confirmed and we no more want new Miracles to confirm our Reformation than to confirm the Authority of the Christian Religion for Reformed Christianity is nothing else but the old Primitive Apostolick Christianity and therefore we have the same Authority to reform now which the Apostles at first had to preach the Gospel for their Authority to preach the Gospel is and will be to the end of the World a sufficient Authority to all Men to believe it and consequently to renounce all Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship which are contrary to it 2. As for the Authority of the Clergy whatever it be it is certain Christ gave them no Authority to preach any other Gospel than what he had taught them which is the express Commission which he gave to the Apostles themselves and therefore whatever Decrees and Definitions they have made contrary to the true Faith and Worship of Christ are void of themselves and want no Authority to repeal them As for that distinction between making and declaring new Articles of Faith it is a meer piece of Sophistry for if they have the power of declaring and no body must oppose them nor judg of their Declarations under the pretence of declaring they may make as many new Articles of Faith as they please as we see the Council of Trent has done This Extravagant Authority they give to the Clergy of making Decrees and Canons concerning Faith and Worship which shall oblige the Laity to a blind Obedience and implicit Faith is a most ridiculous pretence unless it be supported with Infallibility and yet you have already heard that the pretence of Infallibility it self though it may silence those Mens objections and stop their farther inquiries who do really believe it yet it is no defence against the charge of Errors nor a sufficient Answer to that charge and how vain the pretence it self is has been abundantly proved in some late Treatises This is enough to show how insignificant that charge is against the Reformation that those Bishops and Priests who were at that time in Power and were zealously addicted to the Interests of Rome would not concur in it though afterwards much the greater numbers submitted to it and thereby gave it an after confirmation which is as much as they can pretend for the confirmation of some of their General Councils I grant nothing can be looked on as the Act of the Clergy which is not done by a regular Authority according to the Rules of that Church nor do we pretend that the Reformation was perfected or finished by the regular Authority of the Popish Clergy though several of them were Zealous in it but we say it is never the worse for that if they can prove that what we call a Reformation is faulty upon other Accounts then we will grant that to reform against the consent of the Clergy did greatly aggravate the Crime but if the Reformation were just and necessary and a true Reformation of the Errors and Corruptions of Christianity the dissent of the Clergy could not and ought not to hinder it for they had no such Authority from Christ either to corrupt Religion or to hinder the Reformation of it 3. The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the Established Religion of that Nation and therefore the Queen and the Parliament could make the Reformed Religion the National Religion Established by Law and this is all that we Attribute to Kings and Parliaments We do not justifie our Reformation because it was confirmed by the Authority of Parliament but because it is agreeable to Scripture But we Thank God that he then inclined the heart of the Queen and Parliament to Establish the Reformation and heartily pray that he would still continue it to us and to our Posterity for ever Amen The End. Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell THE History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILBERT BURNET D. D. in two Volumes Folio The Moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation in avoiding all undue Compliances with Popery and other sorts of Phanaticism c. by TIMOTHY PULLER D. D. Octavo A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 4 o. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BURNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo A Collection of several Tracts and Discourses written in the years 1678 1679. c. by Gilbert Burnet D. D. To which are added 1 A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's secret Powers 2 The History of the Powder-Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon 3. An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches who were Executed for the Plot 1679. In Quarto The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God IOHN IEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo A LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and Examined by GILB BURNET D. D. Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and Iames Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Iesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAUX late Bishop of Condom and his VINDICATOR Quarto An Answer to THREE
Imprimatur Junii 4. 1687. Hen. Maurice RR mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE Principal Controversies BETWEEN THE Church of England AND THE Church of Rome BEING A VINDICATION of several PROTESTANT DOCTRINES in ANSWER to a Late PAMPHLET INTITULED Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII THE CONTENTS The State of the Controversie HOW far Protestants demand Scripture-proofs for all Doctrines of Religion Page 2 Protestants do not reject all Doctrines which are not contained in express words of Scripture 3 But yet require express Scripture-proofs for all necessary Articles of Faith and therefore demand a Scripture-proof for the new Trent-Articles the belief of which is made necessary to Salvation 4 The silence of Scripture sufficient to reject any Doctrine as unscriptural 5 Concerning Negative and Affirmative Articles and the Requester's blunder about them 6 A Review of the several Protestant Tenets for which He demands a Scripture-proof I. Whether the Scripture be clear in all necessaries to every sober Inquirer The Scripture proofs of it vindicated 8 Protestants do not reject the Authority of Church-Guides and the difference between a Protestant and a Popish Guide 10 II. Concerning the Spiritual Iurisdiction of the Secular Prince 11 III. Concerning Iustification by Faith alone That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified is not the Doctrine of the Church of England 12 13 IV. Concerning the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration Whether these words This is my Body can be literally understood 14 15 V. Concerning Christ's Presence in the Eucharist 16 What there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body and Blood. 17 The difference between the Vertues and Efficacy of an Institution and the Powers of Nature ibid. Sacramental Signs and Symbols as effectual to all the purposes of a Sacrament as Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood could be 18 19 What a Sacrament of the Lord's Body means and how distinguished from his Natural Flesh and Blood. 20 How the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist differs from the meer influences of his Grace ibid. VI. Concerning the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist whether it be Idolatry To adore Christ is not Idolatry to adore Bread and Wine is 21 Whether the Eucharist be nothing else but Christ and to adore the Eucharist be only to adore Christ. 22 VII Concerning Communion in both kinds The words of Institution a plain Scripture-proof of the necessity of it 24 25 VIII Whether Chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated this proved not to be the Doctrine of the Church of England 26 The Article concerning the Marriage of Priests in Edw. VI. and Queen Elizabeths Reign considered 27 28 IX Whether all Christian Excellencies are commanded 29 That Gospel Exhortations include a Command ibid. That the heights and perfections of Vertue are commanded and in what sense 30 When you have done that is commanded you say we are unprofitable Servants proved to be a plain confutation of the Doctrine of Supererogation 33 The meaning of this Question Whether all Christian Excellencies are commanded in Scripture and to what purpose it serves in the Church of Rome 34 The meritorious works of the Church of Rome are not commanded by God nor are they any Christian Excellencies Such as the Monkish Vows of Poverty Coelibacy and absolute Obedience to Superiors 36 This showed particularly of the Vow of Poverty ibid. And Coelibacy 37 And Monkish Obedience ibid. 38 X. Whether every Seul as soon as expired is conveyed to Heavâ—n or Hell. 39 Concerning Dives and Lazarus and S. Paul's desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. ibid. The Doctrine of the Council of Trent concerning Purgatory 42 This more particularly explained from Cardinal Bellarmine 43 44 The design of it to acquaint our People what proofs they must demand for Purgatory 45 A middle state between Death and Iudgment which is neither Heaven nor Hell does not prove a Popish Purgatory ibid. The Primitive Fathers did believe a middle state 46 The difference between this and a Popish Purgatory As 1. That this they affirmed of all separate Souls That none were received into Heaven before the Resurrection But Purgatory is not for all Souls but for these only who have not satisfied for their sins 47 2. They affirm this separate state not to be a state of Punishment as the Popish Purgatory is but of Ioy and Felicity 48 3. This is an unalterable state till the Day of Iudgment and therefore no Popish Purgatory out of which Souls may be redeemed with Prayers and Alms. 50 The Purgatory Fire which the Fathers speak of does not prove a Popish Purgatory 51 1. Because that is not till the Day of Iudgment S. Austin's Opinion of Purgatory Fire explained and proved very different from the Popish Purgatory 52 c. 2. All Men excepting Christ himself were to pass through the last Fire but the Popish Purgatory is not for all 56 3. The Popish Purgatory Fire is not for Purgation but the Fire at the Day of Iudgment according to the ancient Fathers is 57 Origen's notion of a Purgatory Fire 58 4. There is no Redemption out of this Fire by the Prayers and Alms of the living Which is upon all accounts the most comfortable thing in a Popish Purgatory 60 The ancient Practice of Praying for Souls departed does not prove a Popish Purgatory 61 The Original of this Practice of Praying for the Dead ibid. and 62 The state of the Controversies between Aërius and Epiphanius 63 c. For what reasons the ancient Christians prayed for the dead 64 c. S. Austin's account of the reasons of praying for the dead different from what the Fathers before him gave 67 The custom of praying to the Saints which was then introduced the occasion of this change ibid. S. Austin first made three distinctions of Souls departed ibid. And yet the Popish Purgatory cannot be proved from S. Austin 68 S. Chrysostom's opinion of this matter different from S. Austin's 71 c. XI Concerning the Intercessions of the Saints in Heaven for us 74 The distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession 75 No sense in that distinction between a Mediator of Redemption and Intercession 77 This distinction contrary to the Analogy both of the Old and New Testament 78 The difference between the vertue of the Sacrifice the Prayers of the People and the Intercession of the Priest. 79 The difference between the prayers of good Men for themselves and one another and the Intercession of a Mediator 81 To flie to the Aid of Saints in Heaven derogates from the Intercession of Christ. 83 Praying to Saints in Heaven more injurious to God than to a Mediator 84 XII Concerning the worship paid to the Cross and Images 86 Whether the worship they pay to the Cross and Images be no
thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Where our Church distinguishes between what is read in the Scripture that is contained in express words there and what may be proved thereby that is by plain and necessary consequence from what is expresly taught in Scripture and yet confines such Proof as this only to Articles of Faith or what is thought requisite or necessary to Salvation And the true reason of this is that the Church of England teaches the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the very Title of this Article and therefore all things necessary to be believed to Salvation must be contained in express words in Scripture or be proved thence by plain and evident consequence which shows that we are not strictly obliged to prove any thing from Scripture but what we teach for an Article of Faith or as necessary to Salvation This is the reason why we demand a Scripture-proof from the Church of Rome for the new Articles of the Trent Faith for if the belief of them be necessary to Salvation as they say they are then either the Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to Salvation or they are bound to show where these Doctrines are contained in Scripture For this reason the Church of England which owns the sufficiency of the Scripture to Salvation rejects all those Doctrines which the Church of Rome without any Proof from Scripture teaches as necessary to Salvation and this we think reason enough to reject them that they are not contained in Scripture which contains all things necessary to Salvation Now our Author and some of his size who don 't see half a Consequence before them think they have a mighty advantage of us in demanding the same Proofs from us to justifie our rejecting their Doctrines which we demand of them to justifie their belief of them that is to say as we demand of them a Scripture-Proof that there is such a place as Purgatory they think they may as reasonably demand of us a Scripture-Proof that there is no such place as Purgatory just with as much reason as if one should tell me that by the Laws of England every Man is bound to Marry at twenty years old and when I desire him to show me the Law which makes this necessary he should answer though he cannot show such a Law yet it may be necessary unless I can show him a Law which expresly declares that it is not necessary whereas nothing is necessary but what the Law makes so and if the Law has not made it necessary there is no need of any Law to declare that it is not necessary Thus the Protestant Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation requires us to produce a plain Scripture-Proof for every thing which we believe necessary to Salvation but it does not require a Scripture-Proof that that is not necessary to Salvation which the Scripture has not revealed nor made necessary to Salvation for if the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation it is a sufficient Proof that such Doctrines are not necessary to Salvation which are not contained in the Scriptures Unless we think that the Scripture must before-hand confute all possible Heresies which might arise in the Church and tell us particularly in all points what we must not believe as well as what we must This I observed was the case as to those Articles of the Church of England which are opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome that they are negative Articles and a negative Article only rejects such Doctrines from being Articles of Faith as are not contained in Scripture and it is ridiculous to demand a plain Scripture-Proof that such a Doctrine is not in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it there and those who pretend it is there cannot show it there which is proof enough and all that the Subject is capable of This is what our Author attempts an Answer to in the preceding Paragraph and first he says that those of the thirty nine Articles which are opposed to Catholick Religion so he calls the Popish Corruptions of Christianity contain Affirmative propositions or may be resolved into equivalent affirmatives What then Is the dispute about the terms wherein the Article is conceived whether they be Negative or Affirmative or about the reason why it is either affirmed or denied viz. that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture for this is all I meant by a negative Article that we deny such a Doctrine to be contained in Scripture Now suppose I should say There is no such place as Purgatory which is a negative Proposition or that Purgatory is a late and fond invention which is affirmative what difference is there between them when they both resolve into this that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture and therefore the question is still the same whether the Article be expressed affirmatively or negatively and no Man can be bound to prove by plain and express Scripture that Purgatory is not taught in Scripture Well! but though for a Negative or every non-assent or suspence of assent a reason may not be given or required yet for belief for a solemn profession subscription and swearing of that belief whether it be of negatives or affirmatives a reason may be assigned and required What glorious and triumphant Nonsence is here How does a negative Article and non-assent come to be the same thing For we Protestants use to give our assent to negative Articles And why are not Men bound to give a reason of their non-assent as well as of their assent And how are they more bound to give a reason of their profession and swearing their non-assent than they are of their bare non-assent And who ever dreamt that Men are not bound to give a reason of their non-assent and of their profession of non-assent and lastly what is all this to the purpose of demanding express Proofs of Scripture that such Doctrines as suppose Purgatory or the Invocation of Saints c. are not taught in Scripture And why is it not a sufficient reason of a non-assent or declared and professed denial of such Doctrines that it does not appear that they are taught in Scripture But the Request he says proposed only affirmatives and they have been considered and answered already and his Defence shall be considered again without any Fencing or Tergiversation But the Thirty nine Articles not only declare that the opposite affirmatives are not in Scripture for they may not be there and yet be true but if they be not there we cannot know they are true much less can they be Articles of Faith and necessary to Salvation but also that they are rather and plainly repugnant to Scripture this I confess does require a Scripture-Proof that a Doctrine is not only not in the Scripture
understand them and this is the use we make of our Guides not to submit our judgments to them without any understanding but to inform our judgments that we may be able to see and understand for our selves Thus our Saviour taught his Disciples he opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures Thus the Apostles and Primitive Doctors instructed the World by expounding the Scriptures to them which does not signifie merely to tell them what the sense of Scripture is and requiring them to believe it but showing them out of the Scriptures that this is and must be the true sense of it and we need not fear that Protestancy should suffer any thing from such Guides as these though the Church of Rome indeed has felt the ill effects of them II. The Secular Prince hath all spiritual jurisdiction and authority immediately from and under God. Here he says I behave my self as if I were under apprehensions and durst neither own nor reject this Tenet and yet in my Answer I expresly show what the Church of England means by the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes which signifies no more than that the King is Supreme in his own Dominions and therefore there is no Power neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him for if there were he were not Supreme And this I said might be proved from Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers to which he answers that this proves more than I grant It proves ministring the Word and Sacraments to belong to the Higher Powers How so Yes this it does unless ministring the Word and Sacraments be not a soul affair be no act of power Learnedly observed because every soul must be subject to the Higher Powers therefore the King has all Power in soul-affairs and therefore of ministring the Word and Sacraments But if every soul only signifie every Man without excepting the Pope himself then I suppose all Ecclesiasticks as well as Secular persons are included in it and if all must be subject to the King then the King is Supreme over all but things are at a low ebb in the Church of Rome when such silly Quibbles must pass for Arguments III. Iustification by Faith alone viz. a persuasion that we are justified is a wholsome Doctrine In answer to this I denied that our Church teaches that justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified He grants that some of the Church of England have condemned it p. 4. but yet he may as justly charge us with it as we charge the Church of Rome with Doctrines contrary to their General Councils and constant Profession and we grant he may for if such things be done they are very unjust both in him and us we deny that we do any such thing and have lately abundantly vindicated our selves from such an imputation let him do as much for himself if he can But Cranmer was of this mind by whom the Articles were devised But how does that appear and if he were what is that to us when there is no such thing in our Articles will he allow the Council of Trent to be expounded according to the Private opinions of every Bishop that was in it The Antinomians plead the Doctrine of the eleventh Article as the Parent of their irreligion and so they do the Scriptures And what then Will he hence infer that the Scriptures countenance Antinomianism because they alledge Scripture for it And why then must this be charged upon our Articles Though what some may have done I cannot tell but Antinomians don 't use to trouble themselves with our Articles But the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine the Puritans assert this Solifidian Parenthesis as the genuine and literal sense of Iustification by Faith alone and of the eleventh Article Why the Puritans the strictest Adherers to the Primitive Reformers in Doctrine but we need not ask a reason of his sayings who understands nothing about what he speaks For the Puritans did not and do not believe That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified but they place justifying Faith in an act of recumbency on Christ for Salvation and dispute vehemently against his Notion of it But he says I might have given them a Text asserting what I confess our Church teaches viz. that justification by Faith only is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort which intimates no necessity of repentance to Iustification none of the Sacraments Yes it does and of good works too as the conditions of our Justification though not as the meritorious causes of it for all this our Church comprehends in the notion of a living Faith which alone justifies and then I suppose as many Texts as there are which attribute our Justification to Faith so many proofs there are that Justification by Faith alone as opposed to all Meritorious Works is a wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort IV. The substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before sacerdotal Consecration Here he takes no notice of any one word which I returned in Answer The sum of which is that the material substance before and after Consecration is the same that is that they are Bread and Wine still but by vertue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not mere Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death and to such as rightly and worthily and by Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ as our Church teaches And this I proved must be the sense of the words of Institution This is my Body and urged such arguments for it in short as he durst not name again much less pretend to Answer but instead of that he endeavours to prove p. 5. that the words of Institution This is my Body literally understood do expresly prove that the substance of Bread does not remain at all after Consecration For the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood which if substantially Bread and Wine it cannot really be A change less than that of the substance of the Elements is insufficient to render them really and truly what the Text says they are after Consecration But did not I give him my reasons why these words could not be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ And is it enough then for him to say that in a literal sense they must signifie a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into Christ's natural Body and Blood without answering what I urged against it and yet in a literal sense it cannot signifie so For if This refers to the Bread which our Saviour took and blessed and brake and it can refer to nothing else then the literal sense of the words is This Bread is my Body and if Bread be the Body of Christ then the substance of the Bread cannot be
should incline Men to expound those words of our Saviour This is my Body of his Natural Body contrary to all the Sacramental forms of speech used in Scripture did they not think it meritorious to believe impossibilities and contradictions To return then a more direct Answer to our Author's question what there is besides Substance and Efficacy belonging to our Saviour's Body I answer by Nature there is nothing else but by Institution there is for there is the Sacrament of the Lord's Body which is neither the natural Substance nor the natural Efficacy of his Body but a Sacramental Communion in the merits and Efficacy of his Death and Passion which is a spiritual eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. And since he wants Scripture for this I will give him a very piain Text 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ. Thus S. Paul explains what our Saviour said This is my Body and This is my Blood by this is the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood That is that those who by Faith partake of the Sacramental Bread and Wine do communicate in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a different thing from the mere influences of his Grace for it is our interest and Communion in his Sacrifice which is the meritorious cause and spring of all Divine Influences and Communications We must be mystically and spiritually united to Christ to have Communion in the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and then we receive the fresh supplies of Grace from him which are the purchase of his Death and the effect of our Union to him and this Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ we receive in the Lord's Supper which is instituted by Christ for that very purpose and therefore it is called the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ because it is the Sacrament of our Union to him whereby we communicate in his Body and Blood and if this be Zuinglianism I see no help for it but we must be contented to be Zuinglians VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry I answered There was no such proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry To adore our Saviour is no Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. Instead of answering this he tells us This blasphemous Tenet is taught by our Church and which is a little worse is practised by theirs For the majority of our pretended Bishops did Vote for the Test and do all of them take it and I hope will keep it too That it is a Canon of our General Council the Parliament and therefore it is very good Law and that is all we desire for our Religion from Parliaments and thank God that we have it and since they are a General Council may they insist upon their Infallibility But what is the matter with the Test Why it declares our Adoration of the Eucharist which is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ to be Idolatry Is the Eucharist then nothing but Jesus Christ does the Council of Trent say so Is this the Doctrine of any of their Schoolmen Canonists or Divines Nay will this Author venture to say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ himself Which is speck and span New Popery if this be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome No! he does not dares not say that the Eucharist is nothing but Jesus Christ but he says that the Adoration of the Eucharist is the Adoration of nothing but Iesus Christ. But what palpable nonsence is this For if the Eucharist be something which is not Jesus Christ then the Adoration of the Eucharist must be the Adoration of something which is not Jesus Christ. And yet though we should suppose the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true yet the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent though it be present in the Sacrament is not the Sacrament For there can be no Sacrament of the Eucharist without the species of Bread and Wine and yet the Council of Trent decrees that the worship of Latria which is due to the true God be given to this most Holy Sacrament And that we might know what they meant by the Sacrament they tell us it is that which is instituted by Christ to be received or eaten which certainly is the species of Bread and Wine For they being sensible how absurd it is to worship what we eat to prevent this they tell us that it is nevertheless to be adored because it is instituted to be received or eaten The reason indeed they give for it is because Christ is present in this Sacrament but though the presence of Christ be the reason of this Adoration yet the whole Sacrament is the object which is not merely the natural Body and Blood of Christ but the species of Bread and Wine under which is contained the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore to adore the Sacrament is not to adore nothing but Iesus Christ for the Sacrament is somewhat more But then if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false they have no other object of their worship but Bread and Wine and thus the Church of England believes and thus our General Council the Parliament which made the Test believed and thus all Men who dare trust their own Senses and Reason believe and if it be blasphemy to teach that the worship of Bread and Wine is Idolatry some of the mâ—st Learned Divines of the Church of Rome have been guilty of this Blasphemy and I should be glad to hear what our Authors opinion is of it VII All Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive in both kinds For this I urged the express words of institution which do as expresly command us to drink of the Cup as to eat of the Bread so that if there be any command in Scripture to receive the Bread there is the same command to receive the Cup nay indeed as if our Saviour had purposely intended to prevent this Sacrilegious taking away of the Cup from the People whereas in delivering the Bread he only says Take Eat when he blessed and delivered the Cup he expresly commanded Drink ye all of it And I further argued from the nature of the Eucharist which as it was instituted in both kinds so it is not a compleat Sacrament without it and yet our Author rubs his forehead and confidently tells his Readers Nor for this point can a Scripture command be discovered in the Answer Though the thirtieth Article affirms that
Temple at Ierusalem but though he had his Temple yet he had no Image which the Heathen World thought essential to a Temple For though a symbolical Presence was no confinement of God nor injurious to his Majesty yet a material Image was And yet Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication took care to prevent the Heathen notion of a Temple as if Cod were confined to it for he owns his Omnipresence that he fills both Heaven and Earth only he prays that he would have a more particular regard to that place and to those Prayers which should be offered up there 1 Kings 8. 27 28 c. But will God indeed dwell on the earth Behold the Heaven and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee how much less this house that I have builded Yet have thou respect unto the Prayer of thy Servant and to his Supplication O Lord my God to hearken unto the cry and to the Prayer which thy Servant prayeth before thee this day That thine eyes may be open to this House night and day c. And therefore we may observe that the Temple was so contrived as to be a figure of the whole world For the Holy of Holies was a figure of Heaven into which the High Priest entered once a year Heb. 9. 24. and therefore the rest of the Temple signified this earth and the daily worship and Service of it which plainly signified to them that that God who dwelt in the Temple was not confined to that material Building but filled Heaven and Earth with his Presence though he was pleased to have a more peculiar regard to that place and to the Prayers and Sacrifices which were offered there And yet it seems that God would not so far have indulged them at that time as to confine his Worship and peculiar Presence to a certain place had it not been for the sake of some more Divine Mystery For Gods Symbolical and Figurative Presence in the Tabernacle and Temple was only a Type of the Incarnation of the Son of God of his dwelling among us in a humane Body or material Temple as St. Iohn plainly intimates 1 Iohn 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Tabernacled among us dwelt among us as God under the Law did in the Tabernacle or Temple and Christ expresly calls his Body the Temple 2. Iohn 19. Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which the Evangelist tells us he spake of the Temple of his Body 21. v. and he affirms himself to be greater than the Temple 12. Matth. 6. he being that in Truth of which the Temple was a Figure God dwelling among us God dwelling in human Nature For this Reason the Worship of God was confined to the Temple at Ierusalem to signifie to us that we can offer up no acceptable Worship to God but in the Name and Mediation of Christ. But now under the Gospel all these Types and Figures being accomplished in the Person of our Saviour as their Priesthood and Sacrifices so their Temple also had an end as Christ expresly tells the Woman of Samaria who disputed with him about the place of Worship whether it were the Temple at Ierusalem or Samaria Woman believe me the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father John 4. 21. which cannot signifie that they should Worship God neither at Ierusalem nor Samaria for there were famous Churches planted by the Apostles at both these places where they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth but it signifies that there should be no material Temple that the Presence of God should not be confined to a certain place as then it was to the Temple which occasioned that Dispute between the Iews and Samaritanes in which Temple God was perculiarly present but wheresoever they Worshipped God in Spirit and in Truth the place should make no difference in their Acceptation as it did under the Law which is not opposed to the erecting of decent and separate places of Worship under the Gospel but only to the Notion of a Temple That this was the sense of the Primitive Christians that they had no material Temples as the Heathens had is evident from their Writings for the Heathens made this objection against them that they had no Temples nor Images which is owned and answered by Origen against Celsus lib. 8. Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius The force then of the Argument is this If under the Gospel God does not allow of so much as a Temple or Symbolical Presence which he did allow of under the Law when he forbad Images much less certainly does he allow Images now which he forbad under the Law. But Protestants have another Argument to prove that the Worship of Images is forbid by the Gospel as well as by the Law and that is that the Primitive Church always understood it so as is evident from the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who condemned the Worship of Images and urged such Arguments against it in their Disputes with the Heathens as had easily been retorted upon themselves had they practised the same thing and yet this was never objected against them by their wittiest Adversaries in that Age though when Image Worship began to be introduced into the Church it was presently objected against the Christians both by Jews and Heathens and which is more than this besides all the other Arguments which they used they alleadged the Second Commandment as the Reason why they could not Worship Images which is a certain Proof that they then thought the Second Commandment was still in force But I shall not enlarge upon this because it is so well done in a late Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion Part 2. concerning Images to which I refer my Reader 13. The Pope is Antichrist I answered This has been affirmed by some Protestants but is no Article of our Church and therefore we are not bound to prove it but when we have a mind to it No Man ever pretended that there is any such Proposition in Scripture as that the Pope is Antichrist but some think that the Characters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin are much more applicable to him than the Universal Headship and Infalibility To this our Author answers p. 8. Do only some Protestants and no Homily subscribed as containing a Godly and wholsom Doctrine necessary for these times Article the Fifty fifth though the Church of England owns but Thirty nine Articles affirm the Pope to be Antichrist Yet we meet with no Scripture brought to prove this Godly necessary Doctrine Now though I could tell him that every saying in an Homily has not the Authority of an Article yet I need not enter into that Dispute for I am pretty confident it is no where expresly asserted in any of
to mend Christian Religion but to return to Primitive Christianity To cast such Doctrines out of our Creed as Christ never taught and to reject all new and suspected Worships And if it be always a Duty to profess what Christ and his Apostles have taught and to practise as they have commanded then if ever we believed or practised otherwise it is necessary to reform which is not in a proper sense to reform the Church or the Christian Faith and Worship but to reform our selves For the Christian Faith and Worship is always the same and if there be any thing to be reformed it must be our own Errors and Mistakes What then is the Fault of the Church of England Why cannot she be a mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity or a charitable part of the Catholick Church The Charge is drawn up against her under three Heads 1. That she voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies 2. Condemns their Doctrines and Rights 3. Has no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any religious Assemblies nor solemn Devotions Let us consider these distinctly 1. The Church of England voluntarily separates from all other Christian Societies This I told him was false as to matter of Fact for there are a great many Christian Societies which we can and do hold Communion with as opportunity serves and he can never make good this Charge but by denying that there are any other Christian Societies besides the Church of Rome which I suppose is what he intends Well! we do separate he says and that voluntarily from the Church of Rome that is from all Christian Societies Now I grant we do separate from the Bishop and the Church of Rome considered as the Principle and Center of Catholick Unity as I observed before but considered as a Christian Church so I deny that we separate from the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church as far as they are Christian and we are bound to communicate with them no farther For I pray consider what Christian Communion is which certainly is nothing else but to communicate in the true Christian Faith and Worship for to communicate in Judaism Paganism Mahumatism or any unchristian Doctrines or Practices certainly is not Christian Communion And therefore every Church is more or less perfect in Christian Communion according to the Purity and Perfection of her Faith and Worship If then the Church of England professes the true Christian Faith and worships God according to the Gospel of his Son without any corrupt Mixtures and Innovations as far as true Faith and Worship reaches she is in Communion with all the Christian Churches in the World for she agrees with them in all that they believe or practise which is truly Christian and Christian Communion extends no farther Well but when the whole Church was agreed in Faith and Worship we broke this Bond of Unity by a pretended Reformation Suppose this the Question still is Whether this Unity of the Church was a Christian Communion for if it were not it is no Separation from the Christian Church to leave its Communion in those things which are not Christian And therefore the whole Controversie will still turn upon this Point whether the Reformation of the Church of England be a true Gospel Reformation for if we reformed nothing but what ought to be reformed then we separated no farther than we ought to separate and such a Separation if you will call it a Separation I hope is no Crime Did Elias separate from the Jewish Church because he broke their Unity in the Worship of Baal and reduced them to the Institutions of the Moisaick Law which was the Standard of their Religion and Communion Just so the Church of England separated from the Church of Rome by rejecting those Articles of Faith and Forms of Worship which are not Christian. Some kind of Separation indeed there must be between a pure and a corrupt Church but if you would know on which side the Separation is criminal you must consider on which side the corruption is for necessary Truths can never make a criminal Separation The Church which forsakes the Truth is always guilty of the Separation not the Church which forsakes Errors and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to charge those with the Schism who only forsake the Company when those are the Schismaticks who forsake the Truth And yet this is the only pretence for the Church of Rome to charge us with Schism That they did not leave us but we left them they kept where they were and we went out from among them and forsook their Communion but it was because they had first forsaken the Apostolick Communion by corrupting the Apostolick Faith and Worship They were the Deserters and Separatists we only returned to the true Christian Communion and were very sorry to leave them behind us The short of it is this if we cannot justifie our Reformation we are Schismaticks if we can we are none And I would desire all Protestants to take notice of this short Answer and stick to it for it is as certain as any Demonstration in Euolid that no man can be a Schismatick who forsakes no Society of Christians any farther than they forsake the Truth 2. The next charge is that we condemn their Doctrines and their Rights but do we condemn any thing which ought not to be condemned if we do it is indeed a fault but if we don't why are we blamed for it 3. We have no visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist nor in any Religious Assemblies nor Solemn Devotions How so we visibly receive the Eucharist our selves and perform our Solemn Devotions in Publick Assemblies and this is to Communicate with the whole Christian Church in the same Sacraments and Worship and the only way that distant Churches have to Communicate with each other in Sacraments and Worship unless he thinks the Church of England must travel into France and Spain and Italy into Greece and AEgypt and all other remote Churches to Communicate with them No but when their Worship is brought home to us we refuse to joyn with them right for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion when they are in England they ought to Communicate with us not we with them according to St. Austins Rule to observe the Rights and Usages of the Church whither soever we come as far as they are Innocent if we denied to receive them to our Communion they might with better reason charge us with Schism but we are not bound to forsake the Communion of our own Church to follow Foreign Customs at home But when we do come where their Worship is the Established Religion we still refuse to Communicate with them we do so indeed with the Roman Church but not with all other Christian Societies and the Reason is because we believe their Worship is sinful and no Christian is bound to Communicate in a sinful Worship as they themselves
of their own sending and instruction In Answer to this I told him that if by this he meant that the whole Clergy of the Christian World did at the time of the Reformation maintain the Doctrines of the Church of Rome which were rejected and condemned only by a Major Vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England all the World knew how false it is For 1. There were many other Churches and better parts of the Catholick Church than the Church of Rome which did not own those Doctrines and Corruptions which we reject 2. Nay the whole Clergy of the Roman Church did not for many of our English Bishops and Clergy were as Zealous for the Reformation as any Lay-men so were the German Reformers who were Originally Popish Monks and Priests and yet did not follow the Laity but lead them way to the Reformation In reply to this he says I manifest my self meanly versed in the Story of my own Party or no friend to Ingenuity and Truth For it is certainly true and attested by Protestant Historians and Records that all the Bishops and the whole Convocation declared against Lay-supremacy and other Protestant Points and for Non-compliance therewith were almost all deprived the Queen and her Lay-Parliament enacting Supremacy whereby she imposed new Doctrines displaced the Catholick Clergy and created Prelatick Ministers And whether he or I be most in the right let the Reader Judg. For 1. It is plain I did not speak only of the Clergy of England but of the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church as he himself stated the Question and he answers only to the Clergy of England and with what Truth shall be examined presently For if the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have not Apostatized whatever the Clergy of the Church of Rome has done he loses the very Foundation of his Request to us to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church have Apostatized from Fundamental Truth and Holiness for we are not bound to prove that which is false but he who allows no Catholick Church but the Church of Rome must consequently allow no Clergy of the Catholick Church but the Roman Clergy but we grant neither one nor t'other and yet as I showed the Roman Clergy themselves were the first Reformers and therefore what he insinuates cannot be true that the whole Roman Clergy opposed the Roman Laity in the Reformation 2. As for the English Reformation he confines it in his Answer only to the Story of Queen Elizabeth and what was done in her Reign but the Article he would have proved and the Answer I gave to it has no such limitation and I must still repeat that all the World knows and the Histories and Records of our Church assure us that the Popish Bishops and Convocation in Henry the Eight's days did acknowledg the Kings Supremacy and in higher Terms than Queen Elizabeth would challenge it Indeed the late Oxford Writer or rather Publisher of Books charges this upon that force they were under that is that the Clergy was taken in a Praemunire and the King would not compound the Business with them unless they acknowledged him to be the Head of the Church But does this prove that they did not make this Recognition if force or flattery can corrupt the whole Clergy then it seems the whole Clergy of the Roman Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness if they fall first into a Praemunire and meet with a King who will take the Advantage of it and are not the Clergy then admirable Guides to follow especially if they can be so over-awed as not only to make such a Profession but to Write and Dispute for it and use all variety of Arguments to perswade People to believe it The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian man was agreed on in Convocation and published by Authority Bishop Gardiner wrote a Book de vera Obedientia to which Bonner prefixed a Preface upon the same Argument Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstal Bishop of Duresm wrote in defence of the Kings Proceedings to Cardinal Pool and many Sermons were preached by several Bishops to the same purpose out of which Dr. Burnet has collected the Arguments used by them both against the Power of the Pope and for the Supremacy of the King And during that Session of Parliament which took away the Power of the Pope in the year 1534. A Bishop preached every Sunday at St. Paul's Cross and taught the People that the Pope had no Authority in England Was all this matter of force too and fear of the Praemunire which was pardoned in Parliament Anno 1531. three years before Let us now consider what passed under Queen Elizabeth And methinks what was good Doctrine in King Henry's time should be good Doctrine still and yet it is true that many Bishops then did protest against the Act for Supremacy and refused the Oath when it was offered them and that many of those Bishops who had wrote or preached for it before such as Bonner Bishop of London and Tonstal of Duresm which seems to lessen their Authority in this matter and when the Nation had so lately had the sense of the whole English Roman Clergy in this Point their present obstinacy to confirm their former Opinions without answering their former Reasons was no sufficient cause why a Lay-Parliament should not renew such Laws without the consent of the Clergy which were at first made with it not a Bishop dissenting excepting Fisher Bishop of Rochester And whereas he talks in such a strain as if this were opposed by the whole Clergy and that they were almost all deprived for it the account which the Visiters gave the Queen is very different that of 9400 beneficed Men in England there were no more but fourteen Bishops six Abbots twelve Deans twelve Archdeacons fifteen Heads of Colledges fifty Prebendaries and eighty Rectors of Parishes that had left their Benefices upon account of Religion which is a very inconsiderable number to the whole 3. I answered farther That we do not say that the Roman Church her self has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness We do grant that they have retained the true Faith and Worship of Christ though they have fatally corrupted both by Additions of their own And therefore we are not bound to prove that the whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness for we do not say they did All that he replies to this is That this Apostacy at the least is taught in the 19 and 21 Articles and Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry That is to say for I suppose that is his meaning that the Church of England charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry and Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness But if men may be guilty of some kinds of Idolatry and of very great corruptions in Faith and Worship without denying any
PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and Reformation of the Church of England Quarto An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome with an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England Octavo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Popish Representer and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto In 3. Discourses The Lay-Christian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24 o. The Protestant's Companion Or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves Quarto Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contest but inserting whatsoever concerns the Common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England With an Addition of an Useful Table and also of some genuine Pieces of the same Author never before Printed viz. about Traditions against the Catholicism and Infallibility of the Roman Church And an Account of the Arguments which moved him to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Arguments Quarto A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host. In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Quarto The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. III. Vers. 15. Quarto A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church with some reflections on Cardinal Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes Quarto An Examination of the Cardinal's First Note concerning The Name of Catholick His Second Note Antiquity His Third Note Duration His Fourth Note Amplitude or Multitude and variety of Believers His Fifth Note The Succession of Bishops His Sixth Note Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church His Seventh Note Union of the Members among themselves and with the Head His Eighth Note Sanctity of Doctrine The rest will be published Weekly in their Order A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church Antiquitr against the Cavills of the Adviser Quarto The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted In Answer to the 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th Chapters of the Popish Representer Second Part Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead Quarte A Short Summary of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs FINIS Ans. to request p. 1. Answer to Request p. 2. F Prot. Answer to Request p. 3. Answer to Request p. 5. Council Trid. Sess. 7. de Eucharistia cap. 5. Answer to Request p. 7. Concil Corstant Sess. 13. Purgatorium esse animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis potissimum vero acceptabili altataris sacrificio juvari praecipit Sancta Synodus Episcopis ut sanam de purgatorio Doctrinam à sanctis patribâ—s sacris conciliis traditam Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri ubique predicari diligenter studeant Concil Trid. Sess. 25. decret de purgat De purgat l. 1. cap. 5. cap. 10. l. 2. cap. 10 11 12. Cap. 11. Idem l. 2. cap. 3 4. Ibid. c. 14. Cap. 16. Irenaeus l. 5. contr haeres c. 31. Tert. de anima cap. 55. * Supergrediuntur ordinem promotionis justorum modos al. motus meditationis ad incorruptelam ignorant Ir. ibid. Qui ergo universam reprobant resurrectionem quantum in ipsis est auferunt eam de medio quid mirum est si nec ordinem resurrectionis sciunt Ibid. Quidam ex his qui putantur recâ—e credidisse baereticos sensus in se habentes Ibid. Dall de poenis satisf l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locum divinae amoenitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatâ—m Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Iustin Martyr l. resp ad Orth. quaest 75. Hilar. in Psal. 2. in Psal. 120. Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis expectant animae Resurrectionem debitam Alias manet poena alias gloria Et tamen nec illae interim sine inâ—â—iâ nec istae sine fructu Ambr. de bono mortis cap. 10. Nulli patet coelum terra adhuc salva ne dixerim clausa cum transactione enim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum Tert. Apol. cap. 47. Chrys. Hom. 29. in Matth. Aug. l. 16. de C. D. c. 24. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam Purgatorium quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardius eitiusve salvari Aug. Enchirid. c. 69. Cum iis quae descripsimus ita nostra vel aliorum exerceatur vel erudiatur infirmitas ut tamen in eis nulla velut canonica constituatur authoritas Aug. de octo Quaest. Dulcilii Quaest. 3. Aug. Enchiridion ad Laurent cap. 67 68 69. Ambros. Serm 20. in Psal. 118. Cyrilli Hierosol liturgia Syr. orationes Bibl. patrum T. 6. Tertull. contra Marcion c. 24. Dall de poenis satisf l. 5. c. 9. Tert. de monog c. 10. Ambr. de obitu Val. Bibl. Patr. T. 6. Enchirid. ad Laurent De civit Dei l. 12. c. 9. Idem Tract 10. in Ep. Ioan. Chrys. Serm. 3. in Philip. ed. Savil. Tom 4. p. 20. in Hebr. Ser. 4. p. 453. Chrys. Homil. 21 in Act. T. 4. p. 734. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent Answer to Request p. 10 11. Genes 8. 20. Genes 12 7 8. Ch. 26. 25. 35. Act. 3. 1. Psal. 141. 1. Luke 1. 10. Revel 8. 3 4. Hebr. 7. 25. See Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery See the Object of Religious worship Part 1. and the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery Sect. 4. Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs p. 8. 1 Kings 12. 28. 1 Kings 16 31. 32. 2 Kings 10. 16. Maximus Tyrius Dissert 38. Answer to Request p. 12. Prot. dest p. 9. 1 Cor. 14. 6. 19. Vers. 7 8 9 10 11. Vers. 14 15 16. Answer to Request p. 13. Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs p. 10. See Dr. Barrows Treatise of SuPremacy See Dr. Stilling fl Origines Britan. p. 106. c. Answer to Request Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs Church Government Part. 5. English Reformation ch 2. p. 21. Burnets History of the Reformation part 1. book 2. p. 137. Burnets Histo ry of the Reform part 2. l. 3. p. 401. Church Government Part. 5. concerning the English Reformation See the Authority of Councils with the Appendix in Answer to the eight Theses of the Oxford Writer And the Judge of Controversies
more than what we give to the Bible ibid. The reasons why some Protestants have charged the worship of Images with Idolatry 88 No alterations made in the Law against worshipping Images in the New Testament 92 The reasons of the Second Commandment Moral and Eternal 93 No material Temple much less an Image allowed under the Gospel 95 The Primitive Church always understood the Worship of Images to be forbid under the Gospel 99 XIII Whether the Pope be Antichrist and whether this be taught in the Homilies of the Church of England ibid. XIV Concerning Prayers and Divine Offices in the Vulgar tongue 101 The self-contradictions of this Author 102 Whether S. Paul in 1 Cor. 14. only forbid inspired and extempore prayers in an unknown tongue not the setled forms of Divine Offices 104 All the Apostles arguments in that place against speaking in an unknown tongue concern our ordinary devotions 105 As 1. That it is contrary to the edification of the Church ib. 2. That it contradicts the natural end and use of speech 106 3. That it is contrary to the nature of Prayer and religious worship which must be a reasonable Service 107 Whether the people are bound to joyn in all the offices of publick worship 108 Whether the people understand their prayers though they are in Latin which they do not understand 112 XV. Concerning Schism and Separation 114 Separation from the Errors of the Church of Rome is not a Separation from the Catholick Church 116 Renouncing the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome no Schism ibid. Such a supremacy not essential to Catholick Unity 117 Concerning the Ecclesiastical combinations of neighbour Churches and Bishops into one body ibid. In what cases a particular Church may break off from such a body 118 The Popes Supremacy such an usurpation as may be renounced without the authority of a general Council ibid. The Church of England not originally subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch 121 The difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the breach of Ecclesiastical Communion 122 To reform errors and corruptions in Faith and Worship can never be a fault 125 That the Church of England does not separate from all other Christian Societies 126 Concerning Communion in the Eucharist and other religious Assemblies 129 What Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome 130 What Church we made the pattern of our Reformation 131 In what sense the Church of Rome her self was the pattern of our Reformation 132 XVI Concerning the defection and apostasie of the Clergy of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Laity 134 Whether the whole Clergy were against the Reformation 135 The Popish Clergy in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth did own the King's Supremacy and wrote for it 136 c. We do not assert That the Church of Rome has apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness 138 Whether all kind of Idolatry be an Apostasie from fundamental Truth and Holiness 139 The nature of that argument to prove That a thing is not because it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove That it is 140 As that the Church of Rome has not erred because she cannot err 141 c. If the Reformation be good there can want no authority to reform 147 The Supreme Authority of any Nation has a regular Authority to declare what shall be the established Religion of that Nation which is all that we attribute to Kings and Parliaments in such matters 250 ERRATA PAG. 53. l. 4. for now r. non p. 123. l. 33. r. as shows p. 14â— l. 14. dele upon Some faults there are in Pointing which I must leave to the Reader to correct A VINDICATION OF SEVERAL Protestant Doctrines BEING AN ANSWER TO A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs THAT I have taken so little an occasion to write so big a Book I hope the Reader upon his perusal will pardon There is indeed a remarkable difference between us and our Roman Adversaries in this matter they can answer great Books in two or three Sheets if they vouchsafe to give any answer at all which they begin to be weary of we answer two or three Sheets in large Books but then we have very different ends in writing too they to make a show of saying somewhat to put by the blow by some few insignificant cavils we not only to answer our Adversaries which might be done in very few words but to instruct our people which requires a more particular Explication of the reasons of things But I shall make no Apology for my Book till I hear that it wants it for it may be some may think it as much too little as others too big He begins very regularly with the state of the Controversie between us to prove sixteen Protestant Tenets as he calls them by plain Scripture Scriptures but so plain to us for their Doctrines as they require to be yielded them by the Catholique Church for hers What will be thought plain by them is a very hard matter to guess when it seems the second Commandment it self is not thought by them a plain Scripture-proof against Image-worship and I despair of ever finding a plainer proof in Scripture for or against any thing But I told him in Answer to his request p. 17. that we desire no other proofs from them but what we are ready to give either the express words of Scripture or plain and evident consequence or the silence of Scripture to prove that any Doctrine is not in it And though they may reasonably demand of us what we demand of them yet they cannot reasonably demand more and whether I have not done him justice in this way shall be examined again under the several Articles of his request In the next Paragraph he mightily despises the Answer and concluded the pamphlet unworthy a publick or special notice and expected if not more pertinent yet at least more plausible replies to follow and I can assure him that he was very ill advised that he did not despise and expect on for his reply has given some credit and authority to that Answer and has now produced a Book which if he be wise he will despise too though I hope it will convince him that Protestants do not mean to expose their profession by silence which I do not find them much inclined to at present But let us consider the state of the question In answer to the Request to prove some Protestant Tenets by plain Scripture I told him this was a false representation of our Doctrine for though we do make the Scripture the rule of our Faith yet we do not pretend to own no Doctrine but what is contained in the express words of Scripture Our Church teaches us Art. 6. that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved
But this is only to understand the Actions and Ceremonies not the words and cannot answer the end of publick Prayer which is to offer up our common Petitions to God with one Heart and Mind The use of words in publick Prayer is to direct and determine our Thoughts and to excite our Affections for this Reason the Priest reads the Prayers with an audible Voice that all the People may joyn with him and these indeed are Publick and Common Prayers but now in the Church of Rome the Priest reads the Prayers but the People do not joyn with him because they do not understand him but the most they can do is by Actions and Ceremonies to guess at what part of the Service he is and either only look on or if they be very Devout entertain themselves with some good Pious Thoughts or put up some private Prayers to God or it may be to the Virgin Mary or some Saint while the Priest is saying Mass and thus the Priest prays by himself and the People if they do pray pray by themselves and have no other Benefit of the Publick Offices of the Church but only to see what the Priest does which at best can only fill them with some Religious Amusements or with confused and indistinct and Enthusiastick Devotions It is plain that in the Church of Rome the Devotions of the People are left to their own Extempore Conceits which is a thousand times worse than the Extempore Prayers of the Preachers who may be Men of Parts and Learning and able to suggest very Proper Petitions and very Pious Thoughts and to excite very Devout Passions in their Hearers and is it not very odd that the Church should have settled Forms of Divine Offices Composed Forms of Prayer and Praise and yet the People who will pray must be left to their Extempore Devotions is this also for the Edification of the Church Is not this Fanaticism with a Witness To conclude this Argument I know no practise in the World more directly contrary to the sense of all Mankind than Prayers in an unknown Tongue There was no Nation nor no Religion in the World ever professedly guilty of it but the Church of Rome and there can be no Reason imaginable why they should conceal their Worship unless they are ashamed of it or suspect that no disinterested Man can like it when he knows it and it is as odd a Task to prove that Men must understand their Prayers as it would be to prove that the use of Speech is to be understood 15. A Company of Christians voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions can notwithstanding this perverse intire and manifest Separation be a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church In answer to this I told him that if he applies this to us it is manifestly false for though we do not Communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship yet there are many Christian Churches with which we can and do Communicate and separate our selves no farther from any Society of Christians than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Church that if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith and Worship and Government and separates from other Churches only upon account of such Corruptions as will justifie a separation what should hinder her from being a Mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable part of the Catholick Church for a true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the Mystical Members of Christs Body or else I desire to know what does That Catholick Unity is not violated by a just separation and dangerous Corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor 6. 17. All that our Author replies to this is that This Proposition relates to matter of Fact which we affirm Protestants to have done and desire them to make out by Scripture the Lawfulness of it and its consistency with Catholick Unity and Charity But I denied that we had done this and gave him in short my Reasons why I denied it which methinks might have deserved some notice and as for our separation from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome that I gave him my Reasons for and such as it seems he had no mind to answer that separation might sometimes be lawful and necessary and therefore not chargeable with Schism nor a breach of Catholick Unity I proved from the Text now quoted Come out from among them c. to which he says If I intend this for a Proof then it must import that it is the Duty of one Christian or a Party pretending to be a National Church to come out of the Catholick Church and be separate from her less than this will not reach the Protestant Case and so much as this will by no means agree with one Holy Church wherein alone the Communion of Saints Remission of Sins and Life Everlasting are to be found But how is this the Protestant Case How does separation from the Church of Rome and that no farther neither than she is Corrupt come to be a separation from the Catholick Church He knows that we deny the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church and we know that he can never prove it to be so and whatever Church or Churches have corrupted the Faith and Worship of Christ we shall make no scruple at all to separate from them in such Corruptions and have the whole Gospel to justifie us in it for in such Cases we are under the same obligation to separate that we are to profess the true Faith and practise the true Worship of Christ. All that can be charged upon the Church of England is that she renounced the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and denied Obedience and Subjection to that See which never had any Divine Right to claim it and that she reformed those Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in Worship which she formerly was guilty of This charge we readily own but deny that this is Schism of Separation from the Catholick Church For till our Author can prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in subjection to the Bishop of Rome it is ridiculous to charge us with breaking Catholick Unity by denying that Obedience which we do not owe and when he can prove this essential to Catholick Unity to submit to the Bishop of Rome as the visible Head of the Church we will own our selves to be Schismaticks But then I must mind him what he is to prove viz. that by a Divine Institution the Bishop of Rome is the visible Head of Unity to whom all Churches must
submit for nothing can be essential to the Unity of the Church but what Christ himself has made so and what is not absolutely essential may be changed and altered when there is absolute necessity for it without a sinful breach of Unity and therefore though they cannot make good their claim to this Universal Supremacy not so much as by Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and ancient Customs as has been often proved by Learned Protestants yet to shorten that Dispute which to be sure none but Learned Men can be judges of whatever Jurisdiction or Primacy they pretend to have been formerly granted by Ancient Councils to the Bishop of Rome may be retrenched or denied without the Guilt of Schism when it proves a manifest Oppression of the Christian Church and serves only to justifie and perpetuate the most Notorious and Intolerable Corruptions of the Christian Religion And the Reason is very plain because all human Constitutions are alterable and what is alterable ought to be altered when the indispensable Necessities of the Church and of Religion require it Catholick Unity requires no Superiority or Jurisdiction of one Bishop or one Church over another but only Mutual Concord and Brotherly Correspondence and therefore a Church which rejects any Foreign Jurisdiction may yet maintain Catholick Unity as the African Churches did in St. Cyprians days The Combination indeed of Neighbour Churches and Bishops for the more convenient Exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Government we grant was very Ancient and is of great use to this day but if such Combinations as these degenerate from their first Institution and by the Tyranny and Encroachments of some usurping Bishops is improved into a Temporal Monarchy and invasion upon the inherent Rights and Liberties of all other Bishops and Churches I would desire to know why these Oppressed Bishops and Churches may not vindicate their own Rights and Liberties and cast off such an intolerable Yoak No you 'l say when such a Superiority and Subordination of Churches is Ordered and Decreed by general Councils which is the Supream Authority in the Church no change nor alteration can be made but by an equal Authority and therefore no particular Bishops or Churches can reject any such Jurisdiction unless it be revoked by a general Council without the guilt of Schism Now in Answer to this Let us consider 1. Suppose such an aspiring Bishop has usurped such an Authority as was never Orginally granted him by any Council that he has improved a Primacy of order which yet is more than the Nicene Canons granted to the Bishop of Rome into a Supremacy of Jurisdiction and has enlarged his Patriarchate beyond its original Bounds may not that be taken away without a general Council which was usurped indeed but never given 2ly Suppose a general Council had granted what it had no right to give as it must have done if ever any general Council had granted or confirmed the Popes Pretensions of being the Universal Bishop and visible Head of the Church and the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Authority and granted away these Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Episcopal Office. For it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole intire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops will not exercise that Power which Christ has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop may reassume such Rights though a general Council should give them away because the grant is void in it self 3ly Especially when the Regular means of Redress is made impossible by such Usurpations when the Christian Church is so inslaved to the Will and Pleasure of one Domineering Bishop that there can be no general Council unless he call it and preside in it and confirm it by his own Authority and how impossible it is this way to cast off such an usurping Power when the Usurper must be the Judg in his own Cause I need not prove especially when Christian Princes and Bishops are so devoted to the See of Rome either linked to it by secular Interests or over-awed by Superstition that it is in vain to expect that such a Council should Redress such Abuses as they themselves are fond of or if they would have them Redressed if they could yet dare not venture to attempt it must all Bishops now and Churches quietly submit to such Usurpations because the greatest number of them will not or dare not vindicate their own Rights Is it then unlawful for Christian Bishops to Exercise that Authority which Christ has given them and of which they must give an Account if they happen to be out-voted by other Bishops I grant the less number of Bishops cannot make Laws for the Universal Church in opposition to the greater numbers whatever Constitutions owe their Authority to mutual Consent must in all reason be confirmed and over-ruled by the greater numbers but the less number nay any single Bishop may observe the Institutions of our Saviour and exercise that Authority which he has given him without asking leave of general Councils nay in opposition to them for the Authority and Institution of our Saviour is beyond all the general Councils in the World. 4. Especially when we have the consent of much the greater number of Bishops without their meeting in a general Council All the Eastern Bishops which are much more numerous than the Western I cannot say have cast off the Authority of the Bishop of Rome because they never owned it but yet they oppose and reject his Authority as much as the Bishops of England do and therefore our Reformers in casting off the Pope did nothing but what they had the Authority of the whole Eastern Church to justifie which I take to be as good as a Council of Western Bishops though they may call it General For the Business of a Council in such cases is not to consent to some new Laws but to declare ancient and original Rights and if we have their authentick Declarations in this matter we need no more For we do not so much want their Authority as their Judgment in this Point It is a very daring thing to oppose the universal Consent of the whole Christian Church and no private Bishops nor National Combination of Bishops would be able to bear up against such a Prejudice but when we have the concurrent Opinions of the greatest number of Christian Bishops we need not much concern our selves for want of the Formality of a Western Council who are interested Parties yes you 'l say at least the Church of England was subject to the Jurisdiction of the
Western Patriarch and therefore ought not to have innovated without the Patriarchal Authority and a Patriarchal Council nor to have rejected the Patriarchal Authority which was confirmed by ancient Councils Now not to dispute this at present Whether England were subject to the Bishop of Rome as the Western Patriarch which it is certain our Brittish Bishops when Austin the Monk came into England would not own and which was never granted by any ancient General Council and the Submission of the English Bishops afterwards by Fear or Flattery could never give such a Right as should oblige all their Successours for future Ages yet I say this Patriarchal Authority is not the Dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Our Reformers took no notice of the Patriarchal Authority but the Universal Headship and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as is evident from the Articles of our Church in which there is no mention of it And this was such an Usurpation as might be renounced without the Authority of any Council as I have already shown Indeed his Patriarchal Authority if he had any necessarily fell with it For when he challenges such an exorbitant Power so far exceeding the Bounds and Limits of a Patriarchal Authority and will exercise all if he exercise any and will hold Communion with none upon any other terms and will not be confined to a meer Patriarchal Jurisdiction we must necessarily renounce all Subjection to him to deliver our selves from his Usurpations when his pretended Patriarchate is swallowed up in his Universal Headship he may thank himself if he forfeits what he might with a better Appearance make some Pretence to by challenging so much more than ever was his right And the Patriarchal Authority it self could he have made any pretences to it which he never could over the Church of England which was originally a free and independent Church being but a human Constitution may be renounced without Schism when necessity requires it and certainly if ever there can be any necessity for such a Rupture it becomes necessary then when it swells into a boundless and unlimited Authority to the Oppression of the whole Christian Church in her essential Rights and Liberties 5ly There is one thing more I would have observed for the right stating of this Dispute about Schism viz. the difference between Schism from the Catholick Church and the Breach of Ecclesiastical Communion between different Churches In the first Sense Schism cuts us off from the Body of Christ and consequently puts us out of a state of Salvation and therefore it can be nothing less than a Separation from the Communion of the Church in things essential to Faith or Worship or Government for in this sense no man can be a Schismatick without in some Degree or other forfeiting his Christianity and his essential Right to Christian Communion Ecclesiastical Communion is the Union of several distinct Churches into one Ecclesiastical Body for mutual Advice and Counsel and the more pure Administration of Discipline When several Bishops who have originally all the same Authority in the Government of their several Churches bestow different Powers on some Bishops whom they advance above others with the Title and Authority of Metropolitans or Patriarchs with a Power of calling Synods and receiving Appeals and the principal Authority of Ordinations and govern their several Churches by such Ecclesiastical Laws as are agreed on by common Consent or the major Vote This is a very useful Constitution and of great Antiquity in the Church if it had not its beginning in the Apostles times and for any Bishop or Church causelessly to break such a Confederacy as this is a very great Evil and has the Guilt and Crime of Schism but yet it does not seem to be such a Schism as divides the intrinsick Unity of the Catholick Church and cuts off such a Church from the Body of Christ. For the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Faith and Worship and Charity and such an external Communion when occasion offers shows that we are all the Disciples of the same common Lord and Saviour and own each other for Brethren but the Church may be the one Body of Christ without being one Ecclesiastical Body under one governing Head which it is impossible the whole Christian Church should be and therefore a Church which divides it self from that Ecclesiastical Body to which it did once belong if it have just and necessary Reasons for what it does is wholly blameless nay commendable for it if it have not it sins according to the nature and aggravation of the Crime but still may be a Member of the Catholick Church and still enjoy all the Priviledges of a true Catholick Church the Communion of Saints the Forgiveness of Sins and the Promises of everlasting Life Which shows us how the holy Catholick Church in the Creed may be One notwithstanding all those Divisions of Christendom which are occasioned by the Quarrels of Bishops and the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Canons and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Those who are the Beginners or Fomentors of such Divisions shall answer it to their Lord and Judge as they shall all their other personal Miscarriages but it would be very hard if such a Church which in its Faith and Worship is truly Catholick should be cut off from the Body of Christ and all the Members of it put out of a State of Salvation because the Bishops and Pastors of such Churches think fit to divide themselves from that Ecclesiastical Body to which they were united by Custom or ancient Canons Now this is the most they can make of our forsaking the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Church of Rome That we have divided our selves from the Bishop of Rome to whom by Custom or some pretended Canons we owed Obedience and Subjection which I have proved to be very innocent in us because it was necessary But suppose it were a causeless and criminal Separation yet it is only an Ecclesiastical Schism which does not separate us from the Catholick Church though it does from that Ecclesiastical Body of which the Bishop of Rome makes himself the Head. This I think is a sufficient Justification of the Church of England in rejecting the Authority of the Church of Rome and her reforming the Errors and Corruptions of Faith and Worship needs no defence at all though there were never a pure and reformed Church in the World besides her self For I would desire our Author to tell me whether it be a fault to reform the Corruptions of Faith and Worship Can it be a fault then to believe as Christ has taught and to worship God as he has prescribed Is it possible that the true Catholick Faith and Worship should ever be a Crime if it be not then it can be no fault to make the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour the Rule of our Faith and Worship and that is all that we mean by reforming not
must grant So that still this whole Controversy issues in this whether the Terms of their Communion be not sinful if they be this will justifie our Non-communion with them if they be not we are Schismaticks and by this we are willing to stand or fall So that this charge of Schism upon the Church of England is very absurd and ridiculous unless they can charge us with Schismatical Doctrines and Practices if we separate for the sake of a Corrupt Faith or Worship we are Schismaticks indeed but if we separate only because we will not profess any Erroneous Doctrines nor Communicate in a corrupt Worship unless the true Faith and true Worship can make Men Schismaticks we may very securely scorn such an Accusation And it is as impertinent a Question to ask us what Church we joyned in Communion with when we forsook the Communion of the Church of Rome For if by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean uniting our selves in one Ecclesiastical Body with them putting our selves under the Government of any other Patriarch so we joyned in Communion with no other Church and there was no reason we should for we were Originally a free independent Church which owed no Subjection to any other Church but had a plenary Power to decide all Controversies among our selves without appealing to any foreign Jurisdiction and when we had delivered our selves from one Usurper there was no reason to court a new one this not being necessary to Catholick Unity and Communion If by joyning in Communion with other Churches they mean what other Churches we made the Pattern of our Reformation we freely confess we made no Church of that Age our Pattern but I think we did much better for we made the Scriptures our Rule and the Primitive and Apostolick Churches our Pattern which we take to be a more Infallible direction than the Example of any Church then or now If we must have been confined to the Faith and Practise of other Churches then in being without regard to a more Infallible Rule and a more unquestionable Authority I confess I should have chose to have continued in the Church of Rome which had the most visible and flourishing Authority of any other Church at that time but our Reformers did believe and very rightly that no Church had any Authority against the Scriptures and Primitive Practise and then they were not concerned to enquire whether any other Church did in all things believe and practise as they taught but what the Faith and Practice of the Apostles and their immediate Successors was and yet they very well know that most of those Doctrines and Practises which they condemned in the Church of Rome were condemned by other Churches also though it may be those other Churches might have some less Errors and Corruptions of their own If the Scriptures and the Example of the Primitive Churches be a sufficient Authority to justifie a Reformation then the Church of England is blameless though no other Church in the World followed this Pattern but our selves for this is the Rule and Pattern which they ought all to follow and if they do not it is not we are to blame but themselves And yet what if I should say that our Reformers made the Church of Rome her self the Pattern of our Reformation and indeed this is the plain truth of the Case For we framed no new Creeds no new Articles of Faith no new Forms of Worship no new Models of Government but retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and only rejected those Corruptions and Innovations which were introduced in several Ages and confirmed all together by the Council of Trent Our Faith is contained in the Apostles Nicene Athanasian Creeds which are all owned by the Church of Rome and were the Ancient Faith of the Catholick Church We own the two Christian Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which were expresly Instituted by our Saviour himself and which the Church of Rome owns We Worship one God through Jesus Christ who is that one Mediator between God and Man as the Church of Rome confesses though she brings in a great many other Mediators by the help of a distinction Our publick Liturgie is so conformed to the Ancient Liturgies of the Roman Church that it has been often objected to us though very peevishly and absurdly by Dissenters that our Common Prayer is taken out of the Mass Book Our Litanies Collects Hymns are many of them taken out of the old Latin Liturgies only we have changed the Popish Legends into Lessons out of the Old and New Testaments and have left out Prayers to Saints and all the Corruptions of the Mass and other Superstitions So that in Truth the Church of England is the exact Resemblance of the Church of Rome in her state of Primitive Purity before her Faith and Worship were corrupted with new and superstitious Additions and it is plain that this was the Rule of our Reformation not to form and model a new Church but only to Purge the Church from all new Corruptions and to leave the old Foundations and Building as it was and if we have indeed retained all that is Ancient and Apostolick in the Church of Rome and rejected nothing but Innovations in Faith and Corruptions in Worship they need not enquire for a Church which believes all that we do for the Church of Rome her self does so and if they believe more than they should it is no fault that we do not believe all that they do and therefore we had no need to seek for any other Church to joyn with for we staid where we were and did not leave our Church but Reform it and a Man who does not pull down his House but only cleanses it and makes it a more wholsom Habitation needs not inquire for a new House to dwell in To conclude this Argument our positive Faith and Worship is the same still with the Church of Romes and therefore they cannot blame us for it and in those Doctrines and Practices wherein we have forsaken the Church of Rome we have the Authority and Practice of most other Churches to justifie us which do not own the Supremacy of the Pope nor Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor Communion in one kind nor Latin Service nor the Worship of Images with several other of the Trent Innovations So that in truth we are so far from separating from all Christian Societies that there are few things in our Reformation but what are owned and justified either by the Church of Rome her self or by some other Churches not to take notice now that there are few things in our Reformation but what some Doctors of the Roman Communion have either justified or spoke modestly of 16. The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may Apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both discover the Clergies defection and depriving them heap to themselves Teachers
Infallibility they are not a direct Answer to that charge That she has actually erred and can have no force to prove her Infallibility till that charged be answered because there can be no Proof against matter of fact And therefore when they begin with the Proof of Infallibility they begin at the wrong end for when the Church is charged with Error if they would not lose their labour they must prove that she has not erred before they prove her to be infallible for otherwise after all the pains they have taken to prove her Infallibility if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred their Labour is lost and therefore it is best to try that first which shows what a Sophistical Argument it is to prove that the Church has not erred because she is infallible and cannot err for they must first prove that she has not erred before they can prove her to be infallible for till this be removed it is an effectual Bar to all other Proofs of Infallibility And thus their compendious way of making Converts and confuting Hereticks is nothing but Sophistry and a Cheat and if men would be sincere and honest Converts they must not flatter themselves with an Opinion of the Churches Infallibility but must examine the particular Disputes between us and be thoroughly satisfied that the Church of Rome has not erred before they embrace her Communion 2. For if it appear that the Church of Rome has been guilty of Error or Apostacy this is a certain Demonstration that either those Scripture-promises which she alledges do not belong to her or do not signifie what she brings them for for whatever Christ promises he will certainly perform and therefore if the Church of Rome has erred he never promised she should be infallible To be sure when the Sense and Application of such Texts of Scripture are disputed as they are between Protestants and Papists that side must have the advantage which is confirmed by the Event and matter of Fact and therefore if it appear the Church of Rome has erred the Protestant Interpretations of those Texts Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and such like are to be preferred before the Popish Interpretations which apply them to the Bishops of Rome as the Infallible Guides of the Church especially when that evidence we have that the Church has Erred is much more plain and notorious then that Christ has promised that she shall not Err when the Scripture Proofs that the Church of Rome has Erred in several Doctrines and Practices which she now teaches are much plainer than those Texts are by which they prove that she cannot Err if I can prove by plain Texts that she has Erred this shall teach me how to expound those obscure Texts from which some would prove that she cannot Err. Indeed it is very happy that no Man believes Christ has promised Infallibility to the Church of Rome but those who believe that she has not Erred for if they did it would be a very dangerous State of Temptation and a very ill Argument in the hands of an Infidel against Christianity for they would rather charge Christ with a breach of his Promise which would destroy his Authority than believe contrary to the plainest and most convincing Evidence that the Church of Rome has not erred and indeed it would stagger the Faith of a Christian if the pretended Promises of Infalibility to the Church of Rome were as plain as her Errors are for what should any Man do in that case believe that she has not erred because of the Promise of Infalibility or disbelieve the Promise because she has erred When both sides are equally plain and yet can never be reconciled it is a sore Temptation to believe neither when I know not which to choose and cannot possibly believe both So that to urge the Infallibility of the Church that she cannot err against the plainest evidence that she has erred may make some Men Infidels but can make no considering Man a Roman-Catholick But to return to our Author though I think I have not left him all this time I gave a fourth Answer to this Reqnest which he takes no notice of viz. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Lay-men and afterwards acknowledged by the Clergy who joyned in the Reformation I should not have thought the Reformation ever the worse for it For if the Clergy corrupt Religion we have reason to thank God if he opens the Eyes of honest and disinterested Lay-men For this is the great grievance that the Clergy should Apostatize and a National Laity discover the Clergies Defection and reform it This is now the fashionable way of Disputing against the Reformation of the Church of England that it was not regularly done by the consent of the Major part of the Clergy in a National Synod which first ought to have been obtained before the Queen and the Parliament had made any Laws about it which is the whole design of a late Oxford Book against the Reformation Now this I confess seems to me a very strange way of Reasoning unworthy of Christians especially of Christian Divines for not to enter now into the History of the Reformation which those who please may learn from Dr Burnet who has Published the Authentick Records of the most material Transactions in it yet I say 1. If the Reformation be good and necessary there can want no Authority to reform and my Reason is because it is Established by the Authority of Christ and his Apostles which is a good Authority to this day for to Reform Abuses and Corruptions signifies no more than to Profess the pure and uncorrupted Faith and Worship of Christ and I desire to know whether Christ have not given sufficient Authority to every Man to do this or whether there be any Authority in Church or State which can de jure forbid the doing it and make it unlawful and irregular to do so if there be truly Christ and his Apostles have preached the Gospel to very little purpose if we must not believe or practice as they teach unless our Superiors will give us leave How could the Gospel have been at first planted in the World upon these Principles Jews and Heathens had a regular Authority among them to determine matters of Religion and this Authority opposed and condemned the Faith of Christ and therefore unless particular Men had reformed for themselves and joyned themselves to the Fellowship of the Apostles they must have continued Jews or Pagans to this day For as for what our Author says that sueb a change in Religion ought to have some Scripture or because Extraordinary should have Miracles to countenance it I answer we have both we have reformed according to the Scriptures and can justifie our Faith and Worship by the Scriptures and a Scripture Reformation is confirmed by Miracles because the Doctrine of the Gospel is so