hear him Answer to SECT 1. Concerning the Church of Englands Closure with a Roman Catholick Principle about the Government of the Church in proving the Dissenter to lie under an Obligation of holding Communion with her AND now we are come to the main seat of the Controversy about Catholick communion which our Author has very dexterously improved into Catholick Power and Empire I need give him no hard words to expose his manifest and wilful prevarications in this matter will be thought hard enough if he be capable of blushing Now to make this as visible as the light I shall 1. Shew wherein he pretends the Agreement between the Two Churches consists that is between my principles of Communion and the Church of Rome for I am the only person here concerned and if I cannot
vindicate my self I will own my own shame without casting the blame on my dear Mother the Church of England and I suppose it will be sufficient to vindicate my self if I first show him that I have in express words rejected all those Propositions wherein he pretends this Agreement consists Secondly Particularly vindicate those passages he transcribes out of my books and shew his sincerity in quoting and his skill in applying and then his French Popery may shift for it self excepting a word or two of that learned Arch-bishop Petrus de Marca As for the first He himself has collected the Particulars wherein we agree which I shall distinctly examine the Reader may find them p. 15 16. which are these 1. They both make the Catholick Church one visible governed Society Houshold or Kingdom This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and fundamental mistake and a wilful one too for I affirm the contrary in express words in the defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of Separation p. 565 566 upon occasion of that Dispute about the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church I expresly assert That the Unity both of the National and Universal Church consists in one Communion That Consent is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Socity in one Communion That their Unity consists only in consent not in any superior Governing Ecclesiastical Power on Earth which binds them together So that I absolutely deny That the Catholick Church is one governed Society with one supreme Government over the whole P. 567. I assert That Christ hath instituted no such constitutive Regent Power of one Bishop over another in his Church and therefore the Union of particular Churches into one must be made by consent not by Superiority of Power P. 564. I affirm That tho a National Church and the Reason is stronger for the Universal Church be one Body yet it is not such a political Body as they describe and cannot be according to its original Constitution which differs from Secular forms of Government which have a supreme governing Power by that Ancient Church-Canon of our Saviours own decreeing It shall not be so among you And thus a National Church as governed by consent may be one Body in an Ecclesiastical tho not in a Civil Political Sense that is by one Communion not by one Supreme governing Power The Dean in Answer to Mr. Baxter who asserts a constitutive Regent Head of the National Church necessary to make it a Church and yet allows That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that all particular Churches as headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church argues thus If this Doctrine be true and withal it be necessary that every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows That there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Catholick Visible Church and so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent Part of the Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Universal Pastorship Where the Dean proves That a Constitutive Regent Head is not essential to the Notion of a National Church for then it must be essential to the Catholick Church too and then there must be a supreme Pastor or some supreme governing Power over the whole Church which I suppose is to deny that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society This Argument I defended at large and added p. 576. That to deny a Church can be one without a constitutive Regent Head infers one of these two things 1. Either that many particular Churches cannot associate into one for the joynt Exercise of Discipline and Government which overthrows the very Notion of Catholick Unity and Communion Or 2. That there is and must be a power in the Church superior to the Episcopal Power which naturally sets up a Pope above Bishops Thus much for my agreement with them that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society that is which has a supreme Power over the whole and if our Author by this time does not begin to Colour I will e'en Blush for him But by this the Reader will perceive what a hopeful Cause this Author has undertaken to prove my Agreement with the Church of Rome about the Supremacy either of the Pope or General Council when I absolutely deny that there is or ought to be any such Superior Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church But to proceed 2. He says They both pitch upon the Episcopal Government as distributed into the several Subordinations of combined Churches as what is by Divine Institution made the Government of the Church A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan a combination of Provincial Churches to make up a National and the Metropolitans in Subordination to the Primate a combination of National Churches to make up a Patriarchal and the Primates in Subordination to the Patriarch and a confederacy of Patriarchal to make up one Oecumenical and every Patriarch in Subordination to the Oecumenical Bishop or chief Patriarch This is an Agreement with a Witness and if he can prove this as he says he has done of which more presently we will never dispute more with them about Church-Government let us then consider the several steps and Gradations of Church-Authority which at last centers in an Universal Bishop 1. The Subordination of Parochial Presbyters who are combined and united under the Government of a Diocesan Bishop Thus far we agree with him and acknowledg a direct Superiority of Bishops over their respective Presbyters but we go not one step farther with him 2. A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan Such a Combination I allow of but the Subordination I deny to be the original Form of Church Associations and this one word Subordination which he has here thrust in discovers the whole Trick and spoils our Agreement quite I assert these Combinations are for Communion not for Government and therefore there is no Subordination required to such an Union he will have these Combinations to be not meerly for Communion but for Government and that indeed requires a Subordination but these two Notions do as vastly differ as a friendly Association for mutual Advice and Counsel and a Subjection to a Superior Authority And that I have not altered my Opinion but that this was always my judgment in the case I shall now show and I need to that purpose only transcribe a Page or Two out of the Defence p 577 c. It is evident from the Testimony of the earliest Ages of the Church that first the Apostles and then the Bishops as their Successors were the Supreme Governours of the Church who had no higher Order or Power over them And therefore Tertullian calls the Bishop Summus Sacerdos or the chief and
Head on Earth for with respect to Christ who is the true and only Head of his Church we will allow it to be one Kingdom and Family in this sense I say let any man judge of this who understands Consequences If our Author did not see this the Reader may judg of his understanding if he did he may judg of his honesty And thus his foundation is gone and then all the superstructure is but a Castle in the Air For if the Universal Church be not one Organized politick body as according to my Principles it is not then it cannot be subjected to one governing Head neither to the Pope nor a General Council His third charge is that I make somewhat more necessary to Catholick Communion than an Agreement in the same Faith the same Rules of Worship and right Administration of the Sacraments that is Catholick Communion is our union in one body and communicating in this one body is the exercise of Catholick Communion which those who do not if there be not a just and necessary cause for it are Schismaticks for all that whatever their Faith and Worship be and Schism is a damning sin But how does this make any thing more necessary to Catholick Communion than the same Faith the same Worship the same Sacraments These are all the Catholick terms of Catholick Communion but if these do not unite us into one body we are not united for all that Not that any thing else is wanting to make this union but because through the lusts and vices and passions of men an union does not follow upon it but he was sensible that Catholick Communion alone would not do his business would not prove the necessity of one Supreme governing-head whether the Pope or a General Council over the whole Church and therefore he insinuates that I make something else the necessary terms of Catholick Communion besides the true Christian Faith Worship and Sacraments and what should that be do you think but subjection to one Supreme Head which you shall see how learnedly he proves For he adds 4. That what is further necessary to Catholik Communion is a Catholick Government namely the Episcopal Now all these words I have used upon one occasion or other but there is no such proposition as this in all my Book I do allow Episcopacy to be an Apostolical Institution and the truly Ancient and Catholick Government of the Church of which more hereafter but yet in this very book I prove industriously and at large that in case of necessity when Bishops cannot be had a Church may be a truly Catholick Church and such as we may and ought to communicate with without Bishops in vindication of some foreign reformed Churches who have none and therefore I do not make Episcopacy so absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion as to unchurch all Churches which have it not But the Remainder of his quotations referring to the Unity of the Episcopacy I must briefly explain what my Notion is about it and truly I have proceeded all along upon St. Cyprian's Principles and he must answer for it if he have misled me S. Cyprian taught me that there is one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full authority and power where by one Episcopacy St. Cyprian understands one Bishoprick that is the Universal Church which as it is but one Church is but one Bishoprick also it being all under the Government of the Episcopal power But then this Bishoprick is divided into parts into particular Diocesses and every Bishop has a part of this Universal Bishoprick which he has in solidum that is he has his part to govern with the fulness and plenitude of the Episcopal power without any Superior authority or jurisdiction over him This I take to be the plainest and easiest interpretation of St. Cyprian's words for though all learned men have agreed in the same sense yet the Phrase has a little puzled them for if by one Episcopacy we understand one Episcopal office and power tho' the sense will be the same yet the expression is very obscure for how can every Bishop have but part of the Episcopal office in Solidum that is part of the office and the whole power But if by one Episcopacy we understand one Bishoprick and the universal Church may as properly be called one Bishoprick as one Church and one Sheepfold then it is all plain that there is but one Bishoprick of which every Bishop has part in which he exercises the whole Episcopal authority and power Another Principle of St. Cyprian's is that this one Episcopacy or one Bishoprick is preserved one by the concord and agreement of Bishops for if the Bishops disagree who have the Supreme government of their own Churches this must of necessity divide the Bishoprick and the Church but this one Bishoprick is spread over the World by the consenting multitude of many Bishops which as I observed he calls the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy And for the same reason Optatus calls it the Episcopal College and Bishops are called Collegues And St. Cyprian tells us The-Catholick Church is not rent nor divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick close together Another Principle is That no Bishop nor Colledg of Bishops have a direct authority or jurisdiction over their Collegues to compel them to submit to their decrees and definitions against their own Judgment and Conscience That none of them pretended to be Bishops of Bishops which he abhors as a Tyrannical Usurpation as we see in his Preface to the Council of Carthage Another Principle is That since there is but one Episcopacy or Bishoprick every Bishop besides the Supreme Government of his own particular Diocess has such a relation to the whole Church that he is to take care as much as in him lies to see that no part of the Church suffer by the Heresies or Schisms of their Bishops which is the reason as I observed before St. Cyprian gives Why there are so many Bishops in the Christian Church That if any of our Colledg i. e. any Bishop should endeavour to broach any new Heresie or to tear and spoil thâ— Flock of Christ the rest may come in to their help and like good and merciful Pastors gather again the Sheep of Christ into their Fold These are the Principles I learnt from St. Cyprian and if our Author can find a supreme Head of the Universal Church whether Pope or General Council in this Scheme I am sure St. Cyprian could not who disowns any such superior Authority to Bishops Let us then now return to our Author who observes that I assert That all the Bishops of the Church are but one also which a little differs from one Bishops being all invested with the same Power and Authority to govern the Church for which I quoted St. Cyprian tho he thinks fit to leave him out That as St. Cyprian tells us there is but