Licensed June the 1st 1687. AN ANSWER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS Which obliged PETER MANBY Late Dean of London-Derry in Ireland As he pretends to EMBRACE what he calls THE Catholick Religion By William King Chancellor of St. Patricks Dublin Isaiah 1. 2. I have nourished and brought up Children and they have rebelled against me LONDON Printed for R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. The Examination of his Preface Sect. 1. THE Introduction Sect. 2. Whether Mr. M. really desired the Information Sect. 3. Catholick Church defined S. 4. Answer to his first Question What Church meant by the Catholick S. 5. To his second Question Whether the Church of England S. 6. To his third Question With what other Church she Communicates S. 7. To his fourth Whether the variety of all Protestants be the Catholick Church S. 8. To his fifth Question Whether we and Lutherans are the same in all material points S. 9. Our Church visible before Edward VI. S. 11. His unfair dealing with Dr. Heylin and Dr. Burnet Chap. 2. About Mission Sect. 1. His Letter to his Grace the Lord Primate examined S. 2. The Questions concerning Mission reduced to five Heads S. 3. The validity of our Orders S. 5. Answer to his first Question What Priesthood had the first Reformers but what they received from Roman Catholick Bishops S. 6. To his second Who Authorized them to teach their Protestant Doctrine c S. 7. To his third Whether Cranmer did condemn the Church of Rome and by what Authority S. 8. To his fourth Whether a Presbyterian can preach against the Church of England by virtue of Orders received from her S. 9. To his fifth Whether an Act of Parliament in France c. be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy S. 10. Mr. M's Objections against the first Reformers considered S. 11. His Objections against Cranmer in particular Answered to the end Chap. 3. About Confession Sect. 1. Whether We in our Church differ about Confession S. 2. The Doctrine of our Church in this matter whence Confession appears not to be wanting S. 3. His Argument proposed out of St. John 1. 9. compared with John 20. 23. S. 4. The words if we Confess John 1. Ep. 1. 9. shewn not to refer to Auricular Confession S. 5. Gods faithfulness and Justice mentioned John 1. Ep. 1. 9. do not respect particularly the Promise John 20. 23. S. 6. If they did yet this wou'd not prove Auricular Confession S. 7. 8. His second Argument from the practice of all Ages and Churches considered and shewn to be false S. 9. His third Argument from the inconveniency that attends the want of Confession S. 11. His fourth Argument from the interest of the Priest. Chap. 4. About the place of the Catholick Church Sect. 1. Answer to his third Difficulty Where is the Catholick Church S. 2. Whether extant before Cranmer S. 3. Whether Cranmer believed himself a Member thereof S. 4 5. The Reformation justifiable without charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry S. 6 7 8. All Idolatry not inconsistent with the Being of a Church S. 9. The weakness of his Argument brought to prove it Chap. 5. An Answer to the heap of Particulars thrown together at the latter end of his Paper Sect. 1. 2. His endeavour to vindicate his Church in her Devotions S. 3. Whether all elevated and judicious S. 4. His first Answer taken from the Benedicite to Protestant Objections against Prayers in the Mass directed to Saints S. 5. The second from the Angels being Favourites S. 6. The third from their knowing our Affairs S. 7. His Excuses for the Mass being in an unknown Tongue S. 8. His Vindication of the Worship of Images from the Council of Trents forbidding Superstition S. 9. From Kneeling at the Sacrament S. 10. From Presbyterian Objections against our Practice S. 11. His Excuse for the ill Practices and Opinions of some Roman Catholicks S. 12. His recommendation of his Church from her Books of Devotion S. 13. From the Devotion of her People S. 14. From the Unity of her Members that Unity shewed not to be so great as pretended from the Schisms that have been in her about Ordinations S. 15. From the Disputes about Confirmation S. 16. About Confession S. 17. What he objects against the Church of England first from her stealing her Communion-Service S. 18. Secondly from her want of a due Foundation S. 19. For trusting Reason too far S. 20. And contradicting the visible Church S. 21. Thirdly Not yielding a due Submission S. 22. Due Submission shewn to be paid by her to the universal Church and taught to be due to particular Churches S. 23. Mr. M's Transcribing and Englishing Calvin examined together with his Inference S. 24. Mr. M's Submission to the Catholick and the particular Church whereof he was a Member examined AN ANSWER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS Which obliged Peter Manby Dean of Derry to embrace the Communion of the Romish Church CHAP. 1. To the Preface § 1. PEter Manby Dean of Derry has chosen this time for what reasons he knows best to declare himself of the Communion of the Church of Rome Whoever doth so in the present circumstances must run the hazard of being censured for having too great a value for the Favours and worldly Advantages that some late Converts have met with In order therefore to satisfie the World that he had some other Reasons besides this prospect I suppose he published this Pamphlet that I now answer Whoever reads it will find so little Method or Connexion between the parts of it that he must conclude the Writer was never acquainted with close thinking and that the loosness and immethodicalness of it is the greatest trouble lyes on the Answerer the truth is it sticks chiesly on Formalities and Preliminaries which no Advocate ever insisted much upon that was confident of the merits of his Cause and therefore to answer it can hardly be worth any ones labour I confess I should have thought so too if I had not found some of his own party boasting of it and I do now assure him that I do not Answer it out of any apprehension I have of its seducing any of ours and that it had been answered long ago if I had been possessed with any such Suspicion It consists of three parts and each of these do in effect contain the same things and except a man give a distinct Answer to each he may pretend that part is unanswered I shall therefore follow him in his own method and consider first his Preface to the Reader secondly the Pamphlet it self and thirdly his Latine Queries and beg the Readers Pardon if he find the Answers sometimes repeated when Mr. M. repeats the questions so often § 2. His Preface has huddled together some Questions and Dilemma's concerning the Catholick Church and raised some doubts concerning which he professes himself to be at a loss and so desires information
Thus pag. 1. When a Protestant rehearses this Article of his Creed I believe one Catholick Church I would fain understand what Church he means Again this makes Protestancy so wandring and uncertain a thing that I for my part cannot understand it Pag. 3. He shall find me pressing for an Answer to such Questions as these Pag 1. of the Pamphlet There are three points wherein I could never satisfie my self a little after I could never find any satisfactory Answer to this Question Pag. 2. pronouncing the Church of Rome Idolatrous I would fain know by what Authority A little after by whose Authority I cannot tell Pag. 3 there was no Answer to be had A little after I cannot find l. 9. I do not well understand l. 15. I could never understand Pag. 4. I would know Pag. 7. l. 13 I confess my dullness understands not Pag 8. line 16. I would fain know line 25. Which Answer I confess I do not understand pag. 11. line 15. I desire to be informed l. the last I cannot imagine Pag. 12. line 15. I cannot understand Now if he was so very ignorant as he makes himself and so desirous of information he ought to have consulted some of his Spiritual Guides on these heads and not trusted altogether to his own Judgement or else he ought in all reason to have printed these Questions before he resolv'd them unanswerable for how did he know but some body might have had more to say to them than he was aware of and have given him satisfaction If he had designed to be counted either a prudent or honest man this had been his method but I have enquired and cannot find that ever he proposed them seriously to one Divine or applyed himself to any in this weighty affair before he deserted our Communion and therefore though perhaps he may be ignorant enough yet I think it apparent that he only pretends want of understanding and desire of information or that he has very little care of his Soul or of what Communion he is § 3. To give his Questions proposed in his Preface a distinct Answer I shall first rank them in method Concerning therefore the Catholick Church he asks 1. What Church we mean 2. Whether the Church of England alone as established by Law or as in Communion with other Churches 3. With what other Church under Heaven doth the Church of England communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy 4. Whether the variety of Protestants be the Catholick Church since they want her Essential mark called Unity 5. Whether we and the Lutherans are of the same Church the Lutherans holding a Corporal Presence in the Sacrament and we denying it All these we have in the first page of his Preface and all proceed from the same root even ignorance of what is meant by the Catholick Church If Mr. M. had designed to deal ingenuously and like a Scholar that desired to clear things which ought to be the design of every honest writer he ought to have laid down a definition of the Catholick Church and then examined to whom it belonged and shewn the Church as established here by Law to be no part of it for till that be done all that is said is banter for we mean not the same thing by the Church I never saw any Romanist take this method and therefore I have always believed that they rather designed to gain Proselytes by confounding their Heads than by clear Reason and Information I will therefore tell him what I mean by the one Catholick Church in the Creed and if he do not like the description let him mend it The Catholick Church is the whole body of men professing the Religion of Christ and living under their lawful Spiritual Governours This body of Christians is one because it has according to St. Paul Ephes. 4. 5. one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and according to Saint Augustine many Churches are one Church because there is one Faith one Hope one Charity one Expectation and lastly one heavenly Country now if he had been as much concerned to understand this a right as he would have his Dear Reader he might easily have seen who it is that fancy to themselves a Church divided from all the rest of the world by breaking the bonds of Charity and coyning new Articles distinct from those of the Catholick Faith which we received from Christ and his Apostles and that the Answers to his Questions are very easie § 4. For to the First when he would know what Church we mean when we rehearse that Article of our Creed I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church the Answer is that we mean not any particular Church nor any party of Christians of any one denomination but all those that hold the Catholick Faith and live under their lawful Pastors while they have those marks I have laid down from the Scripture and St. Augustine they are still of one Communion though by the peevishness and mistake of their Governours they may be engaged in Quarrels as the Church of Rome was in St. Cyprians time with the Church of Africa about the allowing the Baptism of Hereticks and the Quarrel came to that height that when the Africans came to Rome not only the peace of the Church and Communion was denyed them but even the common kindness of Hospitality as we may see in Firmilians Epistle to Saint Cyprian Ep. 75. This being supposed it is no hard matter to find out the parts of this Catholick Church where-ever one comes it is only Examining whether any Church hold the Catholick Faith and whether they live under their lawful Governours and so far as they do so it is our duty to joyn with them as true parts thereof Whereas he who with the Donatists will unchurch three parts of four of the Christian World or fancy a Church divided from all others though as sound in Faith and as obedient to their Governours as possible is like for ever to be tossed too and fro upon the unstable waters of Schism and dwindles the Church into a Faction and this gives a full Answer § 5. To his second Question whether we mean by the Catholick Church the Church of England alone or the Church of England as in Communion with other Churches for by this it appears that the Churches of England and Ireland are no more the Catholick Church than the English Seas are the whole Ocean but they are a part thereof because they hold the Catholick Faith intirely and are governed by their lawful and Catholick Bishops who have not had for many years so much as a Rival appearing to contest their Title and Succession § 6. But then he urges in the third place with what other Church doth the Church of England Communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy To which I answer Unity of Liturgy is no part of Communion of Churches let him shew if he can that the Catholick Church ever had any such
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
inclinations did comply in earnest what an idle Question is it to ask By what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Order When she concurred in all he did and approved nay made all the Alterations in her Liturgy Sacraments and Constitutions that were made The true Question therefore is Whether the Church of England had full power to Reform her self without the consent of the Pope For it is into his Supremacy all this Banter of Mission and indeed the whole Faith of the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholick is resolved If the Church of England was not subject to the Church of Rome she had sufficient power to Reform her self and the only thing for which she is accountable to God the World and her Subjects is the Goodnesâ— of the Reformation If that was a good work Cranmer did well in advising and she in decreeing it but if the Errors removed by the Reformation were not real but only pretended as Mr. M. would perswade us but will never be able to prove Cranmer indeed was answerable for giving her ill Councel but she her self is accountable for the removal of them for it was Her Act. 'T was by Her Authority and Mission though Mr. M. cannot tell it Page 2. that Anno 154â— the word Sacrament in the sence which the Church then gave of it was restrained to Baptism and the Lords Supper and sure the Church of England had Authority enough to explain her meaning by what words she thought fit Let him shew if he can that there were more Sacraments as she understands the word Sacrament ever owned in the Catholick Church than those two allowed by her Lastly to shew that it was not Cranmer's private Opinion influenced the Church 't is observable first that he had several private Opinions two whereof Mr. M. lays to his charge in his Preface which were absolutely condemned by the Church and the contrary established as her Doctrine which he himself signed 2ly That the Bishops and Clergy of England had unanimously entred upon the Business of the Reformation in the time of Cranmer's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Warham Anno 1531. by the Submission of the Clergy to the King and acknowledging his Supremacy and again Anno 1533 by consenting to an Act against Appeals to Rome wherein the Nation was declared to be an entire Body within it self with full Power to do Justice in all Causes Spiritual as well as Temporal And this before Cranmer was Arch-Bishop so far was he from condemning or imposing on the Church from whence he had his Mission § 8. The fourth set of Questions concerning Mission is on this head whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by vertue of sâ—ch Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church or Preach against her Sacraments or Liturgy notwithstanding her Censures His design in this Question is to shew that the first Reformers had no more Authority to Preach against the Romish Church then such a Presbyter has to Preach against our Church I cannot understand how a man can forsake the Church of England and Preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Mission nor consequently how any Man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by vertue of his Popish Mission pag. 2. Why may not a Presbyterian having the same Authority of Scripture which Cranmer pretended to Preach against the Superstition of the Common Prayer as well as he against the Idolatry of the Mass pag. 6. and more to the same purpose pag. 12. In Answer to this I will shew first why a Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof he is a Member in contradiction to her Censures And secondly that this was not the first Reformers Case 1. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church of which they are Members Because there is a Regular way in which they may endeavour a Reformation If they find any thing amiss in her Discipline or Doctrine they may make their Application for redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being Subjects to usuâ—p their Governors Power For this is the case of private mens reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King a remedy generally worse than the disease However in both Cases private men may sue for Redress and in their proper Stations endeavour it But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be Censured and Suspended he is thereby discharged from the Execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it then one must make a Rebellion in the State to re-gain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects amongst us that either have no Ordination or Appointment to their Offices from the Church of England and Ireland or else abuse the Power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against M. M. and his Party who without any Mission from these Churches do according to their private sence take a Commission from a Foreign Bishop and Church to Preach against the declared Doctrine of that Church to which by the Law of Christ they are Subjects Them we count those Rebels who when censured and condemned by their own Churches and Governors against all the known Laws of our Church flee from her Tribunal and appeal to Foreigners And what Rebels or Hereticks will ever be convicted p. 4. if they may chuse their own Judges as those do We do not deny the Orders of the Church of Rome we own that she can make Priests Bishops but let Mr. M. shew that the Pope could ever give them Power to exercise their Office in these Kingdoms since it is directly against the ancient Laws and Practice observed and enacted by our Ancestors and in force at the Reformation If a man like not the Orders therefore of his own Church he must be without Orders except he would be a Schismatick and Deserter as Mr. M. has made himself And this is sufficient to shew that the Case of the first Reformers was vastly different from the Case of the present Dissenters which is the second thing I am to prove The whole strength of Mr. M's Paper doth really depend on this Parallel and whoever reads it will find that the only considerable Argument he produce is that the first Reformers Mission could not be good because the Presbyterians have as much to say for Theirs And that he can find no difference between these two only that the first Reformers were Authorized by Act of Parliament I have heard it given as the Character of wit that it finds out the likeness of things whereas it is the work of Judgment to find out the differences Now Mr. M. having whatever his Judgment may be a great
wit no wonder if he could find no other difference between those two Cases His Wâ—t could serve him to find the likeness between the Presbyterians Case and Ours but his Judgment doth not serve him to find the Difference Now if he had been very inquisitive he might have been informed in this by one of the late London Cases printed for Thomas Bassett London 1683. and written purposely to shew this Difference and 't is a wonder that Mr. M. whose study lay much in Pamphlets mist it If he saw it he ought to have shown those Differences there assigned to be none before he parallell'd the Cases But to help his understanding I will shew three material Differences besides that of an Act of Parliament and besides the truth of the Doctrine which was really on the Reformers side and is only pretended to by Dissenters 1. In the condition of the Persons that pretended to Reform 2ly In the manner of their proceeding And 3ly In the Principles they took for their Rule First Therefore there is a great difference in the condition of the first Reformers and the present Dissenters these being only private persons at the best Presbyters over-voted by the major part of their Brethren Whereas the first Reformers were Bishops and the chief Governors of the Church who had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and to which of right it did belong to Govern and Reform the Church over whom they were made Overseers by the Holy Ghost Furthermore the present Dissenters were the Bishops Subjects accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharged from their Office and the Benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure and so their Separation from their Bishops is a Schism that is an Ecclesiastical Rebellion But the first Reformers were accountable to no Superior but Jesus Christ they were his immediate Vicars not the Pope's and therefore could not be guilty of any Rebellion against him 2. And as they were thus different in their Condition so they were likewise in the manner of their Proceedings for the first Reformers did strictly forbid private persons doing any thing of their own Head as may be seen by the Proclamation set out Feb. 6. Ed. 6. Anno 2. and accordingly they managed the whole matter by publick Authority in a Regular way according to the ancient Forms of passing Laws and making Alterations in the Church Whereas both Presbyterians and Papists that is all Dissenters proceed on their own Heads in sâ—ight of their Lawful Governors Let a Presbyterian take the same way to remove the pretended Superstition of the Common-Prayer-Book that the first Reformers took to remove the Idolatry of the Mass or let the Papists take the same way to Establish the Mass that our first Reformers took to Abolish it and do it if they can But if they will make use of another way never allowed in the Church and yet pretend to the same Power that the Bishops of England had he must be blind that doth not see the vanity of their Pretences Mr. M. observes well That the not considering this Matter hath brought a world of Confusion on these Kingdoms and till the People understand it we are never like to see an end of Religious distractions pag. 6. for while men without ordinary Mission from the Governors of a Church or without extraordinary Mission testified by Miracle shall be received by the people upon pretence they are sent by a Foreign Church or that the People themselves can declare them Commissionated by Christ which are the pretences of Papists and Dissenters what more peace can be hoped for in the Church than in a State where such things were allowed to be practised Why may not the Presbyterians resist their Lawful Governors as well as the Papists deny their Power and question their Succession though they have none to oppose to it The third Difference between the Dissenters Case in respect of Us and our Case in respect of Papists is in the Principles on which our first Reformers proceeded They did not pretend as he slanders them in his Preface to justifie their Separation for they never made any by the Scriptures only as interpreted by themselves not only without but against the Authority of the present Catholick Church For on the contrary except he mean by the Catholick Church the particular Church of Rome and her Adherents the Catholick Church was for the Reformers as they conceived and the greater part of visible Christians concurred with them in their sence of Scripture as to the most material controversies between our Church and Rome But the true Principles of the Reformation were such as these That the Catholick Faith ought to be always the same in all Ages and could not receive Additions or grow by time that nothing should be an Article of Faith to day that was not yesterday and therefore nothing was to be reckoned as Catholick Faith but what was received semper ubique ab omnibus according to Vincentius's Rule and that nothing was thus Catholik but what might be proved by Scripture taken in that sence which hath not been contradicted by Catholick Fathers These were the Principles of the Reformers Faith. And in other things belonging to the Government and Polity of the Church to Rites Ceremonies and Liturgies 'T was their principle that every National Church was at her own choice how she would order them and her Subjects ow'd her Obedience These are truly Catholick Principles founded on a Rock the word of God interpreted by Catholick Tradition and not on the present sentiments of any party of Men and are a sufficient hedge against Heresie and Schism sufficient to secure the good correspondence of neighbouring and the peace of particular Churches Let any one compare this Basis with that of the Roman Faith and let him judge which is most solid whether that which is founded on the Scriptures as interpreted by all Ages of the Church or that which has only the Voice of a part of the Visible Church and the greater part against it These are the two Bases of the Reformation and Popery To this Justification no Sectary can pretend and though Luther and Calvin c. had really this Warrant to reject the super-added Articles of the Church of Rome yet they differed in this at least some of them that they did not think it necessary to wait the concurrence of their Governors but concluded the major part of the Peoples joyning with them was sufficient without regular Forms and Process and whether that may be allowed in any case I leave Mr. M. and them to dispute for we are not concerned in it and they are of full Age to answer for themselves and he will find they can do it Only he is not to be pardoned when he brings in Socinus answering amongst other Reformers that he â—reached no new Doctrine nor administred any new Sacrament but only the Primitive Doctrine c. according to the
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
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