ought to do so so this Author thinks But suppose they do not think so Are they ever the nearer Popery though their Principles be the same if their Conclusions are as distant as Protestancy is from Popery If they be so well disposed to a Cassandrian Peace I pray What hinders it Won't they receive us upon these terms What Not after all their softning representations to invite men into the bosom of the Church When they are so fond of all new Converts will they reject the Cassandrian Divines of the Church of England When he adds That his Majesty will admit of no such accomodations any one would suspect that these poor Cassandrians had been suing for reconciliations and had been rejected that the mollifying character of a Papist truly represented and the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Catholick Faith which is as soft though not so honest as Cassanders consultation would not now be allowed of at Court and all for the sake of that more glorious design of Liberty of Conscience But why might not Cassandrians be reconciled to the Church and Dissenters have their Liberty too This Prefacer does not tell his Story well he has Forehead enough but wants somewhat within Well but it was necessary in this present juncture to put some check to the insulting Talk of the Clergy who would be thought to be the only Champions against Popery That the Clergy of the Church of England have industriously and successfully opposed the Corruptions of the Church of Rome will be acknowledged by all but Papists and they feel it to their cost but that they are the only Champions against Popery I assure you is not pleasing to them for they would be very glad to see their dissenting Brethren put to their helping Hand and be as industrious to preserve those from Popery who have a Veneration for their Authority as we are and upon these terms we could heartily forgive them all their former unjust imputations of Popery to us but that our Popish Adversaries find it necessary in this juncture to give some check to this Popery-opposing Clergy I do not wonder and I believe no body will tho methinks the best way of giving a check to their Brags had been to confute their Books and they had work enough before them had they liked this way for I can tell them a great many Books which they have never answered yet and I beleive never will I am sure never can to any purpose But they come too late to perswade people now that we are Papists especially when they are so open-hearted as to tell all the World what their design is for if we were Papists no man will believe that they would be the first men who would discover us it may be they may know some few Cassandrian Church-men but those they keep to themselves yet and leave others to guess at them But what Check does he intend to give to this Insulting Talk of the Clergy A very terrible one truly for from this Essay it is pretty evident That the Church of England must either freely declare that as to the particulars instanced in she is agreed with the Romanist and that the Controversie lies only between the Church of Rome and the Protestant Dissenter or she must honestly renounce the Principles she has cleav'd unto when any of her Sons wrote against the Nonconformists and confess that she has been persecuting them for their firm adherence to Protestant Doctrines This is to triumph before the Victory as our Author will quickly find but however for my part I am glad it is no worse for I do not see how this will much humble us with relation to our Disputes against Popery Should I find any Principles that ever I have maintain'd against Dissenters give any advantage to Popery I would certainly conclude them to be false and make no scruple at all to renounce them for that which is false cannot follow from that which is true and how great a humiliation soever this were a man might dispute heartily against Popery still and let them but lay the charge of Persecution upon this issue which I grant is the true and fair state of the Case for Persecution is only for Righteousness sake and if our Dissenters were in the right I will readily grant that those who made or executed those Laws against Dissenters who had any hand or heart in it were guilty of Persecution There may be unreasonable severities used upon other accounts but every man who suffers for following his Conscience is not therefore persecuted but he who suffers for being in the right for believing and doing what God commands The next discovery this Essay makes is this That ever since the breach between the Church of England and the Protestant Dissenter has had its being we have left us uothing but the Name the Shadow of a Protestant Church of England and that so far as she differs from the Dissenter she agrees with the Roman Catholick How glad would these Gentlemen be to have none thought Protestants but Dissenters who in this present juncture are a more gentile and better natur'd sort of Protestants than this Shadow of the Church of England which haunts them like a Ghost or Spectre But when did the Church of England commence such a mere Name and Shadow Ever since the breach with the Protestant Dissenter But is not the Church of England the same now that it was before that breach And if it were a good substantial Protestant Church then How comes it to be a Shadow now Suppose what he says were true That as far as we differ from the Protestant Dissenter we agree with the Roman Catholick The Church of England may be never the worse Protestant Church for that which is placed in the middle between two Extreams the Dissenter and the Papist The Church of England Reformers never made a mere Opposition to the Church of Rome the Rule of their Reformation but Reformed only those abuses of the Church of Rome which needed a Reformation and when this Prefacer can prove that we have not Reformed enough we will Reform again for we are not obstinate against convictions and never think it too late to Reform however if as far as we differ from the Dissenter we are Roman Catholicks yet certainly as far as we agree with the Dissenter we are not and that is enough to make us somewhat more than the Shadow of a Protestant Church For we agree with them in our opposition to the Popes Supremacy as will presently appear to Infallibity to Transubstantiation to the Sacrifice of the Mass to the Adoration of the Host to the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to the Worship of Images to Prayers in an unknown Tongue to the denying People the use of the Bible to the Five new Popish Sacraments to Indulgencies Purgatory Prayers for the Dead the Merit of Works and such like Popish Innovations and Corruptions and to oppose
these I take to be good substantial Protestancy And as for those things wherein we differ from the Dissenters we are so far from being Roman-Catholicks that as for my own part tho I like neither yet I think the Dissenter the better of the two setting aside the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy I should prefer any form of Government Presbytery or Independancy rather than a Papal Monarchy it were better to have no Ceremonies at all than to see Religion transform'd into little else but outside and Ceremony for some external Indecencies of Worship which may be supplied by inward Devotions are more eligible than gross and palpable Superstitions Though I think sitting at the Lords Supper favours of too much irreverence yet I had rather see men Receive sitting than see them Worship the Host. So that our Church of England Nobility and Gentry as he adds have no reason either to embrace the name of Roman Catholick or to close with the Protestant Dissenter a Church of England Protestant is somewhat more than a name still and I hope will be so when some other names will be forgot AN ANSWER TO THE PRETENDED AGREEMENT Between the CHURCH of ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH of ROME And First to the INTRODUCTION HE begins with an Account of that late Dispute about Representing and Misrepresenting which if he had been wise he would have forgot The Papists he says complain of Misrepresentation and until this be yielded they 'l not Dispute And I commend them for their Resolution which is the wisest thing they can now do tho it had been wiser not to have complained for they complained as long as they could and now they have no more to say They will Dispute no longer as he observes That for some months there has been nothing but Answering Replying Rejoyning and Sur-rejoyning and we are still where we began That is they are Papists still and we Protestants which I suppose is all that he can mean for if they have any modesty their complaining and our trouble of answering is at an end which I think is not where we began Well so much then for Misrepresenting and now a new Scene opens In the first place a just State of the Controversie must be setled wherein the Contending Parties agree and how far they differ What they please we are contented to follow them in their own way tho it is strange this should be to settle now Our Author undertakes the first of these but does not design to encumber this Discourse with a Catalogue of Agreements in the great Doctrines of Christian Religion and matters of Opinion Tho he was more afraid than hurt here for this would not much have encumbred his Discourse for I know little we agree in but the Three Creeds but his Reason why he will not encumber his Discourse with our Agreement in Doctrines and Opinions is very surprizing viz. because there is no need of Agreement in such matters For both the Council of Trent and our English Convocation have taken especial care by a latitude of expression to obtain the assent of men who vastly differ in their opinions Which is a false account of the English Convocation but a very true tho strange account of that Infallible Council of Trent of which more presently But is not this a clever way of flinging off all disputes about Doctrines and Opinions His business is to prove the Agreement of my Principles about Church Communion with the Church of Rome For after all his talk of the Church of England he has not one word about her unless he takes me for the Church of England which I assure him I never took my self to be but it seems one poor single Divine may pass for the Church of England since it is dwindled into a name and shadow tho it would be Misrepresentation in a Protestant to impute the Opinions and Doctrines of Popes Cardinals Doctors School-men Canonists Casuists nay of General Councils themselves if they happen to forget their Anathema's to the Church of Rome I say his design being to show the Agreement of my Principles with the Church of Rome he knew this was impossible to be done unless he laid aside the Consideration of all Doctrines and Opinions But are these of no account then in the Church of Rome Is it no matter what our Opinions are so we do but maintain the Popes Supremacy I think the Supremacy an intolerable usurpation on the Rights and Liberties of the Christian Church but I think the Popish Innovations in Faith and Worship more intolerable Corruptions of the Christian Religion and more fatal to mens souls and therefore tho men groan'd under the oppressions of the See of Rome they were other Corruptions which gave birth to the Reformation witness Luthers Reformation and tho I should suppose it possible to be perswaded for peace sake to submit to the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome if all other Abuses and Corruptions were taken away yet while the Corruptions of Faith and Worship remain while I believe them to be such dangerous Corruptions it makes Reconciliation impossible for tho I may be contented to be oppressed in my Christian Liberties I can never be contented to be damned which is the difference between submitting to an usurped Authority and complying with a corrupt Faith and Worship for tho I hope a great many who do so will find Mercy yet those can expect none who are convinced of these Corruptions and yet comply which would be my case So that he begins at the wrong end to prove my Agreement with the Church of Rome for tho my Pinciples did prove and tho I were my self perswaded that the Bishop of Rome had a regular and Canonical Authority over all other Churches while he is a truly Catholick and Orthodox Bishop yet I should think such Corruptions in Faith and Worship sufficient to absolve all Christians from their subjection to him and therefore whatever my Principles of Church-Communion are there is little hope of my Agreement with the Church of Rome while these Doctrinal Corruptions last and it is a vain thing to prove an Agreement in Principles of Government unless they can prove an Agreement in Faith and Worship too There was no dispute that I know of between the Catholicks and the Arians about Principles of Government but he would have been laughed at who should hence have inferred an Agreement between them However setting aside this let us consider how he proves that Doctrines and Opinions are so little or not at all concerned in the Agreement of the two Churches viz. because both the Council of Trent and the English Convocation have taken especial care by a Latitude of expression to obtain the assent of men who vastly differ in their Opinions Has the Church of Rome then and the Church of England no positive Opinions to which they expect the Assent of their Members especially of their Clergy He instances in the Doctrine of Predetermination or which
among us are better known by the name of Arminian Controversies now suppose they thought fit to give a latitude of Sense in their defining these Controversies have they positively defined nothing Has not the Church of Rome in express terms decreed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of worship of Saints and images of the Adoration of the Host of Seven Sacraments of Purgatory c. And has not the Church of England as positively determined against them And where is the agreement then between the Two Churches The truth is there cannot be a worse thing said of any Church than what this Author charges both upon the Church of England and the Church of Rome that they purposely penn'd their Decrees in such loose terms that men of different Opinions might expound them to their own sense Which is to make a show of deciding a Controveesy with an intention all the while to leave it undecided which is such a juggle as unbecomes the Sincerity of a Christian Church There may be a great many nice Philosophical disputes which a wise Church may think necessary to leave undecided but there never can be any good reason instead of determining Controversies to lay the foundation of endless disputes between the Members of the same Communion by doubtful and ambiguous expressions And therefore I absolutely deny that the Church of England has done this or ever intended to do it She has indeed used that temper and moderation in those Articles which relate to the Five points as only to determine what is substantial in them and necessary to be believed by all Christians without deciding those Niceties whereon the Controversie between the Calvinist and the Arminian turns and therefore both of them may subscribe these Articles because the Controversies between them are determined on neither side and the appeasing such heats as may be occasioned by those Disputes is left to the prudence of Governours which was thought a better way than a positive decision of them This I think I could make appear were it a proper place for it and therefore have always thought that the Church of England was wronged on both sides while both the Calvinist and Arminian have forced her to speak their own sense when she intended to speak neither And no man can blame this conduct who remembers that this is only a reviving that old Philosophical dispute about Necessity and Fate which always has been a dispute and is likely to continue so and though these different Opinions have very different effects on our minds and form very different apprehensions in us of Almighty God which may be a just reason to prefer one before the other yet they are both consistent with the belief of all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity as I have shewed at large in that Book to which this Author so often refers But now the Church of Rome has truly used this art which this Author charges her with such a latitude of expression and ambiguous terms as might satisfie their differing Divines that the cause was determined on their side when there was no other way to end their disputes and allay their heats and that in many concerning points too as any one may see who reads Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent and if this be intolerable in a fallible Church it is much more intolerable in a Council which pretends to Infallibility Certainly they distrusted their own Authority either did not believe themselves to be Infallible or knew that their Divines did not think them so for otherwise the Authority of the Council might have over-ruled their Disputes and there had been no need of cheating them into an assent But what expectation is there that the decrees of those men should be Infallible who so often intended to decree nothing This is a Mystery which I suppose our Author would not so freely have confessed at another time but it was necessary to allow this latitude of sense in the Decrees of the Trent Council now to bring off Mr. De Meaux and the Representer who do indeed expound the Decrees of the Council to a great latitude of sense But it is not a little matter will help them out the latitude of one side of the Line will not do but it must reach from Pole to Pole. There is another ingenious confession of this Author which is worth the noting That among the Romanists about the great Doctrine of Predetermination there are the Durandists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and Scotists that very much differ in Opinion and yet are still of the same Church and yet these are the men that quarrel at the reformation because there are differing Opinions among them when there are the same Disputes among themselves managed with as great heat and contention These are the men who tell us that we must have an infallible Judg to end our disputes when an infallible Pope and infallible Councils dare not undertake to end theirs but as for what he adds that there are in the Church of England Calvinists Arminians Socinians and Antinomians who subscribe the same Articles of Religion as terms of Unity and Peace As for Calvinists and Arminians I will grant they may both subscribe our Articles whether any Socinians do I know not no more than they know when a secret Iew or one who does not believe Transubstantiation is receiv'd into holy Orders by them but I am sure an honest Socinian cannot subscribe our Articles unless he can subscribe the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds but this was only designed to propagate that groundless calumny That the Divines of the Church of England are infected with Socinianism Having thus as well as he could delivered himself from ingaging in that Dispute about our agreement in doctrinal Points which he knew he could make nothing of he says He will confine himself to the agreement there is between both Churches about Government and Worship and threatens to show how we have disputed against Dissenters upon Roman-Catholick Principles both in proving their Obligation to Communion with us and in vindicating the terms of our Communion from being sinful This is what he undertakes to prove and we are bound to hear him Answer to SECT 1. Concerning the Church of Englands Closure with a Roman Catholick Principle about the Government of the Church in proving the Dissenter to lie under an Obligation of holding Communion with her AND now we are come to the main seat of the Controversy about Catholick communion which our Author has very dexterously improved into Catholick Power and Empire I need give him no hard words to expose his manifest and wilful prevarications in this matter will be thought hard enough if he be capable of blushing Now to make this as visible as the light I shall 1. Shew wherein he pretends the Agreement between the Two Churches consists that is between my principles of Communion and the Church of Rome for I am the only person here concerned and if I cannot
his own Diocess who cannot be compelled by other Bishops to govern his Church by such Rules and Laws as he himself does not assent to and therefore that such Combinations and Councils of Bishops are not originally for direct acts of Government and superiority over each other but only for mutual Counsel and Advice For these are two very different things To have Authority to compel a Bishop to govern his Church by such Laws as he himself in his own conscience does not approve and to have Authority to fling a notorious Heretical or Schismatical Bishop out of their Communion and to command and exhort his Presbyters and People not to own him St. Cyprian I am sure thought these two cases very different for the first he utterly rejects as an usurpation on the Episcopal Authority that it was to make themselves Bishops of Bishops which he thought a great impiety the other he practised himself in the case of Basilides and Martialis For the first is a direct Authority over Bishops in the exercise of their Episcopal Function the second is only an Authority to censure Heresie and Schism and to preserve the Communion of the Church pure and to defend the Flock from such Wolves in Sheeps Clothing But it may be it will be Objected That this comes much to one for the Authority of deposing Heretical and Schismatical Bishops infers an Authority of declaring Heresie and Schism and that of making or declaring Articles of Faith and Laws of Catholick Communion for how can they depose Hereticks or Schismaticks without an Authority of declaring what Heresie and Schism is And this is as much Authority as the Council of Trent it self would have desired and therefore it seems very absurd and contradictious to deny a Council Authority to oblige their Collegues by their Decrees of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and to give Authority to neighbour Bishops to depose or censure any Heretical or Schismatical Bishop To this purpose our Author argues p. 32. 33. According to their Doctrine the Bishops of Spain France Italy and Germany being Bishops of the Catholick Church tho' ordinarily their Power is confined to their particular Churches yet having an Original right with relation to the whole Catholick Church are bound by the Laws of Communion to re-assume their Original right and assemble and summon before them the Bishops of the Church of England who in their opinion are fallen into a great Schism and Heresy in which matters these Bishops have a direct Authority over the Bishops of the Church of England and may proceed against them and depose them and ordain others in their room and oblige the People to withdraw from the communion of the deposed Bishops in which case the foreign Bishops being the governing part have as much authority over the English Bishops as the English Bishops have over the Dissenters in England He should have said as the English Bishops have over the Popish bishops of France Spain or Italy and then he had come pretty near the matter He adds The larger combination of Bishops the greater is their Power and Authority And therefore if the English Bishops have a direct Authority over the Dissenters in England so has this greater combination of Bishops over the dissenting English Bishops that is if Bishops have Authority over their own Flocks then the Bishops of France and Spain have Authority over English Bishops if Bishops must govern their own Churches other Bishops may govern them an inference which I believe our Author is the first man that ever made And as the English Bishops insist on their Authority in decision of Controversies and the Dissenter must submit so may this greater College of Bishops urge their Authority and the Dissenting English Bishops must submit and may not be admitted to exercise their own judgment or pretend Conscience there no more than the English Protestant Dissenter may do it here It must be carefully observed that by these Gentlemen the Power is lodged with the College of Catholic Bishops and so long as the Church of England acknowledges the Bishops of these Countries to be Catholick Bishops as now they do just as we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be part of the Catholick Church but a very corrupt and schismatical part of it they cannot question their power that they must acknowledg And by the Laws of Catholick Communion must obey a College of them and appear before them when Summoned The greatest thing that they can with any pretence insist on is the justness of their cause of which they are no more competent judges before this College than the Dissenters are when before these Bishops here What happy days would the Church of Rome see were things brought to this pass but how impertinent all his talk of the College of Bishops is has been already shown and will be more in what follows All that I observe at present is how he turns the power of deposing and censuring heretical and schismatical Bishops into a power of declaring Heresy and judging whether they be Hereticks or not by such a final and uncontroulable power as Hereticks themselves are bound to submit to And which is more ridiculous than that if one Church agrees to accuse another Church of Heresy the accusers alone must be judges and the accused are very incompetent Judges of it because forsooth they are accused But this matter may be stated without setting up such a Soveraign Tribunal for judging of Heresies For 1. That Heretical Bishops may be deposed I think all agree in 2. And there is as little question but that Orthodox and Catholick Bishops who have the care of the Church committed to them have this power of deposing That is of casting such a Bishop out of their Communion and exhorting his People to withdraw Communion from him and to accept of a Catholick Bishop in his stead which is all that the Ecclesiastical power of deposing signifies 3. There is no question neither but that all Bishops will call that Heresy which they themselves think to be so and will judg those to be Hereticks who profess such Doctrines as they call Heresy 4. But it does not hence follow that any Bishops or any number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to define Articles of Faith or to declare Heresy as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresy which they decree to be so 5. And therefore the effects of these Censures must of necessity depend upon that Opinion which People have of them Those who believe the Censure just will withdraw themselves from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not believe it just will still communicate with him For who ever pronounces the Sentence excepting the interposing of Secular power the People must execute it and if they will still adhere to their Bishop he may defic his Deposers and all their power As the English Bishops and People do all the Anathemaes of the Church of Rome 6.
Princes since the Church is incorporated into the State that I meddle not with for it is not a pure Ecclesiastical Authority but must be accounted for upon other Principles Well! but I assert that Catholick Communion is a Divine Institution and then the Combination of Churches for Catholick Communion is Divine also and thus National Churches Archbishops Metropolitans Primates are of Divine Institution but had our Author transcribed the whole Sentence every Reader would easily have seen how little it is to his purpose The words are these The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-Form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution and therefore certainly not an immediate Divine Institution though not therefore accidental according to the Phrase of my Dissenting Adversary but Catholick Communion is a Divine Institution and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholick Communion is Divine also though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be regulated and determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which differs somewhat from what we call meer Humane Prudence because it is not the result of meer Natural Reason but founded on and accommodated to a Divine Institution So that here is no Archbishop no Primate no particular Forms of Combinations of Churches of Divine Institution they are Ecclesiastical Constitutions which may be regulated and altered by Ecclesiastical Prudence but Catholick Communion is a Divine Institution and therefore that Bishops and Churches should unite for the preservation of Catholick Communion is Divine though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which is somewhat more Sacred than Humane Prudence because it is founded on and accommodated to a Divine Institution I suppose the Reader is by this time very well satisfied about our Author's Justice in his Quotations as the Prefacer speaks 7. He observes that I teach that a compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is necessary to Catholick Communion For all Christians and Christian Churches are but One body and are thereby obliged to all Duties Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation The Catholick Church is one Body and Society wherein all the Members there of have equal Right and Obligation to Christian Communion This he puts all together as One entire Reasoning though the parts of it are above three hundred Pages distant as he owns in the Margin and belong to very different things which is a very honest way of Quoting by which means we may make any Author speak what we please as the History of the Gospel has been described in Virgil's Verse The latter part of these words concern the Obligation of all Christians to Catholick Communion which what it is I have already explained In the former part he would insinuate that I make it necessary to Catholick Communion that all Churches should observe the same particular Orders Forms of Government Rites and Modes of Discipline and Worship and makes me give a very senseless Reason for it because all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body and are thereby obliged to all Duties Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation As if Christian Churches could maintain no Communion with each other unless they used the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies and were all governed by the same Ecclesiastical Canons whereas we know that all Churches in all Ages have had peculiar Liturgies peculiar Rites and Ceremonies peculiar Fasts and Feasts peculiar Canons and Rules of Discipline of their own as there are in many Cases to this day in the Church of Rome especially among their Religious Orders In the place from which he quotes these words I was Vindicating the Terms of Communion in the Church of England to be truly Catholick P. 392. There are these words For the Terms of our Communion are as Catholick as our Church is Diocesan Episcopacy Liturgies and Ceremonies have been received in all Churches for many hundred Years and are the setled Constitution of most Churches to this Day and this is the Constitution of the Church of England and the Terms of our Communion and must be acknowledged to be Catholick Terms if by Catholick Terms he means what has actually been received by the Catholick Church After much more of this Argument I add the words he quotes That though it be hard to determine what is in its own Nature absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion yet I can tell him de facto what is viz a Compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church He who will not do this must separate from the Catholick Church and try it at the last day who was in the right I am content our Dissenters should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion so they will but grant that the Church of England is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms than the Catholick Church it self has always been and when they have confidence enough to deny this I will prove it and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England than the practise of the Catholick Church This is so plain that I need say nothing more to explain it that if we will live in Catholick Communion we must own Episcopacy Liturgies Ceremonies which has been the ancient Government Worship Discipline of the Church and those who upon pretence of unscriptutural Terms separate from the Church of England for the sake of such Catholick Practices by the same reason must have renounced the Communion of the best and purest and most Catholick Churches since the Apostles Days But how far I ever was from thinking that the particular Rites and Modes of Worship must be the same in all Churches and that there can be no Communion without this any man may satisfie himself who will be pleased to read some few Pages in the Vindication beginning at p. 372 where I shew how impossible it is to maintain Catholick Communion between distinct Churches without allowing of such diversity of Rites which are and always were practised in different Churches Thus I have done with our Authour's Quotations and what Agreement there is between us the Reader must judge And now he pretends to draw up my Argument against the Dissenters which he says proceeds upon Roman-Catholick Principles But I shall not trouble my self to examine whether my Arguments against the Dissenters were good or no for I have no Dispute with them now and will have none but if they ever were good they are not Roman-Catholick Principles which make them so for I have no Roman-Catholick Principle in all my Book As for what he so often triumphs in the late King's Paper I tell him once for all I will have no Dispute with Kings but if he have any thing to say let him fetch his Arguments whence he will without alledging the King's Authority to make them good and he shall have an
human Capacity may mistake and Err and so did St Peter but not fundamentally yet as Supream Head in his Catholick Capacity quatenus in Cathedra Catholica comparative to all inferior subordinate Pastors he hath a kind of Infallibility which is a Power intrusted in him by the Catholick Church to pass a final Iudgment of Determination in all Causes and Controversies to be a Ne plus ultra to all Appeals and Litigations in the Church So that in the first place he is not infallible in his human Capacity and yet he founds his Infallibility on his Wisdom Holiness and Justice which are human and personal Perfections In his publick Capacity he would have him Infallible in the Chair but yet it is but a comparative Infallibility which is none at all Then his Infallibility is not an Infallibility in judging but a Power to make a final Determination whether it be right or wrong and any Man might have this Power as well as the Pope especially since he is not entrusted with this Power by Christ but by the Catholick Church that is too only by the Church of Rome for no other Church entrusts him with it and thus he quits all Divine Claims to Infallibility and the Pope is no more Infallible than the Church can make him by entrusting him with a final decision of Controversies at all Adventures And therefore he adds We are not bound to believe his Iudgment is infallibly true but are to subscribe to it as the last because we can have no further and higher Appeal on Earth That is we must subscribe to it whether we believe it true or not which is an admirable sort of Infallibility Thus he says the English Clergy Subscribe the 39 Articles not that they believe them as they commonly say to be true and Orthodox but because they be the last Resolutions of the Church of England in those Points they sit down satisfied to subscribe them as Instrumenta pacis unitatis but indeed Maxime emcolumenti by which what he means cannot guess but am very much of his Mind that upon the same ground were there no other reason of Subscriptions they may subscribe to the Council of Trent But this is a Scandal on the Clergy of the Church of England we subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrines and for my part I would not subscribe did I not think them true and this is false with reference to the Church of Rome which Anathematizes all Persons who do not own and acknowledge and believe all the Articles of the Council of Trent However Infallibility is at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when they can exact Submissions and Subscriptions onely upon Protestant Principles who pretend to no Infallibility at all I have examined this Argument a little more at large to make him sensible how dangerous a thing it is to write after an Independent Copy for had any man intended to have burlesqued Infallibility as possibly his Author from whom he Transcribes did he could not have done it more effectually than by such Principles as these 6. His sixth Argument in Catholick Hierarchy the seventh for he has dropt one from the Nature of the Church which he made an Introduction of and there it has been considered is that this Catholick Headship is inseparable from an Ecclesiastical Body made up of subordinate Pastors and Churches may be abundantly evidenced from these following enumerated Church necessities The necessity 1. Of a Catholick judgment of Schism 2. Of a Catholick interpretation of Scriptures 3. Of a Catholick determination of Ceremonies for order and decency 4. For a Catholick composure of Forms of Prayer 5. For a Catholick Canonization of Saints 6. A Catholick Call and Convention of Councils Oecumenic Which are Word for Word the Argument of the Independent Author I shall briefly consider them all 1. The necessity of a Catholick judgment of Schism i. e. that there should be some Judges who are Schismaticks for otherwise 1. Patriarchal or National Churches may be Schismatical and no competent remedy found for the said Schism 2. There can be no determination of a Schism from the Catholick Church nor any proportionate punishment of it For a Patriarch or National Primate cannot be judicially proceeded against but by an Oecumenic Pastor which I think is the same with the first for a National Schism must be a Schism from the Catholick Church or none since National Churches among us depend on no foreign Patriarchs 3. Because superiour Churches are to judge the inferiour no particular Church has an absolute definitive Power in it self but there lies an Appeal against it to the Catholick Church and Pastor Which instead of proving that there is such a Catholick Pastor supposes that there is one for else there can lie no Appeal to him 4. That particular Churches will never agree about Schism but the very disputes about Schism will make Schisms without end Now suppose a man should turn the Tables and prove by this Argument that there is no Catholick Pastor nor Catholick Judge of Schism because there are and always have been Schisms in the Christian Church which it is impossible there should be did the Church know of such a Catholic Judge For how could there be any such dispute about Schism if there were such a Judge If you say that it is the not owning such a Judge which makes the Schisms That may be true but it is true also that it is a sign the Christian World does not know of any such Judge for if they did they would own him and put an end to their Schisms If it be necessary there should be such a Catholick Judge of Schism I am sure it is necessary he should be known or else as Experience testifies the disputes about such a Judge will make more Schisms than such an unknown and disputable Judge can ever end Now since there either is no such Catholick Judge of Schism or he is not sufficiently know to all Christians methinks it proves that there is no need of such a Catholick Judge of Schism for there is as much need â—e should be known in order to put an end to Schisms as that there should be such a Judge and if the necessity of ending Schisms proves that there should be such a Judge I am sure the continuance of Schisms proves as plainly that he is not known because he cannot end them It is ridiculous to imagine that there should be any such thing as Schism were there a known Oecumenical Pastor and Judge and it is as ridiculous to prove that there is such a Judge from the necessity of such a Judge to end Schisms when it is demonstrable from the continuance of these Schisms that the Christian World knows of no such Judge And it is very strange that Christ should appoint such a Judge and not take care that he should be known Good Arguments must convince Schismaticks in this World and Christ will judge them in
World acknowledge to be so without the Popes Canonization and the use she makes of Saints needs no Canonization which is only to bless God for them and to excite our selves to an imitation of their Vertues not to build Temples and Altars to them or to Worship them with religious Honours as our Mediators and Advocates This Canonization of Saints was a strange kind of Argument from a pretended Independent and it is such an Argument as I thought at this time of day a Romanist himself would have been ashamed of For pray what Authority has the Church to Canonize Saints and who gave her this Authority Such Consecrations and Canonizations indeed were in practice in Pagan Rome and Tertullian sufficiently scorns them for it He tells us that there was an ancient Decree that the Emperor should not Consecrate any God without the approbation of the Senate for the Emperor in those days was the Pontifex Maximus or the Oecumenick Priest. This the Father says was to make Divinity depend upon human Votes and unless the God pleases Men he shall not be a God how applicable this is to the Canonization of Saints let our Author judge and tell me whether there were any such practice known in the Christian Church in Tertullian's days To Canonize a Saint to be sure is to Vote him into Heaven and if the Oecumenick Pastor has this Authority he is somewhat more than the Head of the visible Church on Earth for his Power extends to the invisible Church too 5ly The necessity of a Catholick composure of Church Prayers i. e. That the same Liturgie should be used in all Christian Churches which never was practised in former Ages and no need it should be We prefer a Liturgie before private and extempore Prayers we think it most Uniform that a National Church should use the same Liturgie but if every Bishop who is the Supream Governour of his own Church should have a Liturgie of his own I see no hurt in it if it be a true Christian Liturgie and neither corrupt the Christian Faith nor Worship When he can give me one wise reason why the whole Christian World must use the same Liturgie and that there must of necessity be an Oecumenick Pastor to compose this Liturgie I will consider it farther His harangue about our charging Dissenters with Schism does not relate to this matter For setting aside the Civil Authority whereby our Liturgie is confirmed their Schism does not consist in using another Liturgie for they use none but in separating from the Communion of their Bishop who has Authority to appoint what Liturgie shall be used in his Church For the Liturgie being agreed on in Convocation makes it an Act of the Church confirmed by the Authority and Consent of all the Bishops besides the concurrent Votes and Suffrages of the inferior Clergy And if every particular Bishop have Authority to appoint what Form of Prayer shall be used in his Church all the Bishops of England may agree in the same Liturgie and those who deny obedience to their Bishops and separate from them upon such accounts are guilty of Schism But where there is no such subjection and obedience owing as there is none between particular Bishops and distinct National Churches they may make Liturgies and Forms of Prayer for themselves and are accountable to no Body else for it 6thly His last necessity for an Oecumenick Pastor is for calling convening and dissolving Oecumenical Councils Now if there be no such absolute necessity of Oecumenical Councils if they may and have been called by Emperors if they may meet together of themselves by Mutual Agreement then there is no necessity of an Oecumenical Pastor for this purpose But such an Assembly he says must be a Church Assembly or else it can claim no Power in the Church and all Church Assemblies are of right convened by the Pastor of the said Church in which it is as in a Diocess the Clergy is convened by the Authoritative Call of the Bishop This is the force of his whole Argument wherein there are two things supposed which we desire him to prove 1. That an Oecumenical Council is not for Mutual Advice but for direct Acts of Authority and Government 2. That a Council receives its Authority from an Authoritative Call when he has proved these two Propositions his Argument may deserve a new Consideration AN ANSWER To SECTION II. CONCERNING The Agreement between the Two Churches about some of their Imposed Terms of Communion their Ministry Ceremonies and Image-Worship 1. The MINISTRY HAving answered all their Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome concerning one Supream Oecumenical Pastor what remains will give me no great trouble and I shall give my self and my Readers no more than needs must 1. The first Agreement is about the Ministry unto which all are required to submit which is the same with that of Roman-Catholicks and maintained by the same Arguments that is concerning the Divine Institution of Bishops and subject Presbyters Now this charge we own that we do acknowledge the Divine Right of Episcopacy and that Presbyters by the Institution of their Office are subject to Bishops and if the Roman-Catholicks own this we agree with them in it and so we will in any thing else that is true and think it no injury to our cause for we do not think our selves bound to renounce what is true only that we may differ from Roman-Catholicks and yet the mischief is that in despight of his Title and design he will not suffer us to agree with them here but endeavour to prove that we do not agree with them Thus he tells us 1. Touching the difference there is between a Bishop and a Presbyter as amongst the Papists some held that they were of the same order differing only in degree and others that they were of distinct Orders so among our Clergy I perceive our Author has a mind to be a Protestant at last by his crying our Clergy there were some who in King James the First days asserted that Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order but now it is carried for their being of two distinct Orders but what is this to the Agreement of the two Churches that there are Divines in each Church which differ about this Point If neither Church have determined this then they agree onely in not determining it but if it were the Currant Doctrine in the Council of Basil that Bishops and Priests are of the same Order and it be the avowed Doctrine of the Church of England that Bishops are a distinct and superior Order then I think the two Churches do not agree about this Point And our Author himself takes care to prove that we are not agreed For the Romanists he says do not so much stick to the Divine Right of the Episcopal Order as to hold that without a Violation of the Divine Law a Presbyter cannot
be intrusted with the Episcopal Insignia and ordinary Iurisdiction yet it s the avowed Doctrine of the Church of England that the giving the Power of Conferring Orders to a Presbyter is so contrary to the Divine Law that its ipso facto null and void and in pursuance of this Doctrine she Re-ordains all those who have had onely a Presbyter's Ordination even whilst she is against a Re-ordination And thus he has himself confuted his first Point The Agreement of the two Churches about the Ministry for a disagreement about the Power of Orders is so concerning a Point in the Ministry that there can be little agreement after it This determines the Dispute that Bishops do not differ in Order but onely in Degree from Presbyters for if Bishops by a Divine or Apostolical Institution were a distinct and superior Order Presbyters could never be intrusted with the ordinary Power and Jurisdiction of a Bishop such as the Power of conferring Orders is much less that a Presbyter should have Power to Consecrate Bishops and Bishops should be subject to Presbyters as he affirms of the Abbot of Hy This overthrows the Essential Constitution of the Ministry if Bishops are by Institution a Superior Order to Presbyters that Presbyters should have Authority to Consecrate and Govern Bishops and overthrows one of the principal Arguments for an Oecumenic Pastor as it is urged by our other Author from the power of conferring Orders which he says cannot be done but by a superiour Pastor and surely Presbyters though soveraign Abbots are not superiour Pastors to Bishops nor to Presbyters neither And yet the Church of England does not deny but that in case of necessity the Ordinations of Presbyters may be valid and upon this Principle justifies the Presbyterian Orders of Foreign Churches while such unavoidable necessity lasts as I have also done at large in the Vindication to which this Author so often refers But the case of Schism is a different thing and I believe our Author himself though he grants a Power to the Pope to entrust Presbyters with the power of conferring Orders will not say that Schismatical Presbyters may take this Power or that their Ordinations are valid if they do And this is the case between us and our Dissenters they ordain in a Schism and though necessity may make an irregular Act valid yet Schism will not And I would desire to know what reason it is for which they Null the Protestant Reformed Ministry which he says is so much less severe than the Principles of the Church of England The artifice of all this is visible enough to heighten and inflame the difference at this time between the Church of England and Dissenters but in vain is the Snare laid in the sight of any Bird. But that the Reader may better understand the Mystery of all this I shall briefly shew why the Church of Rome is so favorable to that Opinion that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order and differ onely in degree why they allow the Ordinations of Abbots Soveraign who are but Presbyters to be both valid and regugular that they are exempted from the Iurisdiction of the Diocesan and have in themselves Episcopal Authority whereby they can Ordain Correct Suspend Excommunicate and Absolve nay exercise this Jurisdiction over Bishops themselves as this Author tells us of the Abbot o Hy Which will shew how far we are from agreeing with the Church of Rome about Episcopal Power The plain Account of which in short is this That they distinguish their Orders in the Church of Rome with relation to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation prevailed which is such a wonderful Mystery for a Priest to Transubstantiate the Elements into the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ this is looked upon as the highest act of Power in the Christian Church and therefore that must be the highest Order which has the highest Power and since a meer Priest has this power of Consecration which is as high an Act as any Bishop can do therefore they conclude that Episcopacy is not an higher Order than the Priesthood but differs onely in Degrees with respect to the power of Jurisdiction And the competition between Popes and Bishops to serve their several Interests did mightily incline them to favour this Opinion The Papal Monarchy could never arrive at its utmost greatness without depressing and lessening the Authority of Bishops and therefore aspiring Popes granted Exemptions Dispensations and Delegations to Presbyters that there was no part of the Episcopal Office but what a Presbyter might do by Papal Delegations which made Presbyters equal to Bishops but advanced the Pope vastly above them When by these Arts which were often complained of the Pope's Power grew boundless and infinite and it was thought necessary to bring it lower it could not be done without calling in the assistance of Presbyters and allowing them to Vote in the Council For the majority of Bishops were engaged by Interest and Dependance to maintain the Papal Greatness and therefore if these matters must have been determined by the major Votes of Bishops there could be no remedy against the Papal Usurpations For which reason in the Council of Basil those Bishops who were devoted to the Interest of the Pope and knew they were able to secure the Cause if none but Bishops might Vote insisted on this That according to the Presidents of former Councils all matters might be determined onely by the Votes of Bishops and now the equality of Order between Bishops and Presbyters was trumpt up to serve another turn to prove their right to Vote in Councils to assist those Bishops who groaned under Papal Usurpations in some measure to cast off that Yoke and vindicate their own Liberties To this original the equality of Order between a Bishop and Presbyter is chiefly owing in the Church of Rome from this Authority the Abbots Soveraign derive their Power which is a subversion of the Supream Authority of Bishops has no president and would never have been allowed in the Primitive Church and therefore as for the Dispute about the Abbot of Hy what the matter of fact is which those learned men whom he assaults I doubt not are able to defend were there a just occasion for it is nothing to our purpose If it were as he says it is an intolerable encroachment upon the Episcopal Authority and void in it self We who deny Transubstantiation and disown any such Authority in the Pope to delegate the Episcopal Power to meer Presbyters do not I suppose very exactly agree with the Church of Rome in this matter 2. Much at the same rate we agree in asserting the difference between a Bishop and Presbyter to be of an immediate divine Right This indeed we do constantly affirm that the Institution of Episcopacy is by immediate divine Right but is this the currant Doctrine in the Church of Rome That he knew was false and therefore had
to it Ceremonies and Acts of Religion as having some relation to religious Actions yet he expresly distinguishes between the Parts of Worship and the external Adjuncts and Instruments of it and therefore does not call our Ceremonies Acts of Worship as that signifies a part of God's immediate Worship but in a more lax sense to include all external Adjuncts and Solemnities of Worship And therefore the Church of England never had any occasion to justifie her Worship by such distinctions as the Church of Rome has invented of Primary and Secondary Essential and Accidental Proper and Improper Worship whereby they endeavour to justifie that Worship they pay to Saints and Angels and Images which we have no use of because we Worship none but God. And our Author is a very pleasant Man who would justifie the Worship of Images under the Notion of Ceremonies surely the Church of England is not agreed with them here too for we know no such Ceremonies as are the Objects of Worship and that an Image is in the Church of Rome we use some indifferent and significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God but we do not worship our Ceremonies III. The AGREEMENT ABOUT IMAGE-WORSHIP THIS will be Answered in a few Words He forms his Argument from a Passage in the Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery and from another in the Discourse against Transubstantiation p. 21. and from the Ceremony of Kneeling at the receiving the Lords Supper The Answerer says that to pay the External Acts of Adoration to or before or in Presence of a Representative Object of Worship as Representing is the very same thing In the Discourse against Transubstantiation it is observed That the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Christ was started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the Year of Christ 750. did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of Himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make 〈◊〉 other Image of our Lord. In Answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the Year 787. did Declare That the Sacrament after Consecration is not the Image and Antitype of Christs Body and Blood but is properly his Body and Blood. And then the Church of England has enjoyned Bowing or Kneeling at the Reception of the Lords Supper for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgments of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue From these Premises our Author thus Argues So that Kneeling is Expressive of the inward Reverence of the Heart to Christ and so is an Act of Religious Adoration the Kneeling then before the Sacramental Signs is the same with Kneeling to them Bowing before them is the same with Bowing to them a Worshipping before them the same with giving a Religious Worship to them Which sufficiently shews that in one great Instance the Church of England retains the same kind of Image Worship with the Roman-Catholicks and so far are we agreed with them In very good time But there is one thing yet remains to be proved which he has conveniently dropt And that is That the Church of England owns the Sacramental Bread to be the Image of Christ and the Representative Object of Worship This he knew he could not prove and therefore says nothing of it for it does not follow that because the Council of Constantinople affirmed that the Sacramental Bread is the Image of Christ's Body therefore the Church of England teaches so I am sure that Author say no such thing and if we should allow it in some Sense to be the Image as that signifies the Sacramental Figure of Christ's Body Does it hence follow that it is the Representative Object of Worship And thus his To and before and in Presence is all lost because the Bread according to the Doctrine of the Church of England is no Representative Object of Worship and therefore we neither Bow To nor before nor in Presence of the Bread as a Representative Object and therefore the Answer that Author gave that we do not Kneel to the Sacrament but receive it Kneeling is a very good Answer still Thus I have considered all his Pretences of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome which they are as unfortunate at as they are at Representing And methinks it Argues some distrust of their Cause that they dare not down-right defend it but are forced either to represent it away almost into Protestant Heresy or to shelter themselves in their Agreement with a Protestant Church but the better way is to turn Protestants themselves and then we will own our Agreement with them THE END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituléd Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condem his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommedation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestane and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensut Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Ser Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet p. 281 c. Defence p. 572. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. Barrow Supremacy p. 189 c. Quarto Hieron ad Marcel Ep. 54. Vindicat. p. 15. 217. Vindic. p. 162. Ibid. p. 157. Agreement Pag. 7. Vind. P. 36. See Vindication of the Defence p. 329 c. Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. de unitate See the Defence p. 208. c. Unus Episcopatus Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus Cypr. ad Antonian Ep. 52. Pam. Quando Ecclesia quae Catholica una est scissa non sit neque divisa sed fit utique connexa cohaerentium sibi invicem Sacerdotum glutino copu lata Cytr Ep. 69. ad Florentium Pupianum Cypr. ad Ste phan Ep. 67. Vindic. p. 124 c. Episcopi nec potestatem habere potest nec honorem qui Episcopatus nec unitatem tenere voluit nec pacem Cypr. ad Anton. Ep. 52. Agreement p. 13. Vindic. p. 195. 196. Vindic. p. 396. Maximè cùm jampridem nobiscum cum omnibus omnino Episcopis in toto mundo constitutis etiam Cornelius Collega noster decreverit Cypr. cp 68. Pam. Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in unâ communionis societate concordat Opt. l. 2. See Vindicat. p. 131. c. Cassand Consult de pontifice Rom. Agreem p. 18. c. Marcae per Archiepiscopum Burdegalensem Regis nomine imperatur ut adversus â—â—nc libellum Optati Galli scribut sed ea mâ—thodo ne libertates Ecclesiae â—â—llicanae quas per latus non occultè petebat Optatus aliquam paterentur injuriam quinimo id sedulo ageret ut omnes intelligerent libertates illas nihil â—etrahere de reverentia quae debetur Romanae sedi quam prâ— cunctis semper nationibus 〈◊〉 constantissimè retinuerunt Baluz vita Petr. de Mar. Agreement p. 33. Offendit tamen quis crederet hic liber Romana ingenia nullam aliam ob causam ut Marca existimabat quà m quòd in fronte operis admoneret hîc agi de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae Unde Romanis quorum aures teneritudine quâ—dam plus trahuntur promptum suit sibi persuadere illum libertati ecclesiasticae adversari qui de libertatibus ecclesiae Gallicanae proh nefas agebat ex professo Baluz in vita Petri de Marca p 9. Agreement p. 61. The Catholick Hierarchy p. 77. Agree p. 62. Hierar p. 77. Agree p. 65. Hierar p. 77. Agreem p. 67. Cath. Hierar p. 79. Agreement p. 61. Cath. Hierar p. 80 81. Agree p. 74. Hierar p. 83. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornelium Agreem p. 77. c. Cath. Hier. p. 85. c. Agreem p. 80. Cath. Hier. p. â—7 Agreem p. 81. Cath. Hier. p. 87. Agreem p. 84. Cath. Hier. p. 89. Vetus trat decrâ—tum Ne 〈◊〉 Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur nisi a Senatâ— probatus Apud vos de humano arbitratu Divinitas peâ—sitatur nisi homini Deus 〈◊〉 Deus nonerit homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit Tert. Apol. p. 6. Paris 1664. Agreem p. 85. Cath. Hier. p. 8â— Agreem p. 87. Cath. Hier. p. 92. Agreem p. 36. Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent B. 7. P. 570 c. Agreem p. 47. Agreem p. 50. Covel's modest Examination c. 6. p. 55. Ibid. p. 56. P. 58. Agreem p. 48. Answer to Papists Prot. p 81.
IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Vindication of Some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity c. Nov. 16. 1687. Guil Needham R mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacris A VINDICATION OF SOME Protestant Principles OF Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion From the Charge of Agreement with the CHURCH of ROME IN ANSWER To a late PAMPHLET Intituled An Agreement between the Church of ENGLAND and the Church of ROME evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's-Church in Fleet-street 1688. TO THE READER I HERE Present thee with a Book which the Importunity of our Roman Adversaries has extorted from me I had rather have employed my Pen upon some moré useful Argument but in such a state as this we cannot always be our own Chusers The Design of the Book I Answer seems to be To revive some Old Disputes between us and the Dissenters and to raise New Jealousies in them if not of our Inclination to Popery yet of a great deal of Popish Leaven yet remaining among us which ought to be purged out for there is nothing such men dread more than that the Dissenters should at this time entertain any kind Thoughts of the Church of England The Plot I confess is well enough laid were not all Wise Men of both Parties aware of it and that makes it ridiculous enough and indeed the Book it self is an odd kind of mixture he gives very good words to the Dissenters and at the same time uses no other but their own Arguments against the Church of England to establish some main Points of Popery which whether it be a piece of Courtship to them or a sly Affront ought to be considered As for our Agreement with the Church of Rome if I have not sufficiently baffled that Pretence I will never write more but this of it self was too mean a Design to confute that which no body not the Objector himself believed and therefore I will be bold to say that I have abundantly confuted the Popish Supremacy from those very Principles on which this Author would found our Agreement I intended a Preface to have explained some Notions about the Church which might have been of use to ordinary Readers for the better understanding this Answer but it swell'd so much upon my hands that by the advice of some Friends I have reserved it for a distinct Treatise which shall quickly follow W. S. AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE SINCE this Author has thought fit to single me out as an example of this pretended Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome I shall undertake my own defence which will give me no other trouble but a short diversion from some better designs which I suppose is all that was hoped for from this Pamphlet For whoever this Author be which I am not curious to know I cannot think him so weak as to hope at this time of Day that he could perswade our Dissenters That the Clergy of the Church of England are not the Chief if not the only Opposers of Popery and Defenders of the Protestant Religion or that notwithstanding all their appearing Zeal against Popery they are still Papists in their hearts and are ready to embrace a Cassandrian accommodation whenever the Government pleases and therefore I could be very well contented such suggestions as these should pass without an Answer as far as I am concerned in them for let any man that knows me think me a Papist if he can I am pretty confident this Author believes me far enough from it or else I might have expected better words from him but it is fit that such little arts as these should be exposed to the scorn and contempt of Mankind and that our Dissenters should be made sensible what a mean Opinion such Writers have of them who hope to impose upon them by such mean arts For to begin with that great Cry of late that the Clergy of the Church of England are now the Chief if not the only opposers of Popery and Defenders of the Protestant Religion Is there not good reason for it Have they not defended the Church of England against all the little arts and shifts of the Church of Rome What is that then which he calls the unlucky mistake and which the unwary Readers of Books are to be warned against That those unanswerable Books which have of late been written against Popery were not writen by the Clergy of the Church of England That he dares not say What is the mistake then That these men who confute Popery are not Protestants but Papists Methinks their confuting Popery is no great sign of their being Papists especially when Papists are not able to defend their Religion against them I am sure if their Arguments will keep men from turning Papists they are notable opposers of Popery and defenders of the Protestant Religion whatever they are themselves and what hurt it would do any man to be confirmed in the Protestant Religion though it were by the Writings of concealed Papists I cannot guess Should the Pope himself write a Book against Popery if the Arguments were good I should like the Book never the worse for the sake of the Author I deny not but such things may be done Papists may write against Popery and Protestants for it with an intention to betray the Cause which they undertake to defend but if this were his rule of guessing there would be much more just cause to suspect that our late Popish Writers were Protestants than that our Protestant Writers were Papists When they are able to Answer their Books against Popery we will give them leave to call them Papists still but could they have done that they would have allowed them to have been Protestants still But what course does our Author take to undeceive unwary Readers at this time and to prove these Confuters of Popery to be Papists Why by acquainting them with the avowed Principles of some of our Clergy about those Points wherein the very life of Popery consists and on which the whole System of that Religion is founded In doing which he hath with some clearness demonstrated the agreement of Opinion between the Church of England men and the Church of Rome to be so exact and full that if the Government should so design it were but dictum factum according to their Doctrine and a Cassandrian Peace might be patch'd up presently with Rome This is a notable discovery indeed Do any of these men then embrace any Doctrines of the Church of Rome No but it seems they agree with the Church of Rome in some Fundamental Principles whereon the whole System of Popery is founded That shall be examined anon But suppose it at present Do they draw the same Conclusions from these Principles which the Church of Rome does No but they
vindicate my self I will own my own shame without casting the blame on my dear Mother the Church of England and I suppose it will be sufficient to vindicate my self if I first show him that I have in express words rejected all those Propositions wherein he pretends this Agreement consists Secondly Particularly vindicate those passages he transcribes out of my books and shew his sincerity in quoting and his skill in applying and then his French Popery may shift for it self excepting a word or two of that learned Arch-bishop Petrus de Marca As for the first He himself has collected the Particulars wherein we agree which I shall distinctly examine the Reader may find them p. 15 16. which are these 1. They both make the Catholick Church one visible governed Society Houshold or Kingdom This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and fundamental mistake and a wilful one too for I affirm the contrary in express words in the defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's unreasonableness of Separation p. 565 566 upon occasion of that Dispute about the constitutive Regent Head of a National Church I expresly assert That the Unity both of the National and Universal Church consists in one Communion That Consent is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Socity in one Communion That their Unity consists only in consent not in any superior Governing Ecclesiastical Power on Earth which binds them together So that I absolutely deny That the Catholick Church is one governed Society with one supreme Government over the whole P. 567. I assert That Christ hath instituted no such constitutive Regent Power of one Bishop over another in his Church and therefore the Union of particular Churches into one must be made by consent not by Superiority of Power P. 564. I affirm That tho a National Church and the Reason is stronger for the Universal Church be one Body yet it is not such a political Body as they describe and cannot be according to its original Constitution which differs from Secular forms of Government which have a supreme governing Power by that Ancient Church-Canon of our Saviours own decreeing It shall not be so among you And thus a National Church as governed by consent may be one Body in an Ecclesiastical tho not in a Civil Political Sense that is by one Communion not by one Supreme governing Power The Dean in Answer to Mr. Baxter who asserts a constitutive Regent Head of the National Church necessary to make it a Church and yet allows That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that all particular Churches as headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church argues thus If this Doctrine be true and withal it be necessary that every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows That there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Catholick Visible Church and so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent Part of the Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Universal Pastorship Where the Dean proves That a Constitutive Regent Head is not essential to the Notion of a National Church for then it must be essential to the Catholick Church too and then there must be a supreme Pastor or some supreme governing Power over the whole Church which I suppose is to deny that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society This Argument I defended at large and added p. 576. That to deny a Church can be one without a constitutive Regent Head infers one of these two things 1. Either that many particular Churches cannot associate into one for the joynt Exercise of Discipline and Government which overthrows the very Notion of Catholick Unity and Communion Or 2. That there is and must be a power in the Church superior to the Episcopal Power which naturally sets up a Pope above Bishops Thus much for my agreement with them that the Catholick Church is one visible governed Society that is which has a supreme Power over the whole and if our Author by this time does not begin to Colour I will e'en Blush for him But by this the Reader will perceive what a hopeful Cause this Author has undertaken to prove my Agreement with the Church of Rome about the Supremacy either of the Pope or General Council when I absolutely deny that there is or ought to be any such Superior Authority and Jurisdiction over the whole Church But to proceed 2. He says They both pitch upon the Episcopal Government as distributed into the several Subordinations of combined Churches as what is by Divine Institution made the Government of the Church A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan a combination of Provincial Churches to make up a National and the Metropolitans in Subordination to the Primate a combination of National Churches to make up a Patriarchal and the Primates in Subordination to the Patriarch and a confederacy of Patriarchal to make up one Oecumenical and every Patriarch in Subordination to the Oecumenical Bishop or chief Patriarch This is an Agreement with a Witness and if he can prove this as he says he has done of which more presently we will never dispute more with them about Church-Government let us then consider the several steps and Gradations of Church-Authority which at last centers in an Universal Bishop 1. The Subordination of Parochial Presbyters who are combined and united under the Government of a Diocesan Bishop Thus far we agree with him and acknowledg a direct Superiority of Bishops over their respective Presbyters but we go not one step farther with him 2. A combination of Diocesan Churches to make up one Provincial whose Bishops are in Subordination to their Metropolitan Such a Combination I allow of but the Subordination I deny to be the original Form of Church Associations and this one word Subordination which he has here thrust in discovers the whole Trick and spoils our Agreement quite I assert these Combinations are for Communion not for Government and therefore there is no Subordination required to such an Union he will have these Combinations to be not meerly for Communion but for Government and that indeed requires a Subordination but these two Notions do as vastly differ as a friendly Association for mutual Advice and Counsel and a Subjection to a Superior Authority And that I have not altered my Opinion but that this was always my judgment in the case I shall now show and I need to that purpose only transcribe a Page or Two out of the Defence p 577 c. It is evident from the Testimony of the earliest Ages of the Church that first the Apostles and then the Bishops as their Successors were the Supreme Governours of the Church who had no higher Order or Power over them And therefore Tertullian calls the Bishop Summus Sacerdos or the chief and
And whether they do right or wrong in this their own Consciences must judg in this world and God will judg in the next This is all that can be said or done in such a broken and divided state of the Church as we now see While nothing was called Heresie but the denial of some plain and acknowledged Article of the Christian Faith while there was no dispute who were Hereticks the power of deposing Hereticks was sacred and venerable and had its just authority and effect but since what is Heresie is the Controversie and the world is divided about it tho the power remains still the exercise of it grows very contemptible when a Church first coyns new Articles of Faith and then Excommunicates Censures Deposes those for Hereticks who will not believe them 4ly We are come now to the last Point wherein he says we agree viz. To give to one Bishop a Primacy for the better preserving Catholick Union and also a Superior power of Appeals and exercising some peculiar acts of Discipline under the regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons Now all this indeed I do assert and yet we are very far from agreeing in this matter For though they made no more of the Pope than a meer Primate which I doubt is not good doctrine in Rome yet there is as much difference between our Primates as there is between a National and Oecumenical Primate and consequently as much difference between our Appeals as between Appeals to Rome and to the Archbishop of Canterbury as between Appeals to the Primate of a National Church and Appeals to foreign Bishops I know he disputes very learnedly that such an Oecumenical combination of Churches and an Oecumenical Primate is more for the preservation of Cathol Unity than a National Church or Primate but this he knew I denied and therefore should not have said that I agree with them in it and who has the best reason on their side shall be examined presently By this time I suppose the Reader is satisfied how far we agree in these things I having in express words denied every thing which he has affirmed in these very Books to which he has appealed which I think is no great sign of agreement 2. It is time now to vindicate those passages which he quotes out of my Book and on which he founds this pretence of agreement between us and to do this effectually and plainly I must as I go along briefly explain some of my Principles which our Author either did not understand or did wilfully misrepresent All the sayings he has picked up and brought together from one end of the Book to t'other relate to one of these two Principles The Unity of the Church which is one Communion or the Unity of the Episcopacy 1. As for the first of these The Unity of the Church the whole mystery of it is no more but this That the whole Christian Church by the Institution of our Saviour is but one Church and this one Church is one Communion that is one Body and Society whereof all Christians are members and wherein they have a right to communicate in all Christian Priviledges and have both a right and obligation to Communicate in all Christian Duties This our Author puts in the second place tho it ought to be the first as being the Foundation of all That all Christians and Christian Churches in the world are one Body Society or Church and this is called Catholick Communion for they being all one Body they Communicate with each other in this one Body in all the Duties and Priviledges of it and what advantage he can make make of this I cannot yet guess unless he thinks that the very name Catholick being one of Bellarmin's Notes of the Church Catholick Communion must signifie the Communion of the Catholick Church of Rome My Adversaries hearing this word Communion presently concluded that I placed the Unity of the Church in some meer transient acts of Communion and disputed very earnestly against it as well they might But this mistake I rectified in my Vindication and showed them that one Communion signifies one Body and Society in which all the Members communicate with each other which I explain'd by this familiar comparison Suppose the whole World were one Family or one Kingdom in which every particular man according to his rank and station enjoys equal privileges in this case the necessity of Affairs would require that men should live in distinct houses and distinct Countries as now they do all the World over But yet if every man enjoyed the same Liberty and Priviledges wherever he went as he does now in his own House and Country the whole World would be but one House and Family or Universal Kingdom and whosoever should resolve to live by himself and not receive any others into his Family nor allow them the liberty of his House would be guilty of making a Schism in this great Family of the World And what Nations soever should deny the Rights and Priviledges of natural Subjects to the Inhabitants of other Countries would make a Schism and rent it self from this Universal Kingdom I added Thus it is here The Church of Christ is but one Body one Church one Houshold and Family one Kingdom These words our Author sets in the Front and thinks to make something of them for seeing all know that to make the whole World one Universal Kingdom it 's necessary that it be subjected under one governing Head it unavoidably follows that unless in the Catholick Church there be one Supreme Governing Head it cannot be like to an Universal Kingdom an organized politick Body Very right Had I compared the Catholick Church to an Universal Kingdom with respect to Government the consequence had been good but comparing it only with respect to Communion the consequence is ridiculous and yet this was all I intended in the Comparison as appears from the Application of it And therefore though the necessity of Affairs requires that Neighbour Christians combine themselves into particular Churches particular Congregations as the world is divided into particular Families and Kingdoms which shows that I no more subject the Church to one Governing-head than I do the World to one Universal Monarch now it is divided into particular Kingdoms yet every Christian by virtue of his Christianity hath the same Right and Priviledg and the same Obligation to Communion as occasion serves with all the Churches in the World that he has with that particular Church wherein he lives wherever he removes his dwelling whatever Church he goes to he is still in the same Family the same Kingdom and the same Church Now whether this be a good Consequence that because I make the whole Christian Church one Family and Kingdom with respect to Christian Communion that is that all true Christians have a right to Communion in all true Christian Churches in the World therefore I subject the whole Christian Church to one Supreme Governing
the next and I know of no other Catholick Iudgment of Schism 2. From the necessity of a Catholick Resolution of difficult and dubious places of Scripture For the Scripture is not of private Interpretation and there are great inconveniences in leaving Scripture to the Interpretation of private men or particular though National Churches But let the inconveniences be what they will the same Argument returns again that if there be such an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture he ought to be known and that there are such disputes about the Interpretation of Scripture proves that the Christian World do not own such a Catholick Interpreter and therefore that they know nothing of him And there is another Argument that there is no such Catholick Interpreter of Scripture because we have no such Catholick Interpretation And what is the Christian World the better for a Catholick Interpreter if he does not Interpret And yet in the Church of Rome it self we have no Expositions of Scripture but from private and fallible men The truth is the Pope and his Councils have Expounded plain Scriptures to a dubious difficult unintelligible sence but never that I know of made any Text easie and intelligible which was difficult before To expound Scripture is to make us understand it not to impose upon our Faith without understanding and therefore this is not so much an act of Authority as of skill and judgment any man who can so explain Scripture to me as to make me understand it shall gain my assent but no Authority is sufficient to make me assent without understanding And yet such a Catholick Expositor our Author would set up whose Authority shall make me grant that to be the sence of Scripture which his Reasons and Arguments cannot perswade me of But all reasonable Creatures must understand for themselves and Christ no where commands us to believe that to be the sence of Scripture which we cannot understand to be so I know no necessity that all Christians should agree in the Interpretation of all difficult Texts of Scripture there is enough in Scripture plain to carry men to Heaven and as for more difficult and obscure Texts they are for the improvement of those who can understand them and need no such Catholick Expositor because it is not necessary that all men should understand them Most of the Controversies of Religion especially between us and the Church of Rome are about Texts of Scripture easie enough to be understood and an honest teachable mind would sooner end our Controversies than his Catholick Expositor 3. Another necessity for an Oecumenic Pastor is A necessity of a Catholick Determination of Decency and Order i. e. That the same Rites and Ceremonies for decency and order should be observed in all Christian Churches all the World over Now I know no necessity of this and that which is not necessary it self cannot make an Oecumenic Pastor necessary De facto there have been diversity of Rites in the Christian Church in all Ages thus it was in St. Augustine's time as appears from his Epistle to Ianuarius 118 and then either there was no Catholick Pastor or he did not think such a Catholick Uniformity of Rites necessary None of the Fathers ever condemn such a diversity as this but exhort all Christians to conform to the innocent Customs and Ceremonies of the Church where they came though different from the Customs of their own Church which St. Austine tells us in that Epistle was the Advice of St. Ambrose And when Pope Victor Excommunicated the Asian Churches for their different Custom in observing Easter Irenoeus and other Bishops did vehemently oppose him in it and therefore either did not believe him to be the Catholick Pastor or did not think that the Catholick Pastor ought to impose an Uniformity of Rites upon all Churches The Decency of Worship is nothing else but to perform the external acts of Worship in such a manner as may express our Reverence and Devotion for God And therefore since there are no Catholick signs of Decency there can be no Catholick Uniformity in these matters The decency of Garments Postures Gestures differ in several Countries and so do the Expressions of Honour and Reverence And therefore such external Rites being onely for external Decency and having no Sacredness by Institution may vary with the different Customs and Usages of Countries We must Worship God in a decent manner this all Christian Churches are bound to and this they do when they Worship God in such a manner as among them signifies Reverence and Honour But says our Author then one Church will esteem this or that thing decent in the Worship of God which another reckons absurd Then say I they are as absurd as Country People are who gaze at Foreigners and laugh at their exotick Habits and think every thing ridiculous which differs from their own Customs But this Uniformity is lost in the Catholick Church where it 's most necessary to be had An Uniformity in external Rites is not necessary in the Catholick Church and it may be cannot be had But why is it necessary there should be uniformity then in particular National or Diocesan Churches Ans. Because it is fit and decent that those who Worship God in the same Assemblies should Worship him in the same manner and to do otherwise would contradict the publick decency of the Worship Every Bishop as being the Supreme Governour of his own Church and Diocess has Authority to appoint the decent Rites of Worship in it and when all the Bishops of a Nation are united into one National Body they may consent in some common Rites of Worship for the National Church since the Usages and Customs of the same Nation the Rules of Decency and the expressions of Honour and Reverence are the same which gives an account what Churches have this Power to determine the Decencies and Order in Ceremonies every Bishop has an original Right to do this for his own Church but as a National Combination of Bishops to govern their several Churches by a mutual Consent is of great use so when they are united into a National Body it is much more decent that they should agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for the National Church but there is not the same reason that this should extend to Foreign Churches much less to the whole World both because these Combinations of Bishops are limited to National Churches and the Customs of different Countries change and vary 4ly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints for supposing a necessity of a due Observation of Saints Days which the Church of England hath always insisted on and pleaded for it is to be enquired who or what Church Canonized the Saints c. The Church of England indeed does observe some Festivals in commemoration of the Saints but she needs no Oecumenick Pastor to Canonize them She observes the Festivals of no Saints but such as the Christian
no sooner said it but he unsays it again For says he It 's true that those who are for the divine Right of the Supream Jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Catholick Church visible do hold the divine Right to be but mediate mediante Papa but the Followers of the Councils of Constance and Basil are against the Supream uncontroulable Power of the Pope and for the immediate divine Right of Episcopacy And it 's notorious from the Debates in the Council of Trent that the French Spanish and many other Roman-Catholicks stuck to their immediate Divine Right too and the great reason why opposition was made in the Court of Rome against the immediate divine Right of Bishops was an Opinion that the Supremacy of the Pope could not be secured on the granting it But Dr. Sherlock has found out a Notion which will be of great use to them for the divine Right of a Primacy is a great step to the Supremacy and this the Doctor doth establish consistently enough with the divine Right of Bishops As for my own Notion I have sufficiently vindicated that already from doing any Service to the Pope's Supremacy and see no occasion to add any thing more here But I wonder he should pitch upon this instance of the divine right of Episcopacy to show the Agreement between the two Churches when he himself is forced to acknowledge what fierce Debates there were in the Council of Trent about this matter He says indeed and that very truly that the French and Spanish Bishops in the Council did dispute very vehemently for the divine Institution of Episcopacy and he knows what a prevailing opposition was made against it The Pope sent express Orders to the Legates that whatever they did they should not suffer that to pass Laynez the Jesuit was appointed by the Legates and Papalins to make an elaborate Lecture against it Wherein he asserts that Christ built his Church upon Peter whose Name signifies a Stone in the Hebrew and Syriack and therefore according to the most Catholick exposition Peter himself is that Rock whereon Christ built his Church that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter only and by consequence Power to bring in and to shut out which is Jurisdiction So that the whole Jurisdiction of the Church is committed to Peter only and his Successors And if the Bishops had received any Jurisdiction from Christ it would be equal in all and no difference between Patriarchs Archbishops and Bishops neither could the Pope meddle with that Authority to diminish or take it all away as he cannot do in the Power of Order which is from God. That to make the Institution of Bishops de jure divino takes away the Hierarchy and introduces an Oligarchy or rather an Anarchy That according to the Order Instituted by Christ the Apostles were ordained Bishops not by Christ but by St Peter receiving Jurisdiction from him only or if they were ordained by Christ Christ only prevented St. Peter's Office for that one time That the Bishops are Ordinaries because by the Pope's Law they are made a Dignity of perpetual Succession in the Church That Councils themselves had no Authority but from the Pope for if every particular Bishop in Council may Err it cannot be denyed that they may all Err together and if the Authority of the Council proceeded from the Authority of Bishops it could never be called General because the number of the Assistants is always incomparably less than that of the Absent With much more to this purpose which is all full and home to the point which as the Bishop of Paris observed in his Censure of it makes but one Bishop Instituted by Christ and the others not to have any Authority but dependant from him which is as much as to say that there is but one Bishop and the others are his Vicars to be removed at his pleasure Whatever Opposition was made against this in the Council of Trent it could never prevail The Popes Supremacy was advanced in that Council to its greatest height and glory but the Divine Institution of Episcopacy was dropt though the whole Council was satisfied that the Divine Right of Supremacy and the Divine Institution of Episcopacy were inconsistent For this Reason the Pope and Legates and Italian Bishops opposed the Divine Institution of the Episcopacy and for the same Reason the other Party so vehemently contended for it and then I will leave any man to judge which of these two Opinions must pass for the Sense of the Council and Church of Rome We wish with all our Hearts the Church of Rome did agree with us in the Divine Institution of Episcopacy which was the Sense of the Primitive Church but unless all Parties in the Council of Trent were very much mistaken the Supremacy of the Pope as it is Taught by that Council does utterly overthrow the Divine Institution of Bishops and make them onely the Pope's Creatures and Dependants 3. As for his third Head of Agreement about the Hierarchy which is made up of Archbishops Bishops Deans Prebends Canons Arch-Deacons Chancellors Officials Priests Deacons c. This is onely an Ecclesiastical Body of human Institution for the good Government and Discipline of such Combined Churches and alterable again as the necessities of the Church requires and yet there is an Essential Difference between such Protestant National Combinations of Churches and the Popish Hierarchy The first is Independent on any Forreign Powers is perfect and entire in it self The second has an Oecumenick Pastor for it's Head and derives its Power and Authority from him and this is enough to be said about our Agreement in the Ministry II. The CEREMONIES OR EXTERNAL WORSHIP THIS is the next instance of Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and any man who considers the matter must needs be very much surprized at it For if the two Churches were so very well agreed about Ceremonies it is very strange that the Church of England from the beginning of the Reformation to this day has rejected such a vast number of Ceremonies as were then and still are in use in the Church of Rome And for my part it is my desire and prayer that they may always agree so while the Church of Rome maintains and practises such a corrupt Worship To make this out he says Our first Reformers opposed the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome upon the same Principles that our Dissenters now oppose the Ceremonies of the Church of England viz. by this Argument All Uninstituted Worship is False Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship But the Romish Ceremonious Worship is Uninstituted Ergo. And if our Author can shew me any such Argument urged by our first Reformers against Ceremonies that are meerly for Decency and Order and external Solemnity of Worship I will grant they argued very ill and did much worse to retain any such Ceremonies But if he cannot shew this as