Legates did oppose the Acts of the Councell Gloriosissimi Iudices dixerunt The most glorieus Iudges said let both partyes plead the Canons By the Canons that great Councell of six hundred and thirty Fathers did examin it By the Canons they did determin it there was no inheritance pretended in the case Secondly if the Bishop of Rome did hold all his privileges by inheritance from S. Peter how much were three successive Popes over seen Zosimus Bonifacius and Caelestinus to ground them upon the canoÌ„s of the councell of Nice and these either counterfeited or mistaken for the Canons of Sardica Which when the African Fathers did find oâ—t by the true Copyes of the Nicene Councell they rejected that part of papall power as appeareth by their Letter to Pope Caelestine We earnestly beseech you that hence forwards you doe not easily lend an eare to such as come from hence nor which Bellarmine cuts of guilefully receive any more such as are excommunicated by us into your Communion with this sharp intimation Ne fumosum typum saeculi in Ecclesiam videamur inducere If soveraigne Iudicature did belong to the Bishop of Rome by Inheritance from St. Peter why did three popes challenge it upon the Decrees of the Nicene Concell and why did the Affrican Fathers refuse to admit it because it was not conteined in the Decrees of the Nicene Councell Thirdly if by Prince of Bishops Mr Serjeant understand an absolute Prince one who hath a single Legislative power To make Canons To abolish Canons to dispense with Canons as seemeth good in his owne eies if he makea greater Prince of the Steward then he doth of the Spouse of Christ he will have an hard Province to secure him self from the Censures of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the former of which were personally present one Empereur Two Popes Two Patriarchs All the Cardinalls The Embassadors of all' the Princes in the West and the Flower of Occidentall Schollars Divines and Lawyers These had reason to know the Tradition of the Universall Church as well as Mr. Serjeant Lastly before he can determine this to be an vndeniable truth and a necessary Bond of Vnity that the Bishop of Rome is Inheriâ—er of all the Privileges of St. Peter And that this Principle is Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture He must first reconcile him self to his own party There is a Comentary upon the Synodall answer of the councell of Basile printed at Colone in the yeare 1613. wherein is mainteined That the Provinces subject to the foure great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian church did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarchs And if the Pope be a Primate it is by the church If he be the head of all churches it is by the church and where as wee have said that it is expressed in the councell of Nice that many provinces were subjected to the church of Rome by Ecclesiasticall custome and no other right the Synod should doe the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome if it should attribute those things to him onely from Custom which were his due by divine right Gerson goeth much more accurately to worke distinguishing Papall rights into three sorts divine which the Bishop of Rome challengeth by succession from St. Peter Canonicall wherewith he hath been trusted by generall councells and civil granâ—ed to that See by the Emperours Of the first sort he reckoneth no more but three privileges To call councells To give sentencee with councels and Iurisdiction purely spirituall Among the Propositions given in to the councell of Pisa and printed with the acts of the councell wee find these first Although the Pope as he is the Vicar of Christ may after a certain manner be called the head of the church Yet the Vnity of the church doth not depend necessarily or receive its beginning from the Vnity of the Pope Secondly The church hath power and authority originally and immediatly from Christ its head to congregate it self in a gonerall councell to preserve its Vnity It is added That the Catholick church hath this power also by the Law of Nature Thirdly In the Acts of the Apostles we read of four Councells Convocated and not by the Authority of Peter but by the Common Consent of the Church And in one Councell celebrated at Ierusalem we read not that Peter but that Iames the Bishop of the Place was President and gave Sentence He concludeth that the Church may call a Generall Councell without the Authority of the Pope and in some cases though he contradict it The Writers and writings of those times in and about the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells doe a bound with such expressions Before he determined positively The divine right of the Papacy as it includeth a Soveraignty of power he ought to consider seriously what many of his own friends have written about it as Canus and Cusanus and Stapleton and Soto and Driedo and Segovius as it is related by Aeneas Sylvius and others That the Popes succession is not revealed in Scripture That Christ did not limit the Primacy to any particular Church That it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is perpetuall Prince of the Church That the Glosse which preferreth the Iudgement of the Roman Church before the Iudgement of the world singular and foolish and unworthy to be followed That it hath been a Catholick Tenet in former times that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop doth depend not upon divine but human right and the positive Decrees of the Church That men famous in the Study of Christian Theology have not been affraid in great Assemblies to assert the Humane Right of the Pope He ought to Consider what is said of a great King that Theologians affirmed that the Pope was the head of the Church by divine right but when the King required them to prove it they could not demonstrate it And lastly what the Bishop of Chalcedon saith lately To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters Successour and this all Fathers Testify and all ihe Catholick Church believeth but whether he be so Jure divino or humano is no point of Faith Here Reader I must intreat the before wee proceed a step-farther to read his Assertion That the Constant beliefe of the Catholick World was and is that this Principle namely that the Bishop of Rome inherited the Privileges of St. Peter is Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture Derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our Nature is capable of What a strange Confidenee is this to tell his Readers he cares not what so it may serve his present turne How should this be recorded in Scripture when the Bisshoprick of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture nor so much as whether St. Peter ever was at Rome Except we understand Rome by Babilon but this is too remote and too obscure to
his First Governourship are but generall unsignificant Termes which may agree as well to a beginning of Vnity or Primacy of Order as to an absolute Monarchy or plenitude of power If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly particulars began the breach particulars must stop rhe breach I have given him an account what particular Differences we have with him concerning St. Peter what particular Differences we have with him concerning the Pope let him apply him self to those aud not make continuall Excursions as he doth out of the Lists When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church as a Bishop in his Diocesse as a Metropolitan in his Province as the Bishop of an Apostolicall See and Successour of St. Peter I expected thaÌ„kes there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps without a new conflict But behold the evill natures or evill manners of this Age I am accused for this of frivolousnesse and insincerity Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology that whensoever the case commeth to be solidly discussed it will be found that the principall grounds if I had said the onely grounds I had not said much amisse of the Popes pretended Monarchy are the just rights and Privileges of his Patriarchateship his Protopatriarchateship and his Apostolicall Chaire mistaken for Royalties for want of good Distinction I know the Court of Rome who have been accustomed in these latter times to milke the purses of their Clients doe not love such a dry Primacy as he phraseth it but where they have no more right and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges they must have patience perforce His Parallel between the King of England and the Pope will be then to some purpose when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy untill then it is a mere begging of the Question what a grosse Solecisme that is in Logick he cannot chuse but know But since he is favourably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papall power so they believe the Substance of it and yet he himself either cannot or dare not determin what the Substance of Papall power is he might out of his Charity have compassion and not stile us Mountebankes who know no difference between Roman Catholiks and our selves about the Papacy but onely about the extent of Papall power Although he stile us hereticks now yet he was lately one of us himself and would have continued so longer if he had understood himself better or the times bene less Clowdy Let him call it Substance let him call it extent let him call it what he will I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy let him satisfy them as well as he â—an and let truth prevaile We have not â—enounced the substance of the Papacy exâ—ept the substance the Papacy doe consist â—n Coactive power I side with no parties â—ut honour the Church of England and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur He telleth his Reader that I grant the whole question where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over as the Bishop of â—n Apostolicall Church or Successor of St. Peter Much good may it doe him As if every Bishop of an Apostolicall Church were straight way an universall Monarch or as if Authority did alwaies necessarily imply jurisdiction or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legall judge I had reasoÌ„ to place a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in my Climax after a Patriarch for the larger extension of his Authority every where not for the higher intension of his jurisdiction any where I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter by the ordinance of Christ in this Privilege to be the Prince and Soveraign of the Church endowed with a single Soveraignty of power that the Great Councell of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equall Privileges to the Patriarch af Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperiall City more then the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument that the great Councell of Chalcedon did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople upon the Imperiall Dignity of those two Cities and to much more which is urged there against him he is as mute as a Fish but to the former part he answereth that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain superiour in Iurisdiction though they had equall Privileges Very pretty indeed He would have his Readers to believe that a Soveraign and his Subjects have equall Privileges Equalls have no power one over another there may be a Primacy of Order among Equalls but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peters Privilege to be Prince of the Apostles And doth not he tell us that this Privilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome Then if the Bishop of Constantinople have equall Privileges with the Bishop of Rome he is equall to him in this Privilege which descended froÌ„ S. Peter Let him listen to the eight and twentieth Canon of that Councell where having repeated and confirmed the decree of the Generall Councell of Constantinople to the same purpose they conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople moved with the same consideration did give equall Privileges to the See of new Rome Rightly judging that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equall Privileges with the ancient Imperiall City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiasticall affaires as well as it being the second in Order from it And in the last sentence of the Iudges upon the Review of of the Cause The Archbishop of the Imperiall City of Constantinople or new Rome must enjoy the same Privileges of honour and have the same power out of his own Authority to ordain MetropolitaÌ„s in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocesses That is as much in Law as to say have equall Iurisdiction for all other rights doe follow the right of Ordination But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon telling us that it was no free Act but voted tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Councell Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be It was done before the Bishops had their License to depart It had a secâ—nd hearing and was debated by the Popes own Legates on his behalf before the most glorious judges and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Councell This was one of those four
fathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles are onely to be acknowledged or Obligatory So we acknowledge both his Rules in the Literall sense de facto but the Popes single Supremacy of Power and particular Tradition were never Principles of Vnity neither de facto nor de jure and so he may seek for his flat Schismatick de facto at Rome I said there was a Fallacy in Logick of more interrogations then one when Questions of a different nature are mixed to which one Vniform answer can not be given He saith he put no Interrogatory at all to me True but he propounded ambiguous Propositions to be answered by me confounding St. Peter and the Pope an Headship of Order and an Headship of power which is all one An head of Order hath power to Act First as well as sit â—irst but he acteth not by his own single power but by the conjunct power of the body or College To shew him that I am not ashamed of my voluntary railing as he phraseth it too silly to merit transcribing or answering I will transcribe it for him The Church or Court of Rome have Sophisticated the true Doctrin of Faith by their supplementall Articles contrary to the First Principle and have introduced into the Church a Tyrannicall Government contrary to the second Principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made them selves guilty of Superstition and Schisme If this be railing what Terme doth his Language deserve If this be silly what pitifull stuffe is his He said my onely way to cleare our church from Schisme was to disprove his two Rules I answered he was doubly mistaken first in putting us to prove or disprove who are the persons accused the defendants duty is to answer not to prove that is the duty of the accuser They accuse us of Schisme therefore they ought to prove their Rules whereon they ground their Accusation in that Sense wherein they take them not put us to disprove them He urgeth that by this Method no Rebell ought to give any reason why he did so because he is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour By his leave he that condemneth a Subject of Rebellion before he have proved his accusation doth him wrong But he saith the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side defends it self against the others Accusations but we were the first accusers who could not with any Face have pretended to reform unlesse we accused first our actuall Governour of Vsurpation I told him before that he was doubly mistaken now I must be bold to tell him that he is three wayes mistaken First the Pope was none of our actuall Governour in the externall Regiment of the Church by the Lawes of England Secoâ—dly our Reformation was no Accusation but an Enfranchisement of our selves sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae Thirdly I have already manifested the VsurpatioÌ„s of the Court of Rome upoÌ„ other manner of grounds them his ambiguous Rules As we have proved our intention so let him endeavour to prove his My second answer was that although the proofe did rest on oursides Yet I did not approve of his advise that was to disprove his two Rules My reason is evident we approve of his two rules as they were set down by himself it is not we but they who have swerved from them and therefore it were madnesse in us to disprove them He saith he dare sweare in my behalf that I never spake truer word in my life and out of his Supererogatory kindnesse offers him self to be bound for me that I shall never follow any advise that bids me speake home to the point What silly nonsense is this should I follow any maÌ„s advise to disprove that which I approve I have spoken so home to the point without any advise that I expect little thankes from him and his fellowes for it What he prateth of a discipline left by Christ to the Church of England in Henry the eighths time is ridiculous indeed And it equally ridiculous to hope to make us believe that the Removall of a few upstart Usurpations is a change of the discipline left by Christ to his Church And lastly it is ridiculous to Fancy that later usurpations may not be reformed by the Pattern of the Primitive times and the ancient Canons of the Church and the Practise of succeeding Ages because we received them by particular Tradition from our immediate Fathers That one place which he repeateth as having been omitted by me hath been answered fully to every part of it The rest of this Section is but a Repetition of what he hath said without adding anything that is new and in the Conclusion of this Treatise he giveth us a Summa totalis of it again either he must distrust his Readers memory or his Iudgement and yet for feare of not being understood he recapitulates it all over again in his Index Surely he thinketh his discourse so profound that no man understands him except he repeat it over and over again and for my part I did never meet with such a Torrent of Words and such Shallownesse of matter And so I leave him to S. Austins censure alledged by himself In mala causa non possunt aliter at malam causam quis coegit eos habere Sect. II. That they who cast Papall power out of England were no Protestants but Roman Catholicks throughout except onely in that one point of the Papacy HItherto he saith he hath been the larger in his reply because the former points were Fundamentall concerning and totally decisive of the Question They doe concern the Question indeed to blunder and to confound Vniversal Tradition with particular Tradition a Primacy of Order with a single Supremacy of power Iurisdiction purely Spirituall with externall Iurisdiction in foro contensioso otherwise they concern not the Question And for deciding of the Question wherewithall should he decide it who hath not so much as alledged one Authority in the Case Divine or Humane not a Text of Scripture not a Canon of a Councell not a Testimony of a Father who hath not so much as pretended to any Vniversall or perpetuall Tradition but onely to the Particular immediate Tradition of the Roman Church and this he hath onely pretended to but neither proved it nor attempted to prove it nor is it possible for him to prove by the particular TraditioÌ„ of the Roman Church it self that the Bishop of Rome is the Soveraign Monarch of the Church by Christs own Ordination His onely grounds are his own Vapourous Fancies much like Zenoes Vaunts who used to bragge that he sometimes wanted Opinions but never wanted Arguments My six grounds he stileth Exceptions And why Exceptions But let them be grounds or exceptions or whatsoever he will have them to be and let him take heed that every one of those Trifles and Toyes
Subjection at all to another Church They all agree in this the Britons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all waies ordained at home independent upon any forrain Prelate ought no subjection to Rome And there fore it is no great wonder if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the favourite both of the Pope and people not long before his own promotion to the Papacy whether the Ilanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet who having commended this Dinoth for a learned and a prudent man he addeth that Austin meeting him did demand that they should performe subjection to him as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome and demanded further that he would help him in preaching but he denied the one and the other Still Subjection is denied With these Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry Spellman and all our Antiquaries doe agree exactly And none of our Historiographers that I know doe disagree from it in the least who write upon that subject though some set it down more fully then others Iudge now Reader of Mr. Serjeants Knowledge or Ingenuity who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play and when I said the British Clergy did renounce all obedieÌ„ce to the Bishop of Rome citing Bede and all others telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once I challenge him to name but one Historiographer who affirmeth the contrary to that which all these doe affirm if he be not able as he is not I might safely say without asking him leave that it striketh the Question dead His third Exception that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry Spellman found any other Antiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth mentioning is so dull and unsignificant a piece that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it And such like are his other Obâ—ections which helpresseth not but toucheth gently the Heads of them will not merit a repetition having been answered already by Doctor Hammond But when he is baffeld in the cause he hath a Reserve that Venerable Bede and Gildas and Fox in his Acts and Monuments do brand the Britons for wicked men making them as good as Atheists Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one he will neither wish the Pope such Friends nor envy them to the Protestants What needed this when he hath got the worst of the cause to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stinke We read no other Character of Dinoth but as of a pious learned and prudent man If Gildas or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular persons There were St. Davids St. Dubricius's St. Thelaâ—s's St. Oudoceus's and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda What have they said more of the Britons then God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people or more then the Saxons have said one of another or more then maybe retorted upon any NatioÌ„ in Europe Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions theÌ„ St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints The Question is whether the British Church did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome Let him adorn this Sparta and leave other impertinencies Sect. V. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdrawe their obedience from Rome The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consisting of these three particulars That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it And that they did it with due moderation His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three SectioÌ„s whereof this is the first Whatsoever he prateth in this Section of my shuffing away the whole Question by balking the Bishop of Romes divine right to his Soveraignty of power to treat of his Patriarchall right which is humane is first vain For I alwayes was and still am ready to joine Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Romes divine right to a Monarchicall power in the Church saving alwaies to myself and my cause this advantage That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiasticall are inconsistent And this right being saved I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Popes Monarchy then about his Patriarchate Secondly as it is vaine so it is altogether impertinent for my Ground is this that a Soveraign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the publick good to change any thing in the externall Regiment of the Church which is not of divine Institution but the Popes pretended Patronage of the English Church and his Legislative Iudiciary and dispensative power in the exteriour Courtes of the same Church doe concern the externall Regiment of the Church aud are not of divine Institution Here the Hindge of our Controversy doth move without encombring our selves at all with Patriarchall Authority Thirdly I say that this discourse is not onely vaine and extravagant but is likewise false The Popes Protopatriarchall power and the Authority of a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as the keper of Apostolicall Traditions deposited in that Church are the fairest flowers in his Garland Whatsoever power he pretendeth to over the whole Church of Christ above a Primacy of Order is altogether of humane right and the Application of that Primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of humane right And whatsoever he presumeth of the Vniversall Tradition of the Christian Church or the Notion which the former and present world and we our selves before the Reformation had of the Papacy that is of the Divine right of the Popes Soveraignty is but a bold ratling groundlesse bragge I did and doe affirm that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand yeers since not explicitly by making a formall Resignation of it but implicitly by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it I was contented to forbeare further disputing about Patriarchall rights upon two Conditions one that he should not presume that the Pope is a Spirituall Monarch without proving it The other that he should not attempt to make Patriarchall Privileges to be Royall Prerogatives This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me If he had had so much Civility in him he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him of two Errours which I was sure he would Commit After all his Bravadoes all that he hath pretended to prove is but a Headship a First Movership a Chief Governourship about which we have no Difference with them and all the proofe he bringeth even of that is a bold presumption that there
affirm That neither the King of England nor the Church of England neither Convocation nor Parliament did breake his two Necessary Bonds of Christian Vnity or either of them or any part of either of them But that the Very Breakers and Violaters of these Rules were the Pope and Court of Rome They did breake his Rule of Faith by adding new points to the Necessary Doctrin of saving Truth which were not the Legaceyes of Christ and his Apostles nor delivered unto us by Universall and perpetuall Tradition The Pope and Court of Rome did breake his second Rule of Vnity in Discipline by obtruding their excessive and intolerable usurpations vpon the Christian world and particularly upon the Church of England as necessary Conditions of their Communion It appeareth plainly by comparing that which hath been said with his positioÌ„ of the case that after all his Bragges of undeniable evidence and unquestionable certeinty he hath quite missed the question We joine with him in his rule of Faith Wee oppose not St. Peters Primacy of Order and he him self dare not say that St. Peter had a larger or more extended power then the rest of his Fellow Apostles And though wee cannot force our understandings to assent that after the death of S. Peter Linus or Cletus or Clemens or Anacleâ—us were Superiours to S. Iohn and had actuall Iurisdiction over him who had as large a commission immediatly from Christ as S. Peter himselfe and larger then any succeeding Romane Bishop ever had Yet to shew him how little wee are concerned in it and for his clearer conviction wee are willing to suppose that they were his Superiours and give him leave to make all the advantage of his second Rule which he can in this cause And here if I regarded not the satisfaction of my self and the Reader more then his opposition I might withdraw my hand from the Table But I am so great a Friend of Ingenuity that I will for once discharge his Office and shew the World demonstratively and distinctly what Branches of Papall power were cast out of England by Henry the eighth upon which consideration the weight of the whole Controversy doth lye For it is agreed between us that if it appeare by rigorous Evidence that all those Branches of Papall power which were renounced and cast out of England by Henry the eight were grosse Vsurpattons then his renouncing was no eriminall Breach but a lawfull self enfranchisement And by undeniable consequence the Guilt of â—chism resteth upon them who made the Vsurpations that is the Pope and Court of Rome I adde further upon the equity of my second Ground that although Henry the eight had cast out something more then be ought yet if wee hold not out more then wee ought and be ready to admitt all which ought to be admitted by us then we are innocent and free from the Guilt of Schism and it resteth soly upon them who either will have more then their due or nothing Wheresoever the fault is there the Guilt of Schisme is If the fault be single the Guilt is single if the fault be mutuall the Guilt is mutuall And for rigorous Evidence There cannot possibly be any Evidence more demonstrative what Papall power was cast out of England then the very Acts of Parliaments themselves by which it was cast out Let us view them all The first Act made in the Reign of Henry the eight which hath any referente to Rome is the Act for holding Plurality of Benefices against the lawes of the land by dispensation from the Court of Rome making licenses for non Residence from the Court of Rome to be voide and the party who procureth such Licenses for Pluralityes or Non-residence to forfeyt twenty pounds and to lose the profits of that Benefice which he holdeth by such dispensation It were a pretty thing indeed if the Church and Kingdome should make necessary lawes and the Pope might give them liberty to break them at his pleasure The second Act is that No person shall be cited out of tâ—e diocesse where he dwelleth except in certain cases Which though it may seem to reflect upon the Court of Rome yet I do not find that it is concerned in it but the Arches Audience and other Archiepiscopall Courts within the Realm The third Act is meerly declarative of the law of the land as well the Common lawes as the Statute lawes and grounded wholy upon them as by the View of the Statute it self doth appeare So it casteth out no forraine power but what the lawes had cast out before The summe of it is this That all Causes Matrimoniall Testamentary or about Tithes c. shall be heard and finally judged in England by the proper Iudges Ecclesiasticall and Civill respectively and not elswhere notwithstanding any forrein Inhibitions Appeales Sentences citations suppensions or Excommunications And that if any English Subject procure a Processe Inhibition Appeale c. From or to the Court of Rome or execute them to the hinderance of any processe here he shall incurre the Penalties ordained by the Statute of provision or premunire made in the sixteenth yeare of King Richard the second against such as make provision to the See of Rome This law was eâ—larged afterwards to all causes of Ecclesiasticall cognisance and all appeales to Rome forbidden The fourth Act is an Act for punishing of Heresy Wherein there are three clauses that concern the Bishop of Rome The First is this And that there be many Heresies and paines and punishments for Heresies Declared and ordained in and by the Canonicall Sanctions and by the Lawes and Ordinations made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome and by their Authorities for holding doing preaching of things contrary to the said Canonicall Sanctions Lawes and Ordinances which be but humane being meer repugnant and contrarious to the royall Prerogative Regall Iurisdiction Lawes Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm The second Clause is that No License be obtained of the Bishop of Rome to Preach in any part of this Realm or to doe any thing contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm or the Kings Prerogative Royall The third Clause followeth That the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome not confirmed by Holy Scriptures were never commonly attested to be any Law of God or man within this Realme And that it should not be deemed Heresy to speak or doe contrary to the pretended power or Authority of the Bishop of Rome made or given by Humane Lawes and not by Scriptures nor to speake or Act contrary to the Lawes of the Bishop of Rome being contrary to the Lawes of this Realm The Fifth Act is an Act concerning the Submission of the Clergy to the Kings Majesty The scope of it is this that the Clergy shall not assemble in Convocation nor make or proniulge any new Canons without the Kings License Hitherto there is nothing new in point of Law Then that the King should have
had no coactive power to compell any man against his Will The Vttermost they could doe was to separate him from their Communion and to leave him to the Comming or Iudgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha The true Controversy then is this Whether the Bishop of Rome by his Legates have Coactive power in the exteriour Court to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England when he will where he will whom he will without their Consents and without the leave of the Soveraign Prince or King of England The Case being thus stated determineth it self Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England Wee see by often experience that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Councell in Italy within the Dominions of another Soveraign Prince or Republick although they be of his own Communion he must First aske leave and obtein leave before he can tell how to doe it Or how should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King Thus for point of right Now for matter of Fact First I doe utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Synod in the Brittish Island during the First eleven hundred yeares Or preside in any by his Legates Or confirm them by his Authority If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary he may cry guilty to the Vsurpation where of he is accused and hold his peace forever Secondly I doe confesse that after eleven hundred yeares The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civill combustions and prostituting the reputation of the Apostolicall See to their temporall ends did by the leave of our Kings not otherwise sometimes call Synods in England and preside in them The first Synod held in England by any of the Popes Legats was at London in the yeare 1125. by Ioannes Cremensis Which moved England into no smal indignation to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdome of England A Priest sitting president upon an high throne above Arch Bishops Bishops bats c. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference betwen affirmative and negative Presidents All which this proveth is that the King did give leave or connive at that time But it doth not prove it cannot prove a right to doe the same at other times when the King contradicteth it Further wee ought to take notice that there is a greate deale of difference between an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation Although in truth our Convocations be Synods So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them Convocari facias All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Synod but all the whole Clergy of the Kingdome were present at a Convocation either in their Persons or by their Proctors sufficiently authorised Secondly the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papall Synod as they had to the Acts of a royall Convocation sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates Lastly to drive the naile home and to demonstrate clearly the Grossenesse of this Papall usurpation it remaineth onely to shew that by the Ancient Lawes of England the calling of Convocations or Synods belonged properly to the King not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates And first by reason By the Lawes of England more ancient then the Popes intrusion no Roman Legat could enter into the Kingdome withont the Kings leave nor continue in it longer then he had his License as wee shall see hereafter and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor doe any Synodicall Act without the Kings leave Secondly by Records of the English Convocation itself that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are alwayes have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532. Thirdly by the Form of the Writt which hath ever been the same in all succeding Ages constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces The very Form speakes it English sufficiently For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church and the peace tranquility publik good and defence of our Kingdome and Subjects Wee command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe â—o us that you cause to be convocated with convenient speed in due manner all and singular Bishops of your Province Deanes and Priors of Cathedrall Churches c. And the whole Clergy of your diocesse and Province to meet before you c. Another Writ did alwayes issue from the King for the dissolution Wee command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation this very day in due manner without any delay c. Lastly by the concurring Testimonyes of all our Historiographers That all the space of time of eleven hundred yeares wherein the Popes did neither call Councells nor Preside in them nor Confirm them and after unto the very Reformation Our Kings did both call Councells and Preside in them and Confirm them and own their Lawes as I have shewed him by the Lawes of Ercombert Ina Withred Alfred Edwerd Athelstan Edmund Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor in my Vindication And particularly that Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Presided in a Councell in the Presence of Iohn the Popes Legate That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decreâ—um Regis The Kings decree That King Withred called a Councell at Becancelde and Presided in it and that the decrees of the Councell issued in his name and by his Authority Firmiter decernimus c. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon All this he pretendeth to have answered but it is with deep silence If he desire more Presidents and more witnesses he may have a cloud of Authors upon holding up his Finger to prove undeniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them and confirm their Acts with in his own Dominions but followed the steps of his Roâ—al Predecessors in all Ages from the first planting of religion untill his own dayes And not onely of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours The President of Charles the great is very conspicuous To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf In the French Synod I Charlemain Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Servants of God and my Princes have congregated the Bishops wich are in my Kingdome with the Priests to a Synod for the feare of Christ to Counsaile me how the Law of God and Ecclesiasticall Religion may be recovered which in the Dayes of forepassed Princes is dissipated and fallen
Surrejoinder together in this one short Section and give sentence readily who is the Mountebanke and Prevaricatour And first I challenge this great Champion of downright Cowardise as great as ever his Predecessour Thraso shewed in the Comedy in smothering and concealing palpably and shamefully his Adversaries reasons and declining the heat of the assault The maine subject of this Section was to shew that the ancient Kings of England did assume as much power in Ecclesiasticall affaires as Henry the eighth did that the Lawes of Henry the eighth were no new Lawes but onely renovations and Confirmations of the ancient Lawes of England which had never bene repealed or abrogated in the dayes of his Predecessors but were of force in England at that very time when he made his Lawes As the Statutes of Clarendon The Statute of Carlile The Articles of the Clergy The Statutes of Provisors and other old Lawes made in the time of Henry the first Henry the third Edward the first and Edward the third Richard the second Henry the Fourth all of them dead and gone many ages before Henry the eighth was born I shewed particularly that they suffered not the Pope to send for any English Subject out of England to Rome without leave nor to send any Legate into England without leave nor to receive any Appeale out of England without leave They made it death or at least the forfeiture of all a mans estate to bring any Papall Bulls or Excommunications into England They called Ecclesiasticall Councells made Ecclesiasticall Lawes punished Ecclesiasticall persons prohibited Ecclesiasticall Iudges received Ecclesiasticall Appeales made Ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated Ecclesiasticall Benifices rejected the Popes Lawes at their pleasure with a Nolumus wee will not have the Lawes of England to be Changed or gave Legislative Interpretations of them as they thought fit All this I have made evideÌ„t out of our ancient Lawes our Records our Historiographers in my Vindication in my Reply and in this Treatise And therefore I might well retort upon him his own Confident bragge that it is as cleare as the suns shining at noone day or that the same thing cannot be and not be at once that our Ancestours who did all this and much more then this did acknowledge no Monarchicall power of the Pope in the Exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination as Mr. Serjeant asserteth and that they did exercise as much power in the externall Regiment of the Church as Henry the eighth did and that Henry the eighths lawes were no new lawes devised by himself but were the lawes of these ancient Kings renewed by him or rather the Fundamentall Lawes and Liberties of England exposed by these ancient Kings as a Buckler against the Encroachments of the Roman Court. Now to all this cleare evidence what answer doth Mr. Serjeant make Iust Thraso-like when the matter comes to push of pike he sneaketh away post principia into the securest place he can find Speak the truth in earnest did Pyrrhus use to doe thus It is not possible to squeese one word of particular answer out of him onely in generall he saith I bring divers allegations wherein the Popes pretenses were not admitted c. And so proceedeth doe we professe the Pope can pretend to no more then his right c. Lawes and Records are but bare Allegations with him and prohibiting under pain of Death or Confiscation of Goods is no more but not admitted Speake out man and shame the devill whether did the Pope pretend more then is right or not whether were the ancieÌ„t English Lawes just Lawes or not This is certain his Pretensions and these Lawes cannot both be just The very substance of his Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court is prohibited by these Lawes his Soveraign power or Patronage of the English Church his Iudiciary Power his Legislative Power his dispensative Power all are lost if these Lawes stand All which Mr. Serjeant blancheth over with this generall expression such and such things Will the Court of Rome thank such and such an Advocate who forsakes them at a dead lift I trow no. And although I called upon him in my reply for a fuller and more satisfactory answer to these Lawes yet he giveth none in his Rejoinder but shuffleth up the matter in Generalls As for his particularities entrenching on or pretended to entrench on the Popes Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what Circumstances or cases they held in what not how the Letter of those Lawes are to be understood c. all which the Bishop Omitts though he expresse the bare words it belongs to Canon and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about them not me I hold my self to the Lists of the Question and the limits of a Controvertist Yes even as Thrasoheld himself to the Lists when he stole behind the second wards This is neither more nor lesse but flat running away and crying to the Canonists for help If the subject be improper for him why did he undertake it and not try first Quid ferre recusent Quid valeant humeri Why did he undertake it with so much youthfull Confidence and insulting scorn and petulance to accuse his adversary of impudence And as if impudence were too moderate a Character for him as a profest and sworn enemy of truth shame and honesty making him worse then a mad man or born foole And all this for pretending that Henry the eighth did no more against the Papacy then his Ancestour Kings had done before him and now when his Cavills are thrust down his own throat when the impudence is brought home to him and laid at his own doore when the very Lawes of his Ancestours are produced wherein they provided the same remedies for the Roman Court that Henry the eighth did he would with draw his own neck oâ—t of the Collar and leave the defence of his cause to the CanoÌ„ and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about the sense of these ancieÌ„t Lawes and whether they were law fully done or no and how far they extended and in what cases they hold in what not And this is all the answer which he vouchsafeth to these ancient English Lawes that is as much as to say he knoweth not what to answer or it doth not belong to him to answer and this he calleth holding himself to the Lists of the Question but all other men call it leaping out of the Lists of the Question and a shamefull deserting the cause he had uâ—dertaken to defend I ever acknowledged that Henry the eighth made sundry new Staâ—utes against the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome but I adde that these Statutes were declarative of old Law not Enactive of new Law This is as cleare as his noone day-light And I proved it by the Authority of two of our greatest Lawiers Fitz Herbert and my Lord Cooke persons sufficient to know the difference between a Statute declarative of old Law and a Statute Enactive of new
hold out encroachments with the point of the sword without any medling with just right Other division then this which he himself hath allowed we believe our Ancestours intended none we hold none and so are accountable for none The main Question is whether the Britannick Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not I have demonstrated the contrary already that they were not and had alwaies their Ordinations at home But his Conclusion which he puts upon me that true complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government is a vain assertion of his own no CoÌ„clusion of mine He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit whether he that mainteineth the Negative or he that mainteineth the Affirmative ought to prove He saith according to his old Pueriles that a Negative may be proved in Logick No man doubteth of it or denieth it Quis eâ—im potest negare I said on the Contrary that in this case which commeth here in difference between us according to the strict rules of Law the burthen to proue resteth onely on his side who affirmeth As the Question is here between us whether we had other Remedies then to make such a Reformation as we did We say No. They say Yea. It is possible to â—rove there might be other Remedies â—ut it is impossible to prove there were no â—ther Remedies Galen or Hippocrates himâ—elf would not have undertaken such a Taske to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease then that which they used It is not for want of Logicall Forms that Negatives are not to be proved â—n matter of Fact but for want of sufficient Mediums He saith he is no Bowler and so â—nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowle It may be it is true but if I should put him to prove this Negative it is impossible But so farre as a Negative of that nature is capable of proofe I did prove it by our Addresses to Popes and Councells and long expectation in vain that we had no other Remedy then that which we used to thrust out their Vsurpations by the power of the sword which course he himself adviseth and we practised The division is not made by them who thrust out Vsurpations but by them who brought them in and defend them I said that not onely our Ancestors but all Catholick Countries did maintein their own privileges inviolated and make themselves the last Iudges of their Grievances from the Court of Rome Hence he concludeth with open Mouth therefore there were other Remedies there needed no Division Alas poore man how he troubleth himself about nothing They and we used the very same Remedies the same that he adviseth in this place The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made What then had not the King the Sword in his own hands Did it not lie in his power to right himself as he listed and to admit those pretended encroachments onely so far as he thought just and fitting Yes the King had the sword in his hands and did right him self and cast out those Papall Usurpatious so far as he found Iust and now when we have followed your own advise you call us Schismaticks and Dividers Sr. we are no Dividers but we have done our Duties and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Vsurpations as we have done you are the Schismaticks by your own Confession He pleadeth If Papall Authority be of Christs Institution then no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment Right But those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out are neyther of Christs Institution nor of Mans Institution but meer Vsurpations Neither doe we seek to abolish Papall Authority but to reform it from Accidentall Abuses and reduce it to its first Institution The best Institutions Divine or Humane may sometimes need such Reformation Here is nothing like proofe but his World of Witnesses and his Immemoriall Tradition presumed not proved To shew that no Nation suffred so much as England under the Tyranny of the Roman Court he saith I produce nothing but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope Well would he have a better witnesse against the Pope then the Pope him self Habemus confitentem reuÌ„ He was pleasant indeed but Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat VVhat hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing He asketh whether those Testimonies which I produce be Demonstrative or rigorous Evidences I thinke he would have me like the unskilfull Painter to write over the Heads of my Arguments This is a Demonstration It would become him better to refute them and shew that they are not Demonstrative then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions I shewed that England is not alone in the Seperation so long as all the Eastern Southern Northern and so great a part of the Western Church have seperated themselves from the Court of Rome and are seperated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we In answer to this he bids me shew that those I call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith c. This is first to hang men up and then to examine their cause first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke and embrace their upstart Vsurpations with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely before they gave such a temerarious sentence against the much greater part of Christendome in so weighty a cause But for their rule of Faith they have a more certain and Authentick Rule then he himself by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentick rule of Faith then Pius the fourths Creed and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground then particular supposititious Tradition which wanteth both Perpetuity and Vniversality I said that we desired to live in the peaceable Communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestours as far as the Roman Court will give us leave He answereth that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers c That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled had no mind to be hanged That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us but a request of an unreasonable favour from them to admit us into their Communion and would be most absurd in Government c. Whether they hold us for theirs or not is not much materiall if they did it were the better for themselves if they doe not it is not the worse for us so as Christ own us for his it skilleth not much whether they say come ye blessed or goe ye cursed whether we be the wheat or Chaffe their tongues must not winnow us Although he snuffe at
Councell then there will need no turning out Secondly he objecteth So a man may reject all Government of the Church the Procession of the Holy ghost all the Sacraments all the Scriptures and yet continue a Member of Gods Church Why so When I said the Creed was a â—ufficient Rule of Faith or Credendorum of things to be believed I neither said nor meant that it was regula agendorum a Rule of such things as are to be practised such as the Acts of discipline and of the Sacraments are The Creed conteined enough for Salvation touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost before the words Filioque were added to it and there is great cause to doubt that the Contentions of the Eastern and Western Churches about this Subject are but a meer Logomachy or strife about words The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith but one and the same Rule dilated in the Scripture contracted in the Creed the end of the Creed being to contein all Fundamentall points of Faith or a summary of all things necessary to Salvation to be believed Necessitate medii But in what particulaâ— writings all these fundamentall points are conteined is no particular fundamentall Article it self nor conteined in the Creed nor could be conteined in it since it is apparent out of Scripture it self that the Creed was made and deposited with the Church as a Rule of Faith before the Canon of the new Testament was fully perfected Arrians and Socinians may perhaps wrest the words of the Apostles Creed to their Hereticall Sense but not as it is explained by the first foure Generall Councells which all Orthodox Christians doe admit He saith they and we differ about the sense of two Articles of the Creed that is the descent of Christ into Hell and the Catholick Church but setteth not down wherein we differ He hath reason to understand our Differences having been of both Churches but I for my part do rather believe that he understandeth neither part right Howsoever it be the Different Sense of an Article doth make an Heretick after it is defined by the Vniversall Church not before He saith he hath already shewed in the foregoing Section that the Protestant Grounds have left no Order and Subordination of Vniversall Government in Gods Church But he hath neither shewn it in the foregoing Section nor any where else nor is able to shew it We have the same subordination that the Primitive Church of Inferiour Clergy men to Bishops of Bishops to Archbishops of Archbishops to Patriarchs and of Patriarchs to a Generall Councell or as Generall as may be Let him shew any one linke of this Subordination that we have weakened I said we acknowledge not a Virtuall Church or one man as infallible as the Vniversall Church He rejoineth Nor they neither I wish it were so Generally but the Pope and Court of Rome who have the power of the Keys in their hands whoÌ„ onely we accuse in this behalf do maintain the Contrary that a Generall Councell without the Pope may erre that the Pope with any Councell Generall or particular cannot erre that the infallibility of the Church is radicated in the Pope by virtue of Christs prayer for S. Peter that his faith should not faile not in a company of Counsailers nor in a Councell of Bishops that the Pope cannot define temerariously in matters of Faith or good manners which concern the whole Church What a Generall Councell is and what the Vniversall Church is and who ought to be excluded from the one or the other as Hereticks I have shewed already namely all those and onely those who doe either renounce their Creed the badge of their Christianity the same Faith whereinto they were baptised or who differing about the sense of any Article thereof have already been excluded as Hereticks by the sentence of an undoubted Generall Councell Howsoever he sleighteth the Controversies which they have among themselves concerning the last resolution of Faith as if they were of no moment yet they are not of so little concernment to be so sleighted What availeth it to say they have the Church for an infallible Iudge whilest they are not certain or do not know what the Church is or who this infallible Iudge is May not a Man say unto them as Elijah said unto the Israelites Why halt ye between two Opinions Or rather why halt yet betwixt five or six Opinions If the Pope alone be infallible Iudge follow him If a Generall Councell alone be this infallible Iudge follow it If the Essentiall Church be the infallible Iudge Adhere to it If the Pope and a Generall Councell oâ— the Pope and a particular Councell or the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinalls be this infallible Iudge follow them He telleth us that their Vniversall Church is as Visible as the sun at Noone day to wit those Countryes in Communion with the See of Rome Without doubt they are Visible enough but it is as Visible that they are not the Vniversall Church What shall become of all the rest of the Christian world They are the elder Christians and more numerous fower for one both Patriarchs and people It is against reason that one single Protopatriarch should cast out fower out of the Church and be both party and Iudge in his own Cause But here it ends not If the Pope will have his Visible Church to be one Homogeneous body he must cast out a great many more yet and it is to be suspected this very Dispatcher himself among the rest for all his shewes They flatter the Pope with Generall Terms of Head and Chief Governour and First Mover which signify nothing but in reality they would have the Pope to be no more then the Duke of Venice is in the Venetian Common wealth that is lesse then any single Senatour Or that which a Generall Maister is in a Religious Order Above all Priours and Provincialls but subject to a Congregation Generall Wherein doe these men differ from us Sect. 8. That all Princes â—nd Republiques of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same thing whicâ— Henry the eighth did when they have Occasion or at least doe plead for it This was the Title and this was my scope of my Fifth ground which I made good by the Lawes and decrees of the Emperours with their Councells and Synods and Electorall College by the Lawes of France the Liberties of the Gallican Church the Acts of their Parliaments and declarations of their Vniversities By the practise of the King of Spain his Councells his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders By the sighs of Portugall and their bleaâ—ings and the Iudgement of the Vniversity of Lisbone By the Lawes and Proclamations of the Republick of Venice This I made good in every particular branch of Papall power which we have cast out of England the Patronage of the English Church The right to call and confirm Synods to conferre Bishopricks to
His Friend Possivine calls him a Virulent Adversary and if ever Mr. Serjeant read him throughly it is ten to one he will change his note Thus much for my Communion with the Eastern Churches it is the same with the Southern and Northern Churches all which doe plead better Tradition then himself Whereas he saith that my Assertion that the Creed conteined all points necessary to be believed is grounded onely upon my falsifying of the Councell of Ephesus he bewrayeth his ignorance both in the Fathers and in his own Authours The Scripture is none of those particular Articles which are necessary to Salvation to be believed but it is the Evidence whereby those Articles are revealed and wherein they are comprehended The Creed was composed before the Canon of Scripture was perfected They have not onely changed from their Ancestours in Opinions but they have changed their own Opinions into necessary Articles of Faith which is worse I denied that the Councell of Trent was a Generall Councell as wanting the requisite Conditions of a Generall Councell which they themselves judge to be necessary The summons ought to have been generall but it was not The great Patriarchs ought to have been present but they were not neither the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem nor any of them nor yet the Patriarchs of Armenia Abissina Mosco Mussall c. nor any of them He answereth they had no right to be summoned thither unlesse to be called to the Barre as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians It had need to be a large Barre indeed to hold them all Was it ever heard before that a fifth part of a Councell did call foure parts to the Barre Their Ancestours had right to be summoned to a Generall Councell and to sit and vote there as well as the best how have their posterity lost this right Had they been heard and condemned in a Generall Councell No. But he urgeth what need hearing when themselves in the Face of the whole world publickly confessed and maintaine their imputed fault How what needed hearing O Iust Iudge He that giveth a right Sentence yet if he give it without hearing is an unrighteous Iudge They confessed their imputed Fault but did they confesse it to be a Fault No I warrant you he can not say it for shame Or how should they confesse it in the Face of the whole Christian world They are the Christian world themselves and your Roman world is but a Microcosme in comparison of them The case is so evident and notorious that no man can doubt of it The Continent hath not left St. Peters Boat but St. Peters Boat hath left the Continent The Innovation or swerving from Apostolicall Tradition was not in the Christian world but in the Court of Rome who would have advanced their Aristocraticall power to a Soveraign Monarchicall power but the Christian world would not give way to it if this were an errour in them all their Ancestours were guilty of it as well as they But the Court of Rome being conscious to themselves that they were the Innovators to free themselves from feare of being censured by the Christian World adventured to give the first blow by censuring the whole Christian world it self This was a Bolder Act then that of Pope Victor which Irenaeus misliked so much He will never leave his Socraticall manner of disputing by Questions what certain Rule have we to know what Sects are of she Church Although I needed not yet I have answered this demand formerly All those are of the Church who weare the Badge and Cognisance of Christians that is the Apostles Creed as it is explicated by the foure first Generall Councells as all those Churches doe and have not been cast out of the Church by the Sentence of a Generall Councell as none of these Churches have no nor yet by the Sentence of the Roman Church it self if we may trust the Bishop of Chalcedons Survey cap. 8. Neither doth the Roman Church excommunicate all the Christians of Affrick Asia Greece and Russia but onely such as doe vincibly or sinfully erre He addeth that there are innumerable who are not formall Hereticks but onely Hereticis Credentes These continue good Christians still and are Churches still and ought not to be excluded froÌ„ Generall Councells though supposed to be materially in an errour much lesse being innocent and in no Heresy or Schisme either formall or Materiall I pleaded that though it were true that all the other Patriarchs were such Materiall Hereticks yet of all others they ought especially to have been summoned The reason is evident because they that are sick have more need of the Physitian then they that are in health Hence he inferreth that it is more necessary that Hereticks be called to a Generall Councell then Orthodox Fathers Not so both are necessary the one to Cure the other to be cured but the especiall Consideration or end of a Councell is for those that erre that they may be reduced I said the Pope hath not that Authority over a Generall Councell that the King hath over a Parliament He answereth that he is so plaine a man that he understandeth not what the Authority of King or Parliament signifies I will help him The King may dissolve a Parliament when he pleaseth so may not the Pope a Generall Councell against their wills If the King dye by whose writ it was called the Parliament is dissolved so is not a Generall Councell by death of the Pope The King hath a Negative voice in Parliament so hath not the Pope in a Generall Councell I urged that the Protoâ—patriarchs are not known or condemned Rebells He answereth first this is onely said againe not proved He is alwaies stumbling upon the same Block It doth not belong to me to prove they were not condemned but to himself who accuseth them to shew when and where they where condemned Secondly he answereth that their Errours have been condemned by Councells and for the most part some of their own party being present But the condemning of their errours is no sufficient warrant for the excluding of their persons out of Generall Councells Neither were these Councells Generall Councells or such as had any Iurisdiction over the Protopatriarchs Moreover they condemne Papall Errours as well as he condemneth their Errours whether is more Credit to begiven to the Pope in his own cause charging all the Patriarchs in the world or to all the other Patriarchs in the world unanimously condemning his Vsurpations in the name of the Catholick Church He demands whether there might not be a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the Members found in that Councell and yet be a lawfull Parliament I think there might if the absence of all the rest proceeded from their own neglect but not if it proceeded from want of Summons as the absence of the Protopatriarchs did He bids me rub up my memory he believes
become indifferent unconcerning Opinions because they are Negative I wish no more disparagement to any man then to be the authour of such an absurd assertion Either they are Fundamentall Articles or unconcerning Opinions How should they cease to be Articles which never were Articles That there is one God and one Saviour Iesus Christ that the life of the Saints is everlasting and the Fire of the devills Everlasting are Articles of Faith but every thing which may be deduced from these is not a distinct Article of Faith To the latter part of my plea that we tooke nothing away but weeds he pleadeth first that it is but a self supposition or a begging of the Question By his leave I have demonstrated that all the Branches of Papall power which are in controversy between them and us are all grosse Vsurpations and weeds which did never sprout up in the Church of England untill after 1100 yeares no man can say without shame that such were planted by Christ or his Apostles Secondly he excepteth that to take away Errours is a requisite act af Iustice not a proofe of Moderation On the contrary therefore it is a proofe of Moderation because it is a requisite Act of Iustice all virtue consisteth in the meane or in a moderation It is not his particular pretended supposititious Tradition which doth secure us that Christ was and that the Holy Scripture is the Genuine word of God but the Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition of the Catholick Church of Christ. My last proofe of our Moderation was that we are ready in the preparation of our minds to believe and practice whatsoever the Catholick Church of this present Age doth believe and practice And this is an infallible preservative to keep a man within the Pale of the Church whosoever doth this Cordially cannot possibly be a formall Heretick or Schismatick because he is invincibly ignorant of his Heresy or Schisme No man can have iust cause to seperate his Communion a Communione orbis Terrarum from the Communion of the Christian world If he would have confuted this his way had been to have proposed something which the Christian World united doth believe or practise which wee are not ready to believe or Practice This he doth not so much as attempt to doe but barketh and raileth without rime or reason First he telleth us we say that there is no Vniversall Church Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy wherein we pray dayly that God will inspire the Vniversall Church with the Spirit of Truth Vnity and Concord He telleth us that they doe not doubt but we have renounced our Creed Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy wherein we make profession dayly of the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds He telleth us that we have renounced our reason If he had said onely that we had lost our reason it is more then any man in his right wits would say but to say we have renounced our reason is incredible The reason of all this is because we give no certein Rule to know a true Church from an Hereticall He supposeth that no Hereticall Church is a true Church The Bishop of Chalcedon may instruct him better that an Hereticall Church is a true Church whilest it erreth invincibly He saith that he hath lived in Circumstances to be as well acquainted with our Doctrin as most men are Yet he professeth that if his life were at stake be could not Determine absolutely upon our Constant Grounds VVhether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the Vniversall Church or no. The nearer relation that he hath had to the Church of England the more shame for him to scoffe so often at the supposed Nakednesse of his Mother and to revile her so virulently without either ground or Provocation which gave him his Christian being He hath my Charitable Iudgement of Presbyterians in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle And for the other Sects it were much better to have a little patience and suffer them to dye of themselves then trouble the world so much about them they were produced in a Storme and will dye in a Calme He may be sure they will never molest him at any Councell either Generall or Occidentall It is honour enough for them to be named in earnest by a Polemick writer But what manner of Disputing is this to bring Questions in stead of Arguments As what new Form of Discipline the Protestants have introduced What are the certain Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell What is the Vniversall Church and of what particular Churches it doth consist What are the notes to know a true Church from an Hereticall We have introduced no new discipline but reteined the old Our Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell are the same they were not altogether so rigorously exacted in case of invincible necessity We are readier to give an account of ourselves then to censure others either to intrude ourselves into the Office of God to distinguish perfectly formall Schismaticks from materiall Or into the Office of the Catholick Church to determine precisely who ought to be excluded from her Communion who not We exclude all those whom undoubted Generall Councells have excluded the rest we leave to God and to the determination of a free Councell as Generall as may be But because I would not leave him unsatisfied in any thing I am contented to admit their own Definition of the Vniversall Church That is the Company of Christians knit together by the profession of the same faith and the Communion of the same Sacraments under the Government of lawfull Pastours Taking away that purple patch which they have added at the latter end of it for their own Interest And especially of the Roman Bishop as the onely Vicar of Christ upon Earth And if they had stinted at a Primacy of Order or beginning of unity I should not have excepted against it He objecteth that Protestants have no grounds to distinguish true believers from false That were strange indeed whilest we have the same Scriptures interpreted by the same perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church according to the same Analogy of Faith wherein we give this honour to the Fathers not to be Authours but witnesses of Tradition whatsoever grounds they have to distinguish true believers from false we have the same But because I made the Apostles Creed to be the rule of Faith he objecteth First then the Puritans who deny the Article of Christs descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the Vniversall Church If they be so what is that to the Church of England if they be turned out yet let them be heard first They plead that the manner of Christs descent is not particularly determined but let it be determined or not they ought to be turned out of the Vniversall Church by a Generall Councell and it may be they will submit to the Authority of a Generall