the Intercessions of Christ and his Prayers to God only desiring some Blessings of God as he does of his Frinds on Earth The sum of what we teach about this matter is this That we must worship none but God and therefore must not pray to Saints and Angels as our Saviour teaches Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve That there is but one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus and therefore we must not make more Mediators to our selves nor put our trust in the Intercession of Saints and Angels Thus far we have plain Scripture proof And then we think common Sense teaches us the rest That it is an Injury to an only Mediator to set up other Mediators with him That good Men on Earth are not Mediators but Supplicants which is no encroachment of Christ's Mediatorship and that Saints in Heaven according to the Church of Rome pray as Mediators and Intercestors who appear in the Presence of God for us and this is not reconcilable with Christ's only Mediatorship in Heaven XII Honouring the Cross the Reliques and Representations of our Lord and his Saints with that degree of Reverence as we do the Gospels commonly kiss'd and sworn by Altar and other Sacred Utensils is Idolatry A. This is a very reasonable Request to require us to prove that by Scriture which we do not believe Papists indeed would excuse that Worship which they pay to the Cross to Reliques and Images by saying that it is no more than that Reverence which we allow to the Gospels and Religious Utensils which is no more than an external Respect but do those who charge them with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Reliques and Images charge them only with giving some external Respects to them or with giving them formal acts of Worship and Adoration As both the Decrees of their Councils and the visible Practice of their Church proves And if he would have this proved to be Idolatry he may meet with some Protestants who will be ready to oblige him XIII The Pope is Antichrist A. This indeed 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 of Rome 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 Infallibility XIV Every Prayer us'd in Divine Offices must be in a Language vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor A. Why he should put us upon proving this from Scripture I cannot tell when he knows that St. Paul has a whole Chapter to prove it 1 Cor. 14. unless he has some reserve in expressing it by every Prayer For that indeed St. Paul does not say in Words but his Reason saies it For if the Reason he assigns against Prayers in an unknown Tongue extend to all Prayers then it proves that every publick Prayer should be in a Language understood by the People But what is this to the Church of Rome who has all publick Offices in an unknown Tongue Yes if they could prove it lawful ever to pray in an unknown Tongue they would presently prove it lawful always to do so and thus St. Pauls discourse against praying in an unknown Tongue is confuted for want of saying that we must never pray in an unknown Tongue But whether it be not more reasonable to conclude from St. Pauls discourse against praying in an unknown Tongue that we must never do so than from his not saying that we must never pray in an unknown Tongue that we may always do so let any man judg who has not renounced his own understanding XV. 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 A. If he applies this to us it is manifestly false for tho' 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 Churches But to gratifie him Suppose that all the Communions of Christendom were corrupted in their Worship so that we could not safely communicate with any one of them but our own yet if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith and Worship and Government and separates from others only upon account of such corruptions as will justifie such a separation what should hinder her from being a mystical member of Christ in Catholick unity and a charitable part of the Catholick Church The true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the mystical members of Christ's Body or else I desire to know what does Catholick Vnity 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. and where there are such corruptions so fatal and dangerous to mens souls how far soever such corruptions have spread it is a greater act of charity to separate than to communicate with them as it is greater charity to reprove men for their sins and forsake their company than to joyn with them in a wicked confederacy This is the true state of the case and this we can prove either from the express words of Scripture or from easie and necessary consequences and this shows that it is possible that a company of Christians not voluntarily but necessarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their corrupt Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or solemn Devotions upon account of such corruptions can notwithstanding this not perverse but just and necessary separation be a mystical member of Christ in Catholick unity and a charitablt part of the Catholick Church which is not meerly the present Church of one age but the whole Church from the times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world For could we suppose at any time all the Communions of Christendom to be corrupt but one that one uncorrupt Church must forsake the communion of all others and yet it would be a member of Christ and a charitable part of the Catholick Church unless it be only numbers not the purity of Faith and Worship which makes the Catholick Church XVI 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 of their own sending and instruction A. What he intends by this I cannot well guess I suppose he would have his Readers believe 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 the major vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England which how false it is all the world knows 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 were not our English Bishops and Clergy as Zealous in the Reformation as any Laymen And were not they Bishops in Communion with the Roman Church Were not the German Reformers of the Clergy And was the whole Clergy then against the Reformation These are admirable things to be proved by direct Testimonies of Scripture 3. Nor do we 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 tho they have fatally corrupted both by Additions of their own 4. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Laymen 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 Laymen But is not this Author very modest in his Requests who would have us prove his own Calumnies and spiteful Insinuations from Scripture This I think is Answer enough to his Request And as for his following Harangue there is little in it to be answered but some spiteful and sensless Reflections which are better despised then answered But let us briefly consider some of them lest he should think they cannot be answered 1. He saies In these positive Propositions our Religion chiefly consists And truly it is a very sorry Religion if it does But why does not our Religion consist in believing the true Catholick Faith contained in the ancient Creeds In worshipping God through the Mediation of Jesus Christ according to the Rules of the Gospel In obeying all those holy Laws our Saviour has given us In observing the Sacraments of his own Institution and as he has instituted them This is all the Religion we own and know no other and why then is not this our Religion No This is the Churches peculiar and claimed by her against all Novel and Unjust both Foreigners and Out-laws But if this be our Religion and the Religion of the Catholick Church how come we to be Foreigners and Out-laws Why does not the Catholick Faith and Worship make us Members of the Catholick Church And then we have as good a claim to the Creed and Sacraments as they No saies our Author Whatever they have invented and chosen that belongs as sin to a depraved will properly to them thence they derive their Title and thereto must we precisely confine their Religion But now if we have invented and chosen nothing else what then How do we lose our right to the Creed and Sacraments c. because we will allow of no new Inventions and Additions to it And yet this is the plain case Our only Dispute with the Church of Rome is about those corrupt Additions they have made to the Catholick Faith and Worship without any Foundation in Scripture or Reason or true Antiquity and therefore our Religion is precisely confined to the old Catholick Faith and Worship of the Christian Church and therefore is properly ours if they will allow us to have any because it is all we have The German Reformers indeed were called Protestants from protesting against the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome and this only shows what they do not believe and what they will not practice but they have a better name than this and that is Christians which shows what their positive Faith and Religion is viz. that Faith and Worship which was taught by Christ and his Apostles and owned and practised by the Primitive Church before these Corruptions and Innovations were heard of and therefore this is precisely our Religion what we protest against we declare not to be our Religion so ridiculous is it precisely to confine our Religion to it 2ly The next subject of his Harangue is our demands of Scripture-proofs from the Church of Rome for their new Faith and Worship which I confess is a very hard Request because they have none However he says this makes it just for the Catholick Church as they will needs call themselves to retort this demand upon us and to demand our Scripture-proofs and I confess there is great reason for it and I hope have done him justice for I suppose he would not ask more of us than we do of them Now we only demand either the express words of Scripture or plain and evident consequences or the silence of Scripture to prove that a thing is not revealed and this we are ready to return them as to any Doctrines which we profess and whether we adulterate Scriptures by corrupt Translations such as the vulgar Latin or Sacrilegious mutilations as by leaving out the second Commandment or blasphemous misapplications as applying the Psalter of David to the Virgin Mary by changing Lord into Lady or gross wrestings and false interpretations as proving Supremacy and Infallibility by Tu es Petrus and Pasce oves shall be left to every Impartial Reader 3ly In the next place he reproaches us with the Socinians whom he calls our Brethren by descent and iniquity who steering by the blast of a private spirit the Chart of clear Scripture and Compass of Humane reason have made shipwrack of faith This is intollerable to say that to follow Scripture and Reason is the way to make shipwrack of Faith which can never be unless Scripture and Reason be contrary to Faith which indeed they are in many things to the Faith of the Church of Rome but God forbid they should be to the true Christian Faith. But have not the Socinians made shipwrack of Faith by following clear Scripture and Humane reason And will he then say that Scripture and Reason are on the Socinian side If they be how can he know that they have made shipwrack of Faith if they be not then they make shipwrack of Faith by not adhering to clear Scripture and Reason and is this a reason for us to be ashamed of following Scripture and Reason because the Socinians err by the abuse of both There is no doubt but men who pretend to Scripture and Reason may err and it is demonstrable that men who renounce Scripture and Reason must err and we have so many instances of this in the Church of Rome that it is no great encouragement to us to rely on Church-authority without Scripture and Reason They dare not say that we must believe contrary to Scripture or that the Scripture is not the Rule of our Faith but they will allow no body to interpret the Scripture but the Church of Rome which is the most certain way to make her infallible for to be sure she will not interpret the Scripture against her self she must be always in the right if what she says be the Rule of Faith. But we who cannot believe that God has given us Scripture and Reason to make no use of them That he has made the Pope or Church of Rome infallible and divested all other Christians of sense and common understanding have nothing but Reason and Scripture to steer by and that will neither make us Socinians nor Papists 4ly His parting-blow is about the Supremacy of the King which he calls Hobbism as if we ever thought that all men must be of the Kings Religion as the sole and Sovereign Judg of all Causes Spiritual What we mean by the Kings Supremacy I have already explained He has no Spiritual Jurisdiction properly so called can neither ordain nor administer the Sacraments nor has the power of the Keys but is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Church is incorporated into the State so he has the Government of all Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes Whatever Secular Authority the Church has is derived from the Prince and depends on Secular Laws and this may be enlarged retrenched suspended by the same Power that gave it but the Church as a Spiritual Society has Rights of its own can teach the true Faith administer Sacraments inflict Church-Censures though without any Temporal effect by an inherent Authority We thank God when our Prince who has the Supreme Authority does countenance true Religion But whenever it is otherwise we are taught to submit all our Temporal Concernments our Lives and Bodies and Estates to the will of our Prince but to defend our Church and Religion by a modest but resolute profession of the true Faith and meek and patient suffering for it FINIS See the late Disscourse of the Adoration of the Host p. 8 9. c.
AN ANSWER TO THE REQUEST TO PROTESTANTS To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these Tenets LICENSED December 16. 1686. LONDON Printed for Tho. Basset at the George near St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVII An Answer to the Request to Protestants a To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these their Tenets a Ans. WE do indeed make the Scripture the Rule of our Faith because we believe God gave us the Scripture to be our Rule and we know not where to meet with a better and therefore we do not quarrel at this Request to produce plain Scripture proofs for what we believe but we may justly quarrel at the fallacious or unskilful way of stating it as if we pretended to own no Doctrines but what are contained in the express Words of Scripture and therefore to understand this matter we must consider the several kinds of Doctrines professed in the Church of England and what kind of proof from Scripture they are capable of 1st The positive Articles of Faith such as are contained in the Creed and expresly taught in Scripture we prove from plain and express Testimonies of Scripture and are ready to give our proofs of them when they are demanded But besides these 2ly we have a great many Negative Articles opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome Now to believe a Negative is only to believe that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture and it would be a very wise Request to desire us to prove by plain and express Scripture that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it in Scripture and those who pretend it is there cannot shew it there which is proof enough and all that the thing is capable of 3ly There are other Doctrines which it may be are not in a strict Sense Articles of Faith but great and useful Truths which cannot be proved by express Words of Scripture but by immediate and necessary Consequence and it is ridiculous in these Cases to demand a direct Proof if by that he means the express words of Scripture for we never pretended to that in such matters but think it very reasonable to believe an evident Consequence as well as express Words Since our Saviour proved the Resurrection it self by Consequence Matth. 22. 32. Having premised this I shall examine what it is he would have proved in which also he has betrayed great want either of skill or honesty as will appear from particulars I. Scripture is clear in all Necessaries to every Sober Enquirer A. He begins well with demanding a Scripture proof That the Scripture is clear in all Necessaries as if we Protestants wanted a Scripture proof that the Sun shines when we see it Can there be any better proof that the Scripture is clear and plain than its own plainness And therefore every plain Text proves its own plainness If this Proposition Scripture is clear in all Necessaries to every Sober Enquirer were contained in express Words in Scripture yet if we could not find it plain we should rather question whether those Words are plain than believe the Scripture to be plain when we do not find it so But if I find the Scripture plain the plainness of the Scripture proves it self and needs no other proof And yet this is one of those Propositions which may be proved by plain and necessary Consequence from the Scripture For if the word of God be a Light unto our Feet and a Lamp unto our Paths then it must be clear if Light be clear Psal. 119. 105. If it be able to make men wise unto Salvation 1. Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation II. The Secular Prince hath all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority immediately from and under God. A. What Authority the Church of England grants to Kings in matters of Religion which he here calls all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority we are taught in the 37th Article of Religion The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not and ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction Which is further explained That we give not our Princes the Ministring of God's Word or of the Scraments but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers 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 Must we then prove by express Scripture that the King is Supreme Do men want Scripture to prove That Supreme Power is Supreme Thus some men are always in the Extremes either the Scripture signifies nothing or it must be every thing Grammar and Dictionary and Logick and Statute-book and all but can they prove by express Scripture that the King has the Supreme power in Civil causes Then I will prove That he has the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical causes and I think Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers is a sufficient proof of both III. Justification by Faith alone viz. a Persuasion that we are justified is a wholesome Doctrine A. Our Church does teach That Justification by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort Article II. but she does not teach That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified and sure we are not bound to prove that by Scripture which we do not believe IV. The Substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before Sacerdotal Consecration A. Our Church teaches That Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ Art. 28. But she does not teach That the Bread and Wine remain after what they were before Sacerdotal Consecration Their substance is the same that is they are Bread and Wine still but by virtue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not meer Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death and to such as rightly 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. The substance of Bread and Wine is the same but the Institution gives it such a new relation and use as is equivalent to changing its nature and makes it the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. And this the words of Institution are
an express proof of This is my Body for if it be not his Natural Body as sense and reason tell us it cannot be then it must be only his Sacramental Body or his Body by Institution Christ was visibly present with his Apostles in his own Natural Body when he instituted this Sacrament and therefore they could not understand and our Saviour could never intend they should believe that the Bread which he blessed and brake was his Natural Body which they saw before their eyes that they ate their Lord when they are the Consecrated Bread that they swallowed him down into their stomachs and yet all this while saw him and conversed with him as they did at other times The Bread is the Body of Christ but it is his broken Body which it could not be at the Institution of this Sacrament for Christ was not then Crucified his Natural Body was not yet broken and therefore the broken bread though it was his Sacramental could not be his Natural Body his Blood was not then shed and therefore though the Wine was his Blood of the New Testament it could not be his Natural Blood which is shed for the remission of sins unless his Natural Body was broken and his Blood shed before he was crucified Now I take that to be the express sense of Scripture which is the only sense that can be made of it for a sense in which it is impossible is none at all V. Our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential and if more only to the Faithful A. There is no such Proposition as this taught by the Church of England that I know of we own the influences of the Divine Grace to accompany the external administration of the Lord's Supper and this I suppose they will not put us to prove We own the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ that is the Consecrated Elements to be really present upon the Altar and verily and indeed eaten of the Faithful for so our Saviour expresly tells us This is my Body and This is my Blood and this is somewhat more than to say that our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential for so he is present in all other Religious Duties but here he is so present that his Body and Blood with all the benefits of his Death and Passion are exhibited to worthy Receivers as much as they could have been had we eat his Natural flesh and drank his blood And therefore whatever difference they would allow between Christ's gracious and influential presence in the Eucharist and eating his Natural flesh and blood had that been possible the same we allow between his gracious Presence and eating his Sacramental Body which is to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament the same by his own Institution with his Natural flesh and blood for the carnal feeding on Christ's flesh is not a Sacramental eating of him But if by more he means that Christ is corporally present in the Eucharist that his natural Flesh and Blood is contained under the Species of Bread and Wine this we deny and it being a Negative Article it is ridiculous as I observed before to demand express Scripture to prove that it is not in the Scripture let those who affirm it prove by express Scripture that it is there for this is my Body and this is my Blood will not do it We own that it is the Body and Blood of Christ as well as they and therefore they must prove that it is Christ's natural Body and Blood and it is well for them that they have something else than Scripture to trust to VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry A. Nor is there any 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 as Romanists themselves confess and is easily proved from Scripture if to give Divine Worship to Creatures be Idolatry To adore our Saviour is not Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. But this Author puts a fallacy upon his Readers by an explanatory Parenthesis Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine as if they only worshipped our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine whereas they teach that the Species themselves whatever they be to be sure not Christ himself are to be worshipped together with Christ and therefore according to their own Doctrine they must worship something which is not Christ. And let them consider what name to give this VII All Christians whenever they communicate are oblig'd to receive in both Kinds A. And why does he not ask us to prove That all Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive the bread For there is the same Institution for the Wine that there is for the Bread. There is no other rule in matters of Institution but to observe the Institution and since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds and neither Christ nor his Apostles have told us that it is sufficient to receive in one kind we think this reason enough to assert that all Christians when they do communicate must communicate in both kinds And indeed this Sacrament is not compleat without it for if we consider it as a spiritual Feast Wine as well as Bread to drink as well as to eat is essential to a Feast if we consider the End of the Institution to be a commemoration of the Death of Christ and the expiation of his Blood how can we commemorate Sacramentally the expiation of his Blood without drinking his Blood which is shed for the remission of sins For to eat his Blood together with his Flesh as they pretend does not represent his broken Body and his Blood shed but his whole Body with Flesh and Blood together which contradicts the very Institution of this Supper And if we partake of no benefits in the Sacrament but what we Sacramentally commemorate I would desire this Author to tell me how those who do not drink the Blood of Christ this blood of the New Testament obtain the remission of their sins A very material thing for those to consider who would be sure of their Salvation VIII Chastity deliberately vow'd may be inoffensively violated A. This is no Doctrine of our Church nor are Protestants now concerned in it though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were There was no such thing known as vowing Chastity as that signifies a Vow against Marriage neither under the Law nor in the times of Christ and his Apostles and therefore we cannot expect in Scripture an express decision of this matter but must argue from the nature and obligation of Vows