An answer to the request to Protestants, to produce plain Scriptures directly authorizing these tenets Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1687 Approx. 39 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 11 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59790 Wing S3264 ESTC R16978 13153753 ocm 13153753 98153 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59790) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 98153) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 751:24) An answer to the request to Protestants, to produce plain Scriptures directly authorizing these tenets Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [2], 18 p. Printed for Tho. Basset ..., London : 1687. Attributed to William Sherlock. Cf. NUC pre-1956. Reproduction of original in Duke University Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Church of England -- Doctrines. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-12 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2004-12 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN ANSWER TO THE REQUEST TO PROTESTANTS , To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these Tenets . LICENSED , December 16. 1686. LONDON : Printed for Tho. Basset , at the George , near St. Dunstan's Church , in Fleetstreet , MDCLXXXVII . An Answer to the Request to Protestants , ( a ) To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these their Tenets . ( a ) Ans. WE do indeed make the Scripture the Rule of our Faith , because we believe God gave us the Scripture to be our Rule , and we know not where to meet with a better ; and therefore we do not quarrel at this Request to produce plain Scripture proofs for what we believe ; but we may justly quarrel at the fallacious or unskilful way of stating it , as if we pretended to own no Doctrines , but what are contained in the express Words of Scripture ; and therefore , to understand this matter , we must consider the several kinds of Doctrines professed in the Church of England , and what kind of proof from Scripture , they are capable of . 1st , The positive Articles of Faith , such as are contained in the Creed , and expresly taught in Scripture , we prove from plain and express Testimonies of Scripture , and are ready to give our proofs of them , when they are demanded . But besides these , 2ly , we have a great many Negative Articles , opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome : Now to believe a Negative , is only to believe that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture ; and it would be a very wise Request , to desire us to prove by plain and express Scripture , that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture . We believe it is not there , because we cannot find it in Scripture , and those who pretend it is there , cannot shew it there ; which is proof enough , and all that the thing is capable of . 3ly , There are other Doctrines , which , it may be , are not in a strict Sense , Articles of Faith , but great and useful Truths , which cannot be proved by express Words of Scripture , but by immediate and necessary Consequence ; and it is ridiculous in these Cases , to demand a direct Proof , if by that he means the express words of Scripture , for we never pretended to that in such matters , but think it very reasonable to believe an evident Consequence , as well as express Words . Since our Saviour proved the Resurrection it self by Consequence , Matth. 22. 32. Having premised this , I shall examine , what it is he would have proved , in which also he has betrayed great want either of skill or honesty , as will appear from particulars . I. Scripture is clear , in all Necessaries , to every Sober Enquirer . A. He begins well with demanding a Scripture proof ; That the Scripture is clear in all Necessaries ; as if we Protestants wanted a Scripture proof , that the Sun shines , when we see it . Can there be any better proof , that the Scripture is clear and plain , than its own plainness ? And therefore , every plain Text proves its own plainness ? If this Proposition , Scripture is clear in all Necessaries , to every Sober Enquirer , were contained in express Words in Scripture ; yet if we could not find it plain , we should rather question , whether those Words are plain , than believe the Scripture to be plain , when we do not find it so . But if I find the Scripture plain , the plainness of the Scripture proves it self , and needs no other proof . And yet this is one of those Propositions , which may be proved by plain and necessary Consequence from the Scripture . For if the word of God be a Light unto our Feet , and a Lamp unto our Paths , then it must be clear , if Light be clear , Psal. 119. 105. If it be able to make men wise unto Salvation , 1. Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation . II. The Secular Prince hath all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority , immediately , from and under God. A. What Authority the Church of England grants to Kings in matters of Religion , which he here calls all Spiritual Jurisdiction , and Authority , we are taught in the 37th Article of Religion : The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England , and other his Dominions , unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm , whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain , and is not , and ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction . Which is further explained , That we give not our Princes , the Ministring of God's Word , or of the Scraments , — but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself , that is , that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God , whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal , and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers . Which signifies no more , than that the King is supreme in his own Dominions , and therefore there is no Power , neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him ; for if there were , he were not Supreme ; Must we then prove by express Scripture , that the King is Supreme ? Do men want Scripture to prove , That Supreme Power is Supreme ? Thus some men are always in the Extremes , either the Scripture signifies nothing , or it must be every thing , Grammar , and Dictionary and Logick , and Statute-book , and all ; but can they prove by express Scripture , that the King has the Supreme power in Civil causes ? Then I will prove , That he has the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical causes ; and I think Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers , is a sufficient proof of both . III. Justification by Faith alone ( viz. a Persuasion that we are justified ) is a wholesome Doctrine . A. Our Church does teach , That Justification by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine , and very full of comfort , Article II. but she does not teach , That justifying Faith is a persuasion , that we are justified ; and sure we are not bound to prove that by Scripture , which we do not believe . IV. The Substance of Bread and Wine remains after , what it was before , Sacerdotal Consecration . A. Our Church teaches , That Transubstantiation ( or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine ) in the Supper of the Lord , cannot be proved by Holy Writ , Art. 28. But she does not teach , That the Bread and Wine remain after , what they were before Sacerdotal Consecration . Their substance is the same , that is , they are Bread and Wine still , but by virtue of Christ's Institution , after Consecration they are not meer Bread and Wine , but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death , and to such as rightly , worthily , and by faith receive the same , the Bread which we break , is a partaking of the Body of Christ , and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The substance of Bread and Wine is the same , but the Institution gives it such a new relation and use , as is equivalent to changing its nature , and makes it the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. And this the words of Institution are an express proof of , This is my Body ; for if it be not his Natural Body , as sense and reason tell us it cannot be , then it must be only his Sacramental Body , or his Body by Institution . Christ was visibly present with his Apostles in his own Natural Body , when he instituted this Sacrament , and therefore they could not understand , and our Saviour could never intend they should believe , that the Bread which he blessed and brake , was his Natural Body , which they saw before their eyes ; that they ate their Lord , when they are the Consecrated Bread , that they swallowed him down into their stomachs , and yet all this while saw him , and conversed with him , as they did at other times . The Bread is the Body of Christ , but it is his broken Body , which it could not be at the Institution of this Sacrament ; for Christ was not then Crucified , his Natural Body was not yet broken , and therefore the broken bread , though it was his Sacramental , could not be his Natural Body ; his Blood was not then shed , and therefore though the Wine was his Blood of the New Testament , it could not be his Natural Blood which is shed for the remission of sins , unless his Natural Body was broken , and his Blood shed before he was crucified . Now I take that to be the express sense of Scripture , which is the only sense that can be made of it ; for a sense in which it is impossible , is none at all . V. Our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential ; and , if more , only to the Faithful . A. There is no such Proposition as this taught by the Church of England , that I know of ; we own the influences of the Divine Grace to accompany the external administration of the Lord's Supper ; and this I suppose , they will not put us to prove . We own the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ , that is , the Consecrated Elements , to be really present upon the Altar , and verily and indeed eaten of the Faithful ; for so our Saviour expresly tells us , This is my Body , and This is my Blood ; and this is somewhat more than to say , that our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential : for so he is present in all other Religious Duties ; but here he is so present , that his Body and Blood , with all the benefits of his Death and Passion , are exhibited to worthy Receivers , as much as they could have been , had we eat his Natural flesh , and drank his blood . And therefore whatever difference they would allow , between Christ's gracious and influential presence in the Eucharist , and eating his Natural flesh and blood , had that been possible , the same we allow between his gracious Presence , and eating his Sacramental Body , which is to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament , the same by his own Institution , with his Natural flesh and blood ; for the carnal feeding on Christ's flesh , is not a Sacramental eating of him But if by more he means , that Christ is corporally present in the Eucharist , that his natural Flesh and Blood is contained under the Species of Bread and Wine , this we deny , and it being a Negative Article , it is ridiculous , as I observed before , to demand express Scripture , to prove that it is not in the Scripture ; let those , who affirm it , prove by express Scripture , that it is there ; for this is my Body , and this is my Blood , will not do it : We own , that it is the Body and Blood of Christ , as well as they ; and therefore they must prove , that it is Christ's natural Body and Blood , and it is well for them , that they have something else than Scripture to trust to . VI. Adoration of the Eucharist ( i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine ) is Idolatry . A. Nor is there any such Proposition as this taught in the Church of England . We teach indeed , that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist , remains Bread and Wine after Consecration , and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry , as Romanists themselves confess , and is easily proved from Scripture , if to give Divine Worship to Creatures be Idolatry . To adore our Saviour is not Idolatry , but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry , as to worship the Sun for God. But this Author puts a fallacy upon his Readers , by an explanatory Parenthesis , Adoration of the Eucharist ( i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine ) as if they only worshipped our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine ; whereas they teach that the Species themselves ( whatever they be , to be sure , not Christ himself ) are to be worshipped together with Christ ; and therefore , according to their own Doctrine , they must worship something which is not Christ. And let them consider , what name to give this . VII . All Christians , whenever they communicate , are oblig'd to receive in both Kinds . A. And why does he not ask us to prove , That all Christians , whenever they communicate , are obliged to receive the bread ? For there is the same Institution for the Wine , that there is for the Bread. There is no other rule in matters of Institution , but to observe the Institution ; and since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds , and neither Christ nor his Apostles have told us , that it is sufficient to receive in one kind , we think this reason enough to assert , that all Christians when they do communicate , must communicate in both kinds . And indeed this Sacrament is not compleat without it ; for if we consider it as a spiritual Feast , Wine as well as Bread , to drink as well as to eat , is essential to a Feast ; if we consider the End of the Institution , to be a commemoration of the Death of Christ , and the expiation of his Blood , how can we commemorate Sacramentally the expiation of his Blood , without drinking his Blood , which is shed for the remission of sins ? For to eat his Blood together with his Flesh , as they pretend , does not represent his broken Body , and his Blood shed , but his whole Body with Flesh and Blood together , which contradicts the very Institution of this Supper . And if we partake of no benefits in the Sacrament , but what we Sacramentally commemorate , I would desire this Author to tell me , how those who do not drink the Blood of Christ , this blood of the New Testament , obtain the remission of their sins ? A very material thing for those to consider , who would be sure of their Salvation . VIII . Chastity , deliberately vow'd , may be , inoffensively , violated . A. This is no Doctrine of our Church , nor are Protestants now concerned in it , though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were . There was no such thing known as vowing Chastity , as that signifies a Vow against Marriage ; neither under the Law , nor in the times of Christ and his Apostles ; and therefore we cannot expect in Scripture an express decision of this matter , but must argue from the nature and obligation of Vows . And if he please to consult the Writings of the first Reformers , who were concerned to vindicate themselves in this point , he will find it easier to condemn what they did , than to answer the reasons , whereby they justifie it . These Vows were never thought so Sacred , but that the Pope can dispense with them ; and what is dispensable , necessity will dispense with on course ; and that they themselves knew best . These Monastick Vows were undertaken as the most excellent state of Religion , as meritorious of pardon and justification , which is a fulsom superstition and corruption of Christianity , and therefore are void and null as all other superstitions are . And if Monastick Vows , as such , do not oblige , as no superstitions can ; then they were free to use that liberty , which God and Christ had allowed them . But who taught him to call a Vow against Marriage , a Vow of Chastity , when Marriage it self is a state of Chastity ? And tho' it be lawful to vow Chastity , which is a necessary duty , let him prove , that it is lawful for any man , nay a boy , or girl , to vow not to marry , when our Saviour himself tells us , this is not in every mans power ; and nothing can be a lawful matter for a Vow , but what is in our power . Christ indeed tells us of some , Who made themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven , Mat. 19. 12. that is , who voluntarily chose a devout coelibacy , not who obliged themselves against Marriage by the Religion of a Vow . But if the Vow of Chastity is so sacred , I hope , they keep it better now , than some of their Predecessors have done ; unless they think the Vow of Chastity only obliges them not to marry , but does not restrain them from a vagrant lust . IX . All Christian Excellencies are commanded . A. This I think St. Paul has determined , Phil. 4. 8. Finally Brethren , whatsoever things are true , whatsoever things are honest , whatsoever things are just , whatsoever things are pure , whatsoever things are lovely , whatsoever things are of good report , if there be any virtue , and if there be any praise , think on these things . If these general Expressions do not comprehend all Christian Excellencies , I know not what does . And indeed , whatever Virtues are commanded , we must always reckon that the heights and perfections of those Virtues are commanded , for God can command nothing less than a perfect Virtue ; and it is apparent , he has annexed no Limitations to his commands ; for we are required to be perfect , even as our Father , which is in Heaven , is perfect . Not that every man shall be damned , who does not attain to the highest Perfections ; for through the Merits and Intercession of our Saviour , God will accept of a sincere , tho imperfect Obedience ; but sincerity it self requires our endeavours after Perfection , which could not be our duty , if it were not commanded ; and tho a sincere Christian shall be saved notwithstanding his many defects , yet our reward shall be proportioned to our several Degrees and Attainments in Virtue . Nothing is a Christian Excellency , but what is an instance of some Virtue , which is commanded , which will throw a great many meritorious Works , which our Author had an eye on , out of this number , and every degree and act of Virtue becomes more or less necessary to us , according to our different Qualifications and Circumstances of Life , according to our Saviours rule , to whom much is given , of them shall be much required . These uncommanded Christian Excellencies are what the Church of Rome call Works of Supererogation , which our Church has condemned , Art. 14. in these words . Voluntary Works besides , over and above Gods commandments , which they call Works of Supererogation , cannot be taught without Arrogancy and Impiety . For by them men do declare , that they do not only tender unto God as much as they are bound to do , but that they do more for his sake , than of baunded duty is required ; whereas Christ saith plainly , When ye have done all that are commanded to you , say , that we are unprofitable Servants . X. Every Soul , as soon as expired , is convey'd to Heaven or Hell. A. The Scripture gives us no account of any other places of rewards and punishments in the other World , but Heaven and Hell , and therefore we know of no other . Our Church has expresly determined , Art. 22. That the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory , is a fond thing , vainly invented , and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture , but rather repugnant to the Word of God. Now , that there are no other places of rewards and punishments but Heaven and Hell , and that there is no such place as Purgatory , where the Souls of Men , who have any Sins to expiate , are purged and tormented with Fire , are Negative Articles , and therefore not to be proved by express and positive Testimonies of Scripture . But that every Soul , as soon as expired , is conveyed to Heaven or Hell , is only an inference from this Doctrine , that we know of no other place they should go to after Death , the Scripture having not told us of any other , and Christs parable of Dives and Lazarus , and St. Paul's desire to be dissolved , and to be with Christ , looking fairly that way . And yet our Church has not positively determined this , in reverence , I suppose , to many of the Ancient Fathers , who did assert an intermediate state between Death and Judgment , not a Purgatory , where the Souls of good Men were punished for their Sins , but a state of ease and rest , tho not the highest Heavens . XI . Desiring the Intercessions of the Blessed , is more Superstitious , and Derogatory to our Lord's Mediatorship , than entreating the Prayers of Holy Men Militant . A. This is as plain in Scripture , as that Christ is our only Mediator in Heaven , who alone ( like the high Priest under the Law , who was his Type ) is admitted into the Holy of Holies to make Expiation , and to interceed for us . As great a difference as there is between the mutual Prayers of good Men for each other on Earth , and the Intercession of Saints for us in Heaven , by so much more does the Intercession of Saints in Heaven invade the Office and Mediatorship of Christ , than the Prayers of good Men on Earth . Good men on Earth pray for each other as humble Supplicants , as Members of the same Body , as subject to the same Temptations : Saints in Heaven intercede as powerful Favourites , who by their merits and interest with God , obtain Blessings for us ; and any meritorious Intercession is inconsistent with the only Mediatorship of Christ in Heaven . But suppose we could not prove , that the Intercession of Saints in Heaven , is any more inconsistent with the Mediatorship of Christ , than the Prayers of good Men on Earth are ; does this prove , that we may pray to Saints with all the Solemnities of Devotion , that we do to God or Christ , which is to give Divine Honours to Creatures ; tho he minces the matter , and calls it , desiring the Intercessions of the Blessed ; and might with as good reason call his Prayers to Christ , only desiring the Intercessions of Christ ; and his Prayers to God , only desiring some Blessings of God , as he does of his Frinds on Earth . The sum of what we teach about this matter , is this . That we must worship none but God , and therefore must not pray to Saints and Angels , as our Saviour teaches , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . That there is but one Mediator between God and Man , the Man Christ Jesus , and therefore we must not make more Mediators to our selves , nor put our trust in the Intercession of Saints and Angels . Thus far we have plain Scripture proof . And then we think common Sense teaches us the rest . That it is an Injury to an only Mediator , to set up other Mediators with him . That good Men on Earth are not Mediators , but Supplicants , which is no encroachment of Christ's Mediatorship ; and that Saints in Heaven , according to the Church of Rome , pray as Mediators and Intercestors , who appear in the Presence of God for us ; and this is not reconcilable with Christ's only Mediatorship in Heaven . XII . Honouring the Cross , the Reliques and Representations of our Lord and his Saints , with that degree of Reverence as we do the Gospels , ( commonly kiss'd and sworn by ) Altar , and other Sacred Utensils , is Idolatry . A. This is a very reasonable Request , to require us to prove that by Scriture , which we do not believe ! Papists indeed would excuse that Worship , which they pay to the Cross , to Reliques and Images , by saying , that it is no more than that Reverence , which we allow to the Gospels , and Religious Utensils , which is no more than an external Respect ; but do those , who charge them with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross , and Reliques , and Images , charge them only with giving some external Respects to them , or with giving them formal acts of Worship and Adoration ? As both the Decrees of their Councils , and the visible Practice of their Church proves : And if he would have this proved to be Idolatry , he may meet with some Protestants , who will be ready to oblige him . XIII . The Pope is Antichrist . A. This indeed has been affirmed by some Protestants , but is no Article of our Church , and therefore we are not bound to prove it , but when we have a mind to it . No man ever pretended that there is any such Proposition in Scripture , as that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist , but some think that the Characters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin , are much more applicable to him , than the Universal Headship and Infallibility . XIV . Every Prayer , us'd in Divine Offices , must be in a Language vulgar , and intelligible to every Auditor . A. Why he should put us upon proving this from Scripture , I cannot tell , when he knows that St. Paul has a whole Chapter to prove it , 1 Cor. 14. unless he has some reserve in expressing it by every Prayer . For that indeed , St. Paul does not say in Words , but his Reason saies it . For if the Reason he assigns against Prayers in an unknown Tongue , extend to all Prayers ; then it proves , that every publick Prayer should be in a Language understood by the People . But what is this to the Church of Rome , who has all publick Offices in an unknown Tongue ? Yes , if they could prove it lawful ever to pray in an unknown Tongue , they would presently prove it lawful always to do so ; and thus St. Pauls discourse against praying in an unknown Tongue is confuted for want of saying that we must never pray in an unknown Tongue . But whether it be not more reasonable to conclude from St. Pauls discourse against praying in an unknown Tongue , that we must never do so , than from his not saying , that we must never pray in an unknown Tongue , that we may always do so , let any man judg , who has not renounced his own understanding . XV. A Company of Christians , voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies , condemning their Doctrines and Rites , destitute also of any visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist , in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions , can , notwithstanding this perverse , intire , and manifest Separation , be a mystical Member of Christ , in Catholick Unity , and a Charitable Part of the Catholick Church . A. If he applies this to us , it is manifestly false ; for tho' we do not communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship , yet there are many Christian Churches , with which we can and do communicate , and separate our selves no farther from any society of Christians , than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Churches . But to gratifie him , Suppose that all the Communions of Christendom were corrupted in their Worship , so that we could not safely communicate with any one of them but our own ; yet if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church , in Faith and Worship , and Government , and separates from others only upon account of such corruptions , as will justifie such a separation , what should hinder her from being a mystical member of Christ , in Catholick unity , and a charitable part of the Catholick Church ? The true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the mystical members of Christ's Body , or else I desire to know , what does ? Catholick Vnity is not violated by a just separation , and dangerous corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation : Come out from among them , and be ye separate , saith the Lord , and touch not the unclean thing , and I will receive you , 2 Cor. 6. 17. and where there are such corruptions , so fatal and dangerous to mens souls , how far soever such corruptions have spread , it is a greater act of charity to separate , than to communicate with them , as it is greater charity to reprove men for their sins , and forsake their company , than to joyn with them in a wicked confederacy . This is the true state of the case , and this we can prove either from the express words of Scripture , or from easie and necessary consequences ; and this shows that it is possible , that a company of Christians , ( not ) voluntarily ( but necessarily . ) separating from all other Christian Societies , condemning their ( corrupt ) Doctrines and Rites , destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist , in any Religious Assemblies , or solemn Devotions , ( upon account of such corruptions ) can notwithstanding this ( not ) perverse ( but just and necessary ) separation , be a mystical member of Christ , in Catholick unity , and a charitablt part of the Catholick Church , which is not meerly the present Church of one age , but the whole Church , from the times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world . For could we suppose at any time all the Communions of Christendom to be corrupt but one , that one uncorrupt Church must forsake the communion of all others , and yet it would be a member of Christ , and a charitable part of the Catholick Church , unless it be only numbers , not the purity of Faith and Worship , which makes the Catholick Church . XVI . The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may apostatize from Fundamental Truth and Holiness ; whilst part of a National Laity may preserve both , discover the Clergies Defection , and , depriving them , heap to Themselves Teachers of their own sending and instruction . A. What he intends by this , I cannot well guess ; I suppose , he would have his Readers believe , that the whole Clergy of the Christian world did at the time of the Reformation maintain the Doctrines of the Church of Rome , which were rejected and condemned only by the major vote of a Parliament of Lay-men in England , which how false it is all the world knows . For , 1. There were many other Churches , and better parts of the Catholick Church , than the Church of Rome , which did not own those Doctrines and corruptions , which we reject . 2. Nay the whole Clergy of the Roman Church did not . For were not our English Bishops and Clergy as Zealous in the Reformation , as any Laymen ? And were not they Bishops in Communion with the Roman Church ? Were not the German Reformers of the Clergy ? And was the whole Clergy then against the Reformation ? These are admirable things to be proved by direct Testimonies of Scripture . 3. Nor do we say , that the Roman Church her self has Apostatized from fundamental Truth and Holiness . We do grant , that they have retained the true Faith and Worship of Christ , tho they have fatally corrupted both , by Additions of their own . 4. If the first discovery of this Defection had been made by Laymen , and afterwards acknowledged by the Clergy , who joyned in the Reformation , I should not have thought the Reformation ever the worse for it . For if the Clergy corrupt Religion , we have Reason to thank God , if he opens the Eyes of honest and disinterested Laymen . But is not this Author very modest in his Requests , who would have us prove his own Calumnies , and spiteful Insinuations from Scripture ? This , I think , is Answer enough to his Request . And as for his following Harangue , there is little in it to be answered , but some spiteful and sensless Reflections , which are better despised then answered . But let us briefly consider some of them , lest he should think they cannot be answered . 1. He saies , In these positive Propositions , our Religion chiefly consists . And truly it is a very sorry Religion , if it does . But why does not our Religion consist in believing the true Catholick Faith contained in the ancient Creeds ? In worshipping God through the Mediation of Jesus Christ , according to the Rules of the Gospel ? In obeying all those holy Laws our Saviour has given us ? In observing the Sacraments of his own Institution , and as he has instituted them ? This is all the Religion we own , and know no other ; and why then is not this our Religion ? No , This is the Churches peculiar , and claimed by her against all Novel and Unjust , both Foreigners and Out-laws . But if this be our Religion , and the Religion of the Catholick Church , how come we to be Foreigners and Out-laws ? Why does not the Catholick Faith and Worship , make us Members of the Catholick Church ? And then we have as good a claim to the Creed and Sacraments as they . No , saies our Author , Whatever they have invented and chosen , that belongs ( as sin to a depraved will ) properly to them ; thence they derive their Title , and thereto must we precisely confine their Religion . But now if we have invented and chosen nothing else , what then ? How do we lose our right to the Creed and Sacraments , &c. because we will allow of no new Inventions and Additions to it ? And yet this is the plain case . Our only Dispute with the Church of Rome , is about those corrupt Additions they have made to the Catholick Faith and Worship , without any Foundation in Scripture , or Reason , or true Antiquity ; and therefore our Religion is precisely confined to the old Catholick Faith and Worship of the Christian Church , and therefore is properly ours ( if they will allow us to have any ) because it is all we have . The German Reformers indeed , were called Protestants ▪ from protesting against the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome , and this only shows what they do not believe , and what they will not practice ; but they have a better name than this , and that is Christians , which shows what their positive Faith and Religion is , viz. that Faith and Worship , which was taught by Christ and his Apostles , and owned and practised by the Primitive Church , before these Corruptions and Innovations were heard of ; and therefore , this is precisely our Religion ; what we protest against , we declare not to be our Religion ; so ridiculous is it , precisely to confine our Religion to it . 2ly , The next subject of his Harangue , is our demands of Scripture-proofs from the Church of Rome for their new Faith and Worship , which I confess is a very hard Request , because they have none . However , he says , this makes it just for the Catholick Church ( as they will needs call themselves ) to retort this demand upon us , and to demand our Scripture-proofs ; and I confess , there is great reason for it , and I hope , have done him justice ; for I suppose , he would not ask more of us , than we do of them . Now we only demand either the express words of Scripture , or plain and evident consequences , or the silence of Scripture , to prove that a thing is not revealed ; and this we are ready to return them as to any Doctrines which we profess ; and whether we adulterate Scriptures by corrupt Translations ( such as the vulgar Latin ) or Sacrilegious mutilations ( as by leaving out the second Commandment ) or blasphemous misapplications ( as applying the Psalter of David to the Virgin Mary , by changing Lord into Lady ) or gross wrestings and false interpretations ( as proving Supremacy and Infallibility by Tu es Petrus , and Pasce oves ) shall be left to every Impartial Reader . 3ly , In the next place he reproaches us with the Socinians , whom he calls our Brethren by descent and iniquity who steering by the blast of a private spirit , the Chart of clear Scripture , and Compass of Humane reason , have made shipwrack of faith . This is intollerable to say , that to follow Scripture and Reason , is the way to make shipwrack of Faith ; which can never be , unless Scripture and Reason be contrary to Faith , which indeed they are in many things to the Faith of the Church of Rome ; but God forbid they should be to the true Christian Faith. But have not the Socinians made shipwrack of Faith by following clear Scripture and Humane reason ? And will he then say , that Scripture and Reason are on the Socinian side ? If they be , how can he know that they have made shipwrack of Faith ? if they be not , then they make shipwrack of Faith by not adhering to clear Scripture and Reason ; and is this a reason for us to be ashamed of following Scripture and Reason , because the Socinians err by the abuse of both ? There is no doubt , but men who pretend to Scripture and Reason may err ; and it is demonstrable , that men who renounce Scripture and Reason , must err , and we have so many instances of this in the Church of Rome , that it is no great encouragement to us to rely on Church-authority without Scripture and Reason . They dare not say , that we must believe contrary to Scripture , or that the Scripture is not the Rule of our Faith ; but they will allow no body to interpret the Scripture but the Church of Rome , which is the most certain way to make her infallible ; for to be sure she will not interpret the Scripture against her self ; she must be always in the right , if what she says be the Rule of Faith. But we who cannot believe , that God has given us Scripture and Reason to make no use of them ; That he has made the Pope or Church of Rome infallible , and divested all other Christians of sense and common understanding , have nothing but Reason and Scripture to steer by , and that will neither make us Socinians , nor Papists . 4ly , His parting-blow is about the Supremacy of the King , which he calls Hobbism , as if we ever thought , that all men must be of the Kings Religion , as the sole and Sovereign Judg of all Causes Spiritual ? What we mean by the Kings Supremacy , I have already explained . He has no Spiritual Jurisdiction properly so called ; can neither ordain , nor administer the Sacraments , nor has the power of the Keys , but is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the Church is incorporated into the State , so he has the Government of all Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes . Whatever Secular Authority the Church has , is derived from the Prince , and depends on Secular Laws , and this may be enlarged , retrenched , suspended , by the same Power that gave it ; but the Church as a Spiritual Society has Rights of its own , can teach the true Faith , administer Sacraments , inflict Church-Censures , though without any Temporal effect , by an inherent Authority : We thank God , when our Prince , who has the Supreme Authority , does countenance true Religion ; But whenever it is otherwise , we are taught to submit all our Temporal Concernments , our Lives , and Bodies , and Estates , to the will of our Prince , but to defend our Church and Religion by a modest , but resolute profession of the true Faith , and meek and patient suffering for it . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59790-e180 See the late Disscourse of the Adoration of the Host , p. 8 , 9. &c.