both Heathens Jews and all Infidels ought to joyn themselves L. Since then the Catholick Church signifies the whole society of Christian people where ever scattered over the face of the earth it hence appears that they who assert the Church of Rome to be this Catholick Church do thereby declare that there are no true Christians in the world but the Papists as we use to call them which seems to me very strange Doctrine But yet may not a particular Church be in some sense stiled Catholick T. Yes pâ—operly enough as it is a part of the Catholick Church holding the same faith with it and not schismatically dividing from it And thus of old the Church of Rome might be stiled Catholick and so might the Church of Ephesus of Antioch or any other place to distinguish them from Hereticks and Schismaticks that made factions and parties in their several Churches and separated from their own lawful Bishops and Pastors L. Are not those Christian Churches which are commonly callâ—d Reformed Churches parts of the Catholick Church T. Yes they are the best and soundest parts of it L. But why are they called Protestant and Reformed T. Not to trouble you with the first particular occasion of the name Protestant they are now generally stiled so because they protest against the errors and corruptions of the Roman Church and have Reformed themselves from the same according to the primitive pattern laid down in holy Scripture So that when you hear tell of the Protestant Religion or Reformed Religion you are not to understand thereby any new Religion distinct from Christianity but only the old Christian Religion in its native simplicity and purity separate from all Popish additions Nor do we say as I have told you that the Church was lost and now lately found out but this we say that it was greatly corrupted especially in these Western parts of the world over which the Bishops of Rome had by ill arts usurped an authority From which Usurpation our Rulers most justly and regularly delivered themselves and afterwards with great care and consideration reformed our Church from those corruptions which were chiefly introduced and supported by that authority L. But they of that Church use to tell us and so does my Author here that all who are not of their communion are Sectaries to whom by no means do agree the marks of the true Church which yet they say are all of them evidently to be found in theirs T. Nothing more common than for adversaries to give one another very ill names and that shall serve for half a confutation amongst ignorant people But names alter not the nature of things And as zealously as they of Rome do affect the name of Catholicks I doubt not but upon search they will be found as notorious Sectaries as any in Christendom whilst many of those whom they brand with that infamous title will appear to be true Catholick Christians if there now be or ever were any such in the world And in order to the proof of this pray let me hear what are those marks of the true Church L. They are said to be chiefly four that it is One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and this say they cannot be said of any Protestant Church and therefore not of our Church of England which is by them reckoned among Sectaries T. By these marks let us be tried Only take notice that no one particular Church can be stiled the Catholick Church as if a part was the whole But I say the Church of England which we are now chiefly concern'd to vindicate is a true and sound part of this One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church and all the marks of a true Church do much more clearly and fully agree to it than to the Church of Rome But let me hear what they object to the contrary L. First they say it is not One that is it is not united because there are so many divisions in it Some will be Protestants some Presbyterians others Independents Anabaptists Quakers c. Nor can they be one whilst they acknowledg not one Head to determine controversies Whilst on the other hand the Papists pretend that they have this one Head one Faith the same Sacraments and so are all of one Religion and therefore having so much unity are to be own'd by this mark for the true Church c. T. In answer to this consider 1 That it cannot with any pretence of reason or Scripture be made the mark of a true Church that there shall be no divisions in it For were there not some to be found in the best and purest Churches immediately planted by the Apostles themselves As particularly in the Church of Corinth for which they are severely reproved 1 Cor. 1. 10 11 c. 2 Much less doth it become those of the Church of Rome to accuse others of divisions who have more and greater amongst themselves than can be found I believe in any other Church in Christendom They talk of one Head but sometimes they have had two or three Popes at once and that for several years together They are divided in points fundamental to their own Church as whether the Pope be above a General Council or the Council above the Pope Nor are they any more agreed where the Infallibility of which they boast so much is seated than about the Supremacy whether it be in the Pope or in a General Council or in both together Yea some say 't is neither in one or the other nor in both united as considered apart from the rest but in the whole body of the faithful as by them Religion is convey'd from one generation to another And are they not much better for an Infallible Judg of controversies whilst they are not yet agreed who he is and where this Infallibility is to be found In a multitude of other points are they divided as learned Writers of our Church have shewn at large and with great probability have some asserted that they hardly agree universally amongst themselves in any Doctrines but those wherein they agree with us 3 But again were they never so well united amongst themselves yet is this but the agreement of a Sect with it self and is far from proving them to be therefore the Catholick Church or any sound part of it As if suppose all the Quâ—kers were perfectly agreed together in all opinions and imagin their number was as great as the Papists are they therefore to be reckoned the Catholick Church because forsooth they are One amongst themselves Surely no since by their errors and their schism they divide themselves from all other Christians Thus whilst Papists are united in owning the Pope to be Christs Vicar on earth and the supreme visible Head over the whole Christian Church they do hereby only make a sect or faction let their number be never so great And by this means as well as many other ill opinions and practices which are imposed on the
presses all men to endeavour after perfection in every grace and vertue and especially to be much in works of mercy and charity but yet she does not fright people with stories of Purgatory to bring in their wealth to the Church nor teach them that there is any great perfection in leaving their honest callings to run into a Monastery bringing their riches along with them thither She requires constant temperance and sobriety and sometimes imposes fasting and abstinence but then whether men eat a little flesh or fish oyl or butter she thinks it not a matter of the least moment but leaves all men to their own choice and prudence In a word she does not with the Pharisee teach for doctrines the commands of men but diligently inculcates the express commandments of Almighty God delivered to us in his holy Word And tho' she would not have us so foolish and proud as to think of meriting Heaven by our own good works yet she teaches that upon our patient continuance in well doing we shall through the mercies of God and the merits of Christ certainly obtain eternal life but upon no others terms does she encourage any man to hope for it And thus you see how our Church teaches us to take that same safe and narrow but sweet and pleasant way to salvation which is proposed to us in the Gospel L. I am fully perswaded she does so God grant me grace ever to walk in this holy way and then I shall not doubt of an happy end Pray proceed to his last argument T. I shall so and this it is That Church is not to be heard which has no solid reason for her keeping the Sabbath-day on the day she does keep it but no Church or Congregation of Sectaries has this and therefore none of them ought to be heard What say you to this L. I say that we of the Church of England whom he unjustly calls Sectaries have good reason for our keeping the Sabbath on that day we do keep it even as good reason as the Church of Rome it self has T. He goes on to prove the contrary thus No Church of Sectaries has Scripture for keeping the Sabbath-day on Sunday and no longer on Saturday as God commanded it and yet they reject tradition upon which ground the Roman Church keeps the Sunday in lieu of Saturday and therefore they have no solid reason for what they do c. L. I answer we have Scripture for keeping one day in seven viz. the fourth Commandment And we read that after our Saviours Resurrection the Apostles and Disciples commonly assembled together on the first day of the week which is called the Lords-day Revel 1. 10. And then we have tradition to assure us that this day was observed by the Christian Church ever since which tradition we may plead for our practice I trow as well as the Church of Rome T. Yes certainly we may for though we reject a great many ill things which they would thrust upon us for old traditions many of them being meer novelties of their own devising yet we do by no means reject such traditions as have sufficient evidence of their having been generally received by all Christian Churches from the very times of the Apostles down to our days and of this nature do learned men generally affirm the observation of the Lords-day to be And what you alledg from Scripture may very well serve to recommend to us so ancient and general a practice To all this besides the great equity and reasonableness of the thing in it self you may add the authority of those whom God hath set over us in Church and State all which being put together leaving the nice disputes that have been about this matter is a sufficient ground for our observation of the first day of the week as a Christian Sabbath a day of rest from our common employments devoted to the more solemn worship and service of God both in publick and private As solid reason therefore do we give for our practice herein as the Church of Rome it self can do or any other Church in the world And thus we have done with his five mighty arguments in which upon a little examination there appears nothing of strength or solidity He next musters up some weighty objections as he reckons them against those whom he calls Sectaries which he says ought to make them very much doubt whether they be secure in the way they are in And here according to his usual vain way of bragging he makes this large offer which yet he will never make good that all Priests Jesuits and Catholicks over all the world will turn to their way if they can but get from their Ministers a clear and satisfactory resolution of the following doubts L. It was cunningly done of him to call for a satisfactory resolution since though it be as clear as the light at noon-day yet they may still pretend that it is not satisfactory T. They may so though I question not but it will appear such to all that are impartial and judicious These doubts I shall propose to you in order and hear what you your self can say for the resolving of them L. I shall give in the best answers I am able and where I am at a loss shall still desire your help CHAP. II. A resolution of some doubts and questions proposed to Protestants T. FIrst he demands whether it can be clearly shewn that our Ministers were sent by Almighty God to preach and to reform the Roman Catholick Church or whether they are not some of the false Prophets who say The Lord saith when the Lord hath not sent them Ezek. 13. 6. L. There seems no great difficulty in resolving this doubt since our Ministers had lawful Ordination and thereby had authority to preach the Word of God And by the light of this word they discovered many errors and abuses in the Roman Church wherewith we were foully polluted and by Gods blessing and the assistance of lawful authority they were very instrumental in reforming us from the same Now whilst they proved their Doctrine by this Word of God they are not to be compared to those false Prophets who taught the people lyes and vanity as we have it Ezek. 13. 7 8. T. Your answer is sufficient and very clear For since our first Reformers did not publish a new Religion but rather restored the old by removing those corrupt additions that had been made to it they did not need any extraordinary commission from Heaven such as Moses had from God when he delivered the Law and as the Apostles had from Jesus Christ when they were first sent to preach the Gospel But it was sufficient that they were duly qualified by Gods Spirit for the work of the Ministry and were lawfully called to it by those who had authority in the Church to ordain them to that Office Such as these are truly said to be sent of God and are therefore
therefore whilst the people take the Flesh under the species of Bread this may very well serve without taking the Wine too But if this be a good reason Why then need the consecrating Priest take the Wine Or why need our Saviour have appointed both Bread and Wine to be made use of in this his Holy Supper Here then you have a plain instance of their practising contrary to the Scripture in so weighty a matter as the Administring the Holy Communion To this may be joyn'd their custom of private Masses or Communions if that be not a contradiction the Priest himself many times receiving alone and none of the people who are present partaking with him contrary to the first institution of this Holy Sacrament and to the very nature and design of it as it is a Communion and contrary also to the practice of the Primitive Church To these may a great many more easily be added of which we have formerly taken notice Such as having their Prayers in an unknown Tongue contrary to the Apostles direction 1 Cor. 14. Their Worshipping of Saints and Angels which is forbidden in all those places that command us to Worship God alone in the name of Jesus Christ our only Mediator and most expresly Col. 2. 18. Rev. 22. 9. Also their Worship of Images and of the Host contrary to the second Commandment And for an instance of their false Doctrines many of which we have often mentioned we need go no further than that palpable one of Transubstantiation which he mentions as agreeable to Scripture that says This is my body But how little these words make for his purpose we have before shewn and that their plain meaning is This is the Sacrament of my Body or the representation and commemoration of it and the way of conveying the benefits that come by it according to the constant use of the like expressions in the matter of Sacraments even as the Paschal Lamb is called the Passover of which it was only a solemn Memorial But that the natural substance of Bread and consequently of Wine remains after Consecration we have proved from the Apostle who again and again calls it so 1 Cor. 11. How then can he say that without ground we separate from the Romish Church Since if there were nothing else to be blamed this alone were sufficient reason to keep out of their Communion since in order to it they require our belief of a Doctrine most apparently false namely that of Transubstantiation and enjoyn a practice founded upon this Doctrine which is notoriously sinful viz. the Worship of the Consecrated Elements as if they were now turned into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood yea into whole Christ both as to his Divine and Humane Nature Now they themselves as you have heard do grant that if there was no such change made by Consecration this Worship would be idolatrous and therefore we being upon good grounds assured that no such change there is do utterly abhor the very thoughts of such Idolatrous worship and do believe our selves bound in Conscience to Almighty God to undergo a Thousand deaths rather than be guilty of it yea though we lived in Popish Countries But besides this we here in England owe no manner of obedience to the Bishop of Rome nor are under any obligation to forsake the Communion of our own Church for that of the Romish but should be guilty of that hainous sin of Schism by so doing as the Papists amongst us are at this day of which more in another place As to what he talks that they who go from their Church can give no reason why they should rather turn to Luther than to the Calvinists c. it concerns not us in the least who neither turn to the one or the other but continue in Communion with our own Church in which we were Baptized and live in obedience to our own Rulers in Church and State whom God hath set over us Nor do I discern by what reason he makes this silly inference nor yet for what purpose But let me hear his next Argument L. It cannot be proved that ever at any time were admitted any Priests that were not first duly consecrated by Bishops Wherefore we rightly infer that all Lutheran Ministers Calvinists or any other Sects not Consecrated according to the old custom of the Holy Church are for both from the name and reality of the Divine Priesthood and so that in their Cene or Supper as they call it they give but a meer piece of Bread as also that they have no power to Absolve from Sins but send away people as entangled and defiled with Sin as they were when they came to them T. As to this Argument we of the Church of England are nothing concerned in it since our Priests receive Ordination from Bishops and therefore have as full authority for the exercise of their Ministerial function as those of any Christian Church in the World Some other Reformed Churches also do embrace Episcopal Government As for such who want it we shall not enter into a dispute concerning the validity of their Orders But this I think we may safely assert that if the people be duly qualified for the Lord's Supper as St. Paul himself calls it 1 Cor. 11. 20. by a firm belief of the Gospel and sincere love and obedience to our Blessed Saviour they shall not want the benefits that are promised to worthy Communicants through any defect or irregularity in the Ordination of their Ministers And if they do truly repent of their sins and forsake them they shall for Christ's sake obtain forgiveness from God though never any Priest should give them Absolution But on the other hand our Writers have shewn that according to the common principle received in the Romish Church That the truth of Sacraments depends upon the intention of the Priest the people cannot be certain at any time that they have true Sacraments no nor whether he be a true Priest that Administers them But I shall trouble you with nothing more on this Argument L. There is no need since it reaches not our Church in the least I shall therefore proceed to the fifth which is this It cannot be found in the whole Holy Scripture that nothing is to be believed but what clearly and expresly is contained written in the same whence follows the ruine and overthrow of the ground-work on which Lutherans Calvinists and other Sectaries rely when they affirm that nothing is to be believed but what is expresly set down in Holy Writ T. I wonder who says so Every thing is to be believed that has sufficient evidence of its truth whether it be in Scripture or not But this we say and this I suppose he means to argue against that nothing is of necessity to be believed in order to Salvation but what is contain'd in Holy Scripture Which in effect is the same as to say that the Holy Scripture contains all necessary
either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism 1 Apostasie is a renouncing not only the Faith of Christ but the very name and title to Christianity No man will say that ever the Church of Rome fell thus 2 Heresie is an adhesion to some private or singular opinion or error in Faith contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received Doctrine of the Christian world I pray you satisfie me to these particulars 1. By what General Council was she condemn'd 2. Or which of the Fathers wrote against her 3. Or by what authority was she otherwise reproved for it seems to me a thing very incongruous that so great a Church should be condemn'd by every one that has a mind to condemn her 3 Schism is a departure or a division from the unity of the Church whereby that bond and communion held with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided it self by schism from any other body of faithful Christians brake communion or went forth from the society of any Elder Church I pray satisfie me to these particulars whose company did she leave From whom did she go forth Where was the true Church which she did forsake For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted Schismatical when there cannot be assign'd another Church different from her which from age to age hath continued visible from which she departed Hence he infers That the Church of Rome is the only true Church that leads to an eternity of bliss T. This indeed they commonly boast of as an unanswerable demonstration which they often scatter abroad in papers for the deluding of silly people Now though I see nothing in it but what has already been answered again and again yet for your fuller satisfaction Consider 1 suppose that we should grant his whole argument and every word in it to be true yet will it do little service to their cause nor will by any means yield that inference he would draw from it viz. that the Church of Rome is the only true Church and therefore to her communion we must betake our selves leaving the Church of England if ever we hope for salvation For pray what if we shou'd grant which yet he will never be able to prove that the Church of Rome is at this day as true and sound and flourishing a Church as we own it once to have been and should yield that it never fell by Apostasie Heresie or Schism what follows hence I beseech you What that she is the only true Church and the whole Catholick Church No by no means but only that she ought to be look'd upon as a sound part of the Catholick Church and therefore that her members viz. the Christians of that Diocess ought to live in strict fellowship with her and all other neighbouring Churches ought to give her due respect in maintaining such communion with her as sister-Churches are capable of holding one with another But it does not I say in the least follow that she is the supreme Mistress and Governess of all other Churches and therefore that all Christians in the world must render subjection to her and her Bishop otherwise they are to be look'd upon as no members of the Catholick Church nor at present in a capacity of salvation For such a supreme Mistress as this she never was when in her best and purest state nor therefore ought she to be esteemed so at this day neither do we of this Church owe obedience to her nor ought we to leave our own Church for her sake or at her command L. I cannot see how his argument proves us at all obliged thereto nor consequently how it reaches his purpose T. That it does not will still appear plainer if instead of Rome you name any other ancient Church suppose that of Ierusalem which was once very glorious and flourishing and deserved above all others to be stiled a Mother-Church now suppose that at this day it remain'd as sound and good as ever it was and to use his language that it never fell by Apostasie Heresie or Schism pray would it hence follow that all other Churches and particularly this of England must therefore yield subjection to the Church of Ierusalem That our Bishops must pay homage to the Bishop of that Church owning their dependance upon him and living in obedience to him And if they should refuse to do thus must our people therefore forsake their own Bishops and Clergy and withdraw from the Churches where they officiate and entertain Bishops or Priests that are sent over to us from Ierusalem and run into corners with them for the worship of God Surely there is not the least reason for any of this and not a whit more is there for our being thus subject to the Bishop of Rome or for our receiving and joyning with the Priests which are sent over to us by his authority There never was nor is now any reason why we should be thus enslaved to the Romish Church For in the very days of the Apostles and some hundred years after when that Church was in its best and purest state we of the Church of England rendred no such obedience to it own'd no such dependance upon it Neither indeed did the Bishops of that Church then claim any such power and Supremacy over us and other foreign Churches Wherefore as our ancestors the British Christians did not subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome nor ever thought such a subjection necessary to their salvation no more have we reason to do Whatever power or precedency the Bishops of Rome might afterwards have in these Western parts either by favour of the Emperor or by consent of the Bishops amongst themselves or most of all by their own daily encroachments by the meer advantage of their Seat without either law or reason this I say nothing at all concerns us at this day since all his power here is utterly abrogated and taken away by just and lawful authority in a most mature and deliberate manner as you before heard And I then told you how in Henry the Eighth's time before our happy Reformation it was generally own'd and declared by the Popish Clergy themselves that the Bishop of Rome had no more authority over us in England than the Bishop of Ierusalem Antioch or any other foreign Bishop And long before that our Laws limited and restrain'd the Popes power as it seem'd good to our Rulers And so do Popish Princes themselves at this day suffering him to have no more power or priviledg amongst them than themselves think fit Since then the Church of Rome in the very days of its primitive purity and glory had no power over us in this Church no more hath it at this day nor ought to have though it were still as pure and good as at first it was