Thus pag. 1. When a Protestant rehearses this Article of his Creed I believe one Catholick Church I would fain understand what Church he means Again this makes Protestancy so wandring and uncertain a thing that I for my part cannot understand it Pag. 3. He shall find me pressing for an Answer to such Questions as these Pag 1. of the Pamphlet There are three points wherein I could never satisfie my self a little after I could never find any satisfactory Answer to this Question Pag. 2. pronouncing the Church of Rome Idolatrous I would fain know by what Authority A little after by whose Authority I cannot tell Pag. 3 there was no Answer to be had A little after I cannot find l. 9. I do not well understand l. 15. I could never understand Pag. 4. I would know Pag. 7. l. 13 I confess my dullness understands not Pag 8. line 16. I would fain know line 25. Which Answer I confess I do not understand pag. 11. line 15. I desire to be informed l. the last I cannot imagine Pag. 12. line 15. I cannot understand Now if he was so very ignorant as he makes himself and so desirous of information he ought to have consulted some of his Spiritual Guides on these heads and not trusted altogether to his own Judgement or else he ought in all reason to have printed these Questions before he resolv'd them unanswerable for how did he know but some body might have had more to say to them than he was aware of and have given him satisfaction If he had designed to be counted either a prudent or honest man this had been his method but I have enquired and cannot find that ever he proposed them seriously to one Divine or applyed himself to any in this weighty affair before he deserted our Communion and therefore though perhaps he may be ignorant enough yet I think it apparent that he only pretends want of understanding and desire of information or that he has very little care of his Soul or of what Communion he is § 3. To give his Questions proposed in his Preface a distinct Answer I shall first rank them in method Concerning therefore the Catholick Church he asks 1. What Church we mean 2. Whether the Church of England alone as established by Law or as in Communion with other Churches 3. With what other Church under Heaven doth the Church of England communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy 4. Whether the variety of Protestants be the Catholick Church since they want her Essential mark called Unity 5. Whether we and the Lutherans are of the same Church the Lutherans holding a Corporal Presence in the Sacrament and we denying it All these we have in the first page of his Preface and all proceed from the same root even ignorance of what is meant by the Catholick Church If Mr. M. had designed to deal ingenuously and like a Scholar that desired to clear things which ought to be the design of every honest writer he ought to have laid down a definition of the Catholick Church and then examined to whom it belonged and shewn the Church as established here by Law to be no part of it for till that be done all that is said is banter for we mean not the same thing by the Church I never saw any Romanist take this method and therefore I have always believed that they rather designed to gain Proselytes by confounding their Heads than by clear Reason and Information I will therefore tell him what I mean by the one Catholick Church in the Creed and if he do not like the description let him mend it The Catholick Church is the whole body of men professing the Religion of Christ and living under their lawful Spiritual Governours This body of Christians is one because it has according to St. Paul Ephes. 4. 5. one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and according to Saint Augustine many Churches are one Church because there is one Faith one Hope one Charity one Expectation and lastly one heavenly Country now if he had been as much concerned to understand this a right as he would have his Dear Reader he might easily have seen who it is that fancy to themselves a Church divided from all the rest of the world by breaking the bonds of Charity and coyning new Articles distinct from those of the Catholick Faith which we received from Christ and his Apostles and that the Answers to his Questions are very easie § 4. For to the First when he would know what Church we mean when we rehearse that Article of our Creed I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church the Answer is that we mean not any particular Church nor any party of Christians of any one denomination but all those that hold the Catholick Faith and live under their lawful Pastors while they have those marks I have laid down from the Scripture and St. Augustine they are still of one Communion though by the peevishness and mistake of their Governours they may be engaged in Quarrels as the Church of Rome was in St. Cyprians time with the Church of Africa about the allowing the Baptism of Hereticks and the Quarrel came to that height that when the Africans came to Rome not only the peace of the Church and Communion was denyed them but even the common kindness of Hospitality as we may see in Firmilians Epistle to Saint Cyprian Ep. 75. This being supposed it is no hard matter to find out the parts of this Catholick Church where-ever one comes it is only Examining whether any Church hold the Catholick Faith and whether they live under their lawful Governours and so far as they do so it is our duty to joyn with them as true parts thereof Whereas he who with the Donatists will unchurch three parts of four of the Christian World or fancy a Church divided from all others though as sound in Faith and as obedient to their Governours as possible is like for ever to be tossed too and fro upon the unstable waters of Schism and dwindles the Church into a Faction and this gives a full Answer § 5. To his second Question whether we mean by the Catholick Church the Church of England alone or the Church of England as in Communion with other Churches for by this it appears that the Churches of England and Ireland are no more the Catholick Church than the English Seas are the whole Ocean but they are a part thereof because they hold the Catholick Faith intirely and are governed by their lawful and Catholick Bishops who have not had for many years so much as a Rival appearing to contest their Title and Succession § 6. But then he urges in the third place with what other Church doth the Church of England Communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy To which I answer Unity of Liturgy is no part of Communion of Churches let him shew if he can that the Catholick Church ever had any such
wit no wonder if he could find no other difference between those two Cases His Wâ—t could serve him to find the likeness between the Presbyterians Case and Ours but his Judgment doth not serve him to find the Difference Now if he had been very inquisitive he might have been informed in this by one of the late London Cases printed for Thomas Bassett London 1683. and written purposely to shew this Difference and 't is a wonder that Mr. M. whose study lay much in Pamphlets mist it If he saw it he ought to have shown those Differences there assigned to be none before he parallell'd the Cases But to help his understanding I will shew three material Differences besides that of an Act of Parliament and besides the truth of the Doctrine which was really on the Reformers side and is only pretended to by Dissenters 1. In the condition of the Persons that pretended to Reform 2ly In the manner of their proceeding And 3ly In the Principles they took for their Rule First Therefore there is a great difference in the condition of the first Reformers and the present Dissenters these being only private persons at the best Presbyters over-voted by the major part of their Brethren Whereas the first Reformers were Bishops and the chief Governors of the Church who had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and to which of right it did belong to Govern and Reform the Church over whom they were made Overseers by the Holy Ghost Furthermore the present Dissenters were the Bishops Subjects accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharged from their Office and the Benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure and so their Separation from their Bishops is a Schism that is an Ecclesiastical Rebellion But the first Reformers were accountable to no Superior but Jesus Christ they were his immediate Vicars not the Pope's and therefore could not be guilty of any Rebellion against him 2. And as they were thus different in their Condition so they were likewise in the manner of their Proceedings for the first Reformers did strictly forbid private persons doing any thing of their own Head as may be seen by the Proclamation set out Feb. 6. Ed. 6. Anno 2. and accordingly they managed the whole matter by publick Authority in a Regular way according to the ancient Forms of passing Laws and making Alterations in the Church Whereas both Presbyterians and Papists that is all Dissenters proceed on their own Heads in sâ—ight of their Lawful Governors Let a Presbyterian take the same way to remove the pretended Superstition of the Common-Prayer-Book that the first Reformers took to remove the Idolatry of the Mass or let the Papists take the same way to Establish the Mass that our first Reformers took to Abolish it and do it if they can But if they will make use of another way never allowed in the Church and yet pretend to the same Power that the Bishops of England had he must be blind that doth not see the vanity of their Pretences Mr. M. observes well That the not considering this Matter hath brought a world of Confusion on these Kingdoms and till the People understand it we are never like to see an end of Religious distractions pag. 6. for while men without ordinary Mission from the Governors of a Church or without extraordinary Mission testified by Miracle shall be received by the people upon pretence they are sent by a Foreign Church or that the People themselves can declare them Commissionated by Christ which are the pretences of Papists and Dissenters what more peace can be hoped for in the Church than in a State where such things were allowed to be practised Why may not the Presbyterians resist their Lawful Governors as well as the Papists deny their Power and question their Succession though they have none to oppose to it The third Difference between the Dissenters Case in respect of Us and our Case in respect of Papists is in the Principles on which our first Reformers proceeded They did not pretend as he slanders them in his Preface to justifie their Separation for they never made any by the Scriptures only as interpreted by themselves not only without but against the Authority of the present Catholick Church For on the contrary except he mean by the Catholick Church the particular Church of Rome and her Adherents the Catholick Church was for the Reformers as they conceived and the greater part of visible Christians concurred with them in their sence of Scripture as to the most material controversies between our Church and Rome But the true Principles of the Reformation were such as these That the Catholick Faith ought to be always the same in all Ages and could not receive Additions or grow by time that nothing should be an Article of Faith to day that was not yesterday and therefore nothing was to be reckoned as Catholick Faith but what was received semper ubique ab omnibus according to Vincentius's Rule and that nothing was thus Catholik but what might be proved by Scripture taken in that sence which hath not been contradicted by Catholick Fathers These were the Principles of the Reformers Faith. And in other things belonging to the Government and Polity of the Church to Rites Ceremonies and Liturgies 'T was their principle that every National Church was at her own choice how she would order them and her Subjects ow'd her Obedience These are truly Catholick Principles founded on a Rock the word of God interpreted by Catholick Tradition and not on the present sentiments of any party of Men and are a sufficient hedge against Heresie and Schism sufficient to secure the good correspondence of neighbouring and the peace of particular Churches Let any one compare this Basis with that of the Roman Faith and let him judge which is most solid whether that which is founded on the Scriptures as interpreted by all Ages of the Church or that which has only the Voice of a part of the Visible Church and the greater part against it These are the two Bases of the Reformation and Popery To this Justification no Sectary can pretend and though Luther and Calvin c. had really this Warrant to reject the super-added Articles of the Church of Rome yet they differed in this at least some of them that they did not think it necessary to wait the concurrence of their Governors but concluded the major part of the Peoples joyning with them was sufficient without regular Forms and Process and whether that may be allowed in any case I leave Mr. M. and them to dispute for we are not concerned in it and they are of full Age to answer for themselves and he will find they can do it Only he is not to be pardoned when he brings in Socinus answering amongst other Reformers that he â—reached no new Doctrine nor administred any new Sacrament but only the Primitive Doctrine c. according to the
as Roman but Christian Bishops their Orders are Christian Orders and those we hold sufficient to all intents and purposes of the Reformation and must do so till Mr. M. or some body else prove them insufficient He objects pag. 2. That the first Reformers were Ordained Roman Catholick Bishops and made themselves Protestants which proceeds on an ignorant supposition that every man is ordained to preach the Tenents of his Ordainers or else must have no Mission whereas the Ordainers are only Instruments but the Power is from Christ and they are no more accountable to their Ordainers upon the account of being Ordained by them then a man is accountable to a Lord Chancellor for the use of his Power because he set the Seal to his Patent by which he claims his Power In short a man is Ordained neither a Protestant nor a Papist but a Christian Bishop his Mission is a Christian Mission let him be sent by whom he will and whoever gave him his Mission if he teach any Doctrine but Christs he is accursed Hence when the Donatists were very earnest to know the Ordainers of St. Augustine and other Catholick Bishops they answer We are not satisfied how the cause of Truth is concerned who was the Ordainer of any one since God is shewn to be our Father And when they press still to know the Ordainers St. Augustine answers I see they insist on trifles 'T was on this Principle that Baptism and Ordination by Hereticks were allowed in the Catholick Church to such as came ever from those Hereticks even because they were Baptized Christian Proselytes and Ordained Christian Bishops and they were never thought to go beyond their Mission because they renounced the Errors of their Ordainers If it be replied that Hereticks making themselves of Hereticks Catholick Bishops change for the better but Papists making themselves Protestant Bishops change for the worse I answer this quits the Plea of Mission and brings the Mission to the trial of the Doctrine If then Cranmer and the rest of the Roman Catholick Bishops made themselves only truly Catholicks they made themselves nothing but what Christ had obliged them to in their Consecration He is the Father of Truth the Children of Truth are owned by him as honestly begotten and no By-blows as Mr. M. would insinuate p. 2. in which he has exactly transcribed not only the Argument of the Donatist Petilian against the Catholicks but his very words The true Question is therefore whether Cranmer and the first Reformers embraced and vindicated the Truth in their Changes and let him joyn issue on this Point when he pleases we are ready to answer him § 6. To his second Question Who authorized the first Reformers to Teach their Protestant Doctrine and Administer their Protestant Sacraments I Answer No body but himself would have asked such a foolish Question since the Protestants pretend to no Doctrine or Sacraments peculiar to themselves or that may be called Theirs but only to the Doctrine Sacraments of Christ received in the Catholick Church If the Protestants were guilty of any fault it was not making new Doctrines or Sacraments but rejecting those that some counted old and so their Crime was not the wanting Mission or Authority to do what they did but not using their Authority to its full extent to do and teach more If they had power given them to Administer seven Sacraments and administred only two as Mr. M. says then it is a foolish thing to doubt their Authority to Minister those two whereas they are rather accountable for their not Holding and Administring the other five but the truth is they received in their Ordination power from Christ to administer neither Protestant nor Popish but Christian Sacraments and Mr. M. neither has nor can make it appear that they Administer any other or omit any that Christ has commanded He is aware of this Answer in his fifth Page and gives a reply to it I pray saith he the Reader to remember that this was the very Answer of Luther Socinus Zuinglius Calvin and most other Reformers Let me pray the Reader to observe that this is nothing to the purpose if it were true since we are not to believe every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God. The false Prophets pretended to Revelation as well as the true was neither therefore to be believed the false Reformers as well as the true pretended to preach no new Doctrine or administer new Sacraments but only the Doctrine and Sacraments of Jesus Christ Are neither therefore in the right May not a good Answer be abused and misapplyed To clear therefore this matter we own what he contends for that both true Doctrine and external and lawful Mission are generally necessary to a regular preacher of the Gospel pag. 5. and if either of these are wanting the person is not to be received Which appears in the Prophets he mentions from Jer. 23. ibid. who wanted not an external Mission whatever Mr. M. imagines for the Prophets are the Pastors of the people against whom God pronounces a Woe verse 1. and 2. of that Chapter they are joyned with the Priests verse the 11. and 34. and their fault was not preaching without any Mission at all but preaching false Doctrine for which no man can have a Mission but even the Pope himself when he doth so is to be rejected as a Seducer If these very Prophets whom Mr. M. imagines to have had no Mission had taught true Doctrine God would have approved them verse 22. But if they had stood in my Councel and caused my people to hear my words then they should have turned them from their evil ways that is God would have given them success and when God says verse 32. I sent them not nor commanded them it doth not relate to preaching for God had commanded the Priests and Prophets to preach but it relates to the causing my people to err by their Lyes and Lightness which is a good Argument against those that seduce the people with Legends and Lyes and Revelations and false Miracles and Doctrines of Profit and Gain whatever their Mission be Now these two things being necessary to a true Teacher we affirm that the first Reformers in England had both not only the Licence and Approbation of the Church as he states it pag. 15. but her Ordination Appointment also according to the known rules of constituting Pastors which some other Reformers do not pretend to and therefore all the Question is concerning the other Character of a true Pastor preaching true Doctrine If the first Reformers had preached Popish Doctrine and administred Popish Sacraments I do not find but Mr. M. would have thought they had Mission enough but I Answer that was not Christs design in appointing Bishops but his design was that they should administer his Sacraments and teach his Doctrine This all Bishops are impowered and obliged to do and therefore till he
sence of the ancient Fathers pag. 5. which plainly shews that he knew nothing of Sâ—cinus his Opinions or Principles who positively denied the necessity of Baptism and protested against being judged by that sence the Fathers or the Primitive Church have given of Scriptures These are sufficient to shew the vast difference between the pretences of the present Dissenters and the ground of our Reformation And that the Argument he draws from the Obligation in Ordination laid on the Presbâ—ters of our Church to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments as this Church and Realm have received the same according to the Commandments of God pag. 4. is of no force against the first Reformers though it obliged Mr. M. not to desert our Church and the Nonconformists not to preach in contradiction to her declared Doctrine and Worship § 9. And so I proceed to his fifth Query Whether an Act of Parliament in France Spain or Germany be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy I suppose by an Act of Parliament he means the Laws enacted regularly by the Supream Powers of those Nations which he ignorantly expresses by an Act of Parliament and to this I answer That if any Religion is to be established in any Kingdom by temporal Rewards or Punishments to encourage the Obedient and terrifie the disobedient the supream Powers of every Nation only can thus establish that Religion they themselves are sole Judges with what temporal Rewards and Punishments and how far they will establish it and they are answerable only to God for their actings herein If therefore the Supream Civil Government in France or Spain set up Popery a Man must submit to it or burn for it if the Law be so and such a Law though it is unjust is as forcible for a false Religion as a true But there is another way of establishing a Religion and that is by convincing Mens Minds that the Religion is true and that according as men cordially embrace it the shall be secured of the Divine Favour and be happy in the next World. And if this be the Christian Religion of which they are so convinced one Principle of it is that the Professors thereof ought to associate themselves into a Body and that Christ the Author thereof has appointed Governors who are to descend in Succession and that to these regularly appointed a due Obedience is to be paid as Men value the Rewards or Punishments of the next life Now Men thus perswaded cannot think an Act of the Civil Governors alone a sufficient Commission for any one to undertake the Function of a Spiritual Pastor any more than an Act of these Spiritual Pastors is sufficient to capacitate and commissionate a Man to discharge a Civil Function and therfore Mr. M. argues very unnecessarily against the Parliaments Power to preach or administer Sacraments pag. 3. since the 27th Article of our Church denies expresly that Power to the Civil Governors I suppose I have sufficiently shewn that our first Reformers had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and I suppose that this Canonical Mission is nothing the less valid because the other goes along with it But then it may be objected Have not France and Spain an Act of the Church as well as State for establishing their Religion I answer they have and so has Mahometism in Turkey an Act of what they count the Church for its establishment And therefore it is not sufficient that the Power that establishes a Religion be competent and the Methods regular by which it is settled but likewise it is necessary that the Religion be true in it self and therefore a man must examine whether the Christian Religion be more purely truly taught established in England or in Spain before he either reject or embrace the one or the other For a false Religion may have all the regular settlements that a true can have and the Professors thereof being conscious of its weakness are often more industrious to make the accidental security the stronger And I do affirm that there is not one Argument in this Paper urged by Mr. M. against Protestants but might with equal advantage be urged mutatis mutandis against convert Christians in a Mahometan Country this alone is sufficient to shew them all to be unconclusive The way therefore for every man to be satisfied in his Religion is to examine it apart from the accidental advantages of it and chuse that which has best reasons to recommend it for a man ought to chuse his Church by his Religion and not his Religion by his Church But he asks in case there be no Judge to determine who have the true sence of Scripture Roman Catholicks or Protestants whether the Catholick sence be not as good as the Protestants Pref. p. 3. It were a sufficient Answer to this to put another case like it to him in the person of a Turk And it is this in case there is no Judge to determine as I know of none saith the Turk which is the Word of God the Bible or the Alchoran Why should not the Affirmation of us Mâ—slelmans who are ready to vouch to the death for the Alchoran and are twice the number of you Christians be as good authority for Men to believe the Alchoran came from God as your vouching for your Bibles is sufficient to perswade men to believe that they came from him But I do not love to shift off a Question and therefore tell him that the sence put by Roman Catholicks on the Scripture is not so good as the sence put on them by the Protestants If it were they would not be afraid to put it to the World and let every person that is equally concerned judge for himself but they had rather appeal to themselves as Judges and then they are sure of the cause But then he tells us that he could never understand what Unity of Spirit or agreement in Faith Christians are like to have page 3. upon these Principles To which I Answer more than they have now If National Churches were left to be govern'd by themselves the Subjects of each Church bound to adhere to their immediate Governors in all quarrels with neighbouring Churches those contentions must soon come to an end as the quarrel between St. Cyprian Stephen did For when the Governours of differing Churches find that they cannot hurt one another or advantage themselves by denial of Communion as it must be when the one Church doth not raise a Faction to side with it in the other the quarrel must soon cease for the thing that makes quarrels endless is interest But if it once be counted Lawful for one Church to get a Party in the others Precincts and set up Altar against Altar in the same place this will continue the Schism and is the very fundamental reason of the breaches of Charity amongst Christians that now pester Christendom which are much
to the Disciples of Simon Magus who taught as St. Irenoeus informs us that such as were perfect among them and had that Principle they called Sâ—lt and Light could not â—in Not but that they were guilty of the greatest villanies but they reckoned nothing in themselves sin because they walked in Light and Truth while the rest of the world were in Darkness as they pretended In opposition to these St. John shews us v. 8. that if we pretend thus to be without sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us but if we own and acknowledge our sins and heartily endeavour to avoid them then the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin according to Gods promise who gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish It is plain from vers 10. that such as refused to confess their sins according to St. John made God a lyar Now this is litterally true of those who deny that they are sinners as those Hereticks did but to deny the necessity of a particular enumeration of sins to a Priest doth no ways impeach Gods truth and therefore the Confession required by these words if we confess our sins is not Auricular This is farther manifest from the ancient Fathers of the Church not one of which understand these words of Confession to a Priest. St. Augustine has written a Comment on this Epistle and he thus explains this place If thou confess that thou art a sinner the truth is in thee Tell men what thou art tell God what thou art If thou tell not God what thou art God will damn what he finds in thee If thou wouldst not that he should damn condemn thou Occumenius refers this whole passage to the Jews If we who said his Blood be on us and on our Children should impudently say that we have not sinned we deceive our selves but if we acknowledge and confess this sin he will forgive us Which sufficiently shews that by confessing our sins here is meant the acknowledging our selves to be sinners in opposition to those who plead innocency And that this has no relation to a particular Confession of Sins to a Priest. Sect. 5. But 2. When God is said to be Faithful and Just it doth not particularly respect that Promise John 20. 23. Whose Sins you remit they are remitted which is sufficiently proved from this Argument that no ancient interpreter has thus applyed them but on the contrary have referred them to other Promises Thus St. Cyprian refers them to that Petition in the Lords Prayer Forgive us our Trespasses and interprets Confessing in St. John by this Petition in the Prayer to which he saith Forgiveness is promised St. John therefore saith that God who keeps his Promise is faithful to forgive Sins because he who hath taught us to pray for our sins hath promised that his Fatherly Mercy and Pardon shall follow The Roman Gloss saith God is faithful who promised Grace to the humble Oecumenius refers this to Isaiah 43. 26. Where according to the Septuagint Translation the words are tell thy sins first that thou mayest be justified Which is ushered in with that promise v. 25. I even I am he that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake and will not remember thy sins Lyra saith God is faithful to forgive us our Sins because he promised so Mat. 3. 2. Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand You see that the ancient Interpreters could find other Promises both in the Old and New Testament which obliged God to forgive Sins before Auricular Confession is pretended to be instituted and not one of them dreamed that St. John had relation to that promise beside which Mr M. affirms there is not another in the New Testament How will he reconcile this to his profession of Faith in which he promises never to interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers When there is not one Father to vouch his sence of this place and several against him § 6. But 3. Suppose that consequence followed from this place which he infers that God will not remit Sins under the new Testament without the Ministry of his Priests Yet it would not follow that Auricular Confession is necessary because under the old Law the Sins of the People were not pardoned without the Ministry of Gods Priests and yet it is confessed that Auricular Confession was not then instituted Besides if the Ministry of the Priest be necessary why should that be understood rather of their private than publick Ministry And lastly their Ministry may be necessary on other accounts than hearing Confessions and pronouncing Absolutions Thus Oecumenius makes the Forgiveness of Sins here promised to be that Remission which is obtained in Baptism Therefore saith he God doth certainly remit Sins to them that come to his holy Baptism St. Chrysostome who wrote his Books De Sacerdotio purposely to magnisie the Priests Office interprets the promise in St. John 20. 23. by the power of admitting to Baptism and the Lords Supper together with the Priests Intercession and Prayers for Sinners but he says not one word of their remitting by an Absolution or Judicial Sentence Who soever knows St. Chrisostom must own that if he had known or believed such a magnificent power in the Priests he wou'd never have omitted it in Books written designedly to magnifie their Office I conclude therefore that although the Ministry of the Priests under the Gospel is necessary to the pardon of the Peoples Sins Yet that Ministry may consist in the use of their Directions Prayers Intercession and Sacraments and I believe Mr. M. will hardly be able to shew any other way of Absolution used by the ancient Church Nay St Cyprian denies that Priests properly forgive Sins because all that they can do is to put men in a way to be forgiven Sect. 7. The second thing Mr. M. intends for an Argument in favour of Confession is what he alledges p. 7. that Confession is approved and frequented by all the Christian World except the People of our Islands and some few others that call themselves reformed and further p. 8. that it was never heard of in the Catholick Church that Christians may receive the communion of Christs Body and Blood without a previous confession and Absolution Which if true proves this Doctrine to be Catholick both as to time and place but the best of it is that we are not bound to take his word And that upon Examination this will be found false in both the parts of it For neither do all other Christians beside the Reformed frequent and approve Auricular Confession otherwise than our Church doth Nor is it any new thing in the Catholick Church for Men to come to the Communion without private Confession and Absolution by a Priest. The whole Greek Church denies Auricular Confession to be of divine Right pretending it only to be a
assign any such on Earth is to destroy the very notion of the Catholick Church and make her as particular as the Jewish Synagogue out of which no Person or Nation was excluded so they would turn Proselytes any more than they are excluded out of the Church of Rome if they will embrace her Faith and submit to her Government But the Church is called Catholick in opposition to such a particular Society because she consists of many such Societies which have in every Nation the same Priviledges which were before peculiar to the Jews And these particular Churches are intire Bodies in themselves not made accountable by Christ or his Apostles to any Foreign Church as to a Head but only as to a Sister Neither is the union of these particular Churches into one Catholick Church an union of subjection to one visible Head but an union of Faith and Charity under our visible Head Christ. When therefore Mr. M. asks in what Provinces of the Earth this Church doth inhabit I answer in most Provinces of the World in more by many than he or his Church will allow Let him read St. Augustine on the 85 Psalm and he will tell him the sin of those that confine the Church to a Province or corner of the World to a Sect or Party of Christians § 2. To this second Question Was there any such Society upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation I answer there was and the several branches of it were dispersed through many Provinces in Europe Asia and Africa The Church of England was one branch thereof such she has continued ever since and we hope will continue to the end of the World And therefore he might have spared the labour which he has spent to prove that there was extant such a Church on the face of the Earth since we believe as firmly as he can desire that according to our Saviour's Prediction the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholick Church § 3. To this third Question Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of this Church I answer He did And being placed by Providence in an eminent station in the Church and the Care and Government of so considerable a part thereof being committed to his charge he found himself obliged by the Laws of God and Man to remove those things he apprehended to be Corruptions and Abuses And if they were really such who but Mr. M. can doubt his Authority do do it in a regular way And therefore to his fourth Question Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Holy Catholick Church and to set up Altar against Altar I answer No body he never attempted the one or the other He never attempted to Reform the Catholick Church because he had neither Power or Inspection over her Nor did he ever pretend to make any Law to oblige her He only endeavoured to cultivate and reform that part of her that was committed to his Care. And he must have lost his Understanding or renounced it that doth not see that this is the Duty of every Bishop nay of every Parish-Priest in his sphere and therefore except Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer went beyond his sphere he talks and asks questions to no purpose I suppose that I have already shewn that Cranmer did not exceed his Authority in his proceedings at the Reformation And as he did not pretend to reform the Catholick Church so neither did he set up Altar against Altar There was no Schism made by him in England the Division of Communion was made long after about the Tenth of Queen Elizabeth on the Bull of Pius V. Heylin ad Ann. 1564. 1565. p. 172. § 4. Mr. M. seems to have nothing to object against all this only he insinuates that the Reformation supposes the Catholick Church to be lapsed into Idolatry And if she were guilty of Idolatry she should be no Christian Church And then there is an end of the Episcopal Succession of the Church of England and consequently of the Church it self There is not one step in this Argument but is justly liable to exception I shall only desire the Reader to consider these few things and then judge whether Mr. M. can be supposed to have examined this matter either diligently or impartially 1. The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry 2. The Idolatry with which we commonly charge that Church is not inconsistent with the Being of a Church or Succession of Bishops 3. The Argument Mr. M. has produced to prove the Impossibility of a Christian Churches teaching and practising Idolatry is weak and inconclusive Sect. 5. First The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry Because there were many confessed and notorious Abuses in the Church that needed Reformation besides what we count Idolatrous And the Governors of the Church were obliged to reform them whether they were Idolatrous or no except Mr. M. thinks that nothing but Idolatry can need Reformation Prayer in an unknown Tongue the half Communion the ludicrous and antique Ceremonies of the Mass private Masses and Indulgences Appeals and Foreign Jurisdiction with many other things were removed by the Reformers not because they counted them Idolatrous but because they were great Abuses and Deviations from the Primitive Rules and Practice of the Church The things in the Roman Church which we commonly charge with Idolatry are the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and Adoration of the Host Now the Reformation would neither be unjustisiable nor unnecessary tho we should reckon these practises only in the same rank of abuses with the former We need not therefore charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry to justifie our first Reformers But whatever be said as to that he may assure himself we never did nor will charge the Catholick Church with any such Crime She never decreed either worship of Images or adoration of the Host. § 6. But secondly the Idolatry with which we charge the Church of Rome is not inconsistent with the being of a Church or Succession of Bishops I do consess there is an Idolatry inconsistent with all true Religion that is when Men renounce the true God and worship a false one in his stead But there is another Idolatry that consisteth in worshipping a false God with or in Subordination to the true And a third which Men incurr by giving some part of that honour to a Creature which God has reserved sor himself or asking those things of Creatures which God only can give And 't is with this last the Church of Rome stands charged Now not only Doctor Stilling fleet whom he confesses he never read but Primate Bramhall also whom he pretends to have seen have proved that some practice of this kind of Idolatry as well as some other Sins may consist with the Being of a Church But what shall
we say to a Man who understands but little himself and will not be persuaded to read those who can inform him Who takes this opinion by hear say as if it were peculiar to one Author whereas it is the common sense of our Controvertists Which I think is a Demonstration that not withstanding what he pretends p. 1. he is yet to begin to study the Controversie between both Churches He confesses he did not understand this matter and then let the World judge whether it was done like a Man who either loved or designed truth to write against a thing before he undrstood it § 7. In order to help his understanding he would do well to consider 1. Whether to teach and practice Idolatry destroy the very Being of a Christian more then of a Jewish Church Now it is plain that the Jewish Church both taught and practised Idolatry and is charged as Idolatrous 1. When Aaron with the whole Congregation sacrificed to the Calf and afterwards when the Kings of Judah establish'd Idolatry in the very Temple of God In which Idolatry the Priests Prophets Princes and People concurr'd as we may see Jer. 2. 26. and yet neither their succession nor Church fail'd Sect. 8. 2. The Primitive Church did not look on all Idolatry as destructive of the Being and Succession of a Church Because she allowed the Succession of those she counted Idolaters Such she reckoned the Arians as we may learn from Athanasius and Gregory Nyssen and yet the Succession of the Arians was allowed in Felix Bishop of Rome In Meletius Bishop of Antioch And lastly in the Bishops of Spain who had been Arians from their first Conversion till the time of their King Ricaredus in whose Reign they turned Catholicks and proceeded in that Reformation at the same rate our Reformers proceeded in Ours If Mr. M. had lived among them he would have told them that they were no Bishops nor had any Church Because their Predecessors for several Generations had taught and practised Idolatry And if we believe him surely that destroys the very Being of a Christian Church But neither these Bishops nor the Church of that Age were of his Mind And therefore they went on in their Business and settled their Church without troubling any body to assist them And though they had no other Ordination or Sacraments than what they had received from Arians that is from much worse Idolaters than the Papists are counted yet no body ever questioned their Church or Succession But Mr. M. and his party love to cut short God's Church and Inheritance and seem afraid too many should go to Heaven And therefore when any thing in a Church doth not please them they immediately un Church her and send her Members to Hell Imitating exactly in this as they do in their Re-ordination the Heretical Donatists Whom St. Augustine sharply reproves for their Uncharitableness Sect. 9. But 3. Mr. M. is the more inexcusable because the Argument he brings to prove the Inconsistency of Idolatry and a Christian Church is so very trisling and inconclusive For saith he what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols and what concord hath Christ with Belial For ye are the Temple of the Living God what Communion hath Light with Darkness 2 Cor. 6. 16. What! Idolaters and yet a true Church 'T is as much as to say they are in the way to Heaven and Hell at the same time p. 8. In answer to this I must desire the Reader to look into the place of Scripture here quoted and observe that the Sentences are broken and mangled and transposed either out of Design or as I am apt to think out of meer thoughtlessness If he had given it whole the Reader would easily have perceived its weakness for it is not only said What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols v. 16. but likewise What Fellowship hath Righteousness with Unrighteousness and What Communion hath Light with Darkness v. 14. If then according to Mr. M. Idolatry destroy the very Being of a Church because there is no agreement between the Temple of God and Idols why shall not every Unrighteousness or Sin destroy likewise the Being of a Church Since there is no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no communion between Light and Darkness May not I argue as he doth What! Unrighteousness and a true Church 'T is as much as to say they are in the way to Heaven and Hell at the same time This is the very Argument by which Petilian the Donatist endeavoured to unchurch all other Christians besides his own Sect and annul all other Baptism besides his own parties because he pretended they communicated with wicked Men and there could be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness between Believers and Unbelievers How then could an Unbeliever regenerate a Believer in Baptism There is indeed no agreement between Idolatry and a true Church no more is there between her and any other Sin. But things that have no agreement do not immediately destroy one another It doth not follow therefore that to teach practice any Sin destroys the very Being of a true Church Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft that is equal to one of the worst kinds of Idolatries shall therefore every Society of Men that teaches practices Rebellion cease to be a Church I hope Mr. M. will not say it I do not say any Society of Men ever taught Treason or Rebellion or Idolatry to be lawful for this would indeed un-church them But many have comanded such practices taught them to be lawful which being put in execution were really treasonable rebellious or idolatrous Thus the Council of Later an commanded Temporal Lords who did not purge their Dominions of Hereticks to be deposed by the Pope and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance And thus the Council of Lyons deposed Frederick the Emperor The one of these taught and the other practiced Rebellion Must we therefore un-church these Councils Pope Paul III. and his Faction taught and commanded the Subjects of Henry VIII to depose their Prince Pius V. taught and commanded the Subjects of Queen Elizabeth to do the like to her These were all acts of Treason or Usurpation and sure these are the way to Hell as well as Idolatry And then to say those that were guilty of such things were Members of the Catholick Church is according to Mr. M. to say they were in the way to Hell and Heaven at the same time but such Arguments must be taken from him where there are no better CHAP. V. § 1. THe third part of Mr. M's Pamphlet consists of a confused mass of particulars without any order or connexion one would think it had been taken from the mouth of one who had spoken it ex tempore and had never been allowed the liberty to revise it There are at least five offers at a conclusion Saith he p. 9. to
a due Submission to the Church As to the first of these I suspect the chief reason why some of his Party object the Communion Service being taken out of the Mass is not that they think it any fault if it were but because they bel eve it may gratifie and incense their Friends the Nonconformists against the publick Service of the Church But I answer That the Model of our Service and Materials thereof are not taken out of the Mass but out of the ancient Liturgies of the Church to which it is much more conformable than to the Mass. § 18. The second Objection he brings against our Church is That she hath no sufficient Foundation P. 11 I desire to be informed whether the Protestant Church had any other Foundation setting aside an Act of Parliament than every Man 's own Reason or which is the same thing the Scriptures Interpreted by every Man's Reason There are but two Bases whereupon to settle our selves the Scriptures and Fathers expounded by my own Reason or the Scriptures and Fathers expounded by the voice of the present visible Church This later is Popish and cannot support a Reformed Fabrick In answer to this I will shew first in what Sence every Man's Reason may be said to be the foundation of his Church Secondly That our Church has trusted her Reason in the expounding Scriptures and Fathers no farther than she ought to have done And Thirdly That she has not Expounded them so as to contradict the sence of the present visible Church First therefore When Mr. M. alledges that our Church has no other Foundation than every Man's Reason he may mean that she has no other Foundation for her Religion than what natural Reason without the assistance of Revelation and other helps God has afforded her doth suggest And this is a manifest Calumny because she has besides what natural Reason of it self suggests the Scriptures the Fathers the universal Tradition of all Ages past and present for every Article of her Faith. Let him shew one Article that wants any one of these and we will strike it out of our Creeds or any other Article that has this testimony for its necessity and it shall be inserted There may be another sence of these words The Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every man's Reason and 't is this The Protestants make use of no other faculties to find out the sence of Scriptures and Fathers of the former and present Church but their Reason and Senses and consequently rely on them with God's assistance to find out the true Religion and Church This Sence we allow and except Mr. M. and his Party will shew us some other faculties given us by God whereby we may choose our Religion they ought not to blame us for using these only When they find out another faculty of the Soul besides these two whereby we may distinguish Truth from Falshood we promise them to use it also And though Mr. M. confesses his own Reason to be as weak as any body can think it and pretends not to assert it but the Authority of the Church yet till he tells us by what faculties he judges himself obliged to submit to the Authority of the Church and by what faculties he comes to know that the Roman Church is she to whose Authority he ought to submit we must tell him that the Authority of his Church as to him is founded meerly and solely on his own Reason how weak soever he own it And so must the Authority of every Church to every man in the World. And therefore it is foolish to object That the Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every Man's Reason and Sences for no Church no not Christianity has or can have any other § 19. But Secondly Perhaps Mr. M. means only that we do not allow the voice of the present visible Church a due regard in our Determination concerning Faith and Religion In Answer to which in the second place I say our Church trusted her reason no further in expounding Scripture than she ought to have done And here it is to be remembred that she is a compleat Church associated together in one intire Ecclesiastical Body with full power to Interpret and Teach her Subjects all things relating to Faith and Discipline As these Kingdoms are a compleat Common-wealth associated into one civil Body with full power to Interpret and Enact all things relating to the Law of Nature and the Civil Government of the Kingdoms As therefore these Kingdoms do not trust their Reason too far when they determine concerning the Laws of Nature without Appeal so neither did our Church trust her Reason too far when she determined without Appeal concerning matters relating to Faith. And there is no more inconvenience can befal her Subjects by allowing her this power in this case than can befal them by allowing their Civil Majestrates the like power in the other § 20. And third to shew that she did not intend to contradict the general voice of the visible Church with which Mr. M. seems to charge her she was content to refer all difference between her and her Neighbour Churches to the Arbitration of a general Council even of the West And to this she Appealed when the Pope pretended to Excommunicate her And not only she but other Protestant Churches did the same But the Roman Church being Conscious that the general Voice and Sense of the visible Church was against her Usurpation durst not stand this Tryal but without any Authority from God or the visible Church if we understand by that the general Body of Christians took on her self to be Judge Witness and Accuser Which was more than Luther did for he referred himself and Appealed to a general Council § 21. The third Objection Mr. M. alledges against the Reformers is their not yielding a due Submission to the Church For after all his clamour against Reason he allows us to make use of it with Submission he has expressed his meaning in this so as it is not easie to guess whether he means by submitting our reason an intire resignation of it to beleive whatsoever the Church of Rome by a Priest or a Council tells us and then the only use of reason will be to find out Arguments to defend what she has taught us or whether by Submission he means only a due regard to her Determinations so that a Man of her Communion shall not allow himself publickly to oppose and contradict her Doctrine This last he seems to understand by Submission because he opposes it to Contradiction and Petulancy And then why is not this Submission due as much to the Church of England and Ireland as Rome Did not Christ say to the Bishops of England and Ireland He that hears you hears me as well at to the Bishop of Rome § 22. But to clear this matter a little I will shew that we pay all due Submission to the Church And Secondly
Examine what Submission Mr M. has paid her When we talk of Submission to the Church by the Church may be meant either the Universal Church or the Particular Church wherein we were Born Baptized and Educated and to both these we profess and pay due Submission Witness of the Doctrine of Christ and we receive her Testimony The onely Question with us is What Doctrine Christ and his Apostles Taught And this we believe contained in the Scriptures Concerning the Sence of any Word in them we receive likewise the Testimony of the Catholick Church Every Doctor approved by her is a Witness and every Council received by her is as the Deposition of Witnesses By this means we know her Sence in former Ages as well as in this Age and are able to compare them together Where these agree we have no reason to doubt her Veracity but where one Age of her says one thing and another Age says another thing we count our selves under no obligation to believe either of their Testimonies to be a necessary part of the Doctrine of Christ. 'T is therefore the Church of all Ages and places that we reckon the Ground and Pillar of Truth Whereas Mr M. conâ—ines us to the Visible Church and pretends we are to take the Sence of all former Ages from the present But pray why may not I as well understand the Sence of the Church of the fourth Age from the Council of Nice as I can understand the Sence of the last Age from the Council of Trent It was therefore by this Rule and with Submission to his Church that our Reformers proceeded in their Reformation and except Mr M. can shew which he has not so much as endeavoured to do that they deviated from this Rule he has done nothing to prove that they had not a due Deference and Submission to the Catholick Church And as she thus submitted to the Sence of the Universal Church so she requires all her Subjects to submit to her to receive the Faith to which she with the Catholick Church bears Testimony to own her Laws of Discipline submit to her Censures and conform to her Constitutions But she pretends to no Dominion over mens Faith or to oblige them to believe any thing because she has decreed it Her Authority is to propose as a Witness not to define as a Judge If any one dissent from her he must not make a Schism or turn Preacher in contradiction to her Authority If any one be otherwise minded he must follow the Apostle's Rule Phil. 3. 15. he must conform as far as he can and yield a Passive Obedience to her Censures where he cannot give an Active to her Commands While he walks by this Rule he can neither be a Schismatick nor Heretick and may expect if he use due means that God will either reveal to him what he wants or pardon his Errour if he mistake § 23. This Submission is coherent even with Calvin's Principles And though I am not concerned for any private Divine yet since Mr M. has troubled us with so few Quotations I will pay him so much Respect as to take notice of this and the Reader may from it learn how faithfully he Transcribes and Englisheth his Quotations The Quotation as in Calvin As Transcribed by Mr M. Non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero nisi pariat nisi nos aâ—at suis uberibus Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio nec ulla salus Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Extra Ecclesiae gremium nulla speranda Salus nec Remissio peccatorum quia non est alius in vitam ingressus Thus in English literally Thus render'd into English by Him. There is no other Passage into Life except the Visible Church conceive us in her Womb bring us forth and nourish us with her Breasts Add to this That out of her Bosom there is no Remission of Sins to be expected nor any Salvation He that will enter into Life let him mortifie the Pride of his own Reason and humbly cast himself at the Feet of the Catholick Church Both Calvin and we own that Pride and all other Passions ought to be Mortified And except Mr M. can shew that we have used our Reason proudly that is not yielded out of some design Passion or Prejudice when our Reason was convinced we have just reason to reckon all his Accusations effects of his own Passion and Petulancy against his Mother Church He confesses that many of us are Catholâ—ks by Inclination I hope we are really so but the Tyranny of Prejudice or Interest keeps us Protestants But for Prejudice lâ—t the World judge whether our People are more liable to Prejudice who are allowed to Read and Examine and Judge for themselves or the Members of his Church that are taught to submit without Examination As for Intérest I think it is the Interest of every man to continue Protestant if he value his Soul but for Worldly Interest the Scales are hardly equal I find not one of their Converts who has lost by it yet But whatever our Interest is our Loyalty is unquestionable if he know divers Loyal Persons of the Church of England I know none else § 24. Let us now take a view of his Submission to the Church 1. For the Catholick Church he has taken the liberty to cut off from her what Members he thought fit and has reduced her to a fourth part of Christians He has obtruded Articles of Faith on her to which she never gave Testimony and has subjected her to a Head at Rome to whom God never subjected her that is He has created a Catholick Church out of his own head and rejected that of Christ's Planting 2. As for the Particular Church which made him a Member of Christ by Baptism this his spiritual Mother he has pronounced a Harlot and her Children By-blows He has condemned her Sacraments degraded her Bishops to whom he sware Obedience renounced her Orders and given her the Title of an unsanctified Nation In short as far as lay in his Power he has exposed the Nackedness of his Mother Behold the Petulancy and Contradiction of an undutiful Son. But thanks be to God notwithstanding his feeble Attempts Her Bow abides in strength and the Arms of her Hands are made strong by the Hands of the Mighty God of Jacob Gen. 49. 24. CHAP. VI. ALthough Mr. M. hath nothing new in his Latine Addition but only repeats what he said first in his Preface and then in his Book yet I did not think it fit to let what he has said in this Language be without some Animadversions in the same Ad dubia quae proponuntur super Reformatione Anglicana sic respondetur Ad 1. An Ecclesia Anglicana sit tota Ecclesia Resp. Quà m absurdum sit ut una particularis Ecclesia â—e esse totam Catholicam Christi Ecclesiam extra quam non est salus