understand them and this is the use we make of our Guides not to submit our judgments to them without any understanding but to inform our judgments that we may be able to see and understand for our selves Thus our Saviour taught his Disciples he opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures Thus the Apostles and Primitive Doctors instructed the World by expounding the Scriptures to them which does not signifie merely to tell them what the sense of Scripture is and requiring them to believe it but showing them out of the Scriptures that this is and must be the true sense of it and we need not fear that Protestancy should suffer any thing from such Guides as these though the Church of Rome indeed has felt the ill effects of them II. The Secular Prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority immediately from and under God. Here he says I behave my self as if I were under apprehensions and durst neither own nor reject this Tenet and yet in my Answer I expresly show what the Church of England means by the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes which signifies no more than that the King is Supreme in his own Dominions and therefore there is no Power neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him for if there were he were not Supreme And this I said might be proved from Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers to which he answers that this proves more than I grant It proves ministring the Word and Sacraments to belong to the Higher Powers How so Yes this it does unless ministring the Word and Sacraments be not a soul affair be no act of power Learnedly observed because every soul must be subject to the Higher Powers therefore the King has all Power in soul-affairs and therefore of ministring the Word and Sacraments But if every soul only signifie every Man without excepting the Pope himself then I suppose all Ecclesiasticks as well as Secular persons are included in it and if all must be subject to the King then the King is Supreme over all but things are at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when such silly Quibbles must pass for Arguments III. Iustification by Faith alone viz. a persuasion that we are justified is a wholsome Doctrine In answer to this I denied that our Church teaches that justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified He grants that some of the Church of England have condemned it p. 4. but yet he may as justly charge us with it as we charge the Church of Rome with Doctrines contrary to their General Councils and constant Profession and we grant he may for if such things be done they are very unjust both in him and us we deny that we do any such thing and have lately abundantly vindicated our selves from such an imputation let him do as much for himself if he can But Cranmer was of this mind by whom the Articles were devised But how does that appear and if he were what is that to us when there is no such thing in our Articles will he allow the Council of Trent to be expounded according to the Private opinions of every Bishop that was in it The Antinomians plead the Doctrine of the eleventh Article as the Parent of their irreligion and so they do the Scriptures And what then Will he hence infer that the Scriptures countenance Antinomianism because they alledge Scripture for it And why then must this be charged upon our Articles Though what some may have done I cannot tell but Antinomians don 't use to trouble themselves with our Articles But the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine the Puritans assert this Solifidian Parenthesis as the genuine and literal sense of Iustification by Faith alone and of the eleventh Article Why the Puritans the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine but we need not ask a reason of his sayings who understands nothing about what he speaks For the Puritans did not and do not believe That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified but they place justifying Faith in an act of recumbency on Christ for Salvation and dispute vehemently against his Notion of it But he says I might have given them a Text asserting what I confess our Church teaches viz. that justification by Faith only is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort which intimates no necessity of repentance to Iustification none of the Sacraments Yes it does and of good works too as the conditions of our Justification though not as the meritorious causes of it for all this our Church comprehends in the notion of a living Faith which alone justifies and then I suppose as many Texts as there are which attribute our Justification to Faith so many proofs there are that Justification by Faith alone as opposed to all Meritorious Works is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort IV. The substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before sacerdotal Consecration Here he takes no notice of any one word which I returned in Answer The sum of which is that the material substance before and after Consecration is the same that is that they are Bread and Wine still but by vertue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not mere Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death and to such as rightly and worthily and by Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ as our Church teaches And this I proved must be the sense of the words of Institution This is my Body and urged such arguments for it in short as he durst not name again much less pretend to Answer but instead of that he endeavours to prove p. 5. that the words of Institution This is my Body literally understood do expresly prove that the substance of Bread does not remain at all after Consecration For the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood which if substantially Bread and Wine it cannot really be A change less than that of the substance of the Elements is insufficient to render them really and truly what the Text says they are after Consecration But did not I give him my reasons why these words could not be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ And is it enough then for him to say that in a literal sense they must signifie a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into Christ's natural Body and Blood without answering what I urged against it and yet in a literal sense it cannot signifie so For if This refers to the Bread which our Saviour took and blessed and brake and it can refer to nothing else then the literal sense of the words is This Bread is my Body and if Bread be the Body of Christ then the substance of the Bread cannot be
submit for nothing can be essential to the Unity of the Church but what Christ himself has made so and what is not absolutely essential may be changed and altered when there is absolute necessity for it without a sinful breach of Unity and therefore though they cannot make good their claim to this Universal Supremacy not so much as by Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and ancient Customs as has been often proved by Learned Protestants yet to shorten that Dispute which to be sure none but Learned Men can be judges of whatever Jurisdiction or Primacy they pretend to have been formerly granted by Ancient Councils to the Bishop of Rome may be retrenched or denied without the Guilt of Schism when it proves a manifest Oppression of the Christian Church and serves only to justifie and perpetuate the most Notorious and Intolerable Corruptions of the Christian Religion And the Reason is very plain because all human Constitutions are alterable and what is alterable ought to be altered when the indispensable Necessities of the Church and of Religion require it Catholick Unity requires no Superiority or Jurisdiction of one Bishop or one Church over another but only Mutual Concord and Brotherly Correspondence and therefore a Church which rejects any Foreign Jurisdiction may yet maintain Catholick Unity as the African Churches did in St. Cyprians days The Combination indeed of Neighbour Churches and Bishops for the more convenient Exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Government we grant was very Ancient and is of great use to this day but if such Combinations as these degenerate from their first Institution and by the Tyranny and Encroachments of some usurping Bishops is improved into a Temporal Monarchy and invasion upon the inherent Rights and Liberties of all other Bishops and Churches I would desire to know why these Oppressed Bishops and Churches may not vindicate their own Rights and Liberties and cast off such an intolerable Yoak No you 'l say when such a Superiority and Subordination of Churches is Ordered and Decreed by general Councils which is the Supream Authority in the Church no change nor alteration can be made but by an equal Authority and therefore no particular Bishops or Churches can reject any such Jurisdiction unless it be revoked by a general Council without the guilt of Schism Now in Answer to this Let us consider 1. Suppose such an aspiring Bishop has usurped such an Authority as was never Orginally granted him by any Council that he has improved a Primacy of order which yet is more than the Nicene Canons granted to the Bishop of Rome into a Supremacy of Jurisdiction and has enlarged his Patriarchate beyond its original Bounds may not that be taken away without a general Council which was usurped indeed but never given 2ly Suppose a general Council had granted what it had no right to give as it must have done if ever any general Council had granted or confirmed the Popes Pretensions of being the Universal Bishop and visible Head of the Church and the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Authority and granted away these Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Episcopal Office. For it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole intire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops will not exercise that Power which Christ has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop may reassume such Rights though a general Council should give them away because the grant is void in it self 3ly Especially when the Regular means of Redress is made impossible by such Usurpations when the Christian Church is so inslaved to the Will and Pleasure of one Domineering Bishop that there can be no general Council unless he call it and preside in it and confirm it by his own Authority and how impossible it is this way to cast off such an usurping Power when the Usurper must be the Judg in his own Cause I need not prove especially when Christian Princes and Bishops are so devoted to the See of Rome either linked to it by secular Interests or over-awed by Superstition that it is in vain to expect that such a Council should Redress such Abuses as they themselves are fond of or if they would have them Redressed if they could yet dare not venture to attempt it must all Bishops now and Churches quietly submit to such Usurpations because the greatest number of them will not or dare not vindicate their own Rights Is it then unlawful for Christian Bishops to Exercise that Authority which Christ has given them and of which they must give an Account if they happen to be out-voted by other Bishops I grant the less number of Bishops cannot make Laws for the Universal Church in opposition to the greater numbers whatever Constitutions owe their Authority to mutual Consent must in all reason be confirmed and over-ruled by the greater numbers but the less number nay any single Bishop may observe the Institutions of our Saviour and exercise that Authority which he has given him without asking leave of general Councils nay in opposition to them for the Authority and Institution of our Saviour is beyond all the general Councils in the World. 4. Especially when we have the consent of much the greater number of Bishops without their meeting in a general Council All the Eastern Bishops which are much more numerous than the Western I cannot say have cast off the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because they never owned it but yet they oppose and reject his Authority as much as the Bishops of England do and therefore our Reformers in casting off the Pope did nothing but what they had the Authority of the whole Eastern Church to justifie which I take to be as good as a Council of Western Bishops though they may call it General For the Business of a Council in such cases is not to consent to some new Laws but to declare ancient and original Rights and if we have their authentick Declarations in this matter we need no more For we do not so much want their Authority as their Judgment in this Point It is a very daring thing to oppose the universal Consent of the whole Christian Church and no private Bishops nor National Combination of Bishops would be able to bear up against such a Prejudice but when we have the concurrent Opinions of the greatest number of Christian Bishops we need not much concern our selves for want of the Formality of a Western Council who are interested Parties yes you 'l say at least the Church of England was subject to the Jurisdiction of the
of their own sending and instruction In Answer to this I told him that if by this he meant that the whole Clergy of the Christian World did at the time of the Reformation maintain the Doctrines of the Church of Rome which were rejected and condemned only by a Major Vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England all the World knew how false it is For 1. There were many other Churches and better parts of the Catholick Church than the Church of Rome which did not own those Doctrines and Corruptions which we reject 2. Nay the whole Clergy of the Roman Church did not for many of our English Bishops and Clergy were as Zealous for the Reformation as any Lay-men so were the German Reformers who were Originally Popish Monks and Priests and yet did not follow the Laity but lead them way to the Reformation In reply to this he says I manifest my self meanly versed in the Story of my own Party or no friend to Ingenuity and Truth For it is certainly true and attested by Protestant Historians and Records that all the Bishops and the whole Convocation declared against Lay-supremacy and other Protestant Points and for Non-compliance therewith were almost all deprived the Queen and her Lay-Parliament enacting Supremacy whereby she imposed new Doctrines displaced the Catholick Clergy and created Prelatick Ministers And whether he or I be most in the right let the Reader Judg. For 1. It is plain I did not speak only of the Clergy of England but of the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church as he himself stated the Question and he answers only to the Clergy of England and with what Truth shall be examined presently For if the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have not Apostatized whatever the Clergy of the Church of Rome has done he loses the very Foundation of his Request to us to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have Apostatized from Fundamental Truth and Holiness for we are not bound to prove that which is false but he who allows no Catholick Church but the Church of Rome must consequently allow no Clergy of the Catholick Church but the Roman Clergy but we grant neither one nor t'other and yet as I showed the Roman Clergy themselves were the first Reformers and therefore what he insinuates cannot be true that the whole Roman Clergy opposed the Roman Laity in the Reformation 2. As for the English Reformation he confines it in his Answer only to the Story of Queen Elizabeth and what was done in her Reign but the Article he would have proved and the Answer I gave to it has no such limitation and I must still repeat that all the World knows and the Histories and Records of our Church assure us that the Popish Bishops and Convocation in Henry the Eight's days did acknowledg the Kings Supremacy and in higher Terms than Queen Elizabeth would challenge it Indeed the late Oxford Writer or rather Publisher of Books charges this upon that force they were under that is that the Clergy was taken in a Praemunire and the King would not compound the Business with them unless they acknowledged him to be the Head of the Church But does this prove that they did not make this Recognition if force or flattery can corrupt the whole Clergy then it seems the whole Clergy of the Roman Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness if they fall first into a Praemunire and meet with a King who will take the Advantage of it and are not the Clergy then admirable Guides to follow especially if they can be so over-awed as not only to make such a Profession but to Write and Dispute for it and use all variety of Arguments to perswade People to believe it The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian man was agreed on in Convocation and published by Authority Bishop Gardiner wrote a Book de vera Obedientia to which Bonner prefixed a Preface upon the same Argument Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstal Bishop of Duresm wrote in defence of the Kings Proceedings to Cardinal Pool and many Sermons were preached by several Bishops to the same purpose out of which Dr. Burnet has collected the Arguments used by them both against the Power of the Pope and for the Supremacy of the King And during that Session of Parliament which took away the Power of the Pope in the year 1534. A Bishop preached every Sunday at St. Paul's Cross and taught the People that the Pope had no Authority in England Was all this matter of force too and fear of the Praemunire which was pardoned in Parliament Anno 1531. three years before Let us now consider what passed under Queen Elizabeth And methinks what was good Doctrine in King Henry's time should be good Doctrine still and yet it is true that many Bishops then did protest against the Act for Supremacy and refused the Oath when it was offered them and that many of those Bishops who had wrote or preached for it before such as Bonner Bishop of London and Tonstal of Duresm which seems to lessen their Authority in this matter and when the Nation had so lately had the sense of the whole English Roman Clergy in this Point their present obstinacy to confirm their former Opinions without answering their former Reasons was no sufficient cause why a Lay-Parliament should not renew such Laws without the consent of the Clergy which were at first made with it not a Bishop dissenting excepting Fisher Bishop of Rochester And whereas he talks in such a strain as if this were opposed by the whole Clergy and that they were almost all deprived for it the account which the Visiters gave the Queen is very different that of 9400 beneficed Men in England there were no more but fourteen Bishops six Abbots twelve Deans twelve Archdeacons fifteen Heads of Colledges fifty Prebendaries and eighty Rectors of Parishes that had left their Benefices upon account of Religion which is a very inconsiderable number to the whole 3. I answered farther That we do not say that the Roman Church her self has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness We do grant that they have retained the true Faith and Worship of Christ though they have fatally corrupted both by Additions of their own And therefore we are not bound to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness for we do not say they did All that he replies to this is That this Apostacy at the least is taught in the 19 and 21 Articles and Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry That is to say for I suppose that is his meaning that the Church of England charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness But if men may be guilty of some kinds of Idolatry and of very great corruptions in Faith and Worship without denying any