to the Protestants Doctrine is the giving of Divine Honour to a morsel of Bread and therefore a most stupid and stupendious kind of Idolatry Some of the Protestant Profession have gone about to Extenuate the same saying That it is material but not formal Idolatry in the Papists For that the Consecrated Bread is taken to be very Christ who is very God and therefore though the thing Worshipped be not God yet it is Believed to be the True God by those Worshippers and Worshipped as such Nevertheless it hath been granted by some of the Popish Writers That if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be an Error they are guilty of the most abominable Idolatry in the Adoration of the Host and they could not find out the aforesaid extenuation of it in case of such Error by distinguishing between Material and Formal Idolatry And some Romanists do say That these words This is my body may bear a Figurative sence as those Words That Christ was a Rock and that if there were no other Evidence for Transubstantiation but what the Scripture gives there were no reason to make it an Article of Faith Bellarmine saith These words necessarily infer either a real Mutation in the Bread as the Catholicks hold or a Metaphorical as the Calvinists hold but by no means admit the Lutheran sence And he concludes That though there be some obscurity and ambiguity in the Words yet it is taken away by Councils and Fathers The Persians in old Gentilism Worshipped the Sun for the Supreme God and their Idolatry was not the less abominable for their Error about that Object of Worship And surely it was Formal Idolatry that is There was in it the formalis ratio or true nature and reason of that Sin Nay I think it more Sacrilegious and Blasphemous against the True God to take any Creature to be he and to worship it accordingly than to give Divine Worship to a Creature not imagined to be the Supreme God but some inferior deity St. Austin speaks in his Preface to his Sermon on Psal 93. of certain Hereticks that honoured the Sun and said That it was Jesus Christ Now divine honour given to the Sun under such a mistake is horrid Idolatry and why not also divine honour given to a morsel of Bread by the same mistake The Lutherans Doctrine of Consubstantiation doth not infer that the Eucharist is to be adored They believe indeed That Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament but they do not believe That the Sacrament is really Jesus Christ nor adore it as such But that the Papists condition in respect of this sottish Superstition of Bread-worship being so bad may not be made worse than it is it may be considered That they do not take the Bread to be the Deity nor to be he that is God save onely according to his Human Body into which they believe the Bread is changed and so worship it as our Lords Body or to express it in the most favourable sence they worship him as there present in his proper Body and withal worship the bread supposed to be that Body §. 6. Of the Popish Invocation of Angels and Saints departed THis Invocation is without Precept or Precedent in Holy Scripture Invocation on God alone is according to Scripture Christ teacheth to pray Our Father in his great Rule and Standard of Prayer We are taught to Invocate him on whom we believe Rom. 10.14 which is God alone As Incense the Type so Prayer the thing typified is to be offered to God alone Prayer is an Act of such Worship as Papists call latria It supposeth the Being to whom it is directed to be the Author and Fountain of the good we pray for And so they that are prayed to are invocated in Gods stead And whereas some say That the Saints are to be invocated not as Authors of Divine benefits it is apparent that Papists invocate them as Authors directly and without ambages praying to them for health and deliverance from danger yea for the highest benefits as to St. Peter to open Heaven Gates to them They direct their prayers to them as to those that can dispence the Grace of God to men at their pleasure Also prayer implies a prostration of the whole Soul and Spirit and Body to the person that is invocated by Acts of Subjection Devotion Dependence Reverence and all higest Observance Experience shews the fond ravishments of Soul in the superstitions towards those to whom more especially they are devoted ordinarily making no inferior Expressions of their Devotion towards them than toward God and Christ Yea they are so intercepted and taken up by this Dotage as to forget God If Saints are invocated as Mediators they are invocated in Christs stead Christ is our Intercessor in Heaven as our Redeemer 1 John 2.1 And therefore they that are not our Redeemers cannot be our intercessors in Heaven Moreover we cannot rationally commend our prayers to any but such as we know both can and will represent them to God The Popish Invocation of Saints and Angels is an ascribing to them the incommunicable Excellencies of God as to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers of hearts and perceptive of all the cases and concernments of those that invocate them and an Omniscience and Omnipresence if not absolute yet at least reâ—â—â—ctive to this lower World the Habitation of us Mortals is ascribed to them thereby To excuse this Sacriledg and Idolatry that incredible conceit of the Saints beholding all things in speculo Trinitatis is but a sorry shift Such Omniscience the Manhood of Christ hypostatically united to the Godhead did not pretend unto And the devising of it is a transcendent presumption of mans wit for the invading of Gods right The truth is the Worship of Saints and Angels maintained in the Roman Church in parity of reason answers the Pagans Worshipping of Daemons being either Souls of Men departed or other Invisible Powers whom they imagined to be Inferior Deities subordinate and ministring to the Supreme God And after the manner of the Heathens the Papists have appointed among the Saints certain particular Patrons of Provinces Cities Artificers living Creatures c. When we desire holy persons on Earth to pray for us we feek not to them as Patrons or Intercessors in the vertue of their Merits but as Brethren at the same distance from God with us And the help is mutual according to the Communion of Saints and for which we have Promise Precept and Example § 7. Of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations to any besides God THose external Acts that by Nature or Custome or Divine Institution are or were appropriated Expressions of that internal honour or observance that is due to God alone are Divine Worship And such are the Acts of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations and burning Incense and making Vows and dedicating Temples and ordaining Festivals The Erecting of Altars either for Sacrifice or other Oblations to any being imports either an
they grant a kind of Certainty as the one by usurped authority impose upon mens belief in the matter of Religion which is mans highest concernment so the other take away or lessen that security of the mind which is reasonably required in so great a matter and give too great advantage to the pretenders on the other extream The term infallible may be taken first in a passive signification and then it is that which cannot be deceived And so it may be applied either to the propounder or to the believer of a truth It may also be taken in an active signification for that which cannot deceive and so it may be applied to the propounder as also to the truth it self proposed and â—o the evidence thereof as in our English Translation Act. 1.3 by many infallible proofs that is evidence that could not deceive Infallibility as ascribed to the propounder or believer of a truth is subjective infallibility as ascribed to the truth propounded or the evidence thereof it is objective infallibility which signifies no more than that the thing cannot be false and cannot objectively deceive Now if there may be objective there may be also subjective infallibility If there be truth and an evidence of truth that cannot be false then an understanding apprehending that truth as it is cannot be deceived therein nor can deceive in propounding the same to others Besides objective infallibility is an insignificant thing in reference to an understanding uncapable of infallibility An object is denominated infallible with respect to the understanding to which it is or may be propounded as not to be deceived in it § 12. Of Infallibility which is hypothetical and limited and that which is absolute and unlimited INFALLIBILITY therefore denoting an impossibility of being deceived and of deceiving inquire we into the subject to whom it doth belong Some say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding We must distinguish between an impossibility of being deceived that is absolute and unlimited and that which is hypothetical and limited I grant that an absolute impossibility of being deceived belongs not to a finite understanding And no asserter of infallibility in the creature intended the former but the latter kind Hypothetical and limited impossibility of being deceived may belong to a finite and in particular to a humane understanding and it is that which supposeth a full revelation natural or supernatural to the subject in whom it is and is limited to the truth so revealed and this hypothetical infallibility doth not rest barely upon the perfection of the humane nature but upon this principle That God is true in his revelations both natural and supernatural and that he doth not govern the world by falshoods Now this is proper infallibility For upon this principle I am not only sure that I am not deceived but also that I cannot be deceived as to the particular truths so evident to me or to speak it plainer it cannot be that I am therein deceived for it were a contradiction Moreover that which is certain is so upon necessary grounds and therefore cannot be false And he that knows it to be certain knows it upon those necessary grounds and consequently that it cannot be false and this is to know it infallibly If we know nothing infallibly we know nothing either as necessary or as impossible whether absolutely or hypothetically § 13. Of stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but pro tempore IT hath been shewed that an understanding that is not absolutely or by the perfection of its nature infallible may be secured from possibility of mistake and an understanding that is not universally infallible may be secured from possibility of mistakes and so be infallible in certain cases and to certain intents Now it is further to be noted That there may be a stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but temporary The former did belong to the established Prophets of the Lord in their declarations to his people and to the Apostles of Christ in matters pertaining to their Apostolical Commission for establishing the Religion and Churches of Christ Also upon supposition of the Saints perseverance it belongs to all true Christians as to the Essentials of Christianity The temporary Infallibility belongs to such persons as receive the Visions of God or are divinely inspired not statedly but occasionally at some particular time or times as among holy men Zacharias John Baptists Father Gideon the Parents of Sampson among the unholy Balaam in his Prophesies before Balaac and Saul who sometime was found prophecying § 14. The Infallibility of a finite Vnderstanding further cleared IT is granted by the deniers of Infallibility That that which is true is not possible to be false And thence I infer If I know it to be true I know it is not possible to be false and so I infallibly know it And my assent to a truth as for instance to the Christian Faith cannot possibly be false Some that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure that he is not And I infer thereupon that he cannot be deceived in that particular assent I mean not that he cannot simply but in that state and circumstances wherein he is put he cannot be deceived therein and that he knows he cannot because he knows it implies a contradiction that he should be deceived in that wherein he is sure that he is not deceived For if I may be deceived in such an apprehension or assent not only simply but all circumstances being put I cannot be sure that I am not deceived therein Likewise those that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that a man cannot be deceived in that thing with the belief whereof God inspires him and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false Now this is a concession of hypothetical and limited insallibility to humane understanding For it is here acknowledged that there may be such evidence of divine inspiration as cannot be false And indeed I take it for a repugnancy in nature that God should inspire the belief of a falshood Nevertheless a man divinely inspired is not simply infallible in his apprehension of divine inspiration for he may sometime be deceived in thinking he is so inspired when he is not Thus it being evident that an understanding that is not simply infallible in a matter may in the state and circumstances wherein he is put be therein infallible I think it better to explain and limit the term and notion of infallibility in the humane understanding than wholly to reject it But howsoever they that reject or dislike it do grant and contend for a sufficiently certrin evidence of truth and I will not quarrel if that will serve for infallibility And they will also grant that they who
permanently or unalterably holy as well sanctifying the duties therein performed as sanctified by them so I suppose that the appointed feasts or at least some of them are set apart by the Church to a state of like holiness I confess that as touching the dedication of such days and times as some of those are which are appointed by the Church I have not a clearness of judgment to determine for or against the warrantableness thereof Nor would I break with the Church upon this account but would make those days an occasion of joining in the unquestionable divine worship then celebrated But I know not how to declare an unfeigned assent and consent to the sanctifying of those days because in so doing I should not speak the truth while I doubt of the warrantableness thereof Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer THE second Rubrick before Morning-prayer is taken to enjoin the use of the Surplice Supposing that the use thereof is not in it self unlawful nevertheless I question whether I may lawfully consent to a Rule enjoining the use of it to such Ministers and in such Congregations by which the use thereof is judged unlawful or to which it is odious or greatly offensive by invincible or inveterate prejudice I enquire Whether a consent to the use of this Rubrick doth not imply a consent to the enjoining of this Vestment for the enjoined retaining and using of it so that sacred Ministrations shall not be performed without it is the subject matter of the Rubrick I enquire also Whether I may lawfully declare my consent to the use of this Vestment supposing that tho I do not scruple the bare lawfulness of using it yet I wish in my heart the use thereof were not retained but laid aside in regard of the great offence taken at it it being a thing unnecessary and the worship of God being as decently and profitably performed without it as with it Moreover what were those Ornaments in the Church which were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth I do not well know Some say this Rubrick seems to bring back the Cope and other Vestments forbidden in the Common-prayer-book 5 6. of Edw. 6. to the use whereof I do not see it fit for me to declare my consent The Responsals of the Clerk and people the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri and the Lords Prayer the omission of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer the composure of many short Collects instead of one continued prayer I can submit unto and declare my consent to them as to things passable But if the declaration of consent imply not only the simple allowableness but also the laudableness and comparative usefulness or expediency of these things I am not clear therein Of the Creed of St. Athanasius I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God as set forth in this Creed yet I am not satisfied to declare my assent to these assertions Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly Also This is the Catholick faith which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Also he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity This Creed doth contain deep mysteries as that the Son is not made nor created but begotten That the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding The difference between eternal generation and eternal procession being a mystery wherein the greatest Divines see but darkly we may be justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of salvation who do not understand and explicitely believe these mysteries Likewise the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son being here delivered as a part of the faith concerning which it is asserted That except every one do keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly the undoubted damnation of those Churches and Christians who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only seems to be thence inferred The best answer to these objections that I have seen I here transcribe out of a book lately written It is to be considered That in this Creed there be some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith and other things for the more clear and useful explication of the truth tho they be not of equal necessity to be understood and believed even by the meanest capacity Thus if we first consider the contexture of this Creed the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity is thus expressed in the beginning thereof The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance After this follows an explication useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine which begins For there is one person of the Father c. After which explication the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed is thus again expressed and distinguished from that explication in these words So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What is contained in this consideration is the more clear by the following observation That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanasian Creed and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed in the form of Baptism as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith and in the Visitation of the sick as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church of necessity to salvation for all men to believe than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed Hereunto I make this Reply In this point the question is not What the Church of England but what the Athanasian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain solemn days instead of the Apostles Creed declares to be of necessity to salvation Now the thing that is manifestly asserted in this Creed to be of necessity to salvation is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith as it is there expressed For it is said Which Faith except every one keep whole c. Wherefore to distinguish the summary of the doctrine of the Trinity set down in the beginning and the conclusion from the whole intermediate explication thereof as if the belief of the one but not of the other were affirmed to be necessary to salvation is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words The explication as well as the said Summary is set forth as that Catholick Faith which except every one keep whole and undefiled he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Yea it is expresly said in