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
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
infamous Lyar and Rebel Sanders was Whereas therefore he intreats the Protestant Reader to peruse Doctor Heylin's History of the Reformation we are content he should do so and let him at the same time peruse the History of the Council of Trent written by Father Paul and let him impartially judge which was carried on by the worst Men and worst Arts the Reformation or the Council What Mr. M. objects further in his Preface against Cranmer and the other Reformers shall be considered in its proper place CHAP. II. I Come now to examin the Pamphlet it self which consists of Three parts 1. A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland 2. Of Three points wherein he could not satisfie himself And 3dly A confused heap of particulars at the latter end As to the Letter it is a little ambiguous to whom it is directed if to his old Patron as a civil Compliment at taking leave he had done well to have told the true Reason why he forsook him Your Grace would not get me a Bishoprick though often prest and sollicited by me therefore I beg your leave to seek a new Patron whose Mediation may be more effectual But perhaps Mr. M. means another man and then we may reckon this as the first Fruits of his Conversion Are you taught already the Art of Equivocation We shall learn from this what sincerity we may expect from you and shall hardly believe you when you tell us that it was not any consideration of Temporal Interest inclined you to be reconciled If you valued Temporal Interest so little why were you so earnest for a Protestant Bishoprick Why did you repine and murmur so much that you were not preferred Why did you declare to several about a year ago that you was no Roman Catholick but yet would not appear against the Church of Rome because you hoped to rise by help of Roman Catholicks Why did you endeavour to ingratiate your self by mean Arts and condescend even to the Office of an Informer Why did you defer publishing this Paper such as it is which was ready sometime before till you thought you might be sure of keeping the Profits of your Deanery Either you are a Lay or Clergy-man If a Lay-man are not you abominably Sacrilegious to have possessed and still retain the Revenue of a Clergy-man Why do you retain the Title of Dean in the Frontispiece of a Book which is designed to prove you to be no Priest and consequently incapable of it If your Orders had yielded you as much per annum as your Deanery doth Have we not reason to believe you would no more have renounced the one than the other For shame resign our Church her own since you have deserted her or never talk of Conscience Till this be done it is in vain for you to pretend that your having reflected on the uncertainty and variety if the Protestant Spirit or perused Catholick Books have undeceived you Did you never reflect on the uncertainty or variety of the Protestant Spirit before that it should have such a mighty influence on you just at this time sure there was greater variety when you was first educated in the Colledge and when you first entred into Orders than now They talk'd much of the Spirit then and you yet retain their language if instead of that Cant you had well studied and considered the Principles of the Church which you have left you would have found that there neither are nor can be any more certain and steady Principles of any Religion than hers are You make your self a great Novice that at this time a day pretend to be converted by perusing the Mass. In good earnest did you never read it before if you did how comes it to have such influence on you in King James the Second's time and so little in King Charles the Second's All you pretend for your self is that you were then under Prejudice and deceived by false Reports concerning that you call the Catholick Religion that is The Reverend Dean after near 30 years study had his Religion by hear-says wanted Honesty to be impartial and either Industry or Means to inform himself concerning the most material Controversies that are on foot in the Church Which Controversies are still the same and the Arguments pro and con of the same force they were before in every thing except the alteration of one circumstance that is worldly Advantage Is not this a most excellent Account of your Conversion And whereas you tell His Grace that all that have known you these several years can witness for you that it was not any consideration of worldly Interest that inclined you you are obliged to beg His Graces pardon for your false Information for I can assure you I have consulted many that have known you and have not met one that can witness this for you But on the contrary the most conclude that it was the little grain of Worldly Advantage turn'd the Scale for your new Church This is therefore the true Account you ought to have given His Grace of your Reconcilement § 2. The second part of Mr. M's Paper consists of three points wherein he professes that he could never satisfie himself since he began to study the Controversies between the two Churches The first was The Mission or Authority of the first Reformers The second The Want of Confession in the Church of England And the third Where is that one holy Catholick Church we do profess to believe in the two Creeds To the first of these points I shall reply in this method 1. I will put together all the Questions that he asks on this Head. 2. Consider the Answers he produces to them And 3. The Objections he has raised against the Reformation or Reformers 1. Concerning our Mission he asks in his Preface pag. 3. What Priesthood or Holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops What Priesthood or Holy Orders have Protestants but what they confess to have received from Roman Catholick Bishops Pag. 12. of the Pamphlet 2. Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sacraments Pag. 1. of his Pamphlet I am not now disputing what Doctrine he preached but who sent him to preach his Protestant Doctrine and administer his Protestant Sacraments 'T is not his Doctrine but Mission I am now enquiring after Pag. 3. 3. Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bishops Pag. 3. of his Preface I understand not how any man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by authority of the Popish Mission Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet I must still ask the old Question By whose Authority did he condemn that Church from whom he received his Mission Pag. 3. of his Pamphlet The Archbishop of Canterbury c. at the time of their Consecration were professed Roman Catholicks But
Keys obtain Remission and Forgiveness for all his Villanies Saith the Church of England Repent you truly for your sins past have a lively Faith in Christ our Saviour amend your Lives and be in perfect Charity with all Men so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy Mysteries The Church of Rome sees the difference of these two and pretends that Confession was appointed by the Mercy of God to make Pardon the more easie For Let us grant it faith she that Sins could be blotted out by Contrition Yet in as much as few could come to this degree it must happen that very few could expect Pardon of Sins this way The true Intention of Confession and of all other parts of Christian Discipline is Amendment of the Peoples Lives And it will be found that Men do not come to Confession so much to help them to live well for the future as to ease themselves from the Trouble that the memory of their Sins past create them and when by Absolution they are eased of the sense of their former Guilt they are apt to think they may begin on a new score And hence it often happens that Men are more negligent after Confession than before And let never so much care be taken to prevent this abuse which Mr. Arnauld confesses almost Universal while People believe that the Priest can forgive them their sins as soon as they are sorry for them and purpose to forsake them it is impossible it should be removed Whereas when a Man is referred to his own Conscience as the final judge of his own Condition and told that he damns himself if he be partial And that no other Sorrow or Repentance for Sin can save him but such as will in earnest prevail with him to forsake his Sins and live a good Life In this case a Man will find it much easier to satisfie the Priest and obtain Absolution from him than to satisfie his own Conscience Nay after all the Priest can only judge of a Mans Repentance from his own Mouth and if the Man be partial or mistaken in his own sincerity the Priest must be so too and his Absolution insignificant And therefore our Church who lays the efficacy of Absolution on the sincerity of the Penitents Contrition and Faith and tells her People that her Absolution is only Conditional deals more severely and sincerely too with her Penitents than the Roman Church who lays the chief stress on the outward Absolution of the Priest. The Matter of Fact appears to be really thus from the practice of the lewdest Livers amongstus who often take Sanctuary in that Church and without any amendment of Life live in hopes of that Salvation in her which they know they could not hope for in ours § 11. The last Argument Mr. M. urges for Confession is the Interest of the Priest faith he The Church of England for want of Confession appears to me to have lost that Interest in the Consciences of the People which both the Roman and the Greek Priests are happy in at this day I do believei n my Conscience this Argument goes a great way with Mr. M. and not only with him but with all those Priests who value their Interest as he does But he would have done well to have told us what that interest is in which the Priests count themselves happy For the Priests have counted themselves happy sometimes in an interest which contributed very little to the happiness of the People In short we neither do nor ought to covet any other interest with our People than the power of doing and making them good and God be thanked we have as much of that interest as any Clergy of the World and dare compare the Lives of our People with the Lives of either Greeks or Romans It was therefore some other interest which brought in Auricular Confession in which Mr. M. would count himself happy I shall not determine what that may be which Mr. M. could not find in our Church only he must know that among us truly mortified diligent sober prudent Clergy-men who continually reside on their Cures and shew themselves an Example to their Flocks in meekness humility watchfulness and charity have no reason to complain that they want interest with their People But there are some that think it too dear a purchase at that rate and therefore had rather come at it another way That is by perswading people that they can forgive them their Sins though perhaps they are nothing bettered by Confessing Thus Mr. M. seems to state the case What if some Catholicks are never the better for it What are many Protestants the better for all the Sermons they hear and Sacraments they receive If we confess our Sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins What though we are never the better for Confessing If that be Mr. M's meaning and he believes himself he had reason in earnest to change his Church For he may be sure we have no such Catholick Doctrine CHAP. IV. § 1. MR. M. tells us that the third difficulty that stuck with him was the Answer given by Protestants to that Question Where is that one Holy Catholick Church which we do profess to believe in the two Creeds To this he adds several other Questions Was there any such Society as one Holy Catholick Church extant upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation What Provinces of the Earth did this Church inhabit Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of it Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Catholick and Apostolick Church To set up Altar against Altar c. p. 8. To each of these Questions I will give a distinct Answer and shew how little Reason any one has to make a difficulty of them To the first Where is that one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which we profess to believe in the two Creeds I Answer not in any one place or Province exclusively to the rest but in all places where Men professing the Faith of Christ live under their Lawful Pastors or Spiritual Governors 'T is by these two marks we must find the Catholick Church if we would not mistake the Society of Schismaticks and Hereticks nay of Heathens for her Where-ever we find the Faith of Christ and the Persons professing it living in submission to their Regular Pastors there we have found a branch of the Catholick Church and to that Society we ought to be ready to unite ourselves in this Profession and Submission But Mr. M. by his eagerness to have us assign the ubi or place where to find this Church seems to imagine that there is some one place or ubi where she is always to be found At least that there is some where a Head and Principle of Unity by union to which the Society is made one But we deny any other Head or Principle of unity to this Society besides Christ Jesus And we believe that to
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
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
Confession is mentioned in Scripture it is to be understood of this kind of Confession except the Circumstances manifestly determine the sence otherwise This Confession alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of Sins under the Old Law Psal. 32. 5. without Auricular Confession to a Priest. 2. It is necessary to Confess and Acknowledge such Sins as injure our Neighbours not only to God but likewise to the injured person where that Confession may be an Advantage or Satisfaction to him Restitution must also go along with Confession if it be possible If the injured person or they who have a title to what was his are not to be found the Restitution is to be made to God for some Charitable use according to the advice of the Priest. This case is thus determined by God himself Lev. 6. Numb 5. and by Our Church in her Exhortation to the Communion 3. Where a Sin is notorious or publick in as much as the Church is injured by it and the Fact falls under her Cognizance and Jurisdiction she may call the Sinner to an account oblige him to make publick Confession of his Guilt and to submit to such Discipline as she judges most probable to reform him Her Sentence of Absolution is necessary to a person thus called to an account by her where it may be had neither can he be absolved from his Sin without submitting to her Orders This appears to be the sence of our Church from the Rubrick to the Communion and 33. Article 4. Where theee is any doubt or scruple in a Man's mind concerning the nature of an Action whether it be good or evil concerning his own Repentance whether it be sincere and sufficient or concerning the means and way to attain to this true Repentance In these and the like cases the Sinner is obliged to repair to his Spiritual Guide for his Resolution Counsel and Direction This is commanded by Our Church in the Exhortation that gives warning for the Communion 5. Where the sence of Guilt lyes heavy on the Conscience of a Sinner so that there is danger of his being swallowed up by too much Grief he who finds his Spirit thus wounded is required to have recourse to his Spiritual Physician that by the Ministry of Gods word he may receive the benefit of Absolution As Our Church has exprest it in her Exhortation whose words Mr. M. has corrupted that he might find an occasion to cavil first by alledging this Proviso as hers in the matter of Confession if a Man be troubled with any doubts or scruples whereas she uses no such words either in her Office for Communion or Visitation of the Sick which are the two places he alledges for them And Secondly by leaving out these words but if any one requires farther comfort or counsel in this following Sentence If there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his own Conscience herein but requires farther comfort or counsel let him come to me or some other discreet and learned Minister and open his grief Where the words he has left out make her sence plain that she requires men to come to a Priest not only in cases of Scruples and Doubts but likewise of Grief for the sence of Guilt and that she proposes Advice and Counsel as a remedy for the one and Absolution as a remedy for the other Which clearly destroys Mr. M's surmise as if Confession in our Church were for nothing else but to be resolved in our Scruples and Doubts 6. Confession to a Priest even of secret Sins is counted with us an act of Mortification and of great uses in most cases as it is of great use and safety to consult a Physician at any time when one finds himself sick this is prescribed by the 19th Canon of the Church of Ireland It is counted a great Wickedness for the Priest to reveal any such Confession And it is forbidden under the pain of irregularity by the 64 Canon 7. It is not necessary by any Divine Command that a man should discover every Sin to a Priest though he may be had any more than it is necessary every time a man is sick to send for a Physician And therefore Auricular Confession is not the only way for obtaining Pardon of Sins committed after Baptism From these things in which our Bishops and Divines are all agreed though Mr. M. slanders them for want of harmony it appears that neither publick nor private Confession is wanting in our Church and it can no more be said that Confession to a Priest is wanting in her because she doth not oblige all People to it under penalty of Damnation then a City can be said to want Water where the Fountains are full and open only because Men are not obliged under pain of Death to use them If therefore Mr. M. means any thing when he professes himself dissatisfied with the want of Confession to a Priest he must mean the want of a Law to oblige all men who hope for pardon of any sin to confess it in particular to the Priest and receive his Absolution for it We must own that we have no such Law in our Church But the reason of that want is because neither Christ nor his Apostles left us any such § 3. It was incumbent on him before he left our Church on that account to produce this Law and shew Confession to be otherwise necessary than is taught and practised by her Let us us therefore examine what he has said on this head And here the only thing produced by him for the necessity of Confession to a Priest which looks like an Argument is contained in these words p. 7. If we confess our Sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins saith St. John. Faithful and Just to what even to his own promise which he hath thrice repeated in the Gospel whosesoever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them but other promise that he will do it without the Ministry of his Priests we read not in the New Testament In answer to this Argument I will shew 1. That the words If we confess our Sins do not concern Confession to a Priest. 2. When God is said to be Faithful and Just it doth not particularly respect that promise John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them 3. If it did respect this Promise and the Ministry of a Priest were granted to be absolutely necessary to the pardon of Sins yet it would not follow that Auricular Confession were necessary § 4. First the words of St. John 1 Ep. 1. 9. If we confess our sins do not concern Confession to a Priest but were designed by the Apostle to oblige every man to acknowledge and confess that he is a sinner and that he needs Repentance and the Blood of Christ for his salvation which will appear from the occasion and circumstances of this place I think it is agreed that St. John wrote these words in opposition
assign any such on Earth is to destroy the very notion of the Catholick Church and make her as particular as the Jewish Synagogue out of which no Person or Nation was excluded so they would turn Proselytes any more than they are excluded out of the Church of Rome if they will embrace her Faith and submit to her Government But the Church is called Catholick in opposition to such a particular Society because she consists of many such Societies which have in every Nation the same Priviledges which were before peculiar to the Jews And these particular Churches are intire Bodies in themselves not made accountable by Christ or his Apostles to any Foreign Church as to a Head but only as to a Sister Neither is the union of these particular Churches into one Catholick Church an union of subjection to one visible Head but an union of Faith and Charity under our visible Head Christ. When therefore Mr. M. asks in what Provinces of the Earth this Church doth inhabit I answer in most Provinces of the World in more by many than he or his Church will allow Let him read St. Augustine on the 85 Psalm and he will tell him the sin of those that confine the Church to a Province or corner of the World to a Sect or Party of Christians § 2. To this second Question Was there any such Society upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation I answer there was and the several branches of it were dispersed through many Provinces in Europe Asia and Africa The Church of England was one branch thereof such she has continued ever since and we hope will continue to the end of the World And therefore he might have spared the labour which he has spent to prove that there was extant such a Church on the face of the Earth since we believe as firmly as he can desire that according to our Saviour's Prediction the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholick Church § 3. To this third Question Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of this Church I answer He did And being placed by Providence in an eminent station in the Church and the Care and Government of so considerable a part thereof being committed to his charge he found himself obliged by the Laws of God and Man to remove those things he apprehended to be Corruptions and Abuses And if they were really such who but Mr. M. can doubt his Authority do do it in a regular way And therefore to his fourth Question Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Holy Catholick Church and to set up Altar against Altar I answer No body he never attempted the one or the other He never attempted to Reform the Catholick Church because he had neither Power or Inspection over her Nor did he ever pretend to make any Law to oblige her He only endeavoured to cultivate and reform that part of her that was committed to his Care. And he must have lost his Understanding or renounced it that doth not see that this is the Duty of every Bishop nay of every Parish-Priest in his sphere and therefore except Mr. M. can shew that Cranmer went beyond his sphere he talks and asks questions to no purpose I suppose that I have already shewn that Cranmer did not exceed his Authority in his proceedings at the Reformation And as he did not pretend to reform the Catholick Church so neither did he set up Altar against Altar There was no Schism made by him in England the Division of Communion was made long after about the Tenth of Queen Elizabeth on the Bull of Pius V. Heylin ad Ann. 1564. 1565. p. 172. § 4. Mr. M. seems to have nothing to object against all this only he insinuates that the Reformation supposes the Catholick Church to be lapsed into Idolatry And if she were guilty of Idolatry she should be no Christian Church And then there is an end of the Episcopal Succession of the Church of England and consequently of the Church it self There is not one step in this Argument but is justly liable to exception I shall only desire the Reader to consider these few things and then judge whether Mr. M. can be supposed to have examined this matter either diligently or impartially 1. The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry 2. The Idolatry with which we commonly charge that Church is not inconsistent with the Being of a Church or Succession of Bishops 3. The Argument Mr. M. has produced to prove the Impossibility of a Christian Churches teaching and practising Idolatry is weak and inconclusive Sect. 5. First The Reformation may be justified without charging the Church of Rome or any other Christian Church with Idolatry Because there were many confessed and notorious Abuses in the Church that needed Reformation besides what we count Idolatrous And the Governors of the Church were obliged to reform them whether they were Idolatrous or no except Mr. M. thinks that nothing but Idolatry can need Reformation Prayer in an unknown Tongue the half Communion the ludicrous and antique Ceremonies of the Mass private Masses and Indulgences Appeals and Foreign Jurisdiction with many other things were removed by the Reformers not because they counted them Idolatrous but because they were great Abuses and Deviations from the Primitive Rules and Practice of the Church The things in the Roman Church which we commonly charge with Idolatry are the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and Adoration of the Host Now the Reformation would neither be unjustisiable nor unnecessary tho we should reckon these practises only in the same rank of abuses with the former We need not therefore charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry to justifie our first Reformers But whatever be said as to that he may assure himself we never did nor will charge the Catholick Church with any such Crime She never decreed either worship of Images or adoration of the Host. § 6. But secondly the Idolatry with which we charge the Church of Rome is not inconsistent with the being of a Church or Succession of Bishops I do consess there is an Idolatry inconsistent with all true Religion that is when Men renounce the true God and worship a false one in his stead But there is another Idolatry that consisteth in worshipping a false God with or in Subordination to the true And a third which Men incurr by giving some part of that honour to a Creature which God has reserved sor himself or asking those things of Creatures which God only can give And 't is with this last the Church of Rome stands charged Now not only Doctor Stilling fleet whom he confesses he never read but Primate Bramhall also whom he pretends to have seen have proved that some practice of this kind of Idolatry as well as some other Sins may consist with the Being of a Church But what shall
by any other Devotional Book Lastly What is this to the Reformation which found not one Exposition in Print by Commandment of the Church nor any counted necessary I will venture to put one Question to Mr. M. and having askt so many I hope he will not take it ill Ought the Mass to be understood by the People or no If it ought to be understood why is not the best method taken to make them understand it even to read it in a Tongue understood by them If it matters not whether it be understood by the People or no to what purpose doth he talk of an Exposition His third Argument in behalf of the practice of his Church is taken from the Example of the Jewish Church Had not saith he the Jewish Church almost all her Scriptures and publick Service for fourteen Generations that is to say from the Captivity unto Christ in the old Hebrew A Language not then understood by the the common People I Answer she had some of them in old Hebrew but not only in it They were read in the Synagogues first in Hebrew for the use of the Learned and then in the Vulgar for the common People This he might have learnt from Father Simon and Bishop Walton Nay Doctor Isaac Vossius is positive that the Greek was the vulgar Language of Jerusalem in our Saviours time and that the Septuagint Translation and not the old Hebrew was read in the Synagogues of the Jews And all unanimously conclude that the people either understood the original of what was read or were made understand it by an Interpreter 'T is probable Saint Paul had respect to this custom among the Jews when he commands the Prophet that spake with Tongues to keep silence in the Church if there was no Interpreter 1 Cor. 14. 28. And therefore Mr. M. has quite mistaken his Argument when he asks Did our Saviour or his Apostles ever reprehend the Jews for not translating the Scripture into the vulgar Language There was no ground for such a Reprehension since the Jews had done it three hundred years before therefore will rise up in Judgment against the absurd practice of the Roman Church will condemn her who is more unkind to her Subjects than the very Jews has provided worse for their Edisication in this point It is to no purpose to say as Mr. M. doth that the Latine is more vulgar than the English Since this is a manifest falshood and must be owned to be such by all men who consider that the Latine is not vulgar in any place of the World. I cannot tell whether I can call it a fourth Argument which offers in these words If the Service of God must be said in the maternal tongue of every Nation where shall an English man in France or Spain that understands not the language go to serve God on the Lords day I answer To Church and joyn his presence and private Devotion with the Congregation since he cannot joyn in the publick Prayers In case of necessity a man is accepted by God according to what he can do and what is not in his power is not required of him In a Country where there are no Christians he must go no where and in a strange Country he must go to the publick Devotions though he do noâ— understand them For that is better then not going at all His last Argument for the vindication of the publick Service of the Church in an unknown Tongue is That this would destroy all Community of Sacraments and Litâ—rgie between the Members of the Catholick Church which being one Body or Society of Men cannot be like the Builders of Babel who could not understand one anothers Language Now if they that understand not one anothers language are Builders of Babel then the Priest and People where the Service is in an unknown Tongue are plainly such Builders For they do not understand one another Two Cities may very well be Built and conveniently Governed by two People of different Languages and these Cities may likewise manage all their common Business and keep a good Correspondence by the help of a few Men that understand both Languages But two Languages in the same City is very inconvenient and cannot be so remedied It is so in the Church Distant Congregations may have a very good Communion with one another by the help of their Priests who understand a common Language But to have a Language spoken to a Congregation or in it that the Members cannot understand is to bring in a great confusion and directly opposite to the Apostles command which he himself here produces Rom. 15. 16. that we should with one mind and mouth glorifie God For how can a Congregation glorifie God with one mouth if they do not understand the words in which they are to joyn Thus Mr. M's Arguments constantly make against himself If want of a common Language destroys unity of Sacraments and Liturgy in distant Churches it destroys that unity much more where there is wanting a common Language between the Priest People in the same Church But the truth is the unity of the Sacraments and Liturgies have no dependency on the unity of Language but are the same in whatever language they are used or administred And so it was in the Primitive Church where every People had their own Liturgy in their own Language Mr. M. foresaw that 1 Cor. 14. would be objected against him And he tells us p. 11. That he humbly thinks it not well understood by Prostants This is a main point and one would have expected a substantial Reason for his Opinion some Determination of a Primitive Council or a whole shoal of Fathers at least But instead of that he pretends to cut the throat of the Objection out of that very Chapter in which Protestants glory If any be Ignorant saith he let him be Ignorant Wherefore Brethren covet to Prophesie and forbid not to speak with Tongues v. 39. God is not the Author of Confusion but Peace v. 33. I shall not trouble the Reader with an Answer to these Arguments if Mr. M. designed in earnest to prove by them that we do not well understand the Apostle in this Chapter I would advise him to take the Opinion of a Physician whether all be right about his Head. § 8. The third thing wherein Mr. M. endeavours to vindicate his Church is the Worship of Images And to this purpose he alledges First That the Council of Trent hath commanded all Superstition to be taken away in the use of Images and then gives it in charge to all Bishops to look to it p. 12. If they had reckoned the Worship of Images Superstition this had indeed taken away our Objection but on the contrary the Council decreed that Images of Christ not of his Human Nature as he improperly expresses it and likewise of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints are to be had and retained especially in Churches
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