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
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
But this is only to understand the Actions and Ceremonies not the words and cannot answer the end of publick Prayer which is to offer up our common Petitions to God with one Heart and Mind The use of words in publick Prayer is to direct and determine our Thoughts and to excite our Affections for this Reason the Priest reads the Prayers with an audible Voice that all the People may joyn with him and these indeed are Publick and Common Prayers but now in the Church of Rome the Priest reads the Prayers but the People do not joyn with him because they do not understand him but the most they can do is by Actions and Ceremonies to guess at what part of the Service he is and either only look on or if they be very Devout entertain themselves with some good Pious Thoughts or put up some private Prayers to God or it may be to the Virgin Mary or some Saint while the Priest is saying Mass and thus the Priest prays by himself and the People if they do pray pray by themselves and have no other Benefit of the Publick Offices of the Church but only to see what the Priest does which at best can only fill them with some Religious Amusements or with confused and indistinct and Enthusiastick Devotions It is plain that in the Church of Rome the Devotions of the People are left to their own Extempore Conceits which is a thousand times worse than the Extempore Prayers of the Preachers who may be Men of Parts and Learning and able to suggest very Proper Petitions and very Pious Thoughts and to excite very Devout Passions in their Hearers and is it not very odd that the Church should have settled Forms of Divine Offices Composed Forms of Prayer and Praise and yet the People who will pray must be left to their Extempore Devotions is this also for the Edification of the Church Is not this Fanaticism with a Witness To conclude this Argument I know no practise in the World more directly contrary to the sense of all Mankind than Prayers in an unknown Tongue There was no Nation nor no Religion in the World ever professedly guilty of it but the Church of Rome and there can be no Reason imaginable why they should conceal their Worship unless they are ashamed of it or suspect that no disinterested Man can like it when he knows it and it is as odd a Task to prove that Men must understand their Prayers as it would be to prove that the use of Speech is to be understood 15. A Company of Christians voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions can notwithstanding this perverse intire and manifest Separation be a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church In answer to this I told him that if he applies this to us it is manifestly false for though we do not Communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship yet there are many Christian Churches with which we can and do Communicate and separate our selves no farther from any Society of Christians than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Church that if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith and Worship and Government and separates from other Churches only upon account of such Corruptions as will justifie a separation what should hinder her from being a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church for a true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the Mystical Members of Christs Body or else I desire to know what does That Catholick Unity is not violated by a just separation and dangerous Corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor 6. 17. All that our Author replies to this is that This Proposition relates to matter of Fact which we affirm Protestants to have done and desire them to make out by Scripture the Lawfulness of it and its consistency with Catholick Unity and Charity But I denied that we had done this and gave him in short my Reasons why I denied it which methinks might have deserved some notice and as for our separation from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome that I gave him my Reasons for and such as it seems he had no mind to answer that separation might sometimes be lawful and necessary and therefore not chargeable with Schism nor a breach of Catholick Unity I proved from the Text now quoted Come out from among them c. to which he says If I intend this for a Proof then it must import that it is the Duty of one Christian or a Party pretending to be a National Church to come out of the Catholick Church and be separate from her less than this will not reach the Protestant Case and so much as this will by no means agree with one Holy Church wherein alone the Communion of Saints Remission of Sins and Life Everlasting are to be found But how is this the Protestant Case How does separation from the Church of Rome and that no farther neither than she is Corrupt come to be a separation from the Catholick Church He knows that we deny the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church and we know that he can never prove it to be so and whatever Church or Churches have corrupted the Faith and Worship of Christ we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such Corruptions and have the whole Gospel to justifie us in it for in such Cases we are under the same obligation to separate that we are to profess the true Faith and practise the true Worship of Christ. All that can be charged upon the Church of England is that she renounced the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and denied Obedience and Subjection to that See which never had any Divine Right to claim it and that she reformed those Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship which she formerly was guilty of This charge we readily own but deny that this is Schism of Separation from the Catholick Church For till our Author can prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in subjection to the Bishop of Rome it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking Catholick Unity by denying that Obedience which we do not owe and when he can prove this essential to Catholick Unity to submit to the Bishop of Rome as the visible Head of the Church we will own our selves to be Schismaticks But then I must mind him what he is to prove viz. that by a Divine Institution the Bishop of Rome is the visible Head of Unity to whom all Churches must