A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society [by Thomas Sprat] as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England / [Henry Stubbe].

Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.

Date:: 1671

Credit: A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society [by Thomas Sprat] as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England / [Henry Stubbe]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

19/150 (page 7)

$at, or jovne in any publique Service ( or adminiflratic-n of Sacraments') where other ceremonies then what were inafled by the Church of England, 0r flould be ufed: it is manifeft that the Church of England did not com- £j]7> fo municate with the Papifls. Uniformity. The fecond Obfervation is , that otir Hiflorian in this Paragraph doth make ufe of the words communion andrefjeft as equipollent and Synonymous: otherwife there is no apcdofis, no fenfe in the faying —Some of them thought themfelves obliged to forbear all communion with them, and would not give them that reflefl , which poflibly might be¬ long to fo ancient & fo famous a Church. If reflefl be a terme of a leffer import then communion , then might thofe Reformed Churches decline all Exterior communion with the Church of Rome , juflly and without blame, and yetjj retain a reflect and kindnefe fuch as Chrifiians may and ought to beare to the excommunicate, to the Heathens.\, and Publicans •, and in which there is uo)danger of Superflit ion . though in this Exteriour communion there be evident perill not only of Su¬ per ft it ion , but Idolatry. 1. Thefe things being premifed, my firfl: Animadverfton fhall be, That the Comparifon betwixt men denying to filch as ufurp too much even their due rights, and thofe that feparate in cafe of religious u- furpations , is fo carryed on by the Hiflorian, that to forbeare all communion with the Church , and Bi/hops of Rome , is reprefented as an extreame opinion , and confequently as culpable, Schifmati- call, and damnable. 2. Secondly , that He reprefents the cafe fo, as if fome of the Refor¬ med Churches onely did forbeare all Communion with them. 3. Thirdly, That the grand occafion of the differences betwixt thofe of the reformed Religion, and the Tapifls, was that the Biflops of Rome did affume an Infallibility , and a Soveraigne dominion over our Faith. 4. Fourthly, That notwitbflanding this ufurped infallibility of the Bi- flops of Rome , &. their afiuming a foveraigne dominion over our Faith, yet we may give them that reflefl which poflibly might belong to fo ancient and famous a Church : and to decline tthis, is to run into an extreame 5. Fifthly, That the Church of Rome according to its prefent efla- bliflement, and under that conflitution wherein the firfl Reformers found it, may be denominated a Church, Ancient, and Famous•, and that upon thofe accounts (for none other are mentioned >poffibly there doth belong a reflefl unto it,or an obligatio to communicate therewith. 6# Sixtly , That fuch a refpeft or exterior communion may be enter¬ tained with Rome , and yet we incurre no danger of Superflition. The firfl Propofition is Impious, Blaflhemous, and Offenflve to all Troteflant eares : It condemnes *the Reformation carryed on by the Evangeliques abroad , and in the Church of England, as culpable , guilty of an extreame -, and there is fo much of Schifme juflly charged on us, as there is of extremity in cur procedure. It fubverts all thofe Laws which are wow in force, whereby all Communion with Popifl Offices and Sacraments ( celebrated in a different way from that of the Church of England$