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.
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-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
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
and inspection suffer by the Heresy or evil practices of their Collegues Here is a good long Quotation if any body knew to what purpose it served I own the Words and know not how I could say the same thing better if I were to say it again I am still of the same mind that such Combinations of Bishops for mutuāl Advice and Counsel is of great benefit and use for the good Government of the Church but if he would insinuate as that if any thing must be his design that these Combinations of Bishops are for the exercise of Authority over their Collegues this I absolutely deny They are to advise and consult with each other not as with superior Governors who are to determine them and give Laws to them but as with Friends and Collegues of the same Body and Communion as I expresly affirm Vindicat. p. 127. May not Bishops meet together for common Advice without erecting a Soveraign Tribunal to determine all Controversies and make Ecclesiastical Laws and impose them upon their Collegues without their own consent When though the least yet it may be the best and wisest part of the Council are of another Mind Is there no difference between advising with our Equals and making them our Superiors May it not be a very great fault and very near the guilt of Schism for a Bishop without any cause but meer humour and wilfulness to reject such Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government which are agreed by the unanimous consent of neighbour Bishops unless we give a Superior Authority to such Synods over their Collegues 6. His next charge is that the Collegue of Bishops may grant unto some one Bishop a Primacy for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion who by a general consent may be intrusted with a Superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons This Sentence he has made up of two places in my Book above fifty Pages distant p. 127 and 184 for he durst not quote either of them entire and therefore I shall be at the pains to transcribe them both that the indifferent Reader may judge of them Vind. p. 127. There are these words This makes it highly reasonable for Neighbour Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with ease and convenience as the Bishops of the same Province or of the same Nation to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy to meet in Synods and Provincial or National Councils to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship This has been the practice of the Church from the very beginning and seems to be the true Original of Archi-episcopal and Metropolitical Churches which were so early that it is most probable they had their beginning in the Apostles Days For though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church affairs yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops and their Chairs by a general consent and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion without any Antichristian encroachments or usurpation on the Episcopal Authority For as I proceed This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops Every Bishop is the proper Governour of his own Diocess still and cannot be regularly imposed on against his consent If a Bishop differ from his Collegues assembled in Synods or Provincial Councils or one National or Provincial Council differ from another in Matters of Prudence and Rules of Discipline without either corrupting the Faith or dividing the Church if we believe St. Cyprian in his Preface to the Council of Carthage they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts nor to offer any force to him in such matters In p. 184 I discoursed much to the same purpose That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of Neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general consent be intrusted with a Superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascrib'd to Archbishops and Metropolitans But yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to Govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion Not Aristocratical because every Bishop being Supream in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Cases necessarily determin'd and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience All the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Collegue as shall by a Supream Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the form of Aristocratical Government and for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the Government of a Democratical Head for if the College of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt College of Bishops and People Thus careful was I to secure the Episcopal Authority from such Encroachments and Usurpations as it now groans under in the Church of Rome from placing the Unity of the Church in such a superior governing Head whether Primate or Synod and now let him make the best he can of this Primacy which he should have called a Primacy of Order as I did and not absolutely a Primacy which may signifie a Primacy of Power and Authority which I positively deny he has over any of his Collegues In a body of Equals though there is no Superiority there must be Order and therefore some One must have Authority to Convene the Assembly and to preside in it and if the Synod see fit may in some Cases be intrusted with a Superior Power of executing their Decrees which involves no direct Superiority over any of his Collegues All that I intended in these Discourses was to shew what Power a National or Provincial Synod Archbishops and Metropolitans might have upon St. Cyprian's Principles without encroaching upon the Original and Essential Rights of the Episcopacy and those who will allow St. Cyprian's Principles I believe will confess that I have truly and fairly stated the Bounds of pure Ecclesiastical Authority If Archbishops and Metropolitans have a greater Power than this by the Constitutions and Laws of