Communion an Interest in the Advantages of the Government of the Land. So that if it has been her care to open the way that those who believe Transubstantiation may notwithstanding that belief be admitted to her Communion the making this Test to the excluding all such Believers of Transubstantiation from their Civil Rights must needs be unjustifiable in the Church of England But in Obedience to Queen Elizabeth it has been the endeavor of the Church of England to explain the Doctrin of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist in such a Latitude of Expression as might indeed take in under it the Notion of Transubstantiation Thus much the Queen commanded as Dr. Burnet in his History of Reformation reports in these words The Queen who inclin'd to keep up Images in the Churches was resolved to have the Manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament left in some general words that those who believe the Corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an Explication of it And as Dr. Heylin assures us the Church obey'd this Injunction For saith he in his Hist of Q. Eliz. In the first year of K. Edward the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper being delivered with this Benediction that is to say The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for the Preservation of thy Body and Soul to Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. This was thought by Calvin and his Disciples to give some countenance to the gross and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament which passeth by the name of Transubstantiation in the School of Rome This was alter'd into this Form in the second Liturgy that is to say Take eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with Thanksgiving Take and drink this c. But the Revisers of the Book in Queen Elizabeth 's time joyned both Forms together that so according to the Queen's Injunctions the Corporal Presence by the Addition of the old Form might receive countenance Vpon this ground they expunged also a whole Rubric at the end of the Communion Service in which 't was declared that Kneeling was not in Regard of any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. And to come up closer to the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queen's Injunctions That the Sacramental Bread should be made round in fashion of the Wafers as in Queen Mary 's Days She also ordered That the Lord's Table should be placed where the Altar stood So far Heylin Besides in pursuance of the Queens Orders in the Communion in the Catechism and Book of Homilies there are several Expressions countenancing the Real and Corporal Presence which has been the occasion of Dr. Moor's brief Discourse on the Real Presence in which it must be observ'd that the Doctor putting us in mind of the Bishop of Meaux's Judgment which was That the Opinion of the Real Presence is the Doctrin of all the Churches as well Reform'd as Unreform'd The Doctor adds That he must confess he has been of this Persuasion ever since he wrote his Mystery of Godliness viz. That it is the Doctrin of the Church of England and that the Doctrin is true And he further assures us in these Words I remember saith he this I have heard from a near Relation of mine when I was a Youth a Dignitary of the Church of England and that often viz. That our Church was for the Real Presence but for the manner thereof if asked he would answer Rem scimus modum nescimus We know the Thing but the Mode or Manner thereof we know not And the Assurance we have of the Thing is from the common Suffrage of the Ancient Fathers and from the Scripture it self which impress'd that Notion on the Minds of our pious Predecessors in the Church of God. Nor can we as I humbly conceive relinquish this Doctrin of the Real Presence without declining the most easie and natural Sense of the Holy Scripture as it stands written in the Sixth Chapter of John. Pag. 42. Of which this Doctor saith It is plain that our Saviour's Discourse in this Chapter has for its Object or Subject not the Manner or Way of receiving his Body and Blood as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross but that it was to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner which Interpreters several of them drive at but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is Himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word Thus far Dr. Moor of Cambridge if he be the Author of the Mystery of Godliness from whom I observe the Doctrin of the Church of England to be this viz. That the very Flesh and Blood of Christ is present in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the same Sense as the Fish and Loaves were present to the multitude miraculously fed by them Of this Thing with them there is no doubt tho' as to the Manner how it should be so they are in the dark And were not the Fish and the Loaves Corporally present How then can the Flesh and Blood of Christ be present in the Eucharist as the Fish and Loaves were unless Corporally present And if Corporally present there must be either a Transubstantiation or a Consubstantiation And I have heard some Learned Protestants say that of the two Consubstantiation is the most difficult and perplexing And this Doctor himself unless he lays a violence on the very Words of the Text as understood by all Men throughout Christendom whether Papist or Protestant and moreover falls into one of the greatest Extravagances of Plato cannot escape a closure with Transubstantiation For he offers nothing towards the solving this great Phainomenon but this That tho' the Body of Christ is present yet not the Body Broken on the Cross tho' the Holy Ghost expresly affirms it but a Body made of Divine and Spiritual Flesh and Blood every where present a Vehicle for the Eternal Logos to inhabit So that he is necessitated contrary to express Scripture not to make a Coat for the Moon but God Almighty knows with horror I mention it a Coat for the Godhead of Christ a Body compos'd of Flesh and Blood of equal extent with and for the Clothing of Divine Nature For the countenancing which he brings Gratian a Popish Canonist whom he quotes out of Morney distinguishing between the Body of Christ's Soul which was Broken on the Cross and the Body of the Eternal Word or Logos and affirms That the Body in the Eucharist is the Omnipresent Body of the Eternal Word which is there Corporally present From the whole then I would humbly propose to the Reader 's Thoughts these few Considerations 1. That the Doctrin of the Church
of England as fram'd by its first Queen-Elizabeth-Reformers is so generally express'd as to admit of a Sense owning Transubstantiation 2. That in favor of the Papists there are so many Expressions in their Liturgy Catechism and Homilies that very lately a great Church-of England Doctor The Doctor 's Book lately Licensed by the Archishop's Chaplain the Head of a College with the Countenance of the Archbishop of Canterbury is constrain'd to hold that the Church of England is for a Real Presence in the same Sense the Fish and Loaves were present to those that fed on them that is they are for a Corporal Presence 3. They cannot escape a falling in with Transubstantiation any other way than by closing with a Notion manifestly false and Platonic All which carefully weighed I advance to this Conclusion That the Church of England has hitherto had such favorable thoughts of a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and so much compassion for the Believers of Transubstantiation and have so far given up the Cause to the Papist that they cannot oppose Transubstantiation without embracing as false and a more absurd Notion and that therefore it s now become most unreasonable for them to make the believing of NO TRANSVBSTANTIATION to be a Condition of our Nobilities enjoying those Civil Privileges which are theirs by Inheritance And I doubt not but when our Protestant Lords shall in their great Wisdom have consulted the Sense of the first Reformers in Queen Elizabeths Reign the Countenance our Liturgy Catechism and Homilies give a Corporal Presence on purpose to encourage the Believers of Transubstantiation to come to their Communion they will see cause to conclude That it 's very hard were it their own Case to be justled out of the Rights of Peerage for an Opinion that must lie in their Judgment so doubtful And that whilst our Clergy are so zealous for the Name of Priests and for the Erecting and Railing in their Altars there is cause also why a Son of the Church of England should not be for the Continuation of this part of the Test The last Clause of the Test runs thus And that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint and the Sacrifice of the Mass as they are now us'd in the Church of Rome are Superstitious and Idolatrous And that the Church of England hath no reason to urge the Continuation of this other part of the Test will appear I humbly conceive pretty manifest to those who will cast off old Prejudices and impartially weigh the following Considerations I. That seeing the Church of England has taken more than Ordinary care to give such a general Explanation of the Real Presence as may admit of a Corporal Presence and thus much she hath done with a Design to encourage the Believers of Transubstantiation to joyn with them in the Sacrament she cannot esteem the Adoration of the Sacrifice of the Mass to be Idolatry for it 's well known she would be thought to abhor the holding Communion with Idolaters and to this she must stick or give up the Cause to the Protestant Dissenters who say that they dare not hold Communion with that Church that will admit known Idolaters into their Communion But such doth the Church of England admit in admitting the Believers of Transubstantiation That the Church of England is for admitting the Believers of Transubstantiation who adore the Sacrifice of the Mass has been abundantly prov'd whence it follows That the Church of England must either give up the Cause to the Dissenter or declare that the Believers of Transubstantiation tho' they adore the Sacrifice of the Mass are not Idolaters and that the Adoration of the Sacrifice is not Idolatrous and if not Idolatrous how can they oblige all to declare it to be Idolatrous or part with their Civil Rights and Privileges for not making such a Declaration But II. There are some great Doctors in the Church of England who affirm That the Worshiping what is believed to be God tho' it be not God wants the Formal Nature of Idolatry and it 's not to be doubted but that the Believers of Transubstantiation do verily believe that what they worship is God how can they then insist on their Idolatry For altho' these Doctors are in a Mistake yet before it be so positively determin'd as in the Test the Matter should be fully debated amongst themselves for it 's not agreeable to the Rules of Wisdom for any Church to impose what is matter of doubt to some of her own Sons who are Men of great Learning and Vertue III. As to the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary and other Saints it must be observed that Protestants themselves have different Apprehensions about the Nature of the Sin and tho' all judge it an Error yet all don't esteem it Idolatry and seeing here is not a word of Images in the Test the Church of England will be hard put to it to prove it Idolatry for if it be Idolatry it must in the Sense of a Protestant be either Idolatry against the First or against the Second Commandment Not against the First for who are there of the Church of England that make the Invocation of Saints to exceed the Idolatry of the Heathen The Author of Julian parallel'd it with Heathenish Idolatry but who makes it more absurd and gross And if it be an Idolatry only against the Second Commandment seeing Images are not mentioned how can it be made out unless they fall in with the Protestant Dissenter and say that as the First Command forbids all False Objects so the Second all false Authors and Means of Worship tho' directed Ultimately to the True God and so grant that what part of Worship soever has not God for its Author is Idolatrous Worship and thereby for the same Reason they make Invocation of Saints Idolatrous they make a great part of their own Worship to be so too And seeing they are so hard put to it to prove it Idolatrous they should not impose the Belief on 't with so much Severity as they have done it in this Case But IV. Altho' there were Reasons for the making those Tests when under a Church-of-England Prince yet there can be none for the continuance of 'em under a King who is for the Invocation of Saints for it 's a putting all those Nobles who enjoy their Birthrights and the Representatives of the Nation to pronounce his Majesty an Idolater which is not according to the Duty of a Subject nor indeed Civil But if the Sons of the Church who are for the fixing this Test should be treated by this present Government as the Clergy treated some Brownists in Queen Elizabeths Days it would be made a Crime no less than Capital The Brownists condemned the Church of England for no Church ensnared many in the Nets of their new Schism Neither could they be restrained tho' their Books were prohibited and two of
the Ring-leaders Executed at St. Edmundsbury Baker's Chron. for the Brownists asserting That the Church of England was no true Church and that their Ministry was no true Ministry the Clergy immediately made use of their Inferring Faculty and Argued thus to the destruction of some Mens Lives If the Church of England be no true Church as you affirm then the Queen the Head of it is no true Christian but must be ranked among the Infidel and Heathen that is you do your utmost to expose her Majesty to the Odium and at last to the Rage of the People and do what in you lies to depose her Majesty from the Throne And thus it was made a Capital Crime and some were Executed on this Account But we need not Reason it thus with the Church of England for without such far-fetcht Consequences the very Principles and Practices of his Majesty are called Superstitious and Idolatrous and his Majesty by a most immediate Inference publickly declared to be an Idolater And therefore I think it the Wisdom of the Sons of the Church now to call to mind what they have done to their own Brethren in the Case above and take heed that they continue not in a worse Crime by a zealous sticking to those Tests For unless she will give up the Cause to the Dissenter in some momentous Instances and be moreover guilty of that Brownistical Practice which she has so severely condemned in Queen Elizabeths Days she cannot be for the Establishing the Tests And this I would leave with the Sons of the Church of England that they may fix it on their Minds and take heed that above all Men they be not too eager in pressing for a Continued publishing to the World that his Majesty is an Idolater It 's requisite that they remember how tender they have been of the Honor of those Princes that were of their own Religion and if they will be as Loyal as they profess they must shew as great a regard to their Prince now tho' of another Religion When they had a Prince of their own Religion not only the Brownists were condemned for exposing the Queen to the rage of the Mobile by their affirming the Church of England to be no true Church and thereby making their Prince worse than an Atheist but at last they began to draw the same conclusions from Non-subscribing as Mr. Nichols Vide Nichol's Plea for the Innocent an humble Servant of the English Church declares I have saith he heard it objected in a Sermon by a Reverend man who now is a Bishop that by refusing to subscribe we make the Queen's Majesty to be an Atheist worse than Papists and namely of No Religion For saith he you refuse to subscribe to the Book of Orders then do you make that we have no good Ministry you refuse to subscribe to the Book of Common-Prayer then make you that we have no good Liturgy and Service of God you refuse to subscribe to the Book of Articles which contain the sum of our Faith and Doctrine then do you make that we have no sound Doctrin But these be the Books which her Majesty by her Authority doth set forth and by them sheweth what Reliligion she is of and what she holdeth and maintaineth therefore if there be no good Liturgy no good Doctrin no good Ministry then it follows that you make the Queen to be of no Religion And thus much was urged to prove the Old Nonconformists to be Seditious Rebellious and implacable Enemies to the Queen's Majesty and I would fain know whether it be not as mischievous to represent any other Prince under the most odious Characters as it is to expose one of the Church of England's Communion If it be not then there can be no Security in England while our Church-men prevail for that Prince whose Right it is to reign over us is of a Religion different from theirs that is in plain English our Church-men are resolv'd to be Loyal no longer than the King is for the Church of England's Religion But if it be as pernicious to represent our Prince of what Religion soever he be under an ill Character to the People then do all those of the English Church who are for a continuing this Test out-do the old Brownists for what they did was by a remote Consequence They denied the Government of the Church of England to be good but granted that there were many good Christians of their Communion and seeing the Government of the Church is considered distinctly from their Doctrins and is not of the same Necessity to Salvation with their Doctrins the saying that an asserting the Government of their Church and consequently their Ministry to be naught is a Damning their Doctrins must be by a very remote Consequence But in this Test tho' it be the known Practice of a Roman Catholic to invocate the Saints and adore the Sacrifice of the Mass yet it 's not only affirm'd by a few more privately but must be publicly declar'd by all that will have any Interest in the Government that this is Superstitious and Idolatrous and consequently whoever is for this Practice is guilty of that Idolatry that is to be abhorr'd of all men Thus you may see the tendency of Establishing the Tests how much it exposes His Majesty to the contempt of the Mobile and consequently how much it endangers his Person and Government and therefore how necessary 't is to take all off However To add one thing more I humbly think that I may be bold in asserting That such is the present case of England thro' the multiplication of Tests that a great part of our Gentry must be necessarily involv'd in the Guilt of Swearing one thing and Declaring another or it must be recogniz'd that His Majesty without the Aid of Parliament may alter Oaths and Tests and so vacate them or to prevent the King 's doing it 't will be necessary that a Parliament concur with His Majesty in taking off all Tests My reason is this Those Sheriffs that have been Parliament-men must take an Oath contradictory to the Parliamentary Test For by the One he must declare That he believes that there is no Transubstantiation and that the Invocation of Saints is Superstitious c. and by the Other he must swear That he will endeavor the Extermination of all those who do thus believe as just before he professed to do For the Sheriff's Oath runs thus Ye shall do all your pain and diligence to destroy and make to cease all manner of Heresies and Errors commonly called LOLLARS within your Bailiwic from time to time to all your power Now Tritem chron Hir. Saug vit Sigism an 5. whatever may be the reason of the name Lollardy as whether it had its Rise from one Walter Lollard who was burnt at Cologn for an obstinate Adherence unto his Opinions as Tritemius in his Chronicle reports or from Lolium a Tare or Weed
Safety and on all occasions have demonstrated so much For even in Richard Il's Reign when Braybrook the Bishop of London being then Lord Chancellor sent out among the Statutes then to be publish'd by the Sheriffs of Counties a Statute for the persecuting the Lollars the Commons being the year following called to sit in Parliament preferr'd a Bill reciting the said supposed Act and to use Sir Edward Coke's words constantly affirmed That they never assented thereunto and therefore desired that the supposed Statute might be aniented and declared void for they protested that it was never their intent to bind themselves and their Successors to the Prelates more than their Ancestors had done in times past and hereunto the King gave his Royal Assent in these words Ypleist au Roy. And as the Commons would not then consent to the making Laws against the Lollards so they endeavor'd both in the Reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. the dispossessing the Clergy of Church-Lands and in Henry V. prevailed so far as to suppress the Friers Aliants whose Lands were united to the Crown and had it not been for their War with France and the Contention between the two Houses of York and Lancaster it 's probable that before Henry VIII's time the insolence of the Clergy had been so severely check'd as it was done by that Great Prince We must not therefore judge of our King and Popish Gentry by Foreign Papists nor by hot headed Priests at home but must remember as a little before I noted that English Blood runs in their Veins and that they 'll labor to excell all their Progenitors in those Vertues that have raised them to an Honor and Glory Immortal especially considering 't is His Majesty's Principle to be for Liberty of Conscience But if the English Papists had been so Bloody as the Objection suggests I cannot see how the continuing the present Tests can indubitably prevent the seared mischief for in the Tests there is not one word against Persecution and a man that takes these Tests may notwithstanding any thing in them be as severe in fetching Blood from Dissenters in Religion as ever any of the Heathen Persecutors have been And the whole that can be said is this That the Church of England would engross all Persecuting Power into her own hands for all her care is to keep all others out of the Government but no care taken to prevent the making Laws for the extremest Persecution And if as a Book lately publish'd by one of the Church of England affirms An Historic Treatise touching Transubstantiation by a Roman Catholic there be an innumerable Company amongst the Papists who believe not Transubstantiation why may it not be supposed possible for our English Papists to fall in with them in this point The Author of the Answer to the two Discourses of the Real Presence c. primed at Oxford doth in his Preface mention many Roman Catholics Men of great Learning who did not believe Transubstantiation viz. Pichereliuâ— Da Perron Father Barns the Benecict ne De Marca Archbishop of Paris Father Sirmond the Jesuit De Marolles Abbot of Ville-Loyn and with some others of that Communion who judge the Invocation and Adoration of the Virgin Mary as generally used in the Church of Rome to be Superstitious and Idolatrous and so take these Tests and leap into the Government and enact Bloody Laws against all those who won't submit unto the Pope and receive the other controverted parts of Popery It 's manifest that our English Papists are for the sweetning methods in most points of Doctrin and tho' I think that this is not very probable yet it being as probable as what the Objection intimates it may be as fairly urged And we have the greatest reason to say that if it be only exterminating Laws that the Church of England are afraid of another Test against all such Bloody Principles and Practices will more effectually secure us This is enough to give Satisfaction to the Objection however I will ex abundanti add somewhat more and consider what may be said to it with reference to an Expedient to prevent the Mischiess that are invented and suppos'd to follow from the taking away the Tests and then fear'd unless One only Way be taken which is so high a One as cannot be hoped and I must answer that I doubt not but there are many Ways to be found out by the Wisdom of a Parliament to anticipate any Design of getting a future Parliament of Papists that shall set up Popery by a Law. For what if it were offered to His Majesty that they will comply to have all the Laws against Papists and Dissenters to be totally repealed reserving the Test only upon the Two Houses during the King's Reign and that then the Test shall cease also If the King would consent to this which is a great deal less than what this Gentleman hath hinted might we not be sure that the Papists shall never be in a capacity to make Laws for the Extirpation of Protestants If the King would not be pleas'd with this but propose something himself in exchange of the Test which should be a better Defence against this supposed Danger than that is should we not be willing to have the Mud-wall thrown down so long as we may have a Brick-wall for it about our House Nay what if upon such an Act once pass'd as gives Quiet to the Land the King should afterward see no need of another Parliament and resolve to have none till he saw need would not this Objection be then solv'd and confounded alone by that Besides who is there certain let him be what Contriver he will that he shall live to see another Parliament after the next Are not the Lives of Princes in God's hand as well as those of the meanest men and are there not a thousand Accidents that may intervene and prevent the deepest Machinations of such as think themselves most wife Is there nothing to be allowed to the Volubility of Human Affairs and the Providence of God Let an Indulgence be enacted and is it not good that there be Peace and Truth in our days as Hezekiah said Again if another Parliament be called let but free Election be secured and false Returns prevented and that alone will go far to do the Business But the great thing I insist on is the King 's solemn and oft repeated Declaration that it 's not only the giving us Ease during his Majesty's Reign that he designs but that a Parliament in Concurrence with him may Settle Liberty of Conscience on such a Bottom as may never be moved For let any thing be invented by the Wisdom of Parliament that may be but equitably offer'd for the securing such an Act never to be infring'd we may be sure he will grant it The King would fain leave with his Subjects such a Magna Charia for the securing them the Liberty of their Consciences as they have for