fundamental Article of the Christian Faith then Idolatry it self does not prove such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth And this is the opinion of those who own the Church of Rome a true though a corrupt Church notwithstanding they charge her with idolatrous Practices For they consider that the Jewish Church was guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of the Golden Calf and the Calves at Dan and Bethel and yet were a true Church still because they worshipped only the true God the God of Israel though in an idolatrous manner And I would advise our Author not to insist too peremptorily on this That Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth till he is sure that he can clear himself and his Church from the charge of Idolatry I know very well what he aims at to disprove the charge of Idolatry because Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness and thus the Church cannot apostatize and therefore cannot commit Idolatry which is like their proving that the Church has not erred because it cannot err Whereas if de facto it appears that the Church has erred that is a Demonstration that it can err Thus if de facto it appears that the Church is guilty of Idolatry this is a Demonstration that either Idolatry is not such a fundamental Apostacy or that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy Those who say that Idolatry is not such an Apostacy are not bound to prove that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth to make good their charge of Idolatry Those who say that Idolatry is such an Apostacy are bound to prove either directly that the Church is not guilty of Idolatry or by consequence that she cannot be because she cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth so that the Proof lies on their side not on ours we are not bound to prove that the Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness because we have no occasion to say it may but they are bound to prove that the Church cannot so apostatize because it is the best defence they have against the charge of Idolatry But I cannot pass on without briefly considering the nature of this Argument to prove that a thing is not upon a pretence that it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove that it is which is now the modish and popular way of disputing and the very last refuge of the Church of Rome If you charge them with Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship and prove your charge beyond the possibility of a fair Reply they presently take sanctuary in the Indefectibility or Infallibility of their Church Their Church cannot err because the Council or Pope or at least both of them together are infallible Or as others say Tradition is infallible for the Church must believe to day as it did yesterday and to morrow as it does to day and so from one Generation to another and therefore it is impossible there ever should be any change in the Faith of the Church The Church cannot be guilty of Idolatry because it cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and so in other cases And therefore the way they take with their new Converts is not to dispute particular Controversies but instruct them well in this one Point which puts an end to all other Disputes That the Church cannot err and cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and then it is certain whatever she teaches she cannot err and whatever she does is not Apostacy Now not to show at present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to her selfe the Title Priviledges and Prerogatives of the Catholick Church and appropriates all those Promises to her self which were made to the Church in general nor to examine the meaning of those Texts whereon she founds this pretence of Infallibility I shall only consider whether this Plea the Church cannot err therefore she has not erred the Church cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness therefore she is not guilty of Idolatry which say they is such an Apostacy be sufficient to satisfie any honest inquisitive man who can read the Scriptures and compare what the Church now believes and practises with the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour For 1. When such Errors and Corruptions are notoriously evident though but in any one instance to argue that the Church has not erred because she cannot err is to dispute against matter of fact like the Philosophers disputing against the possibility of Motion and no Argument whatsoever is good against matter of fact True you 'l say if it were notoriously evident that the Church has erred there were an end of her Infallibility but this is matter of dispute whether she have erred or not and then if you can prove that she cannot err you effectually prove that she has not erred No such matter for if she be charged with Errors and plain evidence brought that she has actually erred unless you can as plainly take off this evidence it weakens and overthrows all the Proofs for Infallibility whatever they are and therefore the pretence of Infallibility is of no use in this dispute but to cheat the ignorant and unwary for if I can prove that such Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are Errors and Corruptions till I am satisfied that they are not I can never believe that Church to be infallible which I can prove has erred and therefore while any charge against the Errors of the Church of Rome remains unanswered it is too soon to talk of her Infallibility for actual Error is a just confutation of Infallibility but the pretence of Infallibility is not a just Plea against the charge of actual Error because if I can prove my charge against them that they have erred that disproves their Infallibility and then nothing else can prove it So that this Infallibility can do them no service at all in this Dispute whether they have erred or not for if I can prove that they have erred I overthrow all their Proofs of Infallibility and whether they have erred or not is not to be tryed by their Infallibility but by the Rule of Truth and Error which are the Holy Scriptures so absurd it is to think to determine all the Controversies now in dispute among us by the Churches Infallibility It is indeed a most certain Truth that if the Church be infallible she cannot err and therefore she has not erred and it is as certainly true that if the Church has erred she can err and therefore is not infallible The Romanists assert the first the Protestants the second but there is this difference between these two Pleas That if we can make good our charge against them that they have actually erred this is a direct and positive Proof against their Infallibility but though it be as certainly true that an infallible Church cannot and has not erred yet whatever Proofs they bring of the Churches
must grant So that still this whole Controversy issues in this whether the Terms of their Communion be not sinful if they be this will justifie our Non-communion with them if they be not we are Schismaticks and by this we are willing to stand or fall So that this charge of Schism upon the Church of England is very absurd and ridiculous unless they can charge us with Schismatical Doctrines and Practices if we separate for the sake of a Corrupt Faith or Worship we are Schismaticks indeed but if we separate only because we will not profess any Erroneous Doctrines nor Communicate in a corrupt Worship unless the true Faith and true Worship can make Men Schismaticks we may very securely scorn such an Accusation And it is as impertinent a Question to ask us what Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome For if by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean uniting our selves in one Ecclesiastical Body with them putting our selves under the Government of any other Patriarch so we joyned in Communion with no other Church and there was no reason we should for we were Originally a free independent Church which owed no Subjection to any other Church but had a plenary Power to decide all Controversies among our selves without appealing to any foreign Jurisdiction and when we had delivered our selves from one Usurper there was no reason to court a new one this not being necessary to Catholick Unity and Communion If by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean what other Churches we made the Pattern of our Reformation we freely confess we made no Church of that Age our Pattern but I think we did much better for we made the Scriptures our Rule and the Primitive and Apostolick Churches our Pattern which we take to be a more Infallible direction than the Example of any Church then or now If we must have been confined to the Faith and Practise of other Churches then in being without regard to a more Infallible Rule and a more unquestionable Authority I confess I should have chose to have continued in the Church of Rome which had the most visible and flourishing Authority of any other Church at that time but our Reformers did believe and very rightly that no Church had any Authority against the Scriptures and Primitive Practise and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other Church did in all things believe and practise as they taught but what the Faith and Practice of the Apostles and their immediate Successors was and yet they very well know that most of those Doctrines and Practises which they condemned in the Church of Rome were condemned by other Churches also though it may be those other Churches might have some less Errors and Corruptions of their own If the Scriptures and the Example of the Primitive Churches be a sufficient Authority to justifie a Reformation then the Church of England is blameless though no other Church in the World followed this Pattern but our selves for this is the Rule and Pattern which they ought all to follow and if they do not it is not we are to blame but themselves And yet what if I should say that our Reformers made the Church of Rome her self the Pattern of our Reformation and indeed this is the plain truth of the Case For we framed no new Creeds no new Articles of Faith no new Forms of Worship no new Models of Government but retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and only rejected those Corruptions and Innovations which were introduced in several Ages and confirmed all together by the Council of Trent Our Faith is contained in the Apostles Nicene Athanasian Creeds which are all owned by the Church of Rome and were the Ancient Faith of the Catholick Church We own the two Christian Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which were expresly Instituted by our Saviour himself and which the Church of Rome owns We Worship one God through Jesus Christ who is that one Mediator between God and Man as the Church of Rome confesses though she brings in a great many other Mediators by the help of a distinction Our publick Liturgie is so conformed to the Ancient Liturgies of the Roman Church that it has been often objected to us though very peevishly and absurdly by Dissenters that our Common Prayer is taken out of the Mass Book Our Litanies Collects Hymns are many of them taken out of the old Latin Liturgies only we have changed the Popish Legends into Lessons out of the Old and New Testaments and have left out Prayers to Saints and all the Corruptions of the Mass and other Superstitions So that in Truth the Church of England is the exact Resemblance of the Church of Rome in her state of Primitive Purity before her Faith and Worship were corrupted with new and superstitious Additions and it is plain that this was the Rule of our Reformation not to form and model a new Church but only to Purge the Church from all new Corruptions and to leave the old Foundations and Building as it was and if we have indeed retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and rejected nothing but Innovations in Faith and Corruptions in Worship they need not enquire for a Church which believes all that we do for the Church of Rome her self does so and if they believe more than they should it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do and therefore we had no need to seek for any other Church to joyn with for we staid where we were and did not leave our Church but Reform it and a Man who does not pull down his House but only cleanses it and makes it a more wholsom Habitation needs not inquire for a new House to dwell in To conclude this Argument our positive Faith and Worship is the same still with the Church of Romes and therefore they cannot blame us for it and in those Doctrines and Practices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rome we have the Authority and Practice of most other Churches to justifie us which do not own the Supremacy of the Pope nor Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor Communion in one kind nor Latin Service nor the Worship of Images with several other of the Trent Innovations So that in truth we are so far from separating from all Christian Societies that there are few things in our Reformation but what are owned and justified either by the Church of Rome her self or by some other Churches not to take notice now that there are few things in our Reformation but what some Doctors of the Roman Communion have either justified or spoke modestly of 16. The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both discover the Clergies defection and depriving them heap to themselves Teachers
Infallibility they are not a direct Answer to that charge That she has actually erred and can have no force to prove her Infallibility till that charged be answered because there can be no Proof against matter of fact And therefore when they begin with the Proof of Infallibility they begin at the wrong end for when the Church is charged with Error if they would not lose their labour they must prove that she has not erred before they prove her to be infallible for otherwise after all the pains they have taken to prove her Infallibility if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred their Labour is lost and therefore it is best to try that first which shows what a Sophistical Argument it is to prove that the Church has not erred because she is infallible and cannot err for they must first prove that she has not erred before they can prove her to be infallible for till this be removed it is an effectual Bar to all other Proofs of Infallibility And thus their compendious way of making Converts and confuting Hereticks is nothing but Sophistry and a Cheat and if men would be sincere and honest Converts they must not flatter themselves with an Opinion of the Churches Infallibility but must examine the particular Disputes between us and be thoroughly satisfied that the Church of Rome has not erred before they embrace her Communion 2. For if it appear that the Church of Rome has been guilty of Error or Apostacy this is a certain Demonstration that either those Scripture-promises which she alledges do not belong to her or do not signifie what she brings them for for whatever Christ promises he will certainly perform and therefore if the Church of Rome has erred he never promised she should be infallible To be sure when the Sense and Application of such Texts of Scripture are disputed as they are between Protestants and Papists that side must have the advantage which is confirmed by the Event and matter of Fact and therefore if it appear the Church of Rome has erred the Protestant Interpretations of those Texts Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and such like are to be preferred before the Popish Interpretations which apply them to the Bishops of Rome as the Infallible Guides of the Church especially when that evidence we have that the Church has Erred is much more plain and notorious then that Christ has promised that she shall not Err when the Scripture Proofs that the Church of Rome has Erred in several Doctrines and Practices which she now teaches are much plainer than those Texts are by which they prove that she cannot Err if I can prove by plain Texts that she has Erred this shall teach me how to expound those obscure Texts from which some would prove that she cannot Err. Indeed it is very happy that no Man believes Christ has promised Infallibility to the Church of Rome but those who believe that she has not Erred for if they did it would be a very dangerous State of Temptation and a very ill Argument in the hands of an Infidel against Christianity for they would rather charge Christ with a breach of his Promise which would destroy his Authority than believe contrary to the plainest and most convincing Evidence that the Church of Rome has not erred and indeed it would stagger the Faith of a Christian if the pretended Promises of Infalibility to the Church of Rome were as plain as her Errors are for what should any Man do in that case believe that she has not erred because of the Promise of Infalibility or disbelieve the Promise because she has erred When both sides are equally plain and yet can never be reconciled it is a sore Temptation to believe neither when I know not which to choose and cannot possibly believe both So that to urge the Infallibility of the Church that she cannot err against the plainest evidence that she has erred may make some Men Infidels but can make no considering Man a Roman-Catholick But to return to our Author though I think I have not left him all this time I gave a fourth Answer to this Reqnest which he takes no notice of viz. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Lay-men and afterwards acknowledged by the Clergy who joyned in the Reformation I should not have thought the Reformation ever the worse for it For if the Clergy corrupt Religion we have reason to thank God if he opens the Eyes of honest and disinterested Lay-men For this is the great grievance that the Clergy should Apostatize and a National Laity discover the Clergies Defection and reform it This is now the fashionable way of Disputing against the Reformation of the Church of England that it was not regularly done by the consent of the Major part of the Clergy in a National Synod which first ought to have been obtained before the Queen and the Parliament had made any Laws about it which is the whole design of a late Oxford Book against the Reformation Now this I confess seems to me a very strange way of Reasoning unworthy of Christians especially of Christian Divines for not to enter now into the History of the Reformation which those who please may learn from Dr Burnet who has Published the Authentick Records of the most material Transactions in it yet I say 1. If the Reformation be good and necessary there can want no Authority to reform and my Reason is because it is Established by the Authority of Christ and his Apostles which is a good Authority to this day for to Reform Abuses and Corruptions signifies no more than to Profess the pure and uncorrupted Faith and Worship of Christ and I desire to know whether Christ have not given sufficient Authority to every Man to do this or whether there be any Authority in Church or State which can de jure forbid the doing it and make it unlawful and irregular to do so if there be truly Christ and his Apostles have preached the Gospel to very little purpose if we must not believe or practice as they teach unless our Superiors will give us leave How could the Gospel have been at first planted in the World upon these Principles Jews and Heathens had a regular Authority among them to determine matters of Religion and this Authority opposed and condemned the Faith of Christ and therefore unless particular Men had reformed for themselves and joyned themselves to the Fellowship of the Apostles they must have continued Jews or Pagans to this day For as for what our Author says that sueb a change in Religion ought to have some Scripture or because Extraordinary should have Miracles to countenance it I answer we have both we have reformed according to the Scriptures and can justifie our Faith and Worship by the Scriptures and a Scripture Reformation is confirmed by Miracles because the Doctrine of the Gospel is so
more than what we give to the Bible ibid. The reasons why some Protestants have charged the worship of Images with Idolatry 88 No alterations made in the Law against worshipping Images in the New Testament 92 The reasons of the Second Commandment Moral and Eternal 93 No material Temple much less an Image allowed under the Gospel 95 The Primitive Church always understood the Worship of Images to be forbid under the Gospel 99 XIII Whether the Pope be Antichrist and whether this be taught in the Homilies of the Church of England ibid. XIV Concerning Prayers and Divine Offices in the Vulgar tongue 101 The self-contradictions of this Author 102 Whether S. Paul in 1 Cor. 14. only forbid inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue not the setled forms of Divine Offices 104 All the Apostles arguments in that place against speaking in an unknown tongue concern our ordinary devotions 105 As 1. That it is contrary to the edification of the Church ib. 2. That it contradicts the natural end and use of speech 106 3. That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious worship which must be a reasonable Service 107 Whether the people are bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship 108 Whether the people understand their prayers though they are in Latin which they do not understand 112 XV. Concerning Schism and Separation 114 Separation from the Errors of the Church of Rome is not a Separation from the Catholick Church 116 Renouncing the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome no Schism ibid. Such a supremacy not essential to Catholick Unity 117 Concerning the Ecclesiastical combinations of neighbour Churches and Bishops into one body ibid. In what cases a particular Church may break off from such a body 118 The Popes Supremacy such an usurpation as may be renounced without the authority of a general Council ibid. The Church of England not originally subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch 121 The difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the breach of Ecclesiastical Communion 122 To reform errors and corruptions in Faith and Worship can never be a fault 125 That the Church of England does not separate from all other Christian Societies 126 Concerning Communion in the Eucharist and other religious Assemblies 129 What Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome 130 What Church we made the pattern of our Reformation 131 In what sense the Church of Rome her self was the pattern of our Reformation 132 XVI Concerning the defection and apostasie of the Clergy of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Laity 134 Whether the whole Clergy were against the Reformation 135 The Popish Clergy in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth did own the King's Supremacy and wrote for it 136 c. We do not assert That the Church of Rome has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness 138 Whether all kind of Idolatry be an Apostasie from fundamental Truth and Holiness 139 The nature of that argument to prove That a thing is not because it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove That it is 140 As that the Church of Rome has not erred because she cannot err 141 c. If the Reformation be good there can want no authority to reform 147 The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the established Religion of that Nation which is all that we attribute to Kings and Parliaments in such matters 250 ERRATA PAG. 53. l. 4. for now r. non p. 123. l. 33. r. as shows p. 14â— l. 14. dele upon Some faults there are in Pointing which I must leave to the Reader to correct A VINDICATION OF SEVERAL Protestant Doctrines BEING AN ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs THAT I have taken so little an occasion to write so big a Book I hope the Reader upon his perusal will pardon There is indeed a remarkable difference between us and our Roman Adversaries in this matter they can answer great Books in two or three Sheets if they vouchsafe to give any answer at all which they begin to be weary of we answer two or three Sheets in large Books but then we have very different ends in writing too they to make a show of saying somewhat to put by the blow by some few insignificant cavils we not only to answer our Adversaries which might be done in very few words but to instruct our people which requires a more particular Explication of the reasons of things But I shall make no Apology for my Book till I hear that it wants it for it may be some may think it as much too little as others too big He begins very regularly with the state of the Controversie between us to prove sixteen Protestant Tenets as he calls them by plain Scripture Scriptures but so plain to us for their Doctrines as they require to be yielded them by the Catholique Church for hers What will be thought plain by them is a very hard matter to guess when it seems the second Commandment it self is not thought by them a plain Scripture-proof against Image-worship and I despair of ever finding a plainer proof in Scripture for or against any thing But I told him in Answer to his request p. 17. that we desire no other proofs from them but what we are ready to give either the express words of Scripture or plain and evident consequence or the silence of Scripture to prove that any Doctrine is not in it And though they may reasonably demand of us what we demand of them yet they cannot reasonably demand more and whether I have not done him justice in this way shall be examined again under the several Articles of his request In the next Paragraph he mightily despises the Answer and concluded the pamphlet unworthy a publick or special notice and expected if not more pertinent yet at least more plausible replies to follow and I can assure him that he was very ill advised that he did not despise and expect on for his reply has given some credit and authority to that Answer and has now produced a Book which if he be wise he will despise too though I hope it will convince him that Protestants do not mean to expose their profession by silence which I do not find them much inclined to at present But let us consider the state of the question In answer to the Request to prove some Protestant Tenets by plain Scripture I told him this was a false representation of our Doctrine for though we do make the Scripture the rule of our Faith yet we do not pretend to own no Doctrine but what is contained in the express words of Scripture Our Church teaches us Art. 6. that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved
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
Shrine of any other powerful Saints to give all our Estates for saying Masses for the Dead to adore Reliques and Images to kiss the Pavement of such a Church or some Cross drawn on it to say over some particular Prayers so many times a day or to pray before such a particular Altar and such like things as by the liberality of Popes have so many thousand years Indulgence for a reward are indeed works of Supererogation because God has not commanded them but I doubt are no Christian excellencies Such things as these make Men Saints and enrich the Church with Merits and much good may do them with it X. Every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell. In Answer to this I told him that the Scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other World but Heaven and Hell. And that this proposition that every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell is only an Inference from this Doctrine that we know of no other place they should go to after death the Scripture having not told us of any other That our Church though She rejects Purgatory yet has not determined against an intermediate State between Death and Judgment Though Christ's Parable of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ look fairly towards proving that good Men go to Heaven and bad Men directly to Hell when they die He takes notice only of this last passage of Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul and says that this would prove something if three Souls be All or All Souls expire in either Dives ' s fitness for Hell or Lazarus ' s and S. Paul ' s for Heaven But he should have taken the whole proof together that there is no mention made in Scripture of any other place of rewards or punishments in the next World but Heaven and Hell and that whereever we have any account of the state of Men after Death we either hear of them in Heaven or Hell. As Dives when he died was immediately tormented in Hell and Lazarus was conveyed into Abraham's bosom and S. Paul expected when he died to go immediately to Heaven and to be with Christ but we read of no Man who went to Purgatory when he died and what other proof can we have of this but that Heaven is promised to good Men and Hell threatned against bad Men and we have some examples of both recorded in Scripture unless we expect the Scripture should give us a compleat Catalogue of all who were saved or damned in those days As for Mens fitness for Heaven or for Hell when they die I know not well what he means by it For Men may be fit as he calls it for Hell who are not as wicked as Dives and we all have reason to hope that those may be fit for Heaven who are not so holy as St. Paul was Though there are different degrees of Vice and Vertue which may qualifie Men for different degrees of rewards and punishments yet as we read in Scripture but of two states in the other World Heaven and Hell so we read but of two distinctions of Men in this World the good and the bad to whom these promises or threatnings belong Now every Man when he dies must be one of these either a penitent or an impenitent sinner for the Scripture knows no medium between them If he be a penitent sinner by the gracious terms of the Gospel he has a right to pardon of sin and eternal life and why is not that Man fit for Heaven who has a Covenant-right to it and what should detain him in Purgatory who has an immediate right to Heaven if he be an impenitent sinner Hell is his portion and he must have it But after all this is no controversie between us and the Church of Rome whether every Soul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heaven or Hell but whether those who shall finally be saved must suffer the pains of Purgatory in the other World before they shall be received into Heaven Our Author has a mind to confound these two and seems to think it proof enough that there is a Purgatory if there be a middle state between death and judgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell and possibly those who do not understand this Controversie may be deceived with such pretences and therefore it will be convenient briefly to state this matter There have been I confess very different opinions among some of the Fathers about the state of Souls departed both before and since the Resurrection of Christ from the dead as you shall hear more presently and there may be very different opinions about it still and I believe will be among thoughtful and inquisitive Men and no great hurt done neither while they are not made Articles of Faith nor the foundation of some new and unscriptural worship But that our People may not be imposed on with sham-proofs which are nothing to the purpose as it is plain this Author intended to do in this Article it will be necessary plainly to represent the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Purgatory that they may know what proofs to demand of it Now the Council of Trent determines no more than that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls which are detained there are helpt by the suffrages of the faithful but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar and commands the Bishops diligently to take care that the wholesome Doctrine of Purgatory delivered by the holy Fathers and Councils be believed held taught and preached to Christ's faithful People The Fathers of this Council were very careful not to determine what Purgatory is what the punishments of it are where the place of it is but refer us to former Fathers and Councils for it and therefore among the rest I suppose they mean the Council of Florence where this purgation is expresly affirmed to be by fire and to be a state of punishment Cardinal Bellarmine who wrote since the Council of Trent understood Fathers and Councils and the sense of the Roman Church as well as any Man and therefore I shall briefly shew what he thought of this matter That Bellarmine did believe that Souls departed were purged with fire is abundantly evident from what he discourses on 1 Cor. 3. and from those testimonies of the Fathers which he abuses to this purpose But for what end these punishments serve is as considerable as Purgatory fire it self and they Bellarmine tells us are to expiate venial sins or such mortal sins whose guilt is pardoned but not the temporal punishment due to them For according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome there are some venial sins which in their own nature do not deserve eternal but only temporal punishments and as for mortal sins when the guilt of them is pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance by
very differently of these matters from those who went before them For in their days they began to call upon the Saints and to beg their help and then S. Austin thought it very improper to pray for those whose help they themselves expected According to that known saying of his That he is injurious to a Martyr who prays for him Hence he makes three distinctions of souls departed which the Church never heard of before From whence I doubt not but the Church of Rome learnt their distinctions and accordingly allotted three different States for these three sorts of Men Heaven Purgatory and Hell. For S. Austin taught that some were so perfectly good that there was no need of Prayers or Oblations for them others imperfectly good and for these prayers were profitable others very bad who cannot be redeemed by the suffrages of the living The first of these the Church of Rome place in Heaven the second in Purgatory the third in Hell and let us first see whether S. Austin were of that mind for if he were not they cannot prove a Purgatory from him whatever becomes of his prayers for the dead Now it is evident that Saint Austin was of the same mind with those Fathers who went before him concerning the state of souls departed viz that none were received into Heaven till the Resurrection as he expresly affirms of all souls that during the time between death and the last Resurrection they are kept in hidden receptacles He divides the Church into two parts that which is still on Earth or that which after death rests in the secret receptacles and seats of souls Which he calls Abraham's Bosom and teaches that all departed souls either rejoyce in Abraham's Bosom or are tormented in eternal Fire And that by Abraham's Bosom he does not mean Heaven is evident from what he elsewhere says that though after this life we shall not go to that place where the Saints shall be when it shall be said to them Come ye blessed of my Father receive the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world which he represents as the common belief of all Christians for he says quis nescit Who knows not this yet we may be there where Dives saw Lazarus at rest viz. in Abraham's Bosom in illâ requie certè securus expectabis judicii diem in that rest you will securely expect the day of Judgment So that though S. Austin thought that some souls were so good and perfect that there was no need to pray for them yet he did not think that the most perfect souls ascended immediately into Heaven as the Church of Rome now teaches but were happy and at rest in Paradise or Abraham's Bosom till the Resurrection Nor did he think that those for whom he says our prayers are available those who are imperfectly good did after this life go into Purgatory there to bear the punishment of their sins For what S. Austin thought of Purgatory you have already heard which has nothing like a Popish Purgatory in it He prayed for his Mother Monica that God would forgive her all her sins and show mercy to her did he believe then that his Mother was in Purgatory by no means for he expresly says credo jam feceris quod to rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba domine I believe thou hast already done what I now pray for but accept O Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth He believed his Mother was in a state of rest but hoped that God would accept his pious affection for his Mother and that she was not yet so perfect but she might receive some benefit by it To be sure the Church of Rome can never reconcile this prayer with their Doctrine for they teach that sins are not pardoned in Purgatory but those who are pardoned before they die suffer the temporal punishment of their sins in Purgatory whereas S. Austin does not Pray that his Mother may be delivered from the pains of Purgatory but that God would forgive her sins The truth is S. Austin was at a great loss between vindicating the ancient practice of the Church in Praying for Souls departed and giving a reasonable and justifiable account of it the Church did pray for Souls departed and therefore there must be some reason given of it or else these Prayers are vain and hypocritical if they serve no good end And yet in his days they began to think and he himself was of that mind that there were a great many Saints and Martyrs who did not want their Prayers who were fitter to be Intercessors themselves for those on Earth than to receive any benefit from their Intercessions and yet the Church prayed for all for the most perfect Saints for the Apostles and Martyrs and the blessed Virgin her self This he knew not how to reconcile but by saying That when the Church prayed for Saints and Martyrs Prophets and Apostles the meaning of her Prayers was not to intercede with God for them but to praise God for their Graces and Vertues but when she prayed for meaner Christians her Prayers were Intercessions for Pardon and Rest to their Souls and yet they were all prayed for in the same form of words and the ancient Church made no such distinction between them and thus he reconciles the matter by expounding the same words to two different and contrary senses as they are applied to different subjects which has taught the Church of Rome when occasion serves to soften her Prayers by expounding them contrary to the plain and natural signification of the words that the most direct and formal Prayers to Saints and the Virgin for all Temporal and Spiritual Blessings when they please shall signifie no more than a bare Ora pro nobis Pray for us About this time S. Chrysostom also in the Greek Church defended this practice of Praying for the Dead and yet the Doctrine of Purgatory never was received in the Greek Church as appears from the Council of Florence which is a plain sign That though the Roman Doctors think they have proved Purgatory if they can but prove that the ancient Church used to Pray for the Dead which no Body denies yet the Greek Church did not and does not to this day think this a good consequence for they Pray for the Dead but deny a Popish Purgatory Which shows that though they prayed for the Dead they did it for other reasons than the Church of Rome now does And yet S. Chrysostom does not agree with S. Austin in that distinction he makes of Souls departed which shows that there was no certain tradition about this matter but Men of Wit and Learning framed different Hypotheses and Schemes of things to themselves as they thought they could best give an account of this practice For this was the thing both S. Austin and S. Chrysostom were intent on to justifie the practice of the Church so that their Prayers for the Dead might
but they offer up their prayers to God not in their own name but by the hands of their great High Priest and in the merits of his Sacrifice which is subordinate to the mediation of Christ and as consistent with it as the prayers of the people under the Law were with the Atonement and Expiation made by the Priest who offered the Blood of the Sacrifice and the Incense to God. The work of a Mediator is to present our Prayers and Petitions and to give value and efficacy to them and therefore we must pray our selves we must put up our Petitions to God or our Advocate and Mediator cannot present them but is it injurious to the Office of an Advocate that we draw up a Petition which he is to present to our King So that the prayers of good Men for each other is no encroachment upon the Office of a Mediator for our prayers for others as well as for our selves must be offered to God by the hands of our Mediator And this shows also that to desire the prayers of good Men on Earth is no derogation from the Intercession of Christ for we only desire them to joyn with us in our Petition just as if we should procure some persons of worth and note to subscribe our Petition to our Prince which is no injury to our Advocate who presents it For they are two different things to subscribe a Petition and to present it to our Prince And besides this a prayer though it be the prayer of the best Man in the World is but a prayer still and may be answered or rejected as God sees fit but whatever prayer is presented by our Mediator is always granted For he mediates with authority and power he is able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them Under the Law the atonement and expiation of the Priest was always valid to all the intents and purposes of the Law that is to an external and legal purity much more is the mediation of Christ effectual for if it ever miscarried he could not be the object of our Faith and hope A supplicant may heartily desire our good but our Mediator by vertue of his office obtains all the petitions and prayers he presents and every body sees that these two are very consistent But though to desire the prayers of good Men for us on Earth do not derogate from the Intercession of Christ yet to flie to the aid of Saints in Heaven does For that makes them our Advocates and Intercessors not our fellow Supplicants whereas there is but one Mediator in Heaven who appears in the presence of God for us as under the Law only the High Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies which was a Type of Heaven and did prefigure that great High Priest who was to ascend into Heaven with his own Blood. I am sure the Church of Rome does not look upon the Saints in Heaven to be our fellow supplicants as good Men on Earth are but to be our Advocates and Intercessors and then they are Intercessors in Heaven where none but the High Priest was to intercede and they are Intercessors without a Sacrifice which is contrary to the Analogy both of the Old and New Testament For we have no more Intercessors than Priests and we have but one High Priest who is ascended into Heaven and appears in the presence of God for us And if intercession be annexed to the Priesthood I desire to know how the Virgin Mary comes to be so powerful a Mediatrix and Advocatress for we never heard of any she-High Priest before This is answer enough to what he intimates that desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is not more superstitious and derogatory to our Lord's Mediatorship than intreating the Prayers of holy Men Militant For to pray for one another in this World is as consistent with the mediation of Christ as to pray for our selves but the Intercessions of Saints for us in Heaven is inconsistent with the only Mediatorship of Christ. But praying to Saints in Heaven which he modestly calls Desiring the Intercessions of the blessed is of a different consideration and more injurious to God than to a Mediator considered only as our Mediator For prayer is an act of worship peculiar and appropriate to God and therefore not due to our Mediator himself if he were not God. We must pray to God in the name of our Mediator and present our Petitions to God by him but if our Mediator were not God we must not pray to him and thus they are injurious to our only Mediator when they pray to God in any other name and expect to be heard for the sake and merits of any other Mediator but only Christ as they always do on the Festivals of their Saints but to pray to Saints also is an additional crime it is giving the peculiar worship of God to creatures which I told him was expresly forbid by our Saviour Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve But says our Author I see not how he can deduce from it this last Text any thing to his purpose till it appear that all Prayer is Divine worship or that we pray to Saints just as we do to God. But now methinks till he make the contrary appear it is very much to the purpose For prayer is appropriated to God in Scripture and all Mankind have thought prayer an act of religious worship and have been able to distinguish between a religious prayer and begging an Alms or making any request to our earthly Prince or Parents or Friends and if our Author does not understand this I have directed him in the Margin where he may be better informed XII Honouring the Cross the Reliques and Representations of our Lord and his Saints with that degree of Reverence as we do the Gospels commonly kissed and sworn by Altar and other sacred Utensils is Idolatry This I told him was ill represented for those who charge them with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Reliques and Images charge them also with giving more religious Honours and Worship to them than that external respect which we allow to the Gospels and religious Utensils as both the Decrees of their Councils and the visible practice of their Church proves To this our Author replies Our general Councils tell Protestants we pay no other honour to any creature than what than such an external respect as is due to the Bible I never heard before that they made the Bible the object of their worship but I am sure some which they call general Councils have defined the Worship of Images and Reliques witness the second Council of Nice and the Council of Trent It is strange to me that at this time of day he can think to impose upon Protestants with such shams Surely he has never read the Doctrines and Practices of
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
Western Patriarch and therefore ought not to have innovated without the Patriarchal Authority and a Patriarchal Council nor to have rejected the Patriarchal Authority which was confirmed by ancient Councils Now not to dispute this at present Whether England were subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch which it is certain our Brittish Bishops when Austin the Monk came into England would not own and which was never granted by any ancient General Council and the Submission of the English Bishops afterwards by Fear or Flattery could never give such a Right as should oblige all their Successours for future Ages yet I say this Patriarchal Authority is not the Dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Our Reformers took no notice of the Patriarchal Authority but the Universal Headship and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as is evident from the Articles of our Church in which there is no mention of it And this was such an Usurpation as might be renounced without the Authority of any Council as I have already shown Indeed his Patriarchal Authority if he had any necessarily fell with it For when he challenges such an exorbitant Power so far exceeding the Bounds and Limits of a Patriarchal Authority and will exercise all if he exercise any and will hold Communion with none upon any other terms and will not be confined to a meer Patriarchal Jurisdiction we must necessarily renounce all Subjection to him to deliver our selves from his Usurpations when his pretended Patriarchate is swallowed up in his Universal Headship he may thank himself if he forfeits what he might with a better Appearance make some Pretence to by challenging so much more than ever was his right And the Patriarchal Authority it self could he have made any pretences to it which he never could over the Church of England which was originally a free and independent Church being but a human Constitution may be renounced without Schism when necessity requires it and certainly if ever there can be any necessity for such a Rupture it becomes necessary then when it swells into a boundless and unlimited Authority to the Oppression of the whole Christian Church in her essential Rights and Liberties 5ly There is one thing more I would have observed for the right stating of this Dispute about Schism viz. the difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the Breach of Ecclesiastical Communion between different Churches In the first Sense Schism cuts us off from the Body of Christ and consequently puts us out of a state of Salvation and therefore it can be nothing less than a Separation from the Communion of the Church in things essential to Faith or Worship or Government for in this sense no man can be a Schismatick without in some Degree or other forfeiting his Christianity and his essential Right to Christian Communion Ecclesiastical Communion is the Union of several distinct Churches into one Ecclesiastical Body for mutual Advice and Counsel and the more pure Administration of Discipline When several Bishops who have originally all the same Authority in the Government of their several Churches bestow different Powers on some Bishops whom they advance above others with the Title and Authority of Metropolitans or Patriarchs with a Power of calling Synods and receiving Appeals and the principal Authority of Ordinations and govern their several Churches by such Ecclesiastical Laws as are agreed on by common Consent or the major Vote This is a very useful Constitution and of great Antiquity in the Church if it had not its beginning in the Apostles times and for any Bishop or Church causelessly to break such a Confederacy as this is a very great Evil and has the Guilt and Crime of Schism but yet it does not seem to be such a Schism as divides the intrinsick Unity of the Catholick Church and cuts off such a Church from the Body of Christ. For the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Faith and Worship and Charity and such an external Communion when occasion offers shows that we are all the Disciples of the same common Lord and Saviour and own each other for Brethren but the Church may be the one Body of Christ without being one Ecclesiastical Body under one governing Head which it is impossible the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church which divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the nature and aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Priviledges of a true Catholick Church the Communion of Saints the Forgiveness of Sins and the Promises of everlasting Life Which shows us how the holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One notwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are occasioned by the Quarrels of Bishops and the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Those who are the Beginners or Fomentors of such Divisions shall answer it to their Lord and Judge as they shall all their other personal Miscarriages but it would be very hard if such a Church which in its Faith and Worship is truly Catholick should be cut off from the Body of Christ and all the Members of it put out of a State of Salvation because the Bishops and Pastors of such Churches think fit to divide themselves from that Ecclesiastical Body to which they were united by Custom or ancient Canons Now this is the most they can make of our forsaking the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Church of Rome That we have divided our selves from the Bishop of Rome to whom by Custom or some pretended Canons we owed Obedience and Subjection which I have proved to be very innocent in us because it was necessary But suppose it were a causeless and criminal Separation yet it is only an Ecclesiastical Schism which does not separate us from the Catholick Church though it does from that Ecclesiastical Body of which the Bishop of Rome makes himself the Head. This I think is a sufficient Justification of the Church of England in rejecting the Authority of the Church of Rome and her reforming the Errors and Corruptions of Faith and Worship needs no defence at all though there were never a pure and reformed Church in the World besides her self For I would desire our Author to tell me whether it be a fault to reform the Corruptions of Faith and Worship Can it be a fault then to believe as Christ has taught and to worship God as he has prescribed Is it possible that the true Catholick Faith and Worship should ever be a Crime if it be not then it can be no fault to make the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour the Rule of our Faith and Worship and that is all that we mean by reforming not
confirmed and we no more want new Miracles to confirm our Reformation than to confirm the Authority of the Christian Religion for Reformed Christianity is nothing else but the old Primitive Apostolick Christianity and therefore we have the same Authority to reform now which the Apostles at first had to preach the Gospel for their Authority to preach the Gospel is and will be to the end of the World a sufficient Authority to all Men to believe it and consequently to renounce all Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship which are contrary to it 2. As for the Authority of the Clergy whatever it be it is certain Christ gave them no Authority to preach any other Gospel than what he had taught them which is the express Commission which he gave to the Apostles themselves and therefore whatever Decrees and Definitions they have made contrary to the true Faith and Worship of Christ are void of themselves and want no Authority to repeal them As for that distinction between making and declaring new Articles of Faith it is a meer piece of Sophistry for if they have the power of declaring and no body must oppose them nor judg of their Declarations under the pretence of declaring they may make as many new Articles of Faith as they please as we see the Council of Trent has done This Extravagant Authority they give to the Clergy of making Decrees and Canons concerning Faith and Worship which shall oblige the Laity to a blind Obedience and implicit Faith is a most ridiculous pretence unless it be supported with Infallibility and yet you have already heard that the pretence of Infallibility it self though it may silence those Mens objections and stop their farther inquiries who do really believe it yet it is no defence against the charge of Errors nor a sufficient Answer to that charge and how vain the pretence it self is has been abundantly proved in some late Treatises This is enough to show how insignificant that charge is against the Reformation that those Bishops and Priests who were at that time in Power and were zealously addicted to the Interests of Rome would not concur in it though afterwards much the greater numbers submitted to it and thereby gave it an after confirmation which is as much as they can pretend for the confirmation of some of their General Councils I grant nothing can be looked on as the Act of the Clergy which is not done by a regular Authority according to the Rules of that Church nor do we pretend that the Reformation was perfected or finished by the regular Authority of the Popish Clergy though several of them were Zealous in it but we say it is never the worse for that if they can prove that what we call a Reformation is faulty upon other Accounts then we will grant that to reform against the consent of the Clergy did greatly aggravate the Crime but if the Reformation were just and necessary and a true Reformation of the Errors and Corruptions of Christianity the dissent of the Clergy could not and ought not to hinder it for they had no such Authority from Christ either to corrupt Religion or to hinder the Reformation of it 3. The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the Established Religion of that Nation and therefore the Queen and the Parliament could make the Reformed Religion the National Religion Established by Law and this is all that we Attribute to Kings and Parliaments We do not justifie our Reformation because it was confirmed by the Authority of Parliament but because it is agreeable to Scripture But we Thank God that he then inclined the heart of the Queen and Parliament to Establish the Reformation and heartily pray that he would still continue it to us and to our Posterity for ever Amen The End. Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THE History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phanaticism c. by TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 4 o. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo A Collection of several Tracts and Discourses written in the years 1678 1679. c. by Gilbert Burnet D. D. To which are added 1 A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's secret Powers 2 The History of the Powder-Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon 3. An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches who were Executed for the Plot 1679. In Quarto The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God IOHN IEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and Iames Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Iesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAUX late Bishop of Condom and his VINDICATOR Quarto An Answer to THREE
the Church of Rome truly represented the Answer to Monsieur de Meaux or to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery nor the Vindication of the Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in answer to the first and second Sheets of the second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Is our Author then one of those who are employed some times to do a little job at Writing but are not permitted to read any of our Books but what and when their Superiors please This gives an account of that Mystery how they can so confidently urge such things as all the World now laughs at for poor Men they know no better and what some so uncharitably call impudence is only ignorance He proceeds Their Test and Homily call the honour we pay to sacred persons and things Idolatry We must either then challenge Protestants to prove this proposition or conclude them calumniators We know what we profess and practise to be as the Catholick Church teaches we hear our Doctrine and Practice confidently said and solemnly subscribed to be Idolatry Sure then we may conclude that Protestants believe the proposition and decent it is that they give a reason of a Faith so injurious to the Catholick Church or henceforward renounce it This still makes good my conjecture that he has only heard in general of such a charge as this but never read the Arguments whereby some Protestants make good this charge at least as they apprehend for me-thinks had he known these proofs he should first have answered them before he had called for more but I assure him it will be an easier task to conclude them Calumniators than to undertake to answer them and therefore if he be wise let him stick to that if they believe and practise as the Church of Rome teaches which in defiance of common sence he will call the Catholick Church I am sure they give another kind of honour to the Cross and Reliques and Images than to the Bible but if he thinks that the Catholick Church always taught what the Church of Rome now teaches I would desire him to read a late Discourse intituled The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images which will better inform him But since he calls so importunately for proofs it may be thought very uncivil to deny him and therefore I shall briefly represent to him the reasons why some Protestants have charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Images and shall be very glad for the sake of the Church of Rome to see them well answered They lay their charge in the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and all representative objects and say that the words are so large as to comprehend all manner of Images which are set up for worship that the Law expresly forbids without any distinction of the end and intention of doing it all external acts of adoration as bowing down to them or before them that it does not meerly forbid the worship of Images as Gods for the Heathens themselves were never so senseless as to believe that their Images of Wood or Stone or Silver or Gold were Gods but only visible representations of their invisible Deities That it does not only forbid the worship of the Images of Heathen Gods but of the Lord Iehovah for the reason whereby Moses enforces this commandment is that they saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake to them in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Deut. 4. 15. and therefore they must take good heed unto themselves lest they corrupt themselves with Images that they saw no Image of God is a good argument against their making and worshipping the Image of the true God but it is no direct argument against the Images of Heathen Gods and therefore this must be a prohibition of worshipping the true God by Images Another Scripture argument against Image-worship is from the infinite perfections and excellency of the Divine Nature that no Image can be made of God but what must be a reproach and debasement of his Majesty To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to him c. Isaiah 40. 18 c. and this surely is an argument against making and worshipping any Image of the true God. They consider farther that Aaron's Calf was not an Image of a false God but a Symbolical representation of the Lord Iehovah For they expresly call it the God which brought them out of the Land of AEgypt and when Aaron himself appointed a Feast for the Worship of this Molten God He said toâ—morrow is a Feast to the Lord or to Iehovah Exod. 32. 4 5. and therefore these Israelites are charged with changing their glory i. e. the Lord Iehovah who was the Glory of Israel into the similitude of an oxe which eateth grass Psalm 106. 20. But how can this be true if they did not intend this Calf as a Representation of the Lord Iehovah And it is evident that they made this Calf only as a Divine presence to go before them in the absence of Moses For while Moses delayed to come down out of the mount the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron and said unto him Up make us gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt we know not what is become of him Verse 1. So that they did not think of changing their God but only wanted a Visible and Symbolical presence of God with them instead of Moses who when he was with them was a kind of Divine presence God conversing familiarly with him and by him giving them directions and orders what to do and yet the worship of this Calf which was not worshipped as a God or the Image of a false God but as a Symbolical Representation of the Lord Iehovah was Idolatry The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel which Ieroboam set up in imitation of the golden Calf and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel For so he himself tells them Behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt that is the Lord Iehovah whom Ieroboam did still own and Worship For he had no intention to change their God but only to prevent their going up to Ierusalem three times in the Year to Worship there according to the Law which he feared might prove the destruction of his new Kingdom And therefore God himself makes a great difference between the sin of Ieroboam and the sin of Ahab who introduced the worship of Baal a false God. And therefore though Iehu still preserved the golden Calves which Ieroboam set up yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal his Zeal for the Lord Iehovah Which is another Scripture-example of Idolatry in worshipping the Image or Representation of the True God. Another instance is the