separate from other Churches but from their own errours In a large garden suppose there should be many quarters some weeded some unweeded there is indeed a separation of the Plants from the Weeds in the same quarters but no separation of one quarter from another Or if a man shall purge out of himself corrupted humours he doth not thereby separate himself from other persons whose bodies are unpurged It is true that such weeding and purging doth produce a distinction between the quarters weeded and the quarters unweeded and between Bodies purged and Bodies unpurged But either they stand in no such need of weeding or purging or it is their own fault who doe not weed or purge when they have occasion If they will needs misconstrue our lawfull reformation to be an unlawfull and uncharitable separation how can we help it We have separated from no Eastern Southern Northern or Western Church Our Article tells them the same either let them produce some Act of ours which makes or implies such a separation or let them hold their peace for ever But all this noise proceeds from hence that R. C. conceives that we will no more join with those Eastern Churches or any of them in their Creeds in their Liturgies or publick forms of serving God nor communicate with them in their Sacraments then we doe with the Church of Rome If we communicate not with the Roman Church in some things it is not our faults It is not their serving of God nor their Sacraments that we dislike but their disservice of God and corrupting of the holy Sacraments But for these Grecian Russian Armenian and Abissine Churches I finde grosse superstitions objected to some of them but not proved I finde some inusitate expressions about some mysteries which are scarcely intelligible or explicable as the procession of the holy Ghost and the Union of the two natures in Christ which are not frequently used among us but I beleive their sense to be the same with ours The Grecians doe acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son And all the other Churches are ready to accurse the errours both of Nestorius and Eâ—tyches But that which satisfies me is this that they exact of no man nor obtrude upon him any other Creed or new Articles of Faith then the Apostolicall Nicene and Athanasian Creeds with the explications of the generall Councels of Ephesiu Constantinople and Chalcedon all which we readily admit and use daily in our Liturgy If the Church of Rome would rest where they doe we might well have disputable questions between us but no breach of unity in point of Faith Likewise in point of discipline all these Churches ascribe no more to the Pope then a primacy of Order no supremacy of Power or universal Jurisdiction They make a generall Councel with or without the Popes suffrage to be the highest Ecclesiasticall tribunall Let the Romanists rest where they doe rest and all our controversies concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline will fall to the ground Thirdly they have their Liturgy in a language understood they administer the Sacrament in both kinds to all Christians They doe not themselves adore much lesse compell others to adore the species of Bread and Wine Howsoever they have a kind of elevation They have no new matter and form no tradition of the paten and chalice in Presbyterian ordination but only imposition of hands They know no new Sacrifice but the commemoration representation and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse. Just as we believe Let the Romanists but imitate their moderation and we shall strait come to joyn in Communion in Sacraments and Sacramentals also Yet these are the three essentials of Christian Religion Faith Sacraments and Discipline So little ground had R. C. to tell us that we had separated our selves from all Christian Churches in the World But Calvin saith we have been forced to make a separation from all the world Admit he did say so What will he conclude from hence that the Church of England did the same This consequence will never be made good without a transubstantiation of Mr. Calvin into the English Church He himself knoweth better that we honor Calvin for his excellent parts but we doe not pinn our Religion either in Doctrine or Discipline or Liturgy to Calvins sleeve Whether Calvin said so or not for my part I cannot think otherwise but that he did so in point of Discipline untill some body will be favorably pleased to shew me one formed nationall or provinciall Church throughout the world before Geneva that wanted Bâ—shops or one lay Elder that exercised Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in Christendome I confess the Fratres Bohemi had not the name of Bishops but they wanted not the order of Bishops under the name of Seniores or Elders who had both Episcopall Ordination after their Presbyterian Episcopal Jurisdiction and Episcopall Succession from the Bishops of the Waldenses who had continued in the Church under other names time immemotiall and gave them charge at their Reformation long before Luthers time to preserve that Order All which themselves have published to the World in private I confâ—ss likewise that they had their lay Elders under the name of Presbyteri from whence Mr. Calvin borrowed his But theirs in Bohemia pretended not to be Ecclesiasticall Commissioners nor did nor durst ever presume to meddle with the power of the keies or exercise any Jurisdiction in the Church They were only inferior Officers neither more nor less than our Church-Wardens and Sydemen in England This was far enough from ruling Elders Howsoever what doth this concern the Church of England which never made nor maintained nor approved any such separation No more did Calvin himselfe out of judgment but out of necessity to complie with the present estate of Geneva after the expulsion of their Bishop As might be made appeare if it were needfull by his publick profession of their readines to receive such Bishops as the primitive Bishops were or otherwise that they were to be reputed nullo non anathemate digni By his subscription to the Augustane confession which is for Epicopacy cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi By his confession to the King of Polonia The ancient Church instituted Patriarchater and assigned primacie to single Provinces that Bishops might be better knit together in the bond of unity By his description of the charge of a Bishop that should joyn himself to the reformed Church to doe his indeavour that all the Churches within his Bishoprick be purged from Errors and Idolatry to goe before the Curates or Pastors of his Diocess by his example and to induce them to admit the Reformation And lastly by his letters to Arch-bishop Cranmer the Bishop of London and a Bishop of Polonia I have searched the hundred one and fortieth Epistle and for fear of failing the hundred and one and fortieth page also in my edition but I
Prince or Princes but a whole succession of Kings with their convocations and Parliaments proceeding according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah But he faith that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde then that he violated his conscience Neither will this uncharitable censure if it were true advantage his cause the black of a bean His conscience might make the reformation sinfull in him but not unlawfull in it self The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self depends not upon the conscience of the doer but the merit of the thing done His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders The former a great Counsellor of King Henry a contriver of the oath a propugner of the Kings Supremacy both in print and in his Sermons and a persecutor of them who opposed it For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost He had reason to say he was constrained both to hide his own shame and to flatter the Pope after his revolt whom he had so much opposed especially in the dayes of Queen Marie Otherwise he had missed the Chancellership of England and it may be had suffered as a Schismatick Yet let us hear what he faith that King Henry had a purpose to resigne the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it All this might have been and yet no intention of reconciliation Great Princes many times look one way and row another And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion or prevent a forrein warre will make no scruple to use it But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation that if he did not hear them certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus they would certainly interpret it that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves to seeke their remedy from elsewhere This was a faire intimation and they were as good as their words This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia downright for the Kings Supremacie against the Pope Lastly this is who published to the world that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point and the King alone goe against his conscience His later witness Nicholas Sanders is just such another whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry He feineth that when his death did draw nigh he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick Testimony he produceth none but his own Authority They who will not beleeve it may chuse But that which followeth spoileth the credit of his relation That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him answered that the King was wiser then all men that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration and had nothing now to fear That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bâ—shops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abhominably against his conscience as he makes this to be is not credible But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made But here is a double mistake first in the time this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made currente Rota Some intimations had been given of what was intended but the Bell was not then rung out Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement in order of time Secondly in the Subject this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine The words are these That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence untill he the King had indifferent Judges who might hear the business he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King and delivered it at Rome It was not accepted The Kings answer came not within the time limited Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence and the Separation followed So this was about the change of a Wife not of Religion before either King Henrys substraction of obedience or the Popes fulmination In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope but in no case from the Papacy which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution whereas Protestants saith he for the faults of some Popes have separated themselves both from Pope Papacy and Roman Church And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution If he had been pleased to observe it I took away this distinction before it was made shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline doe warrant a more permanent separation even untill they be reformed I doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope Papacy and Church of Rome but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another As the Pope may have his proper faults so may the Papacy so may the Church of Rome We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Roman Church In all other things we maintain communion with her We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See if he
of indulgences whom the Pope of that time rebuked severely Nor Henry the eighth but the excommunication of Clement the seventh That of Luther is altogether without the compass of the question between him and me which concerneth only the Church of England I shall only make bold to tell him that whensoever it comes to be examined it will be found that Luther had many other causes of what he did then the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences If he will not give me credit let him cousult the hundred grievances of the German Nation That the Pope rebuked those Preachers of Indulgences severely is more then I have read only this I have read that Carolus Militius did so chide Tecelius the Popes Pardoner about it that shortly after he died of grief Concerning Henry the eighth the excommunication of Clement the seventh was so far from being a totall adequate cause of his separation that it was no more but a single occasion The originall priviledges of the British Churches the ancient liberties and immunities of the English Church daily invaded by the Court of Rome the usurpation of the just Rites and Flowers of his own Crown the otherwise remediles oppression of his Subjâ—â—ts and the examples of his noble Predecessors were the chief grounds of his proceedings against the Court of Rome He asketh could not Henry the eighth have been saved though he was excommunicate yes why not Justice looseth unjust bonds But I see that this question is grounded upon a double dangerous error First that all reformation of our selves is a sinfull separation from other Churches Whereas he himself confesseth that it is sometimes vertuous and necessary Nay every reformation of our selves is so far from being a sinfull separation from others that it is no separation at all except it be joyned with censuring and condemning of others The second error intimated in this question is this that so long as there is possibility of salvation in any Church it is not lawfull or at least not necessary to separate from the abuses and corruptions thereof A Church may continue a true particular Church and bring forth Children to God and yet out of invincible ignorance maintain materiall Heresie and require the profession of that Heresie as a condition of communicating with her in which case it is lawfull nay necessary after conviction to separate from her errors Those errors and corruptions are pardonable by the goodness of God to them who erre out of invincible ignorance which are not pardonable in like manner to them who sinne contrary to the light of their own conscience He addeth that this excommunication was not the fault of the Roman Church which neither caused it nor approved it Yea saith he divers of them disliked it both then and since not as unjust but as imprudent and some have declared themselves positively that a Prince and a multitude are not to be excommunicated It were to be wished for the good of both parties that all men were so moderate To his argument I give two answers First as the Church of Rome did not approve the excommunication of Henry the eighth So neither did Henry the eighth separate himself from the Cchurch of Rome but only from the Pope and Court of Rome Secondly what are we the better that some in the Roman Church are moderate so long as they have no power to help us or hinder the acts of the Roman Court They teach that a Prince or a multitude are not to be excommunicated But in the mean time the Court of Rome doth excommunicate both Princes and multitudes and whole Kingdomes and give them away to strangers Whereof there are few Kingdomes or Republicks in Europe that have not been sensible more or less and particularly England hath felt by wofull experience in sundry ages Clement the seventh excommunicated King Henry but Paul the third both excommunicated and interdicted him and the whole Kingdome and this was the first separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome and the originall of the Schism wherin the Church of England was meerly passive So the Court of Rome was the first cause of the Schism We are come now to my first argument to prove the Court of Rome to be causually schismaticall My proposition is this whatsoever doth leave its proper place in the body either naturall or politicall or ecclesiasticall to usurp the Office of the Head or to usurpe an higher place in the body then belongs unto it is the cause of disorder disturbance confusion and Schism among the Members my assumption is this but the vertuall Church of Rome that is the Pope wiâ—h his Court being but a coordinate Member of the Catholick Church doth seek to usurpe the Office of the Head being but a Branch doth châ—llenge to himself the place of the Root being but a Stone in the building will needles be an absolute Foundation for all persons places and times being but an eminent Servant in the Familie takes upon him to be the Master To the proposition he taketh no exception And to the assumption he confesseth that the Church of Rome in right of the Pope doth seek to be Mistriss of all other Churches and an externall subordinate foundation of all Christians in all times and places which is no more then is conteined in the new Creed of Pius the fourth I acknowledg the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistriss of all Churches And I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. But all this he justifieth to be due to the Pope and included in the Supremacy of his Pastorall Office But he saith that it is not the Doctrine of the universal Roman Church that the Pope is the root of all spiritual Iurisdiction Though it be not the Doctrine of the whole Roman Church yet it is the Doctrine of their principall Writers at this day It is that which the Popes and their Courtiers doe challenge and we have seldome seen them fail first or last to get that setled which they desired The Pope hath more Benefices to bestow then a Councell If the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians then Linus and Cletus and Clemens were the foundations of St. Iohn who was one of the twelve foundations laid immediately by Christ How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians when they doe not agree among themselves that the Chair of St. Peter is annexed to the See of Rome by divine right How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians at all times when there was a time that there were Christians and no Bishop or Church at Rome when it happens many times as in this present vacancy that there is no Bishop at Rome St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome then there was a time when Antioch was the Mistriss and foundation of all
the Pope Doth any man think that our Ancestors were so simple as to question whether the Body be above the Head or to hope that the Pope would concurre willingly to his own deposition This we know for certain that the Councell of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did Decree themselves to be a lawfull complete generall Councell superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures And deposed three Popes at a time And their acts were confirmed in the Councell of Basile To this Decree of the Councell of Constance he giveth two answers First That it is probable that the Councell meant only of doubtfull Popes But I did take away this answer in the vindication two waies First because it is contrary to the text The words of the Councell are these the Pope that is a Pope truely elected and lawfully admitted It is uncertain whether a doubtfull Pope be Pope or no is subject to a generall Councel that is a generall Councel without the presence or concurrence of the Pope such as the Councel of Constance was As well in matter of faith as of manners This is more then doubtfull titles so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed So a Councell may correct the Pope and if they please continue him or if they finde him incorrigible depose him Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles but for faults in faith or manners Neither can they be said to be deposed who are only declared to have been usurpers Secondly I confuted this answer by the execution of the Decree The Councell did not only declare who was the right Pope which is a judiciary act and may be done by an Inferior towards his Superior but they turned out three Popes together whereof one without controversie was the right Pope And so made right to be no right for the publick good of the Church which is a badge of sovereign and legislative Authority His second answer is That this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Martine the fifth This answer was likewise taken away in the vindication First because the Popes confirmation is but a novelty never practised in the ancient Church and signifieth nothing The Pope and his Legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their Legates did And that was all Secondly because Pope Martines title to the Papacy did depend meerly upon the Authority of the Decree If this Decree were not a lawfull Decree of a lawfull generall Councell and such a Councell as had power to depose the former Pope then Pope Martine was no Pope but an usurper and then his confirmation signified nothing also in that respect Last I shewed that it was conciliarly made And what the word conciliarly there signifieth out of the Acts of the Councell And that passage was not intended for a confirmation but an occasionall Speech after the end of the Councell after the Fathers were dismissed in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope by the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania about a seditious Book which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the publick Acts of the Session the Pope answered that he approved what had been conciliarly done To all this he answereth nothing but that the word conciliariter or conciliarly signifieth rather the manner of a Councel then of a Councell Let it be so Is not the decreeing of any thing publickly in the Session the manner of the Councels Acting The Duputies of the Nations were like a Committee of Parliament who have no power to Decree though they be a Committe of the whole House but only to prepare things for the House Now suppose the King at the close of the Parliament being requested to confirm some Acts of a Committe should use the very same expression which Martine the fifth did That he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that Parliament Parliamentariter or Parliamentarily Doth not this evidently confirm all the Acts and conclusions of the Parliament Or what can this in reason exclude but only the Acts of the Committees To say as R. C. saith That he confirmeth only those Acts which were done with due liberation is as much as to say that he confirmeth just nothing at all How shall it be known or who shall be Judg what was done with due deliberation and what was not Neither doth it weigh any thing at all to say as he doth that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations without adding conciliariter for first it is a rule in Law that abundans non vitiat A word or two too much doe no hurt Secondly the Deputies of the Nations did sit and Act by the Authority of the Councell and consequently their Acts were mediatly and in some sort the Acts of the Councel Lastly whether the Decree of the Councel were confirmed or not to me seemeth all one The end of Convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those respective Churches from which they are sent and to witnesse the received belief We see by their Votes what was the received opinion of the Occidentall Church And we see otherwise suffiâ—ently what was the received opinion of the Eastern Southern and Northern Churches So as the Roman Court will not be able to finde one nationall Church of that age throughout the World to maintain their exorbitant claimes To my fourth argument drawn from the Popes challenge of all Episcopall Jurisdiction and consequently the breaking of all the lines of Apostolicall Succession except his own and to my two additionall arguments concerning the infallibility of the Popes judgment and his power over Princes he answereth nothing but that they are not defined by the Roman Church and therefore cannot be a cause of departing from her communion Neither have I indevoured to charge the crime of Schism upon the Roman Church in generall but upon the Roman Court and the violent propugners thereof whose Tenets these are I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendor of an Apostolicall Church and the principall Protropatriarchate and its beginning of unity Notwithstanding the weaknesse of his answers yet he laies down this for a conclusion That whatsoever I now pretend our separation was schismatically begun And thence inferres upon a ground brought by me Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tract is temporis non convalescit That it is schismaticall still First I denie his ground the separation was not made by us but by them what we did was not schismaticall but just and necessary Secondly his inference is grossely mistaken and the rule which I brought altogether misapplyed That which was invalid from the beginning cannot become valid prescription or tract of time but it may become valid by subsequent Acts of Parties
did not know who were obstinate and who were not who erred for want of light and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences The like Spirit did possess Optatus who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists Brethren not by chance or inanimadvertence but upon premeditation he justifieth the title and professeth himself to be obliged to use it he would not have done so to Idolaters And a little before in the same Book he wonders why his Brother Parmenian being only a Schismatick would rank himself with Hereticks who were falsifiers of the Creed that is the old primitive Creed which the Councel of Trent it self placed in the front of their Acts as their North-star to direct them I wish they had steered their course according to their compass To cut off a lim from a man or a branch from a tree saith he is to destroy them most true But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body as in a gangreen The word of errour is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not cancer a crabfish because it is retrograde which was Anselmes mistake So when superfluous branches are lopped away it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better His second conclusion from hence is that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sinne And because there is no salvation out of the Church which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin to little purpose whilest no man doubts of it or denies it And hence he inferres this corollary that I say untruely that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church because there ean be no just cause of Schism My words were these that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church There is a great difference between these two But to dispell umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words We must distinguish between the Catholick oecumenicall Church and particular Churches how eminent soever As likewise between criminous Schism and lawfull separation First I did never say that the Catholick or universall Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it yea I ever said the contrary expresly And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian who never understood the Catholick Church in his sense His Catholick Church was but a particular Church with them And their Catholick Church is a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him But I did say and I doe say that any particular Church without exception whatsoever may give just cause of separation from it by heresy or Schism or abuse of their authority in obtruding errours And to save my self the labour of proving this by evidence of reason and by authentick testimonies I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey Neither can there be any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her In which case division from her is no schism or sinne but virtue and necessary And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church as he may leave his Fathers house when it is infected with some contagious sicknesse with a purpose to returne to it again when it is cleansed he answers that this may be true of a particular Church but cannot be true of the universall Church Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sinne Their damnation is just who say let us doe evil that good may come of it Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her the guilt of the Schisme lies not upon that Church which makes the separation but upon that Church from which the separation is made This is a truth undenyable and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practise liturgy and use of Sacraments may truely be said to have bene Hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the externall communion of the true uncorrupted Church We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgie and use of the Sacraments and which is more did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her And if so then by the judgement of her own Doctors the Schism is justly laid at her own door and it was no sinne in us but virtue and necessary to separate from her I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alledged as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8 and 1. Tim. 1.3 He speaks of bad manners and vitious humors and sinister affections especially in the preachers as envy contention contumacy incontinency This was his case then with the Donatists and is now the case of the Anabaptists That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18 He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiasticaâ—ll discipline He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause what doth this concern us who beleeve the same His second note is this that Protestants have forsaken the Pope the Papacy the universal Roman Church and all the ancient Christian Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian in their communion of Sacraments and to clear themselves from Schism must bring just cause of separation from every one of these I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy that is from his primacy of power from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right which two are already established from his superiority above general Councels and infallibility of judgment which are the most received Opinions
and near establishâ—ng in the Roman Church We have renounced their Patriarchall power over us because they never exercised it in Britain for the fiâ—st six hundred years nor could exercise it in after ages without manifest usurpation by reason of the Canon of the Oecumenicall Councell of Ephesus Yea because they themselves waved it and implicitely quitted it presently after the six hundreth year Disuse in law forfeits an office as well as abuse But we have not separated from the Pope or Papacy as they were regulated by the Canons of the Fathers We look upon their universal Roman Church as an upstart innovation and a contradiction in adjecto We finde no footsteps of any such thing throughout the primitive times Indeed the Bishops of Rome have somtimes been called Oecumenicall Bishops so have the other Patriarchs for their universal care and presidency in general Councels who never pretended to any such universality of power But for all ancient Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian c. none excluded not the Roman it self we are so farre from forsaking them that we make the Scriptures interpreted by their joint beleef and practice to be the rule of our reformation And wherin their Successors have not swerved from the examples of their Predecessors we maintain a strict Communion with them Only in Rites and Ceremonies and such indifferent things we use the the liberty of a free Church to chuse out such as are most proper for our selves and most conducible to those ends for which they were first instituted that is to be advancements of order modesty decency gravity in the service of God to be adjuments to attention and devotion furtherances of edification helpes of memory exercises of Faith the the leaves that preserve the fruit the shâ—ll that preserves the kernell of Religion from contempt And all this with due moderation so as neither to render Religion sordid and sluttish nor yet light and garish but comely and venerable Lastly for communion in Sacraments we have forsaken no Sacraments either instituted by Christ or received by the primitive Christians We refuse no Communion with any catholick Christians at this day and particularly with those ancient Churches which he mentions though we may be and have been misrepresented one unto another yea though the Sacraments may be administred in some of them not without manifest imperfection whilst sinfull duties are not obtruded upon us as conditions of communion Under this caution we still retein coÌ„munion in Sacraments with Roman Catholicks If any person be baptized or admitted into holy Orders in their Church we baptize them not we ordain them not again Wherein then have we forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments not in their ancient Communion of genuine Sacraments but in their septinary number and suppositious Sacraments which yet we retein for the most part as usefull and religious Rites but not under the notion of Sacraments not in their Sacraments but in their abuses and sinfull injunctions in the use of the Sacrament As their administration of them in a tongue unknown where the people cannot say Amen to the prayers and thanksgivings of the Church contrary to Saint Paul As their deteining the Cup from the Laity contrary to the institution of Christ drink ye all of this that is not all the Apostles only for the Apostles did not consecrate in the presence of Christ and according to the doctrine of their Schools and practise of their Church as to the participation of the Sacrament at that time were but in the condition of Laymen As their injunction to all Communicants to adore not only Christ in the use of the Sacrament to which we doe readily assent but to adore the Sacrament it self And lastly as their double matter and form in the ordination of a Priest never known in the Church for above a thousand years after Christ. These and such like abuses were the only things which we did forsake so as I may truly say non tellus Cymbam tellurem Cymba reliquit It was not we that did forsake them in the Communion of their Sacraments but it was their Sacraments that did forsake us And yet we doe not censure them for these innovations in the use of the Sacraments or the like nor thrust them out of the communion of the Catholick Church but provide for our selves advise them as Brethren and so leave them to stand or fall to their own Master So on our parts there is a reformation but no separation His third point is that Protestants vary in giving the pretended just cause of their separation from the Roman Church For at the first their only cause was the abuse of some that preached Indulgences Since some others give the adoration of the blessed Sacrament or communion in one kind others give the Oath made by Pius the 4 th which they call a new creed others other causes Which variety is a certain sign of their uncertainty of any true just cause of their separation That the Pardoners and Preachers of Indulgences and the envy of other Orders and the passionate heat of the Court of Rome tange montes fumigabunt touch the high mountains and they will smoak did contribute much to the breach of this part of Christendome is confâ—ssedly true But it is not only the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences but much more the abuse of Indulgences themselves which we complain of that a treasury should be composed of the blood of Christ and the sufferings and supererogatory works of the Saints to be disposed by the Pope for money What is this but to mingle Heaven and Earth together the imperfect works of man with the sacrified blood of Christ Neither was it the Doctrine and abuse of Indulgences alone but the injunction to adore the Sacrament also and Communion in one kind and the new Creed of Pius the 4 th or the new Articles since comprised in that Creed and the Monarchy of the Pope by divine right and sundry other abuses and innovations all put together which gave just cause to some Protestants to separate themselves so far as they were active in the separation But we in England were first chased away by the Popes Buls If these abuses were perhaps not discovered or at least not pleaded all at once what wonder is it Dies diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicat scientiam day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge His fourth point which he saith is much to be noted is reduced by himself to a Syllogism Whosoever separate themselves in substance that is in essentials from the substance of a Catholick and true Church in substance are true Schismaticks But Protestants have separated themselves in substance from the Roman Church which is a Catholick and true Church in substance therefore Prostants are true Schismaticks His proposition is proved by him because the substances of things doe consist in indivisibili and the changing
but doubtfully and upon supposition not grounded upon any matter of fact It is not improbable and if we were put to our oaths we should surely testifie no such thing for you which words doe follow immediately in the place formerly cited And in another place neither to suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is to contradict this ground of Doctor Potters that the Church may erre unlesse you will have us believe that may be and must be is all one and that all which may be true is true Neither Doctor Potter nor Master Chillingworth did ever maintain a separation from the whole Christian World in any one thing but from some Churches in one thing from some in another not necessary to Salvation wherein they dissented one from another That which is one and the same in all places is no errour but delivered by Christ and his Apostles Saint Austine gives not much more latitude That which the whole Church holds and was not instituted by Counsels but alwaies reteined is rightly esteemed to have been delivered by apostolicall authority Let Master Chillingworth be his own interpreter It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole World another to separate from all the Communions in the World one thing to divide from them who are united among themselves another to divide from them who are divided among themseves The Donatists separated from the whole Christian World united but Luther and his followers did not so In all this here is not a word against the Church of England nor any thing materiall against any particular Protestant A perfect harmony and unanimity were to be wished in the universall Church but scarcely to be hoped for until this mortall hath put on immortality in all disputable questions The Romanists have no such perfect unity in their own Church perhaps as many reall differences as there are between us and the Grecians or between us and themselves but only they are pleased to nickname the one Heresies and to honour the other with the title of Scholasticall questions Our communicating with Schismaticks hath been already answered In the latter part of this Chapter he chargeth me with four faults at a time able to break a back of Steel first That I indeavour to clear the English Protestant Church from Schism but not other Protestant Churches I doe not understand exactly the history of their reformation nor the Lawes and Priviledges of forrein particular Churches qui pauca considerat facile pronuntiat he that considereth few circumstances giveth the sentence easily but seldome justly He addeth That either it argues little charity in me or little skill to defend them And elsewhere he instanceth in the Scotish and French Huguenots and laieth down the reason of my silence because I condemn them as Schismaticks for wanting that Episcopacy which I require as essentially necessary to a Catholick Church In the mean time let him remember what it is to raise discord and make variance Prov. 6.16 If the want of Episcopacy were my only reason why doe I not defend the Bohemian Brethren the Danish Swedish and some German Protestants all which have Bishops But because he presseth me so much I will give him a further account of my self in this particular then I intended or am obliged I confesse I doe not approve tumultuary reformations made by a giddy ignorant multitude according to the dictates of a seditious Oratour But withall I must tell him that God would not permit evill but that he knows how to extract good out of evill And that he often useth ill agents to doe his own works Yea even to reform his Church Iehu was none of the best men yet God used him to purge his Church and to take away the Priests of Baal The treason of Iudas became subservient to the secret councels of God for the redemption of the World by the Crosse and Passion of Christ. I doe also acknowledge that Episcopacy was comprehended in the Apostolick office tanquam trigonus in tetragono and that the distinction was made by the Apostles with the approbation of Christ. That the Angels of the seven Churches in the Revelation were seven Bishops that it is the most silly rediculous thing in the World to calumniâ—â—e that for a papall innovation which was established in the Church before there was a Pope at Rome which hath been received and approved in all ages since the very Cradle of Christianity by all sorts of Christians Europeans Africans Asiaticks Indians many of which never had any intercourse with Rome nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome If semper ubique ab omnibus be not a sufficient plea I know not what is But because I esteem them Churches not completely formed doe I therefore exclude them from all hope of salvation or esteem them aliens and strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel or account them formall Schismaticks No such thing First I know there are many learned Persons among them who doe passionately affect Episcopacie some of which have acknowledged to my self that their Church would never be rightly setled untill it was new moulded Baptisme is a Sacrament the door of Christianity a matriculation into the Church of Christ Yet the very desire of it in case of necessity is sufficient to excuse from the want of actuall Baptisme And is not the desire of Episcopacy sufficient to excuse from the actuall want of Episcopacy in like case of necessity Or should I censure these as Schismaticks Secondly There are others who though they doe not long so much for Episcopacy yet they approve it and want it only out of invincible necessity In some places the Soveraign Prince is of another Communion the Episcopall Chaires are filled with Romish Bishops If they should petition for Bishops of their own it would not be granted In other places the Magistrats have taken away Bishops whether out of pollicy because they thought that Regiment not so proper for their Republicks or because they were ashamed to take away the Revenues and preserve the Order or out of a blinde Zeal they have given an account to God they owe none to me Should I condemn all these as Schismaticks for want of Episcopacy who want it out of invincible necessity Thirdly There are others who have neither the same desires nor the same esteem of Episcopacy but condemn it as an Antichristian Innovation and a Ragge of Popery I conceive this to be most grosse Schism materially It is ten times more schismaticall to desert nay to take away so much as lies in them the whole order of Bishops than to substract obedience from one lawfull Bishop All that can be said to mittigate this fault is that they doe it ignorantly as they have been mistaught and misinformed And I hope that many of them are free from obstinacy and hold the truth implicitely in the preparation of their minds being ready to
it But we doe not think Schismaticks to be equally in the Church with Catholicks nor to be capable of salvation without repentance particular or generall He saith That universall Schism or a division from the whole Church is alwaies wicked because the universall Church can give no just cause of division from her And he proves it out of St. Austin His words are these sâ— possunt quod fieri non potest aliqui habere justam causam qua communionem suam separent a communione orbis terrarum If any could have a just cause to separate their commuion from the whole communion of the whole World which cannot be Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against himself It is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole World Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures We have made no absolute separation even from the Roman Church it self I say more that all Schism whether universall or particular is wicked But still he confounds Schism which is alwaies unlawfull with separation which is many times lawfull I take the word according to its use not according to its derivation Hear R.C. his ingenuous confession in this place which overthrowes and casts flat to the ground all that he hath endeavoured to build in this Survey Neither indeed can there by any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of Heresie or Schism and so may require profession of her Heresie as a condition of communicating with her in which case division from her is no Schism or sin but virtue and necessary Applie but this to the Roman and English Churches and the controversy is ended The Roman Church is such a particular Church as he hath here described The English Church hath been separated but we will suppose that it had seperated it self from the Roman In this case by his own confession the Schism lies at the dore of the Roman Church from which the separation was made if they separated first from the pure primitive Church which was before them not locally but morally Yet saith he this erroneous Church is still morally a true particular Church either this Church hath not all the essentials of a Christian Church and then how doth it still continue a true Church Or it hath all the essentials and then a true Church in substance may give just ground to separate from her in materiall Heresie and Schism I will be as free with him concerning the universall Church If any man or Society of Christians separate themselves from the united communion of the whole Catholick Church dispersed throughout the World I cannot excuse him from Schism For whether the Catholick Church of this present age may erre or not this is certain she cannot erre universally in any thing that is necessary to Salvation nor with obstinacy And other inferiour errours if there be any such are not of weight enough to yeeld sufficient ground of separation from the communion of the Catholick Church united But for the divided parts of the Catholick Church a man may differ from all of them in inferiour points some in one thing some in another wherein they differ one from another and separate from some of them in their errors without criminous Schism And yet maintain a perfect union with the Catholick Church united I must not here forget to put R. C. in minde of sundry propositions laid down by me in this place tending much to the clearing of this present controversy all which he passeth by untouched as this That externall communion may sometimes be lawfully suspended or withdrawn That there is not the like necessity of communicating in all externals That Catholick communion implies not unity in all opinions That inferiours in some cases may lawfully substract communion from their Superiours and in speciall the Bishop of Rome that in tract of time abuses will creep into Christian Churches and ought to be reformed Only whereas I said in the vindication that the ancient Britannick Churches were never judged that is censured by a judgement of Jurisdiction to be Schismaticks for their different observation of Easter he saith they were judged Schismaticks both by Catholicks of that time and since and Protestants and that he hath proved it in one of his Treatises I never see his treatise but I know his manner of proof well enough I say it over again that I doe not believe that they were ever judged Schismaticks for it either by the Church or by a Councel or by any lawfull or supposed Superiour which shews plainly that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome For it is not credible that he should excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops for that observation and suffer his own Subjects to differ from him under his Nose which is the only reason why I urged it And I expect the proof of the contrary at the Greeks Calends My assertion is negative that they were not sentenced as Schismaticks this is affirmative that they were censured The burthen of the proof lies upon him Let him shew who judged them when and where or that they were censured at all I shewed cleerly in the vindication out of the Colloquy between the Catholicks and Donatists at Carthage that the Catholick Church is no Church of one denomination but the whole Christian World True saith he Neither the Church of the City of Rome nor of Africk is the Catholick Church but the whol Church of Christ. By the Church of Rome I understand not either the Church of the City of Rome or the Diocesse of Rome or the Patriarchate of Rome but all Churches of the Roman communion which altogether doe not make the fourth part of the Christian World yea saith he but the whole Church is not such a multitude or multitudes of Christians who agreed only in Fundamentals but disagree in other points of Faith and differ wholy in Communion of Sacraments All these great multitudes of Christians he feareth not to call a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads because they are not wholly one in profession of Faith Communion of Sacraments and lawfull Ministery as that Catholick primitive Church was I wonder he should forget their own distinction of the virtual representative and essentiall Church that is these multitudes of dispersed Christians I hope there be others that will not sleight them so much I confesse that primitive Catholick Church had an exact communion in all essentials or fundamentals and in many other things But that they had differences also of lesser moment in points of Doctrine and Discipline and forms of Administration of the holy Sacraments and Liturgies no man can doubt that hath his eies in his head Yet these lesser inconsiderable differences could
Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
untill of later daies that the Popes hving gotten into their hands the bestowing of the most and best ecclesiasticall Preferments in Europe did finde out their own advantage in that behalfe above a generall Councell which hath neither Dignities nor Benefices to bestowe When or where or by whom the primacy of Order was conferred upon Saint Peter it concernes R. C. to enquire more then me They have yet another evasion that the highest ecclesiasticall Power was given not only to Saint Peter but to all the rest of the Apostles but to Saint Peter as an ordinary Pastor to descend from him to his Successors because they were appointed heads of the universall Church which they could not govern without universall Power and to the rest of the Apostles as Delegates or Commissioners only for tearm of their lives not to descend to their Successors This distinction I called a drowsie dream hatched lately without either reason or authority divine or humane Against this he takes exception And I am ready to maintain my assertion That if he can produce but one Text of holy Scripture expounded in this sense by any one ancient Interpreter or but one Sentence of any one Councel or single Father for a thousand years after Christ who taught any such Doctrine or made any such distinction as this is directly without far fetched consequences and I wâ—ll retract but I am confident he cannot produce one Author or Authority in the point All his reason is because Saint Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest of the Apostles but Delegates which is a meer begging of the question Neither was Saint Peter sole Pastor of the Church nor his universal Authority necessary to a true Pastor neither were the Apostles meer Delegates for then they could have had no Successors which yet he acknowledgeth that they had Sometimes Bellarmine will admit no proper Successors of the Apostles no not of St. Peter as an Apostle At other times he makes the Pope an Apostolicall Bishop his See to be an Apostolicall See and his Office to be an Apostleship It is strange the Spirit of God should be so silent in a piece of Doctrine which they assert to be necessary and that the blessed Apostles and the Nicene Fathers and holy Athanasius should be so forgetfull as not to insert it into their Creeds But that the whole Church should be ignorant of such a mystery for fifteen hundred years is not credible I passe by their comparison of a Bishop who is Pastor and ordinary of his Diocesse whose Office descends to his Successors and a Frier licenced by the Pope to Preach throughout the same Diocesse whose Office determineth with his Life So what they can not prove they endeavour to illustrate Before they told us that the Apostles were the Vicars of Christ are they now become the Vicars of Saint Peter and his Coadjutors Before they taught us that the Apostolicall power was summa plenissima potestas a most high a most full power and comprehended all Ecclesiasticall power and is it now changed to a licence to Preach No the Apostles had more then licences to Preach even as ample power to govern as Saint Peter himself The Pope having instituted one man into a Bishoprick cannot during his incumbency give the joint government of his Church to another This were to revoke his former grant I confesse that which R. C. saith is in part a truth That the rest of the Apostles did not leave an universall and Apostolicall authority and jurisdiction to their successors But it is not the whole truth for no more did Saint Peter himself The Apostles had diverse things peculiar to their persons and proper for the first planters of the Gospel Which were not communicated to any of their successors As universality of jurisdiction for which their successors have assignation to particular charges Immediate or extraordinary vocation for which their Successors have episcopall Ordination The gift of strange Tongues and infallibility of Judgment for which we have Christian Schools and Universities The grace of doing miracles and giving the holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands If the Bishops of Rome will take upon them to be Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and pretend that their Office is an Apostleship and that they themselves are truely Apostolici excluding all others from that priviledge let us see them doe some Miracles or speak strange Languages which were Apostolicall qualifications If they cannot certainly they are not Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and though their See be Apostolicall yet their Office is no Apostleship Nor may they challenge more then they shew good evidence for or then the Church is pleased to conferre upon them The Bishops of Rome pretend to none of these Priviledges but only this of universall jurisdiction for though they challenge besides this an infallibility of judgment yet it is not an Apostolicall infallibility because they challenge no infallibility by immediate revelation from God but from the diligent use of the means neither doe they challenge an infallibility in their Sermons and writings as the Apostles did but only in the conclusions of matters of Faith And why doe they pretend to this Apostolicall qualification more then any of the rest Either because that if they should pretend to any of the rest the deceit would presently be discovered for all men know that they can work no Miracles nor speak strange Languages nor have their calling immediately from Heaven but are elected by their Conclave of Cardinals many times not without good tugging for it Or else because this claim of universall power and authority doth bring more moliture to their mill and more advantage to the Court of Rome This is certain that when the Pope is first elected Bishop it may be of some other See before he be elected Pope he is ordained after the ordinary form of all other Bishops he receives no other no larger character no more authority and power either of order or of jurisdiction then other ordinary Bishops doe Well after this he is elected Pope but he is ordeined no more Then seeing the power of the Keies and all habituall jurisdiction is derived by Ordination and every Bishop receiveth as much habituall jurisdiction at his Ordination as the Pope himself tell me first how the Pope comes to be the root of all Spirituall jurisdiction Which though it be not the generall Tenet of the Roman Church as R. C. saith truely yet it is the common Doctrin of the Roman Court. Secondly tell me how comes this dilatation of his power and this Apostolicall Universality Since all men doe confesse that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a character or Grace given by Ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not Humane but Divine But the election of the Cardinals is a meer Humane policy without all manner of Sacramentall virtue and therefore can neither
render his Judgment infallible nor his Jurisdiction universal What can the new election doe Only apply the new matter that is make him Bishop of that See whereunto he is elected They who elect him are the Bishops of the Roman Province and the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Rome Fit persons indeed to chuse a Bishop of Rome but no fit persons to chuse an universall Bishop for the whole Church It were too much honor for one Nation to have the perpetuall Regiment of Christs Church throughout all ages And whom doe the Conclave chuse An universall Pastor No but expressely a Bishop of Rome They have a third novelty as ill as either of these which I touched even now that the Regiment of the Church being monarchicall as in a Kingdome all Civill authority is derived from the King so in the Church all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope If all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be derived from the Pope as all Civil Authority is from the King then as Civill Magistrates doe exercise their Civil authority in the name of the King so Bishops ought to exercise their Spirituall jurisdiction in the name of the Pope But this they doe not this they never did Again if Spirituall jurisdiction be derived to Bishops from the Pope by what way by what means by what channell doth it descend Either it must be by Commission or by Ordination But it is not by Commission No Bishops did ever need or expect any Commission from Rome for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within his Diocesse Neither is it by Ordination they are very few indeed that receive Ordination from the Pope How many thousand Bishops have been and are still in the World that never received any Ordination from any Pope either mediately or immediately But derive the line of their Succession from the other Apostles If Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be conveied by Ordination then it is a part of the character or Grace conferred which is Divine and Sacramentall I hope the Pope will be wiser then to challenge to himself the conferring of Sacramentall Grace I made a question how the Bishop of Rome came to be Saint Peters Heir ex asse to the exclusion of his eldest Brother the Bâ—shop of Antioch where Saint Peter was first Bishop where Christians had their first denomination I had reason for I never read that the Church was governed by the Law of Gavellkind that the youngest must inherite I said moreover that they produced nothing that I had seen but a blinde Legend out of a counterfeit Hegesippus I spake not this to the disparagement of that venerable Saint but to discredit that supposititious treatise He saith If I had read Bellarmine I should have found the same testified by Saint Marcellus the Pope by Saint Ambrose and Sainâ— Athanasius I have read Bellarmine and I finde no such thing testified by Marcellus more then this That Peter came to Rome by the commandement of the Lord. Nor by Athanasius more then this That when Peter heard that he must undergoe Martyrdome at Rome he did not lay aside his voyage but came to Rome with joy What conclusion can any man make from these premisses Saint Ambrose indeed saith more but as little to his purpose That Saint Peter being about to goe without the Walls in the night did see Christ meet him in the gate and enter into the City to whom Peter said Lord whether goest thou Christ answered I come to Rome to be crucified again And that Peter understood that the answer of Christ had relation to his own Martyrdome I have likewise read what Bellarmine citeth out of Saint Gregory elsewhere that Christ said to Saint Peter I come to Rome to be crucified again For he who had been crucified long before in his own person said that he was to be erucified again in the person of Saint Peter Though these things be altogether impertinent yet I rehearse them the more willingly to let the Reader see upon what silly grounds they build conclusions of great weight We receive the Fathers as competent Witnesses of the faith and practise and tradition of the Church in their respective ages we attribute much to their expositions of the holy Text but in those things which they had upon the credit of a supposititious Author the conclusion alwaies followes the weaker part How common a thing hath it been for credulous piety to beleeve and to record rumors and uncertain relations If they see no hurt in them and if they tended to piety But in a case of this moment to give an infallible Judge to the Church and a spirituall Prince to the Christian World to whom all are bound to submit under pain of damnation we ought to have had better Authority then such a blinde History Yet this is all the plea they have in the World for the divine right of their succession How came Saint Ambroâ—e or Saint Gregory to know a matter of fact done some centuries of years before they were born They had it not by Revelation nor other Authority for it then this of a counterfeit Hegesippus in the judgement both of Baronius and Bellarmine except only the borrowed name not much ancienter then themselves Supposing that Saint Peter had had such a spirituall monarchy as they fancy and supposing that this Apocryphall Relation was as true as the Gospell yet it makes nothing in the World for the Popes succession to Saint Peter therein but rather the contrary That Saint Peter sub finem vitae just upon the point of his death was leaving of Rome sheweth probably that he had no intention to die there or to fix his See there That Christ did premonish him of his Martyrdome in Rome and that he asâ—ented to it with joy hath nothing in it to prove or so much as to insinuate either the Act of Christ or the Act of St. Peter to invest the Bishop of Rome with the Sovereignty of Ecclesiasticall Power Had they urged this history only to shew how Christ fore-armes his Servants against impendent dangers or how he reputes their sufferings for his sake to be his own it had been to the purpose But they might even as well prove the Popes Supremacie out of our Saviours words in the Gospell to Saint Peter When thou art old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another shall girde thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not For our Saviour did signifie by these words by what death St. Peter should glorifie God These words have authority thâ—â—gh they be nothing to the purpose but those they cite have neither authority nor any thing that comes neer the purpose They see this well enough themselves what a weake unjoynted and unnecessary consequence this is wherefore they suppose that Christ said something to Saint Peter which is not recorded to command him to fixe his Chair at Rome Non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte
cause is desperate Howsoever he proveth his intention out of Gildas who confesseth that he composed his History non tam ex scriptis Patriae c not so much from British Writings or Monuments which had beene either burned by their enemies with fire or carried beyond Sea by their banished Citizens as from transmarine relations Though it were supposed that all the British Records were utterly perished this is no answer at all to my demand so long as all the Roman Registers are extant Yea so extant that Platina the Popes Librarie keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the primitive Bishops of Rome and the persons ordained It was of these Registers that I spake let them produce their Registers Let them shew what British Bishops they have ordained or what British Appeals they have received for the first six hundred years Though he be pleased to omit it I shewed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter eleven by Linus fifteen by Clement six by Anacletus five by Evaristus five by Alexander and four by Sixtus c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province none to spare for Britain He saith Saint Peter came into Britain converted many made Bishops Priests and Deacons That Saint Elutherius sent hither his Legates Fugatius and Damianus who baptized the King Queen and most of his People That St. Victor sent Legates into Scotland it seemeth they had no names who baptized the King Queen and his Nobility That Saint Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts That Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland where as yet was no Bishop And Saint Patrick into Ireland and Saint Germane and Lupus into Britain to confute the Pelagian Heresie And in the year 596 St. Gregory sent over St. Austin and his Companions to convert the Saxons and gave him power over all the Bishops in Britain and gave him power to erect two Archiepilcopall Sees and twenty four Episcopall And moreover that Dubritius Primate of Britannie was Legate to the See Apostolick And lastly That Saint Samson had a Pall from Rome I confesse here are store of instances for Preaching and Baptizing and ordeining and Converting but if every word he saith was true it is not at all materiall to the question Our question is concerning exterior Jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiae But the Acts mentioned by him are all Acts of the Key of Order not of the Key of Jurisdiction If he doe thus mistake one Key for another he will never be able to open the right dore He accustometh himself to call every ordinarie Messenger a Legate But let him shew me that they ever exercised Legantine authority in Britain That he doth not because he cannot The Britannick and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to forrein Nations to convert them to baptize them to ordain them Pastors yet without challenging any Jurisdiction over them Now to his particular instances We should be glad that he could prove St. Peter was the first converter of Britain and take it as an honor to the Britannick Church But Metaphrastes is too young a witness his authority over small and his person too great a stranger to our affaires If it could be made appear out of Eusebius it would finde more credit with us If St. Peter did ever tread upon British ground in probability it was before he came first to Rome which will not be so pleasing to the Romanists For being banished by Claudius he went to Hierusalem and so to Antioch and there governed that Church the second time Whether St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Iames or Simon Zelotes or Aristobulus or Ioseph of Arimathea was the first converter of Britain it makes nothing to the point of Jurisdiction or our subjection to the Bishop of Rome But for Ioseph of Arimathea we have the concurrent testimonies of our own Writers and others the tradition of the English Church the reverent respect borne to Glastenbury the place where he lived and died the ancient characters of that Church wherein it is stiled the beginning of Religion in this Island the buriall place of the Saints builded by the Disciples of the Lord. The very name of the Chappell called St. Iosephs the Armes of King Arthur upon the walls and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the second doe all proclaime this truth aloud His second instance hath more certainty in it That Pope Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus two learned Divines into Britain to baptize King Lucius But it is as true that Lucius was converted before either in whole or in part and sent two eminent Divines of his own Subjects Eluanus Avalonus Eluan of Glastenbury the Seminarie of Christian Religion in Britain and Medvinus of Belga that is of Wells a place neer adjoyning to Glastenbury to Rome to intreat this favour from Pope Eleutherius So whatsoever was done in this case as it was no act of Jurisdiction so it was not done by Eleutherius by his own authority but by licence and upon request of King Lucius And not to diminish the deserts of Fugatius and Damianus who in all probability were strangers and understood not the Language certainly Eluan and Medwin and many more British Natives had much more opportunity to contribute to the conversion of their native Countrie then forreiners who were necessitated to speak by an Interpreter at least to the vulgar Britans Concerning Pope Victors sending of Legates into Scotland to baptize the King Queen and Nobles when he tells us who was the King who were the Legates and who is his Author he may expect a particular answer But if there be nothing in it but baptizing he may as well save his labour unless he think that baptizing is an act of Jurisdiction which his own Schooles make not to be so much as an act of the Key of Order Ireland was the ancient Scotland The Irish Scots were converted by St. Patrick the British Scots by St. Columba Next for Saint Ninian he was a Britan not a Roman Neither doth venerable Bede say that he was taught the Christian Faith at Rome simply but that he was taught it there regularly that is in respect of the observation of Easter the administration of Baptism and sundry other Rites wherein the British Church differed from the Roman Nor yet doth Bede say that he was sent from Rome to convert the Picts His words are these The Southern Picts as men say long before this had left the errour of their Idolatry and received the true Faith by the preaching of Ninias a Bishop a most reverend and holy man of the British Nation who was taught the Faith and mysteries of truth regularly at Rome Capgrave findes as much credit with us as he brings authority And in this case saith nothing at all to the purpose because
kept their ancient bounds But now when the State of the Empire is altogether changed the Provinces confounded and the Dominions divided among lesser Kings who are sometimes in hostility one with another and the Subjects of one Prince cannot freely nor securely repair for Justice into the Dominions of a forrein Prince without prejudice to themselves and danger to their native Country It is very meet that the Subjects of every Soveraign Prince should have finall Justice within the Dominions of their own Soveraign as well in Ecclesiasticall causes as Politicall And this is agreeable with the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England which neither permit a Subject in such cases to goe out of the Kingdome nor any forrein Commissioner to enter into the Kingdome without the Kings license Upon this ground the Bishops of Scotland were freed from their obedience to the Primate of York and the Bishops of Muscovia from the Patriarch of Constantinople But saith he That which is for the benefit of the Kingdome may be contrary to the good of the Church and should we prefer a Kingdome before the Church the Body before the Soul Earth before Heaven I answer that gain and losse advantage and disadvantage ought not to be weighed or esteemed from the consideration of one or two circumstances or emergents All charges damages and reprises must first be cast up and deducted before one can give a right estimate of benefit or losse If a Merchant doe reckon only the price which his commodity cost him beyond Sea without accounting Customes Freight and other charges he will soon perish his Pack If the benefit be only temporall and the losse Spirituall as to gain Gold and lose Faith which is more precious then Gold that perisheth it is no benefit but losse What should it advantage a man to gain the whole World and lose his own Soul The English Church and the English Kingdome are one and the same Society of men differing not really but rationally one from another in respect of some distinct relations As the Vine and the Elm that susteins it they florish together and decay together Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis that which is truely good for the Kingdome of England cannot be ill for the Church of England and that which is truely good for the English Church cannot be ill for the English Kingdome We may in reason distinguish between Alexanders friend who studies to please him and the Kings friend who gives him good advise The one is a friend to his person the other to his office But in truth whilest Alexander is King and the person and office are united he that is a true friend to Alexander is no enemy to the King and he who is a true friend to the King is no foe to Alexander Indeed if by the Church he understand the Court of Rome then that which was good for the Kingdome of England was prejudiciall to the Church in point of temporall profit But seeing as he confesseth The Soul is to be preferred before the Body it turns to their greater advantage by lessening the account of their extortions He addeth That a Kingdome is but a part of the Church and it is not in the power of any part only for its particular profit to alter what is instituted by the universall Church for her universall good no more then it is in the power of a part of the Kingdome as one Shire or Province to alter for its private inâ—erest what hath been decreed by Parliament for the good of the Kingdome His instance of a Shire or a Province is altogether impertinent for no particular Shire or Province in England hath Legislative authority at all as the Kingdome hath But particular Corporations being invested with power from the Crown to make Ordinances for the more commodious government of themselves may make and doe make ordinarily by Lawes and Ordinances not contra against the Acts of Parliament but praeter besides the Acts of Parliament And let him goe but a little out of the Kingdome of England as suppose into the Isle of Man or into Ireland though they be branches of the English Empire yet he shall finde that they have distinct Parliaments which with the concurrence of the King have ever heretofore enjoyed a power to make Lawes for themselves contrary to the Lawes of the English Parliament But we are so far from seeking to abrogate or to alter any institution of the universall Church or its representative a generall Councell in this case that on the contrary we crave the benefit of their Decrees and submit all our differences to their decision No generall Councell did ever give to the See of Rome Jurisdiction over Britain And though they had yet the state of things being quite changed it were no disobedience to vary from them in circumstances whilest we persist in their grounds To make my word good I will suppose the case to have been quite otherwise then it was That Protestants had made the separation That they had had no ancient Laws for presidents That the Britannick Churches had not enjoyed the Cyprian priviledge for the first six hundred years Yea I will suppose for the present That our Primates were no Primates or Patriarchs And that the Britannick Churches had been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by generall Councells Yet all this supposed upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire and the great variation of affairs since that time it had been very lawfull for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishops of Rome though they had not quitted their Patriarchate and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves Provided that what I write only upon supposition he doe not hereafter allege as spoken by way of concession We have seen formerly in this chapter that the establishment of Primates or Patriarchs and Metropolitans in such and such Sees was meerly to comply and conforme themselves to the Edicts and civill constitutions of Sovereign Princes for the ease and advantage of Christians and to avoid confusion and clashing of Jurisdiction That where there was a civill Exarch and Protarch established by the Emperour there should be an ecclesiasticall Primate or Patriarch And where a Citie was honoured with the name and priviledge of a Metropolis or mother Citie there should be a Metropolitan Bishop The practise of Bishops could not multiply these dignities but the Edicts of Emperors could And this was in a time when the Emperors were Pagans and Infidells Afterwards when the Emperours were become Christians if they newly founded or newly dignified an Imperiall Citie or a Metropolis they gave the Bishop thereof a proportionable ecclesiasticall preheminence at their good pleasure Either with a Councell as the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon with the consent and confirmation of Theodosius and Martian Emperours did advance the Bishop of Constantinople from being a mean Suffragan under the Metropolitan of
the politicall Head of the Church It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in so sublime a question concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in this exigence of affairs being in his voyage in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor who was an Arrian and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father whose Subjects these Bishops were as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given then that he did give Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes yet not without good advise especially in such high points of Faith as that was and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods and Bishops The same method is observed by us at this day The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases but leave all to Priests No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit Which our Highnesse hath commanded to be Preached every where This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the covetousnesse of the Clergy which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of not against the Emperors who made the Law but against the Clergy who deserved it In the Code we finde Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian as that to Florianus That a Bishop rebaptizing one who had been formerly Baptized out of ignorance of the Law should be deprived of his Bishoprick It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit speaketh that in Occidentem profectus c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine and after some debates they did chuse Saint Ambrose Some may say if it was his right why did he not chuse him himself I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one as knowing his right and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time jubet Ambrosium extemplo initiari mysteriis Episcopum ordinari The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries and to be ordeined Bishop Neither was this the case of Constantine or Theodosius or Valentinian alone Socrates writes more generally That from Constantines time when the Emperors became Christians Ecclesiasticall affaires seemed to depend upon their beck His fifth witnesse is Basilius Basilius Emperor in the seventh Synod speaketh thus to the Laity He is mistaken Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod but Constantine and Irene but it is true that in the time of the 8 th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity The case is this one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Orientall Church into great dangers whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words Nullo modo nobis licet c. It is no way lawfull for us Laymen to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes nor at all to resist the whole Church and oppose an universall Synod For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs Bishops and Priests Basilius was in the right It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as Bâ—shops doe that is to say to have decisive Voices or to meddle above their capacities much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels or to vie reason for reason with them The Bishops form of subscription was this Ego B. definiens subscripsâ— I B. have subscribed to this as my definition The Laymans form was this Ego L. consentiens subscripsâ— I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it There is a great difference between defining and consenting But as Kings are never minors because they are presumed to hâ—ve a wise Councel so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay-men who have a learned Councel of Ecclesiasticall persons to direct them All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part which only is in question between us Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments His sixth witnesse is Charles the great Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wilihaâ—e by command of the high Bishop and universall Pope Adrian c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spirituall matters It is a great degree of confidence to dare to cite Charles the great to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires To cite him who convocated Councels yeerly by his own Authority and reformed the Church Who sate himself in Synods not only as a hearer but as a Judg that is with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel Auditor Arbiter adfui and made Ecclesiasticall Decrees in his own name discernimus Deo donante decrevimus Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme which was then a place but newly conquered by himself and newly converted but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self To whom this very Pope Adrian whom he citeth with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne release and acquit for ever all their claim right and interest in the election of succeeding Popes The case cited was this Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts and desired much their conversion finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno constiâ—uit Episcopatu He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure Episcopalem constituimus Cathedram and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit extat privilegium eidem Ecclesiae a memorato Rege Collatum He endowed the Churches and commanded the inhabitants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them hoc nostro Majestaâ—is
precepto That was not by the Authority of Pope Adrian All the poor pretence which he catcheth from hence is that Charles the great said that summi Pontificis universalis Episcopi Adriani praecepto by the precept of the chief and universall Bishop Adrian he had bestowed this Bishoprick upon Wilehade Yet all men know that praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction or advise as well as a command At the most it was but a complement or command of curtesie or a ghostly advise honored with that name which is familiarly done True Patrons doe dispose their Churches themselves not give mandates to others to dispose them for them It were ridiculous to imagine that Charles the great was the Patron of the Bishoprick of Rome it self as without doubt he was and that he was not the Patron of the Church of Breme which he had newly conquered or that Adrian who resigned Rome should continue Patron of Breme His seventh witnesse is Iustinian to Pope Iohn the second We suffer not any thing which belongs to the state of Churches not to be known to your Holynesse who is the Head of all holy Churches I wish he had been pleased to set down the title of the Letter Victor Justinianus pius faelix inclytus triumphator sempâ—r Augustus Joanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae Vrbis Romae Patriarchae Where Archbishop and Patriarch are his highest titles there is no Monarchy intended The words are rightly cited saving that he omitteth a clause in the middle although that which is changed be manifest and undoubted and a dangerous reason at the end for in all things as it is said we hasten to augment the honor and authority of your See If the Papacy had been a Spirituall Monarchy instituted by Christ it did not lie in Iustinians power to augment it But it is plain the honor and authority of the Roman See proceeded from the bounty of Christian Emperors and the Decrees of the Fathers Neither is there any thing in the words above mentioned worthy of a reply Suppose Iustinian made known his own Ecclesiasticall Ordinances to the Pope to the end that he might obey them and execute them This is no great matter So doth a Sovereign Prince to every Governor of an inferior Corporation Lawes are no Lawes untill they be promulged If the Pope had made the Lawes and made them known to the Emperor it had been more to his purpose But all the strength of his argument lies in these words who is Head of all holy Churches And yet he cannot chuse but know that Iustinian doth mean and must of necessity mean an Head of Order and cannot possibly mean an Head of Power and Jurisdiction having himself exalted severall other Churches as Iustiniana and Carthage to an equall degree of Power and Privileges with Rome it self A man may see to what streits he is driven when he is forced to produce such witnesses as Charles the great and Iustinian I say Iustinian who banished Pope Silverius who created Iustiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his Emperiall Power who made so many Lawes concerning Ecclesiasticall persons and Benefices and holy Orders and Appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all matters of Ecclesiasticall cognisance that if all other presidents ancient and modern were lost Iustinians alone who was the Father of the Imperiall Law were sufficient to evince the politicall Supremacy of Sovereign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions His three last witnesses are King Edgar King Withred and Edward the third But these three have been produced by him before in this very treatise and there fully answered and seeing no new weight is added in this place to his former discourse I will not weary the Reader or my self with unnecessary repetitions CHAP. 8. That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schism WE are come now to my sixth and last ground that the guilt of the Schism rests upon the Pope and the Court of Rome The first thing which I meet with is his marginall note out of Saint Austin Cathedra quid tibi fecit Ecclesiae Romanae What hurt hath the See of Rome done thee But first Petilians case to whom those words were spoken is not our case He called all the Catholick Sees thoughout the World Chairs of Pestilence so doe not we Neither doth Saint Austin attribute any thing singular to the See of Rome in this place more then to the See of Hierusalem or any other Catholick See Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastatius sedet vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit in qua hodie Joannes sedet Quibus nos in Catholica unitate connectimur a quibus vos nefario furore separastis It is not we that have furiously separated our selves from either of these Sees But it is the Court of Rome which hath made the separation both from Hierusalem and from us In the next place he inquireth what I intend by this present Schism whether the Schism of Protestants in generall or of English Protestants in particular and whether by causually I understand a sufficient cause that freeth from sinne Doubtless I must understand a sufficient cause that freeth the innocent party from sinne or understand nothing For an unsufficient cause is no cause But his induction is imperfect I doe neither understand the Schism of the Protestant Church in generall nor the Schism of the English Church in particular but directly the Schism of the Roman Church which did first give just cause of separation not only to Protestant Churches but to all the Eastern Churches and then did make the separation by their unjust and uncharitable censnres But he saith there can be no just cause of Schisms The greater is their fault who are the true Schismaticks first by giving just cause of separation from their errors and then making the separation by their censures It is true there can be no just cause of criminous Schism because there can be no just cause of sinne It is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it But there may be both just cause of separation and just separation without any crime or sinne yea vertuous and necessary as is confessed by themselves In all such cases the sinne of criminous Schism lies at their dores who introduced the errors and thereby first separated themselves from the uncorrupted Church which was before them Before he come to answer my arguments he proposeth an objection of his own that neither the Church nor Court of Rome did give any sufficient cause of separation either to Luther or to Henry the eighth In prosecution whereof he supposeth that Luther had no cause of separation but the abuse of some Preachers
other Churches and not Rome St. Peter might have continued Bishop of Antioch untill his death and then Antioch had still been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistriss All this is confessed by Bellarmine Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith of so great contingency that were not of perpetuall necessity How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all places when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the dayes of the Apostles who never had any thing to doe with Rome nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome If the Pope be the Master of all Christians he is but a young Master for we finde no such expression in all the primitive times Why were the ancient Bishops so grosly over-seen to stile him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow who was their Master It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions as a Generall calls all his Army fellow Souldiers but it was never heard that a private Colonell or Captain did call his Generall fellow Souldier or a Servant call his Master fellow Servant or an ordinary Clerk call his Bâ—shop his Brother St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder not a Master If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches he would have given them their due title and the whole Scripture had not been so silent in so necessarie a point But he saith the Popes Supremacy is neither against the two Creeds nor the fiâ—st four generall Councells intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation and consequently is no sufficient cause of separation I answer first that it is against the four first generall Councels if this were a proper place for the discussion of it I answer secondly that though it were not opposite to the Creed or the first four generall Councells yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed being as it is by them obtruded upon all Christians as an Article of faith or a necessarie part of saving truth extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is so obtruded Of this more in the next argument My second argument may be thus reduced That Court which obtruded newly coyned Articles of faith such as the Doctrin of the seven Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences and especially the Popes Supremacy upon the Christian world as absolutely necessary to salvation and necessarie conditions of Catholick communion and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them is fearfully schismaticall But the Court of Rome doth all this That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church wherein they are neither explicitely nor virtually comprehended That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth wherein they are added to the old Creed ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus exhibeatur that the profession of one and the same faith may be declared uniformly by all and one certain form thereof be made known to all And lastly That the Court of Rome hath solemnly excommunicated with the greater excommunication and anathematized and excluded so farre as lieth in their power from the communion of Christ all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen and reformed Churches being three times more in number then themselves for not receiving these new Articles or some of them and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth called Bulla caenae because it is read in die caenae Domini or upon Thursday before Easter In way of answer to this he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt I reply first that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this so it had not been causa procreans a productive cause of the separation yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism Secondly the revolt or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church but by the Pope and Court of Rome who excommunicated him and his Kingdome for not enduring their encroachments and usurpations He and his Kingdome were passive in it only the Court of Rome was doubly active first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Predecessors and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion But in the separation of England from the oppessions of the Court of Rome I confesse that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active And this very ground to avoid the tyranny and ambition and avarice of the Roman Court was the chief impulsive cause both to the English and Eastern Christians For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessarie point of Faith If Henry the eight had any other private sinistre grounds known only to himself they doe not render the Reformation one jod the worse in it self but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly which concerneth him not us Secondly he answereth that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it If all this were true yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ by virtue of the commandement of God But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto doe make it to be necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Councells of Constance and Basile out of the Popes own Court which was then the only Noahs Arke The words of their Oath are these Hanc veram catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This true catholick faith without which no man can be saved which I profess freely and hold truly in present I doe promise vow and swear by the help of God to retein and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly to my last gasp and will take care so farre as in me lyeth to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge If it were not necessary necessitate medii some
them To all these I have answered formerly in this Treatise and therefore now I shall touch them more lightly That the Roman Church is the Catholick Church he proveth thus because it is a company of Christians instituted by Christ spread over the World and intirely united in the profession of faith and communion of his Sacraments under his Officers And therefore he bids us out of St. Austin either give or take either receive their Church or shew one of our own as good This Argument is grounded upon a wrong supposition that the Catholick Church is a Church of one denonination as Roman or Grecian c. which we doe altogether deny as implying an evident contradiction Secondly we deny that the Roman Church including the Papacy in respect of which it challengeth this universality and to be the Foundation of Christian Religion and the Mistris of all other Churches is instituted by Christ or by his Church this is their own usurpation Thirdly we deny that the Roman Church is spread over the World Divide Christendome into five parts and in four of them they have very little or nothing to doe Perhaps they have here a Monastery or there a finall handfull of Proselytes But what are five or six persons to so many millions of Christian soules that they should be Catholicks and not all the others This was not the meaning of Saint Austin in the place alleged Date ni hi hanc Ecclesiam si apud vos est ostendite vos ommunicare omnibus Gentibus quas jam videmus in hoc semine benedici Date hanc aut furore deposito accipite non a me sed ab illo ipso in quo benedicuntur omnes Gentes Give me this Church if it be with you Shew that you communicate withall Nations which we see to be blessed in this seed It is not a few particular persons nor some hand-fulls of Proselites but multitudes of Christian Nations that make the catholick Church The Romanists are so farre from communicating with all these Nations that they excommunicate the far greater part of them Fourthly we deny that such an exact entire union in all points and opinions which are not essentialls of Christian Religion is necessary to the being of the catholick Church or that the Romanists have a greater unity among themselves or with others then sundry of those Churches which they have excommunicated Fiftly I deny that the Officers of the Conrt of Rome or any of them qua tales are either the Officers of Christ or of his Church And lastly if all this were true well might it prove the Church of Rome a catholick Church that is a part of the catholick Church but not the catholick or universall Church Still there would want universality To be spread through the Christian World is one thing and to be the common faith of the Christian World another thing Secondly he proveth that they did not exclude us but that we did separate our selves because England denyed the Popes sovereignty by divine right before the Pope excommunicated them And so though it was not perfectly Protestant yet it was substantially Protestant I take him at his word Then all the Eastern Northern and Ethiopick Christians are substantially Protestants as well as we for they all deny the Popes sovereignty either by divine or humane right Then all the world were substantially Protestants in the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile except the Court of Rome that is the Pope and his Officers Then we want not bretheren that are substantially Protestants as well as we in the bosome of the Roman Church at this day To seek to obtrude this spirituall Monarchy upon us was causall Schism to excommunicate us for denying it was actuall Schism To prove that we have departed from them in essentialls he only saith that we have left them simply absolutely nay wholy in the communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God and the entire profession of faith which are essentialls to a Church How often hath this been answered already That every Opinion which a particular Church doth profess to be essentiall is either an essentiall or a truth or that every abuse crept into the administration of the Sacraments is of the essence of the Sacraments is that to which we can never give asâ—ent Let them keep themselves to the ancient Creed of the Church as they are commanded by the Councell of Ephesus and we shall quickly join with them in profession of faith Let them use the ancient formes of administration of the Sacraments which the primitive Roman Church did use and we shall not forbear their communion in Sacraments Did the ancient Roman Church want any essentialls Or are the primitive Roman and the present Roman Church divided in essentials If they differ in essentialls then we ought not to joyn in Communion with the present Church of Rome If they differ not in essentialls no more doe we Thirdly he proveth that the other Patriarchates are not the Catholick Church not true parts thereof because they are divided in profession of faith in communion of Sacraments and in Church Officers Yea saith he it were dotage to think that the Catholick Church can consist of hereticall and schismaticall Churches as I cannot deny but they are except I will deny the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England to which I have sworn I answer that those Churches which he is pleased to undervalue so much doe agree better both among themselves and with other Churches then the Roman Church it self both in profession of Faith for they and we doe generally acknowledge the same ancient Creeds and no other and in inferior questions being free from the intricate and perplexed difficulties of the Roman Schools In point of Discipline they have no complaint against them saving that they we doe unanimously refuse to acknowledge the spiritual Monarchie of the Roman Bishop And concerning the administration of the Sacraments I know no objection of any great moment which they produce against them How should they when the Pope allowed the Russians the exercise of the Greek Religion It is true that they use many Rites which we forbear But difference in Rites is no breach of communion nor needeth to be for any thing that I know if distance of place and difference of Language were not a greater impediment to our actuall communion so long as the Sacraments are not mutilated nor sinfull duties injoined nor an unknown tongue purposely used How are they then schismaticall Churches only because they deny the Popes Supremacie Or how are they hereticall Churches Some of them are called Nestorians but most injuriously who have nothing of Nestorius but the name Others have been suspected of Eutychianism and yet in truth orthodox enough They doe not add the word filioque and from the son to the Creed and yet they acknowledge that the holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son which is the
very same thing in sense It is no new thing for great quarrels to arise from meer mistakes He would perswade the World that there is something in our English Articles which reflects sadly upon the Greek Church to declare them guilty of Heresie or Schism Either he is deceived himself or he would deceive others There is no such thing nor the least insinuation against them either directly or by consequence But he is fallible and may erre in this as well as he doth in saying that I have been sworn to them we doe use to subscribe unto them indeed not as Articles of Faith but as Theologicall verities for the preservation of unity among our selves but never any Son of the Church of England was obliged to swear unto them or punished for dissenting from them in his judgment so he did not publish it by word or writing Secondly they charge us with schismaticall disobedience to the determinations of the generall Councell of Trent To which I answered that that Councell was neither general nor free nor lawfull First not general because there was not one Bishop present out of all the other Patriarchates and but a part of the occidentall Church Secondly of those who were present two parts were Italians and many of them the Popes Pensioners Thirdly at the definition of some of the weightiest controversies there were not so many Bishops as the King of England could have called together in a moneth within his own Realms Fourthly it was not generally received by the Romanists To this he answers that there were some Grecian Bishops there Perhaps one or two titular Bishops without Bishopricks not impowred by commission nor sent with instructions from any Patriarch These were no Grecian Bishops He addeth that it is not necessarie to summon hereticall or schismaticall Bishops Yes the rather before they be lawfully condemned as these never were Besides this is begging of the question When or where were they convicted of Heresie or Schism This is but the opinion of the lesser and unsounder part of the Church against the greater and sounder part Upon this ground the Donatists might have called a Councel in Africk and nicknamed it a general Councel He saith it is obeyed by all Catholicks for matters of faith though not for matters of fact He meaneth by all Roman Catholicks But if it were the supreme Tribunall of the militant Church it ought to be obeyed for matters of fact also so farre as they are Ecclesiastical Break ice in one place and it will crack in more He saith Pius the fourth sent most loving letters to Queen Elizabeth but his messenger was not admitted into England As we have in horror the treacherous and tyrannicall proceedings of Paul the third and Pius the fifth against our Princes and Realms So we acknowledge with gratitude the civilities of Pius the fourth Certainly he took the more prudent way for a Christian Prelate Secondly The Councell of Trent was not free First because the place afforded no security to Protestants Secondly the accuser was the Judge Thirdly any one who spake a free word was either silenced or thrust out of the Councel Fourthly the Protestants who came on purpose to dispute were not admitted Fifthly the Legates gave auricular votes and some of the Councel did not stick to confess that it was guided by the holy Ghost sent from Rome in a male Sixthly new Bishopricks were created during the Session to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains To all these exceptions he answereth That if the Pope had been their Judge it had been no more unjust then for a King to judge his own notorious Rebells but the Pope out of his abundant favour made the Councel their Iudge which he needed not their Heresies having been formerly lawfully condemned He supposeth without any proof that the Pope is an absolute Monarch of the Church which all the Christian World except themselves doth denie He should remember that these are their own objections and that he is now to prove not to dictate Whether the Pope did judge the Protestants by himself or by a Councel consisting for the most part of his own Clients and Creatures who knew no motion but by his influence is all one in effect He knew that he had made his game sure enough under-hand whilest the Italian Episcopalls were so numerous and partial If the Pope did rather choose to referre the Protestants to the Councel it was not out of favour to them as a more equall and indifferent way but to take the envie off from himself If Christian Princes desire to have a free Councel they must reduce it to the form of the Councel of Constance and revive the Deputies of the Nations Whereas he saith that the Protestants were formerly lawfully condemned either they were strange phantasms of Protestants or it was a strange propheticall Decree Lastly he demands how I can say that it was not a free Councel where two or three safe conducts were granted where the Councel bound it self to determine the controversie by holy Scripture Apostolicall tradition approved Councels consent of the catholick Church and authority of holy Fathers Yes I can say well enough for all this that the Councell was not free fistula dulce canit volucrem dum decipit auceps the pipe playes sweetly whilest the Fowler is about his prey No man sâ—ith Tully proclaimeth in the Market that he hath rotten wares to sell. When men intend most to play tricks they doe often strip up their sleeves to make a shew of upright dealing Scriptures Tradition Councels Fathers Churches are excellent rules beyond exception yet an inexpert or partiall Artist may make a crooked line with them Any one of these proofs would satisfie us abundantly but this was a meer empty flourish The Protestants had safe conduct granted but yet those that repaired to the Councel were not admitted to dispute Thirdly As the Councel of Trent was not a general nor a free Councel so neither was it a lawfull Councel First because it was not in Germany A guilty person is to be judged in his own Province Secondly because the Pope alone by himself or his Ministers acted all the four parts of accuser witness guilty person and Judge Thirdly because the Protestants were condemned before they were heard To this he answereth first That Trent is in Germany wherein he is much mistaken for proof whereof â— produce first the publick protestation of the Germane Protestants That to promise a Councel in Germanie and to choose Trent was to mock the World That Trent cannot be said to be in Germany but only because the Bishop is a Prince of the Empire otherwise that for security it is as well and as much in Italy and in the Popes power as Rome it self To which the Pope himself giveth testimonie in his answer to the Cardinall Bishop and Lord of Trent when he desired maintenance for a Garrison from the Pope to secure
all fundamentals is not sufficient to salvation unless other points of Faith be imposed or obtruded upon all men whether they be revealed or not revealed to them And this had been directly contrary to the plain Decree of the general Councel of Ephesus That no new Creeds nor new points of faith should be imposed upon Christians more then the Creed then received His second objection is this though there were such fundamentals yet seeing Protestant confess they know not which they are one cannot know by them who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church I doe not blame either Protestants or others especially private and particular persons if they be very tender in setting down precisely what points of faith are absolutely necessary to salvation the rather because it is a curious needless and unprofitable salvation Since the blesed Apostles have been so provident for the Church as to deposite and commit to the custody thereof the Creed as a perfect Rule and Canon of Faith which comprehendeth all doctrinall points which are absolutely necessary for all Christians to salvation it were great folly and ingratitude in us to wrangle about circumstances or about some substantiall points of lesser concernment whether they be so necessary as others This is sufficient to let us know who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church in point of faith even all those Churches which hold the Apostles Creed as it is expounded in the four first generall Councels His third and last objection followeth All points of faith sufficiently proposed are essentiall and fundamentall nor can any such point be disbeleeved without infidelity and giving the lie to God as Protestants sometimes confess If by sufficient proposall he understand the proposall of the Church of Rome I deny both parts of his assertion Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome which are neither fundamentall truths nor inferior truths but errors which may be disbeleeved without either infidelity or sin Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent then they satisfie one another what this infallible proponent is If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent or be not assured who this infallible proponent is the proposition may be disbeleeved without giving God the lie But if by sufficient proposall he understand Gods actuall revelation of the truth and the conviction of the conscience then this third objection is like the first partly true and party false The later part of it is true that whatsoever is convinced that God hath revealed any thing and doth not beleeve it giveth God the lie and this the Protestants doe alwaies affirm But the former part of it is still false All truths that are revealed are not therefore presently fundamentalls or essentialls of faith no more then it is a fundamentall point of faith that Saint Paul had a Cloak That which was once an essentiall part of the Christian faith is alwaies an essentiall part of the Christian faith that which was once no essentiall is never an essentiall How is that an essentiall part of saving faith whithout which Christians may ordinarily be saved But many inferior truths are revealed to particular persons without the actuall knowledge whereof many others have been saved and they themselves might have been saved though those truths had never been proposed or revealed to them Those things which may adesse or abesse be present or absent known or not known beleeved or not beleeved without the destruction of saving faith are no essentialls of saving faith In a word some things are necessary to be beleeved when they are known only because they are revealed otherwise conducing little or it may be nothing to salvation Some other things are necessary to be beleeved not only because they are revealed but because beleef of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation These are those are not essentialls or fundamentalls of saving faith Another means of reunion proposed by me in the vindication was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of soveregin Jurisdiction jure divino to his exordium unitatis and to have his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sense of the Councels of Constance and Basile Against this he pleadeth first That ancient Popes practised or challenged Episcopall or pastorall Authority over all Christians jure divino in greater Ecclesiasticall causes And for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine To which I answer first that the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches had ever great Authority among all Christians and great influence upon the Church as honorable Arbitrators and faithfull Depositaries of the Genuine Apostolicall tradition but none of them ever exercised sovereign Jurisdict ion over over all Christians Secondly I answer that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes upon which their claim of universall Sovereignty jure divino is principally grounded are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits Thirdly I answer that ancient Popes in their genuine Writings doe not claim nor did practise monarchicall Power over the catholick Church much less did they claim it jure divino but what Powet they held they held by prescription and by the Canons of the Fathers who granted sundry priviledges to the Church of Rome in honor to the memory of St. Peter and the Imperiall City of Rome And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their Authority from the Councell of Nice though without ground which they would never have done if they had held it jure divino And for answer to Bellarmine whom he only mentioneth in generall I referre him to Doctor Field In the next place he citeth Saint Heirome that Christ made one Head among the twelve to avoid Schism And how much more necessary faith R. C. is such a Head in the universall Church It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierosme But thou saiest the Church is founded upon St. Peter The same is done in another place upon all the Apostles they all receive the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all I have shewed him formerly in answer to this place that in a body endowed with power as the Church is an Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against Schism His how much more should be how much less a single person is more capable of the government of a small society then of the whole world After this he citeth Melanchon As there are some Bishops who govern diverse Churches the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops and this Canonicall policy I think no-wise man doth disallow I cannot in present procure that century of Theologicall Epistles but I have perused Melancthons Epistles published by Casper Pucerus wherein I finde no such Epistle I examine not whether this Epistle by him cited be genuine or
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
deprive them of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their allegiance Let these pretended branches of Papall power be lopped off and all things restored to the primitiye forme and then the Papacy will be no more like that insana Laurus the cause of contention or division in all places In the mean time if they want that respect which is due unto them they may blame themseves who will not accept what is their just right unlesse they may have more Fourthly ' that which followes is a great mistake that it was and is the constant beliefe of the Câ—thelick world that these principles are Christs owne ordination recorded in Scripture What that S. Peter had any power over his fellow-Apostles or that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him in that power It doth not appear out of the holy text that S. Peter was at Rome except we understand Rome by the name of Babylon If it be Christs own ordâ—nation recorded in the scriptures that S. Peter should have all these priviledges and the Bishop of Rome inherit themashis successour thenthe great generall Councel of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equal prviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperial City more then the ordination of Christ. Then the whole Catholick Church was much to be blamed to receive such an unjust coustirution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome Lastly this is so farre from the constant belief of the Catholick world that it is not the beliefe of the Roman Church it self at this day The greatest defenders of the Popes Supremacy dare not say that the Bishop of Rome succedeth S. Peter by Christs owne ordination but onely by S. Peters dying Bishop of Rome They acknowledge that S. Peter might have dyed Bishop of Antioch and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him or he might have died Bishop of no place and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholick Church though he died at Rome as without doubt it is and may be contracted or enlarged or translated from one See to another for the advantage of Christian Religion His manifest evidence which he stileth so ample a memory and succession as is stronger then the stock of humane government and action That is that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it is so far from a demonstration that it scarcely deserveth the name of a Topicall argument For as an universall uncontroverted tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united is a convinclng and undeniable evidence such a tradition is the Apostles Creed comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith repeated daily in our Churches every Christian standing up at it both to expresse his assent unto it and readinesse to maintaine it professed by every Christian at his Baptisme either personally when he is of age sufficient or by his sureties when he is an infant and the tradition of the universall Church of this age a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us So the tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither so necessary to be knowne nor so firmely beleeved nor so publiquely aâ—d universally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicalages by such uninterrupted succession doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence When the Christian world is either not united or divided about particular opinions or inferiour points of faith it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages Or otherwise there is a fault in the conduit-pipe or an errour and failing in the derivatton of the tradition And both these do take much away from assurance more or less according to the degree of the opposition In such questionable and controverted points as these which are neither so universally received nor so publiquely professed his assertion is groundless and erroneous that the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed Yes in such controverted points this present age may not know yea doth not know what it self beleeveth or rather opiniateth untill it come to be voted in a Synod The most current opinions in the Schoos are not alwaies the most generaly received in the Church those which are most plaâ—sible in one place are often hissed out of another And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part or if he did how shall he know that what he beleeveth in such points is more then an indifferent opinion Or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church and delivered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession No waies but by universall tradition of the Christian world united either written or unwritten but this is all the evibence which they can expect who confound universall tradition with particular tradition the Roman Church with the Catholick Church the Christian world united with the Christian world divided and Scholasticall opinions with Articles of Faith Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences the one against the Church of England that since the reformation neither the former rule of unity of Faith nor the second of unity of governement have had any power in the English Church Whilest he himself knoweth no better what we beleeve who live in the same age how doth he presume that the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former beleeved I have shewed him already how we do willingly admit this principle wherein both his rules are comprehended that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our Forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a triall with them There is a fallacy in Logick called of more interrogations then one that is when severall questions of different natures to which one uniforme answer cannot be given yea or no are mixed confounded together So he doth not onely set down this second rule concerning governement ambiguously that a man cannot tell whether he make S. Peter onely an head of order among the Apostles or an head of single power and Jurisdiction also over the Apostles but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into S. Peters place by Christs own ordination and confounds S. Peters Ex o dium Vnitatis with the usurped power of Popes as it was actually exercised by them in latter ages His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome that the Roman Church with those Churches
which continue in communion with it are the onely Churches which have true doctrine in vertue of the first principle above mentioned and the right governement in virtue of the second and consequently are the entire Catholick or Vniversall Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schisme being excluded Our answer is ready that the Church of Rome or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplementall Articles and erroneous additions contrary to the first principle and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawfull 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 themselves guilty of supertio n and Schisme And lastly where he saith that my onely way to clear our Church from Schisme is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith or the latter the necessary bond of governement he is doubly mistaken First we are the persons accused our plea is negative or not guilty So the proof lieth not upon us but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismaticks Secondly if the proof did rest upon our sides we do not approve ofâ—his adviâ—e It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our substractions but they by their additions There is no doubt but Christs legacy ought to be preserved inviolable but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters heir by Christs ordination And that this was the constant beliefe of the Catholick world at any time This is his province let him either make this good or hold his peace Sect. 2. So his Prologue is ended now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments My first ground was because not Protestants but Roman Catholicks themselves did make the first separation To which his first answer is If it were so how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning Many waies First it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence when their best friends and best able to judge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for them who in all other things were great zeloâ—s of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Fagot did yet condemn thâ—m and justify this separation Secondly though it doth not alwaies excuse a tâ—to from all guilt and punishment to be misled by others into errour If the blind llead the blind both fall into the ditch yet it doth alwaies excuse a tanto it lesseneth the sin and extenuateth the guilt Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schisme If this separation be an Errour in Protestants the Roman Catholicks do owe an account to God both for themselves and us did they find cause to turne the Pope out of England as an intruder and usurper and could Protestants who had no relation to Rome imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again Thirdly in this case it doth acquit us not onely a tanto but a toto not onely from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schisme so longas we seek carefuly after truth and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents if he enquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and to correct his errours when he finds them he is not to be reputed an hereticke If this be true in the case of heresy it is more true in the case of Schisme Thus if it had been a crime in them yer it is none in us but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us but a just and necessary duty Secondly he answereth that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants because they persecuted Protestants For Protestants persecute Protestants Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians Puritans and Beownists persecute one another VVhat then were VVarham and Heath aud Thureleby Tunscall and Stokesley and Gardiner and Bonner c. all Protestants did Protestants enjoy Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks iâ— England and say Masses in those daies will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church and opposers of the Reformation If he had wriâ— thus much whilest they were living they would have been very angry with him Yet at the least if they were Protestants let him tell me which of these Sects they were of Lutheranâ— c. But he telleth us that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essentiall part of our reformation and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant He is mistaken This part of the reformation was done to our hands it was their reformation not ours But if he will needs have the kingdomes and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths daies onely for renouncing the Popes absolute universall Monarchy I am well contented we shall not lose by the bargain Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants then all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day then we want not store of Protestants even in the besome of the Roman Church it self Sect. 3. My second Ground saith he was because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated This he is pleased to call notoriously false impudence it self because a law was made in Henry the eighths time and an oath invented by which was given to the King to be head of the Church and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England Is this the language of the Roman Sâ—hooles or doth he think perhaps with his outcriâ—s and clamours as the Turks with their Alla Alla to daunt us and drive us from our cause Christian Reader of what Communion soever thou art be but indifferent and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falshood and impudence doth rest between him and me I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome did make no now law but vindicate their ancient Liberties It seemeth he confureth the Titles without looking into the Chapters did I say they made no new statutes No I cited all the new statutes which they did make and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here Yet I said they made no new law because it was the law of the land before that statute was made The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the
land when soever these were infringed or an attempt made to destroy them as the liberties of the Crowne and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope it was the manner to restore them or to declare them by a statute which was not operative to make or create new law but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law This I told him expressely in the vindication and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers Fitz Herbirt and my Lord Cook to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law but declarative to restore ancient law This appeareth undeniably by the statute it self That England is an Empire and that the King as head of the body politicke consisting of the spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall Iustice for all matters Here he seeth expressely that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality which is all that we assert at this day was the an e nt fundamentall law of England And lest hâ—e should accuse this Parliament of partialiâ—y I produced another that was more ancient The Crowne of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to be submitted to the Pope Here the Kings politicall Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamentall Law of the Land Let him not say that this was intended onely in temporall matters for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressely Ecclesiasticall What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more and to accuse me of impudence Secondly he saith that I bring diverse allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted or where the Pope is expressely denied the power to do such and such things Do we professe the Pope can pretend no more then his right Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted He stileth the Authorities by me produced meer Allegations yet they are as authentick Records as England doth afford But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in generall expressions of the Popes pretences and such or such things as if the controversy had been onely about an handfull of goats wool I will make bold to represent some of the Popes pretences and their declarations against them And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestours in those particulars he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question They declared that it was the custom or common law of the land ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa that no Pope might be appealed unto without the Kings licence They made a law that if any one were found bringing in the Popes letters or mandates into the kingdome let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and kingdome They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiasticall causes concerning the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church over all Ecclesiastical persons in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars nor make spiritual corporations nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary nor appropriate Churches nor to dispose Benefices by lapse nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy but the King did all these things as I shewed at large in the vindication They permitted not the Popes canon law to have any place in England further then they pleased to receive it They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishopricks and investitures of Bishops They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the Kings license They admitted no Legates from the Pope but meerly upon courtesy and if any was admitted he was to take his oath to doe nothing derogatory to the King or his Crowne If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication in England without the Kings consent or bring over the Popes bull he forfeited all his goods So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject nor dispose of an English Benefice nor send a Legate a latere orso much as an authoritative bul into England nor to reâ—eive an appeal out of England without the kings license But saith he To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not This was not meerly to limit an authority but to deny it VVhat lawfull Jurisdiction could remain to him in England who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence nor to send any Citation or sentence thither nor execute any authority over an English Subject either at Rome by himself or in England by his deputies without licence That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent Give us the same limitation which our Ancestours alwayes claimed that no forraign authority shall be exercised in England withour leave and then give the Pope as much authority as you please volenti non fit injuria consent takes away error He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him He demandeth first were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths raign Yes but it is no strange matter to explaine or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses as we see in magna Charta the statute of proviso's and many other Statutes Secondly he asketh whether we began our Religion there that is at that time when these ancient lawes were made no I have told him formerly that these statutes were onely declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdome VVe began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time before they had a Church at Rome But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion Lastly he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France Spaine Germany and Italy it self and yet they are Catholicks and hold communication with the Pope Yes there are some such laws in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English as I have shewed in the vindication And therefore the Popes friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience loyall Countries VVhat â—use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more then we in England concerns not me nor this present discourse And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section he cries out How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and
ears and all evidence Nay Reader it is not I that about to force thee to renounce thy Eyes or Ears or thy evidence but it is he that is troubled for fear thou shouldest use thine Eies and Ears to look upon the evidence And therefore like the Priests of Cybele on purpose makes all this noise to deaf thine Ears lest thou shouldest hear the lowde cries of our laws Sect. 4. The scope of my fifth Chapter was to shew that the Britannique Churches that is the Churches of the Britannique Ilands were ever exempted from Forreigne Jurisdiction for the first six hundred years and so ought to continue His first exception to this is How the Britannique priviledges do belong to us Have we any Title from the Britannique Churches otherwise then by the Saxon Christians who onely were our Ancestors c. Yes well enough First VVales and Cornwall have not onely a locall but a personall succession No man can doubt of their right to the priviledges of the Britannique Churches Secondly there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts who were no more subjected to Forreign Jurisdiction then the Britons themselves All these put together Britons Scots and Picts did possess about two third parts of the Britannique Ilands after the Saxon Conquests were consummated Thirdly among the Saxons themselves the great kingdomes of Mercia and North umberland were converted by the ancient Scots and had their Religion ordination first from them afterwards among themselves without any forreign dependance and so were as free as either Britons or Scots and ought to continue so Fourthly throughout the rest of England a world of British Christians after the Conquest did still live mixed with the Saxons such as they had no need to fear such as might be serviceable to them as it commonly falle h out in all Conquests otherwise the Saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land Who can deny these poor conquered Christians and their Christian posterity though mixed with Saxons the just priviledges of their Ancestours Lastly the Saxon Conquest gave unto them as good Title to the priviledges as to the lands of the Brittons so soon as they were capable of them And so at their first conversion they were free and continued free further then themselvs pleased to consent ought to continue free for ever Secondly he objecteth that this pretended execution of the British Churches is false For nothing is more evident in History then that the British Churches admitted appellation to Rome at the Councell of Sardica Before he can alledge the authority of the Councell of Sardica he must renounce his divine institution of the Papacy For that Canon submitteth it to the good pleasure of the Fathers and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter not the institution of Christ. Further how doth it appear that the Brittish Bishops did assent to that Canon This is meerly presumption without any proofe The Councell of Sardica was no generall Councell after all the Easterne Bishops were departed as they were before the making of that Canon Neither were the Canons of the Councell of Sardica ever received in England or incorporated into the English laws and without such incorporation they did not bind English Subjects Lastly this Canon is contradicted by the great generall councell of Chalcidon which our Church receiveth There appeareth not the least footstep of any Papal Jurisdiction exercised in England by Elutheri ns but the contrary for he referred the Legislative part to king Leucius and the British Bishops And if Pope Coelestin had sent S. Germain into Britain to free the Brittains from Pelagianisme or converted some of the Scots by Paladius as we have very little reason to believe either the one or the other yet it maketh nothing at all for the exercise of any Papall Jurisdiction in Britain Preaching and Converting Baptizing Ordaining are acts of the key of order not of Jurisdiction But these instances and whatsoever he hath in answer to the Brittish observation of Easter are pressed more home by the Bishop of Chalcedon and clearly satisfied in my reply to him Whither I refer the Reader But saith he that which is mainly to the purpose is that since this priviledge he meaneth the Supremacy descends upon the Pope as successour to S. Peter how far it was executed may be unknowne but that it was due none can be ignorant Words are but wind when they are utterly destitute of all manner of proofe We acknowledge the Pope to be successour of S. Peter and if he do not forfeit it by his own fault we are ready to pay him such respect as is due to the Bishop of an Apostolical Church but for any spiritual Monarchy or Universal Jurisdiction we know no manner of Title that he hath His pretence is more from Phocas the Usurper then from St. Peter And here though I know not this hereditary priviledge of the Pope descended from St. Peter there is no knowledge of that which hath no being and the burthen of proving it lyes upon him yet he taxeth me for leaving it and spending my time about the Popes Patriarchal power I observe how ready they are all to decline all manner of discourse concerning the Popes Patriarchal power And yet for a long time it was the fairest flower in their Garland I know not what is the Reason but we may well conjecture because they find that their spiritual Monarchy and this Patriarchal dignity are inconsistent the one with the other in the same subject They might as well make a King to be a Sheriffe of a Shiere or a President of a particular Province within his own Kingdom as make a spiritual Monarch to be a Patriarch And yet a Patriarch he was and so alwayes acknowledged to be and they cannot deny it Among other proofs of the Brittish Liberty I produced the answer of Dionothu to Austin no obscure person as he makes him but a man famous for his Learning Abbot and Rector of the famous University of Bangor wherein there were at that time above 2100 Monks and Students at the very close of the first six hundred yeares That he knew no obedience due to him whom they called the Pope but obedience of Love And that under God they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerâ—eon This Record he calleth a piece of a worne Welch manuscript and a manifest forgery of a Counterfeit knave And to prove it counterfeit he produceth three reasons First That the word Pope without any addition is put for the Bishop of Rome which if our great Antiquaries can shew in these daies he will confess himself surprized I shall not need to trouble any of our great Antiquaries about it It will suffice to commit him and his friend Cardinal Bellarmine together about it I see friends are not alwaies of one mind Thus he Cum absolute pronunciatur Papa ipse solus intelligitur ut patet ex confilio chalcedonensi
a single head of Power Jurisdiction for to me he seemeth to hover between two as if he would gladly say more for the Pope if he could Thirdly it followeth and consequently to his Successors I like the general proposition well enough and consequently to his Successours For the reason of the first institution being of perpetual necessity seemeth to imply strongly that such an headship of order ought to continue in the Church or at least may lawfully be continued in the Church But I like not his application to the Bishops of Rome or his Successors in the See of Rome That consequence is but like a Rope of sand There is no necessity at all that he who succeedeth a man in a particular Bishoprick should succeed him in a higher office which is not annexed to that Bishoprick As if a man should argue thus Such a Bishop of such a See dyed Lord Chancellour of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same See must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England If the Catholick Church do nominate the Biâ—hop of Rome for the time that is another matter but that is no perpetuity to the Bishops of that See for ever whether the Church will or not Certainly Christ did leave the chief Mesuagery of his family to his Spouse that is the Church and not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spâ—use But to make Rome to be the Mâ—stris of the Church as this Resuter doth and the Bishop oâ— Rome the Master of the Church is sâ—ch an indignity and affront as no husband would tolerate much less Christ who is proposed to all husbands as the perfect pattern of coâ—jugal love Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church His argument drawn from the vicissitude of humane affaires cuâ—s the throat of his cause for what priviledge hath Rome from this vicissitude more then other places It may be demolished and destroyed by enemies it may be swallowed by an earthquake as some great Cities have been it may become heretical or Mahumetan And in all these cases must it still continue Mistris of the Church That were an hard condition Nemâ— sapiens Ligat sibimanus The Church nâ—ver disposeth so of her offices that she may not be able to move the rudder according to the change of wind and weather and to change the mesuagery of Ecclesiastical affaires according to the vicissitide of humane things Let not the Refuter trifle between a primacy of order and a Supremacy of power a Tyranny and an Anarchy are the two extreams The Church may shake off tyranny and yet not vanish into a pure Anarchy nor the frame thereof be utterly dissolved these are but made Dragons Between a tyranny and an Anarchy there is an Aristocracy which was the ancient Regiment of the Christian Church they know no Monarch but Christ their spiritual King A primacy of order is as sufficient nay more sufficient in this case to prevent all these dangers which he seemeth to fear and to procure all those advantages which he mentioneth than a Supremacy of power And I hold it a reasonable proposition that whosoever is admitted to the one should disclaime the other In the next passage he forgetteth himself over much when he maketh the Popes principality to be the bridle which our Saviour hath put into the mouth of his Church So he makes the Church to be the Beast and the Popes office to be to ride upon the Church No he quite mistaketh the matter Our Saviour hath put the bridle into the hand of his Church Dâ—c Ecclesiae tell it to the Church not into the mouth of his Church and the Pope at the best is but one of the Churches Escuriers Next he proclaimeth the advantages of the Papacy He doth well to cry up his cause No man proclaimeth in the market that he hath rotten wares to sell. But it is but with an if If this authority were duly preserved and governed no dissention in faith or discipline nay not any war among Christian Princes could annoy the world What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an arbitrator so prudent so pâ—ous so disinterressed as a good Pope should be He brings to my mind our old distinction between Plato and Aristotle Plato script sit somnians Aristoteles vigilans Plato writ dreaming and Aristotle waking the one looked upon men as they ought to be and the other as they were which was much more proper for one that was to write politicks If all things were as they should be we should have a brave world buâ— if we look upon the case without an if or as he should be we shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been so far from deserving these â—ulogiums which he gives it that it hath been the cause either procreating or conserving or both of all the Schisms and all the greater Ecclesiastical dissentions in Christendom and rather an incentive to waâ— for its own interest and advantage then a means of peace and reconciliation among Christian Princes But now Reader look to thy self that thou receive no hurt for he hath undertaken to let us see all the arrowes which I have shot against them falling down upon mine own head Yes at the Greek Calends when an oblique and a perpendicular motion are the sâ—me But let us see how he attempts to prove it Because the Papacy stands firme and strong in all these Countries which have resisted the Pope when they conceived that he encroached on their liberties c. whereas as the Reformation has made England an headless Synagogue without brotherhood or order Neither â—o nor so the Eastern Southerne and Northerne Churches admit no Papacy nor any thing higher then the chiefâ—st Patriarch A great part of the Westerne Churches have shaken off the Roman yoke and the rest who do still acknowledge the Papacy do it with such cautions and reservations and restrictions especially France and Sicilly that I think the Cardinal Legate in the Councel of Trent had reason to say that he would rather perswade the Pope to give up his Keys to St. Peter then hold them upon such tearms I believe not one of them all doth admit such a Papacy as the Roman Court endeavoured to have obtruded upâ—n them Whereas he stileth England an headless Synagogue without brotherhood or order he seeth or may see that for order we are as much for it as himself for Christian Brotherhood we maintaine it three times larger then himself and for his headless Synagogue they want no head who have Christ for a spiritual head a General Councel for an Ecclesiastical head and a gracious Christian Prince for a political head That Title would better have become themselves about two or three moneths since who sometimes have two or three heads sometimes a broken head sometimes never an head The Protestants do not attempt to make themselves a distinct body from the rest of the
Latins Hereticks and Schismaticks and principally upon this ground of the Popes claim of a spiritual Monarchy And that Gerson apprehended their words in this sense it may appear by the context His position is this that men ought not generally to be bound by the positive determinations of Popes to hold and beleeve one and the same forme of government in things that do not immediately concerne the truth of our Faith and the Gospel From thence he proceedeth to set down some different Customes of the Greek Latine Churches both which he doth justifie citing S. Austin to proove that in all such things the custome of the country is to be observed And among the rest of the differences this was one that the Greek Church paid not such Subsidies and Duties as the Gallicane Church did It seemeth that the Pope would have exacted them and that thereupon the Grecians did separate from him using this free expression potentiam tuam recognoscimus avaritiam tuam implere non possumus vivite per vos We know thy might we are not able to satisfie thy covetousness live by your selves And from thence the aforesaid author draweth this conclusion that per hanc consider ationem bene captam c. upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the French Church and the liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make There is not one word or syllable herein that maketh against me but there is both the practise of the Greek Church the opinions of Gerson for the justification of our Reformation and Seperation from the Court of Rome FINIS Sect. 1. Three Essentials of a true Church Great difference between a true Church and a perfect Church Actuall want of essentials not conclusive to God Ch 8. Sect. 3. Particular Rites Formes Opinions no Essentials Schism is not always about esentials Schism is not a greater sin than Idolatry 1. Cor. 10.10.21 Aust. l. 1. de bapt c. 8. Opt l. 1. Aust. Ep. 48. ibidem 1 Tivi 2.17 There may be just cause of separation no just cause of Schâ—sm C. 2. S 6 Particular Churches may give just cause of separation C. 2 Sect. 4. Pref p. 20. Rom. 3.8 Inf. unmask ch 7. sect 112 p. 534. Lib. 2. cont ep Parmen e. 11. Sect. 2. Proâ—â—stans have forsaken no ancient Churches in Sacraments 1. Cor. 19 Math. 26.27 Sect. 3. The true cause of the separation of some Protestants Psal. 19. Essences of things are indivisible destroied by addition as well as subtraction How the Church of Rome is and is not a true Church 1 Cor. 13.12 Iohn 4.22 Eph. 5.26 We have not left the Roman Church in essentialls Con. eph p. 2. Act 6 c 7. Aust ep 118. Nor differ in substance from the Roman Church Aust y. 1. de hapt c. 8. It is not lawfull or prudent to leave the English Church and adhere to the Roman for fear of Schism The present Church of Rome departed out of the ancient Church of Rome Sect. 4. 1 Cor. 13.9 12. Iam. 2.1 To communicate with Schismaticks is not alwaies Schism Sozâ—m l 4 â— 19 The Church of England doth not communicate with Schismaticks 1 Cor. 1.2 11. c. 15 12. Rev 2.14 15.20 Sect. 1. Objections against the Church of England in point of Schisme are colourable not forcible Authors ought to be cited fully and faithfully Protestants conâ—esse no separation from the universall Church I hil c. 3 p. 132. c. 1 s. 1. Nor from the Roman but only in her errors 1. Pâ—t 4. 8. Phil 3 15. Sect. 5. Not the separation but the cause makes the Schism It is necessary to Salvation to forsake known errours C. 9. Sect. 5 Our reformation no separation 2 Gal 9. Aâ—t 30. Lawfull to communicate with the Eastern Churches Calv. epâ—st 141. Ratio ordinis discipline Fratrum Bohemo rum ibid. Calvin no enemy to Episcopacy Epist. ad Mart. Schaling Epl. ad Reg. Polo mae Calv. ep Impres Gen. an 1570. pag. 340. Ep. ad R. Polon 4 Inst. c. 18. sect 18. Doctor Potter cleared Ch. 9. Sect. 5. Ibid Sect. 2. p. 49. â—el l 2. de Eccl Mâ—l c 6. Aust de Veâ— Reâ— c. 6. Ibid. And Master Chillingwoâ—â—h p 245. p. 312. p. 191. 6.5 p. 273. Teâ—t L. 4 Cont. Don c. 23. c. 5. P. 302. As great differences among the Romanists as between them and the Eastern Churches or us C. 1. S. 13. Sect. 2. c. 2. s. 3. Whâ—thâ—r all those be Schismaticks who want Bishops The Romanists no fit persons to object Schism to Protestants c 2. s 6. 5. c. 2. s. 8. The Church of England had better grounds than personall faults of Popes Inf. c. 7 s Sect. 1. P. 8. P. 12. P. 16. All Schisme is not in essentials Bar. Annal an 878. Antimachâ—aveil in â—â—ist ad Lect. Errours in faith obtruded justifie a separation Sect. 2. Meâ—â—rall Schâ—sm 1 Iohn 3. 15. Rom 2 29. Sect. 3. Communion in all points of faith not necessary alwayes Sacraments purely and corruptly administred the same Sacraments Sect. 4. Schismaticks in part doe stâ—ll remain in the Catholick Church Aâ—â—t l. 1. dâ— bapt cont Donâ—istas Idemo 10 Aug. ep 48. R. C. his confession Sect. 5. The Britannick Churches never judged Schismaticks Sect. 6. What is the true Catholick Church Inâ—erest makes Catholickâ— with the Court of Rome Thâ—m a Iesu. cited by Doctor Field l. 3 c. 1. 〈◊〉 ibid. Babing upon Numbers c 7. Cam Annal Elis. An. 1560. Sect. 7. The Church of Rome is materially Idolatrous 1 Cor. 12.16 Bell l. 4. â—e Sac. Euch. c. 29 Speciall Faith is no Article of our Creed Rom. 8 33 Mark 16.16 Papists can pretend to no other Sacrifice then Protestants Bell l 1. de Mâ—sâ— c. 25. Sect. 8. 4 Waies to incurre hereticall pravity Bell. de Eccles. milit l. 3. c. 15. The Power of general Councâ—ls The Popes câ—nfirmation addes noâ—hing to general Councels Platina Acquiescence to the decrees of a generall Councell is necessary 1 Cor 9. Bell de Ro. pont c. 4. c. 2. Sect. 9. Mixt ordination The English Church lawfully established Not lawfully suppressed The English Church nor deaâ— But under persecution Sect. 10. â— 4. cont Cresion c. 61. Sect. 1. Protestants not Authors of the Schism Hiâ—t Conc. Trid an 1538. Sect. 2. The Parliament not compelled Camd. An. Eliz. anno 1559. Bishop Gardiner Speed in Hen. 8. c. 21 n. 1 c 5. De vera obâ—dientia in fine Archbishop Cranmer Speed Baker c. in Henr. 8. Image of both Churches second edition pag. 413. Sand de Schism pag 115. Sacrificio missae intersuit quotidie dum regnabat Henricus Crumwell Barnes Speed l. 9. c. 21. L 1. Cont. Parm. Papists are the right Heirs of the Donâ—rists not Protestants Opt. l 1. Cont. Par. inâ—initio Opt. l. 2. Cont. Parm. in initio Psal. 2. Roman Catholâ—cks sinnâ—d not against conscience in their sâ—paration Henry the eight no Protestant â—ul
Ecclesiasticall causes Hist conc Trid. An. 1544 An. 1545. An. 1548. The Oath of Supremacy justified Sand. de Schism p 59. De Schis Ang p. 57. Hail an 22. H. 8. Pol de Conc Resp. ad qu 74. 75. 1 Pet. 2.13 Aâ—t â—ccl Angl. Art 37. Memor de Samag Catholicâ— cap. 10. A Sancta Clara. Expos. Parapb in Art 37 Ibidem Sect. 2. No contradiction in my words Sect. 3. Constantine Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. Theodorit l. 1. c. 11. Euseb. de vita Constant l. 1. c. 35. Idem l 3. c. 23 Euseb. hist. l. 10. c. 5. Aust. epist. 162. Euseb hist. l. 10. c. 6. Socrat. l. 1. c. 22. Sozom l. 2. c. 27. Euseb. de vit Const. l. 1. c. 37. Theodor. l. 1. c. 19 Valentinian Theodosius Socrat l 7. c. 22. Evagr. l. 9. c. 12. Valentinian the elder Sozo l. 6 c. 7. Idem l. 6. c. 6. Theod. l 4 c 7 8. cod Thâ—od l 4. c. 5. In praemio l. 5. Basilius An. 869. Charles the great Albert Crantz metr l. 1. c. 7. Vindicat. c. 7. pag. 167. Epist. ad Ioan. 2. in Cedice Iustinian Sup. c. 4. sect 1. L 2. Cont. Petili c. 51. Sup c. 2. s. 4 infid unmasked c. 7 s. 112. p. 534. Indulgences The excommunication of Henry the eighth Sect. 2. Bâ—â— Pii 4. The Church of Rome no foundation of Christians Rev. 21.24 l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. 1 Pet 5.1 Sect. 3. The Church of Rome obtrudeth new Articles of Faith and excommunicateth for not receiving them An. 1564. An. 1569. The Papacy a cause of separation Bull. Pauli 4. The Pope excommunicates the Eastern Churches No Recusants in England or few in the beginning of Q Elizabeths reign The disclosing of the great Bull. Camd Elizab an 1â—70 Image of both Chuâ—ches edit an 1653 p. 442. Camd. Elizab. an 1559. More Protestants suffer now then Roman Catholicks at the Reformation Acworth Cont. Sander l. 2. p. 197. Sect. 4 Vind. c 6. s. A generall Councell complete without the Pope Greg l. 1. epist. 24 Bron. Annot in Conc. 5. The Decree of the Councel of Constance for its superiority above the Pope lawfail Sect. 1. Some Rom. Cath. formal Schismaticks The present Roman Church dâ—parted out of the ancient Roman Church And which is worse out of the Catholick Church Lib 2. Gent. Pet. c. 38. The Romanists true Donatists Ibid. Sect. 1. 2. The Roman Church not the Catholick Church L. de unit c. 6. If denyall of the Popes Supremacy maketh Protestants the World is full of Protestanns Our separation not in essentialls The Eastern Churches true parts of the catholick Church Sect. 3. The Councell of Trent not general Nor free Nor lawfull Hist Conc. Tâ—id l. 2. an 1545. The Protestants not condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople but the Romanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Knolles Turk bist in the life of Am. â— p. 1503. Ib p. 1500. Sect. 4. Why R C. not willing to argue of the Popes Patriarchall Power Answ. to the pres S. c. 1. s. 1. 1 Pet. 3.20 The Church of Rome St. Petes. Boat not Noahs Arke Our charity freeth us from Schism Sect. 6. Cal. Inst. l. 4 c. 1. c. Sect. 5. Sup. c. 1. sect 1. Sect. 6. Our Ordination justified Greg. Resp. ad Int. 8. August Continuation of the Tuck Histin the life of Amurath 4. No diffrence about sacrifice if rightly understood Sect. 7. There are fundamentalls Hebr. 5.12 and c. 6.1 c. How much is necessary to be beleeved to salvation ordinarily All revealed truths not essâ—ntialls Ancient Popes challenged not sovereignty jure divino Of the Church l. 5. a c. 31. ad c. 36. L. 2 Cont. Iovin Sup. c. 5. sect 1. Cent. Epist. Theol. ep 74. A moderate Papacy might prove usefull but dangerous Mont. Orig. Eccles. part post p. 185. The Conclusion Epist. 161. Vind. ch 4. pag. 86. â—â— H 8. c. â—2 16 R. 2. c. 5. Malm. l. 1. de Gâ—st pont Aug. Reg. Honed in h. â— 20. H. 3. c. 9. Stat. Clarendo Stat. CarLile Art Cleri 25 Ed. 3. 37 Ed. 3. ch â— â—6 Rich. 2. c. â— Placit an 1. H. 7. Placit an 32. 34. Edv 1. Ch. 7. p. 196. Ch. â— L. 2. de Roâ— Pont. c. 3â— Act. 16. Britt histâ— L. 11. c. 3. Pag. 106 Dialog de Eccles. Mcne distinct 3. Nilus de primatis 1. Cor. 3.12 C. 3. Sect. 4. Sop. cap. 3. Sect. 4. Eph. 4.4 Eph. 5. â— Bernard de consider l. 4. De concil l. 2 c. 17. De concil l. 2. c. 13. De Roma Pont. l. 4. c. 22. 24 Judg. 6. Bellarmâ—ce concil l. 1. c. 17. Pag. 24â— Vind. pag 101. Gers. p. 4. Serm. de pace unit Cyril considerat â—â—
substantiall parts of a Society as much as rationability being but a faculty or specificall quality is a substantiall part of a man because it is a part of his definition or his essentiall difference But I suppose that by substantiall parts he means essentialls as we use to say the same Church in substance or the same religion in substance that is in essence And if so then he might have spared the labour of proving it and pressing it over and over For we maintain that an entire profession of saving truth a right use of the Word and Sacraments and an union under lawfull Pastors being taken joyntly doe distinguish the Church essentially from all other Societies in the World We have been told heretofore of other notes of the Church which did not please us so well as Antiquity and Universality and Splendour c. which may be present or absent with the Church or without the Church As if a man should describe money by the weight and colour and sound or describe a King by his Crown and Scepter or describe a man as Plato did to be a living creature with two leggs without feathers which Diogenes easily confuted by putting a naked Cock into his School saying behold Plato's man Such separable communicable accidents are not notes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and at all times but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accidentally and at sometimes whereas these three doe belong unto the Catholick Church and to all true particular Churches inseparably incommunicably and reciprocally and are proper to the Church quarto modo to every true Church only to a true Church and alwaies to a true Church Yet I foretell him that this liberall concession will not promote his cause one hairs breadth As will appear in the sequell of this discourse But yet this essentiality must not be pressed too farre for fear least we draw out blood in the place of milk I like Stapletons distinction well of the nature and essence of a Church from the integrity and perfection thereof These three essentials doe constitute both the one and the other both the essence and the perfection of a Church Being perfect they consummate the integrity of a Church being imperfect they doe yet contribute a being to a Church It doth not follow that because Faith is essentiall therefore every point of true Faith is essentiall or because discipline is essentiall therefore every part of right discipline is essentiall or because the Sacraments are essentiall therefore every lawfull rite is essentiall Many things may be lawfull many things may be laudable yea many things may be necessary necessitate praecepti commanded by God of divine institution that are not essentiall nor necessary necessitate medii The want of them may be a great defect it may be a great sinne and yet if it proceed from invincible necessity or invincible ignorance it doth not absolutely exclude from Heaven The essences of things are unalterable and therefore the lowest degree of saving Faith of Ecclesiasticall discipline of Sacramentall Communion that ever was in the Catholick Church is sufficient to preserve the true being of a Church A reasonable Soul and an humane Body are the essentiall parts of a man Yet this body may be greater or lesser weaker or stronger yea it may lose a legg or an arm which before they were lost were subordinate parts of an essentiall part and yet continue a true humane body though imperfect and maimed without destroying the essence of that individuall man Sensibility and a locomotive faculty are essentiall to every living creature Yet some living creatures doe want one sense some another as sight or hearing Some flie some runne some swimme some creep some scarcely creep And yet still the essence is preserved Naturalists doe write of the Serpent that if there be but two inches of the body left with the head the Serpent will live a true Serpent but much maimed and very imperfect Much lesse may we conclude from hence that the want of true essentialls in cases of invincible necessity doth utterly exclude from Heaven or hinder the extraordinary influence of divine Grace No more then the actuall want of circumcision in the Wildernesse did prejudice the Jews God acts with means without means against means And where the ordinary means are desired and cannot be had he supplies that defect by extraordinary Grace So he fed the Israelites in a barren Wildernesse where they could neither sow nor plant with Manna from Heaven True Faith is an essentiall yet Infants want actuall Faith Baptism the laver of regeneration is an essentiall yet there may be the baptism of the Spirit or the baptism of Blood where there is not the Baptism of water He that desires Baptism and cannot have it doth not therefore want it So likewise Ecclesiasticall discipline is an essentiall of a true Church yet R. C. himself will not conclude from thence that actuall subordination to every link in the chain of the hierarchy is so essentially necessary that without it there can be no salvation Thus he saith We professe that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ. But we say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it unlesse it be sufficiently proposed to them What he confesseth we lay hold on that subjection to the Pope is not essentially necessary What he affirmeth further that it is preceptively necessary or commanded by Christ we doe altogether deny I urge this only for this purpose that though Ecclesiasticall discipline be an essentiall of the Church yet by his own confession every particular branch of it may not be essentiall though otherwise lawfull and necessary by the commandment of God But if by profession of faith he understand particular formes of confession often differing in points of an inferiour nature not comprehended either actually or virtually in the Apostles Creed or perhaps erroneous opinons If by communion in Sacraments he understand the necessary use of the same rites and the same forms of Administration whereof some may be lawfull but not necessary to be used others unlawfull and necessary to be refused Lastly if by lawfull ministery he understand those links of the Hierarchy which have either been lawfully established by the church as Patriarchall authority or unlawfully usurped as Monarchicall power we are so farre from thinking that these are essentiall to the Church that we beleeve that some of them are intollerable in the Church The other Branch of this first note that Schisme is a division in som substantiall parts of the Church of God is true but not in his sense All Schisme is either between Patriarchall Churches or Provinciall Churches or Diocesan Churches or some of these respectively or some of their respective parts But his sense is that all Schism is about the essence of Religion A strange paradox Many Schisms have arisen in the
Church about Rites and Ceremonies about Precedency about Jurisdiction about the Rites and Liberties of particular Churches about matter of Fact Obstinacy in a small error is enough to make a Schism Saint Paul tel's us of Divisions and Factions and Schisms that were in the Church of Corinth yet these were not about the essentialls of Religion but about a right-handed error even too much admiration of their Pastors The Schism between the Roman and Asiatick Churches about the observation of Easter was farre enough from the heart of Religion How manny bitter Schisms have been in the Church of Rome it selfe when two or three Popes at a time have challenged Saint Peters Chaire and involved all Europe in their Schismatical contentions Yet was there no manner of dispute about Faith or Sacrements or holy Oders or the Hierarchy of the Church but meerly about matter of Fact whose election to the Papacy was right From the former ground R. C. makes two collections First that Schism is a most grievous crime and a greater sinne than Idolatry because it tendeth to the destruction of the whole Church whose essence consisteth in the union of all her substantiall parts and her destruction in the division of them What doth this note concern the Church of England which is altogether guiltles both of Schism and Idolatry I wish the Church and Court of Rome may be as able to clear themselves I am no Advocate for Schism Yet this seemeth strange paradoxicall doctrine to Christian eares What is all Schism a more grievious sin than formall Idolatry who can beleeve it Schism is a defect of Charity Idolatry is the height of impiety and a publick affront put upon Almighty God Schism is immediately against men Idolatry is directly against God And the Fathers hold that Iudas sinned more in despairing and hanging himself than in betraying his Master because the later was against the humanity the former against the Divinity of Chriist Idolatry is a spirituall Adultery and so stiled every where in holy Scriptures A scolding contentious Wife is not so ill as an Adulteress neither is that Souldier who straggles from his Camp or deserts his Generall out of passion so ill as a professed Rebel who attempts to thrust some base Groom into his Soveraigns Throne Saint Paul calls Idols Devils and their Altars the tables of Divels Can any sinne be more grievous than to give divine honour to the Divel It is true that some Schism in respect of some circumstance is worse than some Idolatry as when the Schism is against the light of a mans knowledge and the Idolatry proceeds out of ignorance But the learned Surveior knoweth very well that it is a gross fallacy to argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciser to applie that which is spoken respectively to some one circumstance as if it were spoken absolutely to all intents and purposes as if one should say that many men were worse than beasts because each kinde of beasts hath but one peculiar fault and that by naturall necessitation as the Lion cruelty the Fox subtilty the Swine obscenity the Wolf robbery the Ape flattery whereas one may finde an epitome of all these in one man and that by free election yet he were a bad disputant who should argue from hence that the nature of man is absolutely worse than the nature of brute beasts Saint Austin faith indeed that Schismaticks baptising Idolaters doe cure them of the wound of their Idolatry and infidelity but wound them more grievously with the wound of Schism The deepest wound is not alwaies the most deadly For the Sword killed the Idolaters but the Earth swallowed up the Schismaticks And Optatus addes that Schisme is summum malum the greatest evill That is not absolutely but respectively in some persons at some times No man can be so stupid as to imagine that Schism is a greater evil than the sin against the Holy Ghost or Atheism or Idolatry The reason of Optatus his assertion followeth the same in effect with Saint Austines for the Idolatrous Ninevites upon their fasting and prayer obtained pardon but the earth swallowed up Korah and his company All that can be collected from Saint Austin or Optatus is this that God doth sometimes punish wilfull Schismaticks more grievously and exemplarily in this life than ignorant Idolaters which proveth not that Schisme is a greater sinne than Idolatry Ieroboam made Gods people Schismaticks but his hand was dried up then when he stretched it out against the Prophet yet the former was the greater sinne The judgements of God in this life are more exemplary for the amendment of others than vindictive to the delinquents themselves And for the most part in the whole historie of the Bible God seemeth to be more sensible of the injuries done unto his church and to his servants then of the dishonor done unto himself In the Isle of Man it is death to steal an Hen not to steal an Horse because there is more danger of the one than of the other in respect of the situation of the Country Penall lawes are imposed and punishments inflicted according to the exigence of places the dispositions of persons and necessities of times But because he hath appealed to Saint Austin to Saint Austin let him goe I desire no better Expositor of Saint Austin than Saint Austin himself Exceptis illis duntaxat quicunque in vobis sunt scientes quid verum sit pro animositate suae perver itatis contra veritatem etiam sibi notissimam dimicantes Horum quippe impietas etiam I. dololatriam forsitan superat Excepting only those Donatists whosoever among you know what is true and out of a perverse animosity doe contend against the Truth being most evidently known to themselves For these mens impiety doth peradventure exceed even Idolatry itself The case is cleare Saint Austin and Optatus did only undestand wilfull perverse Schismaticks who upheld a separation against the evident light of their own conscience comparing these with poor ignorant Idolaters and even then it was but a peradventure peradventure they are worse than Idolaters But I wish R. C. and his party would attend diligently to what followes in Saint Austin to make them leave their uncharitable censuring of others Sed quia non facile convinci possunt in animo namque latet hoc malum omnes tanquam à nobis minùs alieni leviori severitate coercemini But because these can not be easily convicted for this evill obstinacy lies hid in the heart we do use more gentle coertion to you all as being not so much alienated from us I wish all men were as moderate as St. Austin was even where he professeth that he had learned by experience the advantage of severity St. Austin and the primitive Church in the person of which he speaks spared the whole sect of the Donatists and looked upon them as no such great strangers to them because they
of them either by addition or by subtraction is not a reformation but a destruction of them And therefore it is a contradiction to say that a Church which hath the substance or the essence of a Church can give just cause to depart from her in her essentials and not only a contradiction but plain blasphemy to say that the true Church of Christ in essence his mysticall body his Kingdome can give just cause to forsake it in essentials The assumption is proved by him because we confesse that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance and yet have forsaken it in the essentials of a true Church namely the Sacraments and the publick worship of God His proposition admits little dispute I doe acknowledge that no Church true or fals no society of Men or Angâ—â—s good or bad can give just or sufficient cause to forsake the essentials of Christian Religion or any of them and that whosoever do so are either heriticks or schismaticks or both or which is worse then both down right Infidels and Apostates For in forsaking any essential of Christian Religion they forsake Christ and their hopes of Salvation in an ordinary way But here is one thing which it behoveth R. C. himself to take notice of That if the essences of all things be indivisible and are destroied as well by the addition as by the subtraction of any essential part how will the Roman Church or Court make answer to Christ for their addition of so many not explications of old Articles but new pretended necessary essentiall Arricles of Faith under pain of damnation which by his own rule is to destroy the Christian Faith who have coined new Sacraments and added new matter and form that is essentials to old Sacraments who have multiplied sacred Oâ—ders and added new lincks to the chain of the Hierarchy This will concern him and his Chuâ—ch more neerly then all his notes and points doe concern us Concerning his assumption two questions come to be debated first whether the Church of Rome be a true Church or not secondly whether we have departed from it in essentials Touching the former point a Church may be said to be a true Church two waies metaphysically and morally Every Church which hath the essentials of a Church how tainted or corrupted soever it be in other things is metaphysically a true Church for ens verum convertuntur So we say a theef is a true man that is a reasonable creature consistng of an humane body and reasonable soul. But speaking morally he is a faulty filching vitious person and so no true man So the Church of Rome is metaphysically a true Church that is to say hath all the essentials of a Christian Church but morally it is no true Church because erroneous contraries as truth and errour may be predicated of the same subject so it be not ad idem secundum idem codem tempore Truth in fundamentalls and errour in superstructures may consist together The foundation is right but they have builded much hay and stuble upon it And in respect of this foundation she may and doubtless doth bring forth many true Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdome of Heaven The Church of the Jews was most erroneous and corrupted in the dayes of our Saviour yet he doubted not so say Salvation is of the Iews I know it is said that Christ hath given himself for his Church to sanctifie it and cleanse it and present it to himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle But that is to be understood inchoactively in this life the perfection and consummation thereof is to be expected in the life to come To the second question whether the Church of England in the Reformation have forsaken the essentials of the Roman Church I answer negatively we have not If weeds be of the essence of a Garden or rupt Humors or Botches or Wennes and Excrescences be of the essence of man If Errors and Innovations and Superstitions and sperfluous Rites and pecuniary Arts be of the essence of a Church then indeed we have forsaken the Roman Church in its essentials otherwise not We retein the same Creed to a word and in the same sense by which all the primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Councell they did forbid all persons under pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks and anathematisation to Laymen to compose or obtrude any other upon any Persons converted from Paganisme or Judaisme We retein the same Sacraments and Discipline which they reteined we derive our holy Orders by lineall succession from them we make their doctrine and their practise under the holy Scriptures and as best Expositors thereof a Standard and Seal of truth between the Romanists and us It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the modern Roman Church by substraction But they who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Romau Church by addition Can we not forsake their new Creed unless we forsake their old faith Can we not reduce the Liturgy into a known tongue but presently we forsake the publick worship of God Can we not take away their tradition of the Patine and Chalice and reform their new matter and form in Presbyterian ordination which antiquity did never know which no Church in the World besides themselves did ever use but presently we forsake holy Orders The truth is their errours are in the excesse and these excesses they themselves have determined to be essentials of true Religion And so upon pretence of interpreting they intrude into the Legislative office of Christ and being but a Patriarchall Church doe usurpe a power which the universal Church did never own that is to Constitute new essentials of Christian Religion Before the determination their excesses might have past for probable Opinions or indifferent Practises but after the determination of them as Articles of faith extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation they are the words of the Bull they became inexcusable errors So both the pretended contradiction the pretended blasphemy are vanished in an instant It is no contradiction to say that a true humane body in substance may require purgation nor blasphemy to say that a particular Church as the Church of Rome is may erre and which is more than we charge them withall may apostate from Christ. In the mean time we preserve all due respect to the universal Church and doubt not to say with St. Austin that to dispute against the sense thereof is most insolent madness His fifth point to be noted hath little new worth noting in it but tautologies and repetitions of the same things over and over Some Protestants saith he doe impudently deny that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church If this be impudence what is ingenuity If this be such a gross error for man to
be ashamed of what is evident truth We expected thanks for our moderation and behold reviling for our good will He might have been pleased to remember what himself hath cited so often out of my vindication That our Church since the Reformation is the same in substance that it was before If the same in substance then not substantially separated Our comfort is that Caleb and Ioshua alone were admitted ino the Land of promise because they had been Peace-makers in a seditious time and indeavoured not to enlarge but to make up the breach He addes that the chiefest Protestants doe confess that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church Who these chiefest Protestants are he tel's us not nor what they say but referrs us to another of his Treatises which I neither know here how to compass nor if I could deem it worth the labor When these principall Protestants come to be viewed throughly and seriously with indifferent eies it will appear that either by substantially they mean really that is to say that the differences between us are not meere logomachies or contentions about words and different formes of expression only but that there are some reall controversies between us both in credendis and agendis and more and more reall in agendis than in credendis Or secondly that by substance they understand not the old Essentials or Articles of Christian Religion wherein we both agree but the new Essentials or new Articles of Faith lately made by the Romanists and comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth about which we doe truly differ So we differ substantially in the language of the present Romanists But we differ not substantially in the sense of the primitive Fathers The generation of these new Articles is the corruption of the old Creed Or lastly if one or two Protestant Authours either bred up in hostility against new Rome as Hanniball was against old Rome or in the heat of contention or without due consideration or out of prejudice or passion or a distempered zeal have overshot themselves what is that to us Or what doth that concern the Church of England He saith St. Austine told the Donatists that though they were with him in many things yet if they were not with him in few things the many things wherein they were with him would not profit them But what were these few things wherein St. Austine required their communion Were they abuses or innovations or new Articles of Faith No no the truth is St. Austine professed to the Donatists that many things and great things would profit them nothing not only if a few things but if one thing were wanting videant quam multa quam magna nihil prosint si unum quidem defuâ—rit videant quid sit ipsum unum And let them see what this one thing is What was it Charity For the Donatists most uncharitably did limit the Catholick Church to their own party excluding all others from hope of salvation just as the Romanists doe now who are the right successours of the Donatists in those few things or rather in that one thing So often as he produceth St. Austine against the Donatists he brings a rod for himself Furthermore he proveth out of the Creed and the Fathers that the communion of the Church is necessary to salvation to what purpose I doe not understand unlesse it be to reprove the unchristian and uncharitable censures of the Roman Court. For neither is the Roman Church the Catholick Church nor a communion of Saints a communion in errours His sixth and last point which he proposeth to judicious Protestants is this that though it were not evident that the Protestant Church is Schismaticall but only doubtfull Yet it being evident that the Roman Church is not schismaticall because as Doctor Sutcliff confesseth they never went out of any known Christian Society nor can any Protestant prove that they did it is the most prudent way for a man to doe for his Soul as he would doe for his lands liberty honour or life that is to chuse the safest way namely to live and die free from schism in the communion of the Roman Church I answer first that he changeth the subject of the question My proposition was that the Church of England is free from schism he ever and anon enlargeth it to all Protestant Churches and what or how many Churches he intendeth under that name and notion I know not Not that I censure any forrein Churches with whose lawes and liberties I am not so well acquainted as with our own But because I conceive the case of the Church of England to be as cleer as the Sun at noon-day and am not willing for the present to have it perplexed with heterogeneous disputes So often as he stumbleth upon this mistake I must make bold to tell him that he concludes not the contradictory Secondly I answer that he disputes ex non concessis laying that for a foundation granted to him which is altogether denied him namely that it is a doubtfull case whether the Church of England be schismaticall or not Whereas no Church under Heaven is really more free from just suspicion of schism then the Church of England as not censuring nor excluding uncharitably from her communion any true Church which retains the essentials of Christian Religion Thirdly I answer that it is so far from being evident that the Roman Church is guiltlesse of schism that I wish it were not evident that the Roman Court is guilty of formall schism and all that adhere unto it and maintain its censures of materiall schism If it be schism to desert altogether the communion of any one true particular Church what is it not only to desert but cast out of the Church by the bann of excommunication so many Christian Churches over which they have no jurisdiction three times more numerous then themselves and notwithstanding some few perhaps improper expressions of some of them as good or better Christians and Catholicks as themselves who suffer daily and are ready to suffer to the last drop of their blood for the name of Christ. If contumacy against one lawfull single superiour be schismaticall what is rebellion against the soveraign Ecclesiasticall Tribunall that is a generall Councell But I am far from concluding all indistinctly I know there are many in that Church who continue firm in the doctrine of the Councels of Constance and Basile attributing no more to the Pope then his principium unitatis and subjecting both him and his Court to the jurisdiction of an Oecumenicall Councell Fourthly I answer that supposing but not granting that it was doubtfull whether the Church of England were schismaticall or not and supposing in like manner that it were evident that the Church of Rome was not schismaticall yet it was not lawfull for a son of the Church of England to quit his spirituall mother May a man renounce his due obedience to a lawfull Superiour
upon uncertain suspicions No. In doubtfull cases it is alwaies presumed pro Rege lege for the King and for the Law Neither is it lawfull as a Father said some Virgins who cast themselves desperately into a River for fear of being defloured to commit a certain crime for fear of an uncertain Yea to rise yet one step higher though it were lawfull yet it were not prudence but folly for a man to thrust himself into more more apparent more real danger for fear of one lesser lesse apparent and remoter danger Or for fear of Charybdis to run headlong into Scylla He who forsakes the English Church for fear of Schism to joyn in a stricter communion with Rome plungeth himself in greater and more reall dangers both of Schism and Idolatry and Heresy A man may live in a schismaticall Church and yet be no Schismatick if he erre invincibly and be ready in the preparation of his mind to receive the truth whensoever God shall reveal it to him nor want R. C. himself being Judge either Faith or Church or Salvation And to his reason whereby he thinks to free the Church of Rome from Schism because they never went out of any Christian Society I answer two waies first It is more schismaticall to cast true Churches of Christ out of the communion of the Catholick Church either without the Keies or Clave errant with an erring Key then meerly and simply to goe out of a particular Church This the Romanists have done although they had not done the other But they have done the other also And therefore I add my second answer by naming that Christian Society out of which the present Church of Rome departed even the ancient primitive Roman Church not locally but morally which is worse by introducing corruptions in Faith Liturgy and use of the Sacraments whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the externall communion of the true primitive uncorrupted Church of Christ and became the cause of all following separation So both waies they are guilty of Schism and a much greater Schism then they object to us All that followes in his preface or the most part of it is but a reiteration of the same things without adding one more grain of reason to enforce it If I did consider that to divide any thing in any of its substantiall parts is not to reform but to destroy the essence thereof c. If I did consider that there are three substantiall parts of a true Church in substance c. If I did consider that any division of a true Church in any substantiall part thereof is impious because it is a destruction of Christs mysticall body c. If I did consider all these things c. I should clearly see that the English Protestant Church in dividing her self from the substance of the Roman Church in all her formall substantiall parts committed damnable sinne and that I in defending her therein commit damnable sinne I have seriously and impartially weighed and considered all that he saith I have given him a full account of it that we have neither separated our selves from the mysticall body of Christ nor from any essentiall or integrall part or member thereof I have shewed him the originall of his mistake in not distinguishing between sacred institutions and subsequent abuses between the genuine parts of the body and wenns or excrescences And in conclusion waving all our other advantages I doe not for the present finde on our parts the least shadow of criminous Schism He praies God to open my eies that I may see this truth I thank him for his charity in wishing no worse to me then to himself But errours goe commonly masked under the cloak of truth Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis umbra I pray God open both our eies and teach us to deny our selves that we may see his truth and preferre it before the study of advancing our own party For here the best of us known but in part and see as through a glasse darkly that we may not have the faith of Christ in respect of persons That which followes is new indeed To communicate with Schismaticks is to be guilty of Schism But the English Church joynes in communion of Sacraments and publick Praiers with Schismaticks namely Puritans and Independants This is inculcated over and over again in his book But because this is the first time that I meet with it and because I had rather be before hand with him then behind hand I will give it a full answer here And if I meet with any new weight added to it in any other place I shall endeavour to cleer that there without wearying the reader with tautologies and superfluous repetitions And first I deny his proposition To communicate with hereticks or Schismaticks in the same publick Assemblies and to be present with them at the same divine offices is not alwaies Heresy or Schism unlesse one communicate with them in their hereticall or schismaticall errours In the primitive Church at Antiâ—ch when Leontius was Bishop the Orthodox Christians and the Arrians repaired to the same Assemblies but they used different formes of doxologies the orthodox Christians saying Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Ghost And the Arrians saying Glory be to the Father by the Son in the Spirit At which time it was observed that no man could discerne what form the Bishop used because he would not alienate either party So they communicated with Arrians but not in Arrianism with hereticks but not in Heresy Take another instance the Catholicks and Novatians did communicate and meet together in the same Assemblies Illo autem tempore parum aberat quin Novatiani Catholici penitus conspirassent Nam eadeâ— de Deo sentientes communiter ab Arrianis agitati in similibus calamitatibus constituti se muâ—ua complecti benevolentia in unum convenire pariter orare caeperunt And further decreverunt deinceps inter se communicare At that time it wanted little that the Novatians and Catholicks did not altogether conspire in one for having both the same Faith concerning God suffering the same persecution from the Arrians and being both involved in the same calamities they began to love one another to assemble together and to pray together And they decreed from that time forward to communicate one with another The primitive Catholicks thought it no Schism to communicate with Novatians that is with Schismaticks so long as they did not communicate with them in their Novatianism that is in their Schism Have the English Protestants matriculated themselves into their congregational Assemblies Have they justified the unwarrantable intrusion of themselves into sacred Functions without a lawfull calling from Christ or his Church Or their dispensing the greatest mysteries of religion with unwashen or it may be with bloody hands As for communicating with them in a schismaticall Liturgy it is impossible they have
beliefe of some great atchievements which he hath made elsewhere or to excuse his present defects upon pretense of large supplies and recruits which he hath ready in another place but where the Reader cannot come to see them And what if the Reader have them not to see as it is my condition in present What am I or he the worse If he see no more in some of them then I have seen heretofore he will see a great many of mistated and mistaken questions a great many of Logomachies or contentions about words a great many of private errours produced as common principles of Protestants a great many of authours cited contrary to their genuine sense and meaning and very little that is materiall towards the discussion of this or any other question Just as Master Chillingworth is cited here to prove That Protestants have separated themselves in communion of Sacraments and publick service of God not only from the Roman Church but also from all other Christian Churches in the World which is not only contrary to his sense but also contrary to his very words in the place alleged It is not all one saith he though you perpetually confound them to forsake the errour of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her errours and simply to forsake the Church c. The former then was done by Protestants the later was not done Nay not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman did they separate per omnia but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious Not only from the Roman Church but from also all other Christian Churches in the world saith R.C. Not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman Church saith Mr. Chillingworth In communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God saith R. C. Only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious saith Mr. Chillingworth But because there is no question wherein they studdy more to blunder and trouble the water and to involve themselves in dark Clouds of obscure generalities I will doe my endeavour to distinguish that which is deceitfull and confused and represent the naked truth to the eies of the Reader First I acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a true Christian Church in that sense that I have declared that is metaphysically because it still reteins all the essentialls of a true Church To have separated from it in any of these had been either formall Heresie or formall Schisme or both But we have reteined all these as much as themselves and much more purely than themselves For it may seem doubtfull whether some of their superstitious additions doe not virtually overthrow some of the fundamentalls of Religion But with us there is no such danger Secondly I acknowledge that besides the Essentials of Christian Religion the Church of Rome reteins many other truths of an inferior nature in Doctrine in Discipline in Sacraments and many lawfull and laudable Practises and Observations To have separated from these had been at least materiall Schisme unless the Church of Rome should obtrude them upon other Churches as necessary and fundamentall Articles of Christian Religion and so presume to change the ancient Creed which was deposited with the Church by the Apostles as the common Badge and Cognisance of all Christians for all suceeding Generations Thirdly It is agreed that one may not one must not separate himself from the communion of a true Christian Church for the vices or faults of particular Persons in point of manners We may not leave the Lords Field because there are Tares nor his Floare because there is Chaff nor his House because there are Vessels of dishonor nor his College because there was a Iudas Fourthly Some errors and abuses are not simply sinfull in themselves but to those that did first introduce them to those who maintain and practise them for ambitious or avaritious ends they are sinfull These are pressures and grievances to the Christian Flock rather than sins They suffer under the burthen of them but they are innocent from the guilt of them And so reum facit Superiorem iniquitas imperandi innocentem subditum ordo serviendi A Superior may sin in his commands and yet his Subject be innocent in his obedience These are no just cause of separation to a private Christian Charity covers a multitude of sinnes But they are just cause of Reformation to a nationall Church or a Synod Fiftly There are some errors in disputable points and some abuses are meer excesses without guilt rather blemishes than sinnes And for these alone no man ought to separate himself from a Christian Society or abandon a true Church for triviall dissentions Our duty in such a case is to pray and perswade without troubling the peace of the Church and to leave the rest to God Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Lastly We affirm that in the superstructions of Christian Religion the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence and sinfull innovations in point of Doctrine and Discipline and administration of the Sacraments and Feasts and Fasts c. This we are ready to maintain Neither doth she only profess and practise these errors and abuses which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential Truths and necessary Articles She injoins sundry of them as a condition of her Communion She commands all Christians to beleeve and practise them under pain of damnation and whosoever refuseth she casteth them out of her society Such is their new Creed in point of Faith directly contrary to the Canon of the generall Councel of Ephesus Such is the Popes Supremacy of power in point of Discipline expressly contrary to the determinations of the Councells of Constance and Basile Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine the detention of the Cup from the People their unknown langguage c. in the administration of the Sacraments and in the publick service of God From these sinfull duties thus injoined as necessary all men ought to separate Lawfull authority of man may oblige one to suffer but no authority of man can warrant or oblige one to doe sinfull duties Such a cause justifies a separation untill the abuse be reformed for which the separation was made And being thus separated from sinfull Innovations it may be lawfull or convenient to reform lesser errors which were not of such dangerous consequence nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves But here I must advertise the Reader of a double manner of expression used by English Protestants concerning this separation They agree that the Roman Church reteineth the Essentials of a true Church They
agree that she hath introduced errors and abuses into Christian Religion They agree that she obtrudes sinfull Innovations as necessary conditions of her Communion They agree that the separation is only from these errors and abuses and are ready to return to a Communion when these errors and abuses are removed So in effect they say the very same thing neither more nor less But because these errors and abuses are inherent in their Confessions Liturgy and forms of administration of holy Sacraments therefore some say that they are separated from the externall communion of the Roman Church And because these errors and abuses are but adventicious accidently inherent and may be and ought to be removed therefore others say that their separation is not from the Communion of the Roman Church as it was and may be and ought to be but only from the errors and abuses The one speaks simply and absolutely from the errors and abuses The others speak respectively and secundum quid from the externall communion of the Roman Church that is so far as it is corrupted by these errors and abuses and not further and so in sense they say the very same thing And therefore it is meer sophistry and a groundlesse cavill to argue from their separation from errours to their separation from truths and from their separation in abuses to their separation in the Sacraments themselves Suppose one who is appointed to minister diet to another will give him nothing but poisonous meats And he knowing it will not receive it tell me who is the refuser he that will not eate poison or he that will not give him healthfull food The Roman Catholicks doe professe themselves to be as loyall to their Soveraign as any of his best Subjects And that they are as ready as any others to give assurance of it by oath Yet they say there are some clauses inserted in the form prescribed which they may not they dare not take If any man should accuse them hereupon to have deserted the communion of the English Monarchy in point of loyalty they would be angry and they had good reason for it Upon the same equity let them forbeare to accuse us of leaving the communion of their Church in Sacraments when we only left their abuses Distinguish between old institutions and new errours and the case is cleer Likewise supposing but not granting that we were not chased away by the censures of the Court of Rome but had out of conscience separated our selves from their errours in such manner as I have declared yet the crime or guilt of the Schism sticks close to them A conscientious Christian is as much chased away by imposing upon him the performance of sinfull duties as by the thunderbolt of excommunication Schism is a voluntary separation but our separation was no more voluntary on our parts then the three children were willing to be cast into the fiery furnace that is they did chuse rather to die Innocents then to live Nocents to suffer burning rather then to commit Idolatry To be separated might be our consequent will because we could not help it But it was farr enough from our antecedent will or that we did desire it If we should see one pushed and thrust out of an house with Swords and Whips and Clubs would any man in his right wits call this man a Fugitive and a Runaway or accuse him to have forsaken the House Sin is a more dangerous Edge-tool then a Sword and the wrath of God heavier then the weight of Clubs and the secret lashes of a guilty Conscience sharper then Whips If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinfull duties and offending God and wounding our own Consciences whilest we staied among them then we did not leave them but they did drive us from them Ioseph came into his Masters house to doe his duty his Mistrisse tempts him to Sinne. Ioseph flies away What From his duty No. But from the offence of God and she that thought to hold him was the person that did drive him away He urgeth that nothing but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation as he hath fancied to himself from the crime of Schism Let it be soâ—â— He might have spared his Authours in the margent to prove it His defect lies on the other side Doth not he think it necessary to Salvation for every man so farre as he can to escheu deadly sinne Or thinks he that a man may live securely in known errours contrary to the dictate of his Conscience without any prejudice to Salvation This was our condition But yet there was Salvation to be had in the Church of Rome So it was not necessary to Salvation to make such a separation A strange consequence just like this other God hath mercy in store for sinners therefore it is not necessary to Salvation to forsake sinne Gods extraordinary mercy is one thing our duty another Because his compassion is great towards his poor Creatures that offend out of invincible ignorance is it therefore not necessary to Salvation for those who are convinced of their errours to follow the commandement of God and the light of their own Conscience This is so evident that it admits no doubt He adds That we separated our selves not only from the Roman Church but from all Christian Churches in the World as if there had been no Christian Church in the World in whose communion we could finde Salvation whence it will follow that at that time in their conceits there was no true Church upon Earth This he inculcates over and over in severall places according to his manner And in his ninth Chapter and fifth Section he triumpheth in it where he endeavours to prove out of Calvine and Chillingworth and Doctor Potter that Protestants separated themselves from the whole World That is as he expresseth himself in other places from all Christian Churches And particularly from the Roman Grecian Armenian and Aethiopian Church and all other ancient Churches whatsoever If it be so then he may truely call us Penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos Of the Roman Church in particular and how that possibility of Salvation in any Church is not in true reason impeditive of its just reformation we have already spoken sufficiently It remaineth to give an answer concerning our separation from these Eastern Churches Our particular reformation cannot be said to be any separation from them For they doe neither pretend to be the Catholick or universall Church as the Roman doth nor challenge any jurisdiction over the Britannick Churches as the Court of Rome doth neither doe we deny them the right of Christian Churches or the right hand of fellowship In coordinate Churches whereof one is not subordinate to another some Churches reforming themselves and not censuring or condemning others which are unreformed whilest they preserve their duty entire to the Oecumenicall Church and its representative a generall Councell doe not
doe neither finde any such confession nor remember any such nor finde any thing like it in the place cited except peradventure he mean this that Calvine justifying Episcopacy and condemning the Papacy hath these words It is one thing to receive moderate honour such as man is capable of and another thing to rule the whole World that is as the Pope would doe Calvine speakes of the Popes ambitious affectation of an universall Empire not of his just right or possession I hope he doth not presently separate from all Christian Churches who separates from the Pope because the Pope pretends an universall Jurisdiction Thus it is when men make their own collections to be other mens confessions But supposing that Calvine had said any such thing it must be understood Synechdochically of the Western Churches the whole for a part as they say at Paris le Mond de Paris the World of Paris or as a Father said The World mourned and wondred to see it self turned Arrian But Calvine said further That the Idolatrous Masse had possessed all Kings and People from the first to the last This confirms the former exposition all Kings and People that is in these Occidentall parts of Christendome Certainly Calvine did not dream of the Duke of Muscovia or Prester Iohn much lesse of the great Turke or Sophy of Persia within whose territories most of these Churches are They have Masses indeed but no adoration of the Elements and consequently no Idolatrous Masses which Calvine disliked Perhaps he will speed better with Doctor Potters testimony To let R. C. see plainly what credit is to be given to such citations I will reduce his argument out of Doctor Potter to a syllogism All separation from the universall Church is schismaticall but Protestants confess that their separation is from the universall Church His proposition is proved out of Doctor Potter Sect. 3. p. 74. This is true Doctor Potters words are these There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himself His assumption is proved out of Doctor Potter Sect. 2. p. 48. Some separation voluntary from all visible Churches doth not exclude from Heaven If Protestants lie open to the lash and have no better memories it is an easie matter to confute them out of their own confessions or rather let the Reader judge what credit is to be given to such citations Doctor Potters words are these If separation such as hath been said from all visible Churches doe not exclude from Heaven First R. C. omits these words such as hath been said which words quite destroy his proof The separation whereof he speaks there is only externall not internall from all particular visible Churches not from the universall Church His words are these A man may be a true visible Member of the holy Catholick Church who is not actually otherwise then in vow a Member of any true visible Church The instances or cases which he produceth are two the one of a man unjustly excommunicated clave-errante who is not in the actuall externall communion of any Particular Church yet if he communicate in desire sufficit ei ad salutem it is sufficient to save him which he proves out of Bellarmine and St. Austine and others Neither will R.C. himself deny it The other instance is of Tertullian who in his later daies did fall off from the Catholicks out of an indiscrete piety why may we not hope that God pardoned the errours of his honest zeal And herein also he hath the consent and concurrence of R. C. himself That they who erre invincibly and hold the truth implicitely doe want neither Church nor Faith nor Salvation What doe these cases concern the present controversie Not at all And as R. C. subtracts so he adds the word voluntary upon his own head which is not in Doctor Potter He who is excommunicated unjustly is not excommunicated with his good will Tertullian did not wilfully run into errour Ignorance destroyes liberty in many cases as well as force Doctor Potter speaks only of such who are in vote in their desires or willingly within the communion of the Church and declares the contrary expresly that voluntary and ungrounded separation from the Catholick Communion is without doubt a damnable Schism Lastly Doctor Potter speaks not of the ordinary way of Salvation but of Gods extraordinary mercy Why may we not hope that God pardoned the errours of his honest zeale Cannot God pardon formall much more materiall Schism and convert a Schismatick at the last gasp if it please him The primitive Church refused to receive some sorts of offenders to their actuall communion and yet left them to the mercy of God for their Salvation But his chiefest testimonies are taken out of Master Chillingworth c. 5. p. 273. That Protestants did forsake the externall communion of the visible Church And p. 274. Master Knott objecting that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the externall communion of the Catholick Church Master Chillingworth answers Let this be granted And p. 291. It is not improbable that it may be lawfull and noble for one man to oppose in Faith the World I answer first that by externall communion Master Chillingworth meant nothing but errours in the externall communion and by the visible Church a considerable part of the visible Church Hear himself Indeed that Luther and his followers left off the practice of those corruptions wherein the whole visible Church did communicate formerly which I meant when I acknowledged above that they forsooke the externall communion of the visible Church or that they left that part of the visible Church in her corruption which would not be reformed These things if you desire I shall be willing to grant and that by a Synechdoche of the whole for the part he might be said to forsake the visible Church that is a part of it and the greater part But that properly speaking he forsooke the whole visible Church I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this And he gives this reason because a great part of the Church joyned with Luther He might have added a stronger reason as I think that Luthers first quarrell with the Pope was about Indulgences and the Supremacy c. wherein Luther did not desert but joyn in communion with the much greater part of the visible Church If afterwards Luther fell upon other questions not so agreeable to the Eastern Church yet they were no Articles of the Creed nor necessary points of Christian Religion The same interpretation he gives elswhere The first reformers as well as the Donatists c. opposed the commands of the visible Church that is of a great part of it Secondly I answer that what is said of the universall corruption of the visible Church is not delivered positively
receive it when God shall reveal it to them How far this may excuse not the crime but their persons from formall Schisme either a toto or a tanto I determine not but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Reformation of the western Church Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopall Jurisdiction and the power of ordeining and confirming but the Court of Rome by their commissions and delegations for avaritious ends And could they think that the world would beleeve that necessity is not as strong and effectuall a dispensation as their mercicinary Buls It is not at all materiall whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct Oâ—ders or distinct degrees of the same Order the one subordinate to the other whether Episcopal ordination doe introduce a new Character or extend the old For it is generally confessed by both parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that the same power and authority is necessary to the extensioâ— of a Character or grace given by ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not humane but divine These avaritious practises of that Court though it be not commonly observed were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiasticall Discipline which doe now so much disturb the peace of the Church The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I endeavor to clear the English Church from Schisme only in relation to the Church of Rome not to all other Churches It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads or so many Packs of Hereticks and Schismaticks making the Roman Church and the Catholick Church to be Convertibles Secondly it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt to make a defence before we were accused None of those Churches nor any body else that ever I heard of hath accused us for deserting them before R. C. and he hath received his answer If it had been needfull the Church of Rome had saved us that labour by excommunicating them before hand I only wish more intelligence between us and them My third fault is That I endeavour principally to justifie our separation from the Roman Church for the personall faults of Popes And my fourth fault is That I justifie our separation from the Court of Rome for their evill manners That this is not lawfull to doe he proves by sundry authorities and arguments I think the rather because no man denyes it or doubts of it or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we doe deny it If he had pleased he might have contracted these two faults into one The Pope and his Court make but one consistory and personall faults and evill manners are the same thing It had been needfull to have joyned them together to give them a little more weight for being twisted they weigh not half a graine First I deny that we hold personal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation Secondly that separation which was made was made by themselves not by us Thirdly I deny that the Pope or Court of Rome ever had right to any Jurisdiction over us And if they ever had any pretence of right we had other manner of grounds for separation than evill manners As new Articles of faith obtruding of idolatrous superstitions and sinfull duties gross usurpation of the rights of the soveraign Prince and all orders and degrees of Subjects the overthrow or endangering of the publick peace and tranquillity of the Kingdome unlawfull oaths contrary to our allegiance to our King contrary to that duty which all Christians doe owe to generall Councells and lastly the Popes quitting of his Patriarchall power Yet by his leave tyranny and oppression and rapine are somewhat more than personall faults and may be just grounds to Princes and Common-wealths to substract obedience untill there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses Some personall faults as Simony aud Schism may give just occasion to Christians to separate from pretended Popes But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope not his Episcopall Office which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor his Patriarchall Office which was instituted by the Church but his pretended Monarchicall Office whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunall of the Church that is a generall Councell whereof more shall be said in due place These faults give just cause to a generall Councell to separate the Popes themselves and to take away their domineering Courts or to a soveraign Prince with a Nâ—tionall Councell to shake off their tyrannicall Yoke CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Question IN stating the Question I observed this Method first to shew what Ecclesiasticall Separations were not Schismaticall As first those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat without attempting to make any parties as those between St. Paul and Barnabas St. Hierome and Ruffinus St. Chrysostome and Epiphanius Secondly premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained if they forbear to censure one another and be ready to submit to the determination of a generall Councell are not schismaticall as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptization Thirdly where just cause of separation is given for there the Separaters are innocent and they who give the cause are Schismaticks Fourthly separation from an erroneous Church or Pastor in their errors Of all these and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all but passeth silently by them without either granting denying or distinguishing The first Exception that he takes is against my two supposed definitions of Schisme the former is Schisme is a criminous scissure rent or division in the Church an ecclesiasticall sedition like to a mutiny in an Army or a faction in a Sate The second meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own True Schisme is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church Really I doe not wonder if my definitions be not complete I doe not take my self to have so happy a vein that all that I utter should be a definition I did not hold it needfull nor had any purpose to define Schisme but only to explane it which my very words might have taught him Schisme signifies a criminous scissure not is but signifies And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition like a mutiny in an Army or faction in a State Similitudes are apt to illustrate but not to define The definition and the thing defined are ever the same Those
things which are like one another are never the same But let us view his grand exceptions to my supposed definitions My first great fault is That I doe not express it thus in some substantiall part or parts of the Church For all Schisme is in essentials otherwise division in ecclesiasticall Ceremonies or scholasticall Opinions should be Schism Here is nothing new but his reason to which I answer that all differences in Rites and Ceremonies are not schismaticall but if unlawfull or sinfull Rites be obtruded by any Church as a condition of their Communion and a separation ensue thereupon the Obtruders of sinfull Rites and they who break the unity of the Church for difference in indifferent Rites are guilty of Schism So likewise scholasticall Opinions are free and may be defended both waies scholastically but if they be obtruded Magisterialy upon Christians as necessary Articles of faith they render the Obtruders truly schismaticall This is the case of the Church of Rome in both these particular instances and therefore it is not true that all Schism is a division in the essentialls of Religion or its substantiall parts When Pope Victor excommunicated the Eastern Churches about the observation of Easter the difference was but about a Rite aut Ritus potius tempore saith a Roman Catholick or rather the time of a Rite Yet it occasioned a Schisme for either Victors Key did erre and then he was the Schismatick or it did not erre and then they were the Schismaticks What the opinion of Ireneus and the Fathers of that age was Eusebius tells us that their letters were extant wherein they chid Victor sharply about it There was much and long contention between the Sees of Rome and Constanstinople concerning the Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of Bulgaria a meere humane Rite nothing to the substance of the Church And Iohn the 8 th excommunicated Ignatius the Patriarch about it Here was a Schisme but no essentiall of Religion concerned How many gross Schismes have been in the Church of Rome meerly about the due election of their Popes a matter of humane right which was sometimes in the Emperors sometimes in the People sometimes in the whole Roman Clergy and now in the Colledge of Cardinals Essentialls of Religion use not to be so mutable Nay I beleeve that if we search narrowly into the first source and originall of all the famous Schismes that have been in the Church as Novatianisme and Donatisme c. we shall finde that it was about the Canons of the Church no substantialls of Religion Novatians first separation from Cornelius was upon pretense that he himself was more duely elected Bishop of Rome not about any essentiall of Religion The first originall of the Schism of the Donatists was because the Catholick Church would not excommunicate them who were accused to have been traditores On the other side Felicissimus raised a Schism in the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because the lapsi or those who had fallen in time of persecution might not presently be restored upon the mediation of the Confessors or as they then stiled them Martyrs What Schismes have been raised in the Church of England about round or square white or black about a Cup or a Surpless or the signe of the Cross or kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament or the use of the Ring in marriage What bitter contentions have been among the Franciscans in former times about their habits what colour they should be white or black or gray and what fashion long or short to make them more conformable to the rule of St. Francis with what violence have these petty quarrells been prosecuted in so much as two succeeding Popes upon two solemn hearings durst not determine them And nothing was wanting to a complete Schism but a sentence He might have spared his second proofs of his three substantiall parts he meaneth essentiall properties of the Church untill it had been once denyed Yet I cannot but observe how he makes Heresie now worse than Schism because Heresie denyeth the truth of God which simple Schism doth not whereas formerly he made Schisme worse than Idolatry The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I confound meer Schism with Schism mixed with Heresie and bring in matters of faith to justifie our division from the Roman Church This second fault is like the former both begotten in his own brain Let him read my supposed definition over and over again and he shall not finde the least trace of any such confusion in it To bring in their errours in matters of faith to justifie us not only from Heresie but from meer Schism is very proper He himself hath already confessed it I hope he will stand to his word for it is too evident a truth to be denyed that supposing they hold errours in matters of faith and make these their errours a condition of their Communion it is not only lawfull but necessary and a virtue to separate from them Their very errours in matters of faith and their imposing them upon us as necessary Articles doth justifie a separation from them and acquit us before God and man from all criminous Schism whether meer or mixed The sinne of Korah Dathan and Abiran was not meer Schism but ambition treason and rebellion Korah would have had the High-priesthood from Aaron and Dathan and Abiran would have been soveraign Princes in the place of Moses by right of the Primogeniture of Ruben So he proceeds to my other definition Meer Shcism is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion to which he saith I add in the next page without sufficient ground and should have added also in Sacraments or lawfull ministry and lastly have shewed what is a sufficent ground But he mistakes throughout for first to have added without sufficient grounds had been a needless tautology which is not tolerable in a definition To say that it is culpable implies that it wants sufficient grounds For if it had sufficient grounds it were not culpable Secondly to have added in Sacraments or lawfull Ministry had been to spoil the definition or description rather and to make it not convertible with the thing defined or described I have shewed that there are many meer Schismes that are neither in Sacraments nor lawfull Ministry Lastly I have shewed what are sufficient grounds and that the Church of Rome gave sufficient cause of separation if he please to take it into consideration He saith internall communion is not necessary to make a man a Member of a visible Church or to make him a Catholick neither is it put into the definition of the Church Let it be so I am far from supposing that none but Saints are within the communion of a true visible Church But I am sure it is a good caution both for them and us There is a mentall Schisme as well as a mentall Murther Whosoever hateth his Brother
make that proposition hereticall in it self which was not ever hereticall nor increase the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith either in number or substance What I said is undeniable true First in it self That is in its own nature without any reference to the authority of a Councel And necessary Articles of the Christian Faith that is absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians If the proposition were hereticall in it self then they that held it before the Councel were Hereticks as well as they who hold it after the Councel And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith without the actuall belief whereof Christians could never be saved This is sufficient to answer his objection But for the Readers satisfaction I adde moreover that the Romanists believe a generall Councel not only to be fallible without the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope whose priviledge and prerogative the most of them doe make the fole ground of the Churches infallibility but also without his concurrenee to have often erred actually But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope they make the determination of a generall Councel to be infallible On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope but the contrary After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave spoiled him of his pontificall Attire cut off his two Fingers and cast his body into Tybur it became an usuall thing with the following Popes either to enfringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors Neither was this act of Stephen an errour meerly in matter of fact but principally in matter of Faith that the Episcopall character is deleble We know no such confirmation neâ—dfull nor of any more force then the single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolicall Church And therefore we give the same priviledges to a Councell unconfirmed which they acknowledge to be fallible and to a Councell confirmed by the Pope We have no assurance that all generall Councells were and ever shall be so prudently mesnaged and their proceedings allwaies so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to beleeve under pain of damnation If R C. be not of my mind others of his own Church have been and are at this day When I forbear to cite because I presume it will not be denyed In summe I know no such virtuall Church as they fancy Antiquity never knew it I owe obedience at least of acquiescence to the representative Church and I resolve for ever to adhere to the best of my understanding to the united Communion of the whole essentiall Church which I beleeve to be so far infallable as is necessary for atteining that end for which Christ bestowed this priviledge that is salvation Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice or subterfuge to decline the authority of generall Councells I know none we need to fear And I doe freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly generall which he shall produce in this question As for occidentall Councels they are farre from being generall My other supposed error is that I say That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a generall Councell yet he ought to be silent and possess his soul in patience That is untill God give another opportunity and another Councell sit wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary This he saith is to binde men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in matter of Religion and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth and brings them within the compass of Saint Pauls Woe woe be unto me if I evangelise not Excellent Doctrine and may well serve for a part of the Rebells Catechism Because my Superior is not infallible if I cannot assent unto him must I needs oppose him publickly or otherwise be guilty of Hypocrisie and Dissimulation If he shall think fit in discretion to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth If he shall by his authority suspend a particular Pastor from the exercise of his pastorall Office must he needs preach in defiance of him or else be guilty of St. Pauls Woe Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gospell I desire him to consult with Bellarmine All Catholicks doe agree that if the Pope alone or the Pope with a particular Councell doe determine any controversie in Religion whether he can erre or whether he can not erre he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians May not I observe that duty to a generall Councell which all Roman Catholicks doe pay to the Pope or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience Certainly these things were not well weighed Where I say that by the Church of England in this question I understand that Church which was derived by lineall succession from Brittish English Scotish Bishops by mixt ordination as it was legally established in the daies of Edward the sixth and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution to let us see what an habit of alteration is he excepts against every word of this First against the lineall succession because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone This is an argument from the Staffe to the Corner I speak of a succession of holy Orders and he of a succession of Opinions And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom he will be found at a default here also Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we doe In the next place he excepts against mixt Ordination as partly Papisticall partly Protestanticall He erres the whole Heavens breadth from my meaning Before Austin preached to the Saxons there were in Britain ancient British Bishops and ancient Scotish Bishops who had their severall lines of succession to which Austin added English Bishops and so made a third succession These three were distinct at first but afterwards in tract of time they came to be mixed and united into one succession So as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British Scotish and English Bishops This is the great Bug-bear of mixt Ordination He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child He mistakes Kings are never Children nor Minors whilest they have good Tutors and good Councellers was he more a Child than King Iehoash and yet the Church was reformed during his minority This was no Childish Act thanks to Iehoiada a good Uncle and Protector He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edwards daies which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops whereof divers were cast in Prison for not
assenting to the erecting of it And I aske how it was not legally established which was established by soveraign authority according to the direction of the Convocation with the confirmation of the Parliament What other legall establishment can there be in England By the Lawes of England a Bishop had but his single vote either in Parliament or Convocation Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops whether for not assenting or for other reasons will require further proof than his bare assertion This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Papacy in the reign of Henry the eighth He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament under King Charles Why should I add a notorious untruth as contrary to my conscience as to my affections I might have said oppressed I could not say suppressed The externall splendor was abated when the Baronies of the Bishops and their votes in Parliament were taken away but the Order was not extinguished So far from it that King Charles himself suffered as a Martyr for the English Church If his meaning be that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royall he cannot be so great a stranger in England as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity Yet he is pleased to stile it a dead Church and me the Advocate of a dead Church even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves or as the Sun is set when it is behinde a Cloud or as the Gold is destroyed when it is melting in the Furnace When I see a seed cast into the ground I doe not aske where is the greeness of the leaves where is the beauty of the flowers where is the sweetnes of the fruit but I expect all these in their due season Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe The rain is fallen the wind hath blown and the floods have beaton upon their Church but it is not fallen for it is founded upon a Rock The light is under a Bushell but it is not extinguished And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candlestick yet the Church of England is not dead whilest the Catholick Church survives Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution And though some of the Church doe suffer yet it is not for Religion but matters of State What can a man expect in knotty questions from them who are so much transported with prejudice as to deny those things which are obvious to every eie If it be but some that have suffered it is such a some as their Church could never shew wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed may read the Martyrology of London or the List of the Universities and from that paw guess at the proportion of the Lion But perhaps all this was for matters of State No our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State nor our Ecclesiasticall Revenues exposed to sale for matters of State The refusall of a schismaticall Covenant is no matter of State How many of the orthodox Clergy without pretence of any other delinquency have been beggered how many necessitated to turn Mechanicks or day-Laborers how many starved how many have had their hearts broken how many have been imprisoned how many banished from their native Soil and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World No man is so blinde as he that will not see His tenth Section is a summary or repetition of what he hath already said wherein I finde nothing of weight that is new but onely one authority out of St. Austin That Catholicks are every where and Hereticks every where but Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks different every where If by Catholicks he understand Roman Catholicks they are not every where not in Russia nor in Aethiopia and excepting some hand-fulls for the most part upon toleration not in any of the Eastern Churches The words of Saint Austin are these Vbicunque sunt isti illic Catholica sicut in Africa ubi vos non autem ubicunque Catholica est aut vos istis aut Heresis quaelibet earum Wheresoever they are there is the Catholick Church as in Africa where you are but wheresoever the Catholick Church is you are not nor any of those Heresies St. Austins scope is to shew that the Catholick Church is more diffused or rather universall than any Sect or all Sects put together If you please let this be the Touchstone between you and us But you will say that you are united every where and we are different every where Nothing less You are united in one pretended head which some of you acknowledge more some less We are united in the same Creed the same Sacraments and for the most part the same discipline Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place of the Novatians Arrians Patripassians Valentinians Patricians Apellites Marcionites Ophites all which condemned all others but themselves and thereby did separate themselves Schismatically from the Catholick Church as it is to be feared that you doe Our case is quite contrary we reform our selves but condemn no others CHAP. 3. Whether Protestants were Authors of the separation from Rome WE are now come from stating the Question to proofs where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the province which he hath undertaken To shew that Protestants were not the Authors of the Separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks I produced first the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point that the Bishop of Rome had no greater Jurisdiction within England conferred upon him by God in the Scripture than any other forrein Bishop Secondly the decrees of two of our nationall Synods Thirdly six or seven Statutes or Acts of Parliament Fourthly the attestation of the prime Roman Catholick Bishops and Clergy in their printed Books in their Epistles in their Sermons in their Speeches in their Institution Fiftly the unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome of England testified by Bishop Gardiner and of the Kingdome of Ireland proved out of the Councell Book Lastly the Popes own Book wherein he interdicted and excommunicated the whole Church of England before the reformation made by Protestants So as apparently we were chased away from them Heare the judgement of a Stranger This year the Pope brake the wise patience or rather dissimulation which for four years together he had used towards England And sent against the King a terrible thundring Bull such as never was used by his Predecessors nor imitated by his Successors It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is What doth he answer to all this Not one word And so I take my first ground pro confesse That Protestants were not Authors of the separation of the English
might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
just And if the Subject will not obey his blood is upon his own head The only question is whether there was at that time not only a pretended but a reall necessity to make those Laws which they call sanguinary or bloody for the preservation of the Common wealth This is the case between the Romanists and us upon these two hinges this controversy is moved Then to leave the Thesis and come unto the Hypothesis and to shew that at that time there was a reall necessity for the making of those Laws First let it be observed that after the secession of the English Church from the Court of Rome the succeeding Popes have for the most part looked upon England with a very ill eye Witness that terrible and unparalleled excommunication and interdiction of England a deprivation of Henry the eighth formerly mentioned published at Dunkirk because they durst bring it no neerer Witness the Bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their oaths of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceeding Witness the Popes negotiations with the English Spanish French and Portugheses to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther and the frame of the Government altered published at Rome by Hieronimo Catena Secretary to Cardinall Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth Witness the Logantine authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his Rebellion And the Phaenix plume sent to Terowen to incourage him likewise in his Rebellion and a plenary Indulgence for him and all his adherents and assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King Iames from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman catholick Interest This is not all In the second place the Popes to have the greater influence upon England did themselves found or conserve severall Colleges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway where the English youth were trained up more for the advantage of the Pope than of their Prince and native Countrie What those Principles were which were then infused into them I have neither means at present nor in truth desire to inquire because I hope that at this day they are disclaimed by all or the most learned and moderate persons of those Societies Only for the justification of my native Countrie give me leave to set downe some of them in the words of the former learned Historiographer Suspicions also were daily raised by the great number of Priests creeping more and more into England who privily felt mens mindes spread abroad That Princes excommunicate were to be deposed and whispered in corners That such Princes as professed not the Roman Religion had forfeited their Title and Regall Authority That those men which had entered into holy Orders were by a certain ecclesiasticall freedome exempted from all Iurisdiction of Princes and not bound by their Laws nor ought to reverence their Majesty And that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole World yea even in temporall matters And that the Magistrates of England were no lawfull Magistrates and therefore not to be accounted for Magistrates Yea that all things whatsoever done by the Queens authority from the time that the Bull declaratory of Pius quintus was published were by the Laws of God and Man altogether void and to be esteemed nothing And some of them dissembled not that they were returned into England with no other intent then by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oathes of allegiance and obedience to the Queen Judg how such Emissaties deserved to be welcomed into a Kingdome More might be added but this it self is enough or too much Lastly View all the Treasons and Rebellions that were in Queen Elizabeth's time and see from what source they did spring Parsons proposed to Papists the deposing of the Queen so far forth that some of them thought to have delivered him into the Magistrates hands And wrote a Book under the name of Doleman to intitle the Infanta of Spain to the Crown of England Of Sanders I have spoken formerly Only let me add this That when he was found dead they found in his pouch Orations and Epistles to confirme the Rebells with promise of assistance from the Bishop of Rome and others Parre confessed That that which finally setled him in his treasonable purpose to kill the Queen was the reading of Allens Book that Princes excommunicated for Heresie were to be deprived of life Ballard was himself a Priest of the Seminarie of Rhemes See his conspiracy I pass by the commotions raised in Scotland by Bruce Creiton and Haies Squire accused Walpoole for putting him upon it to poyson the Queen I speake not of the confession of Iohn Nicholas nor the testimonie of Eliot mentioned in their own Apology because they are not of undoubted faith This is most certain That when Campian was interrogated before his death whether Queen Elizabeth were a lawfull and rightfull Queen he refused to answer And being asked If the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope he openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope The same Author addeth That his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some treachery Lay all these together their disloyall answers their seditious tenets so many treacherous attempts so many open Rebellions so many depositions and deprivations and exclusions so many Books brim-full of prodigious treason At such a time when the seditious opinions of that party were in their Zenith when seditious persons crowded over daily in such numbers when the Heir apparent of the Crown of England was a Roman Catholick And let any reasonable man judge whether the Kingdome of England had not just cause of feare whether they were not necessitated to provide nequid detrimenti caperet Respublica that the Commonwealth should sustain no loss whether our Statesmen who did then sit at the sterne were not obliged to their Prince and to their Countrie to provide by all means possible for the security of their Prince and tranquility of their Countrie which could not be done at that time without the exclusion of such Bigots and Bowtifeus from among them nor they be possibly excluded but by such severe Lawes These are the very reasons given in the Edict it self That it did plainly appear to her Majesty and her Councell by many examinations by their own Letters and confessions and by the actuall conspiracies of the like
so they place him not so high as Christ nor make him Superior to the whole conjoint college of Apostles The truth is this King Ina builded a magnificent Temple at Glastenbury to the honor of Christ and memory of St. Peter and St. Paul and upon the same caused some verses to be engraven wherein St. Peter and St. Paul were compared together Doctior hic monitis celsior ille gradu or St. Paul was more learned but St. Peter higher in degree St. Paul opened the hearts St. Peter the eares St. Paul opened heaven by his Doctrine St. Peter by his Keyes St. Paul was the way St. Peter the gate St. Peter was the rock St. Paul the Architect Theologicall truths ought not to be founded upon Poeticall licence He knows right well that their own Doctors doe make St. Paul equall in all things to St. Peter except in primacy of order We acknowledge that St. Peter was the beginning of unity why then might he not have the first place according to his primacy of Order But the question between them and us is of another nature concerning a supremacy of Power When St. Peters Nets were full he did but beckon and his fellows came to partake But the Court of Rome use him more hardly For whatsoever was ever said or done to his honour or advantage rests not upon his person who was still no more but a fellow of the Apostolicall college but devolves wholly upon his Successors to make them Monarchs of the Church and Masters of all Christians They suffered their Bishops to teach That St. Peter had a Monarchy Was next after Christ the foundation of the Church And that neither true Faith nor good Life would save out of the unity of the Roman Church As if our Ancestors had ever understood the Roman Church in that sense which they doe now for the universall Church or heard of their new coyned distinction of a mediate and immediate foundation as if Saint Peter was laid immediatly upon Christ and all the rest of the Apostles upon Saint Peter or as if the Court of Rome were Saint Peters sole Heir If their Bishops had taught any such Doctrine in the Councells of Constance and Basile they would have gone near to have been censured for Hereticks unless they had explained themselves better then he doth Though it is true that after the Popes by violence and subtlety had gained so much upon the World as to be able to impose new upstart Oaths first upon Archbishops and then upon Bishops inconsistent with their Oaths of Allegiance and had falsified the very forms of their own Oaths from regulas sanctorum Patrum the rules of the holy Fathers to regalia sancti Petri the Royalties of Saint Peter then they had the Bishops bound hand and foot to their devotion But who were these Bishops What were their names What were their words Who were the Kings that suffered them Nay he telleth us not but leaveth us in the dark first to divine what was his dream and then to shew him the interpretation of it Only he referreth us to a treatise of his own called the flowers of the English Church which I never see nor heard of but from himself If there be any thing that is pertinent and deserveth an answer had it not been as easie to have cited his Authors as himself in the margent When his latent testimonies come to be viewed and examined it will be found that his Monarchy is nothing but a primacy or principality of Order his foundation a respective not an absolute foundation and his Roman Church the Catholick Church Or else it will appear that instead of gathering flowers he hath been weeding the Doctors of the Church They admitted Legates of the Pope whom he sent to examine the faith of the English Church The intended Pope was Pope Agatho The pretended Legate was Iohn the precentor whom the Pope sent into England at such time as the Heresie of Eutyches was frequent in the orientall parts ut cujus esset fidei Anglorum Ecclesia diligenter edisceret that he should learn out diligently what was the faith of the English Church He saith not to examine juridically but to learn out diligently This Iohn his supposed Legate had no more power then an ordinary Messenger Well a Synod was called by whom by the supposed Legate No but by the English Who presided in it the pretended Legate No but Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury There is not the least footstep of any forrein Jurisdiction or Authority in the whole business They caused divers Bishopricks to be erected at the commandement of the Pope If it had been proper for the Pope or if he had had power to have erected them himself why did he put it upon others To command them to erect new Bishopricks had been a power paramount indeed This was more then to execute the Canons The history is recited not in the ninth chapter but in the fifth chapter of the second Book of William of Malmesburie de Gestis Regum Anglorum not as his own relation but transcribed out of a nameless Writer verbis eisdem quibus inveni scripta interseram In the dayes of Edward the elder the Region of the West-Saxons had wanted Bishops upon what ground doth not appear per septem annos plenos seven whole years And it may be that some of the Bishopricks had been longer vacant perhaps ingrossed by the Bishops of Winchester and Shireborne which two I finde to have been alwaies of great note in the Court of the West-Saxon Kings The ground of my conjecture is the words of the Author Quod olim duo habuerunt in quinque diviserunt What two for â—ome space of time had possessed they divided into five Formosus the then Pope resented this R. C. remembers what tragicall stirres he made at Rome but as to this particular a better man might have done a worse deed He sent his Letters into England misit in Angliam Epistolas and it seemeth that they were very high quid a Papa Formoso praeceptum sit but praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction as well as a commandement And again dabat excommunicationem maledictionem Regi Edwardo omnibus Subjectis ejus he bestowed an excommunication and a curse upon King Edward and all his Subjects Why what had the poor Subjects offended or King Edward for any thing that appeareth This was sharp work indeed the first summons an excommunication with a curse A man of Formosus his temper who was indeed a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church though he violated his oath to obtain it and who supposed himself to be not only the Patriarch of Britaine but a Master of misrule in the Church might adventure farre But to doe him right I doe not beleeve that this was any formall sentence that had been too palpably unjust before a citation I remember not that any other Author mentions it which they would have done
been spoken in R. C. his sense yet Ealred was but one Doctor whose authority is not fit to counterbalance the publick Laws and Customes and Records â—f a whole Kingdome Neither doth it appear â—hat they who sate at the sterne in those dayes did either suffer it or so much as know of it Books were not published then so soon as they were written but lay most commonly dormient many years or perhaps many ages before they see the Sun But Ealred his sense was not the same it could not be the same with R. C. his No man in those dayes did take the Church of Rome for the Roman Catholick or Universall Church but for the Diocess of Rome which their best protectors doe make to be no otherwise infallible then upon supposition of the inseparability of the Papacy from it which Bellarmine himself confesseth to be but a probable opinion Neque Scriptura neque traditio habet sedem Apostolicam ita fixaem esse Romae ut inde auferré non possit There is neither Scripture nor Tradition to prove that the Apostolick See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed from it Therefore these words of Ealred cannot be applyed to this present question because the subject of the question is changed And if they be understood simply and absolutely of an universall communion with the Church of Rome both present and future they are unfound in the judgment of Bellarraine himself It remains therefore that they are either to be understood of communicating in essentials and so we communicate with the Church of Rome at this day Or that by the Church of Rome Ealred did understand the Church of Rome of that age whereas all those exceptions which we have against them for our not communicating with them actually in all things are either sprung up since Ealreds time or at least since that time made or declared necessarie conditions of their communion Lastly I desire the Reader to take notice that these words of Ealred doe contain nothing against the politicall Supremacy of Kings nor against the liberties of the English Church nor for the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over England and so might have been passed by as impertinent They endited their Letters to the Pope in these words Summo universali Ecclesiae Pastori Nicholao Edwardus Dei gratia Angliae Rex debitam subjectionem omnimodum servitium It seemeth that the Copies differ some have not Pastori but Patri nor universali but universalis Ecclesiae and no more but obedientiam for omnimodum servitium But let him read it as he list it signifies nothing There cannot be imagined a weaker or a poorer argument then that which is drawn from the superscription or subscription of a Letter He that enrolls every man in the catalogue of his friends and servants who subscribe themselves his loving or obliged friends or his faithfull and obedient servants will finde his friends and servants sooner at a feast then at a fray Titles are given in Letters more out of custome and formality then out of judgment and truth The Pope will not stick to endite his Letter To the King of the Romans and yet suffer him to have nothing to doe in Rome Every one who endited their Letters to the high and mighty Lords the States Generall did not presently beleeve that was their just Title before the King of Spains resignation Titles are given sometimes out of curtesie sometimes out of necessity because men will not lose their business for want of a complement He that will write to the great Duke of Muscovia must stile him Emperour of Russia How many have lost their Letters and their labours for want of a mon Frere or mon Confine my Brother or my Cousin It were best for him to quit his argument from superscriptions otherwise he will be shewed Popes calling Princes their Lords and themselves their Subjects and Servants yea Princes most glorious and most excellent Lords and themselves Servants of Servants that is Servants in the snperlative degree They will finde Cyprian to his brother Cornelius health and Justinian to John the most holy Archbishop of the City of Rome Patriarch Did St. Cyprian beleeve Cornelius to be his Master and stile him Brother or owe obedience and service and send but health Had is been comely to stile an ecclesiasticall Monarch plaine Archbishop and Patriarch and for the Christian World to set down only the Citie of Rome But what doth he take hold on in this superscription to their advantage Is it the word summo That cannot be it is confessed generally that the Bishop of Rome had priority of order among the Patriarchs Or is it the word universali Neither can that be all the Patriarchs were stiled oecumenicall or universall not in respect of an universall power but their universall care as Saint Paul saith The care of all the Churches did lie upon him and their presidence in generall Councels It cannot be the word Pastori all Bishops were anciently called Pastors Where then lies the strength of this Argument In the words due subjection No. There is subjection to good advise as well as to just commands The principall Patriarchs bore the greatest sway in a generall Councell in that respect there was subjection due unto them The last words all forts of service are not in some Copies and if they were verborum ut nummorum as they are commonly used as well from Superiors to their Inferiors as from Inferiors to their Superiors they signifie nothing I wonder he was not afraid to cite this superscription considering the clause in Pope Nicholas his letter to King Edward Vobis veroì posteris vestris Regibus committimus Advocationem tuitionem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostrâ cum consilio Episcoporum Abbatum constituas ubique quae justa sunt King Edward by the fundamentall Law of the Land was the Vicar of God to govern the Church of God within his dominions But if he had not here is a better title from the See of Rome it self then that whereby the King of Spain holds all the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Sicily to him and his heirs at this day They professed that it was Heresie to deny that the Pope omni praesidet creaturae is above every creature That is no more then to say that the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter is principium unitatis the beginning of unity or hath a principality of order not of power above all Christians It will be hard for him to gain any thing at the hands of that wife and victorious Prince Edward the third who disposed of Ecclesiastical dignities received homage and fealty from his Prelats who writ that so much admired Letter to the Pope for the liberties of the English Church cui pro tunc Papa aut Cardinales rationabiliter respondere nesciebant to which the Pope and
shew that the Britannick Churches were free from all forrein jurisdiction for the first six hundred yeers and so ought to continue For the clearing of which point I shewed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle but in the Apostolicall college I shewed that in the age of the Apostles and the age next succeeding the highest Order in the Church under the Apostles were nationall Protarchs or Patriarchs And by what means and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarchs came to be exalted above the rest and to obscure their fellowes But each of these within their own Patriarchates did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior As might be made clear by many instances when Athanasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope Iulius for their restitution I meddle not with the merits of the cause the Bishops of the East took the reprehension of Iulius as a contumely they called a Councell at Antioch they accused Iulius sharply and shewed that he had nothing to doe to contradict them more then they did contradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church Neither did the great Protopatriarchs challeng this independency only but other lesser Patriarchs also as Saint Cyprian When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in Africk addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickednesse or if it displease them and they fall from it they know whether to return for whereas it is decreed by us all and it is equall and just that every ones cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor which he is to govern and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitfull rashnesse But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes unlesse the authority of the African Bishops who have sentenced them already seem to a few desperate cast awaies to be inferior c. To say with Bellarmine that Saint Cyprian speaks only of the first instance is to contradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith expressely that the cause had been sentenced already in Africk Then I shewed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syllogisme Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ ought to continue free and exempted for ever notwithstanding the subsequent usurpation of any forrein Prelate or Patriarch This was clearly and irrefragably proved out of the words of the Councel it self And if the Bishop of Rome did intrude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper and can never prescribe to a legall possession according to the famous rule of the Law Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto But the Britannick Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their silence upon whom the proofe in law doth rest being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Britain or any of the Britannick Islands for the first six hundred yeares and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. years When the Popes Legate would have entred into Scotland to visite the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him to doe so alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such neither would he suffer it and therefore willed him at his own perill to forbear Secondly by priority of foundation the Britannick Church being the elder Sister and ancienter then the Roman and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning that was before there was a Roman Church Thirdly it was proved by the right of ordination and election of all our Primats For all other right of Jurisdiction doth follow or pursue the right of Ordination But it is most evident that all our British Primates or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius St. David Samson c. not only in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even untill the time of Henry the first after the eleven hundreth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth Semper tamen c. Yet alwayes untill the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England Henry the first the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. Davids And he likewise was consecrated by other Bishopâ— as his Suffragans without professing any manner of subjection to any other Church But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus the reverend and learned Abbat and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor and from the solemn Sentence or Decree of two British Synods in the point recorded by all our Historiographers who write the Acts of those times I confess he nâ—bles here and there at some odde ends of this discourse but taketh no â—â—ner of notice of the main grounds especially the two British Synods which are express in the point and the Answer of Dionâ—thus that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope or to receive Austin for their Archbishop That as for that man whom they called the Pope they oâ—â—gâ—â—t 〈◊〉 no obedience but the obedience of love that they were immediately under God subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon But let us take a view of his exceptions First he saith That Bellarmine hath not these words That Christ in saying these words As my Father sent use so send I you did endue his Apostles with all fullness of power that mortall men were capable of Neither did I cite his words but his sense as he might see by the Character but that Bellarmine said as much or more then this I will now make it good Let him speak for himself Therefore that the Apostles received theâ—r Iurisdiction immediately from Christ first the words of our Lord doe testifie John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you which place the Fathers Crysostome and Theophylact doe so expound that they say plainly that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of
nothing of Jurisdiction From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland And not forgetfull of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto we finde nothing but Preaching and Converting and Christening not one syllable of any Jurisdiction Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kinde and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act Then certainly there were none in those dayes Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots is disputable But this is certain that whithersoever he was sent he was rejected and shortly after died In whose place succeeded St. Patrick Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon c. came to St. Patrick and declared it who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator straightway took ship c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion He saith The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagian Heresie and both Britans Scots Picts and Irish willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes nor denyed that they had any authoritie over them I am wearie of so many impertinencies Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church but of their charity and devotion which we wish their Successors would imitate I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus If it were so it concernes not this cause But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod to assist the Britans their neighbours against the Pelagians And it is most probable for they were both French Bishops St. German of Anxewe Lupus of Troyes Baronius labours to reconcile these two different relations thus It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod or it may be that Caelestine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased Admit either of these suppositions was true it will bring no advantage to his cause but much disadvantage If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch it is not credible that the Britannick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours and not at all to their Superior He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes He is still dreaming of Legates if they were Legates they were the Synods Legates not the Popes As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church which they sent to help them were Legates eodem tempore ex Britanniâ directa Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance Had they not reason to wellcome them whom themselves had invited who were come only upon their occasion Or what occasion had they to deny their authority who neither did usurpe any authority nor pretend to any authority They came to dispute not to judge Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes Apostolical Bishops not from their mission but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria authoritas c. That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons is most true that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them is most untrue Touching the precise time of his coming Historiographers doe not agree exactly All accord that it was about the six hundreth year of Christ a little more or less Before this time Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was After this time we confess that the Bishops of Rome by the consent or connivence of the Saxon Kings as they came to be converted by degrees did pretend to some formalities of right or authority over the English Church at first in matters of no great consequence as bestowing the Pall or the like But without the consent or against the good pleasure of the King they had no more power at all Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius primate of Britain was Legate of the See Apostolick I should sooner have beleeved it if he had proved it out of Gildas who lived in or about the age of Dubritius then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth who lived so many hundred years after his death whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur and resigned his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur not of the Pope King Arthur began his reign as it is commonly computed about the year 516. perhaps something sooner or later according to different accounts But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus from whence we demonstrate our exemption And so it can neither advantage his cause nor prejudice ours We are told of store of Roman Legats yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction pretended to be done by any of them Certainly either they were no Papall Legates or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any legantine Court or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes St. Samson saith he had a Pall from Rome wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether and my words also I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ but the abuse of it that is the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches When they would not suffer an Archbishop duely ellected and invested to exercise his function untill he had bought a Pall from Rome I know the contrary that they were in use formerly But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour conferred by Christian Emperours upon the Church namely Constantine and Valentinian as is most probable or assumed by Patriarches is a disputable point This is certain other Patriarches and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times which they received not from Rome This Samson was Archbishop of Wales and had his Pall But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome It may be that they had
it from their first conversion or rather that the British Primates themselves assumed it in imitation of forrein Patriarchs as they might well doe This Pall he carried with him into lesser Britain in the time of an Epidemicall sickness and such extreme mortallity ut mortui aegros aegri integros tum metu tum tabe infecerint so that the dead did infect the sick the sick infect the sound both with fear and contagion That the same Bishop never returned to his See again appears to me more then probable by this that his Successors for many ages reteined their metropoliticall dignity but ever after wanted the use of their Pall. Certainly he who was so carefull of his Pall when he forsooke his See would have been more carefull to have brought it back with him when he returned to his See What time this Samson lived and when that contagious sickness raged so cruelly is more doubtfull whether it was in the reign of Maglocunus the fifth or in the reign of Cadwallader the ninth in succession after King Arthur or long after both these Giraldus Cambrensis makes him to be the five and twentieth Archbishop after St. David sederunt a tempore David successivis temporum Curriculis Archiepiscopi ibidem viginti quinque c. the last of which was this Samson And then followes Tempore Samsonis hujus pallium in hunc modum est translatum c. In the time of this Samson the Pall was transported after this manner The pestilence increasing throughout Wales during his incumbencie whereof the people died by heapes c. The same is testified by Roger Hoveden in the life of King Iohn that this Samson whom he makes the four and twentieth Archbishop after St. David flying from an infectious yellow jaundice did transport with himself into Little Britain the Pall of St. David c. So R. C. had need to retract his rash censure of me that I said untruly That the Pall was first introduced in the reigns of the Saxon Kings for neither did I say so neither doth he prove that it was not so A few of these histories would quickly spoil the Popes market for his Palls The Menevoan Archbishops had but one Pall that was Saint Davids Pall for him and all his Successors whereas the Pope compells every succeeding Archbishop to buy a new Pall. King Iames doth not at all speak of the Bishop of Romes right but how far himself would condiscend for peace sake which words being expresly used by the King in the place alleged are guilefully omitted by R. C. Much less doth he speak of any supremacy of power or submission to the Popes Jurisdiction in any of the cases controverted betweene us and them Our differences are not about any branches of Patriarchall Power If they like King Iames his proposition why doe they not accept it If they like it not why doe they urge it A Church may be and is usually called a mother Church in two senses either because it is the Church of a Metropolis or Mother-City and so no man can deny but the Church of Rome among many others is a prime Mother-Church Or else because it hath converted other Churches to the Christian Faith And so also we acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a Mother-Church to sundry of our Saxon Churches and a Sister to the British Church but a Mistris to no Church I shewed clearly that that Power which the Bishops of Rome doe challenge aud usurp at this day is incompatible and inconsistent with true Patriarchall Power that thereby they themselves have implicitly quitted and disclaimed that true Power which was conferred upon them by the Catholick Church So by seeking to turn spirituall Monarchs they had lost their just Title of Patriarchs But withall that Britain was never rightly a part of their Patriarchate To this he answers nothing but objects That this is to depose all the Popes since Boniface the third for more then a thousand year and say that they have all lost their Patriarchate And cries out O intolerable presumption Thus he confoundeth Papall and Patriarchall Power making things inconsistent to be one and the same thing If they have lost their Patriarchall Power it is their own fault who quitted it it is his fault who doth no better defend it With as much reason he might plead that he who saith that a Rector of a Church by accepting of a new incompatible Benefice had quitted his old doth deprive him of his former Benefice Or that he who saith the King of Spain hath quitted his Title to the united Provinces doth thereby depose him from his Monarchy O intollerable mistake I said not ignorantly but most truly that the British I will adde also the Scotish Church for many hundred years sided with the Eastern Church in the observation of Easter He saith That they did not side entirely with them Neither did I say they did They observed Easter alwaies upon Sunday which Polycrates and those Asiaticks that joined with him did not And so they had nothing common with the Jews those parricides as Constantine the great calls them who murthered Christ and herein they did joyn with the Roman Church but it is as evident that they did not observe it upon the same Sundy with the Church of Rome This is clear by those two British Synods mentioned by venerable Bede This being one of Austins propositions to them that they should conform themselves to the Roman Church in the observation of Easter and after solemn discussion altogether rejected by them That in this they sided with the Eastern Church appeareth as evidently by the publick conferrence between Colman and Wilfrid about this very businesse wherein Coleman did expressely and professedly maintain the tradition from Saint Iohn before the tradition from Saint Peter Lastly to say that this manner of observing Easter was but risen in Scotland a little before the yeer 638 upon the authority of Pope Iohn is ridiculous For it is most evident that it was as ancient as their Christianity contrary to reason for the Britans and Scots had no commerce with the Orientall Christians in those daies and contrary to authority for Colman in that disputation did derive it from Saint Iohn the Apostle CHAP. 6. Sovereign Princes in some cases have power to change the externall Regiment of the Church IF the Reader doth not finde so much in this Replie as he desires and expects let him blame R. C. who according to his custome omitteth all the chiefest grounds and the whole contexture of my discourse only snatching here and there at a word or a peice of a sentence I shall deal more fairly with him In the first place I complain that besides the omitting of those main principles whereupon my discourse in this Chapter is grounded which are received by both parties he doth me wrong in stating of the question For whereas I set down four conditions
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
would content himself therewith But the chief grounds of our separation are those which are inherent in the Papacy it self qua talis as it is now defended as they seek to obtrude it upon us the lawless exorbitant oppression of the Roman Court the sovereignty of the Pope above general Councels his legislative and judiciary Power in all Christian Kingdomes against the will of the right owners his pretended right to convocate Synods and confirm Synods and dissolve Synods and hold legantine Courts and obtrude new points of Faith as necessary Articles and receive the last appeals and dispose of all ecclesiasticall Dignities and Benefices at his pleasure and impose Tenths and first-Fruits and Subsidies and Pensions to invest Bishops and sell Pardons and Indulgences and Palls These and the like are not the Faults of Innocent the tenth or Vrban the eighth or Sextus or Pius or Alexander or Clement or any pâ—rticular Pope But they are the Faults of the Pâ—pacy it self woven into the body of it and without the acknowledgement of which they will suffer us to hold no communion with the Papacy I doe not say that they are insepâ—rable for the time hath been when the Papacy was without those Blemishes but that it is folly at this time to hope from them for the anceient liberty of the Church as the Country-man expected that the river should be râ—n out and become drie Rusticus expectat ut defluat amnis at ille Labitur labetur in omne volubilis aevum We expected remedy and hoped for reformation from the time of Henry the first in whose reign their encroachments did begin to grow signall and notorious untill the daies of Henry the eighth throughout the reigns of seventeen succeeding Kings and found not the least ease from them but what we carved out our selves No Law of God or man doth require that we should wait eternally The Lord of the Vineyard thought three years enough to expect fruit of the fruitless Figtree and when it improved not in the fourth year the Sentence issued against it cut it down why cumbreth it the ground He urgeth that if some Popes have wronged England temporally far more Popes have benifited it much more both temporrally and spiritually Sufficit unus huic operi This were more comely in our mouths then in theirs Some man would goe make an estimate of Papall Importations as Parchment and Lead and Wax and Crosses Agnus dei's and Reliques And their Exportations Gold Silver Jewels and whatsoever the land afforded either for necâ—ssity or delight But I will spare his modesty and suppose more then ever he will be able to prove Ancient virtues or benefits do not justifie an old institution when it is grown useless and subject to desperate abuses The brasen Serpent was instituted by God himself it was a singular type of Christ it saved the temporall lives of the Israelites and pointed them out the right way to eternall life Yet when it was become useless and abused over much Hezekiah is commended for breaking it in pieces and calling it Nehushtan an useless piece of common brass that had quite lost its ancient virtue The Order of the Templers was instituted about the year 1120. Scarcely any Order can shew such an hopefull beginning at their first institution or such an huge progress towards grearness in so short a revolution of time He who shall read these extraordinary praises which are given them by St. Bernard who is thought to have been the Author of their rule will take them rather to have been a Society of Angels then of mortall men Yet in the daies of Clement the fifth they were generally suppressed throughout the whole world as it were in an instant not for common faults but horrid crimes and prodigious vilanies by the joint consent of the occidentall Church and sovereign Princes I inquire not whether their accusation was just or not but from hence I doe collect that in the judgement of this occidentall world a good institution may be deservedly abrogated for subsequent abuses As we had not the same latitude of power which they who censured them hâ—d so we did not act without our own Sphear or the Bounds of the English Dominions In the vindication I urged three points wherein the Romans doe agree with us First that sovereign Princes not only may but in justice are obliged to repress the tyrany of ecclesiasticall Judges and protect their Subjects from their violence and free them from their oppressed Yoke To this he answereth nothing Secondly that Princes may be inabled either by grant or by prescription I added by their sovereign authority over the whole Body politick to exercise all externall ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction by themselves or by fit Delegates and to make ecclesiasticall Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church to which their Subjects owe obedience This alone were sufficient to free us from Schism But to all this likewise he saith not one word good or bad Thirdly that it is lawfull in severall cases to substract obedience from the Pope And among other proofs I cited the Councell of Towers To this only he answers That they acknowledged it lawfull to withdraw obedience from this or that Pope in this or that case but not from Papall Authority it self Whereas I shewed him in the vindication that the same equitie which doth allow substraction of obedience from this or that Pope for personall faults as Schisme or Simony doth likewise allow substraction of obedience from him and his Successors for faulty Principles as obtruding new Creeds pressing of unlawfull Oathes palpable usurpation of undoubted Rites even untill they be reformed Papall Authority without the Pope is but an imaginary idea whosoever substracts obedience from the true Pope substracts obedience from the Papall Authority Perhaps indeed not simply or absolutely but respectively as he saith in this or that case But what if the Pope will not suffer them to pay their obedience in part so far as it is due but have it entire according to his own demands or none at all Then it is not they who separate themselves from Papall Authority but it is Papall Authority which separates them from it Either he understands Papall Authority such as it ought to be de jure and then we have substracted no obedience from it for we ought it none and are not unwilling for peace sake to pay it more respect then we doe owe. Or else by Papall Authority he understands a spirituall Monarchy such as it is now with superiority above generall Councells and infallibility of Judgement and legislative Authority and patronage of all ecclesiasticall Preferments c. And then the universall Church did never acknowledge any such Papall Authority And then to withdraw our obedience from it is not to substract obedience from a lawfull but from an unlawfull and tyrannicall Power When sovereign Princes doe withdraw obedience from this or that Pope in this or that
case they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome as whether the Pope have invaded their priviledges or usurped more Authority then is due unto him or in contemning his censures which the Councell of Towers doth expresly allow them to doe and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not Yeeld thus much and the question is at an end That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties and of papall oppressions and usurpations and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit That Papall Authority is instituted immediately by God but not Regall Cujus contrarium verum est He was once or seemed to be of another minde For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they Kings receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters Saint Paul saâ—th expresly speaking of civill Powers The Powers that be are ordeined of God and whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God and reign by God then they are instituted by God Therefore they are justly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things He who said by me Kings reign never said by me Popes reign Kings may inherit by the Law of man or be elected by the Suffrages of men But the Regall Office and Regall Power is immediately from God No man can give that which he himself hath not The People have not power of Life and Death That must come from God By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their power to make one Father of a Country to whom doth he owe his power but to God from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ his Patriarchall power from the Church and Monarchicall power from himself After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers the subjection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mauritius the Emperor though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors and the translation of primacies by our Kings And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation first the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England Secondly their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures Thirdly because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall discipline Fourthly sundry other inconveniences to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome to have approved the Popes rebellion against generall Councels and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations Lastly the priviledge of the Britannick Churches the Popes disclaiming all his Patriarchall authority and their challenging of all this by Divâ—ne right which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome Lastly I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done All this he passeth by in silence as if it did not concern the cause at all Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope the Papacy and the Roman Church which hath been so often confuted already and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes As if all these things which are mentioned here and set down at large in the vindication were but some infirmitives or some petty faults of some few Popes I have shewed him clearly that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes but the faults of the Papacy it self And as for forsaking the Church of Rome he doth us wrong I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place that we have not forsaken it but only left their Communion in some points wherein they had left their Ancestors we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church a Mother to the Saxon Church but as a Lady or Mistrisse to no Church Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation to shew that they were insufficient The new Creed of Pius the 4 th and the withholding the Cup from the Laity Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds bâ—sides these Yet I confesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest First saith he The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation because the separation was made before the Creed He saith true if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed that did offend us But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary conditions of their Communion So as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the 4 th dealt in grosse his predecessors by retaile They fashioned the severall rods and he bound them up into a bundle He saith That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick persons as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed proposed by them to Ministers Pius the 4 th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks Seculars and Regulars to swear to his new Creed but he imposed it upon all Christians as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest they are the very words of the Bull as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved This is a greater Obligation then an Oath and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolicall Creed We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths extra quam non est salus without which there is no Salvation nor injoin Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as theologicall
World Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssene Russian Protestant which after all their brags of amplitude and universality is three times greater then themselves I desire no fairer issue between him and me I doe from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the World doth beleeve and practise And if I should erre in my judgement what the Catholick Church is as I am confident that he and his fellowes doe erre though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement I doe furthermore proâ—ess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me This is sufficient to preserve me from being a Schismatick This is sufficient for the salvation of a Christian. He telleth us indeed sometimes that the Roman Church is the true Catholick Church and is diffused all over the World Let him take Roman in the largest sense he can yet still it is but a particular Church of one denomination not Catholick or Universall Whom have they of their Communion in the large Abystene Empire consisting of seventeen Kingdomes Not one Whom have they of their Communion in the Russian Empire neerer home Scarcely one Whom have they of their Communion in all the Eastern Churches perhaps two or three hand-fulls in comparison of those innumerable multitudes of Christians who are subject to the other Patriarchs Before they were so forward and positive in voting for themselves that they are the Catholick Church that they are the infallible Judge it had been meet that they had first agreed among themselves what this Catholick Church is to which every Christian is bound to submit whether it be the virtuall Church that is the Pope or the Pope jointly with his Conclave of Cardinalls or the Pope with a provinciall Councell or the Pope with a generall Councell that is the representative Church or a generall Councell without the Pope or lastly the essentiall Church dispersed over the face of the World for into so many opinions they are divided He addeth that these great multitudes of Christians whereof we speak are not united among themselves but divided in points of Faith in communion of Sacraments and the ministery of them Let Saint Austine answer him Acutum autem aliquid videris dicere cum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis Communione interpretaris sed ex observatione Praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum Thou seemest to thy self to speak very wittily when thou doest not interpret the Catholick Church by the Communion of the whole World but by the Catholick Faith and the right observation of all the Sacraments and true Discipline that is in their sense submission to the Roman Court This last badge which Saint Austin did not know is the only defect of those multitudes of Christians that they will not acknowledge the monarchicall Power of the Roman Bishop As we have seen by experience that when some few of these Eastern or Northern Christians have reconciled themselves to the See of Rome and acknowledged the Papacy they were streight adjudged Orthodox and sound Christians in all other things And the latter of these did provide expresly for themselves at the time of their submission that they would retein their Greekish Religion and Rites He himself in this very place confesseth them to agree in fundamentall points that is to be free from fundamentall errors And for other lesser Controversies they have not half so many among them as the Romanists among themselves As to his marginall note out of Turtullian That Heretici pacem cum omnibus miscent Hereticks mingle themselves with all Sects making it a Symtome of Heresie to be over easie in admitting others to their Communion I doe confess it is a fault indeed But first what doth this concern the Church of England Secondly the greater fault lies on the other hand to be over severe and over vigorous and censorious in casting out or holding others from their Communion and more dangerous to the Church of Christ. In this kinde offended the Donatists the Novatians the Luciferians of old And the Romanists at this day This hath more of the Patriarchall Garbe in it stand from me for I am holier then thou CHAP. 7. That all Princes and Republiks of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same things which King Henry did WE are come now unto his seventh Chapter wherein I am much beholden to him for easing me of the labour of replying For whereas I proved my intention at large by the Acts Laws and Decrees of the Emperors with their Councels and Synods and Electorall College by the Laws of France the Liberties of the Gallicane Church the Acts of their Parliaments and Declarations of their Universities by the practice of the King of Spain his Councels his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders by the sobbes of Portugall and their bleatings and the Judgment of the University of Lisbone by the Laws and Proclamations and other Acts of the Republick of Venice throughout 68 pages He vouchsafeth not to take notice of any one particular of all this except only some few heads of what I urged concerning the Emperors which he reciteth in lesse then one page and never attempts to answer one syllable of them in particular Yet are these so diametrally opposite to the pretended rights of the Pope his Legislative power his convocating of Synods his confirming Synods his sending out Bulls his receiving Appeals his Patronage of Churches his Pardons and Dispensations his Exemption from all humane judgment his sending of Legates his Tenths and first Fruits his Superiority above generall Councels his Excommunications and in a word his whole Spirituall Sovereignty that nothing can be more opposite In these presidents we did clearly see that essentiall power and right of Sovereignty which I plead for in this Book to make Ecclesiasticall Laws for the externall regiment of the Church to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to reform Ecclesiasticall errors and abuses to be the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances to restrain Ecclesiasticall tyranny and to see that all Ecclesiasticall persons within their Dominions doe their duties And if these instances were not enough many more might be produced of the best Christian Princes Paul the third writ to Charles the fifth That the Decrees of Spira were dangerous to his Soul commands him to put away all disputes of Religion from the Imperiall Diet and referre them to the Pope to order nothing concerning Ecclesiasticall goods to revoke the grants made unto the Rebells against the See of Rome Otherwise he should be forced to use greater severity against him then he would Yet Cardinall de Monte was more angry then his Master saying That he would put his Holinesse in minde rather to abandon the See and restore the Keies to Saint Peter then suffer the Secular power to arrogate Authority to
might be saved without it namely all those who are invicibly ignorant of it But they swear expresly that no man can be saved without it And so make it to be an essentiall Article of the catholick Faith Thirdly he answereth that the Roman Church he should say the Roman Court doth not excommunicate all the Christians of Africk Asia Greece and Russia but only such as do erre vincibly or sinfully such as are formall or obstinate Hereticks or Schismaticks There are innumerable in those Churches who are but credentes Hereticis Schismaticis because the Catholick Faith was never sufficiently preached to them And these the Pope doth not excommunicate I wish he did not But his own Bull speaks the contrary that he excommunicates them all solemnly anniversarily with the greater excommunication The Bull makes no such distinction between Hereticks or Schismaticks and those who give credit to Hereticks or Schismaticks The Bull hath no such exception of those who erre out of invicible ignorance If the Grecians be not all excommunicated then by the same reason the Protestants are not all excommunicated there is no difference Yet he seemeth to extenuate their fault because the Faith was never sufficiently preached to them whereas in truth they hold the Popes declaration to be a sufficient proposall I doe not say that the efficacie of this rash censure doth extend either to them all or to any of them all But they owe no thanks to the Court of Rome for sparing them but to Christ for annulling their sentence So much as lyeth in them they exclude them all from the communion of Christians and all hope of salvation How cometh it to pass that he who pleaded but even now that a multitude ought not to be excommunicated on a sodain is contented to give way to the solemn annuall excommunication of such innumerable multitudes of Christians to whom himself confesseth that the catholick Faith he meaneththeir newly coyned Articles was never sufficiently preached Fourthly he answereth that the Pope doth not exclude them by his excommunication but only declares that they are excluded by their own Heresie or Sâ—hism It is a great question in the Schools whether any sentence of binding and loosing be more then declaratorie But this is certain that as to this case now in question between him and me it is all one whether the sentence of the Pope doe cut them off from the communion of the Catholick Church or only declare them to be cut off For still the same rupture or schismaticall separation of one part of the catholick Church from another doth follow thereupon If the Pope doe justly exclude them or declare them to be excluded the Schism lyeth at their own dores If the Pope doe either unjustly exclude them or declare them to be excluded the Schism lieth at his dore I know Ecclesiasticall Canons doe sometimes inflict penalties upon Delinquents ipso facto or by the sentence of he Law Sometimes they doe moreover require the sentence of the Judge The sentence of the Law takes place sooner then the sentence of the Judge But the Delinquent stands not legally convicted untill a juridicall declaration And in all such cases the Law must be confessed the fact notorious But in this case of the Eastern Churches there is no Law there is no Canon that inflicteth any penalty of Heresy or Schism upon them their Delinquency is not notorious or rather it is evident that they are no Delinquents They have no competent Judge except a general Councel whereof they make the greatest part themselves Finally the proceeding against them was illegall temerarious and coram non Iudice I said that for divers years in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign there were no Recusants known in England untill Papists were prohibited by a Bull to joyn with us in our publick form of serving God This he saith is most false If it be so I am more sorrie It was before my time But I have no reason to beleeve it to be false If I had the use of such Books as I desire I should shew great Authors for it And as it is I shall produce some not to be contemned who say not much less First I cite a Treatise printed at London by Iohn Day about the time when Pius the fifths Bull was published against Queen Elizabeth called the disclosing of the great Bull that roared at my Lord Bishops gate with a declaratorie addition to the same In hope of the successe of this Bull a number of Papists that sometimes did communicate with us or at the least came ordinarily to our publick prayers have of late forborne With which Author Mr. Camden agreeth who saith that the more modest Papists did foresee an heap of miseries hanging over their heads by the means of this Bull who formerly could exercise their own Religion securely enough within their own private houses or else without any scruple of Conscience were content to goe to Church to hear the English service The reason of this indifferencie and complyanee is set down by one of their own Authors because the Queen to remove as much as might be all scruples out of the Peoples heads and to make them think that the same Service and Religion continued still c. provided that in the Common Prayer Book there should be some part of the old frame still upheld c. by which dextrous mannagement of affairs the common People were instantly lulled a sleep and complyed to every thing Concerning that catalogue which he cites out of Mr. Camden of so many Papists that were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths time it makes nothing at all against that which I said They were not deprived for being Recusants or refusing to hear the English Service but for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacie as the same Author saith Neither is that account Mr. Camdens account but the account of the Roman Catholicks themselves His words are these The number if these according to their own account throughout the whole Kingdome Which account Mr. Camden doth in part correct and contradict For he telleth there of three popish Bishops that changed their Religion of their own accords the Bishops of Chester Worcester and St. Asaph But suppose this account were true what great matter was it for an hundred and ninety at the most of all ranks and conditions high or low to suffer deprivation for their Religion throughout the whole Kingdome of England wherein without his Abbats and his Abbesses which he reckons among the rest to make up the number there are above nine thousand Parish Churches besides all Dignitaries and Prebendaries of Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and Masters and Fellows of Colledges It was a very small inconsiderable proportion He will not vouchsafe our present sufferings the name of persecution yet there is neither the Citie of London nor either of our Universities wherein more of us have not suffered for our
Consciences then of Papists in those dayes throughout the whole Kingdome of England In the Citie of London alone we finde an hundred and twenty Pastors of Parish Churches whereof fourty were Doctors in Theologie turned out of their Benefices and homes plundred imprisoned and many of them dead under the burthen of their grievous pressures besides all the numerous Dignitaries Prebends and inferior Clergy men belonging to the Cathedrall Church of St. Paul and the Collegiate Church of St. Peter and their respective Quires I could say more touching your Romish Confessors at that time That they refused the Oath of Supremacy more out of compact then Conscience hoping by their unanimity and for fear of wanting means of ordination to necessitate the State to continue them all But when they see how miserably they were deceived and their Churches filled with such as were returned from banishment of whom they dreamed not conjurationis eos poenituit they repented of their foolish plot And when it was too late multi ad Iudices recurrunt contumaciam agnoscunt ac petunt sibi contra pontificem jurare licere many of them run to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the Oath as they had done in King Henries dayes But let the faith of this rest upon the Author To my third Argument he giveth no answer in his Survey but what was taken away in the vindication before it was made The sum of my Argument was this That Court which rebelleth against the highest tribunall of the Church assumeth a sovereign Power over it to it self is schismaticall but the Court of Rome rebelleth against the supreme Tribunall or Judicatory of the Militant Church that is the Representative Church or a general Councel The Reader will excuse me if I doe sometimes complicate two or three medios terminos together for brevity sake His first exception is That whereas I should prove that the Papacy is the cause of Schism I doe seek to prove that the Papacy is Schism To say the Papacy is Schism is non sense I hope I may have leave to write common sense But I did say and I doe say that the Court of Rome is in Schism or Schismaticall To say it is in Schism and to say it is the cause of Schism is the same thing for it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schism They who give just cause of separation are Schismaticall and they who take it are innocent Secondly he demandeth how the Papacy as it is now maintained by many could be a sufficient ground of separation to the Protestants especially of separation from the whole Roman Church I answer very well because it was then and two or three ages before that maintained in the same manner or rather an higher degree by the Court of Rome and some others of the Roman Church though not so many as at this day Our separation from the Court of Rome is totall and absolute because we know no legall Subjection which we owe to the Court of Rome But I know no such absolute separation on our parts from the Church of Rome but only a difference from them in their erroneous Opinions and a forbearance to practise some other things which are made by them conditions of their externall Communion wherein we cannot joyn with them with a good conscience The making of their errors to be essentialls and necessary conditions of Catholick Communion makes the breach appear greater then it is That this is clearly the sense of our Church I have shewed out of the thirtieth Canon So he comes to his main answer That to rebell against a complete generall Councell joyned with the Pope as Head thereof is gross Schism But not to resist an incomplete generall Councell without the Pope This answer is sufficiently confuted in the vindication first by the authority of Saint Gregory who makes it to be schismaticall in the Pope to challenge such an universall headship of Power Secondly by the Popes own Laws and by their professions of obedience to the Canons Thirdly by the Appeales made by Princes and Prelates and Universities from the Popes to generall Councells And lastly by the express Decrees of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the point To which I adde that those very Decrees of generall Councells which have been not only not ratified but opposed by the Popes have nevertheless been evermore received and obeyed as Lawes in the Catholick Church for the authority of the Councell As the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon for equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome was protested against by the Popes Legates in the name and on the behalf of their Master and yet was ever held and practised as an authentick Rule by the Catholick Church and reverenced by Saint Gregory as a part of the Gospell Iustinian the Emperor called the fifth generall Councell at which Vigilius the then Pope refused to be present or to give any consent unto it for which his frowardness he was banished by the Emperor This in R. C. his judgement was an incomplete generall Councell Yet in all succeeding ages and by the Popes themselves it was honored and esteemed as a true general Councell I confess a generall Councell was not held complete in the primitive times when such an assembly might be had without the presence of the five Protopatriarchs by themselves or their Deputies But to think that any one of these either the Roman Patriarch or any other had an Headship of Power over the Councell or a negative voice against the Councell is a most groundless fancy whereof we finde not the least footstep in all antiquity And therefore R. C. might well have forborn his comparison of King and Parliament as altogether impertinent The King was confessedly an Head of Power over the Parliament so was not the Pope over a generall Councell The King had evermore a negative voice in Parliament so had the Pope never in a generall Councell When the Parliament had made up their Billes they preferred them alwaies to the King by way of petition but the Bishops in a generall Councell by way of definition Ego A. definiens subscripsi In a generall Councell the President who is no more then a Prolocutor or Speaker in Parliament makes his last address to the body of the Councell in this sort placet aut non placet doth it please you or not But in Parliament after the Members have voted content or not content the last address must be to the King and he is free to say the King will have it or the King will advise If a generall Councell have not the Rites and Priviledges of a generall Councell unless the Pope be present as the Head thereof and concurre with it to what purpose were those questions so canvased in the Western Church whether a generall Councell be above the Pope and whether a generall Councell can depose
the Councel That there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent and ingageth himself to secure it The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany the redress which they sough was in Germany Germany not Italy had been the proper place for the Councel R. C. proceedeth the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope It may be so but not in a legall or judiciary way He confesseth That in doubtfull cases there ought to be four distinct persons the accuser the witness the person accused and the Iudge but not in notorious rebellion in which case there needs neither witness nor accuser And doth not this merit the reputation of a doubtfull case wherein so great a part of the occidental Church are ingaged who are ready to prove evidently that he who is their accuser and usurps the office of their Judge is the notorious Rebell himself I confess that in some cases the notority of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the Law to be Rebellion or Heresie or the like The Popes Rebellion hath been already condeâ—â—ed in the Councel of Constance and his heretical maintaining of it in the Councel of Basile But the Protestants renouncing of his usurped authority hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other Yet he saith The Protestants were condemned not only by the Councel of Trent but by the Patriarch of Constantinople to whom they appealed One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise would beleeve that the Protestants in general had appealed from the Councel of Trent and were juridically condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople Who gave the Appellants procuration to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the Appeal Where is the condemnation Is the English Church included therein No such thing The case was this One or two forrein particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them And he delivered his opinion it should seem as R. C. conceiveth more to the advantage of the Romanists thâ—n of the Protestants This he calleth an Appeal and a condemnation I crave pardon of the Reader if I doe not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarchs answer It is thirty years since I see it Neither doe I know how to procure it Thus farre I will charge my memorie that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated and the Patriarchs answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome then of the Church of England The right stating of the question is all in all When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way they will make them more apposite more to the purpose But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him goe I mean Cyrillus since the time of Hieremy whom that learned Gentleman Sir Thomas Roe then Ambassador for our late King at Constantinople had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church He published a Treatise of his own much about the year 1630 which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a confession of the Christian Faith so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England that it might seem rather to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury then by the Patriarch of Constantinople I will cull out a few flowers and make a posie for him to let him see whether the Patriarchs of Constantinople doe condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome In the second Chapter he declareth That the authority of the Scripture is above the authority of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for it is not equall or alike to be taught of the holy Ghost and to be taught of man In his tenth Chap. he declareth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall men can by no means be the head of the Church and that our Lord Iesus Christ alone is the head of it In the thirteenth Chapter he asserteth justification by Faith alone just according to the Doctrine of the Church of England In the fifteenth Chapter he acknowledgeth but two Sacraments In the seventeenth Chapter he professeth a true reall presence of Christ the Lord in the Eucharist just as we doe and rejecteth the nâ—w devise of transubstantiation In the eighteenth Chapter he disclaimeth purgatorie c. All this he declarâ—th to be the Faith which Christ taught the Apostles preached and the orthodox Church ever held and undertaketh to make it good to the World And after in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him he excludeth the Apocryphall Books out of the Canon of holy Scripture and condemneth the worship of Images In a word he is wholy ours And to declare to the World that he was so he resolved to dedicate his confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England When this Treatise was first published it is no marvel if the Court of Rome and the congregation for propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it and use their uttermost indevor to ruine him But he justified it before the Ambassadors of Roman Catholick Princes then remaining at Constantinople and came off fairly in despite of all those who did calumniate him and cast false aspersions upon him Besides his own autograph and the testimonies of the Ambassadors then present if there had been nothing else to justifie this truth the instructions given by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope alone had been sufficient proof and the plots which they contrived against him either to have him taken away by death or deposition For at the same time they decryed the Treatise here as supposititious and accused him there as criminous for being the Author of it But God delivered him out of their hands He pleadeth moreover That the Bishops assembled in Trent were not the Popes Ministers Yet he knoweth right well that they had all taken an Oath of obedience to the Pope for maintenance of the Papacy Were these equall Judges I confess there were many noble souls amongst them who did limit their Oath according to the Canons of the Church But they could doe nothing being over-voted by the Popes Clients and Pensioners He asketh who were the accusers witnesses and Iudges of the Pope in the Parliament 1534 but King Henry himself and his Ministers I answer that they were not King Henries Ministers but the Trustees of the Kingdome they were not sworn to maintain King Henrie's usurpations they acted not by a judiciary but by a legislative power neither did they make any new Law but only declare the ancient Law of the Land Otherwise they medled not with the person of
Common Prayer from the beginning as an appendix to it Upon this pretended omission Bishop Bonner excepts against Bishop Horne's Ordination nor against the validitie of it what have Parliaments to doe with the essentials of Ordination but against the legality of it as to the Realm of England by reason of the former pretended omission So to take away scruple the Parliament enacted that it should be deemed good in the eye of our English Law The Parliament knew well that they had no power to make that Ordination valid in it self which was invalid in it self nor to make that invalid which was valid This had been to alter the essentials of Ordination But they had power for more abundant caution which never doth hurt to take away that scruple which was occasioned by a Statute of Queen Mary which in truth was sufficiently removed before What is this now to our Registers whether they be authentick or not No we beg no help from any civil Acts or Sanctions to maintain our Ordinations either for matter or form But we are ready to justifie them by those very rules which he saith the Councel of Trent offered to the Protestants namely Scripture Tradition Councels Fathers and especially the practice of the catholick Church But he saith we are not ordered to offer true substantial sacrifice Not expresly indeed No more were they themselves for eight hundred years after Christ and God knows how much longer No more are the Greek Church or any other Christian Church in the World except the Roman at this day Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly ordeined and admit them to exercise all offices of their Priestly Function in Rome it self which was alleged by me in the vindication and is passed over in silence by R. C. in this survey The Greeks have no more mention of a Sacrifice in their Ordination then we The grace of God promotes such a venerable Deacon to be a Presbyter yet the Church of Rome approveth their Ordination and all their other Rites so they will but only submit to the Popes spiritual Monarchy as we have seen in the case of the Patriarch of Muzall and the Russians subject to the Crown of Polonia and the like favour was offered to Queen Elizabeth upon the same condition It is not so long since Pope Gregory erected a Greek College at Rome to breed up the youth of that Nation where they have liberty of all the Greekish Rites only acknowledging the Supremacy of the Pope But though we have not express words for offering of Sacrifice nor the tradition of the Patine and the Chalice no more had their own Ancestors for a thousand yeers yet we have these words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins thou doest remit they are remitted c. Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the Word and Sacraments then which the Scriptures and Fathers did never know more which their own Doctors have justified as comprehending all essentials which being jointly considered doe include all power necessarie for the exercise of the Pastoral Office We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving a commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross a representative Sacrifice or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eies of his heavenly Father an impetrative Sacrifice or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of reall Prayer and lastly an applicative Sacrifice or an application of his merits unto our soules Let him that dare goe one step further then we doe and say that it is a suppletorie Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever Yet in his margent he hath placed a cloud of our Doctors Whitakers Morton Chillingworth Potter Fulke Reinolds Latimer without citing a syllable of what they say saving only Latimer and Reynolds that the name of Priest importeth Sacrifice or hath relation to Sacrifice In good time to doe him a courtesie we will suppose that all the rest say as much Such Sacrifice such Priest Let the Reader learn not to fear dumb shews There is nothing which any of these say which will either advantage his cause or prejudice ours Here he professeth to omit the survey of my last chapter yet because he toucheth some things in it upon the by I am obliged to attend his motion First I wonder why he should term us fugitives If we be fugitives what is he himself No we are Exules excluded out of our Countrie not profugi fugitives of our own accord from our Countrie And we hope that he who goeth on his way weeping and beareth forth good seed shall return with joy and bring his sheaves with him If not God will provide a resting place for us either under heaven or in heaven We praise thee O God we acknowledg thee to be the Lord. In the conclusion of my Treatise I proposed three ready meanes for the uniting of all Christian Churches which seemed to me very reasonable One of them was That whereas some Sects have contracted the Christian Faith over much by reviving some Heresies condemned by the primitive Church and on the other side the Church of Rome had enlarged the Christian Faith over much by making or declaring new Articles of Faith in this last age of the World the Creed or Belief of the Church containing all points of Faith necessary to be known of all Christians should be reduced to what it was in the time of the first four generall Councells I might adde and many ages after No man dare say that the Faith of the primitive Fathers was imperfect or insufficient Against this he maketh three objections first That there are no such fundamentall points of faith as Protestants imagine sufficient to salvation though other points of faith sufficiently proposed be not beleeved This objection is compounded of truth and falsehood That there are such fundamentals he himself confesseth elsewhere which are necessary not only necessiate paecepti but necessitate medii And if he did not confess it the authority of the Apostle would evince it That the belief of these alone is sufficient for the salvation of them to whom no more is revealed he dare not denie And that the beleef of these is sufficient to them who doe not beleeve other truths which are reveled unto them no Protestants did ever imagine Observe how cunningly he confounds the state of the question The question is not what is necessarie for a man to beleeve for himself This is as different as the degrees of mens knowledg but what may lawfully be imposed upon all men or what may be exacted upon other men to whom it is not revealed or to whom we doe not know whether it be revealed or not Then if he would have objected any thing materiall to the purpose he should have said That the beleef of
Jurisdiction Secondly The Church and Kingdom of England had more lawful just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome then any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever as he cannot chuse but see in this very Chapter But who is so blind as he that will not see Thirdly We do confess that the Primitive Papacy that is an Exordium unitatis a beginning of unity was an excellent meanes of Concord We do not envy the Bishop of Rome or any Honour which the Catholick Church did allow him But moderne Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us is rather as Nilus saith the cause of all dissentions and Controversies of the Christian World Lastly To his demand concerning the English Court and Church Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelats I answer No But this will not advantage his cause at all for three Reasons First never were any such abuses as these objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Secondly we seek not the extirpation of the Papacy but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution Thirdly Monarchy and Episcopacie are of divine institution so is not a papall Sovereignty of Jurisdiction His parliamentary Prelacie hath more sound then weight We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacie as he will finde that undertakes it Sect. 6. We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome Reader observe and wonder All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds they have declaimed that there can be no just grounds of such a separation They have declared in the Hypothesis that we had no grounds but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads First The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court committed from age to age without hope of Remedy Secondly Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights Civil Ecclesiastical sacred and prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Thirdly the malignant influence and effects of this forreign jurisdiction destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline producing dis-union in the Realm factions animosities between the Crown and the Mitre intestine discord between the King and his Barons bad intelligence with neighbour Princes and forreign wars Fourthly a list of other inconveniences or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendome to approve the Popes rebellion against general Councels and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegeance to maintaine the Pope in his rebellious usurpations Lastly The weakness of the Popes pretences and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from forreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Councel of Ephesus Certainly he ought to have shewed either that these grounds conjoyned were not sufficient or that they were not true or that there were other remedies But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence which is as mueh as yeeld the Cause Thus he It is then of little concernment to examine whether his complaints be true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division What is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no It belongs not to me to shew that there was no other remedy that is to prove a negative but if he will answer my grounds it belongs to him to shew that there was other remedy yet so far as a negative is capable of proof I have shewed even in this Chapter that there was no other remedy I shewed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England so as to call them to a personal account I shewed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope in Councel out of Councel for ease from their oppressions in diversages and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner He adds And much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment This is a very euthumematical kinde of arguing If the sky fall we shall have larks He knows right well that it is his assumption which is latent that we deny that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute He proceedeth But most because all other Catholick Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends yet they remaine still in communion with the Church of Rome and after we have broke the Ice do not hold it reasonable to follow our example Few or no Catholick Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight a Well that could not be drawn dry All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Priviledge to be exempt from forreign jurisdiction as Brittaine hath Yet all other Catholick Countries do maintaine their owne Priviledges inviolated and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome Some other Catholick Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy then England doth yet England is not alone in the separation so long as all the Easterne Southerne Northern and so great a part of the Westerne Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we yet if it were otherwise we must live by precepts not by examples Nay saith he The former ages of our Countrey had the same cause to cast the Popes Supremacy out of the Land yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church then attempt so destructive an innovation Mistake not us so much we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestors at far as the Roman Court will give us leave neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon and abused by the Court of Rome and to sit still in the mean time and blow their noses They did by their lawes exclude the Popes supremacy out of England so farre as they judged it necessary for the tranquility of the Kingdome that is his patronage of Churches his Legates and Legantine Courts his buls and sentences and excommunications his legislative power his power to receive appeals except onely in cases where the Kingdome did give consent They threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them We have more experience then our Ancestours had that their remedies were not Soveraigne or sufficient enough that if we
give him leave to thrust in his head he will never rest untill he have drawne in all his body after whilest there are no bonds to hold him but nationall lawes Lastly he pleads that the pretences on which the English Schism was originally made were farre different from those which I now take up to defend it What inward motives or impulsives our Reformers had to separate from the Court of Rome God knoweth not I that concerneth themselves not me But that there were sufficient grounds of separation I demonstrate that concerneth the cause that concerneth me Their inanimadvertence might make the separation lesse Justifiable to them but no lesse lawfull in it self or to us These causes are as just grounds to us now to continue the separation as they could have bin to them then if they had been observed to make the separation and most certainly they were then observed or the greatest part of them as the liberty of the English Church the weakness of the Popes pretences the extortions of the Court of Rome their gross usurpation of all mens rights and the inconsistency of such a forreigne discipline with the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction These things he ought to have answered in particular if he would have said any thing at all but it seemeth he chose rather to follow the counsell of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his accounts that he should study rather how to give no account Sect. 7. The next thing which I set forth was the due moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This he calleth a very pleasant Topick Quâ—cquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis The saddest Subjects were very pleasant Topicks to Democritus The first part of our moderation was this we deny not to other Churches the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errours and this I shewed to have been S. Cyprians moderation whereby he purged himselfe and his party from Schisme neminem judicantis c. judging no man removing no man from our Communion for difference in opinion This is saith he to declare men Idolaters and wicked and neverthelesse to communicate with them reconciling thus light to darkenesse and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same Society I spake of our forbearing to censure other Churches and he answers of communicating with them That is one aberration from the purpose But I may give him more advantage then that in this case It is one thing to communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks in their Idolatry Heresy or Schisme which is altogether unlawfull and it is another thing to communicate with them in pious offices and religious duties which may in some cases be very lawfull The orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the Hereticall Arreans And the primitive Catholicks with the Schismaticall novations in the same publick divine offices as I have formerly shewed in this treatise But they communicated with them in nothing that did favour the Heresie of the one or the Schisme of the other The Catholicks called the Donatists their brethren and professed that they were obliged to call them brethren as we read in Optatus But the Donatists would not vouchsafe to acknowledge the Catholicks for their brethren upon this refuters principles that a man cannot say his owne Religion is true but he must say the opposite is false nor hold his owne certain without censuring another mans Yet it was not the Catholicks but the Donatists that did mingle light and darkness together These following princlples are so evident and so undeniable that no man can question the truth of them without questioning his owne judgement That particular Churches may fall into errours 2. That all errors are not essentials or fundamentals 3. That those errours which are not in essentials do not destroy the true being of a Church 4. That neverthelesse every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from them To dote so upon the body as to cherish the Ulcers and out of hatred to the Ulcers to destroy the being of the body are both extreams That is so to dote upon the name of the Church as to cherish the errours of it or to hate the errours so much as to deny the being of the Church Preposterous zeal which is like Hell hot without light maketh errours to be essentials and different opinious different Religions because it will not distinguish between the good foundation which is Christ and the hay and stubble that is builded thereupon The second proofe of our moderation is our inward Charity we leave them unwillingly as a man would leave his fathers or his brothers house infected with the Plague desirous to returne so soone as it is cleansed His answer is that if we did manifest it by our externall works they might have occasion to believe it I did prove it by our externall works namely our daily prayers for them in our Letany and especially our solemn aniversary prayer for their conversion every good Friday though we are not ignorant how they do as solemnly anathematise us the day before The third proof of our moderation was this that we do not challenge a new Church a new Religion or new holy orders we obtrude no innovation upon others nor desire to have any obtruded upon our selves we pluck up the weeds but retaine all the plants of saving truth To this he objects two things First to take away goodnesse is the greatest evill and nothing is more mischievous then to abrogate good lawes and good practises This is not to fight with us but with his owne shadow I speake of taking away errours and he speaketh against taking away goodnesse I speak of plucking up weeds and he speaks against abrogating good lawes and practises yea of taking away the new Testament Where is the contradiction between us These are no weeds but good plants We retain whatsoever the primitive Fathers judged to be necessary or the Catholick Church of this present age doth unanimously retaine which is sufficient We retaine other opinions also and practises but not as necessary Articles or Essentials Let him not tell us of the Scots reformation who have no better an opinion of it then it deservs His second Ojection is that he who positively denies over addes the contrary to what he takes away he that makes it an article that there is no Purgatory no Masse no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary Therefore this kind of moderation is a pure folly It may be he thinketh so in earnest but we know the contrary We do not hold our negatives to be Articles of Faith How should a negative that is a non em be a fundamentall This is a true proposition ether there is a purgatory or there is not a purgatory But this other is a fals proposition either it is an Article
of Faith that there is a purgatory or it is an article of Faith that there is no purgatory Faith is a certain assent grounded upon the truth and authority of the revealer opinion is an uncertain inclining of the mind more to the one part of the contradiction then the other There are an hundred contradictions in Theologicall opinions between the Romanists themselves much grearer then some of these three controversies wherin he instanceth Yet they dare not say that either the affirmatives or negatives are articles of Faith In things not necessary a man may fluctuate safely between two opinions indifferently or incline to the one more then the other without certain adherence or adhere certainly without Faith We know no other necessary Articles of Faith but those which are comprehended in the Apostles creed The last proof of our moderation was our readinesse in the preparation of our minds to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present age doth universally believe and practise This he saith is the greatest mock foole proposition of all the rest Wherefore For two reasons First we say there is no universall Church Then we have not onely renounced our Creed that is the badge of our Christianity whereof this is an expresse Article but our reason also If there be many particular churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ himselfe is head and king His onely ground of this calumny is because we will not acknowledge the Roman Church that is a particular Church to be the universall Church The second reason is because we say if there be a Catholick Church it is indetermined that is no man knows which it is Then it is all one as if it were not Non existentis non apparentis eadem est ratio It is a brave thing to calumniate boldly that something may stick We know no virtuall Church indeed that is one person who hath in himself eminently and virtually as much certainty of truth and infallibility of judgement as the universall Church but we acknowledge the representative Church that is a generall councell and the essentiall Church that is the multitude or multitudes of believers either of all ages which make the Symbolicall Church or of this age which make the present Catholick Church but mala mens malus animus He knoweth right well that they themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what that Catholick Church is into the authority whereof they make the last resolution of their Faith So it is not true of us but of themselves it is true that their Catholick Church is indeterminate that is they know not certainly what it is Sect. 8. My fifth ground was that what the king and Church of England did in the separation of themselves from the Court of Rome is no more then all other Princes and Republicks of the Roman communion have done in effect or pleaded for that is made themselves the last Judges of their owne liberties and grievances For proof whereof I instanced in the Emperors the Kings of France and the liberties of the Sallicane Church the Kings of Spaine in their Kingdomes and Dominions of Sicily Castile Flanders the Kings of Portugall the Republick of Venice and in all these particular cases which were in difference between the Popes and us concerning the calling of Ecclesiasticall Synods making of Ecclesiasticall lawes disposing Benefices reforming the Churches within their owne dominions rejecting the Popes sentences buls Legates Nuncios shutting up their Courts forbidding appeals taking away their tenths first fruits pensions impositions c. To all which neither R. C. nor S. W. answers one word in particular Yet he paies me in generals Vir dolofus versatur in generalibus If his cause would have borne it we had had a more particular answer First he asketh what nonsense will not an ill cause bring a desperate man to Concedo omnia I grant all saving onely the application He must seek for the nonsense and the ill cause and the desperate man nearer home But what is the ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction first I would perswade the world that Papists are most injurious to Princes perjudicing their Crowne and subjecting their dominions to the will of the Pope and when I have scarce done saying so with a contrary blast I drive as far back again confessing all I said to be false and that the same Papists hold the Doctrine of the Protestants in effect If he will accuse other men of contradiction he must not overshoot himself so in his expressions but keep himself to the rules of opposition ad idem secundum idem eodem tempore Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect and do them right in another They may be disloyall at one time and loyall at another Here is no shadow of contradiction But his greatest fault is to change the subject of the proposition I did not plead either that Papists were injurious to Princes or that the same Papists did hold the very doctrine of the Protestants nor so much as mention Papists in generall either to justifie them or to accuse them But I said that the Pope and the Court of Rome had been injurious to Roman Catholick Princes and that Roman Catholick Princes with their party had done themselves right against Popes and their Court. Here is no contrary blast nor contradiction any more then it is a contradiction to say that the Gnelphes maintained the Popes cause against the Emperour and the Gibilines maintained the Emperours cause against the Pope because both factions were Roman Catholicks both Italians He urgeth that the Popes did not cast out of their Communion those Cotholick divines who opposed them which argueth that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publick tenet in their Church that binds any to these rigorous assertions which the protestants condemne I know it is not their religion Our Religion and theirs is the same I know it is not the generall tenet of their Church But it is the tenet of the Court of Rome and the governing party amongst them It is but a poor comfort to one that is oppressed by their Court to know that there are particular Doctors which hold that he is wronged But to his question Did the Pope never excommunicate those Doctors that opposed him Yes sundry times both Princes and Doctors and whole Nations Sometimes he spared them perhaps he did not take notice of them whilest they were living the Pope and his Court have somewhat else to do then to inquire after the tenets of private Doctors perhaps they lived about the time of the councels of Constance and Basile when it had been easier for the Pope to have cast himselfe out of his throne then them out of the Church or perhaps they lived in places without his reach he knows who it was that said my Lord the Emperour defend me with the sword and I will defend thee with my pen. What
Christian world much less do they arrogate to themselves alone the name of the true Church as the Romanists do but they content themselves to be part of the Catholick Church That they have any differences among them either in doctrine or discipline it is the fault of the Court of Rome which would not give way to an uniforme reformation of the Westerne Church But that their controversies are neither so many nor of any such moment as he imagineth the Harmony of Confessions published in print will demonstrate to all the world So far is he wide from the truth that they have no more unity then a body composed of Turks Jewes Hereticks and Christians who have neither the same body nor the same spirit nor the same hope of their calling nor the same Lord nor the same faith nor the same baptism nor the same God to their Father But he faith our faith consisteth in unknown Fundamentals which is a meer shâ—ft until we exhibite a list of such points We need not the Apostles have done it to our hands in the Creed and the Primitive Church hath ordained that no more should be exacted of any of Turks or Jewes in point of faith when they were converted from Paganisme or Jewisme to Christianity Sect. 9. In the eighth chapter I proved that the Pope and the Court of Rome were most guilty of the Schisme and shall not need to repeat or fortifie any thing that which he opposeth being of so little consequence To the first argument he denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a mother and not a Mistris to other Churches It is their saying it and our denying it saith he till they have proved what they affirme To gratifie him I will do it though it be needless Let him consult with St. Bernard in his fourth Book of consideration to his most loving friend Eugenius the Pope so he stiles him Amantissime Eugeni If they would listen to St. Bernards honest advice it would tend much to the peace of Christendome Si auderem dicere If I durst say it these are the pastures of devils rather then of sheep And Exi de Hur Caldeorum or Go out of this Hur of the Caldeans Rome It will not repent thee of thy banishment to have changed the City for the world But to satisfie his demand Thus that Father Consideres ante omnia sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam cui Deo auctore praees Ecclesiarum matrem esse non Dominam te vero non Dominum Episcoporum sed unum ex ipsis Above all things consider that the holy Roman Church over which thou art placed by God is a Mother of other Churches not a Lady or Mistris and thou thy self art not a Master of other Bishops but one of them Secondly He denieth that the Church of Rome obtrudeth any new Creeds whereas I accused not the Church of Rome for it but the Court of Rome for proof produced the Bull of Pius the fourth in the point as it is set down at the end of the Councel of Trent wherein he sets forth a new form of confession of faith containing many new Articles which he enjoyneth all the Clergy and all Religious persons to swear unto and that they will teach it to all others under their charge that there may be an uniforme confession of faith among Christians Extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation If he deny this authority he and I are nearer an union then the Court of Rome and he My third argument was because they maintaine the Pope in his rebellion against a general Councel To this argument he answers not a word so as I am confirmed more and more in my suspition that notwithstanding all his specious pretences for the Papacy he himself is one of those who prefer the Councel before the Pope and attribute to the Pope only an Exordium unitatis But he spareth me not upon the by telling the Reader that I lay the axe not to the roote of Schisme but to mine own legs bids me good night my wits are in the dark If it were so that I should steal a nap it is neither fellony nor treason Aliquando bonus dormit at Homerus But what is it that raiseth this great wind of words forsooth because I say that the Papacy qua talis as it is now maintained by many with Superiority above General Councels c. is the cause either procteant or conservant or both of all or the most part of the Schisms in Christendome To say as it is maintained by many doth imply that it is not so maintained by all and therefore not the Papacy qua talis for so Catholicks have not the least difference among them He might as well tell us that wherein they all agree they have no difference But do not some Roman Catholicks subject the Pope to a General Councel and other subject a General Councel to the Pope Do not the greater part of them both for number dignity and power who sit at the sterne who hold the bridle that he spoke of even now in their hands to govern the Church subject a General Councel to the Pope And then might not I say well the Papacy qua talis my conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in general but against the Pope and Court of Rome that they were guilty of Schism And now to let him see that I did not sleep I will reduce mine argument into forme without a qua talis They who subject a General Councel which is the highest Tribunal of Christians to the Pope are guilty of Schisme but the Pope and Court of Rome with all their maintainers that is the much greater part of their writers do subject a General Councel to the Pope therefore they are guilty of Schism Of the same nature is his exception to my fourth charge They who take away the line of Apostolical succession throughout the world except in the See of Rome who make all Episcopal Jurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome and to be founded in his Lawes to be imparted to other Bishops as the Popes Vicars and Coadjutors assumed by them into part of their charge are Schismaticks but the Pope and Court of Rome and their maintainers do thus To which his onely answer is that this is a more grosse and false imputation then any of the rest Because it is not their general tenet neither did I urge it against them all in general But because he takes no notice of these tenets but as private opinions If you will dispute against private opinions cite your Authors and argue against them not the Church Let him know that these are the most common most current opinions of their writers Of the former Bellarmine saith that it is almost de fide a point of faith He saith that the Councel of Florence seemed to have defined it though not so expresly and that the Councel of Lateran
the Kingdome Never was there lawfull Parliament in England the acts whereof either of one kind or of another might be questioned by any single Province as the acts of the Councell of Trent in point of discipline are questioned by the Church of France The question is not whether Ecclesiasticall superiours may forbear to execute but whether inferiours may renounce and protest against the execution One of the prime priviledges of Parliament is to speak freely but this was not allowed in the Councel of Trent He excepteth against some angry expressions of mine Where I call the Bishops of Italy hungry parasiticall pensioners not foreseeing it might be retorted upon mine owne condition And here he addeth in a scoffing manner It seemeth my Lord you keep a good table speak the truth boldly and have great revenues independent of any I spake not there out of passion against them nor of ancient Italian Bishops but meer Episcopelles a great part of which were Italians nor all of them but onely such as were the Popes creatures raised and maintained by him for his owne ends whether these were his hungry parasitical pensioners they know best who know most As for my self I never raised my self by any insinuations I was never parasiticall pentioner to any man nor much frequented any mans table If mine owne be not so good as it hath been yet contentment and a good conscience is a continuall feast and a golden bed of rest And I thank God I can say heartily with holy Iob The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away blessed be the Name of the Lord. What was this to his cause To proove the Councell of Trent was not free I cited somethings out of the history of that Councell and somethings out of Sleidan To which he answereth nothing but this That it is a false injurious calumny taken out of Sleidan accounted by their party a starke liar and forger This is a very easy kind of refuting as good as Bellarmine thou liest To the plea of the Patriarchal authority of the Bishop of Rome over Brittaine I gave three solutions First that Brittaine was no part of the Roman Patriarchate Secondly that although it had been yet the Popes have both quitted and forfeited their Patriarchall power and though they had not yet it is lawfully transferred Thirdly that the difference between them and us is not concerning any Patriarchall rights To none of these doth he offer to give any answer but onely to one passage where I indeavour to proove that a spirituall Monarchy from Christ and a Patriarchall authority from â—he Church are inconsistent From whence the Reader may make this collection that becâ—â—se the Pope was undoubtedly constituted a Patriarch by the Church therefore as undoubtedly he was not instituted a spirituall Prince by Christ. And all the answer that he giveth to this is that I argue weakly sillily Satis pro imperio This is magisticall enough as if he were another Pythagoras that we must receive his dictates for oracles I wil set down the argument for the Readers satisfaction It may be at the second reading this Refuter wil not find it altogether so weak silly To bea Patriarch to be an universal Bishop in that sense are inconsistent and implie a contradiction in adjecto The one professeth human the other challengeth divine institution the one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain province the other pretendeth to an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world the one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers a meer executer of them can do nothing either against them or besides them the other challengeth an absolute Soveraignity above the Canons besides the Canons against the Canons To make them to abbrogate them to suspend their influence by a non obstante to dispense with them in such cases wherein the Canons give no dispensative power at his owne pleasure when he will where he will to whom he will Therefore to claime a power Paramount and Sovereigne Monarchical regality over the Church is implicitely and in effect to disclaime a Patriarchall Aristocraticall dignity and on the other side the donation and acceptance of such a Patriarchall Aristocratical dignity is a convincing proof that he was not formerly possessed of a Sovereigne Monarchicall Royalty To the point of sacrifice he saith that I hide it in obscure terms and shuffle certain common words In answer I believe his meaning is quite contrary that I have set it downe over distinctly If I shuffle any thing I must shuffle my owne words for I see no answer of his to shuffle among them His exception against our Registers that he could never hear that any Catholick esteemed indications was ever admitted to a free perusall of them Shewes only that he understandeth not what our Registers are They are publick offices whither every man may repair at his pleasure And if he wil be at the charge of a search a transcription may not onely peruse them freely but have an authentick copy of any act that is there recorded Towards the conclusion of his treatise he inveigheth against our uncharitablenesse that it is not enough to satisfie our uncharitable eyes that so many of them have been hanged drawn and quartered for their Religion telling us that on all occasions we are still upbraiding the liberty given to Papists And adviseth us never hereafter to be so impertinent as to repine at their liberty Doubtlesse he found this in his owne fancy for in my discourse there is nothing either of repining or upbraiding but this point of the penal laws hath been formerly handled at large Lastly to his expedient to procure peace and unity that is To receive the root of Christianity that is a practicall infallibility in the Church We do readily acknowledge that the true Catholick Church is so far infallible as is necessary to the salvation of Christians that is the end of the Church But the greater difficulty will be what this Catholick Church is wherein they are not onely divided from us but more among themselves But because he hath another exception to a testimony of mine in his Schisme disarmed I will make bold to give it an answer here also Even when the Grecians were disgusted refused unity they acknowledged the power of the Bishop of Rome as appears by a testimony of Gerson cited by your friend Bishop Brounhall against himselfe which witnesseth that the Greeks departed from the then Pope with these words We acknowledge thy power we cannot satisfie your covetousness live by your selves Doth he think that power is alwaies taken in the better sense The words are not potestatem tuam recognoscimus we acknowledge thy just power yet even potestas is taken sometimes in the worser sense as potestas tenebrarum the power of darknesse but potentiam tuam recognoscimus we acknowledge thy might which words might be used by a true man to an high way robber The Greeks accounted the
and necessities of England Is not the Prince At least with his Councel and the representative body of the whole Kiâ—gdome When all these unanimously have declared that there is a necessity and have prescribed the best means that possibly they could devise to prevent the danger shall a forrein Prelate and he not only interessed but the very source of all the danger have power to contradict it and to send his suspected Emissaries more frequently then ever into the Kingdome A Pit is digged true but the Authors of these seditious opinions and practises are they who digged it The Queen did what she could to cover it by her Proclamations and Acts of Parliament to premonish every one of the danger If the Pope and their Superiors would be so cruell to thrust out their Emissaries upon desperate attempts upon their vow of blinde obedience and a promise of Celestiall rewards their blood is upon their heads The Queen said further That for the most part of these silly Priests she did not believe them to be guilty of practising the destruction of their Country but their Superiors were they whom she held to be the instruments of this foul crime for as much as they who were sent committed the full and free disposition of themselves to their Superiors So first R. C. inserts these words into the Queens speech whom she executed she executed none she condemned none Those who were executed in her long reign of above fourty four yeers were not so many This expression would have fitted the short reign of Queen Mary much better Secondly he adds these words were guilty of treason whereas the Queen said no such thing but were guilty of practising the destruction of their Country Can none have an hand in the destruction of their Country but only they who are practisers and plotters and contrivers of it Are none guilty of treason but only they who practised the destruction of their Country There are Instruments in treason as well as Engeniers who are not privy to the intrigues of the conspiracy And yet suffer justly for acting their parts in it Yea without practising or acting the very concealment of treason alone is sufficient by the Law of England and by the Law of Nations to condemn a person for not discovering it Lastly he leaves out these words which are a clear exposition of the whole sentence But their Superiors were they whom she held to be the Instruments of this foul crime for as much as the Emissaries did commit the whole disposure of themselves to their Superiors So she makes the Superiors and some others who weâ—e most busie most subtil and most affected among them to be the contrivers and grand traitors But for the most part of the silly Priests she took them to be but executers of the designes of their Superiors to shâ—ot those Bolts which they had made and to pull the Chesnuts out of the fire with their naked fingers for their Superiors to eat What dealing may others expect from them in citations who are not afraid to cast undeserved durt upon Majesty and prevaricate with their naturall Pâ—incesse under the gratious protection of whose just government they first beheld the light It may serve as one instance of his undue citing testimonies and authorities that whereas I say that dangerous and bloody positions and practises produce severe Lawes And that I wish all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes with the memory of them buried in perpetuall oblivion he inferreth that I seem to confesse that the Lawes made against Catholicks were cruell and unâ—ust He did well to say it seemeth for I neither say the one nor the other though my wishes be the same they were On the contrary I justifie them upon this undeniable ground that no Kingdome is destiture of necessary remedies for its own conservation That which I said I spake indifferently both of their Lawes and ours That Law which was justly enacted may be over-rigorously executed when that necessity which was the only ground of the Law is abated I wish the necessity had not been then so great as to require Lawes written in blood and that a lesser coercion would have sufficed then for a remedy The necessity being abated I wish the rigor may be likewise abated To divide their Lawes and our Lawes or the necessity and the remedy is a fallacy and contrary to what I said when I wished all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes were buried in oblivion He addeth That perhaps mine own persecution hath taught me this lenity At last he confesseth that we suffer persecution which even now he denied The Earl of Strafford then Lieutenant of Ireland did commit much to my hands the politicall regiment of that Church for the space of eight yeers In all that time let him name one Roman Catholick that suffered either death or imprisonment or so much as a pecuniary mulct of twelve pence for his Religion upon any penall Statute If he cannot as I am sure he cannot then it is not my present persecution that taught me that lenity I remember not one Roman Catholick that suffered in all that time but only the titular Archbishop of Cashells who was indeed imprisoned for three or four daies not only upon suspicion but upon information out of Spain that he was a pensioner of the Catholick Kings and being found to be no such dangerous person upon my representation was dismissed Let no man hence imagine that we neglected our duties We did our work by more noble and more successefull means then penall Lawes by building of Churches and mansion Houses for Ministers by introducing a learned Clergy by injoyning them residence by affording them countenance and protection and means of hospitality by planting and ordering Schools for the education of youth and by looking carefully to the education and marriages of the Kings Wards To look to the Ecclesiasticall Regiment was the care of particular Bishops To look to the publick safety of the Kingdome and to free it from sedition masked under the Visard of Religion was the care of the Soveraign Magistrate CHAP. 4. IN the fourth Chapter of the vindication I set forth the dignitie of Apostolicall Churches he great influence they had upon their neighbour Churches yet without any legall jurisâ—iction over them especially the Roman Church in the West I shewed how they endeavored to convert this honorable Presidency into Monarchicall power But that the power which they endeavored to usurpe was in it self uncapable of prescription And if it had been capable yet they had no prescription for it That the British Saxon Danish and Norman Kings successively were the onely Patrons and Protectors of the Church within their Dominions and disposed of all things concerning the externall regiment thereof by the advise of their Prelats called ecclesiasticall Synods made ecclesiasticall Laws punished ecclesiasticall persons prohibited ecclesiasticall Judges received Appeales from ecclesiasticall Courts rejected the ecclesiasticall Laws of
Christ Yea that they received the very office and authority of Christ. He addeth out of St. Cyrill That by these words the Apostles were created Apostles and Doctors of the whole World and that we might understand that all Ecclesiasticall power is conteined in Apostolicall authority therefore Christ added as my Father sent me siquidem Pater misit Filium summa potestate praeditum Further he proveth out of Saint Cyprian That whatsoever power Christ did promise or give to St. Peter when he said to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and feed my Sheep he did give parem potestatem an equall power to the rest of the Apostles in these words And afterwards he calleth it Iurisdictionem plenissimam a most full Iurisdiction Lay all this together that by these words he made them the Vicars of Christ and conferred upon them the very office and authority of Christ made them Apostles and Doctors of the whole World gave them all Ecclesiasticall Power an equall Power to Saint Peters and lastly a most full Jurisdiction and compare them with that which I said that by these words Christ gave them all the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall Power that mortall men were capable of And if he say not more then I did I am sure he saith no less Is mortall man capable of more then the Vicariate of the Sonne of God yea of his office and authority Can any thing be more high then that which is highest more full then that which is fullest or more universall then that which comprehends all Ecclesiasticall Power within it It had been sufficient to my purpose if he had said no more but only that it was equall to Saint Peters If it were needfull I might cite other places out of Bellarmine to make my words good Therefore the Lord left unto his Apostles by these words his own place and would that they should enjoy his authority in governing the Kingdome But Bellarmine telleth us That this is meant not in respect of themselves but in respect of all other men I know Bellarmine saith so not in this place but elsewhere But first he saith it upon his own head without any authority None of the Fathers ever taught that Saint Peter had a supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles All that they say is that he was the beginning of unity and the Head of the Apostolicall College that is in order and eminence Princeps Apostolorum as Virgill is called the Prince of Poets or Saint Paul the Head of Nations or Saint Iames the Bâ—shop of Bishops Secondly this answer is altogether impertinent The question is not between us what the Apostles were in respect of their personall actions among themselves one towards another though even this were absurd enough to say that Saint Peter had Power to suspend his fellow Apostles either in their offices or in their Persons But the question between us is what the Apostles were in respect of the government of the Christian World wherein by this distinction he granteth them all to be equall Thirdly by his leave he contradicts himself for if Saint Peter had any Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles and they had none mutually over him then it was not par Potestas an equall Power for par in parem non habet Potestatem If his Power was fuller then theirs then theirs was not plenissima Potestas If his Power was higher then theirs then theirs was not summa Potestas If there was some ecclesiasticall Power which they had not then all ecclesiasticall Power was not comprehended in Apostolicall Authority then the Power of opening and shutting is larger then the Power of binding and loosing and to feed Christ's Sheep is more then to be sent as his Father sent him all which is contrary both to the truth and to what himself hath taught us Lastly if Saint Peter had not only a primacy of Order but also a Supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles then his Successors Linus and Cletus and Clemens were Superiors to Saint Iohn and he was their Subject and lived under their Jurisdiction which no reasonable Christian will easily beleeve Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris et Potestatis sed exordium ab unitate profeciscitur primatus Petro datur ut Ecclesia una monstretur If they were equall in honor and power then the primacy must be of Order That these words to thee will I give the Keyes and feed my Sheep doe include Power and Authority I grant but that they include a supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles or that they include more Power then these other words as my Father sent me so send I you I doe altogether deny I acknowledge the words of Saint Hierosme That one was chosen that an Head being constituted the occasion of Schisme might be taken away But this Head was only an Head of order And truly what Saint Hierosme saith in this place seemeth to me to have reference to the persons of the Apostles and by Schism to be understood Contention Altercation among the Apostles themselves which of them should be the greatest as Mark 9.34 To this I am induced to incline first by the word occasio he saith not as elsewhere for a remedy of Schism but to take away occasion of Schism or Contention Secondly by the words following in St. Hierosme Magister bonus qui occasioneÌ„ jur gij debuerat auferre Discipulis to take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples and in Adolescentem quem dileâ—erat saâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 videretur invidia because Peter was the eldest and Iohn the youngest our Saviour would not seem to give cause of envy against him whom he loved To take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples and not to give cause of envy against his beloved Disciple doe seem properly to respect the Apostolicall College But let this be as it will I urge no man to quit his own sense He presseth his former Argument yet further That a superiority of Order is not sufficient to take away Schisme without a superiority of Power and Authority I answer that in all Societies an Head of Order is necessary to prevent and remedy Schisme that there may be one to convocate the Society to propose Doubts to receive Votes to pronounce Sentence And if there be a judiciary Power and Authority in the body of the Society it is a sufficient remedy against Schisme As in a College Schism is as well prevented by placing the Power joyntly in the Provost and Fellowes as by giving the Provost a monarchicall Power over the Fellowes And in the Catholick Church by placing the supremacy of ecclesiasticall Power in a Councell or by placing it in a single person And thus the sovereign Power over the universall Church was ever in an oecumenicall Councel