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
by any other Devotional Book Lastly What is this to the Reformation which found not one Exposition in Print by Commandment of the Church nor any counted necessary I will venture to put one Question to Mr. M. and having askt so many I hope he will not take it ill Ought the Mass to be understood by the People or no If it ought to be understood why is not the best method taken to make them understand it even to read it in a Tongue understood by them If it matters not whether it be understood by the People or no to what purpose doth he talk of an Exposition His third Argument in behalf of the practice of his Church is taken from the Example of the Jewish Church Had not saith he the Jewish Church almost all her Scriptures and publick Service for fourteen Generations that is to say from the Captivity unto Christ in the old Hebrew A Language not then understood by the the common People I Answer she had some of them in old Hebrew but not only in it They were read in the Synagogues first in Hebrew for the use of the Learned and then in the Vulgar for the common People This he might have learnt from Father Simon and Bishop Walton Nay Doctor Isaac Vossius is positive that the Greek was the vulgar Language of Jerusalem in our Saviours time and that the Septuagint Translation and not the old Hebrew was read in the Synagogues of the Jews And all unanimously conclude that the people either understood the original of what was read or were made understand it by an Interpreter 'T is probable Saint Paul had respect to this custom among the Jews when he commands the Prophet that spake with Tongues to keep silence in the Church if there was no Interpreter 1 Cor. 14. 28. And therefore Mr. M. has quite mistaken his Argument when he asks Did our Saviour or his Apostles ever reprehend the Jews for not translating the Scripture into the vulgar Language There was no ground for such a Reprehension since the Jews had done it three hundred years before therefore will rise up in Judgment against the absurd practice of the Roman Church will condemn her who is more unkind to her Subjects than the very Jews has provided worse for their Edisication in this point It is to no purpose to say as Mr. M. doth that the Latine is more vulgar than the English Since this is a manifest falshood and must be owned to be such by all men who consider that the Latine is not vulgar in any place of the World. I cannot tell whether I can call it a fourth Argument which offers in these words If the Service of God must be said in the maternal tongue of every Nation where shall an English man in France or Spain that understands not the language go to serve God on the Lords day I answer To Church and joyn his presence and private Devotion with the Congregation since he cannot joyn in the publick Prayers In case of necessity a man is accepted by God according to what he can do and what is not in his power is not required of him In a Country where there are no Christians he must go no where and in a strange Country he must go to the publick Devotions though he do noâ— understand them For that is better then not going at all His last Argument for the vindication of the publick Service of the Church in an unknown Tongue is That this would destroy all Community of Sacraments and Litâ—rgie between the Members of the Catholick Church which being one Body or Society of Men cannot be like the Builders of Babel who could not understand one anothers Language Now if they that understand not one anothers language are Builders of Babel then the Priest and People where the Service is in an unknown Tongue are plainly such Builders For they do not understand one another Two Cities may very well be Built and conveniently Governed by two People of different Languages and these Cities may likewise manage all their common Business and keep a good Correspondence by the help of a few Men that understand both Languages But two Languages in the same City is very inconvenient and cannot be so remedied It is so in the Church Distant Congregations may have a very good Communion with one another by the help of their Priests who understand a common Language But to have a Language spoken to a Congregation or in it that the Members cannot understand is to bring in a great confusion and directly opposite to the Apostles command which he himself here produces Rom. 15. 16. that we should with one mind and mouth glorifie God For how can a Congregation glorifie God with one mouth if they do not understand the words in which they are to joyn Thus Mr. M's Arguments constantly make against himself If want of a common Language destroys unity of Sacraments and Liturgy in distant Churches it destroys that unity much more where there is wanting a common Language between the Priest People in the same Church But the truth is the unity of the Sacraments and Liturgies have no dependency on the unity of Language but are the same in whatever language they are used or administred And so it was in the Primitive Church where every People had their own Liturgy in their own Language Mr. M. foresaw that 1 Cor. 14. would be objected against him And he tells us p. 11. That he humbly thinks it not well understood by Prostants This is a main point and one would have expected a substantial Reason for his Opinion some Determination of a Primitive Council or a whole shoal of Fathers at least But instead of that he pretends to cut the throat of the Objection out of that very Chapter in which Protestants glory If any be Ignorant saith he let him be Ignorant Wherefore Brethren covet to Prophesie and forbid not to speak with Tongues v. 39. God is not the Author of Confusion but Peace v. 33. I shall not trouble the Reader with an Answer to these Arguments if Mr. M. designed in earnest to prove by them that we do not well understand the Apostle in this Chapter I would advise him to take the Opinion of a Physician whether all be right about his Head. § 8. The third thing wherein Mr. M. endeavours to vindicate his Church is the Worship of Images And to this purpose he alledges First That the Council of Trent hath commanded all Superstition to be taken away in the use of Images and then gives it in charge to all Bishops to look to it p. 12. If they had reckoned the Worship of Images Superstition this had indeed taken away our Objection but on the contrary the Council decreed that Images of Christ not of his Human Nature as he improperly expresses it and likewise of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained especially in Churches
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