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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Confession is mentioned in Scripture it is to be understood of this kind of Confession except the Circumstances manifestly determine the sence otherwise This Confession alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of Sins under the Old Law Psal. 32. 5. without Auricular Confession to a Priest. 2. It is necessary to Confess and Acknowledge such Sins as injure our Neighbours not only to God but likewise to the injured person where that Confession may be an Advantage or Satisfaction to him Restitution must also go along with Confession if it be possible If the injured person or they who have a title to what was his are not to be found the Restitution is to be made to God for some Charitable use according to the advice of the Priest. This case is thus determined by God himself Lev. 6. Numb 5. and by Our Church in her Exhortation to the Communion 3. Where a Sin is notorious or publick in as much as the Church is injured by it and the Fact falls under her Cognizance and Jurisdiction she may call the Sinner to an account oblige him to make publick Confession of his Guilt and to submit to such Discipline as she judges most probable to reform him Her Sentence of Absolution is necessary to a person thus called to an account by her where it may be had neither can he be absolved from his Sin without submitting to her Orders This appears to be the sence of our Church from the Rubrick to the Communion and 33. Article 4. Where theee is any doubt or scruple in a Man's mind concerning the nature of an Action whether it be good or evil concerning his own Repentance whether it be sincere and sufficient or concerning the means and way to attain to this true Repentance In these and the like cases the Sinner is obliged to repair to his Spiritual Guide for his Resolution Counsel and Direction This is commanded by Our Church in the Exhortation that gives warning for the Communion 5. Where the sence of Guilt lyes heavy on the Conscience of a Sinner so that there is danger of his being swallowed up by too much Grief he who finds his Spirit thus wounded is required to have recourse to his Spiritual Physician that by the Ministry of Gods word he may receive the benefit of Absolution As Our Church has exprest it in her Exhortation whose words Mr. M. has corrupted that he might find an occasion to cavil first by alledging this Proviso as hers in the matter of Confession if a Man be troubled with any doubts or scruples whereas she uses no such words either in her Office for Communion or Visitation of the Sick which are the two places he alledges for them And Secondly by leaving out these words but if any one requires farther comfort or counsel in this following Sentence If there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his own Conscience herein but requires farther comfort or counsel let him come to me or some other discreet and learned Minister and open his grief Where the words he has left out make her sence plain that she requires men to come to a Priest not only in cases of Scruples and Doubts but likewise of Grief for the sence of Guilt and that she proposes Advice and Counsel as a remedy for the one and Absolution as a remedy for the other Which clearly destroys Mr. M's surmise as if Confession in our Church were for nothing else but to be resolved in our Scruples and Doubts 6. Confession to a Priest even of secret Sins is counted with us an act of Mortification and of great uses in most cases as it is of great use and safety to consult a Physician at any time when one finds himself sick this is prescribed by the 19th Canon of the Church of Ireland It is counted a great Wickedness for the Priest to reveal any such Confession And it is forbidden under the pain of irregularity by the 64 Canon 7. It is not necessary by any Divine Command that a man should discover every Sin to a Priest though he may be had any more than it is necessary every time a man is sick to send for a Physician And therefore Auricular Confession is not the only way for obtaining Pardon of Sins committed after Baptism From these things in which our Bishops and Divines are all agreed though Mr. M. slanders them for want of harmony it appears that neither publick nor private Confession is wanting in our Church and it can no more be said that Confession to a Priest is wanting in her because she doth not oblige all People to it under penalty of Damnation then a City can be said to want Water where the Fountains are full and open only because Men are not obliged under pain of Death to use them If therefore Mr. M. means any thing when he professes himself dissatisfied with the want of Confession to a Priest he must mean the want of a Law to oblige all men who hope for pardon of any sin to confess it in particular to the Priest and receive his Absolution for it We must own that we have no such Law in our Church But the reason of that want is because neither Christ nor his Apostles left us any such § 3. It was incumbent on him before he left our Church on that account to produce this Law and shew Confession to be otherwise necessary than is taught and practised by her Let us us therefore examine what he has said on this head And here the only thing produced by him for the necessity of Confession to a Priest which looks like an Argument is contained in these words p. 7. If we confess our Sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins saith St. John. Faithful and Just to what even to his own promise which he hath thrice repeated in the Gospel whosesoever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them but other promise that he will do it without the Ministry of his Priests we read not in the New Testament In answer to this Argument I will shew 1. That the words If we confess our Sins do not concern Confession to a Priest. 2. When God is said to be Faithful and Just it doth not particularly respect that promise John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them 3. If it did respect this Promise and the Ministry of a Priest were granted to be absolutely necessary to the pardon of Sins yet it would not follow that Auricular Confession were necessary § 4. First the words of St. John 1 Ep. 1. 9. If we confess our sins do not concern Confession to a Priest but were designed by the Apostle to oblige every man to acknowledge and confess that he is a sinner and that he needs Repentance and the Blood of Christ for his salvation which will appear from the occasion and circumstances of this place I think it is agreed that St. John wrote these words in opposition
assign any such on Earth is to destroy the very notion of the Catholick Church and make her as particular as the Jewish Synagogue out of which no Person or Nation was excluded so they would turn Proselytes any more than they are excluded out of the Church of Rome if they will embrace her Faith and submit to her Government But the Church is called Catholick in opposition to such a particular Society because she consists of many such Societies which have in every Nation the same Priviledges which were before peculiar to the Jews And these particular Churches are intire Bodies in themselves not made accountable by Christ or his Apostles to any Foreign Church as to a Head but only as to a Sister Neither is the union of these particular Churches into one Catholick Church an union of subjection to one visible Head but an union of Faith and Charity under our visible Head Christ. When therefore Mr. M. asks in what Provinces of the Earth this Church doth inhabit I answer in most Provinces of the World in more by many than he or his Church will allow Let him read St. Augustine on the 85 Psalm and he will tell him the sin of those that confine the Church to a Province or corner of the World to a Sect or Party of Christians § 2. To this second Question Was there any such Society upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation I answer there was and the several branches of it were dispersed through many Provinces in Europe Asia and Africa The Church of England was one branch thereof such she has continued ever since and we hope will continue to the end of the World And therefore he might have spared the labour which he has spent to prove that there was extant such a Church on the face of the Earth since we believe as firmly as he can desire that according to our Saviour's Prediction the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholick Church § 3. To this third Question Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of this Church I answer He did And being placed by Providence in an eminent station in the Church and the Care and Government of so considerable a part thereof being committed to his charge he found himself obliged by the Laws of God and Man to remove those things he apprehended to be Corruptions and Abuses And if they were really such who but Mr. M. can doubt his Authority do do it in a regular way And therefore to his fourth Question Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Holy Catholick Church and to set up Altar against Altar I answer No body he never attempted the one or the other He never attempted to Reform the Catholick Church because he had neither Power or Inspection over her Nor did he ever pretend to make any Law to oblige her He only endeavoured to cultivate and reform that part of her that was committed to his Care. And he must have lost his Understanding or renounced it that doth not see that this is the Duty of every Bishop nay of every Parish-Priest in his sphere and therefore except Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer went beyond his sphere he talks and asks questions to no purpose I suppose that I have already shewn that Cranmer did not exceed his Authority in his proceedings at the Reformation And as he did not pretend to reform the Catholick Church so neither did he set up Altar against Altar There was no Schism made by him in England the Division of Communion was made long after about the Tenth of Queen Elizabeth on the Bull of Pius V. Heylin ad Ann. 1564. 1565. p. 172. § 4. Mr. M. seems to have nothing to object against all this only he insinuates that the Reformation supposes the Catholick Church to be lapsed into Idolatry And if she were guilty of Idolatry she should be no Christian Church And then there is an end of the Episcopal Succession of the Church of England and consequently of the Church it self There is not one step in this Argument but is justly liable to exception I shall only desire the Reader to consider these few things and then judge whether Mr. M. can be supposed to have examined this matter either diligently or impartially 1. The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry 2. The Idolatry with which we commonly charge that Church is not inconsistent with the Being of a Church or Succession of Bishops 3. The Argument Mr. M. has produced to prove the Impossibility of a Christian Churches teaching and practising Idolatry is weak and inconclusive Sect. 5. First The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry Because there were many confessed and notorious Abuses in the Church that needed Reformation besides what we count Idolatrous And the Governors of the Church were obliged to reform them whether they were Idolatrous or no except Mr. M. thinks that nothing but Idolatry can need Reformation Prayer in an unknown Tongue the half Communion the ludicrous and antique Ceremonies of the Mass private Masses and Indulgences Appeals and Foreign Jurisdiction with many other things were removed by the Reformers not because they counted them Idolatrous but because they were great Abuses and Deviations from the Primitive Rules and Practice of the Church The things in the Roman Church which we commonly charge with Idolatry are the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and Adoration of the Host Now the Reformation would neither be unjustisiable nor unnecessary tho we should reckon these practises only in the same rank of abuses with the former We need not therefore charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry to justifie our first Reformers But whatever be said as to that he may assure himself we never did nor will charge the Catholick Church with any such Crime She never decreed either worship of Images or adoration of the Host. § 6. But secondly the Idolatry with which we charge the Church of Rome is not inconsistent with the being of a Church or Succession of Bishops I do consess there is an Idolatry inconsistent with all true Religion that is when Men renounce the true God and worship a false one in his stead But there is another Idolatry that consisteth in worshipping a false God with or in Subordination to the true And a third which Men incurr by giving some part of that honour to a Creature which God has reserved sor himself or asking those things of Creatures which God only can give And 't is with this last the Church of Rome stands charged Now not only Doctor Stilling fleet whom he confesses he never read but Primate Bramhall also whom he pretends to have seen have proved that some practice of this kind of Idolatry as well as some other Sins may consist with the Being of a Church But what shall
we say to a Man who understands but little himself and will not be persuaded to read those who can inform him Who takes this opinion by hear say as if it were peculiar to one Author whereas it is the common sense of our Controvertists Which I think is a Demonstration that not withstanding what he pretends p. 1. he is yet to begin to study the Controversie between both Churches He confesses he did not understand this matter and then let the World judge whether it was done like a Man who either loved or designed truth to write against a thing before he undrstood it § 7. In order to help his understanding he would do well to consider 1. Whether to teach and practice Idolatry destroy the very Being of a Christian more then of a Jewish Church Now it is plain that the Jewish Church both taught and practised Idolatry and is charged as Idolatrous 1. When Aaron with the whole Congregation sacrificed to the Calf and afterwards when the Kings of Judah establish'd Idolatry in the very Temple of God In which Idolatry the Priests Prophets Princes and People concurr'd as we may see Jer. 2. 26. and yet neither their succession nor Church fail'd Sect. 8. 2. The Primitive Church did not look on all Idolatry as destructive of the Being and Succession of a Church Because she allowed the Succession of those she counted Idolaters Such she reckoned the Arians as we may learn from Athanasius and Gregory Nyssen and yet the Succession of the Arians was allowed in Felix Bishop of Rome In Meletius Bishop of Antioch And lastly in the Bishops of Spain who had been Arians from their first Conversion till the time of their King Ricaredus in whose Reign they turned Catholicks and proceeded in that Reformation at the same rate our Reformers proceeded in Ours If Mr. M. had lived among them he would have told them that they were no Bishops nor had any Church Because their Predecessors for several Generations had taught and practised Idolatry And if we believe him surely that destroys the very Being of a Christian Church But neither these Bishops nor the Church of that Age were of his Mind And therefore they went on in their Business and settled their Church without troubling any body to assist them And though they had no other Ordination or Sacraments than what they had received from Arians that is from much worse Idolaters than the Papists are counted yet no body ever questioned their Church or Succession But Mr. M. and his party love to cut short God's Church and Inheritance and seem afraid too many should go to Heaven And therefore when any thing in a Church doth not please them they immediately un Church her and send her Members to Hell Imitating exactly in this as they do in their Re-ordination the Heretical Donatists Whom St. Augustine sharply reproves for their Uncharitableness Sect. 9. But 3. Mr. M. is the more inexcusable because the Argument he brings to prove the Inconsistency of Idolatry and a Christian Church is so very trisling and inconclusive For saith he what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols and what concord hath Christ with Belial For ye are the Temple of the Living God what Communion hath Light with Darkness 2 Cor. 6. 16. What! Idolaters and yet a true Church 'T is as much as to say they are in the way to Heaven and Hell at the same time p. 8. In answer to this I must desire the Reader to look into the place of Scripture here quoted and observe that the Sentences are broken and mangled and transposed either out of Design or as I am apt to think out of meer thoughtlessness If he had given it whole the Reader would easily have perceived its weakness for it is not only said What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols v. 16. but likewise What Fellowship hath Righteousness with Unrighteousness and What Communion hath Light with Darkness v. 14. If then according to Mr. M. Idolatry destroy the very Being of a Church because there is no agreement between the Temple of God and Idols why shall not every Unrighteousness or Sin destroy likewise the Being of a Church Since there is no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness no communion between Light and Darkness May not I argue as he doth What! Unrighteousness and a true Church 'T is as much as to say they are in the way to Heaven and Hell at the same time This is the very Argument by which Petilian the Donatist endeavoured to unchurch all other Christians besides his own Sect and annul all other Baptism besides his own parties because he pretended they communicated with wicked Men and there could be no fellowship between Righteousness and Unrighteousness between Believers and Unbelievers How then could an Unbeliever regenerate a Believer in Baptism There is indeed no agreement between Idolatry and a true Church no more is there between her and any other Sin. But things that have no agreement do not immediately destroy one another It doth not follow therefore that to teach practice any Sin destroys the very Being of a true Church Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft that is equal to one of the worst kinds of Idolatries shall therefore every Society of Men that teaches practices Rebellion cease to be a Church I hope Mr. M. will not say it I do not say any Society of Men ever taught Treason or Rebellion or Idolatry to be lawful for this would indeed un-church them But many have comanded such practices taught them to be lawful which being put in execution were really treasonable rebellious or idolatrous Thus the Council of Later an commanded Temporal Lords who did not purge their Dominions of Hereticks to be deposed by the Pope and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance And thus the Council of Lyons deposed Frederick the Emperor The one of these taught and the other practiced Rebellion Must we therefore un-church these Councils Pope Paul III. and his Faction taught and commanded the Subjects of Henry VIII to depose their Prince Pius V. taught and commanded the Subjects of Queen Elizabeth to do the like to her These were all acts of Treason or Usurpation and sure these are the way to Hell as well as Idolatry And then to say those that were guilty of such things were Members of the Catholick Church is according to Mr. M. to say they were in the way to Hell and Heaven at the same time but such Arguments must be taken from him where there are no better CHAP. V. § 1. THe third part of Mr. M's Pamphlet consists of a confused mass of particulars without any order or connexion one would think it had been taken from the mouth of one who had spoken it ex tempore and had never been allowed the liberty to revise it There are at least five offers at a conclusion Saith he p. 9. to