« AnteriorContinua »
Chap. 3. they adore many Gods, will not be excluded Queftio from it.
4thly, That profefs'd Atheists must also have a Place in the Ark. For Atheism does not hinder them from agreeing with us in fome Parts of the Christian Revelation, in which Manners are concern'd: as Do, as you would be done by: you shall not Steal, &c. Is not this a noble Invention, which is able to bring all Mankind at once into the Catholick Church, without either Preaching, or Praying?
III. Some Divines of the Church of England think, or at least fay, that we injure that Church by Affirming, that She is in a new-rais'd Communion. Because She was a National Church both before and after the Reformation; and reform'd her Self in a cannonical and regular manner.
ANSWER, She was a National Church both before and fince the Reformation. But that She reform'd herself, is not so clear. The Englifh Reformation was begun by K. Henry the VIIIth. and his Parliament. It was carried on by the Authority of a Minor, King Edward the VIth. and his Parliament. And all the World knows, that it was finish'd by Q. Elizabeth, and her Parliament, in the first Years of her Reign. Now we are not to learn, first, that Acts of Parliament are not Acts of the Church, but Acts of the State. Secondly, that unless the King or Queen, and Parliament be the Church of England; fhe did not reform her felf, but was reform'd by the State. She did not even confent to the Reformation, till it was not fafe to oppose it; as I have  fhew'd elsewere
 Modern Controversy, pag. 50,
elfewhere. K. Henry forc'd his Clergy to Chap. 3.
IV. But, whatever the English Reformation
First, Becaufe Church work ought to be done by Church-men.
Secondly, Becaufe we have no Instance, in fifteen hundred years, of any Nation reforming in itself, by State or Church-Laws, the Catholick Faith, without Herefy or Schifm.
V. But as long as we are allow'd to fay, that White is White, that Black is Black, and that the Sun fhines when we fee it; we must beg Leave to fay, that the Church of England is in a new-rais'd Communion, or in a Communion which began fince the End  of the eleventh or fifteenth Century. For let the Number of Chriftian Societies or Communions be what
 Ibid. p. 53. 54.  Ibid. p. 55. 56.57.  Lib.ix. pag 54  I might fay, of the fifteenth. For the Church of England does not pretend to have imbrac'd the Communion of the Vaudois, and fo to have been in the twelfth Century.
Chap. 3. what you please when those Centuries ended, Queft 10 as firft, Catholicks, fecondly, Neftorians, thirdly, Eutychians, fourthly, Greeks and Ruffians, &c. the Number of Societies or Communions in Christendom can not be increas'd, but there must be a Communion added. And if this be not a new rais'd Communion; there were never any fuch in Chriftendom. For James Nailor and his Quakers were Men, before they were Quakers: And Quakers are still in Communion with themselves. The Anabaptists were Men, before they were Anabaptists : and are still in Communion with themselves. The Lutherans were Men, before they were Lutherans and are still in Communion with themselves. So were the Eutychians, the Neftorians, the Pelagians, the Arians, the Novatians, the Montanifts, and all other Sects. If then the Church of England is not in a new-rais'd Communion, because She did not feparate from her felf, but only from the Church in Communion with Rome; whether her Doctrine be true or falfe, there was never any new Communion in Christendom. If She is only in Communion with herself; her Communion began in the 16th Century, under the reforming Reigns, when She increas'd the Number of Societies and Communions in Chriftendom. If She is in Communion with Proteftants fomewhat more ancient than herself, as with the Lutherans, for Example; her Communion began an. Chr. 1520, when Luther and his Affociates increas'd the Number, then prefent, of Societies and Communions in Christendom. For whether Luther's Doctrine was true or falfe, this Fact is unquestionable. VI. But
VI. But will not the Church of England be Chap. 3. offended at the Freedom, with which this mat- Questio ter is treated?
ANSWER, Had I imagin'd it; I had never attempted this Subject. But this Church, in Difputes of Religion, in which her Honour is concern'd, only requires two Things, which are extremely reasonable. The first is, that She be us'd with all the Refpect and good Manners, which the Matter will bear.
The fecond is, that neither Paffion nor Zeal load her with unneceffary Reproaches. For one of the most eloquent of her Pastors tells ús, in the Words which I have prefix'd to this Treatife, that She neither forbids nor fears a free and impartial Examination of her Doctrine and Religion. She even glories in allowing this Freedom to her Adversaries: and therefore cannot be offended by it.
Were the Vaudois, or poor Men of Lions, the
HE fingular Efteem, which fome Proteftants have for the Vaudois, occafion'd this Queftion, which otherwife might feem very impertinent. The Vaudois began about the Year, 1160. Their Author was Peter Waldo, a rich Man of Lions, from whom they were call'd Waldenfes, and by corruption
Chap. 3. ruption,
as Dr.  Heylin obferves, Vau
WALDO, fays the Doctor, was THE BEGINNER OF THIS REFORMATION, a wealthy Citizen of Lions, about the Time of Frederick Barbaroffa Emperor of Germany. This Emperor was Frederick the firft, who reign'd from the year of Chrift 1152, till 1190.
And, fince we do not find in History, that the Vaudois, when feparated from Rome, imbrac'd the Communion of any Church more ancient than themselves; 'tis evident, that they neither were the Church of all Ages fince our Saviour's Time, nor in Communion with it: And that the Reformation of the Vaudois was as much unknown in the Year eleven hundred and fifty, as the Protestant Reformation was in the year fifteen hundred.
I need not here confute the wretched Miftake of fome, who, as  Reinerius, a Dominican of the thirteenth Age, tells us, plac'd the Sect of the Vaudois in the Beginning of the fourth Century, and even in the Time of the Apostles; fince Dr. Heylin has done it for me:
II. The Vaudois, in their first Rife, as Monfieur  du Pin fays of them, were not guilty of any great Errors. They were then rather an Affociation, than a Sect. Their Profeffion was Poverty, tho' they fpoke very dif respectfully
 Cofmogr. L. 1. p. 193.  Inter omnes bas Sectas non eft perniciofior Ecclefia, quam LeoAliqui enim dicunt, quod duraverit á tempore Silveftri, aliqui a tempore Apostolorum. Rein. L. de Hæreticis. Cap. iv.  Cent. xiii. p. 147 in the English Translation.