§. 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 [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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; [Page 4] 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 Multae gentes, modo una gens, quare una gens? quia una fides, quia una spes, quia una charitas, quia una expe­ctatio; postremo quare non una [...]s, si una patria? pa­tria [...] i [...] [...]st. S. August. tom. 8. in Psalm. 85. 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 Pag. 1. Pref. 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 [Page 5] Epistle to Saint Cyprian, Ep. 75. This Preciperet fraterni­tati universae, ne quis %os in domum suam reciperet, & venienti­bus non solum pax & communio, sed etiam tectum & hospitium ne­garetur. Cyprian. Ep. 75. being supposed, it is no hard matter to find out the parts of this Catholick Church where­ever 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 [Page 6] 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 Qui Sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla perti­naci animositate defendunt, praeser­tim quam non audacia praesumptio­nis suae pepererunt, sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, querunt autem ca [...]a solicitudine veritatem, corrigi para­ti cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Haereticos deputand [...]. August. Ep. 162. 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] those that deny it, & so in many other points, as material as those in dispute between Protestant Churches; yet, inasmuch as they are not reckoned by all to be the Essentials of Faith, they do not break Communion; and indeed, he understands very little that knows not there may be difference of understanding about mat­ters relating to Sacraments, and yet Unity of Communion. As to his Objection against the Calvinists, that they have no Order of Priests or Bishops, I leave him to dispute it with them. Whe­ther consequently they have no true Sacraments, which he in­fers, I leave him to dispute it with his new Church, which al­lows their Baptism; we are concerned in neither.

§. 9. There is only one thing more he objects on this Head against our Church, and that is, that she, as established by Law, is Catholick neither as to time nor place, because not visible any where for many Ages before Edward the sixth. This is the old Question, Where was your Church before Luther? And has been often answered, by shewing that we made no new Church by the Reformation, that we kept all the Essentials of Faith & Wor­ship received by our Ancestors, had the same Creeds, the same God, Christ, Baptism, and Eucharist; and lastly, were governed by the same Bishops and other Governours, before and after the Reformation; and therefore it is a wild thought in Mr. M. to af­firm that our Church was not visible before Edward the sixth It is true, it was not established by Law in all points as it is now, no more was the Church of Rome before the Reformation by the Council of Trent, (for that also pretended to Reform) but the establishing by Law is accidental altogether to a Church, and a Church may be visible long before it is so established.

This is all in his Preface that any way relates to the Catho­lick Church.

§. 10. The second part relates to the Mission of our Bishops, and is reduced to four Queries, which shall have their full Con­sideration, when I come to consider the first point that he lays down in his Book.

§. 11. The rest is spent in comparing two Historians of the Reformation, that is Doctor Heylin and Doctor Burnet, of whom [Page 10] he gives this Character, that Burnet strains all his wit to palliate the doings of the Reformers, and paint them out to advantage; Hey­lin represents them honestly for the most part, and in their own co­lours: Whereas in truth the first doth generally lay down naked matter of Fact only, and leaves the Reader to judge; and the other passes his own Censures, and gives his own Gloss on them; as may be seen by the very passages Mr. M. quotes out of Doctor Heylin's Preface. The truth is he abuses both Historians; Hey­lin by producing that for matter of Fact, which is all his own Inferences and Conjectures, and so exprest to be in the very words: all that was done in order to a Reformation, seemed to be ac­cidental only, then— I cannot reckon his Death an infelicity,—it is not to be thought, to the next clause, nor was it like to happen, to the next— might easily have done, to the next— was in all probability to the last.

Are not these Conjectures strong Arguments to prove the Re­formation unjustifiable? But he abuses him yet more in the pas­sage concerning the Duke of Sommerset, by reporting that as Doctor Heylin's Opinion, which he records only as the Opinion of others, pag. 116. of his History; where among three or four Con­jectures, why the Duke did not claim the benefit of his Clergy; he sets down this last, Finally whether it were some secret judgment on him from above (as some men conceived) that he, who had destroyed so many Churches, &c. should want the benefit of Clergy in his greatest extremity; where Mr. M. leaves out the Parenthesis ( as some Men conceived) and falsifies him (perhaps to make him recompence) by adding another of his own, he (the Duke of Sommerset) deprived many learned men of their means and livelyhood, ( for being Papists adds Mr. M.) a most notorious falshood; since it appears from all Histories of the Reformation, that there was an universal Com­plyance of the Clergy; few making any Opposition, and none almost absolutely refusing Conformity; his Papists at that time loved their Means so well, or found so little amiss in the Refor­mation, that they readily complyed with all Changes. And as he thus abuses and falsifies Heylin, so he doth Burnet; he saith, that [Page 11] the worst Burnet can charge Heylin with, is his not vouching Autho­rity for what he says; and he affirms, that it is an untruth, that Heylin writ upon uncertain grounds, as Burnet would insinuate. But Burnet in that place insinuates no such thing, but only says he ought to have vouched them, that people might have judged of their certainty. Heylin's own Testimony for his fidelity is not to be taken in his own Cause; and therefore Mr. M. vindicates him very ill, when he produces nothing else for him. He saith Doctor Burnet doth not produce one instance of any moment, wherein he dares say, Doctor Heylin is false. I hope Mr. M. would not quote any passage out of Heylin that was not of moment; what if that passage that relates to the Duke of Sommerset here quoted, be re­corded falsly by Heylin, and taxt as false by Burnet? then I be­lieve every body will judge Mr. M. either very ignorant or very malicious; and yet thus it is. Says Mr. M. from Heylin, The Duke of Sommerset was so defective in his Judgment, as not to crave the benefit of his Clergy, which might have saved his Life. Now look into Burnet ad Ann. 1531. pag. 186. 2 vol. and see whether he have not these words, Some late Writers have made an Inference upon his not claiming the benefit of Clergy, that he was thus left of God, not to plead that benefit; since he had so much invaded the Rights and Revenues of the Church; but in this they shewed their Ignorance; for by the Statute, That Felony, of which he was found Guilty, was not to be purged by Clergy.

The most likely excuse I can make for Mr. M. is, that he neither read Burnet nor Heylin; if he did, he neither knew this, and con­ceal'd it; which makes him very disingenuous: or did not observe it; and so he falls under the Character of a thoughtless Reader, that could neither by his own Observation, nor the Admonition of Friends avoid picking out, and repeating such an uncharitable falshood. It were easie to shew several falshoods (even in those things that are most invidious to the Reformation) in Heylin's History, observed and confuted by Burnet: one more particu­larly, in his saying, that the Father of Queen Ann Boleyne was one of the Jury that condemned her; with which, as a falshood, [Page 12] he taxes Heylin in his Addenda▪ p. 363. first Volume, where he says, that Doctor Heylin took this, as he did many other things, too easily upon Sanders's credit; which (if true) is enough to blast the cre­dit of his Book with all Protestants, nay with all Men of Judg­ment that know what an 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.

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 [Page 13] 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 Lay­man; 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 [Page 14] 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.

[Page 15]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? 'Tis 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 afterwards turning Protestants, and pronouncing the Church of Rome Idolatrous, I would fain know by whose Authority? Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet.

At the time of their Consecration they professed Seven Sacraments, Anno 1536. they retrencht them to three—then to two, Anno 1549.— By whose Authority or Mission I cannot tell. Ibid. pag. 2.

Again, Who gave them Authority to pronounce themselves sound Members, and the Church of Rome a corrupt Arm of the Catholick Church? Pag. 12.

The fourth Sett of Questions concerning Mission is on this Head; Preface, p. 3 Whether a Presbyterian Minister having re­ceived Orders from a Protestant Bishop, can, by virtue of such Or­ders, pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church?

I understand not how a man can forsake the Church of England, and preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Or­ders. Pag. 2. of his Pamphlet.

Presbyterians being Interrogated,—Did that Church authorize you to preach against the Sacraments or Liturgy? there was no An­swer to be had. Pag. 3.

[Page 16] I desire to know, whether an honest man can preach against the Liturgy, Sacraments, or Constitution of any Church, by vertue of any Commission he received from it? Ibid.

So that no honest man can turn Presbyterian or Independant Preacher by vertue of his Protestant Mission. p. 4.

The fifth Sett of Questions relating to Mission is, Pref. pag. 3. Whether an Act of Parliament in France, Spain or Germany, be not as good an Authority for Popery there, as in England for Prote­stancy?

A Parliamentary Mission then our first Reformers had, and no other that I can find. p. 3.

§. 3. Before I come to a distinct consideration of each of these, I must observe that he waves the Dispute concerning our Priest­ly or Episcopal Orders, whether valid or no; ( Pamphl. pag. 1.) Now, if these are valid, either let him shew one Sacrament ad­ministred by Protestants, which these Characters do not give them Power to celebrate: or one Article of Faith that they teach, which the same do not oblige them to teach: or else let him ask no more for their Mission, and Authority, to teach their Do­ctrine, and administer their Sacraments. If their Doctrine and Sa­craments are not Theirs but Christs; they are not only sent, but obliged by their Orders to administer the one, and teach the o­ther, in the Churches wherein they are appointed Pastors.

I observe further, that he manifestly contradicts himself in this matter; for he makes Cranmer and Latimer the first Protestant Bishops and owns their Consecration ( p. 2.) and yet alledges ( p. 3.) that it is no easie matter to find out who consecrated the first Protestant Bishops; because, for sooth, there were none to do it, but Roman Ca­tholick Bishops, who never use to consecrate any Protestants. But if he had read Mason, and Archbishop Bramhall, he might have seen who ordained the first Reformers, and their Succession to this day: and if he had consulted Sir James Ware de Proesulibus, he might have seen that there wanted not Bishops in Ireland wil­ling to consecrate Protestants; Primate Loftus being consecra­ted by the then Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Curwin, who con­tinued [Page 17] in his Archiepiscopal See near six years after, and then by reason of his great Age was translated to the Bishoprick of Ox­ford at his own desire. Antiquit. Oxon. de Aede Christi. lib. 2. p. 291. Ware de Proesulibus, Hib. in Archiepiscopis Dubliniensibus, p. 120.

Nor is the Testimony he produces out of Burnet from Queen Mary at all pertinent; all that appears from that Testimony is, that they who were ordained according to the Form in our Com­mon-Prayer-Books are not lookt upon by the Queen to be ordered in every Deed, but there is no reason alledged for it, nor indeed can any be given, but because it was not done according to the Pontifical; an ignorance excusable at that time, when perhaps she was informed that something Essential was left out in our Form of Orders, or that the Pontifical with its Tricks was not a new thing; whereas our Form of Ordination is more full then any of the ancient Forms, both in Substance and Ceremony; and therefore either the ancient Priests and Bishops had no sufficient Ordination, or Queen Mary was mis-informed when she did not reckon Ordination by the Common-prayer-book ordering indeed.

§. 5. Having premised this, I answer to his first Question, What Priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers, but what they confess to have received from Roman Catholick Bishops? If he mean by Roman Catholick Bishops, such as own'd the Bishop of Rome to be the supream universal Pastor of the Catholick Church by Divine right, to whom themselves were by God made unappeal­ably accountable, which is the Essential Character of a Roman Catholick; the first Reformers received their Orders from no such Roman Catholicks. Whatever Roman Catholicks hold now, he will never prove this to have been the declared sence of the Church of England before the Reformation: and therefore the first Reformers cannot properly be said to have received their Or­ders from Roman Catholicks, but from the Church of England.

There are two things to be distinguished in the Office of a Bi­shop; one is, the Power or Capacity of governing the Church, interpreting Scripture, Consecrating other Bishops, Ordaining Priests and Deacons, Offering, Baptizing, and Confirming: the [Page 18] other is, the admitting the Bishop so impowered to the exercise of that Power within certain Limits, which we call a Diocess. The first of these is a Divine, and the second a Canonical Right. Now the first Reformers received the first of these, that is, their Orders from Christ, by the hands of their Consecrators, who were Bi­shops of England, for Rome. The second of these they received likewise from the Laws and Constitutions of the Church and Kingdom of England, of Rome: And it is to be observed that the Laws of the one were directly contrary to the Laws of the other, and that the Bishops of England had their proper and im­mediate Mission to their Churches by an Authority maintained in opposition to the Popes Power, which he endeavoured as much as he could to abolish, but was not able; as may be seen in his Con­tests with Chichley, Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry the Sixth's time. Although therefore the first Reformers had their Orders from Bishops in Communion with the Church of Rome; yet it was as Christian Bishops they Ordained, and as English Bishops that they admitted the first Reformers to their Charges.

But suppose they had no other Orders but what they received from the Bishop of Rome himself; all that can be concluded from thence is, that we are obliged to own, that the Orders of Priest and Bishop given by Roman Catholicks are valid, and capacitate a man to perform all the Duties belonging to those Offices in a Christian Church, which we readily acknowledge, and charge the Popish Priests and Bishops not with want of Orders, but with a­busing the Orders they have, to ill intents and purposes: The Roman Catholick Bishops do not confer Orders as Roman, but Christian Bishops their Orders are Christian Orders, and those we hold sufficient to all intents and purposes of the Reforma­tion, and must do so, till Mr. M. or some body else prove them insufficient.

He objects, pag. 2. That the first Reformers were Ordained Roman Catholick Bishops, and made themselves Protestants, which proceeds on an ignorant supposition, that every man is ordained to preach the Tenents of his Ordainers, or else must have no [Page 19] Mission: whereas the Ordainers are only Instruments, but the Power is from Christ; and they are no more accountable to their Ordainers upon the account of being Ordained by them, then a man is accountable to a Lord Chancellor for the use of his Power, because he set the Seal to his Patent by which he claims his Pow­er. In short, a man is Ordained neither a Protestant nor a Papist, but a Christian Bishop; his Mission is a Christian Mission, let him be sent by whom he will; and whoever gave him his Missi­on, if he teach any Doctrine but Christs, he is accursed. Hence when the Donatists were very earnest to know the Ordainers of St. Augustine and Quid ad causam pertineat veritatis, uniuscujus (que) Epis­copi Ordinator, non satis ag­noscimus; Testimoniis divi­nis▪ pater Deus est edoctus. Coll. Carth [...]g. 3. Sect. 244. other Catholick Bishops, they answer, We are not satisfied how the cause of Truth is concerned, who was the Ordainer of any one; since God is shewn to be our Father. And when they press still to know the Ordain­ers, Superflua quaeri video. Sect. 245. St. Augustine answers, I see they in­sist on trifles.

'Twas on this Principle that Baptism and Ordination by Here­ticks were allowed in the Catholick Church, to such as came e­ver from those Hereticks, even because they were Baptized Chri­stian Proselytes, and Ordained Christian Bishops; and they were never thought to go beyond their Mission, because they renoun­ced the Errors of their Ordainers.

If it be replied, that Hereticks making themselves, of Hereticks, Catholick Bishops, change for the better; but Papists making them­selves Protestant Bishops, change for the worse. I answer, this quits the Plea of Mission, and brings the Mission to the trial of the Do­ctrine. If then Cranmer and the rest of the Roman Catholick Bi­shops made themselves only truly Catholicks; they made them­selves nothing but what Christ had obliged them to in their Con­secration. He is the Father of Truth; the Children of Truth are owned by him as honestly begotten, and no By-blows, as Mr. M. would insinuate, p. 2. in which he has exactly transcribed not only the Argument of the Donatist Petilian against the Catholicks, but [Page 20] his very words, The true Question is there­fore, Tandem aliquando expressus dicat, utrum patris loco habeant Caecilianum, ex quo deducta est ista proge­nies, non enim potest aliqua res sine genera­tore suo nasci, aut sine capite incipere, aut sine radice sua crescere. Videt igitur Nobilitas tua se originem non habere saepius potestatum si igitur originem non habet, ipse est magis Haereticus, qui non habet patrem, qui habitum patrem judicio suo damnavit. Astipuletur igitur, ut si criminosum patrem ejus constiterit, eum crimina teneant; si autem innocentem, ne­cesse habeat esse filius innocentis. Coll. Carth. 3. Sect. 236. whether Cranmer and the first Reformers embraced and vindicated the Truth in their Changes; and let him joyn issue on this Point when he pleases, we are ready to answer him.

§. 6. To his second Question, Who authorized the first Refor­mers to Teach their Protestant Doctrine, and Administer their Pro­testant Sacraments?

I Answer, No body but himself would have asked such a fool­ish Question; since the Protestants pretend to no Doctrine or Sa­craments peculiar to themselves, or that may be called Theirs, but only to the Doctrine & Sacraments of Christ received in the Catholick Church: If the Protestants were guilty of any fault, it was not making new Doctrines or Sacraments, but rejecting those that some counted old; and so their Crime was not the want­ing Mission or Authority to do what they did, but not using their Authority to its full extent, to do and teach more: If they had power given them to Administer seven Sacraments, and admini­stred only two, as Mr. M. says, then it is a foolish thing to doubt their Authority to Minister those two; whereas they are rather accountable for their not Holding and Administring the other five: but the truth is, they received in their Ordination power from Christ, to administer neither Protestant nor Popish, but Christian Sacraments; and Mr. M. neither has, nor can make it appear, that they Administer any other, or omit any that Christ has commanded.

He is aware of this Answer in his fifth Page, and gives a reply to it; I pray (saith he) the Reader to remember that this was the very Answer of Luther, Socinus, Zuinglius, Calvin, and most other Re­formers: Let me pray the Reader to observe, that this is nothing [Page 21] to the purpose, if it were true; since we are not to believe every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of God. The false Pro­phets pretended to Revelation as well as the true, was neither therefore to be believed? the false Reformers, as well as the true▪ pretended to preach no new Doctrine, or administer new Sacra­ments, but only the Doctrine and Sacraments of Jesus Christ: Are neither therefore in the right? May not a good Answer be abused and misapplyed? To clear therefore this matter, we own what he contends for, that both true Doctrine and external and lawful Mission are generally necessary to a regular preacher of the Gospel, pag. 5. and if either of these are wanting, the person is not to be received. Which appears in the Prophets he mentions from Jer. 23. ibid. who wanted not an external Mission, what­ever Mr. M. imagines; for the Prophets are the Pastors of the people, against whom God pronounces a Woe, verse 1. and 2. of that Chapter; they are joyned with the Priests, verse the 11. and 34. and their fault was not preaching without any Mission at all, but preaching false Doctrine; for which no man can have a Mission, but even the Pope himself when he doth so, is to be rejected as a Seducer. If these very Prophets whom Mr. M. ima­gines to have had no Mission had taught true Doctrine, God would have approved them, verse 22. But if they had stood in my Councel, and caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil ways; that is, God would have given them success: and when God says, verse 32. I sent them not, nor commanded them, it doth not relate to preaching, for God had commanded the Priests and Prophets to preach; but it relates to the causing my people to err by their Lyes and Lightness, which is a good Argument against those that seduce the people with Legends and Lyes, and Revelations, and false Miracles, and Doctrines of Profit and Gain, whatever their Mission be.

Now these two things being necessary to a true Teacher, we affirm, that the first Reformers in England had both; not only the Licence and Approbation of the Church as he states it, pag. 15. but her Ordination & Appointment also according to the known [Page 22] rules of constituting Pastors, which some other Reformers do not pretend to; and therefore all the Question is, concerning the other Character of a true Pastor, preaching true Doctrine. If the first Reformers had preached Popish Doctrine and administred Po­pish Sacraments, I do not find but Mr. M. would have thought they had Mission enough: but I Answer, that was not Christs design in appointing Bishops, but his design was that they should administer his Sacraments and teach his Doctrine. This all Bishops are impowered and obliged to do; and therefore till he shew that 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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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? Episcopum oportet judi­care, interpretari, consecra­re, ordinare, offerre, bapti­zare & confirmare. Pontif. de Consecrat. elect. in Episc. 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 It is in Bur­net's Pref. Vol. 2. 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 [Page 25] 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, 'tis 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 Goodnes [...] 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 [Page 26] for giving her ill Councel: but she her self is accountable for the removal of them, for it was Her Act. 'Twas by Her Au­thority and Mission, though Mr. M. cannot tell it, Page 2. that Anno 154 [...]. 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; 'tis 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 s [...]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 [Page 27] 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 usu [...]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. [Page 28] 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 W [...]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 'tis 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, [Page 29] 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 s [...]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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 [...]reached no new▪ Do­ctrine, nor administred any new Sacrament; but only the Primitive Doctrine, &c. according to the sence of the ancient Fathers, pag. 5. [Page 32] which plainly shews that he knew nothing of S [...]cinus his Opini­ons or Principles, who S [...]cinus de Baptismo. Vol. 1. positively denied the necessity of Baptism; and Socinus Res. ad 11 c [...]p. Vu j [...]ki Cliss. 7. Arg. 5. protested against being judged by that sence the Fa­thers or the Primitive Church have given of Scriptures.

These are sufficient to shew the vast difference between the pretences of the present Dissenters, and the ground of our Re­formation. And that the Argument he draws from the Obligation in Ordination laid on the Presb [...]ters of our Church, to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments as this Church and Realm have received the same according to the Commandments of God, pag. 4. is of no force against the first Reformers; though it obliged Mr. M. not to desert our Church; and the Nonconformists not to preach in contradiction to her declared Doctrine and Worship.

§. 9. And so I proceed to his fifth Query: Whether an Act of Parliament in France, Spain, or Germany, be not as good an Autho­rity for Popery there, as in England for Protestancy?

I suppose by an Act of Parliament, he means the Laws enacted regularly by the Supream Powers of those Nations (which he ig­norantly expresses by an Act of Parliament) and to this I answer, That if any Religion is to be established in any Kingdom by tem­poral Rewards or Punishments, to encourage the Obedient, and terrifie the disobedient; the supream Powers of every Nation only can thus establish that Religion; & they themselves are sole Judges with what temporal Rewards and Punishments, and how far they will establish it: and they are answerable only to God for their actings herein. If therefore the Supream Civil Government in France or Spain set up Popery, a Man must submit to it, or burn for it, if the Law be so: and such a Law, though it is unjust, is as forcible for a false Religion as a true.

But there is another way of establishing a Religion, and that is by convincing Mens Minds that the Religion is true; and that, according as men cordially embrace it, the shall be secured of the Divine Favour▪ and be happy in the next World. And if [Page 33] this be the Christian Religion of which they are so convinced, one Principle of it is, that the Professors thereof ought to associ­ate themselves into a Body, and that Christ the Author thereof has appointed Governors who are to descend in Succession; and that to these, regularly appointed, a due Obedience is to be paid, as Men value the Rewards or Punishments of the next life. Now Men, thus perswaded, cannot think an Act of the Civil Gover­nors alone, a sufficient Commission for any one to undertake the Function of a Spiritual Pastor, any more than an Act of these Spiritual Pastors is sufficient to capacitate and commissionate a Man to discharge a Civil Function: and therfore Mr. M. argues very unnecessarily against the Parliaments Power to preach or ad­minister Sacraments, pag. 3. since the 27th. Article of our Church denies expresly that Power to the Civil Governors. I suppose I have sufficiently shewn that our first Reformers had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission, and I suppose that this Canoni­cal Mission is nothing the less valid, because the other goes along with it.

But then it may be objected; Have not France and Spain an Act of the Church, as well as State, for establishing their Religion? I answer, they have; and so has Mahometism in Turkey an Act of what they count the Church, for its establishment. And there­fore it is not sufficient that the Power that establishes a Religion be competent; and the Methods regular by which it is settled: but likewise it is necessary that the Religion be true in it self: and therefore a man must examine whether the Christian Religion be more purely & truly taught & established in England, or in Spain, before he either reject or embrace the one or the other. For a false Religion may have all the regular settlements that a true can have and the Professors thereof being conscious of its weakness, are often more industrious to make the accidental security the stron­ger. And I do affirm that there is not one Argument in this Paper urged by Mr. M. against Protestants, but might with equal advan­tage be urged mutatis mutandis against convert Christians in a Ma­hometan Country; & this alone is sufficient to shew them all to be [Page 34] unconclusive. The way therefore for every man to be satisfied in his Religion, is to examine it apart from the accidental advan­tages of it, and chuse that which has best reasons to recommend it: for a man ought to chuse his Church by his Religion, and not his Religion by his Church.

But he asks in case there be no Judge to determine who have the true sence of Scripture, Roman Catholicks or Protestants, whether the Catholick sence be not as good as the Protestants? (Pref. p. 3.) It were a sufficient Answer to this, to put another case like it to him in the person of a Turk: And it is this, in case there is no Judge to determine (as I know of none, saith the Turk) which is the Word of God, the Bible, or the Alchoran. Why should not the Affirmation of us M [...]slelmans (who are ready to vouch to the death for the Alchoran, and are twice the number of you Christi­ans,) be as good authority for Men to believe the Alchoran came from God, as your vouching for your Bibles is sufficient to per­swade men to believe that they came from him.

But I do not love to shift off a Question, and therefore tell him that the sence put by Roman Catholicks on the Scripture, is not so good as the sence put on them by the Protestants. If it were, they would not be afraid to put it to the World, and let every person that is equally concerned judge for himself: but they had rather appeal to themselves as Judges, and then they are sure of the cause.

But then he tells us, that he could never understand what Unity of Spirit, or agreement in Faith Christians are like to have (page 3.) upon these Principles.

To which I Answer, more than they have now. If National Churches were left to be govern'd by themselves, & the Subjects of each Church bound to adhere to their immediate Governors in all quarrels with neighbouring Churches, those contentions must soon come to an end, as the quarrel between St. Cyprian & Stephen did. For when the Governours of differing Churches find that they cannot hurt one another, or advantage themselves by de­nial of Communion (as it must be when the one Church doth not raise a Faction to side with it in the other) the quarrel must [Page 35] soon cease; for the thing that makes quarrels endless is interest. But if it once be counted Lawful for one Church to get a Party in the others Precincts, and set up Altar against Altar in the same place, this will continue the Schism, and is the very fundamental reason of the breaches of Charity amongst Christians that now pester Christendom, which are much 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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; [Page 38] 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 to the advantage of Religion and the King­dom, and I do not find that either have lost by it as it is. As for his Hanging up the Abbots, this is one of Sanders's lyes tran­scribed by Heylin, in his History, who tells us ad An. pag. 9. 1537. of the Executing of some Abbots and other Religious Persons for their stiffness, (if I may not call it perverse­ness) in opposing the Kings desires: but this is confuted by Burnet. Who shews that the Abbots were at­tainted ad An. 1538. v. 1. pag. 236. neither for stiffness nor perverseness, but downright actual Rebellion, that is taking Arms a­gainst their Sovereign, or sending Money to those that did.

§. 17. Sixthly, His setting People a madding after new Lights; that is, he allowed People the use of their Eyes and Ears, and did not think Ignorance the Mother of Devotion, or that Peoples De­votion or Religion was more acceptable to God, because they did not understand it; of any other setting People a madding af­ter New Lights, Cranmer never was Guilty: And thus Christianity set the World near 1700 years ago a madding, and was accused by the Heathen for it.

§. 18, But he objects, lastly, That Cromwel and Cranmer were the Ringle [...]ders of all that Confusion and Mischief, which has since broke out on the Stage of Britain.

[Page 39]This is to charge them home, & would do their work in earnest, if true; but the best of it is, that it wants proof & Truth: for the Times since the Reformation have been as signal for Piety and Ju­stice, as any like tract of time before, and blessed with the long­est and most flourishing Peace, that, perhaps ever was seen in England for the space of, at least, 80 years, in which it was car­ried to the highest pitch of Glory that ever it reached.

And besides all this, many Confusions and Mischiefs that hap­pened since in these Kingdoms proceeded clearly from other hands. Pray, were Cranm [...]r and Cromwel the Ring-leaders of Ty­rone's Wars? and of the Massacre of the Protestants in 1641? which were the greatest Confusions in Ireland since the Reforma­tion. Were they the Ringleaders of four Rebellions in Henry the Eighth's time? of the Four in Edward the Sixth's, or the Re­bellion and Plots in Queen Elizabeths? These were neverthe­less some of the Confusions since on the Stage of Britain.

But a great many Sects have risen since, of which the Refor­mation was the occasion, if we believe Mr. M. I answer, Christi­anity was the cause of as many, and the Grace of God it self was abused. But it is to be observed, that the first Sect that opened the Gap, and introduced all the rest was POPERY, planted among us by the Emissaries of Rome. These broke the Hedge, and shewed the way of Separation; others only imitated them, and transcribed their Practices and Principles, thinking they might as well teach men by their own Authority, as by a Foreign Commission; and it is like, that such as favour them now, set them on at first, purposely to make them a [...]log and Objection to the Reformation.

Two means we do own Papists have to prevent Sects, that we want, Ignorance and the Inquisition▪ in a profound Ignorance, as in a dark night all things are silent; but there will be a bus­tle and stir among men, while the Sun shines. And for the Inquisition, it is the true Ram Hist. Concil. Trid. dent. ad An. 1558. to beat down Heresie, and defend the Apo­stolick See; if we believe Paul the Fourth. [Page 40] But we beg his Holiness's Pardon; we had rather suffer all our Sects, if they were more, than admit these Remedies; which af­ter all are not effectual, as we may see from the new Sects in Italy; and we cannot think those the only fit means to prevent Divisi­ons in Christianity, which may as well be applied to keep it out, and preserve Union amongst Infidels.

§. 1. AND now I come to the second Point, wherein Mr. M. was dissatisfied, which he tells us, was the Want of Confession to a Priest.

There is so little looks like Reason on this Head, that it is harder to find out what he intends for Argument in it; than to answer it. I will do him Justice, and consider even that little he has said. And that in this method.

1. I will lay down the Doctrine of our Church concerning Con­fession. How far she declares it necessary, and how far expedi­ent only: from whence it will appear, that Confession is not wanting in her.

2. I will consider what he has produced in favour of its neces­sity, or expediency.

The first of these seems necessary to be handled; because he tells us, that he divers times discoursed with Protestant Ministers, and some Protestant Bishops, about this matter; and was sorry to find no Harmony in their Opinions, p. 6. Now let us suppose it were true, that private men differ'd in their Opinions about some matters relating to Confession: yet it were nothing to the pur­pose: at least, it could be no reasonable motive to go from us to the Church of Rome, since her private Doctors differ as much a­bout it. Some of which say, that the Priest ought to take the Peni­tents word, and grant him Absolution; although he do not be­lieve his Profession of Repentance to be sincere. Others hold, that the Confessor ought to be satisfied of the Penitents sincerity [Page 41] before he absolve him. Some say Attrition with Absolution is sufficient [...]o obtain Remission of Sins; others say Contrition is necessary; which is as material a difference as almost can be. Many such differences there are amongst them, and the one par­ty accuses the other of Heresie for their dissering Opinions; and yet it seems this want of Harmony amongst the Roman Doctors and Bishops did not hinder Mr. M. [...]rom embracing their Religion. It was therefore very partially done to leave Our Church for a pretended difference amongst our Doctors: For let us take the Difference as he represents it, and it is really no more. Some said'twas a thing allowed by the Church of England as very expe­dient in some Cases, but no matter of necessity; others thought it but a Picklock of Secrets, and a matter of ill consequence. Methinks there is a very good Harmony between these, and that the same Men might have said both: at least the Opinions are easily reconciled, since both agree that in all cases it is no matter of necessity; and neither deny, that in some cases it is very expedient: Notwith­standing which it may be in other cases, but a Pick-lock of Secrets, and matter of ill consequence. Where is the disagreement or con­tradiction between these two? To give Mr. M. back one of his own Arguments, for my part I do not understand it.

§ 2. I have read a great many Protestant Books, and consul­ted both Divines and Bishops; and do profess that I have found them very well agreed in these things.

First, That every Sinner ought to be heartily sensible of every Sin he has committed, and acknowledge it before God with shame and sorrow; and that he can expect no Pardon from God till he actually abhor and forsake the Sin. Wherever 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 to the Disci­ples St. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 29. Paris 1679. of Simon Magus, who taught, as St. Irenoeus informs us, that such as were perfect among them, [Page 45] and had that Principle they called S [...]lt and Light could not [...]in: Not but that they were guilty of the greatest villanies: but they reckoned nothing in themselves sin, because they walked in Light and Truth, while the rest of the world were in Darkness, as they pretended. In opposition to these, St. John shews us, v. 8. that if we pretend thus to be without sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us, but if we own and acknowledge our sins, and heartily endeavour to avoid them; then the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, according to Gods promise, who gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him might not perish. It is plain, from vers. 10. that such as refused to confess their sins, according to St. John, made God a lyar. Now this is litterally true of those who deny that they are sinners, as those Hereticks did: but to deny the necessity of a particular enumeration of sins to a Priest, doth no ways impeach Gods truth: and therefore the Confession required by these words, if we confess our sins is not Auricular.

This is farther manifest from the ancient Fathers of the Church, not one of which understand these words of Confession to a Priest.

St. Augustine has written a Comment on this Epistle, and he thus explains this place. If thou confess that thou Ergo si te confessus fueris peccatorem, est in te veritas.—.—dic homini­bus quid e [...], dic Deo quid es. Qula si non dixeris Deo dam­net Deus, quod in te inveni­at. Aug. Tract. 1. in 1. Ep. 1 Joh. art a sinner, the truth is in thee—Tell men what thou art; tell God what thou art. If thou tell not God what thou art, God will damn what he finds in thee. If thou wouldst not that he should damn, condemn thou.

Occumenius refers this whole passage to the Jews. If we who said his Blood be on us, and on our Children, Occumenius in locum. should impudently say that we have not sinned, we deceive our selves—but if we acknowledge and confess this sin, he will forgive us. Which sufficiently shews, that by confessing our sins here, is meant the acknowledging our selves to be sin­ners, in opposition to those who plead innocency: And that this [Page 46] has no relation to a particular Confession of Sins to a Priest.

Sect. 5. But 2. When God is said to be Faithful and Just, it doth not particularly respect that Promise, John 20. 23. Whose Sins you remit they are remitted; which is sufficiently proved from this Argument that no ancient interpreter has thus applyed them; but on the contrary have referred them St. Cyprian de orat. dom. p. 149. Oxon. to other Promises. Thus St. Cyprian refers them to that Petition in the Lords Prayer, Forgive us our Trespasses, and interprets Confessing in St. John by this Peti­tion in the Prayer; to which he saith, Forgiveness is promised, St. John therefore saith, that God who keeps his Promise is faith­ful to forgive Sins, because he who hath taught us to pray for our sins, hath promised, that his Fatherly Mercy and Pardon shall follow.

The Roman Gloss saith, God is faithful, who promised Grace to the humble.

Oecumenius refers this to Isaiah 43. 26. Where Oecum. in Loc. according to the Septuagint Translation, the words are, tell thy sins first, that thou mayest be justified. Which is usher­ed in with that promise, v. 25. I, even I am he, that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Lyra saith, God is faithful to forgive us our Sins, because he promised so, Mat. 3. 2. Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

You see that the ancient Interpreters could find other Promi­ses both in the Old and New Testament, which obliged God to forgive Sins before Auricular Confession is pretended to be insti­tuted; and not one of them dreamed that St. John had relation to that promise; beside which Mr, M. affirms there is not ano­ther in the New Testament. How will he reconcile this to his profession of Faith, in which he promises never to interpret Scrip­ture, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers? When there is not one Father to vouch his sence of this place, and several against him.

§ 6. But 3. Suppose, that consequence followed from this place [Page 47] which he infers that God will not remit Sins under the new Testa­ment, without the Ministry of his Priests: Yet it would not follow that Auricular Confession is necessary; because under the old Law the Sins of the People were not pardoned without the Ministry of Gods Priests, and yet it is confessed that Auricular Confession was not then instituted. Besides if the Ministry of the Priest be necessary, why should that be understood rather of their private than publick Ministry? And lastly, their Ministry may be ne­cessary on other accounts than hearing Confessions and pronoun­cing Absolutions. Thus Oecumenius makes the For­giveness Oecum in Loc. of Sins here promised to be that Remission which is obtained in Baptism. Therefore (saith he) God doth cer­tainly remit Sins to them that come to his holy Baptism. St. Chrys. lib. 3. De Sacerdotio. St. Chrysostome, who wrote his Books De Sacerdotio, purposely to magnisie the Priests Office, interprets the promise in St. John 20. 23. by the power of admitting to Baptism, and the Lords Supper: together with the Priests Inter­cession and Prayers for Sinners; but he says not one word of their remitting by an Absolution or Judicial Sentence. Who so­ever knows St. Chrisostom, must own that if he had known or be­lieved such a magnificent power in the Priests, he wou'd never have omitted it, in Books written designedly to magnifie their Of­fice. I conclude therefore that although the Ministry of the Priests under the Gospel is necessary to the pardon of the Peo­ples Sins: Yet that Ministry may consist in the use of their Di­rections, Prayers, Intercession, and Sacraments; and I believe Mr. M. will hardly be able to shew any other way of Absolution used by the ancient Church. Nay, Non quasi a nobis Remissionem peccatorum consequantur, sed ut per nos ad intelligentiam dil [...]ctorum suo­rum convertantur, & domino plenius satisfa [...]ere cogantur, Cyprian. Ep. 75. p. 219. Oxon. St Cyprian denies that Priests pro­perly forgive Sins; because all that they can do is to put men in a way to be forgiven.

Sect. 7. The second thing Mr. M. intends for an Argument in favour of Confession, is what he alledges, p. 7. that Confession is approved and frequented by all the Christian World, except the Peo­ple [Page 48] of our Islands, and some few others that call themselves reform­ed; and further p. 8. that it was never heard of in the Catholick Church that Christians may receive the communion of Christs Body and Blood without a previous confession and Absolution. Which if true, proves this Doctrine to be Catholick both as, to time and place; but the best of it is, that we are not bound to take his word. And that upon Examination this will be found false in both the parts of it. For neither do all other Christians beside the Reformed frequent and approve Auricular Confession otherwise than our Church doth: Nor is it any new thing in the Catho­lick Church for Men to come to the Communion without pri­vate Confession and Absolution by a Priest.

The whole Greek Church denies Auricular Confession to be of divine Right, pretending it only to be a 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 Decret de poenit. Dist. 5. Can 1. 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 [Page 49] 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: Eudaemon—Episcopo Nectario dedit consilium, ut Presbyterum poeniten­tiarium tolleret, & Tiberam daret potesta­tem, uti pro sua quisque Conscientia ad mysteria participanda accederet, Soc. l. 15. cap. 19. Ab illo tempore, quo Novatiani se ab Ecclesia sejunxerant, recusa verant (que) cum his, qui tempore persecutionis reg­nante Decio concitatae lapsi erant, com­municare, Ecclesiarum Episcopi Canoni adjunxerunt, ut in singulis Ecclesiis Pres­byter quidam paenetentiae praeesset, Soc. ih. 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. Hoc tempore Presbyterum, qui poeni­tentibus deputatus esset, esse non amplius passus est, omnium primus Nectarius: quem omnes fere Ecclesiarum Praesules imitati sunt, Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 16. And Sozo men adds, that the Bishops of al­most all other Churches imitated him.

De paenit. Dist. 1 Can. 89. Cui autem horum potius inhaerendum sit, lectoris ju­dicio reservatur. Gratian proposes the Au­thorities for and against the ne­cessity of Confession, and leaves it to the Readers Judgment which he will believe. Igitur 1150. tempore Gratiani non­dum super hoc quicquam definitum a [...]t praeceptum erat ab Ecclesia, quia Gra [...]a­nus non ignorasset nec omisisset, s [...]d fere post alios 100 Annos introducta fuit oris Confessor per Innocent III. Glossa Margin ubi supra. And the Gloss [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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, 'tis 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 Si quis ita animo affectus sit ut peccata admissa doleat, simul (que) in posterum non peccare constituat: etsi ejusmodi dolo­re non efficiatur, qui ad impetrandam veniam satis esse possit: ei tamen, cum peccata Sacerdota ritè confessus fuerit, vi Clavium scelera omnia remitti, & condonari. Catech. ad Par. par. 2. &c. Poenit. Sect. 47. 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 Keys obtain Remission and Forgiveness for all his Villanies.

[Page 52]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 Ut enim hoc concedamus, contritione peccata deleri;—quoniam pauci admo­dum ad hunc gradum per­venirent, fiebat ut à paucis­simis hac via peccatorum ve­nia speranda esset. Ubi supra Sect. 46. 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 De la Freq. Communion, part. 2. ch. 40▪ item part. 3. chap. 16. 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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.

§ 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 55] 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 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 [Page 56] 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; [Page 57] 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. [Page 58] 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 'tis with this last the Church of Rome stands charged.

Now not only Doctor Stilling fleet, whom he confesses he never read, but Just. Vindic. p. 171. Primate Bram­hall also, (whom he pretends to have seen) have proved that some practice of this kind of Idolatry, as well as some other Sins, may consist with the Being of a Church. But what shall we say to a Man who understands but little himself, and will not be per­suaded to read those who can inform him. Who takes this opi­nion by hear say, as if it were peculiar to one Author; whereas it is the common sense of our Controvertists. Which I think is a Demonstration, that not withstanding what he pretends ( p. 1.) he is yet to begin to study the Controversie between both Churches. He confesses he did not understand this matter; and then let the World judge, whether it was done like a Man who either loved, or designed truth, to write against a thing before he undrstood it.

§ 7. In order to help his understanding, he would do well to consider, 1. Whether to teach and practice Idolatry, destroy the ve­ry Being of a Christian, more then of a Jewish Church. Now it is plain that the Jewish Church both taught and practised Idolatry, and is charged as Idolatrous; 1. When Aaron with the whole Con­gregation, sacrificed to the Calf: and afterwards, when the Kings of Judah establish'd Idolatry in the very Temple of God: In which [Page 59] 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 Soc. lib. 2. cap. 37. Col. Allogr. 1612. Felix, Bishop of Rome. In Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 27. 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. Spond. ab Anno 595. 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 Re­ordination, the Heretical Donatists. Whom In psal. 85. Christo talc [...] maledicunt, qui dicunt quod periit Ecclesia de [...]o [...]orbe te [...] ­raru [...], & remansit in sola Africa. Si diceres illi, perdes villam tuam, forte non à [...]e tempe­raret manum; & dicis Christum perdidisse haereditatem suam redemptam sanguine suo.—Ergo injuriam facis Christo, ut dicas populum ejus ad istam exiguitatem diminutum. Ideo natus es, ideo Christianum te di [...]is, utlinvideas gloriae Christi. St. Augustine sharply reproves for their Uncharitableness.

[Page 60] 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? 'Tis 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? 'Tis 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 Aug. Tom. 7. lib. 2. contra Literas Peti­liani. 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 [Page 61] 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 Vid. Concil. Later. 4. c. 3. 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? Vid. Bullam apud Burnet. Col. p. 166. ex Bullar. Cherub, tom. 2. p. 740. Pope Paul III. and his Faction taught and commanded the Subjects of Henry VIII. to depose their Prince. Apud Sanderum de Visibili Mon. p. 710. 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.

§ 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, [Page 62] p. 9. to conclude, p. 10. in a word, p. 11. in sine, next paragraph on the whole matter, p. 12. after all his concluding, he must have a word or two before he make an end, p. 13. he promises to say no more, and yet he cannot forbear adding two or three things, nothing to the purpose. Thus he says and unsays, and labours in a heap of con­fusion. And when all is done, he puts things in a less advantageous Light, than has been done by many of his Brethren before him. I shall bring what he says, such as it is, into this method. 1st. I will consider what he says in order to vindicate, or recom­mend his new Church. And 2ly. Wherein he criminates ours.

§ 2. He endeavours to vindicate his new Church in her Devo­tions; as to the Direction of them: as to their being in an un­known Tongue; and as to their being made before Images. He endeavours to recommend her, from the excellency of her Prayers, and from the Devotion and Unity of her People.

As to the direction of her Prayers; he tells us, That instead of Idolatry, he found most elevated and judicious Prayers to the Holy Trinity; concluding in the Name of our Saviour Jesus Christ, p. 9. and he asks, Do Roman Catholicks ever say Mass to any other object but the living Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? p. 12. Now if all the Prayers in the Mass be so very elevated and judicious, and all said to the Trinity only; then God forgive the wickedness of those People who quarrel at this, and persecute it with so blind and furious Aversion. But soft and fair Mr. M. consider they are Hereticks you pray for, and ten to one either do not deserve, or do not need your Charity. For suppose the Prayers in the Mass were never so judicious, and never so well directed; yet for ought the People know, or any assurance they have besides the honesty of the Priest, the Prayers may be Conjuring, or Cursing; directed to Jupiter or Mahomet; and therefore 'tis your own Fault that people persecute them with so blind and furious Aversion; since you keep the people in that blindness, and will not let them un­derstand their Prayers, that they may admire their Judicious­ness.

§ 3. But 2ly. It is to be considered, that the Mass was patched [Page 63] up in a barbarous and ignorant Age, though many of the Mate­rials are old; and the composition is such, that all, even of the Roman Communion, are not satisfied concerning the Judicious­ness of the Prayers in it. In so much that Ipsa etiam loquendi forma Cano­nem ipsum non indectis hominibus ob­scuriorem, & difficiliorem reddat.—Est autem hujus obscuritatis praecipua causa, quod in co multipliciter Sacrificii nomen usurpetur; & subito non nunquam ex uno intellectu in alium transitio fiat. Consid. de iteratione, p. 1004. Cassander, who was a little better acquainted with it then Mr. M. confesses the phrase is obscure, even to Learned Men: that the Canon is difficult, and that sometimes there is a sudden (b) Ut si orationibus his sua veritas con­stet, intelligi debent ea symbola pan [...]s, & vini, quae in dominica mensa ad Consecra­tionem proposita sunt, nomine populi esse oblata.—Deinde dubium non est, quo tempore Canon hic initio u­surpabatur, aliquos semper a [...]fuisse, qui una cum ipso sacerdote, haec Sacrificia laudis effere [...]aut, & Sacramenta participa­bant, id enim Canonis verba manifest [...] significant.—Cujus ignoratio aliis ad superstitionem [...]o abutendi aliis, ut im­pium ipsum damnandi occasionem dedit. Ubi supra, p. 1003. jump from one sence of a word to another.

Cassander was no perverse ill­natured Phanatick, but a learned and ingenuous Roman Catholick: and yet he finds fault with this Prayer Mr. M. has produc'd, and others of the like importance in the Mass; because they are im­properly used as Masses are now celebrated: for these Prayers have respect (as he tells us) to an an­cient custom in the Church now gone out of use; and agree chiefly to a Solemn Mass, in which there is supposed to be a Communion and Congregation of the people that have offered Bread and Wine. This Bread and Wine offered by the People, is that immaculate Sacrifice offered up by the Priest in the Prayer mentioned by Mr. M. And where neither People are present, nor any Offering is made by them, this Prayer, and several others in the Mass, make a hard shift to gain the Estimation of either Sence or Truth, much less of Judiciousness. And has given occasion to some, to abuse the Mass to Superstition; and to others, to condemn it as Impious. How can a Priest, with either Judgment or Truth, offer a Sacri­fice for all present, as the Prayers direct him to do; even in a solitary Mass, when none is present or near him?

[Page 64]But 3ly. As all the Prayers in the Mass are not judiciously con­trived, so neither are they all said to the Trinity; the very Sacrifice being offered Ut illis proficiat ad ho­norem, nobis autem ad sa­lat [...]m: & illi pro nobis inter [...]dere dig [...]entur, &c. O [...]do Miss [...]. Suo loco & ordine nomi­nantur, non tamen a Sacer­dote qui sacrificat invocan­tur. De Civit Dei, lib. 22. cap 10. up for the Honour of Saints and Angels, and to obtain of them their Intercession: besides several Prayers made to them for the same purpose, directly contrary to what we learn from Saint Augustine to have been the Practice of the ancient Church.

§ 4. Mr. M. seems aware of this Objection, and hints at three Answers to it. 1st. That Presbyterians object as much against that Canticle in the Common-Prayer-Book, called Benidecite. 2dly. That the Roman Catholick ascribe nothing to Angels or Saints, but as the Ministers of God And 3dly. That the Angels must know our affairs, and the Saints have intelligence from them; and therefore we pray to them.

1. He assures us, That the Reader shall find Protestants objecting nothing against Consessing, and Praying to Saints and Angels; but what Presbyterians do against that Canticle in the Common-Prayer-Book, called Benedicite omnia opera. O Ananias, Azarias and Misael, praise ye the Lord, is as rank Popery with Presbyterians, as any thing in the Mass, or Litanies of our Lady, p. 9. Now except he be able to shew where the Presbyterians have declared this as their sence, we can count him no better than a Slanderer. For my part I do prosess, that I never yet met with one single Pres­byterian so silly as to make this Apostrophe for an Invocation of dead Men, who do not hear us. The disparity of the case is so manifest between our Church and the Roman, that it is hardly possible any should mistake. Consil. Trid. Sess. 25. de In­vocatione, & [...]. The Ro­man Church has determined that it is good and pro­sitable humbly to invocate the Saints, and to flee to their Prayers, Help and Assistance. Article 22. Our Church has declared Invocation of Saints to be a fond thing, vainly invented. To parallel therefore the Presbyterian Objection [Page 65] (if any such there be) against us; with ours against the Papists on this Head, is to shift off an Objection, which did not easily admit of an Answer.

§ 5. Let us see if this second Answer be any better; which is, that the Roman Catholicks attribute nothing to Angels or Saints, but as the Ministers and Favourites of the Living God, receiving from him whatever understanding they have of our affairs, p. 12. But what then? May not Men ascribe more to Favourites than the King allows them, and is not that an encroachment on his Prerogative? If Mr. M. will shew us, where God allows us to make Prayers to Saints, to erect Images for their Worship, burn Incense before them, dedicate Churches to their Honour, make Vows to them, or devote Orders and Societies of Men as slaves to their Service, he will indeed vindicate his Church against the Reformation: for in possession of all these, the first Reformers found them, and justly concluded it safest to lay them aside, as too much to be allowed Favourites out of our own head, without the express Declaration of the Princes Will. But if he cannot shew that God allows them these things, it will be the safest way, and no hurt for him or us, to lot them alone.

§ 6. His third Answer or pretence is no less insufficient: where he alledges, that the Angels must know our affairs, because they are ministring Spirits, sent forth for the good of those who shall be heirs of Salvation; and because they rejoice at the Conversion of sinners: and have glorified Saints no Communication or Intelligence with the An­gels? p. 13. To which I answer, That these allegations neither justifie the Invocation, nor the worship of Angels or Saints. It is true, the Angels are ministring Spirits; but we neither know which of them are assigned to minister unto us, nor when they are present. These things depend altogether on the immediate Will of God; and therefore it is to Him not Them we are to apply our selves, if we would obtain their Care and Ministry for our good. 'Tis true likewise, that the Saints and Angels rejoyce at our Conversion, when that Conversion comes to their knowledge. But that place in St. Luke 15. 7. I say unto you, Joy shall be in Heaven over on [...] sin­ner [Page 66] that repents, more than over ninety nine just Persons, doth no more prove that the Angels in Heaven know all the Conversions on Earth, or that we ought to pray to them; than my saying, That there is more joy in Rome over one such Proselite as Mr. M. than over ninety nine born Roman Catholicks, doth prove that I believe such Conversions are all known there; and that therefore Mr. M. may go into his Closet, and pray to the Cardinals, be­cause it is plain his Affairs are known at Rome. Lastly, 'Tis true, that the glorified Saints have Communication with the Angels, and may receive intelligence of our Affairs from them; and therefore I would advise Mr. M. to send his Service and Requests to them by the next Angel he meets going that way. But because Angels pass and repass from Heaven to Earth, to conclude that we may at all times, and in all places, with mind and voice pray to Saints, is as foolish, as to conclude, because we have Posts pass from London to Dublin, that therefore a Man here may beg the assistance of his Friends Prayers who are in London, every time he goes to his knees. This is the wise Vindication Mr. M. has made for his Church, as to the Direction of some of her Prayers.

§ 7. The second thing which Mr. M. undertakes to vindicate in his Church, is her using a Tongue unknown to the People in all her publick Devotions, and Services. And it happens to him in this, as it does in most other things; if all that he says were granted him, it would neither justifie his Church, nor condemn the Reformation; since not one of his Arguments so much as pretend, to prove a known Tongue unlawful in the publick Ser­vice of God, or an unknown Tongue expedient: which will ap­pear on the Examination. He alledges therefore, 1. That the Ob­jection of its being said in the Latin Tongue, allows every one to hear it that understands Latin. A great favour indeed. Who can af­ter this, accuse the Roman Church of keeping Men ignorant of her Service? It is plain from our very Objection that they may hear it, if they but understand Latin; and 'tis their own fault if they do not understand it: 'Tis only spending seven or eight years to acquire the Latin Tongue, and then they may undestand some [Page 67] part of her Service. But pray what is this to the illiterate World, who are past the age of learning Latin? What is this to the Poor, who are the bulk of the World, and have the best and most pecu­liar Title to the Gospel; and yet have neither capacity nor op­portunity to learn Latin? Mr. M. bids them be of good chear: For unlearned Catholicks, if the truth were known, understand as much or more of the Mass, than illiterate Protestants do of the Common Prayer. If a Man were apt to give ill words, the confidence and palpable falshood of this Assertion would certainly provoke him. It were better surely to believe nothing but our Senses, which he falsly imputes to some Protestants, than to undertake to face down Sense and Experience, in a matter in which the meanest, most illiterate Protestant in the World, will be a Demonstration against him. We are content our People should believe all Mr. M. says, according as they find this true. But he objects farther, What does the Protestant Multitude understand of the Predictions of Isai­ah, &c. read in their Churches by appointment of the Common Pray­er? Suppose they understood not one word of them: how doth it follow, that unlearned Catholicks understand more of the Mass, than illiterate Protestants do of the Common-Prayer Book? This is a new Instance of Mr. M's old Infirmity, in drawing Conse­quences. We are now talking of Common Prayers, in which the People ought to joyn: and he talks of the Lessons, which are no part of them. There are commonly in every Congregation, persons of better and of meaner capacity; 'tis fit both should be instruct­ed. Those Lessons out of Isaiah are for the better capacities, and are read so, as may make them most easie to them. And what great matter, if the weaker, for whom they are not intended, do not understand them, since they are sufficiently provided for o­therwise. Their obscurity might be some reason against reading them at all; but if they ought to be read, as is ordered both by the Common-Prayer Book and Breviary, I hope they will be bet­ter understood in English than Latin: And yet after all, there is not one Lesson ordered to be read by the Common-Prayer Book, but the meanest of the Protestant Multitude understands more of [Page 68] it, then a whole illiterate Popish Congregation understands of the Breviary, or Mass; and of this he may make an Experiment when he pleases.

His second Allegation in behalf of his Church is, that she has set forth Expositions of the Mass in Print. How many Evpositions of the Mass (says he) are extant in Print by Commandment of the Church? So that no Man can be ignorant of it that desires to be infor­med. To this I answer, That if by an Exposition be meant a Tran­slation of the Mass, there is not one extant in Print by Command­ment of their Church. On the contrary, the Congregation of the Index have Damned the very hours of the blessed Virgin, for being in the Vulgar Tongue; as may be seen at large in Saint Amours Journal, Part. 3. Chap. 5. There is indeed a Translation stolen out of late in English, but it is without any Authority, which may be called a Commandment of their Church. How­ever, if it were set out by her Authority, what could it signifie to the greater part of the People, who are neither able to pro­cure nor read that Translation? And if they could read it, yet would no more be able by help of it to joyn with the Priest, then 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, [Page 69] 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 Critical History of the Old Testament lib. 2. chap. 18 p. 123. London, 1682. Simon, Proleg. 12. sect. 7. p. 83. and Bishop Walton: Nay De sibyllinis c. 16. p. 184. Lond. 1684. Et plenius ad Iterat. p. Simonis obj. Resp. p. 376. & 377. 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 70] 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 no [...] 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 Lit [...]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 [Page 71] 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, and due Honour and Worship is to be paid them. And that we ought to kiss, uncover our Heads, and fall prostrate before them.

§ 9. But then, Secondly, He bids us enquire whether Roman Ca­tholicks pay any more respect to them, than Protestants do to the Ele­ments of Bread and Wine, which (say they) are but a Figure or Image of Christs Body and Blood. To which I answer, That this Enquiry supposes two notorious Falshoods: First, That Prote­stants pay any other respects to the Elements of Bread and Wine, then that of not diverting them from their Sacramental use. And Secondly, That they say the Elements are but a Figure or Image of [Page 72] Christs Body and Blood. Our Curch having declared in her Ru­brick after the Communion, that the kneeling at the Reception of the Sacrament, is only to Christ; and that no Adoration is in­tended, or ought to be done unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine: and likewise concerning the Elements, that they are not only Signs or Images, but effectual means of conveying the Body and Blood of Christ to the Faithful. Which I hope no Papist will say of his Images. And now I must refer it to the Reader, whether he will suppose Mr. M. to have been ignorant of our Doctrine in this point, or to have knowingly, and against his Conscience, suggested these falshoods.

§ 10. His third attempt for the Defence of his Church in this Practice, is from his old Friends the Presbyterians. The Church of England Protestants are every jot as offensive to us (say the Presby­terians) kneeling before the Elements of Bread and Wine, as the Pa­pists kneeling before the Image of Christ. To which I answer, That if the Matter of Fact here alledged, were true, (which I do not be­lieve,) yet it were no Argument; because the Presbyterians, or whosoever are thus offended, are manifestly unreasonable in pa­ralleling these two cases. The Disparity is apparent, and the very same that there is between receiving a Pardon, or any other signal Favour from the Kings own Hand on my knees; and falling down every time I see his Pictuure on a Sign-post.

But once for all, let Mr. M. know, (for he professes to need Information,) that it is is no Anwer to an Argument, to pretend that others urge it against the Proponents themselves; except the Answerer shew that both urge it with equal Reason. For so the Apostles might have been answered by a Heathen. You would perswade us, that we are under the Power of Satan, and Aliens to the Life of God: Do not the Gnosticks say the same of you? Si­lence them, and we will believe you. So a Roman Catholick may be answered by an Indian, You would have us renounce our Idols and Heroes; whereas there is a People amongst yourselves, cal­led Protestants, to whom your kneeling before the Images of Christ, and praying to Saints, are every jot as offensive as our praying to [Page 73] our subordinate Celestial Powers and Kneeling before their Images. If this would signifie nothing to Mr M. why should it signifie any thing to us what Presbyterians object against our Kneeling at the Reception of the Sacrament? or how are we concerned, what they pretended in 41, a­gainst our Reformation, or Hugh Peters in 47, against theirs? except he will undertake to justifie their Pretences, which is a Task themselves could never perform.

§ 11. There is onely one thing more he says in vindi­cation of his Church; and that concerns the ill Practices we charge on some Roman Catholicks, and the ill Opinions of others. He doth not deny that there are some such, but he looks on it as no Argument at all. If so, he wrote his Book to very little purpose; for why are we more concern­ed in the ill Practices or ill Opinions of some who pretend to Reform, than he is in the ill Practices and Opinions of the Pope and Court of Rome? Yet these pretended faults of the Reformers, make up the greatest part of what he Objects against our Church; which shews that he has one Rule for us, and another for his own Party. But the truth is, we charge the Council of Trent it self with some ill Practices and Opinions. For thô we take Popery as the most judicious Papists represent it; (and they who bring the Decrees of the Council of Trent nearest to Protesta­nism, I find are at present counted such) yet still there needs better Vouchers than Mr M. to make us believe all things in it Judicious and Pious.

§ 12. Having thus examined all that he has said in de­fence of his Church, let us next consider what he has of­fered to recommend Her: And of this nature he produces three instances: The Excellency of her Books of Devoti­on; the Devotion of her People; and the Unity of her Members. He tells us, p. 9. that, that which obliged him most of all to the Church of Rome, was the perusal of her Books of Devotion; such as St. Francis Sales—Neirem­bergius [Page 74] —Lewis Granatensis— especially the Mass it self. If these obliged him most of all, had he lived at the Reformation, he had wanted some of the strongest obliga­tions to keep him in the Roman Communion; three of these four he mentions being written after the Reformation, and the other but a few years before. And now they are writ­ten, he was not debarred the use of them in the Communi­on in which he lived. The Spirit of the Reformation, which he says he compared without prejudice, with the Spirit of the Roman Church, allowing the use of all Books that may advance Piety, by whomsoever they are written, which the Spirit of his Church doth not: But what is this to the Reformation, which did not find, much less condemn these Books? Let him shew one Book of Devotion, or Ex­position of the Mass, or Breviary, extant in English before the Reformation, if he can; and remember what has been done since, to the eternal shame of those, who never troub­led themselves with Devotion, till meer necessity of sup­porting their interest among the People put them on it. As for the Piety of the Prayers in the Mass, let him who understands, both compare any Prayer there with our Li­tany, and 'tis hardly possible Prejudice should so blind him, as not to see which has the advantage.

§ 13. But, nevertheless, he alledges, that the Devotion of their People exceeds ours. Let the Reader compare that Devotion which Catholics pay to the Sacrifice of the Mass, with that which most Protestants shew to the Common-Prayer, and then see how much better we are by Reforming the Mass into English, p. 11. To which I answer, That if it were grant­ed, that Papists appear to be more devote at Mass, than Protestants at Church (for that I suppose he means by pay­ing Devotion to the Mass, and shewing it to the Common-Prayer) yet it would not follow that the Mass were bet­ter than the Common-Prayer, or a fitter means of Devo­tion; since that difference might arise from other motives, [Page 75] as it manifestly doth. The Roman Catholics place much more Religion in outward shew, 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 [Page 76] 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. See his Chro­nology ad ann. 1439 Bellarmine loved the Church of Rome as well as Mr M. and he owns twenty six Schisms in her. See his Chroni­con Pontificum ad ann. 137 [...]. 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. Cum postea fere semper se [...] ­v [...]ta h [...]c consuetudo sit ut a [...]a prio [...]um Pontificum, sequentes aut infringe [...]ent, aut omnino tollerent. Plat. de Vuis Pon. if. in Joh. 6. 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. Spond. ad ann. 908. Se [...]. 2. H [...]nc (que) tantum inval [...]it mere­t [...]i [...]um imperium, ut pro [...]r [...]i­trio legitimè creatos Pontifices dimoverent, & violentos ac ne [...]atios homines int [...]uderent. Quae considerans, quis non pu­tarit Deum oblitum Ecclesiae sua? Spond. ubi supra Se [...]. 3. 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 [Page 77] 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. [Page 78] 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 a due Sub­mission to the Church. As to the first of these, I suspect the chief reason, why some of his Party object the Com­munion Service, being taken out of the Mass; is not that they think it any fault if it were; but because they bel eve it may gratifie and incense their Friends, the Nonconfor­mists, against the publick Service of the Church. But I answer, That the Model of our Service, and Materials thereof, are not taken out of the Mass, but out of the an­cient Liturgies of the Church, to which it is much more conformable than to the Mass.

§ 18. The second Objection he brings against our Church is, That she hath no sufficient Foundation: P. 11, I desire to be informed whether the Protestant Church had a­ny [Page 79] other Foundation (setting aside an Act of Parliament) than every Man's own Reason; or which is the same thing, the Scriptures Interpreted by every Man's Reason? There are but two Bases whereupon to settle our selves, the Scriptures and Fathers expounded by my own Reason; or the Scriptures and Fathers expounded by the voice of the present visible Church. This later is Popish, and cannot support a Reform­ed Fabrick. In answer to this, I will shew, first, in what Sence every Man's Reason, may be said to be the founda­tion of his Church. Secondly, That our Church has trusted her Reason in the expounding Scriptures and Fa­thers, no farther than she ought to have done. And Thirdly, That she has not Expounded them so as to con­tradict the sence of the present visible Church.

First therefore, When Mr. M. alledges that our Church has no other Foundation than every Man's Reason, he may mean that she has no other Foundation for her Religion, than what natural Reason, without the assistance of Reve­lation, and other helps God has afforded her, doth sug­gest. And this is a manifest Calumny, because she has, besides what natural Reason of it self suggests, the Scrip­tures, the Fathers, the universal Tradition of all Ages past, and present, for every Article of her Faith. Let him shew one Article that wants any one of these, and we will strike it out of our Creeds; or any other Article that has this testimony for its necessity, and it shall be inserted.

There may be another sence of these words, The Pro­testant Church has no other Foundation than every man's Reason: and 'tis this, The Protestants make use of no o­ther faculties, to find out the sence of Scriptures and Fa­thers, of the former and present Church, but their Rea­son and Senses: and consequently rely on them with God's assistance, to find out the true Religion and Church. This Sence we allow, and except Mr. M. and his Party, will shew us some other faculties, given us by God, whereby we [Page 80] may choose our Religion; they ought not to blame us for using these only. When they find out another faculty of the Soul, besides these two, whereby we may distinguish Truth from Falshood, we promise them to use it also. And though Mr. M. confesses his own Reason, to be as weak as a­ny body can think it and pretends not to assert it, but the Au­thority of the Church: yet, till he tells us by what faculties he judges himself obliged to submit to the Authority of the Church, and by what faculties he comes to know that the Roman Church is she, to whose Authority he ought to sub­mit; we must tell him, that the Authority of his Church, as to him, is founded meerly and solely on his own Rea­son, how weak soever he own it. And so must the Au­thority of every Church, to every man in the World. And therefore it is foolish to object, That the Protestant Church has no other Foundation than every Man's Reason and Sences; for no Church, no not Christianity, has or can have any other.

§ 19. But Secondly, Perhaps Mr. M. means only that we do not allow the voice of the present visible Church a due regard in our Determination, concerning Faith and Religion. In Answer to which, in the second place, I say, our Church trusted her reason no further in expounding Scripture than she ought to have done. And here it is to be remembred, that she is a compleat Church, associ­ated together in one intire Ecclesiastical Body, with full power to Interpret and Teach her Subjects, all things rela­ting to Faith and Discipline: As these Kingdoms are a com­pleat Common-wealth, associated into one civil Body, with full power to Interpret and Enact all things relating to the Law of Nature, and the Civil Government of the King­doms. As therefore these Kingdoms do not trust their Reason too far, when they determine concerning the Laws of Nature without Appeal; so neither did our Church trust her Reason too far, when she determined without [Page 81] Appeal, concerning matters relating to Faith. And there is no more inconvenience can befal her Subjects, by al­lowing her this power in this case, than can befal them, by allowing their Civil Majestrates the like power in the o­ther.

§ 20. And third, to shew that she did not intend to contradict the general voice of the visible Church, with which Mr. M. seems to charge her; she was content to re­fer all difference between her and her Neighbour Churches, to the Arbitration of a general Council, even of the West. And to this she Appealed, when the Pope pretended to Ex­communicate her. And not only she, but other Prote­stant Churches did the same. But the Roman Church be­ing Conscious, that the general Voice and Sense of the vi­sible Church, was against her Usurpation, durst not stand this Tryal; but without any Authority from God, or the visible Church (if we understand by that the general Body of Christians) took on her self to be Judge, Witness, and Accuser. Which was more than Luther did; for he referred himself, and Appealed to a general Council.

§ 21. The third Objection Mr. M. alledges against the Reformers, is, their not yielding a due Submission to the Church. For after all his clamour against Reason, he allows us to make use of it with Submission; he has ex­pressed his meaning in this, so as it is not easie to guess, whether he means by submitting our reason, an intire re­signation of it, to beleive whatsoever the Church of Rome by a Priest, or a Council tells us, and then the only use of reason will be to find out Arguments to defend what she has taught us; or whether by Submission he means only a due regard to her Determinations, so that a Man of her Communion shall not allow himself publickly to oppose and contradict her Doctrine. This last he seems to un­derstand by Submission; because he opposes it to Contra­diction and Petulancy. And then why is not this Sub­mission [Page 82] due as much to the Church of England and Ireland as Rome? Did not Christ say to the Bishops of England and Ireland, He that hears you hears me; as well at to the Bishop of Rome?

§ 22. But to clear this matter a little, I will shew that we pay all due Submission to the Church. And, Second­ly, 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. 'Tis therefore the Church of all Ages, and places, that we reckon the Ground and Pillar of Truth. Whereas Mr M. con [...]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 [Page 83] 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.

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 Cathol [...]ks by Inclination; (I hope we are really so) but the Tyranny of Prejudice, or Interest keeps us Prote­stants. But for Prejudice, l [...]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 [Page 85] 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.

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.