fundamental Article of the Christian Faith then Idolatry it self does not prove such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth And this is the opinion of those who own the Church of Rome a true though a corrupt Church notwithstanding they charge her with idolatrous Practices For they consider that the Jewish Church was guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of the Golden Calf and the Calves at Dan and Bethel and yet were a true Church still because they worshipped only the true God the God of Israel though in an idolatrous manner And I would advise our Author not to insist too peremptorily on this That Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth till he is sure that he can clear himself and his Church from the charge of Idolatry I know very well what he aims at to disprove the charge of Idolatry because Idolatry is an Apostacy from fundamental Truth and Holiness and thus the Church cannot apostatize and therefore cannot commit Idolatry which is like their proving that the Church has not erred because it cannot err Whereas if de facto it appears that the Church has erred that is a Demonstration that it can err Thus if de facto it appears that the Church is guilty of Idolatry this is a Demonstration that either Idolatry is not such a fundamental Apostacy or that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy Those who say that Idolatry is not such an Apostacy are not bound to prove that the Church may fall into such an Apostacy from fundamental Truth to make good their charge of Idolatry Those who say that Idolatry is such an Apostacy are bound to prove either directly that the Church is not guilty of Idolatry or by consequence that she cannot be because she cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth so that the Proof lies on their side not on ours we are not bound to prove that the Church may apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness because we have no occasion to say it may but they are bound to prove that the Church cannot so apostatize because it is the best defence they have against the charge of Idolatry But I cannot pass on without briefly considering the nature of this Argument to prove that a thing is not upon a pretence that it cannot be when there is all other possible evidence to prove that it is which is now the modish and popular way of disputing and the very last refuge of the Church of Rome If you charge them with Errors and Corruptions in Faith and Worship and prove your charge beyond the possibility of a fair Reply they presently take sanctuary in the Indefectibility or Infallibility of their Church Their Church cannot err because the Council or Pope or at least both of them together are infallible Or as others say Tradition is infallible for the Church must believe to day as it did yesterday and to morrow as it does to day and so from one Generation to another and therefore it is impossible there ever should be any change in the Faith of the Church The Church cannot be guilty of Idolatry because it cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and so in other cases And therefore the way they take with their new Converts is not to dispute particular Controversies but instruct them well in this one Point which puts an end to all other Disputes That the Church cannot err and cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness and then it is certain whatever she teaches she cannot err and whatever she does is not Apostacy Now not to show at present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to her selfe the Title Priviledges and Prerogatives of the Catholick Church and appropriates all those Promises to her self which were made to the Church in general nor to examine the meaning of those Texts whereon she founds this pretence of Infallibility I shall only consider whether this Plea the Church cannot err therefore she has not erred the Church cannot apostatize from fundamental Truth and Holiness therefore she is not guilty of Idolatry which say they is such an Apostacy be sufficient to satisfie any honest inquisitive man who can read the Scriptures and compare what the Church now believes and practises with the Doctrines and Institutions of our Saviour For 1. When such Errors and Corruptions are notoriously evident though but in any one instance to argue that the Church has not erred because she cannot err is to dispute against matter of fact like the Philosophers disputing against the possibility of Motion and no Argument whatsoever is good against matter of fact True you 'l say if it were notoriously evident that the Church has erred there were an end of her Infallibility but this is matter of dispute whether she have erred or not and then if you can prove that she cannot err you effectually prove that she has not erred No such matter for if she be charged with Errors and plain evidence brought that she has actually erred unless you can as plainly take off this evidence it weakens and overthrows all the Proofs for Infallibility whatever they are and therefore the pretence of Infallibility is of no use in this dispute but to cheat the ignorant and unwary for if I can prove that such Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are Errors and Corruptions till I am satisfied that they are not I can never believe that Church to be infallible which I can prove has erred and therefore while any charge against the Errors of the Church of Rome remains unanswered it is too soon to talk of her Infallibility for actual Error is a just confutation of Infallibility but the pretence of Infallibility is not a just Plea against the charge of actual Error because if I can prove my charge against them that they have erred that disproves their Infallibility and then nothing else can prove it So that this Infallibility can do them no service at all in this Dispute whether they have erred or not for if I can prove that they have erred I overthrow all their Proofs of Infallibility and whether they have erred or not is not to be tryed by their Infallibility but by the Rule of Truth and Error which are the Holy Scriptures so absurd it is to think to determine all the Controversies now in dispute among us by the Churches Infallibility It is indeed a most certain Truth that if the Church be infallible she cannot err and therefore she has not erred and it is as certainly true that if the Church has erred she can err and therefore is not infallible The Romanists assert the first the Protestants the second but there is this difference between these two Pleas That if we can make good our charge against them that they have actually erred this is a direct and positive Proof against their Infallibility but though it be as certainly true that an infallible Church cannot and has not erred yet whatever Proofs they bring of the Churches
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
both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike what he means by this I cannot guess for if he will not allow an express institution to be a Scripture-Proof I despair of ever finding a Scripture-Proof for any thing unless he can tell me what proof there can be of an institution but the words of Institution does this Institution then contain a command to receive the Eucharist if it does not how does he prove that all Christians are bound to receive the Eucharist if it does then Take Eat is a command to receive the Bread and by the same reason Drink ye all of this is a command to all to receive the Cup and both these being a part of the same Feast and commanded at the same time our Church had reason to say that both parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment ought to be administred to all Christian Men alike The Church of Rome thinks the words of Institution a plain and necessary command to consecrate in both kinds without which they grant it is not a Sacrament now what other command have they for consecrating than we have for receiving in both kinds the words of Institution are all that we have about this matter and let them give me reason how the same words come to signifie consecration but not receiving in both kinds nay they grant that the Priest who consecrates must receive as well as consecrate in both kinds and yet the Institution is in the same form of words without making any distinction between the Priest and the People and how the same words should command the Priest to receive in both kinds and not the People is somewhat mysterious I am apt to think that the Fathers of the Council of Constance who decreed the communion in one kind with a non obstante to our Saviour's Institution did suspect that there was a Scripture-Proof for communion in both kinds or there had been no need to have made an exception to our Saviour's Institution and to have set up the authority of the Church against it The Church of Rome allows that it is lawful for the People to communicate in both kinds and have reserved this authority of granting such a liberty to the Pope now how can it be lawful unless Christ has allowed it and where has he allowed it unless in the words of institution and they prove more than allowance even a command if Drink ye all of this be of the Imperative Mood VIII Chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated This I said 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 and though I did not undertake a just defence of the Marriages of such devoted persons yet I offered several things in Apology for them and said so much that our Author did not think fit to make any reply to it but only answers to my denial that this is a Doctrine of our Church He says This proposition is a Doctrine of the Answerers Church except his be not the same Church with Edward the Sixths or the thirty second Article have another sense than when composed by Cranmer For all Bishops and Priests then in the Western Church had deliberately vowed chastity and the Article says It is lawful for them to marry which certainly violates their vow No Scripture is alledged justifying a Tenet so impure so persidious Thus by consequence he proves that it is the Doctrine of our Church that chastity deliberately vowed may be inoffensively violated because in K. Edward the Sixth and Archbishop Cranmer's days it was the Doctrine of this Church that the Bishops and Priests then in being who had deliberately vowed chastity might notwithstanding marry But suppose this was not the Doctrine in King Edward's days what becomes then of his consequence and yet this is the truth of the case For the Article then only taught that Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded to vow the state of single life without marriage neither by God's Law are they compelled to abstain from Matrimony but there is not one word whether those who were Bishops and Priests at that time and were under the vow of Coelibacy though every Priest as a Priest was not by the Laws of this Church bound to undertake such a vow though they were forbid by the Canons to marry might marry or not For though the Article asserts that they were not compelled by God's Law to abstain from Matrimony yet it does not say that they could not debar themselves this liberty by voluntary vows or that if they had done so they might inoffensively break those vows which is a very different question Indeed in Queen Elizabeths Reign in the Convocation held at London 1562. this Article is enlarged Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage Therefore it is lawful also for them as for all other Christian Men to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness But this Article does not say that those Bishops and Priests who were entangled with a vow of Coelibacy might lawfully marry but only their being Bishops and Priests was no hindrance to their Marriage Whether there was any other impediment it concerned them to consider but these obligations of Vows which any of them were then under being a personal thing the present decision of that Controversie was not thought fit to be made an Article of Religion So that though some particular Persons were at that time concerned in this question yet the Doctrine of our Church never was concerned in it for there never was any Synodical definition of it and therefore there is no need of producing Scripture-Proofs for it But yet notwithstanding this I am far from condemning those Bishops and Priests and Nuns and Friers who did then marry for I am sure a chast Marriage is more acceptable to God than an impure Coelibacy and those Abominations which were discovered at the Dissolution of Monasteries were enough to make Men abhor such vows of Chastity as he calls them and I am very much of the opinion that it were still better for Priests to marry than to debauch their Penitents or Converts Thus much for his impure and perfidious Tenet IX All Christian excellencies are commanded This I told him I thought S. Paul had determined Philip. 4. 8. Whatsever things are true whatsoever things are honest c. think on these things For if these general expressions do not comprehend all Christian excellencies I know not what does To this he answers Unless besides comprehending it command them that Scripture will not prove the Tenet And the mode of expression that is its being in the Imperative Mood Think on these things does not prove it to be a command
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
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
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