I Humbly beg leave to send Your Grace this short Account of my Reconcilement to the Roman Catholick Church. God be praised it was not any consideration of Temporal Interest that inclin'd me to it, as all that have known me these several years past can witness. But having often reflected on the uncertainty and variety of the Protestant Spirit, and perused the Books of Catholicks without prejudice, especially the Mass it self, I found my self deceiv'd by the Reports which I had entertain'd of Catholick Religion.

THere are three Points chiefly wherein I could never satisfy my self, since I began to Study the Controversy between both Churches. One is the Authority or Mission of the first Reformers. The second is the want of Confession in the Church of England. The Third is the Answer given by Protestants to that Question in His late Majesties Papers, Where is that one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which we do profess to believe in the two Creeds.

As to the first, I have seen Dr. Bramhall's and Mr. Mason's Vindi­cations of the Church of England; but could never find any satis­factory Answer to this Question, Who Authoriz'd the first Reformers to Preach their Protestant Doctrine, and Administer their Protestant Sacraments? Their Priestly or Episcopal Character, whether valid or no, I meddle not with to prevent Disputes: Although I think it no easy matter to find out who Ordain'd the first Protestant Bishops; there being none to do it except Roman Catholick Prelates, who never use to Consecrate any Protestants. This Testimony I lately met with in the Records annexed to Dr. Burnet's second Volume of his History of the Resormation.

In the Month of March anno 1553. Queen Mary sent this, amongst other Articles, to the Bishop of London, viz. Touching such persons as were heretofore (meaning the days of Edward the VI.) promoted to any Orders after the new sort and fashion of Orders, considering they were not order'd in very deed; the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise, sufficiency, [Page 2]and ability in those men, may supply that thing which wanted in them be­fore, and then according to his discretion admit them to Minister, &c. This Royal Testimony, with the Honest Protestant Reader, will not be despisable. I shall not insist upon it, but only observe at present, that Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Latimer Bishop of Wor­cester, at the time of their Confecration were profess'd Roman Catho­licks in all points, except. perhaps the Pope's Supremacy; But after­wards turning Protestants, and pronouncing the Church of Rome Ido­latrous, I would fain know by whose Authority.

The truth is, they were first Ordain'd Catholick Bishops according to the Roman Pontifical, and afterwards made themselves Protestant Bishops. But I understand not how a Man can forsake the Church of England, and Preach Presbyterian Doctrine by virtue. of his Protestant Orders; nor how any man can justify his Protestant Doctrine by Au­thority of his Popish Mission.

This was Cranmer and Latimer's case, who at the time of their. Consecration (which was in the days of Henry the VIII.) professed Seven Sacraments; whether they believ'd so many, is a Question: Afterwards, anno 1536. retrenched them to Three, that is to say. Baptism, Penance, and the Lord's Supper: Then to Two, anno 1548 By whose Authority or Mission, I cannot tell. So that Protestancy seem to me to have been born into the World not like Honestly begotte Children, whose Parents are known, but rather like a By-blow whose Father is doubtful. I have known some Pre byrerians; when question'd about their Mission, pretend they did receive it from the Church of England Prelates; But being further interrogated, Did that Church Authorize you to Preach against her Sacraments or Liturgy? There was no Answer to be had. I know it will be said that the Protestant Religion is Authoriz'd by Act of Parliament, and so is not Presbytery. A Parliamentary Mission then our first Reformers had, and no other that I can find. But whether the Parliament, being a Civil Authority, has Power to send Missioners to Preach the Gospel, and Administer Sacraments, I do not well understand. If they have I suppose every Member of Parliament may Preach, and Administer Sacraments if he pleases; because no man can give that Authority un­to others which he hath not himself. And if English Parliaments may Preach, and Administer Sacraments, I doubt not but the French, Spanish, Scotch, and Irish may do the same; and then what Unity of Spirit, or agreement in Faith Christians are like to have, I could never under­stand.

[Page 3]To this, two Answers are wont to be given, which I will not con­ceal from the Reader. One is, that Cranmer and his Associates were sent and ordered by the Roman Pontifical to instruct the people accor­ding to the Scriptures. This is the Answer of Dr. Burnet. The Church (saith he) was over-run with Errours and Corruptions; this Cranmer saw, and was obliged to undeceive the people! Very good. But I intreat the Reader to inspect the Records aforesaid, published by the Doctor himself, and annexed to the first and second Volume of his History: where he shall find Cranmer, and one or two Bishops more pretending Errours and Corruptions, and driving on a Reformation against the Ma­jor Vote of the English Bishops. He shall find the same Cranmer at the time of his Consecration, owning and professing those very Doctrines which afterwards he called Errours and Corruptions; so that still I must ask the old Question, by whose Authority did he condemn that Church from whom he receiv'd his Mission and Holy Orders? I desire to know whether an honest Man can Preach against the Liturgy, Sa­craments, or Constitution of any Church, by virtue of any Commissi­on he received from it? And whether such Preacher be not liable to the Censures of that Church? Did ever any Church Authorize her Priests or Bishops to go and Preach the Gospel according to their own private Sense and Conscience, in contradiction to her declared Do­ctrine and Worship; Does the Church of England give any such Power at this day? No, by no means. Read the Form appointed by her for the Ordination of a Priest, where the Bishop is to interrogate the Party thus, viz. Do you think in your heart, that you be truly called according to the Order of this Church of England, to the Order and Mini­stry of Priesthood? The Answer is, I think so. Will you then (saith the Protestant Bishop) give your diligence always to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God? The Answer is, I will do so by the help of God.

So that, as no honest Man can turn Presbyterian or Independant. Preacher, by virture of his Protestant Mission; so neither can he Preach Protestant Doctrine, by pretence of a Commission he received from the Church of Rome. If any body should ask me, what if the. Church be manifestly corrupted with Superstition and Idolatry? In this case, why may not able Men Preach without any Mission? I must beg leave to ask him again, what if the Church finds those Men of Abilities manifestly intoxicated with mistakes of Holy Scripture? [Page 4]With a Spirit of perverseness, and a desire of change? Or perhaps an evil Eye at the Lands of the Church? What is to be done in this case? Let the Scripture (he will say) determine the business: But the Scrip­ture admits of various Interpretations: and I would fain know what Rebel or Heretick shall ever be convicted, that must be tryed by a Law whereof himself must be the Interpreter.

Well, but Cranmer, tho' he had no Mission to Reform, was perhaps a Holy Man: as for his Sanctity, the Reader may be pleased to see him subscribing to a Letter in Foxes Acts and Monuments for Exclu­ding his Lawful Sovereign the Princess Mary, from Succession to the Crown: And afterwards Recanting the Protestant Religion, and re­lapsing into it again, when he saw no hopes of a Reprieve. The truth is, when I reflect that Cromwel and He were the chief Engineers of the Reformation, first to Divorce Henry VIII. from his most Virtu­ous and Innocent Wife Queen Katherine, then to Marry him to Anne Bolen, and afterwards to dissolve that Marriage: Then to destroy Religious Houses, and hang up the poor Abbots; disband four or five Sacraments; set the People a madding after new Lights: I cannot but look upon those two Politicians as the Ring-leaders of all that Confusion and Mischief, which has since broke out upon the Stage of Great Britain.

So much for the former Answer, that Cranmer and his Associates were sent, and ordain'd by the Roman Pontifical to teach the People accor­ding to the Scriptures, which they did according to their own Sense of the Scriptures.

If it be said that he Preach'd no new Doctrine, nor Administred any new Sacraments, but only the Primitive Doctrine and Sacraments of Jesus Christ, according to the Sense of the Antient Fathers, which is the second Answer: I pray the Reader to remember, that this was the very Answer of Luther, Socinus, Zuinglius, Calvin, and other Re­formers. I am not disputing what Doctrine he Preach'd, but who sent him to Preach his Protestant Doctrine, and Adminster his Prote­stant Sacraments? 'Tis not his Doctrine, but Mission I am now enqui­ring after. How shall they Preach except they be sent? saith St. Paul. 'Tis not a pretence of true Doctrine, without External and Lawful Mis­sion, that makes a Man a Preacher of the Gospel. The necessity of Mission appears from God's own word, Jerem. 23. I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken to them, yet they Prophe­sied, vers. 21. Therefore they shall not profit this People at all, saith the Lord, verse 32.

[Page 5]There are but two sorts of Mission in Holy Scripture, the one Or­dinary, the other Extraordinary: The former is the License and Ap­probation of the Church in being: The latter is the immediate Voice and Inspiration of God himself, ever attested by Miracles, Predicti­on of future and publick Events, &c. Now, as for the first Preachers of Reformation, some body must send them by an Ordinary or Extra­ordinary Commission, or they must run on their own heads. Fur & latro est (says St. Cyprian) qui à nemine Missus nisi à seipso: That is to say, he enters not by the Dore as honest Men do, but seeks Win­dows, Corners, or By-ways of his own; as if the Divine Providence were wanting (when necessity requires) to send Preachers into the Church, or to furnish them with sufficient Credentials, so as to leave us without excuse. Did not the Hand of God strike Ʋzzah with sudden death, for presuming to put forth his hand, un-commanded, to support the Ark from falling, 2 Sam. 6. And King Ʋzzah with a Leaprosy to the day of his death, for Offering Incense which apper­tain'd to the Priests alone? Are not these things Recorded for our instruction?

The not considering this matter, hath brought a World of con­fusion upon these Kingdoms; and till the people can be brought to understand it, we are never like to see an end of our Religious Di­stractions. For why may not I (may a Presbyterian Minister say) ha­ving the same Authority of Scripture as Cranmer pretended to, Preach against the Superstition of Common-Prayer, as well as He against the Idolatry of the Mass.

The second point wherein I was disatisfy'd, was the want of Con­fession to a Priest. I found Protestant Sermons had some Authority with the people, but not much for lack of this Curb upon their Vi­ces, Catholicks 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.

I have divers times discoursed with Protestant Ministers, and some Protestant Bishops about this matter. I was sorry to find no Harmony in their Opinions. Some said it was a thing allow'd by the Church of England, as very expedient in some cases, but no matter of ne­cessity. Others thought it but a Pick-Lock of secrets, and a matter of ill consequence. But when I urg'd that the Church of England [Page 6]seems to require it in her Offices for the Communion and Visitation of the Sick; the reply was, she does it with this Proviso, If a man be troubled with any doubts or scruples; Which reply did but add more to my dissatisfaction: For thought I, is Confession nothing else but to be resolv'd in our scruples and doubts? I have sometimes wish'd her Exhortation before the Communion, otherwise worded, then saying, If there be any of you which cannot quiet his own Conscience, let him come to Me, or some other Learned Minister of Gods Word, and open his grief, &c. Which words seem to allow as much, as that sinners may satisfy their own Consciences well enough without troubling themselves for the Absolution of a Priest, although a Priest may be had.

In short, I confess my dulness understands neither the Piety nor Policy of leaving off the practise of a thing so approv'd and frequented by all the Christian World, except the people of our Islands, and some few others that call themselves Reformed. And that only for some Abuses which possibly may attend it. By this means the Church of England appears to me to have lost that Interest in the Consciences of the People, which both the Roman and Greek Priests are happy in at this day.

And 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, saith St. John. Faithful and just to what? Even to his own promise which he hath thrice repeated in the Gospel, Who­soevers sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them. But another promise, that he will do it without the Ministry of his Priests, we read not of in the New Testament. I pray the Reader to consider whether private Sinners in the Church of England do not offend God at a much cheaper rate then 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. If they cannot satisfie their own Consciences (saith the Common-prayer) let them come to me, or some other Discreet and Learned Minister, and open their Grief, &c. That Christians may receive the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood without a previous Confession and Absolution by a Priest, was never heard of in the Catholique Church until the days of Henry the VIII.

[Page 7]The third difficulty was the Answer given by Protestants to that Question in the late Kings Papers, Where is that one Holy Catholique and Apostolique Church which we do profess to believe in the two Creeds? Was there any such Society as one Holy Catholick Church extant upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation? And what Provinces of the Earth did this Church inhabit? This is a plain Question, and desires no Answer but of the ubi or place where to find it, This Society, if it be not an Idea Platonica, must appear some­where: And when That is known, the next doubt is, Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of it? and if so, I would fain know who gave him Authority to Reform this one Holy Catholique and Apostolique Church; To set up Altar against Altar, &c. If there were no such Church extant upon the face of the Earth, as there must be none, in case she were lapsed into Idolatry, what became of our Saviours Pre­diction, that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church? I am told that Dr. S —eet has answer'd these Questions, by saying, that the Church of Rome are Idolaiers, and yet a true Church at the same time: Which Answer I confess I do not understand. For what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, (saith St. Paul) 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. But such Answers must the given when there are no better. I confess I never read this Answer in him, I only have it by Hear-say. Surely, to teach and practise Ido­latry, destroys the very Being of a Christian Church. And it the Church of Rome be no Christian Church, there is an end of the Episcopal Suc­cession of the Church of England, and consequently of the Church it self.

To conclude, that which oblig'd me most of all to the Church of Rome, was the perusal of her Books of Devotion; such as Saint Francis Sales Bishop of Geneva, his Introduction to a Devout Life. Neirember­gius of the difference betwixt Temporal and Eternal. Lewis Gratensis of the Love of God. Kempis of the following of Christ, &c. Especially the Mass it self; which I read without prejudice, and compar'd the Spirit of Piety, which I found there, with the Spirit of Reformation.

Instead of Idolatry, I found the most Elevated and Judicious Prayers to the Holy Trinity; concluding in the Name or our Saviour Jesus [Page 8]Christ; besides the daily Sacrifice offered up to Almighty God, ac­cording to his own appointment, Do this in remembrance of me. All this I observ'd, and then said within my self, God forgive the wick­edness of those people who quarrel at this, and persecute it with so blind and furious an aversion. So did the Jews Crucify our Saviour.

What fault can any ingenious Protestant find with This, or any other Prayer of the Mass? Suscipe sancte Pater, omnipotentes aeterne Deus hanc immaculatam hostiam quam ego indignus famulus tuus offero tibi Deo meo vivo & vero, &c. Accept, O Holy Father Almighty and Eternal God, this unspotted Sacrifice which I thy unworthy Servant offer unto thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offences and negligences, and for all here present, as also for all Faithful Christians both living and dead, that it may avail both Me and Them unto everlasting life, Amen. If this be the Mass, who but a perverse ill-natur'd Pha­natick can except against it?

As for the Confiteor said at the beginning of Mass, the Reader shall find Protestants objecting nothing against it, but what Presbyterians do against that Canticle in the Common-Prayer-Book, called, Benedicte omnia opera. O Ananias, Azarias and Misael, Praise ye the Lord, is a [...] rank Popery with the Presbyterians, as any thing in the Mass, or Li­tanies of our Lady. For what's that (say they) but to invocate dead men, who don't hear us. Thus they will interpret it in their own Sense, and not in the Sense of the Church of England.

In a word, I found the Church of England beholding to the Mass for the best Flowers in her Communion Service. And since some Pro­testants will believe nothing but their Senses, let them read it as I have done, and believe their own eyes. The objection of its being said in the Latin Tongue, allows every man to hear it that understands Latin. And as for unlearned Catholicks, if the Truth were known, they understand as much or more of it than Illiterate Protestants do of the Common-Prayer. What does the Protestant Multitude understand of the Predictions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, read in their Churches by appointment of the Common-Prayer? How many Expositions of the Mass are extant in Print by the command­ment of the Church? So that no man can be ignorant of it that de­sires to be inform'd. How much more Universal and Vulgar is the Latin than the English Tongue? Had not the Jewish Church, (being then the only true Church in the World) almost all her Scriptures and publick Service for fourteen Generations, that is to say, from the [Page 9]Captivity of Babylon unto Christ in the old Hebrew? A Language not then understood by the common People. Did our Saviour or his Apostles ever reprehend the Jews for this? or for not Translating their Scriptures into the vulgar Language? If the Service of God must be said in the Maternal Language of every Nation, where shall an English-man in France or Spain, that understands not the Language, go to serve God upon the Lord's Day? This would destroy all com­munity of Sacraments and Liturgy between the Members of the Catho­lick Church; which being one Body or Society of men, cannot be like the builders of Babel, who would not understand one anothers Lan­guage. Now I beseech you Brethren, (saith St. Paul,) by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no Schisms among you, that ye may with one mind and one mouth Glori [...]y God, 1 Cor. 1.10. Rom. 15.6.

In fine, let the Reader compare that Devotion which Catholicks 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. As for St. Paul's 14th. Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, I humbly think it not well understood by Protestants. If any man be ignorant, saith he, let him be ignorant, Wherefore Brethren, covet no Prophecy, and forbid not to speak with tongues, ver. 39. God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Peace, ver. 33.

Upon the whole matter, I desire to be inform'd whether the Pro­testant Church had any other foundation (setting aside an Act of Par­liament,) than every mans own Reason, or which is the same thing, the Scripture interpreted by every man's Reason. There are but two Bases whereupon to settle our selves, the Scripture, 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 Reform'd Fabrick.

I have sometimes wonder'd at this Assertion of Calvin, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. (so incoherent with his own Principles of Reformation,) Extra Ecclesiae gremium nulla speranda salus nec remissio peccatorum, quia non est alius in vitam ingressus; Which I think may be thus render'd into English: He that will enter into Life, let him mortifie the pride of his own Reason, and humbly cast himself at the feet of the Catholick Church. If this be the meaning of his words, as it must be in case he believed any such thing as one Holy Catholick Church; how he will justifie his Reformation at the day of Judgement, I cannot imagine.

[Page 10]In this Paper therefore I presume not to assert my own Reason (which I confess to be as weak as any body else can think it,) but the Authority of the Church against the A [...]rogance of the first Reformers. This difference I understand betwixt the spirit of Catholiques and of Heretiques; the former make use of their Reason with Submission, the later with Contradiction and Petulancy against the Church, and against the express words of Christ; He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.

Cranmer had no Mission from Heaven, nor yet from the present Visible Church to authorize his doings; but made himself Judge, Witness, and Accuser. So did Luther, so did Calvin, Socinus, Knip­perdoling, &c. How they will Answer it at the last day, I cannot un­derstand.

A word or two more before I make an end. I know divers Loyal Persons of the Church of England, who are Protestants by the Ty­ranny of Prejudice or Interest, but Catholiques by Inclination: Of them I beg leave to ask a few Questions. What Priesthood or Holy Orders have Protestants, but what they Confess to have received from Roman Catholique Bishops? Who gave them Authority to pronounce themselves Sound Members, and the Church of Rome a Corrupt Arm of the Catholique Church? Did not the Presbyterians, anno 1641. pre­tend the very same warrant of Scripture for Reforming the Church of England? And the Independants for supplanting the Presbyterians, anno 1647. The Presbyterians (said Hugh Peters) are no other then Gibeonites, who may help to hew Stones, and square Timber for a more Glorious Reformation.

Now as for Roman Catholiques, do they ever say Mass to any other Object, but the Living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and see whether they attribute any thing to Angels or Saints, but as the Ministers and Favourites of the Living God, receiving from him whatever understanding they may have of our Affairs upon earth. 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 rejoyce at the Conversion of Sinners: And have glorified Saints no Communication or Intelligence with the Angels? As for the Images of Christ's humane Nature, see the 25th. Session of the Council of Trent, and enquire whether Roman Catholiques pay any more respects to Them, than Pro­testants do to the Elements of Bread and Wine, which (say they) [Page 11]are but a Figure or Image of Christs Body and Blood. Omnis Super­stitio in imaginum usu sacro tollatur, saith that Council; Let all Super­stition be taken away in the use of Images; and then gives it in charge to all Bishops to look to it. 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 Pupists kneeling be­fore the Images of Christ. I humbly recommend to Protestants the perusal of a late Book, Entituled, Pax Vobis: And of another, styled, Considerations upon the Council of Trent, by R. H.

I say no more, only give thanks to Almighty God with all my heart, that I am escap'd out of the unstable waters of Schism into the Ark of Christ's Church. And I beseech him to inspire me with that Spirit of Devotion which I observ'd in the Mass, and other Books of Catholicks. As for the ill practises of some, and the ill Opinions of other Roman Catholicks, which Protestants are wont to charge up­on the whole Church, I pass it over as no Argument at all: All Pro­testants are no more Saints, than all Papists. In the Council of Trent an unprejudic'd Reader shall find nothing but what is Judicious and Pious. And let him view Popery not as Protestants, but as Papists re­present it, who should best know their own Religion.

In the Church of Rome he shall find variety of Religious Orders, but no Schism, nor discord about their Sacraments or Liturgy. In veste Ecclesiae varietas est, scissura non est. No confusion of Sects, nor disobedience to Superiors; but all things perform'd in excellent order, and God Almighty served, as he is the Creator and Emperor of the World, with Reverence and distance.