nor impose on the communicants the beliefe of and assent unto the reality of such infallibility perhaps it is not enough to breake off an Exterior communion But if such infallibility be made use of to the establishing of or introducing impious blaspemous and Idolatrous practises if it frustrate the tenure of the Gospel and render the Word of God as suspended upon that Authority of none effect as to being the rule of our faith and the finall Iudge of controversies I do thinke that although the errours and Idolatries were no part of the Church Service nor imposed on the Communicants to hold yet were all Communion exteriour to be avoided with such a person and his adherents so that none ought to resort to their assemblies after sufficient due detection of that Antichristian monster But agreeably to the practice of the Church of England our indulgent mother I do think that the resort of such men to our Church-worship Communion ought to be allowed not scrupled at Thus our Lawes enacted in Parliament which with the assent of Convocation is the Supreme Judge here on earth of Heresies consequently of Legal Non-cōmunion punish Recusants for not cōmunicating with us in the Church-service yet enjoynes them not to relinquish their opinions But in case such Infallibility in matters of faith be pretended to by any or owned as introduceth Blaspemy Idolatry errour and superstition into the publique Offices of Divine Service a Protestant cannot lawfully and with any good Conscience joyne with Him or Them in such worship viz No Protestant can out of Devotion which is requisite to Prayer joyne with the Papists in the blaspemies and Idolatries of the Masse as any man knowes that hath but lightly inspected their Missall or receive the Sacrament in one kind contrary to the divine institution as an Expiatory sacrifice availing the quick and the dead which is repugnant to the primary intention of Christ and this paying a religious veneration to the grosse elements and breaden god This judgement I am much confirmed in by Mr Chillingworth where he sayes that the causes of our separation from Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justifie because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry impiety and most cruell tyranny both upon the bodies and soules of men you mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally for your errours and corruptions for the true reason is not so much because you maintaine errours and corruptions as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but such as will hold them with you and have so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing Thus much may suffice for that part of the Proposition that notwithstanding the usurped Infallibilitie of the Bishop of Rome yet ought we to hold exteriour Communion with that ancient and famous Church For supposing the case to be as I agreeably to the Church of England have stated it the Antiquity Grandeur and Fame of the Church of Rome are too extrinsecall and weake Arguments to sway us into an impious Communion Nor is the imputation of Schisme so horrid nor exteriour communion so amiable and inviting that to pursue that we should either abandon or endanger the truth So King Iames in his reply Neque ignorat Rex multa saepè veteris Ecclesiae patres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecisse pro bono pacis ut loquebantur id est studio conservandae unitatis ac mutuae communionis abrumpendae metu Quorum exemplum se quoque paratum esse profitetur aemulari sectantium pacem vestigia persequi ad aras usque hoc est quantum in hodierno statu Ecclesiae per conscientiae integritatem licet Nemini enim se mortalium cedere aut in dolore quem capit gravissimum é membrorum Ecclesiae distractione quam pii patres tantoperè sunt abominati aut in cupiditate qua tenetur communicationem habendi cum omnibus si possit fieri qui membra sunt mystici corporis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Haec quum ita sint existimat nihiloseciùs Rex justissimam habere se causam cur ab iis dissentiat qui simpliciter sine ulla penitus distinctione aut exceptione hanc communionem sine fine urgent Inter proprias Ecclesiae notas hanc fatetur esse cum primis necessariam non esse tamen autumat veram ipsam Ecclesiae formam quod Philosophus appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Didicit Rex é lectione Sacrae Scripturae neque aliter Patres olim sentiebant ad unum omnes veram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae formam esse ut audiant Oves Christi vocem sui Pastoris ut Sacramenta administrentur ritè legitimè quomodo videlicet Apostoli praeiverunt qui illos proximè secuti sunt Quae hac ratione sunt institutae Ecclesiae necesse est ipsas multiplici communione inter sese esse devinctas Uniuntur in capite suo Christo qui est fons vitae in quo vivunt omnes quos pater elegit pretioso sanguine ipsius redimendos vitâ aeternâ gratis donandos Uniuntur unitate fidei doctrinae in iis utique capitibus quae sunt ad salutem necessaria unica enim salutaris doctrina unica in coelos via Vniuntur conjunctione animorum verâ charitate charitatisque officiis maximè autem precum mutuarum Uniuntur denique spei ejusdem communione promissae haereditatis expectatione gnari se ante jacta mundi fundamenta praedestinatos esse de electis loquor ut sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod divinitus ait Apostolus Sed addit Rex eandem tamen Ecclesiam si aliquod ejus membrum discedat à regula fidei pluris facturam amorem veritatis quà m amorem unitatis Scit supremam legem esse in domo Dei doctrinae coelestis sinceritatem quam si quis relinquat Christum relinquit qui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam relinquit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atque eo ipso ad corpus Christi desinit pertinere Cum hujusmodi desertoribus nec vult nec potest verè Catholicus communicare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fugiet igitur horum communionem Ecclesia dicet cum Gregorio Nazianzeno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nec dubitabit cum eodem beato Patre si opus fuerit pronuntiare esse quendam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod autem in Ecclesia futura esset aliquando necessaria hujusmodi separatio cùm aliis sacrae paginae locis clarè docemur tum illa apertè declarat Spiritus sancti admonitio non temerè profectò Ecclesiae facta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquientis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaenam sit illa Babylon unde exire populus Dei jubetur non quaerit hoc loco Rex neque super eo quidquam
pronunciat Hoc quidem res ipsa manifestissimè ostendit sive privata quaedam Ecclesia eò loci intelligitur appellatione Babylonis sive universae pars major eam priùs fuisse legitimam Ecclesiam cum qua pii piè communicarent postea verò quà m longiùs processit ejus depravatio jubentur pii exire communionem abrum pere ut facile fit vobis intelligere non omnem communionem cum iis qui de nomine Christi appellantur fidelibus esse expetendam sed illam demum quae sit salvâ doctrinae coelitus revelatae integritate Out of which words and they seem to be the words not of Casaubon or K. Iames but the Church of England if I am able to deduce any consequence I am sure this is one that it is not at any time lawful to hold with any Church a communion with her ènown defaults and impieties and that how desireable soever Unity be yet the regard thereto ought never to transport us so far as to mix the service of God with that of Belial that some circumstances do legitimate an holy war and that a bad agreement is not to be chosen before a contest and separation in the behalf of real Godlinesse I am sure I am by the tenor of that Letter justified if I dare not joyn with a Church service wherein Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Masse and prayers for the dead and to the Saints not to mention the mutilation of the Communion and Image-worships must be owned or hypocritically complyed with to the dishonour of God 1 Cor. 10.20 21 22. the detriment and offense of the weak Christians 1 Cor. 8.10 11 12. and the strengthning of the party communicated with in those errors and Blasphemies How far further I am warranted by that Letter and the practice of the primitive fathers to rescind a Communion not otherwise erroneous or faulty upon the account of errors Idolatry or conceived Blasphemy in the practice or speculative tenets of a Church or person what private men what a particular Bishop or national Church may do I shall not entermeddle with as having alledged enough in opposition to what our Virtuoso layes down I should proceed now to enquire whether that we may hold communion with the Bishops of Rome supposing that they challenge a Sovereign dominion over our faith But since there was no such thing pressed upon the English Church to occasion the first rupture the generality of Christendome being then and at the first calling of the Council of Trent inclined to the contrary tenet of the Pope's being inferiour to a Council General denying his Sovereignty and Dominion over the faith of the Church and his personal Infallibility being an opinion scarcely to be mentioned or insisted on much lesse authenticated in those dayes and since that now neither the one or other tenet can justly be charged upon that Church nor is a condition of their Communion at present since the Controversie would be large and intrigued with distinctions I leave the debating thereof as inutile and content my self with having sufficiently refuted our Virtuoso already in what hath been alledged though seemingly to another purpose Undoubtedly there is no conniving or complying with such a person for one that is to avoid the appearance of evill It is a dethroning of Christ whom God hath appointed to be the head of the Church and by him all the body furnished and knit together by joints and bands increaseth with the increasing of God It is the introducing of another Corner-stone and another foundation the creating of another fabrick then what is built upon Christ and the Apostles and Prophets at least it is a compliance with all such unchristian Monstrosities a silence that is equivalent to an Assent in such high cases I have learn'd it from Dr. Raynolds Seeing that to exercise this rule and dominion is a prerogative Royal and proper to the King of Kings to give it either in whole or in part cannot be a lesser offense than High Treason Fifthly that the Church of Rome according to its present establishment and under that constitution wherein the first Reformers found it may be denominated a Church Ancient and Famous and that upon these accounts for none other are mentioned possibly there doth belong a respect unto it or an obligation to communicate therewith The first part of the Proposition is false and notoriously contradicts the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles and Homilies of the Church of England For although it be granted that even those Articles the Homilies and our Writers and I my self do bestow vulgarly the appellation of a Church yet is that an impropriety of speech and not to be justified otherwise then by professing that when the name of Church is attributed to Rome and England the predication is equivocal since that the definition of a true Christian Church which makes up the Ninteenth Article cannot be accommodated to the Romanists viz The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duely ministred according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same This Definition is asserted and enlarged upon in the second Homily for Whitsunday in these words The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the head-corner stone And it hath alwaies three notes or marks by which it is known Pure and sound doctrine The Sacraments ministred according to Christ's holy institution and the right use of Ecclesiastical Discipline This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God and also to the doctrine of the Ancient Fathers so that none may justly find fault with it Now if you will compare this with the Church of Rome not as it was in the beginning but as it is presently and hath been for the space of Nine hundred years and odde you shall well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true Church that Nothing can be more For neither are they built upon the foundation of the Apostles retaining the sound and pure Doctrine of Jesus Christ neither yet do they order the Sacraments or else the Ecclesiastical Keyes in such sort as he did first institute and ordain them but have so intermingled their own Traditions and inventions by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away that now they may seem converted in a new guise Christ commanded to his Church a Sacrament of his Body and Bloud they have changed it into a Sacrifice for the quick and the dead Christ did minister to his Apostles and the Apostles to other men indifferently under both kinds they have robbed the Lay-people of the Cup saying that for them one kind is sufficient Christ ordained no other Element to
be used in Baptisme but onely water whereunto when the word is joyned it is made as S. Augustine saith a full and perfect Sacrament They being wiser in their own conceit than Christ think it not well nor orderly done unlesse they use Conjuration unlesse they hallow the water unlesse there be Oyl Salt Spittle Tapers and such other dumb Ceremonies serving to no use contrary to the plain rule of St. Paul who willeth all things to be done in the Church to Edification Christ ordained the Authority of the Keyes to excommunicate notorious Sinners and to absolve them which are truly penitent They abuse this power at pleasure as well in cursing the Godly with Bell Book and Candle as also absolving the Reprobate which are known to be unworthy of any Christian Society whereof they that lust to see Examples le them search their Lifes To be short look what our Saviour Christ pronounced of the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel the same may be boldly and with a safe conscience pronounced of the Bishops of Rome namely they have forsaken and daily do forsake the Commandements of God to erect and set up their own Constitutions Which thing being true as all they which have any light of God's word must needs confess we may well conclude according to the Rule of St. Augustine That the BISHOPS OF ROME AND THEIR ADHERENTS ARE NOT THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST much lesse to be taken as chief Heads and Rulers of the same Whosoever saith he do dissent from the Scriptures concerning the Head although they be found in all places where the Church hath appointed yet are they not in the Church A plain place concluding directly against the Church of Rome These Homilies are of such Authority with us that the Clergy must subscribe unto them That they are a part of the Liturgy the Rubrique in the Common Prayer and the Preface to them shews and the Preface saith they were set forth for the expelling of erroneous and poysonous Doctrines More fully t is said in the Orders of K. Iames Ann. Dom. 1622. the Homilies are set forth by Authority in the Church of England not onely for the help of non-preaching but withall as it were a pattern for preaching Ministers Neither is Bishop Iewel in his Apology for the English Church any more favourable to the Pope and his Adherents Nam nos quidem discessimus ab illâ Ecclesiâ in qua nec verbum Dei purè audiri potuit nec Sacramenta administrari nec Dei nomen ut oportuit invocari quam ipsi fatentur multis in rebus esse vitiosam in qua nihil erat quod quenquam posset prudentem hominem de sua salute cogitantem retinere Postremò ab Ecclesia eâ discessimus quae nunc est non quae olim fuit atque ita discessimus ut Daniel è cavea Leonum ut tres illi pueri ex incendio nec tam discessimus quà m ab istis diris devotionibus ejecti sumus And in the conclusion that pious Bishop thus delivers himself again Diximus nos ab illâ Ecclesiâ quam isti speluncam latronum fecerant in qua nihil integrum aut Ecclesiae simile reliquerant quámque ipsi fatebantur multis in rebus erravisse ut Lothum olim è Sodoma aut Abrahamum è Chaldaeâ non contentionis studio sed Dei ipsius admonitu discessisle ex sacris libris quos scimus non posse fallere certam quandam Religionis formam quaesivisse ad veterum Patrum atque Apostolorum primitivam Ecclesiam hoc est ad primordia atque initia tanquam ad fontes rediisse I might prosecute this point with an infinity of Citations out of such Divines as were eminent Writers and Actors in the beginning and throughout the Reign of Qu. Elizabeth when the Church of England even in the judgment of Dr. Heylyn received her establishment and when her Sentiments were best known but I shall content my self with Dr. Whitaker alone Romanam Ecclesiam Catholicam quae nunc est quaeque recentioribus hisce temporibus floruit eam nos non solam Ecclesiam Catholicam sed ne omnino quidem Catholicam esse dicimus nec tantùm non Catholicam id est Vniversalem sed nè veram quidem Ecclesiam Christi particularem esse contendimus Quare deserendam esse dicimus ab omninibus qui servati volunt tanquam Antichristi Satanae Synagogam Nullam in ea salutem sperandam esse imò damnandam illam dicimus tanquam barathrum haereseos erroris Si quando ex animo de Ecclesia illa loquamur eam semper Romanam Papisticam Antichristianam Apostaticam Ecclesiam vocamus Other Elogies then these no true son of the Church of England did afford unto the Romish Church at first and they who afterwards began to speak more mildly of her in which number were Bishop Hall and Dr. Potter they allowed her the name of a Church but with those termini minuentes the additiō whereof renders all simple predications to be false those restrictions of a Schismatical Heretical idolatrous and superstitious Church They compar'd her to a man mortally wounded nothing can be argued from their Writings to condemn the Protestant separation of Schisme they make her so a Church as to interdict all communion and all peace with Her And if it be thus difficult to procure from any man that regulates his judgment according to the established doctrine of our Church any manner of grant that the Romanists are a Church I am sure it is impossible to extort from any such person a confession that the Church of Rome in that condition wherein our Reformers found it and wherein it still continues is either Antient or Famous The Homily aforerecited allowes it no greater antiquity than of about one thousand years and t is an avowed Truth that whatever is not primitive and Apostolick is an innovation The transactions betwixt the Emperour Phocas and the first of the Universal Bishops are too recent and too infamous to give unto the present Romanists any repute It hath alwaies been the profession of the Church of England and of all Protestants that they deserted the Church of Rome because she was apostatised from what was truely ancient and the Church of England is really what the Papists pretend to be this Iewell declares in his Apology more than once Nostra doctrina quam rectiùs possumus Christi Catholicam doctrinam appellare nova nemini videri potest nisi sicui aut Prophetarum fides aut Evangelium aut Christus ipse videatur novus The passage I mention'd formerly shews that we reformed our selves from their errours and impieties to conforme with the genuine Antiquity The Homily against peril of Idolatry allowes scarce of any Antiquity but within the first three hundred years Others extend a fair respect as far as the dayes of the Emperour Marcianus in whose time the
Council of Chalcedon was held Rex Ecclesia Anglicana quatuor prima Concilia Oecumenica quam ad mittant eo ipso satis declarant verae as legitimae Ecclesiae tempus non includere se uno aut altero demum seculo verùm multò longiùs producere Marciani Imperatoris sub quo Chalcedonense Concilium est celebratum tempus complecti If our Historian can shew that the present Church of Rome and the Tridentine model is so ancient as to come within this period I shall admire him and the Congregatio de propaganda fide multiply their acknowledgments unto him beyond what his present performances deserve yet really He merits very much from the Romanists in charging all the Schisme upon the Protestants who made a causlesse separation and whilst he condemnes the Pope onely for usurping an infallibility and sovereign dominion over our Faith without so much as imputing unto him any abuse of that pretended power and infallibility without fixing on him any error superstition Idolatry or other temporal retrenchments upon our Monarchy which alone would have justified a separation from the Papal Church But to resume my former Discourse I shall adde this passage out of K. Iames thereby to manifest how much more knowing our Virtuoso must be than all the Prelates of the Church of England were then if he can assert this Fame and Antiquity of the Romish Church Fatetur Rex Ecclesiam suam à capitibus non paucis ejus fidei disciplinae quam hodie Romanus Pontifex probat omnibus tuetur viribus discessionem secisse verùm eam Rex Ecclesia Anglicana non defectionem à fide veteris Catholicae interpretantur sed potiùs ad fidem Catholicam pristinam quae in Romana novis inventis fuerat multipliciter mirè deformata reversionem ad Christum unicum Ecclesiae suae magistrum conversionem Quare siquis doctrinâ hujus observationis fretus inferre ex illa velit Anglicanam Ecclesiam quia Romanae placita nonnulla rejicit à veteri Catholicâ discessisse non hoc illi prius Rex largietur quam solidis rationibus probaverit omnia quae à Romanis docentur illa praecipuè quae volunt ipsi ut necessaria ad salutem credi ab omnibus antiquae Catholicae à principio probata fuisse sancita hoc verò neminem posse facere aut unquam facturum neminem certè hactenus fecisse tam liquidò Regi constat Ecclesiae Anglicanae Antistitibus quà m Solem meridie lucere But to gratifie our Historian to yeild up the utmost of Antiquity to the Church of Rome to ascribe all that renown which so charmes our Virtuoso and which is not to be found in the Narrative of that Papacy which contains nothing almost but what is ignominious base and detestable to do all this signifies nothing to Communion unless I also grant that the Romanists are a true Church and that there is not any thing in the constitution of that Church which may give a pious Christian just occasion to avoid or rescind Ecclesiastical Communion therewith Imagine them as ancient as the Manichees Gnosticks and Simon Magus or even the old Serpent as flourishing and renowned as ever were the Arrians or Saracens all this concernes not the little flock them whose portion and kingdom is not of this world whose calling is of another nature There was a time when Christianity it self must have been slighted justly and the Scribes and Pharisees were in the right if to make one Orthodox he must be fortunate and that Antiquity and outward splendor must be the Characteristical discoveries of Truth t is better to be Master of the treasures in the Castle of S. Angelo than to be endowed with the Holy Ghost if Peter must also say Gold and Silver have I none The Laws of the Iews were thought novell by Haman what S. Paul preached at Athens was not endeared with the most material circumstances of Antiquity and Fame Et Celsus cùm ex professo scriberet adversùs Christum ut ejus Evangelium novitatis nomine per contemptum eluderet An inquit post tot secula nunc tandem subiit Deum tam sera recordatio Eusebius etiam author est Christianam religionem ab inition contumeliae causâ dictam fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est peregrinam novam But I shall silence my self and pursue this controversie no longer it having a thousand times been handled succesfully in opposition to the Papists by Protestant writers of our Nation and others beyond the Seas who have treated de signis Ecclesiae It is evident that the Romanists are not ancient nor famous nor a true Church according to the doctrine of the Church of England Or if in any limited sense it may be called a Churâ—h Ancient and Famous none of these attributes can give it such a repute that any obedient and true Son of our Church can say that such respect is due thereunto as infers any Ecclesiastical exteriour Communion much lesse can I or any else assent to the subsequent Proposition 6. That such a respect or exteriour Communion may be entertain'd with Rome and yet we incur no danger of Superstition To censure this Proposition it is necessary that we consider it in a twofold sense either as it relates to that original mistake of our Historian about the Infallibility and Sovereign Dominion over our faith assumed by the Pope or as it relates unto the real condition and constitution of the Romish Church in its Offices and religious Doctrines Upon the first consideration ariseth this Question Whether a Protestant of the Church of England can entertain communion with the Church of Rome supposing no material Errours in the worship wherein the Communion is maintained the Bishop thereof assuming and the Church allowing of an infallibility in him and a sovereign dominion over our Faith and not onely over theirs and this without danger of Superstition Upon the second Consideration ariseth this Question Whether it be possible for any Protestant of the Church of England to hold Communion with the present Church of Rome in its Ecclesiastical Offices and Doctrines without danger of Superstiton The first Question is easily decided against our Virtuoso from that those Churches who have held communion with the Pope when those pretensions were on foot have been involved in superstitious and idolatrous practices which is notorious out of all Church history and the exorbitancies of the Pope in that kind when the Canonists and other abettours ascribed unto him a Sovereignty over the Christian faith have introduced all the Superstitions of the Gregorian Missal and Blasphemies and Idolatries nor doth it appear that any thing ever contributed so much to the advancement of all those superstitious and Idolatrous practices and Tenets as some unwary expressions and respects of Communion which have been indulged to the Pope by the Fathers and others of succeeding Ages which is notorious to any man