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
Licensed June the 1st 1687. AN ANSWER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS Which obliged PETER MANBY Late Dean of London-Derry in Ireland As he pretends to EMBRACE what he calls THE Catholick Religion By William King Chancellor of St. Patricks Dublin Isaiah 1. 2. I have nourished and brought up Children and they have rebelled against me LONDON Printed for R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. The Examination of his Preface Sect. 1. THE Introduction Sect. 2. Whether Mr. M. really desired the Information Sect. 3. Catholick Church defined S. 4. Answer to his first Question What Church meant by the Catholick S. 5. To his second Question Whether the Church of England S. 6. To his third Question With what other Church she Communicates S. 7. To his fourth Whether the variety of all Protestants be the Catholick Church S. 8. To his fifth Question Whether we and Lutherans are the same in all material points S. 9. Our Church visible before Edward VI. S. 11. His unfair dealing with Dr. Heylin and Dr. Burnet Chap. 2. About Mission Sect. 1. His Letter to his Grace the Lord Primate examined S. 2. The Questions concerning Mission reduced to five Heads S. 3. The validity of our Orders S. 5. Answer to his first Question What Priesthood had the first Reformers but what they received from Roman Catholick Bishops S. 6. To his second Who Authorized them to teach their Protestant Doctrine c S. 7. To his third Whether Cranmer did condemn the Church of Rome and by what Authority S. 8. To his fourth Whether a Presbyterian can preach against the Church of England by virtue of Orders received from her S. 9. To his fifth Whether an Act of Parliament in France c. be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy S. 10. Mr. M's Objections against the first Reformers considered S. 11. His Objections against Cranmer in particular Answered to the end Chap. 3. About Confession Sect. 1. Whether We in our Church differ about Confession S. 2. The Doctrine of our Church in this matter whence Confession appears not to be wanting S. 3. His Argument proposed out of St. John 1. 9. compared with John 20. 23. S. 4. The words if we Confess John 1. Ep. 1. 9. shewn not to refer to Auricular Confession S. 5. Gods faithfulness and Justice mentioned John 1. Ep. 1. 9. do not respect particularly the Promise John 20. 23. S. 6. If they did yet this wou'd not prove Auricular Confession S. 7. 8. His second Argument from the practice of all Ages and Churches considered and shewn to be false S. 9. His third Argument from the inconveniency that attends the want of Confession S. 11. His fourth Argument from the interest of the Priest. Chap. 4. About the place of the Catholick Church Sect. 1. Answer to his third Difficulty Where is the Catholick Church S. 2. Whether extant before Cranmer S. 3. Whether Cranmer believed himself a Member thereof S. 4 5. The Reformation justifiable without charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry S. 6 7 8. All Idolatry not inconsistent with the Being of a Church S. 9. The weakness of his Argument brought to prove it Chap. 5. An Answer to the heap of Particulars thrown together at the latter end of his Paper Sect. 1. 2. His endeavour to vindicate his Church in her Devotions S. 3. Whether all elevated and judicious S. 4. His first Answer taken from the Benedicite to Protestant Objections against Prayers in the Mass directed to Saints S. 5. The second from the Angels being Favourites S. 6. The third from their knowing our Affairs S. 7. His Excuses for the Mass being in an unknown Tongue S. 8. His Vindication of the Worship of Images from the Council of Trents forbidding Superstition S. 9. From Kneeling at the Sacrament S. 10. From Presbyterian Objections against our Practice S. 11. His Excuse for the ill Practices and Opinions of some Roman Catholicks S. 12. His recommendation of his Church from her Books of Devotion S. 13. From the Devotion of her People S. 14. From the Unity of her Members that Unity shewed not to be so great as pretended from the Schisms that have been in her about Ordinations S. 15. From the Disputes about Confirmation S. 16. About Confession S. 17. What he objects against the Church of England first from her stealing her Communion-Service S. 18. Secondly from her want of a due Foundation S. 19. For trusting Reason too far S. 20. And contradicting the visible Church S. 21. Thirdly Not yielding a due Submission S. 22. Due Submission shewn to be paid by her to the universal Church and taught to be due to particular Churches S. 23. Mr. M's Transcribing and Englishing Calvin examined together with his Inference S. 24. Mr. M's Submission to the Catholick and the particular Church whereof he was a Member examined AN ANSWER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS Which obliged Peter Manby Dean of Derry to embrace the Communion of the Romish Church CHAP. 1. To the Preface § 1. PEter Manby Dean of Derry has chosen this time for what reasons he knows best to declare himself of the Communion of the Church of Rome Whoever doth so in the present circumstances must run the hazard of being censured for having too great a value for the Favours and worldly Advantages that some late Converts have met with In order therefore to satisfie the World that he had some other Reasons besides this prospect I suppose he published this Pamphlet that I now answer Whoever reads it will find so little Method or Connexion between the parts of it that he must conclude the Writer was never acquainted with close thinking and that the loosness and immethodicalness of it is the greatest trouble lyes on the Answerer the truth is it sticks chiesly on Formalities and Preliminaries which no Advocate ever insisted much upon that was confident of the merits of his Cause and therefore to answer it can hardly be worth any ones labour I confess I should have thought so too if I had not found some of his own party boasting of it and I do now assure him that I do not Answer it out of any apprehension I have of its seducing any of ours and that it had been answered long ago if I had been possessed with any such Suspicion It consists of three parts and each of these do in effect contain the same things and except a man give a distinct Answer to each he may pretend that part is unanswered I shall therefore follow him in his own method and consider first his Preface to the Reader secondly the Pamphlet it self and thirdly his Latine Queries and beg the Readers Pardon if he find the Answers sometimes repeated when Mr. M. repeats the questions so often § 2. His Preface has huddled together some Questions and Dilemma's concerning the Catholick Church and raised some doubts concerning which he professes himself to be at a loss and so desires information
Thus pag. 1. When a Protestant rehearses this Article of his Creed I believe one Catholick Church I would fain understand what Church he means Again this makes Protestancy so wandring and uncertain a thing that I for my part cannot understand it Pag. 3. He shall find me pressing for an Answer to such Questions as these Pag 1. of the Pamphlet There are three points wherein I could never satisfie my self a little after I could never find any satisfactory Answer to this Question Pag. 2. pronouncing the Church of Rome Idolatrous I would fain know by what Authority A little after by whose Authority I cannot tell Pag. 3 there was no Answer to be had A little after I cannot find l. 9. I do not well understand l. 15. I could never understand Pag. 4. I would know Pag. 7. l. 13 I confess my dullness understands not Pag 8. line 16. I would fain know line 25. Which Answer I confess I do not understand pag. 11. line 15. I desire to be informed l. the last I cannot imagine Pag. 12. line 15. I cannot understand Now if he was so very ignorant as he makes himself and so desirous of information he ought to have consulted some of his Spiritual Guides on these heads and not trusted altogether to his own Judgement or else he ought in all reason to have printed these Questions before he resolv'd them unanswerable for how did he know but some body might have had more to say to them than he was aware of and have given him satisfaction If he had designed to be counted either a prudent or honest man this had been his method but I have enquired and cannot find that ever he proposed them seriously to one Divine or applyed himself to any in this weighty affair before he deserted our Communion and therefore though perhaps he may be ignorant enough yet I think it apparent that he only pretends want of understanding and desire of information or that he has very little care of his Soul or of what Communion he is § 3. To give his Questions proposed in his Preface a distinct Answer I shall first rank them in method Concerning therefore the Catholick Church he asks 1. What Church we mean 2. Whether the Church of England alone as established by Law or as in Communion with other Churches 3. With what other Church under Heaven doth the Church of England communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy 4. Whether the variety of Protestants be the Catholick Church since they want her Essential mark called Unity 5. Whether we and the Lutherans are of the same Church the Lutherans holding a Corporal Presence in the Sacrament and we denying it All these we have in the first page of his Preface and all proceed from the same root even ignorance of what is meant by the Catholick Church If Mr. M. had designed to deal ingenuously and like a Scholar that desired to clear things which ought to be the design of every honest writer he ought to have laid down a definition of the Catholick Church and then examined to whom it belonged and shewn the Church as established here by Law to be no part of it for till that be done all that is said is banter for we mean not the same thing by the Church I never saw any Romanist take this method and therefore I have always believed that they rather designed to gain Proselytes by confounding their Heads than by clear Reason and Information I will therefore tell him what I mean by the one Catholick Church in the Creed and if he do not like the description let him mend it The Catholick Church is the whole body of men professing the Religion of Christ and living under their lawful Spiritual Governours This body of Christians is one because it has according to St. Paul Ephes. 4. 5. one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and according to Saint Augustine many Churches are one Church because there is one Faith one Hope one Charity one Expectation and lastly one heavenly Country now if he had been as much concerned to understand this a right as he would have his Dear Reader he might easily have seen who it is that fancy to themselves a Church divided from all the rest of the world by breaking the bonds of Charity and coyning new Articles distinct from those of the Catholick Faith which we received from Christ and his Apostles and that the Answers to his Questions are very easie § 4. For to the First when he would know what Church we mean when we rehearse that Article of our Creed I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church the Answer is that we mean not any particular Church nor any party of Christians of any one denomination but all those that hold the Catholick Faith and live under their lawful Pastors while they have those marks I have laid down from the Scripture and St. Augustine they are still of one Communion though by the peevishness and mistake of their Governours they may be engaged in Quarrels as the Church of Rome was in St. Cyprians time with the Church of Africa about the allowing the Baptism of Hereticks and the Quarrel came to that height that when the Africans came to Rome not only the peace of the Church and Communion was denyed them but even the common kindness of Hospitality as we may see in Firmilians Epistle to Saint Cyprian Ep. 75. This being supposed it is no hard matter to find out the parts of this Catholick Church where-ever one comes it is only Examining whether any Church hold the Catholick Faith and whether they live under their lawful Governours and so far as they do so it is our duty to joyn with them as true parts thereof Whereas he who with the Donatists will unchurch three parts of four of the Christian World or fancy a Church divided from all others though as sound in Faith and as obedient to their Governours as possible is like for ever to be tossed too and fro upon the unstable waters of Schism and dwindles the Church into a Faction and this gives a full Answer § 5. To his second Question whether we mean by the Catholick Church the Church of England alone or the Church of England as in Communion with other Churches for by this it appears that the Churches of England and Ireland are no more the Catholick Church than the English Seas are the whole Ocean but they are a part thereof because they hold the Catholick Faith intirely and are governed by their lawful and Catholick Bishops who have not had for many years so much as a Rival appearing to contest their Title and Succession § 6. But then he urges in the third place with what other Church doth the Church of England Communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy To which I answer Unity of Liturgy is no part of Communion of Churches let him shew if he can that the Catholick Church ever had any such
Unity Unity in Faith Sacraments in worshipping God she has with all true Churches on the face of the Earth insomuch that there is not one Article in her Creeds nor one Petition in her Liturgy that even Mr. M. can condemn nor is there any Office wanting in which the Ancient Liturgies agreed and then let him shew why all Churches hold not Communion with her and who is guilty of the breach thereof If he say that we hold indeed the Catholick Faith but not intire let him make it appear but if he cannot prove that we deny any part of this Catholick Faith he acquits us from Heresie and owns our union in Faith with the Catholick Church To prove this defect was chiefly incumbent on him but he has not so much as attempted it He has indeed made an attempt against the lawfulness of our Governours that is to prove us Schismaticks but how unsuccessfully we shall see by and by § 7. In the mean time to his fourth Demand Whether by the one Catholick Church be understood the variety of all Protestants since they want her essential mark even Unity I answer that neither all Protestants are Catholick members of the Church nor are Protestants only those amongst Protestants that embrace the Catholick Faith and make no Separation from their lawful Governours and that live in unity of Faith and charity with their neighbour Churches are Catholick members and have that Unity which is essential to the Catholick Church but these are not to be confounded with Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists Fifth Monarchy-men Quakers c. since these have separated themselves from their lawful Governours as much as Mr. M. himself though their Crime be less than his as he is less guilty that makes a Rebellion than he who joyns with a Forreigner to enslave his native Countrey But he has an Excuse even for these that he has heard out of the mouths of some Protestants that God had his people amongst all sorts of Protestants and what if some charitable people say with Saint Augustine that they who defend their Opinion though false and perverse without pertinaciousness especially when they were not the Authors thereof through their own confidence and presum 〈…〉 received it from their seduced and erring Parents and seek industriously the truth and are ready to embrace it when they find it are not at all to be reckoned Hereticks is he sure that there are not some such amongst every sort of Protestants nay of Christians I am sure the passage he quotes out of the second Paper mentioned by him is no Confutation of this nor any thing to the purpose except he hath a mind to prove the Words true by his own example For what Reason has he given why he quitted the Church in which he was baptized educated and preferred whether above his Deserts let the World judge by this Paper but because the Discipline and Devotions of the Church of Rome suit his present Fancy better than what he left because he was not able to answer some few Questions that have no great difficulty in them his private Judgment or Interest told him he ought to change his Church And if he changed his Church on the confidence of a Judgment he acknowledges sufficiently weak why will he not allow the same liberty to others If he say that the Church he has chosen is a Church from whence there can be no appeal I answer he has only his own Judgment for believing so and when that Judgment alters he may be of any other Church and so he is fallen in spite of his endeavours into the same mistake he would avoid He brings in to what purpose he knows perhaps himself a Story of a passionate Presbyterian who said that he cared not what his Son was so he was not a Papist which may pass for a Reason to those that build their Faith on Stories and Legends and use to give the Character of their Enemies only from their peevish Sayings but is nothing to our Church He argues against Schism from 1 Cor. 1. 10. I beseech you brethren that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no Schisms among you as if the Church of which he pretended to be a Member did not abhor Schism as much as he and as if the first Schism from her Communion had not been by Papists about the 10th of Queen Elizabeth Now the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 6. 18. advises them to slee fornication and that as a thing contrary to our Union with God Mr. M. had best try his Logick and see if he can from the first place which forbids Schism prove that it makes a Man more cease to be a Member of the Church than Fornication doth which is forbidden in the second He produces out of Romans 15. 6. that ye glorifie God with one Mind and one Mouth to prove that we ought not only say the same things but the same words especially about Sacraments and Liturgy for by one Spirit we meaning all Christians are Baptized into one body therefore he exhorts them to take heed of such Teachers as have no mission or authority for what they say but only good words and fair speeches to deceive the hearts of the simple By the for and therefore in this sentence one would expect that one part should be a consequence of another but there is not the least affinity between them but you must excuse him for his talent never lay much as has been observed by his Friends in drawing consequences Those that by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple are not said to want Mission Rom. 16. 17. it is probable therefore they had it but St. Paul gives very different marks to know them by even teaching contrary to the Doctrine they had already received serving their own bellies not our Lord Jesus Nonconformity therefore to the Doctrine taught by the Apostles and too eager a concern for the riches and interest of the Clergy are the signs of a false Teacher though he have never so Authentick Mission according to St. Paul nay though he were an Angel from Heaven But if he had been of Mr. M's opinion the Romans must not have judged of their Pastours or attempted to discover Seducers by their Doctrine but only by calling for their Letters of Orders and Titles from the Apostles § 8. His fifth Question concerning the Catholick Church is whether we and the Lutherans are the same in all material points the Lutherans holding a corporal Presence in the Sacrament and we denying it to which I answer that a difference may be material and yet not essential to Faith so as to necessitate a division of Church Unity there is a very material difference between those in the Church of Rome that hold the deposing Power and those that deny it between those that hold the Pope infallible and those that deny it so in many other points as material as those in
shew that there is a difference between Christs Doctrine and Sacraments and those that Protestants Teach and Administer their Episcopal Orders are sufficient to warrant them § 7. And so I proceed to his third Sett of Questions Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission received from her Bishops To which I answer That if by condemning the Church of Rome be meant anathematizing her and cutting her off from the Body of Christ by a judicial Sentence as if we were her Superiors which condemning only is by authority We never thus condemned the Church of Rome Faults we believe to be in her that greatly need Reformation but that Work we leave to her lawful Governours our Church having declared in her Preface to her Liturgy that in these her doings she condemns no other Nation nor prescribes any thing but to her own People only Cranmer therefore and his Associates did not condemn the Church of Rome nor could he or his Fellows do it by pretence of a Mission received from her Bishops for they received no Mission from her Bishops but from the Bishops of England But then he proceeds to ask by whose Authority did they condemn the Church from whom they received their Mission To give the World an account of this matter it is to be observed that the supream Government of our Church has always been in a National Councel or Convocation of our Clergy and that not only We but every National Church hath the same power of altering all Rites and Ceremonies of abrogating and making all Ecclesiastical Constitutions and lastly of reforming all Abuses and Corruptions crept into the Church which the supream Civil Power hath of altering the Civil Constitutions the Fundamental Laws of Religion being preserved inviolable in the one and of the State in the other The Supream Ecclesiastical Power being lodged here the next thing requisite is a certain Rule and Method according to which Laws were to be past by it and in the proceedings about the Reformation all alterations being made by this Power and in this Method it follows that they were all made legally and that our Churches retrenching such Ceremonies out of the Service of God as were judged Useless Burdensome or Superstitious and such Opinions as were no part of the Christian Faith or corrupted it was no more to make a new Faith or Church then to to reform Abuses in the State by Act of Parliament is to make a new Kingdom Nor do they that thus make a Reformation any more condemn their Predecessors because they reform what was amiss in their time then Parliament Men condemn their Ancestors when they make a new Law. I do confess an honest Man cannot preach against the Liturgy Sacraments or Constitution of a Church by vertue of any Commission from it and that no Church ought to be presumed to Authorize her Priests or Bishops to go and preach the Gospel after their private Sence or Conscience in contradiction to her declared Doctrine and Worship and that the Church of England gives no such power at this day But I deny this to be the case of the first Reformers who did not act as private men in the Church when they Reformed but as representing her in her Convocation and by her Authority Although therefore the Church of England oblige private Men not to contradict her allowed Orders yet she doth not bind her self from making such Alteration in a Canonical way as she sees convenient or is convinced to be necessary If therefore Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer and his Associate made the Alterations without consulting her he went indeed beyond his Commission from her but if she assented to all he did and to this day approves the Reformation how did Cranmer condemn that Church from whence he had his Mission If the Alteration was good and those things that were removed were really Errors and Corruptions did Cranmer and his Associates any more than what they were obliged to do by the very Roman Pontifical in their Ordination It belongs saith the Pontifical to a Bishop to judge to interpret to consecrate ordain offer baptize and confirm Did they do any more This Answer he owns and ascribes to Burnet pag. 3. The Pastors and Bishops of the Church are ordained to instruct the people in the Faith of Iesus Christ according to the Scriptures and the Nature of their Office is a sacred Trust that obliges them to this and therefore if they find Errors and Corruptions in the Church they are obliged to remove them and undeceive the people Mr. M. would do well to answer on this Supposition Whether they are or are not obliged If they are then they have Mission enough to remove in a legal way all Corruptions even those of their Ordainers If they are not how do they answer the Engagement made in their Orders to teach the people according to the Scriptures But Mr. M. waves any Answer to this and in effect owns it only he denies or seems to deny the Supposition where he tells us Cranmer and one or two Bishops pretended Errors and Corruptions and drove on the Reformation against the major Vote of the English Bishops p. 3. that is he had Power Mission enough but abused it and so to know whether Cranmer exceeded his Commission or no we must know whether the Corruptions he reformed were real or pretended For if they were real there is no doubt but he was obliged to reform them none else being under a deeper Obligation than he So then Mr. M's Question is out of doors Who sent him and another substituted in the room thereof by himself and that is Whether there were Corruptions in the Discipline Worship and Faith of the Church at that time or whether He and the other Men of Abilities were manifestly intoxicated with mistakes of Holy Scripture with a Spirit of Perverseness and desire of Change pag. 4. And we are content to joyn issue with him on these head◠when he pleases But perhaps though Cranmer was obliged to reform what was amiss yet he ought to have done it in a regular way Whereas if we believe Mr. M be drove on a Reformation against the major vote of the English Bishops If by this he means establishing any thing without their consent 't is a most notorious falshood for in all he did he had the unanimous vote and consent of the major part of the Convocation the Universal submission of the Clergy and approbation of the People If they complyed against their Conscience then by this we may see how excellently the Mass and Confessing had instructed them in the Knowledge and Conscience of their Duty when they so readily complied with all Alterations Let him try if he can bring a Protestant Convocation to an unanimous repeal of these things by such motives But if the Clergy in a National Councel and the People in obedience to them or from their own
inclinations did comply in earnest what an idle Question is it to ask By what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Order When she concurred in all he did and approved nay made all the Alterations in her Liturgy Sacraments and Constitutions that were made The true Question therefore is Whether the Church of England had full power to Reform her self without the consent of the Pope For it is into his Supremacy all this Banter of Mission and indeed the whole Faith of the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholick is resolved If the Church of England was not subject to the Church of Rome she had sufficient power to Reform her self and the only thing for which she is accountable to God the World and her Subjects is the Goodnesâ— of the Reformation If that was a good work Cranmer did well in advising and she in decreeing it but if the Errors removed by the Reformation were not real but only pretended as Mr. M. would perswade us but will never be able to prove Cranmer indeed was answerable for giving her ill Councel but she her self is accountable for the removal of them for it was Her Act. 'T was by Her Authority and Mission though Mr. M. cannot tell it Page 2. that Anno 154â— the word Sacrament in the sence which the Church then gave of it was restrained to Baptism and the Lords Supper and sure the Church of England had Authority enough to explain her meaning by what words she thought fit Let him shew if he can that there were more Sacraments as she understands the word Sacrament ever owned in the Catholick Church than those two allowed by her Lastly to shew that it was not Cranmer's private Opinion influenced the Church 't is observable first that he had several private Opinions two whereof Mr. M. lays to his charge in his Preface which were absolutely condemned by the Church and the contrary established as her Doctrine which he himself signed 2ly That the Bishops and Clergy of England had unanimously entred upon the Business of the Reformation in the time of Cranmer's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Warham Anno 1531. by the Submission of the Clergy to the King and acknowledging his Supremacy and again Anno 1533 by consenting to an Act against Appeals to Rome wherein the Nation was declared to be an entire Body within it self with full Power to do Justice in all Causes Spiritual as well as Temporal And this before Cranmer was Arch-Bishop so far was he from condemning or imposing on the Church from whence he had his Mission § 8. The fourth set of Questions concerning Mission is on this head whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by vertue of sâ—ch Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church or Preach against her Sacraments or Liturgy notwithstanding her Censures His design in this Question is to shew that the first Reformers had no more Authority to Preach against the Romish Church then such a Presbyter has to Preach against our Church I cannot understand how a man can forsake the Church of England and Preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Mission nor consequently how any Man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by vertue of his Popish Mission pag. 2. Why may not a Presbyterian having the same Authority of Scripture which Cranmer pretended to Preach against the Superstition of the Common Prayer as well as he against the Idolatry of the Mass pag. 6. and more to the same purpose pag. 12. In Answer to this I will shew first why a Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof he is a Member in contradiction to her Censures And secondly that this was not the first Reformers Case 1. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church of which they are Members Because there is a Regular way in which they may endeavour a Reformation If they find any thing amiss in her Discipline or Doctrine they may make their Application for redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being Subjects to usuâ—p their Governors Power For this is the case of private mens reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King a remedy generally worse than the disease However in both Cases private men may sue for Redress and in their proper Stations endeavour it But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be Censured and Suspended he is thereby discharged from the Execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it then one must make a Rebellion in the State to re-gain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects amongst us that either have no Ordination or Appointment to their Offices from the Church of England and Ireland or else abuse the Power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against M. M. and his Party who without any Mission from these Churches do according to their private sence take a Commission from a Foreign Bishop and Church to Preach against the declared Doctrine of that Church to which by the Law of Christ they are Subjects Them we count those Rebels who when censured and condemned by their own Churches and Governors against all the known Laws of our Church flee from her Tribunal and appeal to Foreigners And what Rebels or Hereticks will ever be convicted p. 4. if they may chuse their own Judges as those do We do not deny the Orders of the Church of Rome we own that she can make Priests Bishops but let Mr. M. shew that the Pope could ever give them Power to exercise their Office in these Kingdoms since it is directly against the ancient Laws and Practice observed and enacted by our Ancestors and in force at the Reformation If a man like not the Orders therefore of his own Church he must be without Orders except he would be a Schismatick and Deserter as Mr. M. has made himself And this is sufficient to shew that the Case of the first Reformers was vastly different from the Case of the present Dissenters which is the second thing I am to prove The whole strength of Mr. M's Paper doth really depend on this Parallel and whoever reads it will find that the only considerable Argument he produce is that the first Reformers Mission could not be good because the Presbyterians have as much to say for Theirs And that he can find no difference between these two only that the first Reformers were Authorized by Act of Parliament I have heard it given as the Character of wit that it finds out the likeness of things whereas it is the work of Judgment to find out the differences Now Mr. M. having whatever his Judgment may be a great
wit no wonder if he could find no other difference between those two Cases His Wâ—t could serve him to find the likeness between the Presbyterians Case and Ours but his Judgment doth not serve him to find the Difference Now if he had been very inquisitive he might have been informed in this by one of the late London Cases printed for Thomas Bassett London 1683. and written purposely to shew this Difference and 't is a wonder that Mr. M. whose study lay much in Pamphlets mist it If he saw it he ought to have shown those Differences there assigned to be none before he parallell'd the Cases But to help his understanding I will shew three material Differences besides that of an Act of Parliament and besides the truth of the Doctrine which was really on the Reformers side and is only pretended to by Dissenters 1. In the condition of the Persons that pretended to Reform 2ly In the manner of their proceeding And 3ly In the Principles they took for their Rule First Therefore there is a great difference in the condition of the first Reformers and the present Dissenters these being only private persons at the best Presbyters over-voted by the major part of their Brethren Whereas the first Reformers were Bishops and the chief Governors of the Church who had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and to which of right it did belong to Govern and Reform the Church over whom they were made Overseers by the Holy Ghost Furthermore the present Dissenters were the Bishops Subjects accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharged from their Office and the Benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure and so their Separation from their Bishops is a Schism that is an Ecclesiastical Rebellion But the first Reformers were accountable to no Superior but Jesus Christ they were his immediate Vicars not the Pope's and therefore could not be guilty of any Rebellion against him 2. And as they were thus different in their Condition so they were likewise in the manner of their Proceedings for the first Reformers did strictly forbid private persons doing any thing of their own Head as may be seen by the Proclamation set out Feb. 6. Ed. 6. Anno 2. and accordingly they managed the whole matter by publick Authority in a Regular way according to the ancient Forms of passing Laws and making Alterations in the Church Whereas both Presbyterians and Papists that is all Dissenters proceed on their own Heads in sâ—ight of their Lawful Governors Let a Presbyterian take the same way to remove the pretended Superstition of the Common-Prayer-Book that the first Reformers took to remove the Idolatry of the Mass or let the Papists take the same way to Establish the Mass that our first Reformers took to Abolish it and do it if they can But if they will make use of another way never allowed in the Church and yet pretend to the same Power that the Bishops of England had he must be blind that doth not see the vanity of their Pretences Mr. M. observes well That the not considering this Matter hath brought a world of Confusion on these Kingdoms and till the People understand it we are never like to see an end of Religious distractions pag. 6. for while men without ordinary Mission from the Governors of a Church or without extraordinary Mission testified by Miracle shall be received by the people upon pretence they are sent by a Foreign Church or that the People themselves can declare them Commissionated by Christ which are the pretences of Papists and Dissenters what more peace can be hoped for in the Church than in a State where such things were allowed to be practised Why may not the Presbyterians resist their Lawful Governors as well as the Papists deny their Power and question their Succession though they have none to oppose to it The third Difference between the Dissenters Case in respect of Us and our Case in respect of Papists is in the Principles on which our first Reformers proceeded They did not pretend as he slanders them in his Preface to justifie their Separation for they never made any by the Scriptures only as interpreted by themselves not only without but against the Authority of the present Catholick Church For on the contrary except he mean by the Catholick Church the particular Church of Rome and her Adherents the Catholick Church was for the Reformers as they conceived and the greater part of visible Christians concurred with them in their sence of Scripture as to the most material controversies between our Church and Rome But the true Principles of the Reformation were such as these That the Catholick Faith ought to be always the same in all Ages and could not receive Additions or grow by time that nothing should be an Article of Faith to day that was not yesterday and therefore nothing was to be reckoned as Catholick Faith but what was received semper ubique ab omnibus according to Vincentius's Rule and that nothing was thus Catholik but what might be proved by Scripture taken in that sence which hath not been contradicted by Catholick Fathers These were the Principles of the Reformers Faith. And in other things belonging to the Government and Polity of the Church to Rites Ceremonies and Liturgies 'T was their principle that every National Church was at her own choice how she would order them and her Subjects ow'd her Obedience These are truly Catholick Principles founded on a Rock the word of God interpreted by Catholick Tradition and not on the present sentiments of any party of Men and are a sufficient hedge against Heresie and Schism sufficient to secure the good correspondence of neighbouring and the peace of particular Churches Let any one compare this Basis with that of the Roman Faith and let him judge which is most solid whether that which is founded on the Scriptures as interpreted by all Ages of the Church or that which has only the Voice of a part of the Visible Church and the greater part against it These are the two Bases of the Reformation and Popery To this Justification no Sectary can pretend and though Luther and Calvin c. had really this Warrant to reject the super-added Articles of the Church of Rome yet they differed in this at least some of them that they did not think it necessary to wait the concurrence of their Governors but concluded the major part of the Peoples joyning with them was sufficient without regular Forms and Process and whether that may be allowed in any case I leave Mr. M. and them to dispute for we are not concerned in it and they are of full Age to answer for themselves and he will find they can do it Only he is not to be pardoned when he brings in Socinus answering amongst other Reformers that he â—reached no new Doctrine nor administred any new Sacrament but only the Primitive Doctrine c. according to the
worse than Divisions in Faith. And thus I have answered all his Questions and considered all the Replies he made to these Answers he himself was pleased to observe which were the two first things I undertook on this Head. § 10. I shall in the third place consider the objections he makes against the Reformers as to their Lives and Principles If I had a mind to shuffle as he does I would answer with him page 13. As for the ill practice of some and the ill Opinions of other Reformers which Papists are wont to charge upon the Reformation I pass them over as no Argument at all In our Articles and Canons an unprejudiced Reader shall find nothing but what is judicious and pious But his slanders are so malicious that they ought not to be pass'd over without Animadversion First therefore against Somerset and Dudley whom he calls grand Reformers he objects Sacrilege and Plundering the Church But as for Dudley we are not obliged to defend him he was a false Brother being as he professed at his death always a Papist in his heart and no wonder such Villains should pervert the most innocent design to their own advantage since there was a Judas even among the Apostles who minded only the Bag. Somerset was not clear from the same vice But it is to be considered that the Pope had taught them all this Lesson by his example and wicked management of the Goods of the Church 'T was he first gave the proper Patrimony of the Church even Tithes to Lay-men to useless and idle Monks and Fryars it was he that by making a Trade of Simony and Sacrilege took off men's Veneration for Holy things and made Noble-Men believe that Estates were as well bestow'd in their hands as to enrich a Foreigner Whoever reads our Chronicles will find this to be the true Ground of the Dilapidation of the Goods of the Church and that this took off the Conscience of Robbing her As for Cranmer and the Bishops they did what they could to hinder it but were forced to buy God's truth and the estalishment thereof at the rate of some of their wordly Goods a bargain Mr. M. would never have made nor any one that values the Church only for her outward splendour But the Reformers hearts were not so full of the World and yet they never established one Article or Canon that allows Sacriledge § 12. But he proceeds and objects against Cranmer 1. his Opinions 2. his Recantation 3. his Treason 4. his Divorcing Queen Katherine 5. his Destroying Religious Houses and hanging up poor Abbots 6. Setting the People a madding after New Lights and 7. All the Confusion and Mischiefs that have since broke out upon the Stage of Great Britain 1. Cranmer's Opinions In his Preface Mr. M. Objects to him that he said by the Scriptures no Consecration is necessary to a Priest or Bishop only Appointment and then that the power of Excommunication depended only on the Laws of the Land but he doth not observe that Cranmer did only humbly propose these and did not define them as may be seen expresly in his Subscription nay upon better information retracted them as appears by his signing Dr. Leighton's Opinion to the contrary I confess it looks like a Providence that Cranmer should embrace some of these Opinions For by this it plainly appears that he did not influence the Reformation so much as to make his private Opinions pass for the Doctrine of the Church as some have with confidence enough pretended and Mr. M. amongst the rest who doth dissemble or considering his reading doth probably not know the original of these mistakes in Cranmer and some others at that time concerning the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiastical Power which was this The Pope had made a confusion of the Civil and Spiritual Power by assuming to himself the erecting Kingdoms transferring Rights Dispensing with Oaths and Deposing Princes of all which there were fresh instances at that time particularly the Deposing Henry VIII and Absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance by Paul III. This having confounded the two Powers no wonder that men could not on a sudden clear their eyes so as exactly to see the limits or if Cranmer being well assured of the Pope's usurpation did on the other hand at first give too much to the Prince which yet on second thoughts finding himself singular in it he recalled and joyned with the rest in subscribing the publick Doctrine directly contrary to his former private Opinion Burnet's first Volumn Addenda pag. 327. Whereas the Pope the Head of Mr. M's Church was in as great an Error as Cranmer and for which there was less ground and yet neither He nor His Successors have retracted it to this day Let the World judge of the Discretion of this Man who forsakes a Church because one of the Reformers had an odd Opinion which he Retracted and established the contrary in the Church and yet joyns with a Church whose Head at the same time professed and imposed as great an Error and which stands yet unrecanted § 13. The second Objection against Cranmer is his Recantation for fear of Death but let the World consider whether he or they that put him to that fear for his Religion were most guilty and let Mr. M. say whether he be so sure of his constancy in his new Religion that he would be contented to be counted a Villain if fear of Death should make him dissert it and then why should not he allow something to humane frailty § 14. But he Objects in the third place that Cranmer subscribed a Letter for the Exclusion of his Lawful Princess But whoever reads the History will find that he was brought with greater difficulty then any to subscribe to her Exclusion and not till after the King the whole Privy-Council and Judges had Signed it this then was a point of Law in which he was not singular Mr. M. takes the liberty to question Queen Elizabeth's Title and sure it was no greater fault in Cranmer to question Queen Mary's after the Opinion of the Judges given against her There is great difference between Rebellion against a King of undoubted Title and being engaged on a side where the Title is really doubtful The first is a great wickedness and the last a great infelicity § 16. His fourth Objection is the Divorcing Queen Katherine but it was not only Cranmer's Opinion but the Opinion of most learned Men in Europe that her Marriage to the King was null How Vertuous or Innocent soever Mr. M. reckons her Cranmer was in the right when he and all the Bishops of England so judged it The scruple was first raised in the King by the Ambassadors of Spain and further confirmed by those of France before any intrigue with Anne Boleyn § 16. His fifth Objection is dissolving Religious Houses and Hanging up the Abbots As to his dissolving Religious Houses if his Councel had been taken it had turned
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
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
than the Protestants and therefore no wonder if they be more diligent in it 2. If the appearance of Devotion at publick Service be an Argument of the goodness of the Service the Turks who out do the generality of Christians in frequency seeming Devotion and Reverence at their Prayers as we are informed by Travellers must be concluded to have the best Service and he would do ill on Mr M.'s Principles that would Reform the Alcoran into the Mass. 3. The matter of Fact is not true as I am informed by those that have seen their Communicants and ours Protestants have according to Mr M.'s desire compared the Devotions of the Church of Rome with those of the Church of England in a Discourse designed for that very purpose and Printed London 1685 In which it is shewn That whatever the Romanists pretend there is not so true Devotion among them nor such rational provision for it nor encouragement to it as in the Church established by Law among us 4. It is not material what their Devotions appear to be if their Lives are not better than ours which I am sure they are not Open Prophaneness is hardly more provoking to God than shew of Devotion without proportional Sanctity of Life as we learn from the Case of the Jews of old in Isa. 1. Jer. 7. and in many other places of Scripture § 14. The third thing whereby he endeavours to recommend his Church is the Unity of her Members In the Church of Rome he shall find variety of Religious Orders but no Schism nor Discord about their Sacraments or Liturgy In the Garment of the Church there is Variety but no Rent No confusion of Sects nor Disobedience to Superios p. 14. If this be true she is the happiest Church that ever was in the World much happier than the Church of the Apostles time for there were Schisms and Discords about Sacraments and Liturgy in her Witness the Apostle 1 Corin. 1. 11. also 11. 18. Nay there was Disobedience too Gal. 3. 1. 3 Joh. 9. It is therefore strange we should be able to find none in the Church of Rome May we not rather conclude that Mr M. has either partially or negligently sought for these Schisms and Discords Since really there has hardly been greater Schisms and Discords in any Church than in her thô he affirms we shall find none Bellarmine loved the Church of Rome as well as Mr M. and he owns twenty six Schisms in her Onuphrius Panvinius who uses not to speak ill of the Roman Church reckons thirty one he calls the worst and longest which continued fifty Years others were of twenty or fifteen or ten c. These Authors onely reckon those Schisms where the People were divided between two Popes But it were easie to shew that besides these there were in that Church great and enormous Schisms which had no Popes to head them And as for Discords about Sacraments I suppose Mr M. reckons Ordination a Sacrament And concerning it there have been many Discords many Popes have damned their Predecessors and annulled their Ordinations So Stephen VII nulled the Ordinations of Formosus his Predecessor John IX did as much for Stephen and Sergius III. for him Platina tells us That after the time of Stephen VI. or as others reckon the VII it became a Custom for the succeeding Popes to infringe or quite destroy the Acts of their Predecessors Spondanus tells us These are the unhappy times wherein every intruding Pope annulled the Acts of his Predecessors And further that the power of Whores was so great in Rome that they removed true and lawful Popes and thrust in violent and wicked men Who considering this would not think God had forgotten his Church Behold the Mission of the Roman Bishops and their Unity And if notwithstanding these Schisms and Intrusions which continued for many years the Church of Rome continued a true Church and her Ordinations valid let the Reader judge what there is so Horrid or Irregular in our Reformation that should void our Orders or make us cease to be a Church § 15. I suppose Mr. M. counts Confirmation another Sacrament and there have been no less discords about it of late in the Roman Church The Regulars of England on one side and the Bishops of France with the Sorborn on the other And those of each party charge the other with Heresie not without the disturbance of the publick Peace and a rent of brotherly Charity So the Congregation of the Index tells us which Congregation made a Decree to suppress the Writings of both Parties May 19. 1633. And here we do not find that Obedience to Superiors in this matter of which Mr. M. boasts for immediately there came out at Paris a Disquisition against the Decree the Jesuits Reply and the Bishops of France renew their Condemnation and Censure Nov. 29. 1643. and I do not find that they are yet agreed Mr. M affirms we shall find no Rent no Confusion of Sects no Disobedience to Superiors in the Church of Rome But whosoever will read the Decrees and passages about this matter in St. Amours's Collection at the end of his Journal p 26. or in Petrus Aurelius's Vindiciae Censurae will find a great rent of brotherly Charity much Confusion and great Disobedience in the disagreeing Parties and these about no less things than the Sacrament of Confirmation the Hierarchy of the Church and Supremacy of St. Peter § 16. Confession is no less a Sacrament with Mr. M. and the Disputes in his Church have of late been as high about it as about the former one Party charging the other with no less than Heresie as may be seen at large in the Bishops of France's Letter to Innocent the X. at the end of Mr. Arnauld's Book of Frequent Communion If their publick Acts are to be believed there are Rents Scissurae fraternae Charitatis in their Church But if we believe Mr. M. there is no Rent Scissura non est I shall say nothing of the Dispute concerning the Regale in France at this day I need not put him in mind of what Obedincee has been paid to the Pope or to his Excommunications of the Arch-bishop of Tholouse and Regalists He may see the whole in a Book intitled Regale Sacerdotum 1684. I do not see but the King and Church of France make themselves Judge Witness and Accuser in this Affair with the Pope as much as Henry VIII and the English Church did § 17. This is all that Mr. M. seems to say either to vindicate or recommend his Church Let us see next what he objects against ours And in all this last part I can find only three things of this nature One is P. 10. That the Church of England is beholding to the Mass for the best Flowers in her Communion Service The second is that the Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every man's Reason And the third is That we do not pay
Examine what Submission Mr M. has paid her When we talk of Submission to the Church by the Church may be meant either the Universal Church or the Particular Church wherein we were Born Baptized and Educated and to both these we profess and pay due Submission Witness of the Doctrine of Christ and we receive her Testimony The onely Question with us is What Doctrine Christ and his Apostles Taught And this we believe contained in the Scriptures Concerning the Sence of any Word in them we receive likewise the Testimony of the Catholick Church Every Doctor approved by her is a Witness and every Council received by her is as the Deposition of Witnesses By this means we know her Sence in former Ages as well as in this Age and are able to compare them together Where these agree we have no reason to doubt her Veracity but where one Age of her says one thing and another Age says another thing we count our selves under no obligation to believe either of their Testimonies to be a necessary part of the Doctrine of Christ. 'T is therefore the Church of all Ages and places that we reckon the Ground and Pillar of Truth Whereas Mr M. conâ—ines us to the Visible Church and pretends we are to take the Sence of all former Ages from the present But pray why may not I as well understand the Sence of the Church of the fourth Age from the Council of Nice as I can understand the Sence of the last Age from the Council of Trent It was therefore by this Rule and with Submission to his Church that our Reformers proceeded in their Reformation and except Mr M. can shew which he has not so much as endeavoured to do that they deviated from this Rule he has done nothing to prove that they had not a due Deference and Submission to the Catholick Church And as she thus submitted to the Sence of the Universal Church so she requires all her Subjects to submit to her to receive the Faith to which she with the Catholick Church bears Testimony to own her Laws of Discipline submit to her Censures and conform to her Constitutions But she pretends to no Dominion over mens Faith or to oblige them to believe any thing because she has decreed it Her Authority is to propose as a Witness not to define as a Judge If any one dissent from her he must not make a Schism or turn Preacher in contradiction to her Authority If any one be otherwise minded he must follow the Apostle's Rule Phil. 3. 15. he must conform as far as he can and yield a Passive Obedience to her Censures where he cannot give an Active to her Commands While he walks by this Rule he can neither be a Schismatick nor Heretick and may expect if he use due means that God will either reveal to him what he wants or pardon his Errour if he mistake § 23. This Submission is coherent even with Calvin's Principles And though I am not concerned for any private Divine yet since Mr M. has troubled us with so few Quotations I will pay him so much Respect as to take notice of this and the Reader may from it learn how faithfully he Transcribes and Englisheth his Quotations The Quotation as in Calvin As Transcribed by Mr M. Non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero nisi pariat nisi nos aâ—at suis uberibus Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio nec ulla salus Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Extra Ecclesiae gremium nulla speranda Salus nec Remissio peccatorum quia non est alius in vitam ingressus Thus in English literally Thus render'd into English by Him. There is no other Passage into Life except the Visible Church conceive us in her Womb bring us forth and nourish us with her Breasts Add to this That out of her Bosom there is no Remission of Sins to be expected nor any Salvation He that will enter into Life let him mortifie the Pride of his own Reason and humbly cast himself at the Feet of the Catholick Church Both Calvin and we own that Pride and all other Passions ought to be Mortified And except Mr M. can shew that we have used our Reason proudly that is not yielded out of some design Passion or Prejudice when our Reason was convinced we have just reason to reckon all his Accusations effects of his own Passion and Petulancy against his Mother Church He confesses that many of us are Catholâ—ks by Inclination I hope we are really so but the Tyranny of Prejudice or Interest keeps us Protestants But for Prejudice lâ—t the World judge whether our People are more liable to Prejudice who are allowed to Read and Examine and Judge for themselves or the Members of his Church that are taught to submit without Examination As for Intérest I think it is the Interest of every man to continue Protestant if he value his Soul but for Worldly Interest the Scales are hardly equal I find not one of their Converts who has lost by it yet But whatever our Interest is our Loyalty is unquestionable if he know divers Loyal Persons of the Church of England I know none else § 24. Let us now take a view of his Submission to the Church 1. For the Catholick Church he has taken the liberty to cut off from her what Members he thought fit and has reduced her to a fourth part of Christians He has obtruded Articles of Faith on her to which she never gave Testimony and has subjected her to a Head at Rome to whom God never subjected her that is He has created a Catholick Church out of his own head and rejected that of Christ's Planting 2. As for the Particular Church which made him a Member of Christ by Baptism this his spiritual Mother he has pronounced a Harlot and her Children By-blows He has condemned her Sacraments degraded her Bishops to whom he sware Obedience renounced her Orders and given her the Title of an unsanctified Nation In short as far as lay in his Power he has exposed the Nackedness of his Mother Behold the Petulancy and Contradiction of an undutiful Son. But thanks be to God notwithstanding his feeble Attempts Her Bow abides in strength and the Arms of her Hands are made strong by the Hands of the Mighty God of Jacob Gen. 49. 24. CHAP. VI. ALthough Mr. M. hath nothing new in his Latine Addition but only repeats what he said first in his Preface and then in his Book yet I did not think it fit to let what he has said in this Language be without some Animadversions in the same Ad dubia quae proponuntur super Reformatione Anglicana sic respondetur Ad 1. An Ecclesia Anglicana sit tota Ecclesia Resp. Quà m absurdum sit ut una particularis Ecclesia â—e esse totam Catholicam Christi Ecclesiam extra quam non est salus