positive and Ecclesiastical constitution And they give the Communion to Laicks both in health and sickness though they have not before confest their Sins to a Priest and that because they are perswaded that Confession is Arbitrary and that Faith is the only and true preparative for receiving the Eucharist So Father Simon shews from Caucus Venetus in his Religion and Customs of the Eastern Nations p. 8. Lond. Ed. 1685. and he owns that Caucus has asserted nothing as to that point which doth not agree to the real belief of the Greeks p. 13. Of the Christians of St. Thomas in India he relates from Meneses that they abominate Auricular Confession p. 94. And though he pretends this to be an abuse introduced into that Church p. 102. yet he produces nothing but his own conjecture to prove it so and acknowledges that most in the East think not themselves obliged to it by Divine Right and consequently it may either be used or laid aside as the Church thinks convenient We learn the same from the Gloss of their own Canon Law where we are told that Confession to a Priest is better said to be instituted by a certain Tradition of the universal Church then from the Authority of the Old or new Testament This Tradition of the Church obliges as a Command and therefore with us he means the Church of Rome Confession of mortal Sins is necessary But is not necessary with the Greeks because they have no such Tradition Here is a Tradition pretended of the Universal Church and yet an acknowledgment that at least one half of that Church has no such Tradition which is as good sence as Roman Catholick However I take this to be a Demonstration that Confession is no otherways approved and frequented by the Christian World except the Church of Rome than it is by the Reformed That is it is looked on by all but Mr. M's Church as a piece of Ecclesiastical Discipline only and then it may be used or dispensed with as the Church sees most for her Edification § 8. This is not only the Opinion of the greater part of the present Visible but it was so likewise of the Ancient Church Though Mr. M. tells us with confidence enough that it was never heard in the Catholick Church till Henry VIII that any was admitted to the Communion without Confession Yet we find direct proof to the contrary in Antiquity Socrates tells us that Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople took away the Priest that was appointed for Confessions since the time of the Decian Persecution and gave free leave that every one should come to the participation of the Holy Sacrament as his own Conscience directed him And Sozo men adds that the Bishops of almost all other Churches imitated him Gratian proposes the Authorities for and against the necessity of Confession and leaves it to the Readers Judgment which he will believe And the Gloss on that is very remarkable In the year 1150. in the time of Gratian nothing was defined or commanded concerning the necessity of Confession by the Church For if there had Gratian had not been ignorant of it nor omitted it but Confession with the Mouth was introduced near an hundred years after by Innocent III. Thus the Roman Gloss and the Reader must judge whether he will believe Mr. M. who affirms that Auricular Confession was always necessary or the Canon Law and Gloss that says it was made necessary about the year 1215 That is not full three hundred years before Henry VIII so late is this Sacrament even in the Roman Church and the Doctrine of its necessity § 9. The third Argument Mr. M. produces for Confession is grounded on the inconveniencies that arise from the want thereof He tells us that Protestant Sermons have some Authority upon the People but not much for lack of this curb on their Vices p. 6. Now whether Sermons or Auricular Confession are the greatest curb to Vice can only be judged by Experience and let that determine whether Protestants or Papists are most Licentious Let us compare Protestant Countries with Popish and see where Vice doth most abound Let us look into Germany Denmark Switzerland the Low Countries England and Scotland and compare them with Italy France and Spain and let any one judge which are most corrupt in their Morals or most happy in their Government Among our selves Let us compare the Protestants who have lived in prosperity these last thirty years and consequently have been most lyable to corruption with the Papists that have been in adversity and consequently are at the best and from these we shall discern what a mighty curb Confession is on the Vices of Men. Lastly Compare the times before the Reformation with what has been since and we shall find even Rome it self at this day reformed to what it was which shews that the Light of Truth which we propose to our People is not so weak a curb on Men's Vices as Mr. M. would persuade us This second inconveniency he alledges from the wont of Confession is the encouragement it must needs give People to sin when they consider they are not obliged to give an account for their Sins So p. 6. Catholiques commit sin 't is true but call themselves to an account for it by Confession and Submission to their ghostly Fathers Protestants sin likewise without calling themselves to any such reckoning because they can make a shift without it And again p. 7. I pray the Reader to consider whether private Sinners in the Church of England do not offend God at a cheaper rate than in the Church of Rome since in the Church of Rome they are bound to some Penance but in the Church of England they may confess to their Ministers and do Penance if they will or if they will not they may let it alone To which I answer That the Church of England hath no Tax of Sins nor doth She promise Pardon of Sins upon the performance of any external action whatsoever whether it cost the performer dear or cheap But she tells her People according to the Scriptures that there is no other way to be forgiven our sins but be heartily turning from them that a good Life and sincere Obedience to the Commandments of God through Faith in Christ are the only means to escape Damnation And that according as every one is certain of the sincerity of his own heart he may be certain of Heaven and no otherwise Let us then compare the Doctrine of the two Churches together and let the Reader judge who teaches the easiest method for Pardon of Sins Saith the Church of Rome If any be so affected in his mind that he is sorry for the sins he hath committed and design not to sin for the future although he be not touched with such a sorrow as may be sufficient to obtain Pardon Nevertheless when he confesses duly to a Priest he doth by the Power of the
Licensed June the 1st 1687. AN ANSWER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS Which obliged PETER MANBY Late Dean of London-Derry in Ireland As he pretends to EMBRACE what he calls THE Catholick Religion By William King Chancellor of St. Patricks Dublin Isaiah 1. 2. I have nourished and brought up Children and they have rebelled against me LONDON Printed for R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. The Examination of his Preface Sect. 1. THE Introduction Sect. 2. Whether Mr. M. really desired the Information Sect. 3. Catholick Church defined S. 4. Answer to his first Question What Church meant by the Catholick S. 5. To his second Question Whether the Church of England S. 6. To his third Question With what other Church she Communicates S. 7. To his fourth Whether the variety of all Protestants be the Catholick Church S. 8. To his fifth Question Whether we and Lutherans are the same in all material points S. 9. Our Church visible before Edward VI. S. 11. His unfair dealing with Dr. Heylin and Dr. Burnet Chap. 2. About Mission Sect. 1. His Letter to his Grace the Lord Primate examined S. 2. The Questions concerning Mission reduced to five Heads S. 3. The validity of our Orders S. 5. Answer to his first Question What Priesthood had the first Reformers but what they received from Roman Catholick Bishops S. 6. To his second Who Authorized them to teach their Protestant Doctrine c S. 7. To his third Whether Cranmer did condemn the Church of Rome and by what Authority S. 8. To his fourth Whether a Presbyterian can preach against the Church of England by virtue of Orders received from her S. 9. To his fifth Whether an Act of Parliament in France c. be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy S. 10. Mr. M's Objections against the first Reformers considered S. 11. His Objections against Cranmer in particular Answered to the end Chap. 3. About Confession Sect. 1. Whether We in our Church differ about Confession S. 2. The Doctrine of our Church in this matter whence Confession appears not to be wanting S. 3. His Argument proposed out of St. John 1. 9. compared with John 20. 23. S. 4. The words if we Confess John 1. Ep. 1. 9. shewn not to refer to Auricular Confession S. 5. Gods faithfulness and Justice mentioned John 1. Ep. 1. 9. do not respect particularly the Promise John 20. 23. S. 6. If they did yet this wou'd not prove Auricular Confession S. 7. 8. His second Argument from the practice of all Ages and Churches considered and shewn to be false S. 9. His third Argument from the inconveniency that attends the want of Confession S. 11. His fourth Argument from the interest of the Priest. Chap. 4. About the place of the Catholick Church Sect. 1. Answer to his third Difficulty Where is the Catholick Church S. 2. Whether extant before Cranmer S. 3. Whether Cranmer believed himself a Member thereof S. 4 5. The Reformation justifiable without charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry S. 6 7 8. All Idolatry not inconsistent with the Being of a Church S. 9. The weakness of his Argument brought to prove it Chap. 5. An Answer to the heap of Particulars thrown together at the latter end of his Paper Sect. 1. 2. His endeavour to vindicate his Church in her Devotions S. 3. Whether all elevated and judicious S. 4. His first Answer taken from the Benedicite to Protestant Objections against Prayers in the Mass directed to Saints S. 5. The second from the Angels being Favourites S. 6. The third from their knowing our Affairs S. 7. His Excuses for the Mass being in an unknown Tongue S. 8. His Vindication of the Worship of Images from the Council of Trents forbidding Superstition S. 9. From Kneeling at the Sacrament S. 10. From Presbyterian Objections against our Practice S. 11. His Excuse for the ill Practices and Opinions of some Roman Catholicks S. 12. His recommendation of his Church from her Books of Devotion S. 13. From the Devotion of her People S. 14. From the Unity of her Members that Unity shewed not to be so great as pretended from the Schisms that have been in her about Ordinations S. 15. From the Disputes about Confirmation S. 16. About Confession S. 17. What he objects against the Church of England first from her stealing her Communion-Service S. 18. Secondly from her want of a due Foundation S. 19. For trusting Reason too far S. 20. And contradicting the visible Church S. 21. Thirdly Not yielding a due Submission S. 22. Due Submission shewn to be paid by her to the universal Church and taught to be due to particular Churches S. 23. Mr. M's Transcribing and Englishing Calvin examined together with his Inference S. 24. Mr. M's Submission to the Catholick and the particular Church whereof he was a Member examined AN ANSWER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS Which obliged Peter Manby Dean of Derry to embrace the Communion of the Romish Church CHAP. 1. To the Preface § 1. PEter Manby Dean of Derry has chosen this time for what reasons he knows best to declare himself of the Communion of the Church of Rome Whoever doth so in the present circumstances must run the hazard of being censured for having too great a value for the Favours and worldly Advantages that some late Converts have met with In order therefore to satisfie the World that he had some other Reasons besides this prospect I suppose he published this Pamphlet that I now answer Whoever reads it will find so little Method or Connexion between the parts of it that he must conclude the Writer was never acquainted with close thinking and that the loosness and immethodicalness of it is the greatest trouble lyes on the Answerer the truth is it sticks chiesly on Formalities and Preliminaries which no Advocate ever insisted much upon that was confident of the merits of his Cause and therefore to answer it can hardly be worth any ones labour I confess I should have thought so too if I had not found some of his own party boasting of it and I do now assure him that I do not Answer it out of any apprehension I have of its seducing any of ours and that it had been answered long ago if I had been possessed with any such Suspicion It consists of three parts and each of these do in effect contain the same things and except a man give a distinct Answer to each he may pretend that part is unanswered I shall therefore follow him in his own method and consider first his Preface to the Reader secondly the Pamphlet it self and thirdly his Latine Queries and beg the Readers Pardon if he find the Answers sometimes repeated when Mr. M. repeats the questions so often § 2. His Preface has huddled together some Questions and Dilemma's concerning the Catholick Church and raised some doubts concerning which he professes himself to be at a loss and so desires information
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
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
Unity Unity in Faith Sacraments in worshipping God she has with all true Churches on the face of the Earth insomuch that there is not one Article in her Creeds nor one Petition in her Liturgy that even Mr. M. can condemn nor is there any Office wanting in which the Ancient Liturgies agreed and then let him shew why all Churches hold not Communion with her and who is guilty of the breach thereof If he say that we hold indeed the Catholick Faith but not intire let him make it appear but if he cannot prove that we deny any part of this Catholick Faith he acquits us from Heresie and owns our union in Faith with the Catholick Church To prove this defect was chiefly incumbent on him but he has not so much as attempted it He has indeed made an attempt against the lawfulness of our Governours that is to prove us Schismaticks but how unsuccessfully we shall see by and by § 7. In the mean time to his fourth Demand Whether by the one Catholick Church be understood the variety of all Protestants since they want her essential mark even Unity I answer that neither all Protestants are Catholick members of the Church nor are Protestants only those amongst Protestants that embrace the Catholick Faith and make no Separation from their lawful Governours and that live in unity of Faith and charity with their neighbour Churches are Catholick members and have that Unity which is essential to the Catholick Church but these are not to be confounded with Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists Fifth Monarchy-men Quakers c. since these have separated themselves from their lawful Governours as much as Mr. M. himself though their Crime be less than his as he is less guilty that makes a Rebellion than he who joyns with a Forreigner to enslave his native Countrey But he has an Excuse even for these that he has heard out of the mouths of some Protestants that God had his people amongst all sorts of Protestants and what if some charitable people say with Saint Augustine that they who defend their Opinion though false and perverse without pertinaciousness especially when they were not the Authors thereof through their own confidence and presum 〈…〉 received it from their seduced and erring Parents and seek industriously the truth and are ready to embrace it when they find it are not at all to be reckoned Hereticks is he sure that there are not some such amongst every sort of Protestants nay of Christians I am sure the passage he quotes out of the second Paper mentioned by him is no Confutation of this nor any thing to the purpose except he hath a mind to prove the Words true by his own example For what Reason has he given why he quitted the Church in which he was baptized educated and preferred whether above his Deserts let the World judge by this Paper but because the Discipline and Devotions of the Church of Rome suit his present Fancy better than what he left because he was not able to answer some few Questions that have no great difficulty in them his private Judgment or Interest told him he ought to change his Church And if he changed his Church on the confidence of a Judgment he acknowledges sufficiently weak why will he not allow the same liberty to others If he say that the Church he has chosen is a Church from whence there can be no appeal I answer he has only his own Judgment for believing so and when that Judgment alters he may be of any other Church and so he is fallen in spite of his endeavours into the same mistake he would avoid He brings in to what purpose he knows perhaps himself a Story of a passionate Presbyterian who said that he cared not what his Son was so he was not a Papist which may pass for a Reason to those that build their Faith on Stories and Legends and use to give the Character of their Enemies only from their peevish Sayings but is nothing to our Church He argues against Schism from 1 Cor. 1. 10. I beseech you brethren that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no Schisms among you as if the Church of which he pretended to be a Member did not abhor Schism as much as he and as if the first Schism from her Communion had not been by Papists about the 10th of Queen Elizabeth Now the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 6. 18. advises them to slee fornication and that as a thing contrary to our Union with God Mr. M. had best try his Logick and see if he can from the first place which forbids Schism prove that it makes a Man more cease to be a Member of the Church than Fornication doth which is forbidden in the second He produces out of Romans 15. 6. that ye glorifie God with one Mind and one Mouth to prove that we ought not only say the same things but the same words especially about Sacraments and Liturgy for by one Spirit we meaning all Christians are Baptized into one body therefore he exhorts them to take heed of such Teachers as have no mission or authority for what they say but only good words and fair speeches to deceive the hearts of the simple By the for and therefore in this sentence one would expect that one part should be a consequence of another but there is not the least affinity between them but you must excuse him for his talent never lay much as has been observed by his Friends in drawing consequences Those that by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple are not said to want Mission Rom. 16. 17. it is probable therefore they had it but St. Paul gives very different marks to know them by even teaching contrary to the Doctrine they had already received serving their own bellies not our Lord Jesus Nonconformity therefore to the Doctrine taught by the Apostles and too eager a concern for the riches and interest of the Clergy are the signs of a false Teacher though he have never so Authentick Mission according to St. Paul nay though he were an Angel from Heaven But if he had been of Mr. M's opinion the Romans must not have judged of their Pastours or attempted to discover Seducers by their Doctrine but only by calling for their Letters of Orders and Titles from the Apostles § 8. His fifth Question concerning the Catholick Church is whether we and the Lutherans are the same in all material points the Lutherans holding a corporal Presence in the Sacrament and we denying it to which I answer that a difference may be material and yet not essential to Faith so as to necessitate a division of Church Unity there is a very material difference between those in the Church of Rome that hold the deposing Power and those that deny it between those that hold the Pope infallible and those that deny it so in many other points as material as those in
dispute between Protestant Churches yet inasmuch as they are not reckoned by all to be the Essentials of Faith they do not break Communion and indeed he understands very little that knows not there may be difference of understanding about matters relating to Sacraments and yet Unity of Communion As to his Objection against the Calvinists that they have no Order of Priests or Bishops I leave him to dispute it with them Whether consequently they have no true Sacraments which he infers I leave him to dispute it with his new Church which allows their Baptism we are concerned in neither § 9. There is only one thing more he objects on this Head against our Church and that is that she as established by Law is Catholick neither as to time nor place because not visible any where for many Ages before Edward the sixth This is the old Question Where was your Church before Luther And has been often answered by shewing that we made no new Church by the Reformation that we kept all the Essentials of Faith Worship received by our Ancestors had the same Creeds the same God Christ Baptism and Eucharist and lastly were governed by the same Bishops and other Governours before and after the Reformation and therefore it is a wild thought in Mr. M. to affirm that our Church was not visible before Edward the sixth It is true it was not established by Law in all points as it is now no more was the Church of Rome before the Reformation by the Council of Trent for that also pretended to Reform but the establishing by Law is accidental altogether to a Church and a Church may be visible long before it is so established This is all in his Preface that any way relates to the Catholick Church § 10. The second part relates to the Mission of our Bishops and is reduced to four Queries which shall have their full Consideration when I come to consider the first point that he lays down in his Book § 11. The rest is spent in comparing two Historians of the Reformation that is Doctor Heylin and Doctor Burnet of whom he gives this Character that Burnet strains all his wit to palliate the doings of the Reformers and paint them out to advantage Heylin represents them honestly for the most part and in their own colours Whereas in truth the first doth generally lay down naked matter of Fact only and leaves the Reader to judge and the other passes his own Censures and gives his own Gloss on them as may be seen by the very passages Mr. M. quotes out of Doctor Heylin's Preface The truth is he abuses both Historians Heylin by producing that for matter of Fact which is all his own Inferences and Conjectures and so exprest to be in the very words all that was done in order to a Reformation seemed to be accidental only then I cannot reckon his Death an infelicity it is not to be thought to the next clause nor was it like to happen to the next might easily have done to the next was in all probability to the last Are not these Conjectures strong Arguments to prove the Reformation unjustifiable But he abuses him yet more in the passage concerning the Duke of Sommerset by reporting that as Doctor Heylin's Opinion which he records only as the Opinion of others pag. 116. of his History where among three or four Conjectures why the Duke did not claim the benefit of his Clergy he sets down this last Finally whether it were some secret judgment on him from above as some men conceived that he who had destroyed so many Churches c. should want the benefit of Clergy in his greatest extremity where Mr. M. leaves out the Parenthesis as some Men conceived and falsifies him perhaps to make him recompence by adding another of his own he the Duke of Sommerset deprived many learned men of their means and livelyhood for being Papists adds Mr. M. a most notorious falshood since it appears from all Histories of the Reformation that there was an universal Complyance of the Clergy few making any Opposition and none almost absolutely refusing Conformity his Papists at that time loved their Means so well or found so little amiss in the Reformation that they readily complyed with all Changes And as he thus abuses and falsifies Heylin so he doth Burnet he saith that the worst Burnet can charge Heylin with is his not vouching Authority for what he says and he affirms that it is an untruth that Heylin writ upon uncertain grounds as Burnet would insinuate But Burnet in that place insinuates no such thing but only says he ought to have vouched them that people might have judged of their certainty Heylin's own Testimony for his fidelity is not to be taken in his own Cause and therefore Mr. M. vindicates him very ill when he produces nothing else for him He saith Doctor Burnet doth not produce one instance of any moment wherein he dares say Doctor Heylin is false I hope Mr. M. would not quote any passage out of Heylin that was not of moment what if that passage that relates to the Duke of Sommerset here quoted be recorded falsly by Heylin and taxt as false by Burnet then I believe every body will judge Mr. M. either very ignorant or very malicious and yet thus it is Says Mr. M. from Heylin The Duke of Sommerset was so defective in his Judgment as not to crave the benefit of his Clergy which might have saved his Life Now look into Burnet ad Ann. 1531. pag. 186. 2 vol. and see whether he have not these words Some late Writers have made an Inference upon his not claiming the benefit of Clergy that he was thus left of God not to plead that benefit since he had so much invaded the Rights and Revenues of the Church but in this they shewed their Ignorance for by the Statute That Felony of which he was found Guilty was not to be purged by Clergy The most likely excuse I can make for Mr. M. is that he neither read Burnet nor Heylin if he did he neither knew this and conceal'd it which makes him very disingenuous or did not observe it and so he falls under the Character of a thoughtless Reader that could neither by his own Observation nor the Admonition of Friends avoid picking out and repeating such an uncharitable falshood It were easie to shew several falshoods even in those things that are most invidious to the Reformation in Heylin's History observed and confuted by Burnet one more particularly in his saying that the Father of Queen Ann Boleyne was one of the Jury that condemned her with which as a falshood he taxes Heylin in his Addenda p. 363. first Volume where he says that Doctor Heylin took this as he did many other things too easily upon Sanders's credit which if true is enough to blast the credit of his Book with all Protestants nay with all Men of Judgment that know what an
infamous Lyar and Rebel Sanders was Whereas therefore he intreats the Protestant Reader to peruse Doctor Heylin's History of the Reformation we are content he should do so and let him at the same time peruse the History of the Council of Trent written by Father Paul and let him impartially judge which was carried on by the worst Men and worst Arts the Reformation or the Council What Mr. M. objects further in his Preface against Cranmer and the other Reformers shall be considered in its proper place CHAP. II. I Come now to examin the Pamphlet it self which consists of Three parts 1. A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland 2. Of Three points wherein he could not satisfie himself And 3dly A confused heap of particulars at the latter end As to the Letter it is a little ambiguous to whom it is directed if to his old Patron as a civil Compliment at taking leave he had done well to have told the true Reason why he forsook him Your Grace would not get me a Bishoprick though often prest and sollicited by me therefore I beg your leave to seek a new Patron whose Mediation may be more effectual But perhaps Mr. M. means another man and then we may reckon this as the first Fruits of his Conversion Are you taught already the Art of Equivocation We shall learn from this what sincerity we may expect from you and shall hardly believe you when you tell us that it was not any consideration of Temporal Interest inclined you to be reconciled If you valued Temporal Interest so little why were you so earnest for a Protestant Bishoprick Why did you repine and murmur so much that you were not preferred Why did you declare to several about a year ago that you was no Roman Catholick but yet would not appear against the Church of Rome because you hoped to rise by help of Roman Catholicks Why did you endeavour to ingratiate your self by mean Arts and condescend even to the Office of an Informer Why did you defer publishing this Paper such as it is which was ready sometime before till you thought you might be sure of keeping the Profits of your Deanery Either you are a Lay or Clergy-man If a Lay-man are not you abominably Sacrilegious to have possessed and still retain the Revenue of a Clergy-man Why do you retain the Title of Dean in the Frontispiece of a Book which is designed to prove you to be no Priest and consequently incapable of it If your Orders had yielded you as much per annum as your Deanery doth Have we not reason to believe you would no more have renounced the one than the other For shame resign our Church her own since you have deserted her or never talk of Conscience Till this be done it is in vain for you to pretend that your having reflected on the uncertainty and variety if the Protestant Spirit or perused Catholick Books have undeceived you Did you never reflect on the uncertainty or variety of the Protestant Spirit before that it should have such a mighty influence on you just at this time sure there was greater variety when you was first educated in the Colledge and when you first entred into Orders than now They talk'd much of the Spirit then and you yet retain their language if instead of that Cant you had well studied and considered the Principles of the Church which you have left you would have found that there neither are nor can be any more certain and steady Principles of any Religion than hers are You make your self a great Novice that at this time a day pretend to be converted by perusing the Mass. In good earnest did you never read it before if you did how comes it to have such influence on you in King James the Second's time and so little in King Charles the Second's All you pretend for your self is that you were then under Prejudice and deceived by false Reports concerning that you call the Catholick Religion that is The Reverend Dean after near 30 years study had his Religion by hear-says wanted Honesty to be impartial and either Industry or Means to inform himself concerning the most material Controversies that are on foot in the Church Which Controversies are still the same and the Arguments pro and con of the same force they were before in every thing except the alteration of one circumstance that is worldly Advantage Is not this a most excellent Account of your Conversion And whereas you tell His Grace that all that have known you these several years can witness for you that it was not any consideration of worldly Interest that inclined you you are obliged to beg His Graces pardon for your false Information for I can assure you I have consulted many that have known you and have not met one that can witness this for you But on the contrary the most conclude that it was the little grain of Worldly Advantage turn'd the Scale for your new Church This is therefore the true Account you ought to have given His Grace of your Reconcilement § 2. The second part of Mr. M's Paper consists of three points wherein he professes that he could never satisfie himself since he began to study the Controversies between the two Churches The first was The Mission or Authority of the first Reformers The second The Want of Confession in the Church of England And the third Where is that one holy Catholick Church we do profess to believe in the two Creeds To the first of these points I shall reply in this method 1. I will put together all the Questions that he asks on this Head. 2. Consider the Answers he produces to them And 3. The Objections he has raised against the Reformation or Reformers 1. Concerning our Mission he asks in his Preface pag. 3. What Priesthood or Holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops What Priesthood or Holy Orders have Protestants but what they confess to have received from Roman Catholick Bishops Pag. 12. of the Pamphlet 2. Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sacraments Pag. 1. of his Pamphlet I am not now disputing what Doctrine he preached but who sent him to preach his Protestant Doctrine and administer his Protestant Sacraments 'T is not his Doctrine but Mission I am now enquiring after Pag. 3. 3. Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bishops Pag. 3. of his Preface I understand not how any man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by authority of the Popish Mission Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet I must still ask the old Question By whose Authority did he condemn that Church from whom he received his Mission Pag. 3. of his Pamphlet The Archbishop of Canterbury c. at the time of their Consecration were professed Roman Catholicks But
afterwards turning Protestants and pronouncing the Church of Rome Idolatrous I would fain know by whose Authority Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet At the time of their Consecration they professed Seven Sacraments Anno 1536. they retrencht them to three then to two Anno 1549. By whose Authority or Mission I cannot tell Ibid. pag. 2. Again Who gave them Authority to pronounce themselves sound Members and the Church of Rome a corrupt Arm of the Catholick Church Pag. 12. The fourth Sett of Questions concerning Mission is on this Head Preface p. 3 Whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by virtue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church I understand not how a man can forsake the Church of England and preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Orders Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet Presbyterians being Interrogated Did that Church authorize you to preach against the Sacraments or Liturgy there was no Answer to be had Pag. 3. I desire to know whether an honest man can preach against the Liturgy Sacraments or Constitution of any Church by vertue of any Commission he received from it Ibid. So that no honest man can turn Presbyterian or Independant Preacher by vertue of his Protestant Mission p. 4. The fifth Sett of Questions relating to Mission is Pref. pag. 3. Whether an Act of Parliament in France Spain or Germany be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy A Parliamentary Mission then our first Reformers had and no other that I can find p. 3. § 3. Before I come to a distinct consideration of each of these I must observe that he waves the Dispute concerning our Priestly or Episcopal Orders whether valid or no Pamphl pag. 1. Now if these are valid either let him shew one Sacrament administred by Protestants which these Characters do not give them Power to celebrate or one Article of Faith that they teach which the same do not oblige them to teach or else let him ask no more for their Mission and Authority to teach their Doctrine and administer their Sacraments If their Doctrine and Sacraments are not Theirs but Christs they are not only sent but obliged by their Orders to administer the one and teach the other in the Churches wherein they are appointed Pastors I observe further that he manifestly contradicts himself in this matter for he makes Cranmer and Latimer the first Protestant Bishops and owns their Consecration p. 2. and yet alledges p. 3. that it is no easie matter to find out who consecrated the first Protestant Bishops because for sooth there were none to do it but Roman Catholick Bishops who never use to consecrate any Protestants But if he had read Mason and Archbishop Bramhall he might have seen who ordained the first Reformers and their Succession to this day and if he had consulted Sir James Ware de Proesulibus he might have seen that there wanted not Bishops in Ireland willing to consecrate Protestants Primate Loftus being consecrated by the then Archbishop of Dublin Dr. Curwin who continued in his Archiepiscopal See near six years after and then by reason of his great Age was translated to the Bishoprick of Oxford at his own desire Antiquit. Oxon. de Aede Christi lib. 2. p. 291. Ware de Proesulibus Hib. in Archiepiscopis Dubliniensibus p. 120. Nor is the Testimony he produces out of Burnet from Queen Mary at all pertinent all that appears from that Testimony is that they who were ordained according to the Form in our Common-Prayer-Books are not lookt upon by the Queen to be ordered in every Deed but there is no reason alledged for it nor indeed can any be given but because it was not done according to the Pontifical an ignorance excusable at that time when perhaps she was informed that something Essential was left out in our Form of Orders or that the Pontifical with its Tricks was not a new thing whereas our Form of Ordination is more full then any of the ancient Forms both in Substance and Ceremony and therefore either the ancient Priests and Bishops had no sufficient Ordination or Queen Mary was mis-informed when she did not reckon Ordination by the Common-prayer-book ordering indeed § 5. Having premised this I answer to his first Question What Priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they confess to have received from Roman Catholick Bishops If he mean by Roman Catholick Bishops such as own'd the Bishop of Rome to be the supream universal Pastor of the Catholick Church by Divine right to whom themselves were by God made unappealably accountable which is the Essential Character of a Roman Catholick the first Reformers received their Orders from no such Roman Catholicks Whatever Roman Catholicks hold now he will never prove this to have been the declared sence of the Church of England before the Reformation and therefore the first Reformers cannot properly be said to have received their Orders from Roman Catholicks but from the Church of England There are two things to be distinguished in the Office of a Bishop one is the Power or Capacity of governing the Church interpreting Scripture Consecrating other Bishops Ordaining Priests and Deacons Offering Baptizing and Confirming the other is the admitting the Bishop so impowered to the exercise of that Power within certain Limits which we call a Diocess The first of these is a Divine and the second a Canonical Right Now the first Reformers received the first of these that is their Orders from Christ by the hands of their Consecrators who were Bishops of England for Rome The second of these they received likewise from the Laws and Constitutions of the Church and Kingdom of England of Rome And it is to be observed that the Laws of the one were directly contrary to the Laws of the other and that the Bishops of England had their proper and immediate Mission to their Churches by an Authority maintained in opposition to the Popes Power which he endeavoured as much as he could to abolish but was not able as may be seen in his Contests with Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry the Sixth's time Although therefore the first Reformers had their Orders from Bishops in Communion with the Church of Rome yet it was as Christian Bishops they Ordained and as English Bishops that they admitted the first Reformers to their Charges But suppose they had no other Orders but what they received from the Bishop of Rome himself all that can be concluded from thence is that we are obliged to own that the Orders of Priest and Bishop given by Roman Catholicks are valid and capacitate a man to perform all the Duties belonging to those Offices in a Christian Church which we readily acknowledge and charge the Popish Priests and Bishops not with want of Orders but with abusing the Orders they have to ill intents and purposes The Roman Catholick Bishops do not confer Orders
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
inclinations did comply in earnest what an idle Question is it to ask By what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Order When she concurred in all he did and approved nay made all the Alterations in her Liturgy Sacraments and Constitutions that were made The true Question therefore is Whether the Church of England had full power to Reform her self without the consent of the Pope For it is into his Supremacy all this Banter of Mission and indeed the whole Faith of the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholick is resolved If the Church of England was not subject to the Church of Rome she had sufficient power to Reform her self and the only thing for which she is accountable to God the World and her Subjects is the Goodnesâ— of the Reformation If that was a good work Cranmer did well in advising and she in decreeing it but if the Errors removed by the Reformation were not real but only pretended as Mr. M. would perswade us but will never be able to prove Cranmer indeed was answerable for giving her ill Councel but she her self is accountable for the removal of them for it was Her Act. 'T was by Her Authority and Mission though Mr. M. cannot tell it Page 2. that Anno 154â— the word Sacrament in the sence which the Church then gave of it was restrained to Baptism and the Lords Supper and sure the Church of England had Authority enough to explain her meaning by what words she thought fit Let him shew if he can that there were more Sacraments as she understands the word Sacrament ever owned in the Catholick Church than those two allowed by her Lastly to shew that it was not Cranmer's private Opinion influenced the Church 't is observable first that he had several private Opinions two whereof Mr. M. lays to his charge in his Preface which were absolutely condemned by the Church and the contrary established as her Doctrine which he himself signed 2ly That the Bishops and Clergy of England had unanimously entred upon the Business of the Reformation in the time of Cranmer's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Warham Anno 1531. by the Submission of the Clergy to the King and acknowledging his Supremacy and again Anno 1533 by consenting to an Act against Appeals to Rome wherein the Nation was declared to be an entire Body within it self with full Power to do Justice in all Causes Spiritual as well as Temporal And this before Cranmer was Arch-Bishop so far was he from condemning or imposing on the Church from whence he had his Mission § 8. The fourth set of Questions concerning Mission is on this head whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by vertue of sâ—ch Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church or Preach against her Sacraments or Liturgy notwithstanding her Censures His design in this Question is to shew that the first Reformers had no more Authority to Preach against the Romish Church then such a Presbyter has to Preach against our Church I cannot understand how a man can forsake the Church of England and Preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Mission nor consequently how any Man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by vertue of his Popish Mission pag. 2. Why may not a Presbyterian having the same Authority of Scripture which Cranmer pretended to Preach against the Superstition of the Common Prayer as well as he against the Idolatry of the Mass pag. 6. and more to the same purpose pag. 12. In Answer to this I will shew first why a Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof he is a Member in contradiction to her Censures And secondly that this was not the first Reformers Case 1. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church of which they are Members Because there is a Regular way in which they may endeavour a Reformation If they find any thing amiss in her Discipline or Doctrine they may make their Application for redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being Subjects to usuâ—p their Governors Power For this is the case of private mens reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King a remedy generally worse than the disease However in both Cases private men may sue for Redress and in their proper Stations endeavour it But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be Censured and Suspended he is thereby discharged from the Execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it then one must make a Rebellion in the State to re-gain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects amongst us that either have no Ordination or Appointment to their Offices from the Church of England and Ireland or else abuse the Power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against M. M. and his Party who without any Mission from these Churches do according to their private sence take a Commission from a Foreign Bishop and Church to Preach against the declared Doctrine of that Church to which by the Law of Christ they are Subjects Them we count those Rebels who when censured and condemned by their own Churches and Governors against all the known Laws of our Church flee from her Tribunal and appeal to Foreigners And what Rebels or Hereticks will ever be convicted p. 4. if they may chuse their own Judges as those do We do not deny the Orders of the Church of Rome we own that she can make Priests Bishops but let Mr. M. shew that the Pope could ever give them Power to exercise their Office in these Kingdoms since it is directly against the ancient Laws and Practice observed and enacted by our Ancestors and in force at the Reformation If a man like not the Orders therefore of his own Church he must be without Orders except he would be a Schismatick and Deserter as Mr. M. has made himself And this is sufficient to shew that the Case of the first Reformers was vastly different from the Case of the present Dissenters which is the second thing I am to prove The whole strength of Mr. M's Paper doth really depend on this Parallel and whoever reads it will find that the only considerable Argument he produce is that the first Reformers Mission could not be good because the Presbyterians have as much to say for Theirs And that he can find no difference between these two only that the first Reformers were Authorized by Act of Parliament I have heard it given as the Character of wit that it finds out the likeness of things whereas it is the work of Judgment to find out the differences Now Mr. M. having whatever his Judgment may be a great
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
Keys obtain Remission and Forgiveness for all his Villanies Saith the Church of England Repent you truly for your sins past have a lively Faith in Christ our Saviour amend your Lives and be in perfect Charity with all Men so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy Mysteries The Church of Rome sees the difference of these two and pretends that Confession was appointed by the Mercy of God to make Pardon the more easie For Let us grant it faith she that Sins could be blotted out by Contrition Yet in as much as few could come to this degree it must happen that very few could expect Pardon of Sins this way The true Intention of Confession and of all other parts of Christian Discipline is Amendment of the Peoples Lives And it will be found that Men do not come to Confession so much to help them to live well for the future as to ease themselves from the Trouble that the memory of their Sins past create them and when by Absolution they are eased of the sense of their former Guilt they are apt to think they may begin on a new score And hence it often happens that Men are more negligent after Confession than before And let never so much care be taken to prevent this abuse which Mr. Arnauld confesses almost Universal while People believe that the Priest can forgive them their sins as soon as they are sorry for them and purpose to forsake them it is impossible it should be removed Whereas when a Man is referred to his own Conscience as the final judge of his own Condition and told that he damns himself if he be partial And that no other Sorrow or Repentance for Sin can save him but such as will in earnest prevail with him to forsake his Sins and live a good Life In this case a Man will find it much easier to satisfie the Priest and obtain Absolution from him than to satisfie his own Conscience Nay after all the Priest can only judge of a Mans Repentance from his own Mouth and if the Man be partial or mistaken in his own sincerity the Priest must be so too and his Absolution insignificant And therefore our Church who lays the efficacy of Absolution on the sincerity of the Penitents Contrition and Faith and tells her People that her Absolution is only Conditional deals more severely and sincerely too with her Penitents than the Roman Church who lays the chief stress on the outward Absolution of the Priest. The Matter of Fact appears to be really thus from the practice of the lewdest Livers amongstus who often take Sanctuary in that Church and without any amendment of Life live in hopes of that Salvation in her which they know they could not hope for in ours § 11. The last Argument Mr. M. urges for Confession is the Interest of the Priest faith he The Church of England for want of Confession appears to me to have lost that Interest in the Consciences of the People which both the Roman and the Greek Priests are happy in at this day I do believei n my Conscience this Argument goes a great way with Mr. M. and not only with him but with all those Priests who value their Interest as he does But he would have done well to have told us what that interest is in which the Priests count themselves happy For the Priests have counted themselves happy sometimes in an interest which contributed very little to the happiness of the People In short we neither do nor ought to covet any other interest with our People than the power of doing and making them good and God be thanked we have as much of that interest as any Clergy of the World and dare compare the Lives of our People with the Lives of either Greeks or Romans It was therefore some other interest which brought in Auricular Confession in which Mr. M. would count himself happy I shall not determine what that may be which Mr. M. could not find in our Church only he must know that among us truly mortified diligent sober prudent Clergy-men who continually reside on their Cures and shew themselves an Example to their Flocks in meekness humility watchfulness and charity have no reason to complain that they want interest with their People But there are some that think it too dear a purchase at that rate and therefore had rather come at it another way That is by perswading people that they can forgive them their Sins though perhaps they are nothing bettered by Confessing Thus Mr. M. seems to state the case What if some Catholicks are never the better for it What are many Protestants the better for all the Sermons they hear and Sacraments they receive If we confess our Sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins What though we are never the better for Confessing If that be Mr. M's meaning and he believes himself he had reason in earnest to change his Church For he may be sure we have no such Catholick Doctrine CHAP. IV. § 1. MR. M. tells us that the third difficulty that stuck with him was the Answer given by Protestants to that Question Where is that one Holy Catholick Church which we do profess to believe in the two Creeds To this he adds several other Questions Was there any such Society as one Holy Catholick Church extant upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation What Provinces of the Earth did this Church inhabit Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of it Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Catholick and Apostolick Church To set up Altar against Altar c. p. 8. To each of these Questions I will give a distinct Answer and shew how little Reason any one has to make a difficulty of them To the first Where is that one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which we profess to believe in the two Creeds I Answer not in any one place or Province exclusively to the rest but in all places where Men professing the Faith of Christ live under their Lawful Pastors or Spiritual Governors 'T is by these two marks we must find the Catholick Church if we would not mistake the Society of Schismaticks and Hereticks nay of Heathens for her Where-ever we find the Faith of Christ and the Persons professing it living in submission to their Regular Pastors there we have found a branch of the Catholick Church and to that Society we ought to be ready to unite ourselves in this Profession and Submission But Mr. M. by his eagerness to have us assign the ubi or place where to find this Church seems to imagine that there is some one place or ubi where she is always to be found At least that there is some where a Head and Principle of Unity by union to which the Society is made one But we deny any other Head or Principle of unity to this Society besides Christ Jesus And we believe that to
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
conclude p. 10. in a word p. 11. in sine next paragraph on the whole matter p. 12. after all his concluding he must have a word or two before he make an end p. 13. he promises to say no more and yet he cannot forbear adding two or three things nothing to the purpose Thus he says and unsays and labours in a heap of confusion And when all is done he puts things in a less advantageous Light than has been done by many of his Brethren before him I shall bring what he says such as it is into this method 1st I will consider what he says in order to vindicate or recommend his new Church And 2ly Wherein he criminates ours § 2. He endeavours to vindicate his new Church in her Devotions as to the Direction of them as to their being in an unknown Tongue and as to their being made before Images He endeavours to recommend her from the excellency of her Prayers and from the Devotion and Unity of her People As to the direction of her Prayers he tells us That instead of Idolatry he found most elevated and judicious Prayers to the Holy Trinity concluding in the Name of our Saviour Jesus Christ p. 9. and he asks Do Roman Catholicks ever say Mass to any other object but the living Father Son and Holy Ghost p. 12. Now if all the Prayers in the Mass be so very elevated and judicious and all said to the Trinity only then God forgive the wickedness of those People who quarrel at this and persecute it with so blind and furious Aversion But soft and fair Mr. M. consider they are Hereticks you pray for and ten to one either do not deserve or do not need your Charity For suppose the Prayers in the Mass were never so judicious and never so well directed yet for ought the People know or any assurance they have besides the honesty of the Priest the Prayers may be Conjuring or Cursing directed to Jupiter or Mahomet and therefore 't is your own Fault that people persecute them with so blind and furious Aversion since you keep the people in that blindness and will not let them understand their Prayers that they may admire their Judiciousness § 3. But 2ly It is to be considered that the Mass was patched up in a barbarous and ignorant Age though many of the Materials are old and the composition is such that all even of the Roman Communion are not satisfied concerning the Judiciousness of the Prayers in it In so much that Cassander who was a little better acquainted with it then Mr. M. confesses the phrase is obscure even to Learned Men that the Canon is difficult and that sometimes there is a sudden jump from one sence of a word to another Cassander was no perverse ill-natured Phanatick but a learned and ingenuous Roman Catholick and yet he finds fault with this Prayer Mr. M. has produc'd and others of the like importance in the Mass because they are improperly used as Masses are now celebrated for these Prayers have respect as he tells us to an ancient custom in the Church now gone out of use and agree chiefly to a Solemn Mass in which there is supposed to be a Communion and Congregation of the people that have offered Bread and Wine This Bread and Wine offered by the People is that immaculate Sacrifice offered up by the Priest in the Prayer mentioned by Mr. M. And where neither People are present nor any Offering is made by them this Prayer and several others in the Mass make a hard shift to gain the Estimation of either Sence or Truth much less of Judiciousness And has given occasion to some to abuse the Mass to Superstition and to others to condemn it as Impious How can a Priest with either Judgment or Truth offer a Sacrifice for all present as the Prayers direct him to do even in a solitary Mass when none is present or near him But 3ly As all the Prayers in the Mass are not judiciously contrived so neither are they all said to the Trinity the very Sacrifice being offered up for the Honour of Saints and Angels and to obtain of them their Intercession besides several Prayers made to them for the same purpose directly contrary to what we learn from Saint Augustine to have been the Practice of the ancient Church § 4. Mr. M. seems aware of this Objection and hints at three Answers to it 1st That Presbyterians object as much against that Canticle in the Common-Prayer-Book called Benidecite 2dly That the Roman Catholick ascribe nothing to Angels or Saints but as the Ministers of God And 3dly That the Angels must know our affairs and the Saints have intelligence from them and therefore we pray to them 1. He assures us That the Reader shall find Protestants objecting nothing against Consessing and Praying to Saints and Angels but what Presbyterians do against that Canticle in the Common-Prayer-Book called Benedicite omnia opera O Ananias Azarias and Misael praise ye the Lord is as rank Popery with Presbyterians as any thing in the Mass or Litanies of our Lady p. 9. Now except he be able to shew where the Presbyterians have declared this as their sence we can count him no better than a Slanderer For my part I do prosess that I never yet met with one single Presbyterian so silly as to make this Apostrophe for an Invocation of dead Men who do not hear us The disparity of the case is so manifest between our Church and the Roman that it is hardly possible any should mistake The Roman Church has determined that it is good and prositable humbly to invocate the Saints and to flee to their Prayers Help and Assistance Our Church has declared Invocation of Saints to be a fond thing vainly invented To parallel therefore the Presbyterian Objection if any such there be against us with ours against the Papists on this Head is to shift off an Objection which did not easily admit of an Answer § 5. Let us see if this second Answer be any better which is that the Roman Catholicks attribute nothing to Angels or Saints but as the Ministers and Favourites of the Living God receiving from him whatever understanding they have of our affairs p. 12. But what then May not Men ascribe more to Favourites than the King allows them and is not that an encroachment on his Prerogative If Mr. M. will shew us where God allows us to make Prayers to Saints to erect Images for their Worship burn Incense before them dedicate Churches to their Honour make Vows to them or devote Orders and Societies of Men as slaves to their Service he will indeed vindicate his Church against the Reformation for in possession of all these the first Reformers found them and justly concluded it safest to lay them aside as too much to be allowed Favourites out of our own head without the express Declaration of the Princes Will. But if he cannot
by any other Devotional Book Lastly What is this to the Reformation which found not one Exposition in Print by Commandment of the Church nor any counted necessary I will venture to put one Question to Mr. M. and having askt so many I hope he will not take it ill Ought the Mass to be understood by the People or no If it ought to be understood why is not the best method taken to make them understand it even to read it in a Tongue understood by them If it matters not whether it be understood by the People or no to what purpose doth he talk of an Exposition His third Argument in behalf of the practice of his Church is taken from the Example of the Jewish Church Had not saith he the Jewish Church almost all her Scriptures and publick Service for fourteen Generations that is to say from the Captivity unto Christ in the old Hebrew A Language not then understood by the the common People I Answer she had some of them in old Hebrew but not only in it They were read in the Synagogues first in Hebrew for the use of the Learned and then in the Vulgar for the common People This he might have learnt from Father Simon and Bishop Walton Nay Doctor Isaac Vossius is positive that the Greek was the vulgar Language of Jerusalem in our Saviours time and that the Septuagint Translation and not the old Hebrew was read in the Synagogues of the Jews And all unanimously conclude that the people either understood the original of what was read or were made understand it by an Interpreter 'T is probable Saint Paul had respect to this custom among the Jews when he commands the Prophet that spake with Tongues to keep silence in the Church if there was no Interpreter 1 Cor. 14. 28. And therefore Mr. M. has quite mistaken his Argument when he asks Did our Saviour or his Apostles ever reprehend the Jews for not translating the Scripture into the vulgar Language There was no ground for such a Reprehension since the Jews had done it three hundred years before therefore will rise up in Judgment against the absurd practice of the Roman Church will condemn her who is more unkind to her Subjects than the very Jews has provided worse for their Edisication in this point It is to no purpose to say as Mr. M. doth that the Latine is more vulgar than the English Since this is a manifest falshood and must be owned to be such by all men who consider that the Latine is not vulgar in any place of the World. I cannot tell whether I can call it a fourth Argument which offers in these words If the Service of God must be said in the maternal tongue of every Nation where shall an English man in France or Spain that understands not the language go to serve God on the Lords day I answer To Church and joyn his presence and private Devotion with the Congregation since he cannot joyn in the publick Prayers In case of necessity a man is accepted by God according to what he can do and what is not in his power is not required of him In a Country where there are no Christians he must go no where and in a strange Country he must go to the publick Devotions though he do noâ— understand them For that is better then not going at all His last Argument for the vindication of the publick Service of the Church in an unknown Tongue is That this would destroy all Community of Sacraments and Litâ—rgie between the Members of the Catholick Church which being one Body or Society of Men cannot be like the Builders of Babel who could not understand one anothers Language Now if they that understand not one anothers language are Builders of Babel then the Priest and People where the Service is in an unknown Tongue are plainly such Builders For they do not understand one another Two Cities may very well be Built and conveniently Governed by two People of different Languages and these Cities may likewise manage all their common Business and keep a good Correspondence by the help of a few Men that understand both Languages But two Languages in the same City is very inconvenient and cannot be so remedied It is so in the Church Distant Congregations may have a very good Communion with one another by the help of their Priests who understand a common Language But to have a Language spoken to a Congregation or in it that the Members cannot understand is to bring in a great confusion and directly opposite to the Apostles command which he himself here produces Rom. 15. 16. that we should with one mind and mouth glorifie God For how can a Congregation glorifie God with one mouth if they do not understand the words in which they are to joyn Thus Mr. M's Arguments constantly make against himself If want of a common Language destroys unity of Sacraments and Liturgy in distant Churches it destroys that unity much more where there is wanting a common Language between the Priest People in the same Church But the truth is the unity of the Sacraments and Liturgies have no dependency on the unity of Language but are the same in whatever language they are used or administred And so it was in the Primitive Church where every People had their own Liturgy in their own Language Mr. M. foresaw that 1 Cor. 14. would be objected against him And he tells us p. 11. That he humbly thinks it not well understood by Prostants This is a main point and one would have expected a substantial Reason for his Opinion some Determination of a Primitive Council or a whole shoal of Fathers at least But instead of that he pretends to cut the throat of the Objection out of that very Chapter in which Protestants glory If any be Ignorant saith he let him be Ignorant Wherefore Brethren covet to Prophesie and forbid not to speak with Tongues v. 39. God is not the Author of Confusion but Peace v. 33. I shall not trouble the Reader with an Answer to these Arguments if Mr. M. designed in earnest to prove by them that we do not well understand the Apostle in this Chapter I would advise him to take the Opinion of a Physician whether all be right about his Head. § 8. The third thing wherein Mr. M. endeavours to vindicate his Church is the Worship of Images And to this purpose he alledges First That the Council of Trent hath commanded all Superstition to be taken away in the use of Images and then gives it in charge to all Bishops to look to it p. 12. If they had reckoned the Worship of Images Superstition this had indeed taken away our Objection but on the contrary the Council decreed that Images of Christ not of his Human Nature as he improperly expresses it and likewise of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained especially in Churches
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