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
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
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
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
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
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
infamous Lyar and Rebel Sanders was Whereas therefore he intreats the Protestant Reader to peruse Doctor Heylin's History of the Reformation we are content he should do so and let him at the same time peruse the History of the Council of Trent written by Father Paul and let him impartially judge which was carried on by the worst Men and worst Arts the Reformation or the Council What Mr. M. objects further in his Preface against Cranmer and the other Reformers shall be considered in its proper place CHAP. II. I Come now to examin the Pamphlet it self which consists of Three parts 1. A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland 2. Of Three points wherein he could not satisfie himself And 3dly A confused heap of particulars at the latter end As to the Letter it is a little ambiguous to whom it is directed if to his old Patron as a civil Compliment at taking leave he had done well to have told the true Reason why he forsook him Your Grace would not get me a Bishoprick though often prest and sollicited by me therefore I beg your leave to seek a new Patron whose Mediation may be more effectual But perhaps Mr. M. means another man and then we may reckon this as the first Fruits of his Conversion Are you taught already the Art of Equivocation We shall learn from this what sincerity we may expect from you and shall hardly believe you when you tell us that it was not any consideration of Temporal Interest inclined you to be reconciled If you valued Temporal Interest so little why were you so earnest for a Protestant Bishoprick Why did you repine and murmur so much that you were not preferred Why did you declare to several about a year ago that you was no Roman Catholick but yet would not appear against the Church of Rome because you hoped to rise by help of Roman Catholicks Why did you endeavour to ingratiate your self by mean Arts and condescend even to the Office of an Informer Why did you defer publishing this Paper such as it is which was ready sometime before till you thought you might be sure of keeping the Profits of your Deanery Either you are a Lay or Clergy-man If a Lay-man are not you abominably Sacrilegious to have possessed and still retain the Revenue of a Clergy-man Why do you retain the Title of Dean in the Frontispiece of a Book which is designed to prove you to be no Priest and consequently incapable of it If your Orders had yielded you as much per annum as your Deanery doth Have we not reason to believe you would no more have renounced the one than the other For shame resign our Church her own since you have deserted her or never talk of Conscience Till this be done it is in vain for you to pretend that your having reflected on the uncertainty and variety if the Protestant Spirit or perused Catholick Books have undeceived you Did you never reflect on the uncertainty or variety of the Protestant Spirit before that it should have such a mighty influence on you just at this time sure there was greater variety when you was first educated in the Colledge and when you first entred into Orders than now They talk'd much of the Spirit then and you yet retain their language if instead of that Cant you had well studied and considered the Principles of the Church which you have left you would have found that there neither are nor can be any more certain and steady Principles of any Religion than hers are You make your self a great Novice that at this time a day pretend to be converted by perusing the Mass. In good earnest did you never read it before if you did how comes it to have such influence on you in King James the Second's time and so little in King Charles the Second's All you pretend for your self is that you were then under Prejudice and deceived by false Reports concerning that you call the Catholick Religion that is The Reverend Dean after near 30 years study had his Religion by hear-says wanted Honesty to be impartial and either Industry or Means to inform himself concerning the most material Controversies that are on foot in the Church Which Controversies are still the same and the Arguments pro and con of the same force they were before in every thing except the alteration of one circumstance that is worldly Advantage Is not this a most excellent Account of your Conversion And whereas you tell His Grace that all that have known you these several years can witness for you that it was not any consideration of worldly Interest that inclined you you are obliged to beg His Graces pardon for your false Information for I can assure you I have consulted many that have known you and have not met one that can witness this for you But on the contrary the most conclude that it was the little grain of Worldly Advantage turn'd the Scale for your new Church This is therefore the true Account you ought to have given His Grace of your Reconcilement § 2. The second part of Mr. M's Paper consists of three points wherein he professes that he could never satisfie himself since he began to study the Controversies between the two Churches The first was The Mission or Authority of the first Reformers The second The Want of Confession in the Church of England And the third Where is that one holy Catholick Church we do profess to believe in the two Creeds To the first of these points I shall reply in this method 1. I will put together all the Questions that he asks on this Head. 2. Consider the Answers he produces to them And 3. The Objections he has raised against the Reformation or Reformers 1. Concerning our Mission he asks in his Preface pag. 3. What Priesthood or Holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops What Priesthood or Holy Orders have Protestants but what they confess to have received from Roman Catholick Bishops Pag. 12. of the Pamphlet 2. Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sacraments Pag. 1. of his Pamphlet I am not now disputing what Doctrine he preached but who sent him to preach his Protestant Doctrine and administer his Protestant Sacraments 'T is not his Doctrine but Mission I am now enquiring after Pag. 3. 3. Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bishops Pag. 3. of his Preface I understand not how any man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by authority of the Popish Mission Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet I must still ask the old Question By whose Authority did he condemn that Church from whom he received his Mission Pag. 3. of his Pamphlet The Archbishop of Canterbury c. at the time of their Consecration were professed Roman Catholicks But
afterwards turning Protestants and pronouncing the Church of Rome Idolatrous I would fain know by whose Authority Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet At the time of their Consecration they professed Seven Sacraments Anno 1536. they retrencht them to three then to two Anno 1549. By whose Authority or Mission I cannot tell Ibid. pag. 2. Again Who gave them Authority to pronounce themselves sound Members and the Church of Rome a corrupt Arm of the Catholick Church Pag. 12. The fourth Sett of Questions concerning Mission is on this Head Preface p. 3 Whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by virtue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church I understand not how a man can forsake the Church of England and preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Orders Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet Presbyterians being Interrogated Did that Church authorize you to preach against the Sacraments or Liturgy there was no Answer to be had Pag. 3. I desire to know whether an honest man can preach against the Liturgy Sacraments or Constitution of any Church by vertue of any Commission he received from it Ibid. So that no honest man can turn Presbyterian or Independant Preacher by vertue of his Protestant Mission p. 4. The fifth Sett of Questions relating to Mission is Pref. pag. 3. Whether an Act of Parliament in France Spain or Germany be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy A Parliamentary Mission then our first Reformers had and no other that I can find p. 3. § 3. Before I come to a distinct consideration of each of these I must observe that he waves the Dispute concerning our Priestly or Episcopal Orders whether valid or no Pamphl pag. 1. Now if these are valid either let him shew one Sacrament administred by Protestants which these Characters do not give them Power to celebrate or one Article of Faith that they teach which the same do not oblige them to teach or else let him ask no more for their Mission and Authority to teach their Doctrine and administer their Sacraments If their Doctrine and Sacraments are not Theirs but Christs they are not only sent but obliged by their Orders to administer the one and teach the other in the Churches wherein they are appointed Pastors I observe further that he manifestly contradicts himself in this matter for he makes Cranmer and Latimer the first Protestant Bishops and owns their Consecration p. 2. and yet alledges p. 3. that it is no easie matter to find out who consecrated the first Protestant Bishops because for sooth there were none to do it but Roman Catholick Bishops who never use to consecrate any Protestants But if he had read Mason and Archbishop Bramhall he might have seen who ordained the first Reformers and their Succession to this day and if he had consulted Sir James Ware de Proesulibus he might have seen that there wanted not Bishops in Ireland willing to consecrate Protestants Primate Loftus being consecrated by the then Archbishop of Dublin Dr. Curwin who continued in his Archiepiscopal See near six years after and then by reason of his great Age was translated to the Bishoprick of Oxford at his own desire Antiquit. Oxon. de Aede Christi lib. 2. p. 291. Ware de Proesulibus Hib. in Archiepiscopis Dubliniensibus p. 120. Nor is the Testimony he produces out of Burnet from Queen Mary at all pertinent all that appears from that Testimony is that they who were ordained according to the Form in our Common-Prayer-Books are not lookt upon by the Queen to be ordered in every Deed but there is no reason alledged for it nor indeed can any be given but because it was not done according to the Pontifical an ignorance excusable at that time when perhaps she was informed that something Essential was left out in our Form of Orders or that the Pontifical with its Tricks was not a new thing whereas our Form of Ordination is more full then any of the ancient Forms both in Substance and Ceremony and therefore either the ancient Priests and Bishops had no sufficient Ordination or Queen Mary was mis-informed when she did not reckon Ordination by the Common-prayer-book ordering indeed § 5. Having premised this I answer to his first Question What Priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they confess to have received from Roman Catholick Bishops If he mean by Roman Catholick Bishops such as own'd the Bishop of Rome to be the supream universal Pastor of the Catholick Church by Divine right to whom themselves were by God made unappealably accountable which is the Essential Character of a Roman Catholick the first Reformers received their Orders from no such Roman Catholicks Whatever Roman Catholicks hold now he will never prove this to have been the declared sence of the Church of England before the Reformation and therefore the first Reformers cannot properly be said to have received their Orders from Roman Catholicks but from the Church of England There are two things to be distinguished in the Office of a Bishop one is the Power or Capacity of governing the Church interpreting Scripture Consecrating other Bishops Ordaining Priests and Deacons Offering Baptizing and Confirming the other is the admitting the Bishop so impowered to the exercise of that Power within certain Limits which we call a Diocess The first of these is a Divine and the second a Canonical Right Now the first Reformers received the first of these that is their Orders from Christ by the hands of their Consecrators who were Bishops of England for Rome The second of these they received likewise from the Laws and Constitutions of the Church and Kingdom of England of Rome And it is to be observed that the Laws of the one were directly contrary to the Laws of the other and that the Bishops of England had their proper and immediate Mission to their Churches by an Authority maintained in opposition to the Popes Power which he endeavoured as much as he could to abolish but was not able as may be seen in his Contests with Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry the Sixth's time Although therefore the first Reformers had their Orders from Bishops in Communion with the Church of Rome yet it was as Christian Bishops they Ordained and as English Bishops that they admitted the first Reformers to their Charges But suppose they had no other Orders but what they received from the Bishop of Rome himself all that can be concluded from thence is that we are obliged to own that the Orders of Priest and Bishop given by Roman Catholicks are valid and capacitate a man to perform all the Duties belonging to those Offices in a Christian Church which we readily acknowledge and charge the Popish Priests and Bishops not with want of Orders but with abusing the Orders they have to ill intents and purposes The Roman Catholick Bishops do not confer Orders
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
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
assign any such on Earth is to destroy the very notion of the Catholick Church and make her as particular as the Jewish Synagogue out of which no Person or Nation was excluded so they would turn Proselytes any more than they are excluded out of the Church of Rome if they will embrace her Faith and submit to her Government But the Church is called Catholick in opposition to such a particular Society because she consists of many such Societies which have in every Nation the same Priviledges which were before peculiar to the Jews And these particular Churches are intire Bodies in themselves not made accountable by Christ or his Apostles to any Foreign Church as to a Head but only as to a Sister Neither is the union of these particular Churches into one Catholick Church an union of subjection to one visible Head but an union of Faith and Charity under our visible Head Christ. When therefore Mr. M. asks in what Provinces of the Earth this Church doth inhabit I answer in most Provinces of the World in more by many than he or his Church will allow Let him read St. Augustine on the 85 Psalm and he will tell him the sin of those that confine the Church to a Province or corner of the World to a Sect or Party of Christians § 2. To this second Question Was there any such Society upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation I answer there was and the several branches of it were dispersed through many Provinces in Europe Asia and Africa The Church of England was one branch thereof such she has continued ever since and we hope will continue to the end of the World And therefore he might have spared the labour which he has spent to prove that there was extant such a Church on the face of the Earth since we believe as firmly as he can desire that according to our Saviour's Prediction the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholick Church § 3. To this third Question Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of this Church I answer He did And being placed by Providence in an eminent station in the Church and the Care and Government of so considerable a part thereof being committed to his charge he found himself obliged by the Laws of God and Man to remove those things he apprehended to be Corruptions and Abuses And if they were really such who but Mr. M. can doubt his Authority do do it in a regular way And therefore to his fourth Question Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Holy Catholick Church and to set up Altar against Altar I answer No body he never attempted the one or the other He never attempted to Reform the Catholick Church because he had neither Power or Inspection over her Nor did he ever pretend to make any Law to oblige her He only endeavoured to cultivate and reform that part of her that was committed to his Care. And he must have lost his Understanding or renounced it that doth not see that this is the Duty of every Bishop nay of every Parish-Priest in his sphere and therefore except Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer went beyond his sphere he talks and asks questions to no purpose I suppose that I have already shewn that Cranmer did not exceed his Authority in his proceedings at the Reformation And as he did not pretend to reform the Catholick Church so neither did he set up Altar against Altar There was no Schism made by him in England the Division of Communion was made long after about the Tenth of Queen Elizabeth on the Bull of Pius V. Heylin ad Ann. 1564. 1565. p. 172. § 4. Mr. M. seems to have nothing to object against all this only he insinuates that the Reformation supposes the Catholick Church to be lapsed into Idolatry And if she were guilty of Idolatry she should be no Christian Church And then there is an end of the Episcopal Succession of the Church of England and consequently of the Church it self There is not one step in this Argument but is justly liable to exception I shall only desire the Reader to consider these few things and then judge whether Mr. M. can be supposed to have examined this matter either diligently or impartially 1. The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry 2. The Idolatry with which we commonly charge that Church is not inconsistent with the Being of a Church or Succession of Bishops 3. The Argument Mr. M. has produced to prove the Impossibility of a Christian Churches teaching and practising Idolatry is weak and inconclusive Sect. 5. First The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry Because there were many confessed and notorious Abuses in the Church that needed Reformation besides what we count Idolatrous And the Governors of the Church were obliged to reform them whether they were Idolatrous or no except Mr. M. thinks that nothing but Idolatry can need Reformation Prayer in an unknown Tongue the half Communion the ludicrous and antique Ceremonies of the Mass private Masses and Indulgences Appeals and Foreign Jurisdiction with many other things were removed by the Reformers not because they counted them Idolatrous but because they were great Abuses and Deviations from the Primitive Rules and Practice of the Church The things in the Roman Church which we commonly charge with Idolatry are the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and Adoration of the Host Now the Reformation would neither be unjustisiable nor unnecessary tho we should reckon these practises only in the same rank of abuses with the former We need not therefore charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry to justifie our first Reformers But whatever be said as to that he may assure himself we never did nor will charge the Catholick Church with any such Crime She never decreed either worship of Images or adoration of the Host. § 6. But secondly the Idolatry with which we charge the Church of Rome is not inconsistent with the being of a Church or Succession of Bishops I do consess there is an Idolatry inconsistent with all true Religion that is when Men renounce the true God and worship a false one in his stead But there is another Idolatry that consisteth in worshipping a false God with or in Subordination to the true And a third which Men incurr by giving some part of that honour to a Creature which God has reserved sor himself or asking those things of Creatures which God only can give And 't is with this last the Church of Rome stands charged Now not only Doctor Stilling fleet whom he confesses he never read but Primate Bramhall also whom he pretends to have seen have proved that some practice of this kind of Idolatry as well as some other Sins may consist with the Being of a Church But what shall
than the Protestants and therefore no wonder if they be more diligent in it 2. If the appearance of Devotion at publick Service be an Argument of the goodness of the Service the Turks who out do the generality of Christians in frequency seeming Devotion and Reverence at their Prayers as we are informed by Travellers must be concluded to have the best Service and he would do ill on Mr M.'s Principles that would Reform the Alcoran into the Mass. 3. The matter of Fact is not true as I am informed by those that have seen their Communicants and ours Protestants have according to Mr M.'s desire compared the Devotions of the Church of Rome with those of the Church of England in a Discourse designed for that very purpose and Printed London 1685 In which it is shewn That whatever the Romanists pretend there is not so true Devotion among them nor such rational provision for it nor encouragement to it as in the Church established by Law among us 4. It is not material what their Devotions appear to be if their Lives are not better than ours which I am sure they are not Open Prophaneness is hardly more provoking to God than shew of Devotion without proportional Sanctity of Life as we learn from the Case of the Jews of old in Isa. 1. Jer. 7. and in many other places of Scripture § 14. The third thing whereby he endeavours to recommend his Church is the Unity of her Members In the Church of Rome he shall find variety of Religious Orders but no Schism nor Discord about their Sacraments or Liturgy In the Garment of the Church there is Variety but no Rent No confusion of Sects nor Disobedience to Superios p. 14. If this be true she is the happiest Church that ever was in the World much happier than the Church of the Apostles time for there were Schisms and Discords about Sacraments and Liturgy in her Witness the Apostle 1 Corin. 1. 11. also 11. 18. Nay there was Disobedience too Gal. 3. 1. 3 Joh. 9. It is therefore strange we should be able to find none in the Church of Rome May we not rather conclude that Mr M. has either partially or negligently sought for these Schisms and Discords Since really there has hardly been greater Schisms and Discords in any Church than in her thô he affirms we shall find none Bellarmine loved the Church of Rome as well as Mr M. and he owns twenty six Schisms in her Onuphrius Panvinius who uses not to speak ill of the Roman Church reckons thirty one he calls the worst and longest which continued fifty Years others were of twenty or fifteen or ten c. These Authors onely reckon those Schisms where the People were divided between two Popes But it were easie to shew that besides these there were in that Church great and enormous Schisms which had no Popes to head them And as for Discords about Sacraments I suppose Mr M. reckons Ordination a Sacrament And concerning it there have been many Discords many Popes have damned their Predecessors and annulled their Ordinations So Stephen VII nulled the Ordinations of Formosus his Predecessor John IX did as much for Stephen and Sergius III. for him Platina tells us That after the time of Stephen VI. or as others reckon the VII it became a Custom for the succeeding Popes to infringe or quite destroy the Acts of their Predecessors Spondanus tells us These are the unhappy times wherein every intruding Pope annulled the Acts of his Predecessors And further that the power of Whores was so great in Rome that they removed true and lawful Popes and thrust in violent and wicked men Who considering this would not think God had forgotten his Church Behold the Mission of the Roman Bishops and their Unity And if notwithstanding these Schisms and Intrusions which continued for many years the Church of Rome continued a true Church and her Ordinations valid let the Reader judge what there is so Horrid or Irregular in our Reformation that should void our Orders or make us cease to be a Church § 15. I suppose Mr. M. counts Confirmation another Sacrament and there have been no less discords about it of late in the Roman Church The Regulars of England on one side and the Bishops of France with the Sorborn on the other And those of each party charge the other with Heresie not without the disturbance of the publick Peace and a rent of brotherly Charity So the Congregation of the Index tells us which Congregation made a Decree to suppress the Writings of both Parties May 19. 1633. And here we do not find that Obedience to Superiors in this matter of which Mr. M. boasts for immediately there came out at Paris a Disquisition against the Decree the Jesuits Reply and the Bishops of France renew their Condemnation and Censure Nov. 29. 1643. and I do not find that they are yet agreed Mr. M affirms we shall find no Rent no Confusion of Sects no Disobedience to Superiors in the Church of Rome But whosoever will read the Decrees and passages about this matter in St. Amours's Collection at the end of his Journal p 26. or in Petrus Aurelius's Vindiciae Censurae will find a great rent of brotherly Charity much Confusion and great Disobedience in the disagreeing Parties and these about no less things than the Sacrament of Confirmation the Hierarchy of the Church and Supremacy of St. Peter § 16. Confession is no less a Sacrament with Mr. M. and the Disputes in his Church have of late been as high about it as about the former one Party charging the other with no less than Heresie as may be seen at large in the Bishops of France's Letter to Innocent the X. at the end of Mr. Arnauld's Book of Frequent Communion If their publick Acts are to be believed there are Rents Scissurae fraternae Charitatis in their Church But if we believe Mr. M. there is no Rent Scissura non est I shall say nothing of the Dispute concerning the Regale in France at this day I need not put him in mind of what Obedincee has been paid to the Pope or to his Excommunications of the Arch-bishop of Tholouse and Regalists He may see the whole in a Book intitled Regale Sacerdotum 1684. I do not see but the King and Church of France make themselves Judge Witness and Accuser in this Affair with the Pope as much as Henry VIII and the English Church did § 17. This is all that Mr. M. seems to say either to vindicate or recommend his Church Let us see next what he objects against ours And in all this last part I can find only three things of this nature One is P. 10. That the Church of England is beholding to the Mass for the best Flowers in her Communion Service The second is that the Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every man's Reason And the third is That we do not pay
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