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
shew that there is a difference between Christs Doctrine and Sacraments and those that Protestants Teach and Administer their Episcopal Orders are sufficient to warrant them § 7. And so I proceed to his third Sett of Questions Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission received from her Bishops To which I answer That if by condemning the Church of Rome be meant anathematizing her and cutting her off from the Body of Christ by a judicial Sentence as if we were her Superiors which condemning only is by authority We never thus condemned the Church of Rome Faults we believe to be in her that greatly need Reformation but that Work we leave to her lawful Governours our Church having declared in her Preface to her Liturgy that in these her doings she condemns no other Nation nor prescribes any thing but to her own People only Cranmer therefore and his Associates did not condemn the Church of Rome nor could he or his Fellows do it by pretence of a Mission received from her Bishops for they received no Mission from her Bishops but from the Bishops of England But then he proceeds to ask by whose Authority did they condemn the Church from whom they received their Mission To give the World an account of this matter it is to be observed that the supream Government of our Church has always been in a National Councel or Convocation of our Clergy and that not only We but every National Church hath the same power of altering all Rites and Ceremonies of abrogating and making all Ecclesiastical Constitutions and lastly of reforming all Abuses and Corruptions crept into the Church which the supream Civil Power hath of altering the Civil Constitutions the Fundamental Laws of Religion being preserved inviolable in the one and of the State in the other The Supream Ecclesiastical Power being lodged here the next thing requisite is a certain Rule and Method according to which Laws were to be past by it and in the proceedings about the Reformation all alterations being made by this Power and in this Method it follows that they were all made legally and that our Churches retrenching such Ceremonies out of the Service of God as were judged Useless Burdensome or Superstitious and such Opinions as were no part of the Christian Faith or corrupted it was no more to make a new Faith or Church then to to reform Abuses in the State by Act of Parliament is to make a new Kingdom Nor do they that thus make a Reformation any more condemn their Predecessors because they reform what was amiss in their time then Parliament Men condemn their Ancestors when they make a new Law. I do confess an honest Man cannot preach against the Liturgy Sacraments or Constitution of a Church by vertue of any Commission from it and that no Church ought to be presumed to Authorize her Priests or Bishops to go and preach the Gospel after their private Sence or Conscience in contradiction to her declared Doctrine and Worship and that the Church of England gives no such power at this day But I deny this to be the case of the first Reformers who did not act as private men in the Church when they Reformed but as representing her in her Convocation and by her Authority Although therefore the Church of England oblige private Men not to contradict her allowed Orders yet she doth not bind her self from making such Alteration in a Canonical way as she sees convenient or is convinced to be necessary If therefore Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer and his Associate made the Alterations without consulting her he went indeed beyond his Commission from her but if she assented to all he did and to this day approves the Reformation how did Cranmer condemn that Church from whence he had his Mission If the Alteration was good and those things that were removed were really Errors and Corruptions did Cranmer and his Associates any more than what they were obliged to do by the very Roman Pontifical in their Ordination It belongs saith the Pontifical to a Bishop to judge to interpret to consecrate ordain offer baptize and confirm Did they do any more This Answer he owns and ascribes to Burnet pag. 3. The Pastors and Bishops of the Church are ordained to instruct the people in the Faith of Iesus Christ according to the Scriptures and the Nature of their Office is a sacred Trust that obliges them to this and therefore if they find Errors and Corruptions in the Church they are obliged to remove them and undeceive the people Mr. M. would do well to answer on this Supposition Whether they are or are not obliged If they are then they have Mission enough to remove in a legal way all Corruptions even those of their Ordainers If they are not how do they answer the Engagement made in their Orders to teach the people according to the Scriptures But Mr. M. waves any Answer to this and in effect owns it only he denies or seems to deny the Supposition where he tells us Cranmer and one or two Bishops pretended Errors and Corruptions and drove on the Reformation against the major Vote of the English Bishops p. 3. that is he had Power Mission enough but abused it and so to know whether Cranmer exceeded his Commission or no we must know whether the Corruptions he reformed were real or pretended For if they were real there is no doubt but he was obliged to reform them none else being under a deeper Obligation than he So then Mr. M's Question is out of doors Who sent him and another substituted in the room thereof by himself and that is Whether there were Corruptions in the Discipline Worship and Faith of the Church at that time or whether He and the other Men of Abilities were manifestly intoxicated with mistakes of Holy Scripture with a Spirit of Perverseness and desire of Change pag. 4. And we are content to joyn issue with him on these head◠when he pleases But perhaps though Cranmer was obliged to reform what was amiss yet he ought to have done it in a regular way Whereas if we believe Mr. M be drove on a Reformation against the major vote of the English Bishops If by this he means establishing any thing without their consent 't is a most notorious falshood for in all he did he had the unanimous vote and consent of the major part of the Convocation the Universal submission of the Clergy and approbation of the People If they complyed against their Conscience then by this we may see how excellently the Mass and Confessing had instructed them in the Knowledge and Conscience of their Duty when they so readily complied with all Alterations Let him try if he can bring a Protestant Convocation to an unanimous repeal of these things by such motives But if the Clergy in a National Councel and the People in obedience to them or from their own
and due Honour and Worship is to be paid them And that we ought to kiss uncover our Heads and fall prostrate before them § 9. But then Secondly He bids us enquire whether Roman Catholicks pay any more respect to them than Protestants do to the Elements of Bread and Wine which say they are but a Figure or Image of Christs Body and Blood. To which I answer That this Enquiry supposes two notorious Falshoods First That Protestants pay any other respects to the Elements of Bread and Wine then that of not diverting them from their Sacramental use And Secondly That they say the Elements are but a Figure or Image of Christs Body and Blood. Our Curch having declared in her Rubrick after the Communion that the kneeling at the Reception of the Sacrament is only to Christ and that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine and likewise concerning the Elements that they are not only Signs or Images but effectual means of conveying the Body and Blood of Christ to the Faithful Which I hope no Papist will say of his Images And now I must refer it to the Reader whether he will suppose Mr. M. to have been ignorant of our Doctrine in this point or to have knowingly and against his Conscience suggested these falshoods § 10. His third attempt for the Defence of his Church in this Practice is from his old Friends the Presbyterians The Church of England Protestants are every jot as offensive to us say the Presbyterians kneeling before the Elements of Bread and Wine as the Papists kneeling before the Image of Christ. To which I answer That if the Matter of Fact here alledged were true which I do not believe yet it were no Argument because the Presbyterians or whosoever are thus offended are manifestly unreasonable in paralleling these two cases The Disparity is apparent and the very same that there is between receiving a Pardon or any other signal Favour from the Kings own Hand on my knees and falling down every time I see his Pictuure on a Sign-post But once for all let Mr. M. know for he professes to need Information that it is is no Anwer to an Argument to pretend that others urge it against the Proponents themselves except the Answerer shew that both urge it with equal Reason For so the Apostles might have been answered by a Heathen You would perswade us that we are under the Power of Satan and Aliens to the Life of God Do not the Gnosticks say the same of you Silence them and we will believe you So a Roman Catholick may be answered by an Indian You would have us renounce our Idols and Heroes whereas there is a People amongst yourselves called Protestants to whom your kneeling before the Images of Christ and praying to Saints are every jot as offensive as our praying to our subordinate Celestial Powers and Kneeling before their Images If this would signifie nothing to Mr M. why should it signifie any thing to us what Presbyterians object against our Kneeling at the Reception of the Sacrament or how are we concerned what they pretended in 41 against our Reformation or Hugh Peters in 47 against theirs except he will undertake to justifie their Pretences which is a Task themselves could never perform § 11. There is onely one thing more he says in vindication of his Church and that concerns the ill Practices we charge on some Roman Catholicks and the ill Opinions of others He doth not deny that there are some such but he looks on it as no Argument at all If so he wrote his Book to very little purpose for why are we more concerned in the ill Practices or ill Opinions of some who pretend to Reform than he is in the ill Practices and Opinions of the Pope and Court of Rome Yet these pretended faults of the Reformers make up the greatest part of what he Objects against our Church which shews that he has one Rule for us and another for his own Party But the truth is we charge the Council of Trent it self with some ill Practices and Opinions For thô we take Popery as the most judicious Papists represent it and they who bring the Decrees of the Council of Trent nearest to Protestanism I find are at present counted such yet still there needs better Vouchers than Mr M. to make us believe all things in it Judicious and Pious § 12. Having thus examined all that he has said in defence of his Church let us next consider what he has offered to recommend Her And of this nature he produces three instances The Excellency of her Books of Devotion the Devotion of her People and the Unity of her Members He tells us p. 9. that that which obliged him most of all to the Church of Rome was the perusal of her Books of Devotion such as St. Francis Sales Neirembergius Lewis Granatensis especially the Mass it self If these obliged him most of all had he lived at the Reformation he had wanted some of the strongest obligations to keep him in the Roman Communion three of these four he mentions being written after the Reformation and the other but a few years before And now they are written he was not debarred the use of them in the Communion in which he lived The Spirit of the Reformation which he says he compared without prejudice with the Spirit of the Roman Church allowing the use of all Books that may advance Piety by whomsoever they are written which the Spirit of his Church doth not But what is this to the Reformation which did not find much less condemn these Books Let him shew one Book of Devotion or Exposition of the Mass or Breviary extant in English before the Reformation if he can and remember what has been done since to the eternal shame of those who never troubled themselves with Devotion till meer necessity of supporting their interest among the People put them on it As for the Piety of the Prayers in the Mass let him who understands both compare any Prayer there with our Litany and 't is hardly possible Prejudice should so blind him as not to see which has the advantage § 13. But nevertheless he alledges that the Devotion of their People exceeds ours Let the Reader compare that Devotion which Catholics pay to the Sacrifice of the Mass with that which most Protestants shew to the Common-Prayer and then see how much better we are by Reforming the Mass into English p. 11. To which I answer That if it were granted that Papists appear to be more devote at Mass than Protestants at Church for that I suppose he means by paying Devotion to the Mass and shewing it to the Common-Prayer yet it would not follow that the Mass were better than the Common-Prayer or a fitter means of Devotion since that difference might arise from other motives as it manifestly doth The Roman Catholics place much more Religion in outward shew
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
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
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
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
sence of the ancient Fathers pag. 5. which plainly shews that he knew nothing of Sâ—cinus his Opinions or Principles who positively denied the necessity of Baptism and protested against being judged by that sence the Fathers or the Primitive Church have given of Scriptures These are sufficient to shew the vast difference between the pretences of the present Dissenters and the ground of our Reformation And that the Argument he draws from the Obligation in Ordination laid on the Presbâ—ters of our Church to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments as this Church and Realm have received the same according to the Commandments of God pag. 4. is of no force against the first Reformers though it obliged Mr. M. not to desert our Church and the Nonconformists not to preach in contradiction to her declared Doctrine and Worship § 9. And so I proceed to his fifth Query Whether an Act of Parliament in France Spain or Germany be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy I suppose by an Act of Parliament he means the Laws enacted regularly by the Supream Powers of those Nations which he ignorantly expresses by an Act of Parliament and to this I answer That if any Religion is to be established in any Kingdom by temporal Rewards or Punishments to encourage the Obedient and terrifie the disobedient the supream Powers of every Nation only can thus establish that Religion they themselves are sole Judges with what temporal Rewards and Punishments and how far they will establish it and they are answerable only to God for their actings herein If therefore the Supream Civil Government in France or Spain set up Popery a Man must submit to it or burn for it if the Law be so and such a Law though it is unjust is as forcible for a false Religion as a true But there is another way of establishing a Religion and that is by convincing Mens Minds that the Religion is true and that according as men cordially embrace it the shall be secured of the Divine Favour and be happy in the next World. And if this be the Christian Religion of which they are so convinced one Principle of it is that the Professors thereof ought to associate themselves into a Body and that Christ the Author thereof has appointed Governors who are to descend in Succession and that to these regularly appointed a due Obedience is to be paid as Men value the Rewards or Punishments of the next life Now Men thus perswaded cannot think an Act of the Civil Governors alone a sufficient Commission for any one to undertake the Function of a Spiritual Pastor any more than an Act of these Spiritual Pastors is sufficient to capacitate and commissionate a Man to discharge a Civil Function and therfore Mr. M. argues very unnecessarily against the Parliaments Power to preach or administer Sacraments pag. 3. since the 27th Article of our Church denies expresly that Power to the Civil Governors I suppose I have sufficiently shewn that our first Reformers had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and I suppose that this Canonical Mission is nothing the less valid because the other goes along with it But then it may be objected Have not France and Spain an Act of the Church as well as State for establishing their Religion I answer they have and so has Mahometism in Turkey an Act of what they count the Church for its establishment And therefore it is not sufficient that the Power that establishes a Religion be competent and the Methods regular by which it is settled but likewise it is necessary that the Religion be true in it self and therefore a man must examine whether the Christian Religion be more purely truly taught established in England or in Spain before he either reject or embrace the one or the other For a false Religion may have all the regular settlements that a true can have and the Professors thereof being conscious of its weakness are often more industrious to make the accidental security the stronger And I do affirm that there is not one Argument in this Paper urged by Mr. M. against Protestants but might with equal advantage be urged mutatis mutandis against convert Christians in a Mahometan Country this alone is sufficient to shew them all to be unconclusive The way therefore for every man to be satisfied in his Religion is to examine it apart from the accidental advantages of it and chuse that which has best reasons to recommend it for a man ought to chuse his Church by his Religion and not his Religion by his Church But he asks in case there be no Judge to determine who have the true sence of Scripture Roman Catholicks or Protestants whether the Catholick sence be not as good as the Protestants Pref. p. 3. It were a sufficient Answer to this to put another case like it to him in the person of a Turk And it is this in case there is no Judge to determine as I know of none saith the Turk which is the Word of God the Bible or the Alchoran Why should not the Affirmation of us Mâ—slelmans who are ready to vouch to the death for the Alchoran and are twice the number of you Christians be as good authority for Men to believe the Alchoran came from God as your vouching for your Bibles is sufficient to perswade men to believe that they came from him But I do not love to shift off a Question and therefore tell him that the sence put by Roman Catholicks on the Scripture is not so good as the sence put on them by the Protestants If it were they would not be afraid to put it to the World and let every person that is equally concerned judge for himself but they had rather appeal to themselves as Judges and then they are sure of the cause But then he tells us that he could never understand what Unity of Spirit or agreement in Faith Christians are like to have page 3. upon these Principles To which I Answer more than they have now If National Churches were left to be govern'd by themselves the Subjects of each Church bound to adhere to their immediate Governors in all quarrels with neighbouring Churches those contentions must soon come to an end as the quarrel between St. Cyprian Stephen did For when the Governours of differing Churches find that they cannot hurt one another or advantage themselves by denial of Communion as it must be when the one Church doth not raise a Faction to side with it in the other the quarrel must soon cease for the thing that makes quarrels endless is interest But if it once be counted Lawful for one Church to get a Party in the others Precincts and set up Altar against Altar in the same place this will continue the Schism and is the very fundamental reason of the breaches of Charity amongst Christians that now pester Christendom which are much
worse than Divisions in Faith. And thus I have answered all his Questions and considered all the Replies he made to these Answers he himself was pleased to observe which were the two first things I undertook on this Head. § 10. I shall in the third place consider the objections he makes against the Reformers as to their Lives and Principles If I had a mind to shuffle as he does I would answer with him page 13. As for the ill practice of some and the ill Opinions of other Reformers which Papists are wont to charge upon the Reformation I pass them over as no Argument at all In our Articles and Canons an unprejudiced Reader shall find nothing but what is judicious and pious But his slanders are so malicious that they ought not to be pass'd over without Animadversion First therefore against Somerset and Dudley whom he calls grand Reformers he objects Sacrilege and Plundering the Church But as for Dudley we are not obliged to defend him he was a false Brother being as he professed at his death always a Papist in his heart and no wonder such Villains should pervert the most innocent design to their own advantage since there was a Judas even among the Apostles who minded only the Bag. Somerset was not clear from the same vice But it is to be considered that the Pope had taught them all this Lesson by his example and wicked management of the Goods of the Church 'T was he first gave the proper Patrimony of the Church even Tithes to Lay-men to useless and idle Monks and Fryars it was he that by making a Trade of Simony and Sacrilege took off men's Veneration for Holy things and made Noble-Men believe that Estates were as well bestow'd in their hands as to enrich a Foreigner Whoever reads our Chronicles will find this to be the true Ground of the Dilapidation of the Goods of the Church and that this took off the Conscience of Robbing her As for Cranmer and the Bishops they did what they could to hinder it but were forced to buy God's truth and the estalishment thereof at the rate of some of their wordly Goods a bargain Mr. M. would never have made nor any one that values the Church only for her outward splendour But the Reformers hearts were not so full of the World and yet they never established one Article or Canon that allows Sacriledge § 12. But he proceeds and objects against Cranmer 1. his Opinions 2. his Recantation 3. his Treason 4. his Divorcing Queen Katherine 5. his Destroying Religious Houses and hanging up poor Abbots 6. Setting the People a madding after New Lights and 7. All the Confusion and Mischiefs that have since broke out upon the Stage of Great Britain 1. Cranmer's Opinions In his Preface Mr. M. Objects to him that he said by the Scriptures no Consecration is necessary to a Priest or Bishop only Appointment and then that the power of Excommunication depended only on the Laws of the Land but he doth not observe that Cranmer did only humbly propose these and did not define them as may be seen expresly in his Subscription nay upon better information retracted them as appears by his signing Dr. Leighton's Opinion to the contrary I confess it looks like a Providence that Cranmer should embrace some of these Opinions For by this it plainly appears that he did not influence the Reformation so much as to make his private Opinions pass for the Doctrine of the Church as some have with confidence enough pretended and Mr. M. amongst the rest who doth dissemble or considering his reading doth probably not know the original of these mistakes in Cranmer and some others at that time concerning the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiastical Power which was this The Pope had made a confusion of the Civil and Spiritual Power by assuming to himself the erecting Kingdoms transferring Rights Dispensing with Oaths and Deposing Princes of all which there were fresh instances at that time particularly the Deposing Henry VIII and Absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance by Paul III. This having confounded the two Powers no wonder that men could not on a sudden clear their eyes so as exactly to see the limits or if Cranmer being well assured of the Pope's usurpation did on the other hand at first give too much to the Prince which yet on second thoughts finding himself singular in it he recalled and joyned with the rest in subscribing the publick Doctrine directly contrary to his former private Opinion Burnet's first Volumn Addenda pag. 327. Whereas the Pope the Head of Mr. M's Church was in as great an Error as Cranmer and for which there was less ground and yet neither He nor His Successors have retracted it to this day Let the World judge of the Discretion of this Man who forsakes a Church because one of the Reformers had an odd Opinion which he Retracted and established the contrary in the Church and yet joyns with a Church whose Head at the same time professed and imposed as great an Error and which stands yet unrecanted § 13. The second Objection against Cranmer is his Recantation for fear of Death but let the World consider whether he or they that put him to that fear for his Religion were most guilty and let Mr. M. say whether he be so sure of his constancy in his new Religion that he would be contented to be counted a Villain if fear of Death should make him dissert it and then why should not he allow something to humane frailty § 14. But he Objects in the third place that Cranmer subscribed a Letter for the Exclusion of his Lawful Princess But whoever reads the History will find that he was brought with greater difficulty then any to subscribe to her Exclusion and not till after the King the whole Privy-Council and Judges had Signed it this then was a point of Law in which he was not singular Mr. M. takes the liberty to question Queen Elizabeth's Title and sure it was no greater fault in Cranmer to question Queen Mary's after the Opinion of the Judges given against her There is great difference between Rebellion against a King of undoubted Title and being engaged on a side where the Title is really doubtful The first is a great wickedness and the last a great infelicity § 16. His fourth Objection is the Divorcing Queen Katherine but it was not only Cranmer's Opinion but the Opinion of most learned Men in Europe that her Marriage to the King was null How Vertuous or Innocent soever Mr. M. reckons her Cranmer was in the right when he and all the Bishops of England so judged it The scruple was first raised in the King by the Ambassadors of Spain and further confirmed by those of France before any intrigue with Anne Boleyn § 16. His fifth Objection is dissolving Religious Houses and Hanging up the Abbots As to his dissolving Religious Houses if his Councel had been taken it had turned
to the advantage of Religion and the Kingdom and I do not find that either have lost by it as it is As for his Hanging up the Abbots this is one of Sanders's lyes transcribed by Heylin in his History who tells us of the Executing of some Abbots and other Religious Persons for their stiffness if I may not call it perverseness in opposing the Kings desires but this is confuted by Burnet Who shews that the Abbots were attainted neither for stiffness nor perverseness but downright actual Rebellion that is taking Arms against their Sovereign or sending Money to those that did § 17. Sixthly His setting People a madding after new Lights that is he allowed People the use of their Eyes and Ears and did not think Ignorance the Mother of Devotion or that Peoples Devotion or Religion was more acceptable to God because they did not understand it of any other setting People a madding after New Lights Cranmer never was Guilty And thus Christianity set the World near 1700 years ago a madding and was accused by the Heathen for it § 18 But he objects lastly That Cromwel and Cranmer were the Ringleâ—ders of all that Confusion and Mischief which has since broke out on the Stage of Britain This is to charge them home would do their work in earnest if true but the best of it is that it wants proof Truth for the Times since the Reformation have been as signal for Piety and Justice as any like tract of time before and blessed with the longest and most flourishing Peace that perhaps ever was seen in England for the space of at least 80 years in which it was carried to the highest pitch of Glory that ever it reached And besides all this many Confusions and Mischiefs that happened since in these Kingdoms proceeded clearly from other hands Pray were Cranmâ—r and Cromwel the Ring-leaders of Tyrone's Wars and of the Massacre of the Protestants in 1641 which were the greatest Confusions in Ireland since the Reformation Were they the Ringleaders of four Rebellions in Henry the Eighth's time of the Four in Edward the Sixth's or the Rebellion and Plots in Queen Elizabeths These were nevertheless some of the Confusions since on the Stage of Britain But a great many Sects have risen since of which the Reformation was the occasion if we believe Mr. M. I answer Christianity was the cause of as many and the Grace of God it self was abused But it is to be observed that the first Sect that opened the Gap and introduced all the rest was POPERY planted among us by the Emissaries of Rome These broke the Hedge and shewed the way of Separation others only imitated them and transcribed their Practices and Principles thinking they might as well teach men by their own Authority as by a Foreign Commission and it is like that such as favour them now set them on at first purposely to make them a â—log and Objection to the Reformation Two means we do own Papists have to prevent Sects that we want Ignorance and the Inquisition in a profound Ignorance as in a dark night all things are silent but there will be a bustle and stir among men while the Sun shines And for the Inquisition it is the true Ram to beat down Heresie and defend the Apostolick See if we believe Paul the Fourth But we beg his Holiness's Pardon we had rather suffer all our Sects if they were more than admit these Remedies which after all are not effectual as we may see from the new Sects in Italy and we cannot think those the only fit means to prevent Divisions in Christianity which may as well be applied to keep it out and preserve Union amongst Infidels CHAP. III. § 1. AND now I come to the second Point wherein Mr. M. was dissatisfied which he tells us was the Want of Confession to a Priest. There is so little looks like Reason on this Head that it is harder to find out what he intends for Argument in it than to answer it I will do him Justice and consider even that little he has said And that in this method 1. I will lay down the Doctrine of our Church concerning Confession How far she declares it necessary and how far expedient only from whence it will appear that Confession is not wanting in her 2. I will consider what he has produced in favour of its necessity or expediency The first of these seems necessary to be handled because he tells us that he divers times discoursed with Protestant Ministers and some Protestant Bishops about this matter and was sorry to find no Harmony in their Opinions p. 6. Now let us suppose it were true that private men differ'd in their Opinions about some matters relating to Confession yet it were nothing to the purpose at least it could be no reasonable motive to go from us to the Church of Rome since her private Doctors differ as much about it Some of which say that the Priest ought to take the Penitents word and grant him Absolution although he do not believe his Profession of Repentance to be sincere Others hold that the Confessor ought to be satisfied of the Penitents sincerity before he absolve him Some say Attrition with Absolution is sufficient â—o obtain Remission of Sins others say Contrition is necessary which is as material a difference as almost can be Many such differences there are amongst them and the one party accuses the other of Heresie for their dissering Opinions and yet it seems this want of Harmony amongst the Roman Doctors and Bishops did not hinder Mr. M. â—rom embracing their Religion It was therefore very partially done to leave Our Church for a pretended difference amongst our Doctors For let us take the Difference as he represents it and it is really no more Some said'twas a thing allowed by the Church of England as very expedient in some Cases but no matter of necessity others thought it but a Picklock of Secrets and a matter of ill consequence Methinks there is a very good Harmony between these and that the same Men might have said both at least the Opinions are easily reconciled since both agree that in all cases it is no matter of necessity and neither deny that in some cases it is very expedient Notwithstanding which it may be in other cases but a Pick-lock of Secrets and matter of ill consequence Where is the disagreement or contradiction between these two To give Mr. M. back one of his own Arguments for my part I do not understand it § 2. I have read a great many Protestant Books and consulted both Divines and Bishops and do profess that I have found them very well agreed in these things First That every Sinner ought to be heartily sensible of every Sin he has committed and acknowledge it before God with shame and sorrow and that he can expect no Pardon from God till he actually abhor and forsake the Sin. Wherever
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
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
shew that God allows them these things it will be the safest way and no hurt for him or us to lot them alone § 6. His third Answer or pretence is no less insufficient where he alledges that the Angels must know our affairs because they are ministring Spirits sent forth for the good of those who shall be heirs of Salvation and because they rejoice at the Conversion of sinners and have glorified Saints no Communication or Intelligence with the Angels p. 13. To which I answer That these allegations neither justifie the Invocation nor the worship of Angels or Saints It is true the Angels are ministring Spirits but we neither know which of them are assigned to minister unto us nor when they are present These things depend altogether on the immediate Will of God and therefore it is to Him not Them we are to apply our selves if we would obtain their Care and Ministry for our good 'T is true likewise that the Saints and Angels rejoyce at our Conversion when that Conversion comes to their knowledge But that place in St. Luke 15. 7. I say unto you Joy shall be in Heaven over on◠sinner that repents more than over ninety nine just Persons doth no more prove that the Angels in Heaven know all the Conversions on Earth or that we ought to pray to them than my saying That there is more joy in Rome over one such Proselite as Mr. M. than over ninety nine born Roman Catholicks doth prove that I believe such Conversions are all known there and that therefore Mr. M. may go into his Closet and pray to the Cardinals because it is plain his Affairs are known at Rome Lastly 'T is true that the glorified Saints have Communication with the Angels and may receive intelligence of our Affairs from them and therefore I would advise Mr. M. to send his Service and Requests to them by the next Angel he meets going that way But because Angels pass and repass from Heaven to Earth to conclude that we may at all times and in all places with mind and voice pray to Saints is as foolish as to conclude because we have Posts pass from London to Dublin that therefore a Man here may beg the assistance of his Friends Prayers who are in London every time he goes to his knees This is the wise Vindication Mr. M. has made for his Church as to the Direction of some of her Prayers § 7. The second thing which Mr. M. undertakes to vindicate in his Church is her using a Tongue unknown to the People in all her publick Devotions and Services And it happens to him in this as it does in most other things if all that he says were granted him it would neither justifie his Church nor condemn the Reformation since not one of his Arguments so much as pretend to prove a known Tongue unlawful in the publick Service of God or an unknown Tongue expedient which will appear on the Examination He alledges therefore 1. That the Objection of its being said in the Latin Tongue allows every one to hear it that understands Latin. A great favour indeed Who can after this accuse the Roman Church of keeping Men ignorant of her Service It is plain from our very Objection that they may hear it if they but understand Latin and 't is their own fault if they do not understand it 'T is only spending seven or eight years to acquire the Latin Tongue and then they may undestand some part of her Service But pray what is this to the illiterate World who are past the age of learning Latin What is this to the Poor who are the bulk of the World and have the best and most peculiar Title to the Gospel and yet have neither capacity nor opportunity to learn Latin Mr. M. bids them be of good chear For unlearned Catholicks if the truth were known understand as much or more of the Mass than illiterate Protestants do of the Common Prayer If a Man were apt to give ill words the confidence and palpable falshood of this Assertion would certainly provoke him It were better surely to believe nothing but our Senses which he falsly imputes to some Protestants than to undertake to face down Sense and Experience in a matter in which the meanest most illiterate Protestant in the World will be a Demonstration against him We are content our People should believe all Mr. M. says according as they find this true But he objects farther What does the Protestant Multitude understand of the Predictions of Isaiah c. read in their Churches by appointment of the Common Prayer Suppose they understood not one word of them how doth it follow that unlearned Catholicks understand more of the Mass than illiterate Protestants do of the Common-Prayer Book This is a new Instance of Mr. M's old Infirmity in drawing Consequences We are now talking of Common Prayers in which the People ought to joyn and he talks of the Lessons which are no part of them There are commonly in every Congregation persons of better and of meaner capacity 't is fit both should be instructed Those Lessons out of Isaiah are for the better capacities and are read so as may make them most easie to them And what great matter if the weaker for whom they are not intended do not understand them since they are sufficiently provided for otherwise Their obscurity might be some reason against reading them at all but if they ought to be read as is ordered both by the Common-Prayer Book and Breviary I hope they will be better understood in English than Latin And yet after all there is not one Lesson ordered to be read by the Common-Prayer Book but the meanest of the Protestant Multitude understands more of it then a whole illiterate Popish Congregation understands of the Breviary or Mass and of this he may make an Experiment when he pleases His second Allegation in behalf of his Church is that she has set forth Expositions of the Mass in Print How many Evpositions of the Mass says he are extant in Print by Commandment of the Church So that no Man can be ignorant of it that desires to be informed To this I answer That if by an Exposition be meant a Translation of the Mass there is not one extant in Print by Commandment of their Church On the contrary the Congregation of the Index have Damned the very hours of the blessed Virgin for being in the Vulgar Tongue as may be seen at large in Saint Amours Journal Part. 3. Chap. 5. There is indeed a Translation stolen out of late in English but it is without any Authority which may be called a Commandment of their Church However if it were set out by her Authority what could it signifie to the greater part of the People who are neither able to procure nor read that Translation And if they could read it yet would no more be able by help of it to joyn with the Priest then
a due Submission to the Church As to the first of these I suspect the chief reason why some of his Party object the Communion Service being taken out of the Mass is not that they think it any fault if it were but because they bel eve it may gratifie and incense their Friends the Nonconformists against the publick Service of the Church But I answer That the Model of our Service and Materials thereof are not taken out of the Mass but out of the ancient Liturgies of the Church to which it is much more conformable than to the Mass. § 18. The second Objection he brings against our Church is That she hath no sufficient Foundation P. 11 I desire to be informed whether the Protestant Church had any other Foundation setting aside an Act of Parliament than every Man 's own Reason or which is the same thing the Scriptures Interpreted by every Man's Reason There are but two Bases whereupon to settle our selves the Scriptures and Fathers expounded by my own Reason or the Scriptures and Fathers expounded by the voice of the present visible Church This later is Popish and cannot support a Reformed Fabrick In answer to this I will shew first in what Sence every Man's Reason may be said to be the foundation of his Church Secondly That our Church has trusted her Reason in the expounding Scriptures and Fathers no farther than she ought to have done And Thirdly That she has not Expounded them so as to contradict the sence of the present visible Church First therefore When Mr. M. alledges that our Church has no other Foundation than every Man's Reason he may mean that she has no other Foundation for her Religion than what natural Reason without the assistance of Revelation and other helps God has afforded her doth suggest And this is a manifest Calumny because she has besides what natural Reason of it self suggests the Scriptures the Fathers the universal Tradition of all Ages past and present for every Article of her Faith. Let him shew one Article that wants any one of these and we will strike it out of our Creeds or any other Article that has this testimony for its necessity and it shall be inserted There may be another sence of these words The Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every man's Reason and 't is this The Protestants make use of no other faculties to find out the sence of Scriptures and Fathers of the former and present Church but their Reason and Senses and consequently rely on them with God's assistance to find out the true Religion and Church This Sence we allow and except Mr. M. and his Party will shew us some other faculties given us by God whereby we may choose our Religion they ought not to blame us for using these only When they find out another faculty of the Soul besides these two whereby we may distinguish Truth from Falshood we promise them to use it also And though Mr. M. confesses his own Reason to be as weak as any body can think it and pretends not to assert it but the Authority of the Church yet till he tells us by what faculties he judges himself obliged to submit to the Authority of the Church and by what faculties he comes to know that the Roman Church is she to whose Authority he ought to submit we must tell him that the Authority of his Church as to him is founded meerly and solely on his own Reason how weak soever he own it And so must the Authority of every Church to every man in the World. And therefore it is foolish to object That the Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every Man's Reason and Sences for no Church no not Christianity has or can have any other § 19. But Secondly Perhaps Mr. M. means only that we do not allow the voice of the present visible Church a due regard in our Determination concerning Faith and Religion In Answer to which in the second place I say our Church trusted her reason no further in expounding Scripture than she ought to have done And here it is to be remembred that she is a compleat Church associated together in one intire Ecclesiastical Body with full power to Interpret and Teach her Subjects all things relating to Faith and Discipline As these Kingdoms are a compleat Common-wealth associated into one civil Body with full power to Interpret and Enact all things relating to the Law of Nature and the Civil Government of the Kingdoms As therefore these Kingdoms do not trust their Reason too far when they determine concerning the Laws of Nature without Appeal so neither did our Church trust her Reason too far when she determined without Appeal concerning matters relating to Faith. And there is no more inconvenience can befal her Subjects by allowing her this power in this case than can befal them by allowing their Civil Majestrates the like power in the other § 20. And third to shew that she did not intend to contradict the general voice of the visible Church with which Mr. M. seems to charge her she was content to refer all difference between her and her Neighbour Churches to the Arbitration of a general Council even of the West And to this she Appealed when the Pope pretended to Excommunicate her And not only she but other Protestant Churches did the same But the Roman Church being Conscious that the general Voice and Sense of the visible Church was against her Usurpation durst not stand this Tryal but without any Authority from God or the visible Church if we understand by that the general Body of Christians took on her self to be Judge Witness and Accuser Which was more than Luther did for he referred himself and Appealed to a general Council § 21. The third Objection Mr. M. alledges against the Reformers is their not yielding a due Submission to the Church For after all his clamour against Reason he allows us to make use of it with Submission he has expressed his meaning in this so as it is not easie to guess whether he means by submitting our reason an intire resignation of it to beleive whatsoever the Church of Rome by a Priest or a Council tells us and then the only use of reason will be to find out Arguments to defend what she has taught us or whether by Submission he means only a due regard to her Determinations so that a Man of her Communion shall not allow himself publickly to oppose and contradict her Doctrine This last he seems to understand by Submission because he opposes it to Contradiction and Petulancy And then why is not this Submission due as much to the Church of England and Ireland as Rome Did not Christ say to the Bishops of England and Ireland He that hears you hears me as well at to the Bishop of Rome § 22. But to clear this matter a little I will shew that we pay all due Submission to the Church And Secondly
Examine what Submission Mr M. has paid her When we talk of Submission to the Church by the Church may be meant either the Universal Church or the Particular Church wherein we were Born Baptized and Educated and to both these we profess and pay due Submission Witness of the Doctrine of Christ and we receive her Testimony The onely Question with us is What Doctrine Christ and his Apostles Taught And this we believe contained in the Scriptures Concerning the Sence of any Word in them we receive likewise the Testimony of the Catholick Church Every Doctor approved by her is a Witness and every Council received by her is as the Deposition of Witnesses By this means we know her Sence in former Ages as well as in this Age and are able to compare them together Where these agree we have no reason to doubt her Veracity but where one Age of her says one thing and another Age says another thing we count our selves under no obligation to believe either of their Testimonies to be a necessary part of the Doctrine of Christ. 'T is therefore the Church of all Ages and places that we reckon the Ground and Pillar of Truth Whereas Mr M. conâ—ines us to the Visible Church and pretends we are to take the Sence of all former Ages from the present But pray why may not I as well understand the Sence of the Church of the fourth Age from the Council of Nice as I can understand the Sence of the last Age from the Council of Trent It was therefore by this Rule and with Submission to his Church that our Reformers proceeded in their Reformation and except Mr M. can shew which he has not so much as endeavoured to do that they deviated from this Rule he has done nothing to prove that they had not a due Deference and Submission to the Catholick Church And as she thus submitted to the Sence of the Universal Church so she requires all her Subjects to submit to her to receive the Faith to which she with the Catholick Church bears Testimony to own her Laws of Discipline submit to her Censures and conform to her Constitutions But she pretends to no Dominion over mens Faith or to oblige them to believe any thing because she has decreed it Her Authority is to propose as a Witness not to define as a Judge If any one dissent from her he must not make a Schism or turn Preacher in contradiction to her Authority If any one be otherwise minded he must follow the Apostle's Rule Phil. 3. 15. he must conform as far as he can and yield a Passive Obedience to her Censures where he cannot give an Active to her Commands While he walks by this Rule he can neither be a Schismatick nor Heretick and may expect if he use due means that God will either reveal to him what he wants or pardon his Errour if he mistake § 23. This Submission is coherent even with Calvin's Principles And though I am not concerned for any private Divine yet since Mr M. has troubled us with so few Quotations I will pay him so much Respect as to take notice of this and the Reader may from it learn how faithfully he Transcribes and Englisheth his Quotations The Quotation as in Calvin As Transcribed by Mr M. Non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero nisi pariat nisi nos aâ—at suis uberibus Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio nec ulla salus Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Extra Ecclesiae gremium nulla speranda Salus nec Remissio peccatorum quia non est alius in vitam ingressus Thus in English literally Thus render'd into English by Him. There is no other Passage into Life except the Visible Church conceive us in her Womb bring us forth and nourish us with her Breasts Add to this That out of her Bosom there is no Remission of Sins to be expected nor any Salvation He that will enter into Life let him mortifie the Pride of his own Reason and humbly cast himself at the Feet of the Catholick Church Both Calvin and we own that Pride and all other Passions ought to be Mortified And except Mr M. can shew that we have used our Reason proudly that is not yielded out of some design Passion or Prejudice when our Reason was convinced we have just reason to reckon all his Accusations effects of his own Passion and Petulancy against his Mother Church He confesses that many of us are Catholâ—ks by Inclination I hope we are really so but the Tyranny of Prejudice or Interest keeps us Protestants But for Prejudice lâ—t the World judge whether our People are more liable to Prejudice who are allowed to Read and Examine and Judge for themselves or the Members of his Church that are taught to submit without Examination As for Intérest I think it is the Interest of every man to continue Protestant if he value his Soul but for Worldly Interest the Scales are hardly equal I find not one of their Converts who has lost by it yet But whatever our Interest is our Loyalty is unquestionable if he know divers Loyal Persons of the Church of England I know none else § 24. Let us now take a view of his Submission to the Church 1. For the Catholick Church he has taken the liberty to cut off from her what Members he thought fit and has reduced her to a fourth part of Christians He has obtruded Articles of Faith on her to which she never gave Testimony and has subjected her to a Head at Rome to whom God never subjected her that is He has created a Catholick Church out of his own head and rejected that of Christ's Planting 2. As for the Particular Church which made him a Member of Christ by Baptism this his spiritual Mother he has pronounced a Harlot and her Children By-blows He has condemned her Sacraments degraded her Bishops to whom he sware Obedience renounced her Orders and given her the Title of an unsanctified Nation In short as far as lay in his Power he has exposed the Nackedness of his Mother Behold the Petulancy and Contradiction of an undutiful Son. But thanks be to God notwithstanding his feeble Attempts Her Bow abides in strength and the Arms of her Hands are made strong by the Hands of the Mighty God of Jacob Gen. 49. 24. CHAP. VI. ALthough Mr. M. hath nothing new in his Latine Addition but only repeats what he said first in his Preface and then in his Book yet I did not think it fit to let what he has said in this Language be without some Animadversions in the same Ad dubia quae proponuntur super Reformatione Anglicana sic respondetur Ad 1. An Ecclesia Anglicana sit tota Ecclesia Resp. Quà m absurdum sit ut una particularis Ecclesia â—e esse totam Catholicam Christi Ecclesiam extra quam non est salus