to the Disciples of Simon Magus who taught as St. Irenoeus informs us that such as were perfect among them and had that Principle they called Sâ—lt and Light could not â—in Not but that they were guilty of the greatest villanies but they reckoned nothing in themselves sin because they walked in Light and Truth while the rest of the world were in Darkness as they pretended In opposition to these St. John shews us v. 8. that if we pretend thus to be without sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us but if we own and acknowledge our sins and heartily endeavour to avoid them then the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin according to Gods promise who gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish It is plain from vers 10. that such as refused to confess their sins according to St. John made God a lyar Now this is litterally true of those who deny that they are sinners as those Hereticks did but to deny the necessity of a particular enumeration of sins to a Priest doth no ways impeach Gods truth and therefore the Confession required by these words if we confess our sins is not Auricular This is farther manifest from the ancient Fathers of the Church not one of which understand these words of Confession to a Priest. St. Augustine has written a Comment on this Epistle and he thus explains this place If thou confess that thou art a sinner the truth is in thee Tell men what thou art tell God what thou art If thou tell not God what thou art God will damn what he finds in thee If thou wouldst not that he should damn condemn thou Occumenius refers this whole passage to the Jews If we who said his Blood be on us and on our Children should impudently say that we have not sinned we deceive our selves but if we acknowledge and confess this sin he will forgive us Which sufficiently shews that by confessing our sins here is meant the acknowledging our selves to be sinners in opposition to those who plead innocency And that this has no relation to a particular Confession of Sins to a Priest. Sect. 5. But 2. When God is said to be Faithful and Just it doth not particularly respect that Promise John 20. 23. Whose Sins you remit they are remitted which is sufficiently proved from this Argument that no ancient interpreter has thus applyed them but on the contrary have referred them to other Promises Thus St. Cyprian refers them to that Petition in the Lords Prayer Forgive us our Trespasses and interprets Confessing in St. John by this Petition in the Prayer to which he saith Forgiveness is promised St. John therefore saith that God who keeps his Promise is faithful to forgive Sins because he who hath taught us to pray for our sins hath promised that his Fatherly Mercy and Pardon shall follow The Roman Gloss saith God is faithful who promised Grace to the humble Oecumenius refers this to Isaiah 43. 26. Where according to the Septuagint Translation the words are tell thy sins first that thou mayest be justified Which is ushered in with that promise v. 25. I even I am he that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake and will not remember thy sins Lyra saith God is faithful to forgive us our Sins because he promised so Mat. 3. 2. Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand You see that the ancient Interpreters could find other Promises both in the Old and New Testament which obliged God to forgive Sins before Auricular Confession is pretended to be instituted and not one of them dreamed that St. John had relation to that promise beside which Mr M. affirms there is not another in the New Testament How will he reconcile this to his profession of Faith in which he promises never to interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers When there is not one Father to vouch his sence of this place and several against him § 6. But 3. Suppose that consequence followed from this place which he infers that God will not remit Sins under the new Testament without the Ministry of his Priests Yet it would not follow that Auricular Confession is necessary because under the old Law the Sins of the People were not pardoned without the Ministry of Gods Priests and yet it is confessed that Auricular Confession was not then instituted Besides if the Ministry of the Priest be necessary why should that be understood rather of their private than publick Ministry And lastly their Ministry may be necessary on other accounts than hearing Confessions and pronouncing Absolutions Thus Oecumenius makes the Forgiveness of Sins here promised to be that Remission which is obtained in Baptism Therefore saith he God doth certainly remit Sins to them that come to his holy Baptism St. Chrysostome who wrote his Books De Sacerdotio purposely to magnisie the Priests Office interprets the promise in St. John 20. 23. by the power of admitting to Baptism and the Lords Supper together with the Priests Intercession and Prayers for Sinners but he says not one word of their remitting by an Absolution or Judicial Sentence Who soever knows St. Chrisostom must own that if he had known or believed such a magnificent power in the Priests he wou'd never have omitted it in Books written designedly to magnifie their Office I conclude therefore that although the Ministry of the Priests under the Gospel is necessary to the pardon of the Peoples Sins Yet that Ministry may consist in the use of their Directions Prayers Intercession and Sacraments and I believe Mr. M. will hardly be able to shew any other way of Absolution used by the ancient Church Nay St Cyprian denies that Priests properly forgive Sins because all that they can do is to put men in a way to be forgiven Sect. 7. The second thing Mr. M. intends for an Argument in favour of Confession is what he alledges p. 7. that Confession is approved and frequented by all the Christian World except the People of our Islands and some few others that call themselves reformed and further p. 8. that it was never heard of in the Catholick Church that Christians may receive the communion of Christs Body and Blood without a previous confession and Absolution Which if true proves this Doctrine to be Catholick both as to time and place but the best of it is that we are not bound to take his word And that upon Examination this will be found false in both the parts of it For neither do all other Christians beside the Reformed frequent and approve Auricular Confession otherwise than our Church doth Nor is it any new thing in the Catholick Church for Men to come to the Communion without private Confession and Absolution by a Priest. The whole Greek Church denies Auricular Confession to be of divine Right pretending it only to be a
dispute between Protestant Churches yet inasmuch as they are not reckoned by all to be the Essentials of Faith they do not break Communion and indeed he understands very little that knows not there may be difference of understanding about matters relating to Sacraments and yet Unity of Communion As to his Objection against the Calvinists that they have no Order of Priests or Bishops I leave him to dispute it with them Whether consequently they have no true Sacraments which he infers I leave him to dispute it with his new Church which allows their Baptism we are concerned in neither § 9. There is only one thing more he objects on this Head against our Church and that is that she as established by Law is Catholick neither as to time nor place because not visible any where for many Ages before Edward the sixth This is the old Question Where was your Church before Luther And has been often answered by shewing that we made no new Church by the Reformation that we kept all the Essentials of Faith Worship received by our Ancestors had the same Creeds the same God Christ Baptism and Eucharist and lastly were governed by the same Bishops and other Governours before and after the Reformation and therefore it is a wild thought in Mr. M. to affirm that our Church was not visible before Edward the sixth It is true it was not established by Law in all points as it is now no more was the Church of Rome before the Reformation by the Council of Trent for that also pretended to Reform but the establishing by Law is accidental altogether to a Church and a Church may be visible long before it is so established This is all in his Preface that any way relates to the Catholick Church § 10. The second part relates to the Mission of our Bishops and is reduced to four Queries which shall have their full Consideration when I come to consider the first point that he lays down in his Book § 11. The rest is spent in comparing two Historians of the Reformation that is Doctor Heylin and Doctor Burnet of whom he gives this Character that Burnet strains all his wit to palliate the doings of the Reformers and paint them out to advantage Heylin represents them honestly for the most part and in their own colours Whereas in truth the first doth generally lay down naked matter of Fact only and leaves the Reader to judge and the other passes his own Censures and gives his own Gloss on them as may be seen by the very passages Mr. M. quotes out of Doctor Heylin's Preface The truth is he abuses both Historians Heylin by producing that for matter of Fact which is all his own Inferences and Conjectures and so exprest to be in the very words all that was done in order to a Reformation seemed to be accidental only then I cannot reckon his Death an infelicity it is not to be thought to the next clause nor was it like to happen to the next might easily have done to the next was in all probability to the last Are not these Conjectures strong Arguments to prove the Reformation unjustifiable But he abuses him yet more in the passage concerning the Duke of Sommerset by reporting that as Doctor Heylin's Opinion which he records only as the Opinion of others pag. 116. of his History where among three or four Conjectures why the Duke did not claim the benefit of his Clergy he sets down this last Finally whether it were some secret judgment on him from above as some men conceived that he who had destroyed so many Churches c. should want the benefit of Clergy in his greatest extremity where Mr. M. leaves out the Parenthesis as some Men conceived and falsifies him perhaps to make him recompence by adding another of his own he the Duke of Sommerset deprived many learned men of their means and livelyhood for being Papists adds Mr. M. a most notorious falshood since it appears from all Histories of the Reformation that there was an universal Complyance of the Clergy few making any Opposition and none almost absolutely refusing Conformity his Papists at that time loved their Means so well or found so little amiss in the Reformation that they readily complyed with all Changes And as he thus abuses and falsifies Heylin so he doth Burnet he saith that the worst Burnet can charge Heylin with is his not vouching Authority for what he says and he affirms that it is an untruth that Heylin writ upon uncertain grounds as Burnet would insinuate But Burnet in that place insinuates no such thing but only says he ought to have vouched them that people might have judged of their certainty Heylin's own Testimony for his fidelity is not to be taken in his own Cause and therefore Mr. M. vindicates him very ill when he produces nothing else for him He saith Doctor Burnet doth not produce one instance of any moment wherein he dares say Doctor Heylin is false I hope Mr. M. would not quote any passage out of Heylin that was not of moment what if that passage that relates to the Duke of Sommerset here quoted be recorded falsly by Heylin and taxt as false by Burnet then I believe every body will judge Mr. M. either very ignorant or very malicious and yet thus it is Says Mr. M. from Heylin The Duke of Sommerset was so defective in his Judgment as not to crave the benefit of his Clergy which might have saved his Life Now look into Burnet ad Ann. 1531. pag. 186. 2 vol. and see whether he have not these words Some late Writers have made an Inference upon his not claiming the benefit of Clergy that he was thus left of God not to plead that benefit since he had so much invaded the Rights and Revenues of the Church but in this they shewed their Ignorance for by the Statute That Felony of which he was found Guilty was not to be purged by Clergy The most likely excuse I can make for Mr. M. is that he neither read Burnet nor Heylin if he did he neither knew this and conceal'd it which makes him very disingenuous or did not observe it and so he falls under the Character of a thoughtless Reader that could neither by his own Observation nor the Admonition of Friends avoid picking out and repeating such an uncharitable falshood It were easie to shew several falshoods even in those things that are most invidious to the Reformation in Heylin's History observed and confuted by Burnet one more particularly in his saying that the Father of Queen Ann Boleyne was one of the Jury that condemned her with which as a falshood he taxes Heylin in his Addenda p. 363. first Volume where he says that Doctor Heylin took this as he did many other things too easily upon Sanders's credit which if true is enough to blast the credit of his Book with all Protestants nay with all Men of Judgment that know what an
as Roman but Christian Bishops their Orders are Christian Orders and those we hold sufficient to all intents and purposes of the Reformation and must do so till Mr. M. or some body else prove them insufficient He objects pag. 2. That the first Reformers were Ordained Roman Catholick Bishops and made themselves Protestants which proceeds on an ignorant supposition that every man is ordained to preach the Tenents of his Ordainers or else must have no Mission whereas the Ordainers are only Instruments but the Power is from Christ and they are no more accountable to their Ordainers upon the account of being Ordained by them then a man is accountable to a Lord Chancellor for the use of his Power because he set the Seal to his Patent by which he claims his Power In short a man is Ordained neither a Protestant nor a Papist but a Christian Bishop his Mission is a Christian Mission let him be sent by whom he will and whoever gave him his Mission if he teach any Doctrine but Christs he is accursed Hence when the Donatists were very earnest to know the Ordainers of St. Augustine and other Catholick Bishops they answer We are not satisfied how the cause of Truth is concerned who was the Ordainer of any one since God is shewn to be our Father And when they press still to know the Ordainers St. Augustine answers I see they insist on trifles 'T was on this Principle that Baptism and Ordination by Hereticks were allowed in the Catholick Church to such as came ever from those Hereticks even because they were Baptized Christian Proselytes and Ordained Christian Bishops and they were never thought to go beyond their Mission because they renounced the Errors of their Ordainers If it be replied that Hereticks making themselves of Hereticks Catholick Bishops change for the better but Papists making themselves Protestant Bishops change for the worse I answer this quits the Plea of Mission and brings the Mission to the trial of the Doctrine If then Cranmer and the rest of the Roman Catholick Bishops made themselves only truly Catholicks they made themselves nothing but what Christ had obliged them to in their Consecration He is the Father of Truth the Children of Truth are owned by him as honestly begotten and no By-blows as Mr. M. would insinuate p. 2. in which he has exactly transcribed not only the Argument of the Donatist Petilian against the Catholicks but his very words The true Question is therefore whether Cranmer and the first Reformers embraced and vindicated the Truth in their Changes and let him joyn issue on this Point when he pleases we are ready to answer him § 6. To his second Question Who authorized the first Reformers to Teach their Protestant Doctrine and Administer their Protestant Sacraments I Answer No body but himself would have asked such a foolish Question since the Protestants pretend to no Doctrine or Sacraments peculiar to themselves or that may be called Theirs but only to the Doctrine Sacraments of Christ received in the Catholick Church If the Protestants were guilty of any fault it was not making new Doctrines or Sacraments but rejecting those that some counted old and so their Crime was not the wanting Mission or Authority to do what they did but not using their Authority to its full extent to do and teach more If they had power given them to Administer seven Sacraments and administred only two as Mr. M. says then it is a foolish thing to doubt their Authority to Minister those two whereas they are rather accountable for their not Holding and Administring the other five but the truth is they received in their Ordination power from Christ to administer neither Protestant nor Popish but Christian Sacraments and Mr. M. neither has nor can make it appear that they Administer any other or omit any that Christ has commanded He is aware of this Answer in his fifth Page and gives a reply to it I pray saith he the Reader to remember that this was the very Answer of Luther Socinus Zuinglius Calvin and most other Reformers Let me pray the Reader to observe that this is nothing to the purpose if it were true since we are not to believe every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God. The false Prophets pretended to Revelation as well as the true was neither therefore to be believed the false Reformers as well as the true pretended to preach no new Doctrine or administer new Sacraments but only the Doctrine and Sacraments of Jesus Christ Are neither therefore in the right May not a good Answer be abused and misapplyed To clear therefore this matter we own what he contends for that both true Doctrine and external and lawful Mission are generally necessary to a regular preacher of the Gospel pag. 5. and if either of these are wanting the person is not to be received Which appears in the Prophets he mentions from Jer. 23. ibid. who wanted not an external Mission whatever Mr. M. imagines for the Prophets are the Pastors of the people against whom God pronounces a Woe verse 1. and 2. of that Chapter they are joyned with the Priests verse the 11. and 34. and their fault was not preaching without any Mission at all but preaching false Doctrine for which no man can have a Mission but even the Pope himself when he doth so is to be rejected as a Seducer If these very Prophets whom Mr. M. imagines to have had no Mission had taught true Doctrine God would have approved them verse 22. But if they had stood in my Councel and caused my people to hear my words then they should have turned them from their evil ways that is God would have given them success and when God says verse 32. I sent them not nor commanded them it doth not relate to preaching for God had commanded the Priests and Prophets to preach but it relates to the causing my people to err by their Lyes and Lightness which is a good Argument against those that seduce the people with Legends and Lyes and Revelations and false Miracles and Doctrines of Profit and Gain whatever their Mission be Now these two things being necessary to a true Teacher we affirm that the first Reformers in England had both not only the Licence and Approbation of the Church as he states it pag. 15. but her Ordination Appointment also according to the known rules of constituting Pastors which some other Reformers do not pretend to and therefore all the Question is concerning the other Character of a true Pastor preaching true Doctrine If the first Reformers had preached Popish Doctrine and administred Popish Sacraments I do not find but Mr. M. would have thought they had Mission enough but I Answer that was not Christs design in appointing Bishops but his design was that they should administer his Sacraments and teach his Doctrine This all Bishops are impowered and obliged to do and therefore till he
shew that God allows them these things it will be the safest way and no hurt for him or us to lot them alone § 6. His third Answer or pretence is no less insufficient where he alledges that the Angels must know our affairs because they are ministring Spirits sent forth for the good of those who shall be heirs of Salvation and because they rejoice at the Conversion of sinners and have glorified Saints no Communication or Intelligence with the Angels p. 13. To which I answer That these allegations neither justifie the Invocation nor the worship of Angels or Saints It is true the Angels are ministring Spirits but we neither know which of them are assigned to minister unto us nor when they are present These things depend altogether on the immediate Will of God and therefore it is to Him not Them we are to apply our selves if we would obtain their Care and Ministry for our good 'T is true likewise that the Saints and Angels rejoyce at our Conversion when that Conversion comes to their knowledge But that place in St. Luke 15. 7. I say unto you Joy shall be in Heaven over on◠sinner that repents more than over ninety nine just Persons doth no more prove that the Angels in Heaven know all the Conversions on Earth or that we ought to pray to them than my saying That there is more joy in Rome over one such Proselite as Mr. M. than over ninety nine born Roman Catholicks doth prove that I believe such Conversions are all known there and that therefore Mr. M. may go into his Closet and pray to the Cardinals because it is plain his Affairs are known at Rome Lastly 'T is true that the glorified Saints have Communication with the Angels and may receive intelligence of our Affairs from them and therefore I would advise Mr. M. to send his Service and Requests to them by the next Angel he meets going that way But because Angels pass and repass from Heaven to Earth to conclude that we may at all times and in all places with mind and voice pray to Saints is as foolish as to conclude because we have Posts pass from London to Dublin that therefore a Man here may beg the assistance of his Friends Prayers who are in London every time he goes to his knees This is the wise Vindication Mr. M. has made for his Church as to the Direction of some of her Prayers § 7. The second thing which Mr. M. undertakes to vindicate in his Church is her using a Tongue unknown to the People in all her publick Devotions and Services And it happens to him in this as it does in most other things if all that he says were granted him it would neither justifie his Church nor condemn the Reformation since not one of his Arguments so much as pretend to prove a known Tongue unlawful in the publick Service of God or an unknown Tongue expedient which will appear on the Examination He alledges therefore 1. That the Objection of its being said in the Latin Tongue allows every one to hear it that understands Latin. A great favour indeed Who can after this accuse the Roman Church of keeping Men ignorant of her Service It is plain from our very Objection that they may hear it if they but understand Latin and 't is their own fault if they do not understand it 'T is only spending seven or eight years to acquire the Latin Tongue and then they may undestand some part of her Service But pray what is this to the illiterate World who are past the age of learning Latin What is this to the Poor who are the bulk of the World and have the best and most peculiar Title to the Gospel and yet have neither capacity nor opportunity to learn Latin Mr. M. bids them be of good chear For unlearned Catholicks if the truth were known understand as much or more of the Mass than illiterate Protestants do of the Common Prayer If a Man were apt to give ill words the confidence and palpable falshood of this Assertion would certainly provoke him It were better surely to believe nothing but our Senses which he falsly imputes to some Protestants than to undertake to face down Sense and Experience in a matter in which the meanest most illiterate Protestant in the World will be a Demonstration against him We are content our People should believe all Mr. M. says according as they find this true But he objects farther What does the Protestant Multitude understand of the Predictions of Isaiah c. read in their Churches by appointment of the Common Prayer Suppose they understood not one word of them how doth it follow that unlearned Catholicks understand more of the Mass than illiterate Protestants do of the Common-Prayer Book This is a new Instance of Mr. M's old Infirmity in drawing Consequences We are now talking of Common Prayers in which the People ought to joyn and he talks of the Lessons which are no part of them There are commonly in every Congregation persons of better and of meaner capacity 't is fit both should be instructed Those Lessons out of Isaiah are for the better capacities and are read so as may make them most easie to them And what great matter if the weaker for whom they are not intended do not understand them since they are sufficiently provided for otherwise Their obscurity might be some reason against reading them at all but if they ought to be read as is ordered both by the Common-Prayer Book and Breviary I hope they will be better understood in English than Latin And yet after all there is not one Lesson ordered to be read by the Common-Prayer Book but the meanest of the Protestant Multitude understands more of it then a whole illiterate Popish Congregation understands of the Breviary or Mass and of this he may make an Experiment when he pleases His second Allegation in behalf of his Church is that she has set forth Expositions of the Mass in Print How many Evpositions of the Mass says he are extant in Print by Commandment of the Church So that no Man can be ignorant of it that desires to be informed To this I answer That if by an Exposition be meant a Translation of the Mass there is not one extant in Print by Commandment of their Church On the contrary the Congregation of the Index have Damned the very hours of the blessed Virgin for being in the Vulgar Tongue as may be seen at large in Saint Amours Journal Part. 3. Chap. 5. There is indeed a Translation stolen out of late in English but it is without any Authority which may be called a Commandment of their Church However if it were set out by her Authority what could it signifie to the greater part of the People who are neither able to procure nor read that Translation And if they could read it yet would no more be able by help of it to joyn with the Priest then