Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	apostle_n	believe_v	holy_a	5,671	5	4.8590	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30330	A collection of several tracts and discourses written in the years 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685 by Gilbert Burnet ; to which are added, a letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pool's secret power, the history of the power treason, with a vindication of the proceedings thereupon, an impartial consideration of the five Jesuits dying speeches, who were executed for the Popish Plot, 1679.; Selections. 1685	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1685 (1685)	Wing B5770; ESTC R214762	83,014	140

of their Church This latter I undertake to make out from the undeniable Maximes to which all of that Communion are bound to adhere There are Two Principles which I may well call the Fundamental Principles of the Roman Church since all Opinions that are not inconsistent with them can be tollerated among them But whatever strikes at these must needs be Abominated as Destructive of that they call The Catholick Faith The one is The Authority of the Church The other is The Certainty of Tradition If then the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and by consequence Killing them for if they are justly deposed it 's as just to kill them as to kill any Usurper is such that without denying the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition it cannot be denied then all men must resolve either to acknowledg it or to renounce their Subjection to a Church that must needs believe it About the Authority of the Church Two things are to be observed that serve for clearing what I design to make out The First is That the Church in any one Age has as much Authority as ever it had or can have in any other Age For if Christs Promises together with the other Arguments they bring for the Authority of the Church be good they are alike strong at all Times and in all Ages And therefore though in writing Books of Controversies they muster up Authorities out of the former Ages because we profess we pay little esteem to the latter Ages Yet among themselves all Ages are alike and the Decrees of them are of equal authority Secondly The Authority of the Church is as little to be disputed in moral matters that fall under practice as in Articles of Faith that only fall under Speculation and in a word The Church must be the Infallible Expounder of the Ten Commandments as well as of the Creed All the Arguments from Christs Promises from the hazard of trusting to our private Reasonings and the Necessity of Submitting to a publick Judg are by so much the more concluding in Practical matters as it is of more Importance That Men think aright in Practical than in Speculative Opinions If then there arises a Question about a Moral matter or the Exposition of any of the Commandments The only certain Decision must be expected from the Church For instance a Question arises about Images Whether it is lawful to use them in the Worship of God upon the seeming Opposition which the worship of them has to the 2d Commandment Since the Church has once Determin'd that it may be lawfully used it is Heresie to deny it on this pretence that we fancy it is contrary to one of the Commandments So if a Controversie arise upon the Fifth Commandment How far a King is to be acknowledged if the Church has determined the Limits of that it is Heresie to carry it further If also another Question arise how much the Sixth Commandment obliges It must be carried so far and no further than the Determination of the Church allows I confess by the Doctrine of that Church even a General Council may err in a point in which any matter of Fact is included Because they may be deceived by a false Information But in a General Rule about Morality and the Extent of any of the Ten Commandments The Decision of the Church must either be certain and for ever Obligatory or the whole Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church falls to the ground Concerning the Certainty of Tradition the general Opinion of that party is That Tradition is an Infallible Conveyance of Divine Truth and that whatever any Age of the Church delivers to another as derived from Christ and his Apostles must be received with the same Veneration and Obedience that we pay to the Holy Scriptures And for the ways of distinguishing a Tradition of the Church from any Imposture or Novelty There be four of them The first That is the most doubtful is That the greatest and most esteemed Doctors in any Age deliver as a Divine Truth Nor is it necessary that they formally say This is a Tradition but if many of them mention an Opinion and declare their own assent to it this passes as a sufficient proof of the Tradition of any Age of the Church So in all points of Controversie between them and us the greatest part of their Writers some few later and suspected ones only excepted think they have sufficiently justified their Church when they bring Testimonies out of any of the Writings of the Fathers that seem to favour their Opinion and will call it unreasonable for us to reject these because they only deliver their own opinion and do not call it the Tradition of the Church but conclude That many Writers in any age asserting an Opinion it may well be looked on as the Tradition of that Age. But because this is more liable to exception there is another way that is more infallible to judg of Tradition and that is by the conveyance of the See of Rome which they judg the chief Depository of the Faith and for which they fansie they have so many proofs from the high things some of the Fathers have said about the dignity of that See Now if these conclude any thing it must follow That whatever has been delivered in any Age by a Pope as conveyed down from Christ or his Apostles must either be so indeed or the See of Rome is not a faithful Transmitter of Tradition But there is yet a more certain way of judging of Tradition by what the chief Pastors of the Church have delivered when assembled in a general Council This being the Supreme Tribunal in the Church there can lie no appeal from it Nor can the Doctrines delivered or approved by it be questioned For instance If it were under debate How the Tradition about Transubstantiation can be made out in the Thirteenth Century it is needless to seek any other evidence than That one Almerick is condemned for denying it and in Opposition to that it was formally established in a general Council This is as much as can be had and he were very unreasonable that were not satisfied with it So if it be asked How can the Tradition of the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and giving away their Dominions in the same Century be proved The Answer is plain That same very Council decreed it Upon which a great Prince was deposed and his Dominions were given to another These are the Common Standards by which Traditions are Examined But to these a new one has been lately added which is indeed a much shorter and nearer way And that is whatever the Church holds in any one age as a Material point of Religion she must have received it from the former age and that age from the former and so it climbs upwards till the days of the Apostles If this be a certain Track of Tradition by which we may infallibly trace it Then for instance If

Error cannot be so fatal when it infects a mind that is otherwise sincere as Sin which clearly defaces the Image of God in the Soul We ought not therefore to expect that the Gospel should give any further security against Error than it gives against Sin On the contrary we should rather expect a further security from Sin because it is most hurtful But all the Provision made against Sin is this that in the Scriptures we are warned of the evil of it and are directed to such methods and have the promises of such Assistance that if we use our endeavour we shall not be overcome by sin nor perish in it So as to Error we have the same security The Gospel affords us a very clear light for directing our Belief in the most important things which if we study with due humility and sincerity imploring God for the grace of his holy Spirit for our instruction we shall be preserved from Error And thus the same provision is made against Error that is against Sin And we have no reason to expect more And as it were not fit that Salvation should be offered without obliging men to use their utmost endeavours so it were not fit to give such an easie Remedy against Error as that a man should not need to employ his reason to discover Truth and avoid Mistakes If our Gospel be also hid it is hid in them that perish Therefore that our Searches after Truth may be both encouraged and rewarded God sets it before us in such a Light that it is our own fault if we do not see and follow it But if men will either blindly give themselves up to the conduct of such Guides whose interest it is to mislead them which is the case of the Church of Rome or out of humour or other base ends will invent or follow some erroneous Tenets as other Hereticks do they have themselves to blame and shall bear their own Iniquity but they have no reason to cast the fault upon God or accuse the Scriptures of Darkness or Defectiveness in these things that are necessary to Salvation I come now to the last Prejudice which will require a fuller Discussion because it relates to matter of Fact which as it is better understood so it makes deeper Impressions on people that are not so much wrought on by speculative points as by these things that fall under their senses They first except to the Novelty of our Reformation and always insult with this Question Where was your Religion before Luther To this these things are to be opposed First we turn back the Question and ask them where was their Religion the first six hundred years after Christ Where was the Worship of Images the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Redeeming out of Purgatory of Deposing Princes and of the Worshipping Saints before the Eighth Century If the Reformation be now to be condemned because of its Novelty these things were then to be as much condemned because they were then Novelties Secondly If the Reformation had brought in any new Doctrine its Novelty were indeed a just Prejudice against it but it was only the throwing out of these Corruptions which had been brought in in some dark and Ignorant Ages Thirdly The Doctrine of the Reformed Church is no other than what Christ and his Apostles taught and what the Church believed for many Ages after them And as to the Positive part of it it has been still held by the Church of Rome and is yet acknowledged by them but with so many Additions that there was a Necessity of Reforming these And this is often to be inculcated in them that there is no Article of Faith nor any other material point of Religion among us that is condemned by the Church of Rome They only blame us because we do not in many other points believe as they do and this we ought not to do unless we could see an equal Authority binding us to all alike Another Exception is that in the Reformation we made a Schism and broke the Unity of the Church whereas if there had been any things amiss in the Church they say the Reformers should have endeavoured to remove them without tearing the Body of Christ in pieces But in answer to this we acknowledg if the things complained of could have been continued without sin they ought not to have departed from the Communion of other Churches but when the publick Liturgies and the Worship was found to be full of such Corruptions that without Idolatry and Superstition they could be no longer kept up then it was not time to stay for the leisure of their Neighbouring Churches Yet if there had been any probable hopes that the See of Rome would have concurred in such a Reformation it had been worth staying for as long as was possible But when it was on the contrary apparent that all the most just Remonstrances made to that Court were answered at best with delays and Excuses if not with Excommunications and other censures they had no reason to expect any concurrence from thence So the case being thus put that they discovered such Corruptions in the Worship of God with which they could not comply any longer either they were obliged to Worship God against their Consciences or to lay aside all publick Worship or else to cast out these Corruptions by a Reformation Let any man of good reason judge whether the last of these was not to be chosen There was no Obligation lying on this Church to wait for the pleasure of the Court of Rome or our neighbouring Churches in this matter We are a free and Independent Church we owe a charitable and neighbourly Correspondence to forreign Churches but we are subject to none of them And according to the express Decision of one of the first General Councils in the like case we were no way subordinate to the See of Rome even as it was the Patriarchate of the West Themselves do confess that it is no Heresie to say That See is fallible and therefore we were not obliged to dance attendance at that Court when we discovered the Corruptions with which it had deceived the World but might in our National or Provincial Synods at home examine and Reform whatever errors were among us And the multitude of those who held these errors could be no just ground for delaying any advances towards a Reformation no more than in the ancient Church the Orthodox Bishops when chosen into a See corrupted with Arrianism were obliged because that Contagion was generally spread to make no attempts toward Reformation They Except further That the Reformation was begun here by a vitious Prince King Henry the Eighth who partly out of revenge because the Pope would not grant his desire about the Divorce of his Queen and partly to enrich himself and his Courtiers with the sale of Abbey-lands did suffer these Doctrins first to take head here and therefore they can have no good

the Tradition of the Church was confidently alledged and some Quotations were brought and very oft out of some later Writers The Paper was no sooner read than a loud and often repeated Shout of applause followed without any further search or canvasing about these Authorities And upon that the Decree was made This was the practice both of the second Nicene and of some more ancient Councils whose Journals are hitherto preserved and where the Journals are lost we have reason to believe they followed the same method so that it is very probable there might have been some such Writing read in the Council of Lateran And if they did not found their Decree upon Tradition they were much to blame for they had as venerable a Tradition as either the second Council of Nice or some other Councils had a practice about 150 years standing from the days of Pope Gregory the VII so that it is not to be denied but they had as good authority from Tradition to make this Decree as to make most of the other Decrees on which they insist much in the Books of Controversies that are written by them By the fourth Rule of judging about Tradition the matter is yet much plainer for if the generally received Belief of any Age of the Church is a good Thread to lead us up to the Apostles times then there needs no more be said For it is certain that for near four Ages together this was the universally received Doctrine of the Church of Rome And the opposition that some Princes made to it was condemned as Heresy Rebellion and every thing that was evil And it is remarkable that both O●…kam that wrote much for the Emperors cause against the Pope and Gerson and Almain no great favourers of Papal power are cited by Cardinal Perrow as acknowledging the Ecclesiastical power of deposing if a Prince were guilty of spiritual crimes So that the Controversies in this matter that were managed between the Writers for the Popes and Emperors were not whether the Pope in cases of Heresy might depose a Prince but were concerning two things very remote from this The one was whether the Pope had a direct Temporal power over all Kings by which as being Lord of the Fe●… he could proceed upon any Cause whatsoever against a King and take his Dominions from him To this indeed Gregory the 7th pretended tho more covertly and Boniface the 8th more avowedly There was great Opposition made to this by many Writers but at the same time they all agreed on it as an undeniable Maxim That the Pope had an indirect Power over Princes by which in the Cases of Heresy he might excommunicate and depose them nor was there so much as any Debate about it A second thing about which there was some Controversy was whether the Particulars that fell under debate came within the Head of Heresy or not So in the Case of Princes giving the Investitures into Bishopricks the Pope brought it in within the Head of Heresy and condemned those Persons as Simoniacks The Writers on the other side denied this pretending it was a Civil Matter and a right of the Crown The like Debates fell in when Princes were sentenced on any other account The Authority of the Sentence in the Case of Heresy was not controverted all the Question was Whether the Point under debate was Heresy or not And concerning these things any who have read the Writings in the great Collection made of them by Goldastus will receive an easy and full Satisfaction By which it appears that the Popes Power of deposing Kings in the Case of Heresy was the received Doctrine of the Church for several Ages and by consequence it must be looked on as derived down from the Apostles If the Doctrine of any one Age of the Church can lead us backward in a certain Track to discover what it was in the Apostles days By the first Position about the Nature of Supreme Power it is apparent that in the Case of Heresy a Prince deposed by the Pope if he stands out against the Sentence may be as lawfully killed as any Tory or Moss-Trooper or Bantito may be for he is a Rebel against his Lord and an Usurper over the People from that day forward And therefore tho Mariana told a Secret too publickly yet it cannot be denied to be a certain Consequent of their Principles It had been indeed more discreetly done to have ordered this only to be infused unto Peoples Consciences by their Confessors in secret And for Mariana tho the Book in gross is condemned as they give out yet the Opinions set down in it are not censured But Suarez writing against K. Iames tells him in plain Terms That a King who is canonically deposed may be killed by any man whatsoever This was not only published with an ordinary License but the whole University of Alcala declared every thing in it to be according to the Doctrine of the Church Valentia tho he disguises it a little yet says That an Heretical Prince may by the Popes Sentence be deprived of his Life Foulis cites ten more Doctors for the same Opinion of killing Kings by private persons I do not build upon the Assertions of these Jesuits as binding Authorities in that Church but make use of them to shew that some of their own eminentest Writers acknowledg the force of this Consequence which is indeed so evident that nothing but good Manners and some small Care not to provoke Princes too much by such bare-faced Positions keeps others from asserting it Few Princes are so tame as Childeric was to go into a Monastery after they are deposed Therefore this Doctrine is but a lame provision for the Churches Security from Heresie if the Lawfulness of killing does not follow that of deposing Kings And it was so generally received that it is told of Gerson that he was at great pains to get it declared that no private Cut-throat might kill a King and that by consequence it was only the Popes Prerogative to order them to be destroyed By the second Position about the Nature of Supreme Power that in extraordinary Cases Forms of Law may be superseded It is also clear that tho we know nothing of any Sentence of Deposition given out against the King yet he is not a whit the safer for he lies under an yearly Curse every Maundy Thursday The Notoriousness of his Heresy will sufficiently justify a particular Sentence without any further Process or Citation according to the Maxims of the Canon Law And there may be for ought we can know as valid a Deposition as Parchment and Lead can make it already expeded And if it be not yet done we are sure it may be done very suddenly and will be done whensoever they see any probability of Success Bellarmine hath very sincerely told us the Reason why Heretical Princes are not deposed because the Church has not strength enough to make such

do hinder him in his Iourney he is ipso facto deprived of all Honour Dignity Office or Benefice whether Ecclesiastical or Secular So here the indirect power over Princes by which they may be both deposed and punished is plainly assumed It is true that same Council did indeed Decree That no Subject should murther his King or Prince upon which some of our English and Irish Writers who condemn these practices think they have great advantages That Decree was procured by Gersons means who observing that by the many Rebellions that had been generally set on by Popes the Persons of Princes were brought under such contempt that private Assassinations came to be practised and in particular that of the Duke of Orleance by the Duke of Burgundy Therefore to prevent the fatal consequer ces which were like to follow on that and to hinder such practices for the future he with great earnestness followed that matter And tho it had almost cost him his life it is like from some of the Duke of Orleance his Faction who were resolved on a Revenge yet at last he procured it But this was only a Condemnation of private Cut-throats And the Article condemned had a pretty Reservation in it for it strikes only against Subjects killing their Prince without waiting for the Sentence of any Iudg whatsoever So if a Sentence be past by the Spiritual Judg then this Condemnation notwithstanding a Prince may be Murthered And the other Decree of that Council passed in the same Session shew they had no mind to part with the Deposing Power Besides the Answer to this Decree is clear It is acknowledged by the Defenders of the contrary opinion That it is not lawful in any case to kill a King but when one that was a King is no more such but becomes a Rebel and an Usurper then it is lawful to kill him Pursuant to the Decree made at Constance a Council met at Siena ten years after in which all the former Decrees made against Hereticks are confirmed and the Favourers or Fautors of Heresie are delared liable to all the pains and censures of Hereticks and by consequence to the chief of them all Deposition After that came the Council of Basil which ratified the forementioned Decree made at Constance about General Councils By which Popes Emperors Kings c. that presumed to hinder any from coming to the Council are subjected to Excommunication Interdicts and other Punishments Spiritual and Temporal Last of all came the Council of Trent and tho met ters were at that pass that the Council durst not tread on Princes as others had formerly done lest they should have been thereby provoked to join with the Protestants yet they would not quite lay aside the pretence of a Deposing power but resolved to couch it so into some Decree that it might continue their claim to a Right which they would not part with tho they knew not at that time what to make of it So in the Decree against Duels they declare That if any Emperors Kings c. did assign a field for a Combat that they did thereby lose their Right to that place and the City Castle or other places about it Now it is certain if by their Decrees a Prince may forfeit any part of his Dominion he may be also dispossessed of all the rest since his Title to his whole Territory being one individual thing what shakes it in any part subjects it entirely to him who has such authority over it Here we have found 7 General Councils as they are esteemed by that Church all either expresly asserting the Deposing Power or ratifying former Decrees that had asserted it And from such a succession of Councils it is reasonable to conclude That this Third Character of a Tradition of the Church agrees to it and if General Councils are fit Conveyors of Traditions we have as full Evidence as can be desired for proving this to be a Church-Tradition This last Character of a Tradition is what the whole Body of the Church has held in any one Age. Upon which they say we may calculate that such opinions must have come down from the Apostles since it seems neither credible nor possible that the Belief of the Church could be changed With this Arnold has of late made great noise And as the new Fashions that come from France do please our young Gallants best so some of the Writers of Controversies among us have taken up the same plea here That the whole Church received the Deposing Doctrine in cases of Heresy may be inferred from what had been said The Church is made up of Popes Bishops Priests Of Soveraign Princes and Subjects of all ranks That the Popes believed it none can doubt So many Definitions of Councils shews us as plainly what the Bishops and other Prelates believed the Writing of the Schoolmen and Canonists shew what the rest of the Clergy believed Those Princes who suffered under the Sentences give at least a tacit consent to it since they never question it but study only to clear themselves of the imputation of Heresie The other Princes who made use of the Donations of the Popes shew as plainly that they believ'd it The great Armies that were brought about their Standards must have also believed it and the people who generally deserted the Deposed Prince notwithstanding the great vertues of some of them and the love that Subjects naturally carry to their Princes shew that they believed it So that if St. Iames his Question Shew me thy Faith by thy Works be applied to this particular the Answer will be easie What shall I mention the frequent depositions of Charles the 1st of Henry the 4th of his Son Henry the 5th of Frederick the 1st Philip Otho the 4th Frederick the 2d and Lewis the 4th in the Empire The frequent Depositions in Sicily and Naples the many attempts upon France that terrible Bull in particular of Iulius the 2d against that good King Lewis the twelfth By which besides the Sentence against the King it appears he designed the total destruction of the Nation promising the Pardon of Sin to every one that killed one French Man the frequent Attempts upon England both in Hen. the 2d and K. Iohn's time not to mention their later Bulls of Deposition against K. Henry the 8th and Q. Elizabeth the many Attempts in Spain particularly the deposing the King of Navarre by P. Iulius and the Sentences against Henry the 4th then King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde All these and a great many more with the strange Effects that followed upon them are so clear Proofs of the Worlds believing this Doctrine for many Ages together that if Men had any Remainders of shame left with them they could not deny it And to this day all their Writers maintain it tho perhaps now the greatest part of the Laity know little of it but whenever the Tradition of the Church is

The Third Branch of the Christian Religion is the Worship of God and that chiefly the use of the Sacraments For the Worship of God let it be considered that we pray to God and praise him only for all these things about which the Scriptures command us to address to him Our worship is in a Language that all the people understand and so are edified by it according to St. Paul who has enlarged so much on this matter in a whole Chapter that it is strange how any who acknowledg the Authority of that Epistle can deny it Our Liturgies are such that the Romanists cannot except to any part of them Our ceremonies are few and these be both decent and useful So that in all the parts of our Worship we do so exactly agree to the Rule of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church that they cannot blame us for any one Rubrick or Collect in it But for their worship It is in a Language not understood by the people who to be sure can receive no Edification from that they understand not nor can they say Amen to such Devotions This is as it were in spite to St. Paul who took special care that as long as his Authority was in any esteem in the Church such an abuse should never creep into it Nor is there a shadow of Authority for such a practice from the Primitive Church in which for many Ages the Worship was still in the vulgar Tongues Next their Worship is so overcharged with many Rites and Ceremonies that the seriousness of Devotion must needs be much alloyed by them A great part of the Worship is so whispered as if they were muttering Spells Their Books of Exorcisms are the most indecent things that can be full of Charms and other ridiculous Rites And for the Pontifical and Ceremonial of their Church they may match with Heathenism for Superstition Their Offices are so various and numerous and the Rubricks seem so full of disorder that a man may as soon learn a Trade as know all the several parts of them How this can be reconciled to the Simplicity of the Gospel or the Worshipping God in spirit and truth may be easily judged by those who can compare things For the Sacraments we have the Two that Christ Instituted Baptism and the Lords Supper And for Pennance Confirmation Ordination and Marriage we have them also among us as they were appointed by Christ and his Apostles though we do not call these Sacraments For Extream Unction we find no warrant at all for it as a sacred Ordinance and we are sure the Church for many Ages did not think of it For Baptism it is done among us in the very Form our Saviour appointed and this they do not deny But among them they cannot be assured that they are at all Baptized since according to the Doctrine of the necessity of the Intention of the Priest to the Being of a Sacrament they cannot be assured of it for an Atheistical Priest can spoil their Baptism so that unless they can be certain of that which is impossible for them to know I mean the Intention of the Priest they are not sure that they were ever truly Baptized But for the Lords Supper if any person will so far trust his own Reason and senses as to compare all the Warrants we have in Scripture for that Ordinance with the Practice of our Church and theirs they will soon see who agree most to them Christ took Bread which he blessed and gave saying This is my Body which is given for you He also took the Chalice and said Drink ye all of it c. All this we doe and no more so that it is indeed a Communion among us and those who have read the account that Iustin Martyr gives us of the Rites in the Communion in his days would think he were reading the very Abstract of our Office But in the Church of Rome besides the less material things of the Form of the Bread the Consecration of Altars and Vessels with the numberless little devices in the Canon of the Mass that they seem not of such importance let these considerable changes they have made be looked into 1. They have brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation against the clearest Evidence both of sense and reason against the nature of a Sacrament and its being a Memorial of Christs Death and that by the very words of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Christs Body and Blood as the one was given for us and the other shed for us on the Cross and not as he is now at the Right hand of God The belief of this crept in by degrees from the eighth Century in which it was first set on foot but much contradicted both in the Eastern and Western Church and was not fully setled till the 13th Century We are sure it was not the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome Constantinople Asia Antioch nor Africk in the 5th and 6th Centuries by express Testimonies from the most esteemed Authors of that time Gelasius Chrysostom Ephrem Theodoret and St. Austin 2. They deny the Chalice to the Laity against the express words of the Institution and contrary both to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church for 1300 years 3. They have declared the Priests saying Mass to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and the Living though the Scripture plainly says That Christ was once offered for us It is true the Primitive Church used the words Sacrifice and Oblation as our Church yet does but their meaning by that was only in the general sense of these terms as Prayers Praises and Alms are called Sacrifices 4. They have brought in a new piece of Worship which is the hearing of Mass without receiving the Sacrament and it is now the great Devotion of their Church Though by the Institution it is as express as can be that the Consecration is only in order to its being a Communion And by the Apostolical Canons which some in their Church believe to be the work of the Apostles and are by them all acknowledged to be a Collection of the Rites of the first Ages all persons that were present at the Worship and did not communicate were to be severely censured 5. The adoring the Sacrament the exposing it on the Altar and carrying it about in solemn Processions to be worshipped as they are late Inventions so if Transubstantiation be not true they are by their own confession the grossest Idolatries that ever were And are not these considerable variations from the first Institution of this Sacrament As for their own Sacraments though there is no reason to equal them to either of these that were instituted by Christ yet some of them we use as they were at first appointed Persons Baptized are Confirmed with Imposition of hands the only Ceremony used by the Apostles We allow the use of Confession and do press it in many cases and give the benefit of

Absolution but we do not make this an Engin to screw peoples secrets from them For which there is no warrant in Scripture nor was it thought necessary for many Ages after the Apostles Confession of publick Scandals was enjoyned and for private sins it was recommended but this latter was not judged simply necessary for obtaining the pardon of sin And what noise soever they make of the good that Confession and the enjoyning of Pennance may do if well managed we need only appeal to some of their own best Writers now in France whether as they have been practised they have not rather driven all true Piety out of the world If these abuses had been only the faults of some Priests the blame could not have been justly cast on their Church but when the publick Rules given to Confessors printed with Licence are their warrants for so doing then their Church is in fault So that nothing is more common among them than for persons after a confession made of their sins with a slight sorrow and some trifling pennance undergone together with the Priestly Absolution to fancy themselves as clean from all sin as if they had never offended God And this being the Doctrin of their Church it both lessens the sense of sin and takes men off from making such earnest applications to God through Christ as the Gospel commands For Orders they are among us with the same Rites that Christ and the Apostles gave them first And a learned Man of their own Church has lately published the most ancient Forms of Ordinations he could find From which it appears that all the Ceremonies in their Ordinations for the want of which they accuse us were brought in since the eighth Century so that even by their own Principles these things cannot be necessary to Ordination otherwise there were no true Orders in the Church for the first eight Ages For Marriage we honour it as Gods Ordinance and since the Scriptures declare it honourable in all without exception we dare deny it to none who desire it St. Paul delivers the Duty of Clergy-men towards their Wives with Rules for their Wives behaviour which had been very impertinent if Clergy-men might have no Wives We find a married Clergy in the first ten Centuries And we know by what base Arts the Caelibate of the Clergy was brought in and what horrid ill effects it has produced Neither do we allow of any devices to hinder Marriage by degrees of kindred not prohibited in the Law of God or the trade that was long driven in granting Dispensations in those degrees and afterwards annulling these and avoiding the Marriages that followed upon them upon some pretences of Law Thus it appears how they have corrupted the Doctrine of the Sacraments together with the Worship of God The last head of Religion is Government and as to this we can challenge any to see what they can except to us First in reference to the Civil Power we declare all are bound for conscience sake to obey every lawful Command of the Supream Authority and to submit when they cannot obey We pretend to no Exemption of Clarks from the Civil Jurisdiction but give to Caesar the things that are Caesars We do not obey the King only because he is of our Religion much less do we allow of Conspiracies or Rebellions upon our judging him an Heretick so that we deliver no Doctrin that can be of any ill consequence to the Society we live in And for the Ecclesiastical Government we have Bishops Priests and Deacons rightly Ordained and in their due subordination to one another every one administring these Offices due to his Function which has been the Government of the Christian Church since the times of the Apostles So that we have a clear vocation of Pastors among us from whose hands every person may without scruple receive all the Sacraments of the Church But for the Church of Rome how unsafe is the Civil Government among them not to mention the Doctrin of deposing Princes for which I refer you to my former Letter What a security does the Exemption of Clerks from the Civil Courts in cases criminal give to loose and debauched Church-men and what disturbance must this breed to a Common-wealth The denying the Civil Magistrate power to make Laws that concern Religion or oblige Churchmen takes away a great deal of his Rights for scarce any Law can be made but wrangling and ill-natur'd Churchmen may draw it within some head of Religion And that this was frequently done in former Ages all that have read History know The quarrels that were in the beginning of this Century between the Pope and the Republick of Venice were a fresh Evidence of it But for the Ecclesiastical Government they have spoiled it in all the parts of it The Pope has assumed a power of so vast an extent and so arbitrary a nature that all the ancient Canons are thrown out of doors by it We know that originally the Bishops of Rome were looked on by the rest of the Church as their Colleagues and fellow Bishops The Dignity of the City made the See more remarkable and the belief of St. Peters having founded it with his suffering Martrydom there with St. Paul made it much honoured so that when the Empire became Christian then the Dignity of the Imperial City made the Bishop of Rome be acknowledged the first Patriarch From this beginning they arose by many degrees to the height of pretending to a Supremacy both Civil and Spiritual and then they not only received appeals which was all they at first pretended to but set up Legantine Courts every where made the Bishops swear Obedience and Homage to them and the Arch-Bishops receive the Pall from their hands in sign of their dependance on them Exempted Monasteries and other Clarks from Episcopal Jurisdiction broke all the Laws of the Church by their Dispensations So that no shaddow of the primitive Government does now remain And though Gregory the Great wrote with as much indignation against the Title of Universal Bishop as ever any Protestant did yet his Successors have since assumed both the Name and thing And to that height of Insolence has this risen that in the Council of Trent all the Papal Party opposed the Decree that was put in for declaring Bishops to have their Jurisdictions by Divine Right The Court Party not being ashamed to affirm that all Jurisdiction was by Divine Right only in the Pope and in the other Bishops as the Delegates of the Apostolick See and they were in this too hard for the other Party So that now a Bishop who by the Divine appointment ought to feed the Flock can do no more in that then as the Pope gives him leave The greatest part of the Priests have no dependence on their Bishops The Monks Fryars and Iesuits being immediately subordinate to the Pope so that they do what they please knowing they can justifie any thing

at Rome and they fear no Censure any where else From this so many abuses have crept in and the Canonists have found out so many devices to make them Legal that there is no hope of Reforming these at Rome The whole State of Cardinals is one great Corruption who from being Originally the Parish Priests of Rome and so under all Bishops have raised themselves so high that they do now trample on the whole Order and pretend to an Equality with Princes The giving Benefices to Children the unlimitted Plurality of Benefices in one Person the Comendam's the reserved Pensions with many other such like are gross as well as late Corruptions And no wonder if all men despair of Reforming the Court of Rome when these abuses are become necessary to it by which the greatness of the Cardinals and the other Officers or Ministers there is kept up I need not mention the gross Simony of that Court where all the world knows every thing may be had for money The Popes themselves are often Chosen by these Arts and if their own Rules be true such Elections with every thing that follows on them are void The Infinite Swarmes of the Inferiour Clergy do plainly drive a Simoniacal Trade by the Masses they say for Departed Souls for Money And for Publick Pennance they have Universally let it fall in stead whereof private Pennance is now in use And if their own Writers say true this is made an Engine to serve other ends when by enjoyning slight and easie Pennances they draw the People after them upon which the Jesuites have been loudly accused these Forty Years last past In Sum all the Corruptions or rather defects that are in the Government of our Church are only such as they brought in and have not met yet with such effectual remedies as must cure the Church of these inveterate Distempers their ill Conduct did cast her into If any of that Party will review these Particulars and so far trust their own Reasons as to judge according to the plainest Evidence they cannot resist the conviction that they must needs meet with when they see the simplicity of our Faith the Morality of our Doctrine the Purity of our Worship and our Primitive Government and compare it with their vast Superfetation of Articles of Faith the Immorality of their Rules of living the Superstition if not Idolatry of their Worship and the most extravagant Innovations in Government that are in the Church of Rome And indeed these things are so clear that few could resist the force of so much plain truth if it were not for some prejudices with which they are so fettered that they cannot examine matters with that freedom of mind that is necessary Therefore much care must be taken to clear these in the most familiar and demonstrative manner that is possible They may be reduced to these Five chief Ones First That the true Church cannot Err. Secondly That out of the true Church there is no salvation Thirdly That the case of the Church of Rome is much safer than ours is since the Church of England acknowledges a possibility of salvation in the Church of Rome which they on the other hand deny to the Church of England Fourthly That unless there be a Supreme Judg set up we can be sure of nothing in Religion but must fall into many Factions and Parties And Fiftly That the Reformation was but a Novelty begun in the former Age and carried on in this Nation out of an ill design and managed with much Sacriledge The First of these seemed necessary to be cleared in the beginning of this Discourse and I am deceived if it was not done convincingly And for the Second we agree to it That out of the true Church there is no S●…lvation But then the Question comes What makes one a Member of the true Church The Scriptures call the Church the Body of Christ of which he is the Head So then whoever are joined to Christ according to the Gospel must be within the true Church But the deceit that lies hid under this is That from hence they fancy that the Unity of the Church does consist in an outward Communion with the See of Rome And upon that they calculate that there must be an Unity in the Body of the Church And that cannot be except all be joined to the See of Rome Now we grant there is but one Church but this Unity consists not in an Outward Communion though that is much to be desired but consists in an Unity of Belief about the essentials of Christianity There is nothing more evident than that even according to their own Principles other Churches are not bound upon the hazard of Damnation to hold Communion with the See of Rome for it is not an Article of Faith nor certain according to their own Doctrine That the Pope is Infallible And except that were certain we cannot be obliged to hold Communion under such a Sanction with that See For if it be possible that a Pope may become an Heretick or Schismatick which many of them confess and all agree that the contrary is not of Faith then other Churches are not in that case obliged to hold Communion with that See If therefore the possibility of Error in that See be acknowledged then holding Communion with it cannot be the measure of the Unity of the Church So we bring it to this Issue It is not Heresie to say The Pope may Err Therefore this is no just prejudice against our Church because we have departed from Communion with him when he imposed his Errors on us So all the high things they boast of that See come to nothing except they say This Proposition is of Faith That the Pope is Infallible And for these Meetings that they call General Councils they were at best but the Councils of the Western Patriarchate artificially packt and managed with much Art as appears even from Cardinal Pallavicini's History of the Council of Trent For the Third Prejudice It is the most disingenuous thing that can be Because our Church is charitable and modest in her Censures and theirs is uncharitable and cruel in her Judgments therefore to conclude That Communion with them is safer than with us If confidence and Presumption Noise and Arrogance are the marks to judge a Church by we must yield to them in these but if Truth and Peace Charity and holy Doctrines be the better Standards then we are as sure that our Communion is much safer Let this Rule be applied to the other concerns of human life and it will appear how ridiculous an abuse it is to take measures from so false a Standard If a man were sick the Question comes Whether he shall use an approved Physitian or a Montebanks On the one hand the Montebank says He will certainly cure him and the Doctors will undoubtedly kill him On the other hand the Doctor modestly says he will undertake nothing but will do the best