in the 23 Section that this is affirmed and intended by Balsamon to all Canons in general as the judgement of learned men in his notes on the sixteenth Canon of the Council of Carthage hath already been answered and shown that it is not Balsamon who affirms it but other men neither doth he call them learned men as the Doctor here imposes on him but onely says that some men say the Emperor can do such and such things And he adds that those persons proceed upon this ground that the Emperor may do lawfully whatever he lists His last Paragraph for which as his former custom was he reserves the best of his strength proves that this right of Kings to be head in Ecclesiastical affairs cannot be alienated by prescription The testimony he introduces is of one Sayr a late Monk who wrote his Book at Rome a man likely to speak much in the Doctors behalf whose opinion in case he should say any thing against us being but of a private Casuist may with the like facility be rejected as alleadg'd But what says honest Sayr he tells us that when prescription is neither of the Law of Nature nor the divine Law nor the Law of Nations but onely the civil and Canon Law there it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his Law is supposed to will that it shall be extended and therefore that no subject can prescribe exemption from making appeal to his King or that his Prince may not punish him when Reason and Iustice requires Let the testimony it self be what it will what was the Doctor dreaming on when he produced it Marry he dreamt two things First that the Pope had heretofore prescribed against the Kings of England in their pretended right of being head in Ecclesiastical matters next this prescription of the Pope hath not its force from any thing but a Canon or Civil Law These two points the Doctor dreamingly supposes to be certain principles and it is discourtesie in us not to grant them gratis for fear we should spoil his learned Conclusion What a shame is this for a Doctor of Divinity whereas every boy that hath been but two years at Cambridge knows he is first to establish his premises firmly ere he can claim any certainty of truth in his Conclusion to suppose his premises true and upon that grant kindly made by himself to himself conclude at pleasure what he lists And what an unconscionable piece of affected ignorance is this to bring a Testimony which could not possibly be applyed to his purpose without proving the two former self-made suppositions and yet to neglect that necessary task and conclude in these vain words It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that hath been said but I shall not expatiate It is now become an old excuse with the Doctor to cry he is out of his way when he comes to a passage he cannot get over but all-to-be-labours things frivolous and which his self-laid grounds once supposed would be out of question Thus you see an end of his sixth Chapter which was totally built upon this ground that the Authority of Head of the Church was no more then Patriarchal and consequently needed in rigour of dispute no other reply but onely to deny the supposition and bid him prove it What has been answered to each particular was onely to let the Reader see how inconsequently and weakly he builds even upon his own foundations SECT 8. A Reply to Doctor Hammonds Narrative Confession of his Schism THe Doctor having laid his tottering grounds for the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs by alleadging some Testimonies expresly against himself and his cause and not one expresly for them but what his fellow-schismaticks afforded him Next having supposed upon his own strongly-dreaming imagination without one direct place of any Authentick writer against clouds of most plain Testimonies from Fathers and Councils frequent in our Controvertists and not touched by him in way of answer against the most visible practice and universal belief of the whole Catholick world that the Pope is onely a private Patriarch and hath no right of Jurisdiction over the universal Church And lastly out of a few Testimonies witnessing de facto that Kings did erect and remove Patriarchates without any word excluding the Churches precedent orders having concluded that such a power belonged de jure to Kings and was annext to a Crown These three things most gravely supposed he goes about to clear the Church of England from the imputation of casting off obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation which is the intent of this Chapter But first he lays down at large the whole history of Schism ommitting onely the main things that might disgrace it and by what degrees or steps this miserable Kingdom and Church came to renounce the obedience to those Ecclesiastical superiors who had by their own confession for eight or nine hundred years steered that-then-secure Barque in a calm unity of Faith and which Authority all the then present world except King Henry's now friend but late Antagonist Luther acknowledged and submitted to First he tells us this was done by the Clergy in a Synod recognizing the King to be supreme Head of the Church of England Secondly By their submitting themselves to the King and thirdly the definition of the Universities and Monasteries after debate that the Pope had nothing to do more in England then any other extern Bishop that is nothing at all And all this in this sort concluded subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oaths which word corporal was well put in for their Souls and Consciences never went along with it was afterwards turn'd into Acts of Parliament in which it was resolved upon the question to defie the Pope and all his works In answer to which though a bare narration how a Schism was made deserve none yet to devoid it of al excuse it may pretend to I object first that it did not originally spring from Conscience no not even an erroneous one but from manifest malice and viciousness Next that the Kingdoms assent to this il originiz'd breach was not free And thirdly that though both these were granted yet this act of theirs so largely laid out by Doctor Hammond is truly and properly a Schism and entitles them schismaticks nay the more the Doctor dilates upon it the more schismatical he makes the breach of which the two latter himself though never so loath must acknowledge unless he will deny his own words To begin with the first all the world knows that till King Henry violenced the breach all England both Clergy and Laity were as equally and as peaceably conjoyned to the Catholike Church under the government of her supreme Pastour the Bishop of Rome as either France or Spain are now neither did they ever express any scrupulosity that they had remained under such a Government ever since the Conversion of their first
the most concerning business imaginable the ordering Gods Church The Doctors Conclusion then which he says is both rational and evident is both irrational and very dim-coloured to any eye but his own who supposes as he tells us here for our farther confirmation That he hath made it already clear from the refutation of our Plea for St. Peters Universal Pastorship whereas it hath been manifested he had not one express word of proof to make good his pretended confutation insomuch as I promise him a general pardon and acquittance for the frivolousness of all the rest if he can shew me in his Answer that any one place expresly testified that which he pretended to evidence by Testimonies What he adds That it was appointed by the Council of Chalcedon de jure that the King may erect a Primacy when he pleases I dare be bold to call a forgery and that it needs an ID EST of the seventeens to make the Councils words sound to his purpose What he tells us next as a thing certain That King Ethelbert at the time of Austins planting the Faith did erect a Primacy at Canterbury the seat of his Kingdom Imperii sui totius Metropolis saith Bede c. is such a childish piece of insincerity that it craves as much pity as it deserves anger For Bede onely tells us there How the King answered them that he could not assent to their new doctrine yet because they were strangers and desired to communicate to him what they believed to be true he would not trouble them but rather kindly entertain them c. Then follows the Doctors Testimony Dedit ergo eis manfionem in Civitate Dovernensi quae Imperii sui totius erat Metropolis Eisque ut promiserat cum administratione victus temporalis c. Wherefore he gave them a dwelling place in the City of Canterbury the Mother-City of his whole Dominions and with administration of Temporal food he hindred them not from Preaching So that the giving them an House in Canterbury to dwell in and meat to eat is a clear evidence with Master Hammond That the King yet a Heathen erected a Primacy when certainly he knew not then what a Primacy meant Lastly To convince absolutely That Kings were Heads of the Church and translated and erected Primacies at pleasure he concludes That had it not been for this there is no reason assignable why this Nation being in Constantine's time under three Metropolitans there should be an addition of two Provinces or that the Metropolitical power should be so removed As if it could not be done at all unless the King did it What an Argument is here to bring for an up-shot of his proofs That the King is Head of the Church We both acknowledge that some removals of Ecclesiastical Seats have been in England but the Question is Whether it belongs to the Kings or the Popes to cause these removals he undertakes to prove it the Kings right we deny it The Doctor produces his Sacra Anchora or last proof That there is no reason assignable why these Sees were removed had it not been that the King had power We answer We can tell how to remove them without the Kings power to wit by the Popes which is the question he professes to make head against But proceeds not farther then onely to say it must needs be the King and that we cannot assign the Pope and that the thing was done and therefore the King must necessarily be the doer of it Thus you see the Doctor is constant to his Principles in putting his strongest Arguments in the rear What man living is able to withstand so potent and cunning an Adversary Besides suppose there had been neither Pope nor King was there any impossibility that consent of Bishops might remove the Primacy to another See especially the Bishops being anciently of such Authority in England That no weighty affairs were transacted but they had a share in the managing of them You see then Mr. Doctor there are two reasons assignable for the fact which you prove to be the Kings power because he did it and then prove he did it because otherwise it could not have been done After he hath thus convinc't Kings to have power also over Ecclesiastical affairs he proceeds to prove that this power of theirs taken away by the Laws is resumable and although his supposition being shown to be groundless there needs no answer to what he builds upon it yet we will not be so discourteous as to slight his mistakes by affording them no Reply Under Pope Melchiades in Constantines time was made a Decree that if the Donatist Bishops in Africk would return to the Unity of the Church they should be allowed either to keep the Bishopricks they had or be provided of others their obstinacy permitted not this to be executed and therefore it was recalled Neer a hundred years after under Pope Anastasius a National Council in Africa ordained a request to Him and other Bishops of Italy by whose predecessors the revocation had been made that the Donatist Bishops might retain their places if they would return to the Catholike Church the cunning Balsamon puts the provision it self for a Canon of this Council and it had been a foul offence in the Doctor to have taken notice of the request though he must needs have read it in Baronius whom he cites in the very place Therefore he concludes that Laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Council to make contrary Laws thereunto Although as far as can be drawn out of the fact and Council it argues the direct contrary and that it was not lawful for their National Council to infringe what had been done at Rome so unlucky is the Doctor in bringing Arguments so restiff and kicking that they cast their rider out of his inteâ—t He tells next that a Law though made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed quoting one Roger Widrington and Suarez the latter of them gives this reason because such a Law made at a general meeting of Princes is intrinsically a civil Law But what the Doctor will do with this after he hath produced it I cannot certainly say onely I see he must be very fruitful in unprov'd suppositions ere it will be able to do him or his cause any good First he must suppose that the title of the Head of the Church is a thing not Ecclesiastical but belonging to a civil right next that that same title is denyed their Kings only upon pretence of a Canon of a Council and not upon Christs donation of it to St. Peter these two unproved ând ungranted positions I say he must suppose gratis Otherwise to what end does he argue that the Canons of Councils are repealable and the Kings right by consequence resumeable What follows next
be rendred that the Government was injust ' which as you see could not Irrational therefore was that present perswasion of theirs and if so not sprung from reason therefore from unreasonable passion that is from vice therefore sinful and obnoxious to punishment as all other like perswasions are which make men think and act against their duties and obligations Besides all the Logick we have hitherto heard assures us nothing can convince the understanding but evidence and therefore men take so much paines about the moods and figures that the discourse may prove evident wherefore whatsoever assent comes not out of Evidence must come from our will and wilfulnesse and by consequence cannot be free from desert of punishment if it happen to be wrong and wrongfull Neither availes it to pretend invincible ignorance since no man living if free from a proud spirit can be so sottish as not to know that it is his obligation to obey his Superiors so long setled in the possession of their command till most open and undeniable Evidences and not seeming ones onely should discover that Authority null And if the obligation be of belief he must condemn the Churches judgment in not seeing the falsity of her doctrine and prefer his own before millions more learned who liv'd and dy'd in that faith which savours too strong of a self-conceited pride or else imagin so little sincerity left in the Church that all see and wilfully adhere to a known falshood but himselfe which is a plain sign of a rash and Pharisaical presumption And are not those punishable yet the Doctor would stroke such a fellow on the head and give him sugar plums for following his present perswasion and self-conceit which he nicknames conscience Nay he highly applauds his first Reformers whose conscience no doubt was tainted with the same leaven The Material Schism then which was manifestly your fact is made formal by your want of evidence that the doctrine was erroneous and consequently her Government violable Both which joyn'd together give you in plain termes your own name of flat proper and formal Schismaticks and entitle you to all the bed-roll of vices and curses which you hoarded up for your self and your friends in your first Chapter SECT 11. The Doctors argument that the Popes power in England was deriv'd under the Kings Concession refuted BUt it is now high time to returne to overlook the work who after the declaration of the matter of fact confesses no great hold can be taken from the freeness of the Clergy's determination and therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry whether the Bishop of Rome were Supreme Head or Governour of the Church of England in the reign of King Henry the eighth That is we are come about again to the beginning of the Book But I am mistaken he tells us he hath largely disproved in his Chap. 4 5 6. all pretensions from St. Peters Supremacy and from Englands Conversion to whose particular answers I refer the Reader for full satisfaction and he has now invented a new ground of the Popes Supremacy in England to wit the voluntary Concession of our Kings What the Doctor meanes I cannot imagine Some particular priviledges and as I may say pious curtesies have out of a special respect been granted by our Kings to that See to whom they owe their first knowledge of Christ and his Law but these are not the thing in debate The right of Supreme Authority is our question now who ever held this to come from the Concession of our Kings Yet this ayr-beating Champion of Schism first fancies this to be our tenet and then beats it all to dirt He is as valiant as Sir Iohn Falstaff let him tell his own story and hee 'l make you beleeve he has kill'd eleven Enemies when but one opposed him We onely found the Popes Primacy upon his Succession to St. Peter This is the onely adversary-point the Doctor is to combate which he hath most weakly opposed with grosse mistakes palpable contradictions to Scripture and pinning all the words that made for his purpose to every testimony as hath been shew'd But to counterfeit a triumph he makes every trivial thing done either by or about the Pope to be the very ground of his Primacy and then falls to work and impugnes them as really as if he thought we held them The Pope cannot doe any good action or convert a Nation but that must be the ground of his Universal Pastorship over us and be impugned accordingly A beggerly penny cannot be given to the Pope by our Kings for pious uses and out of a gratefull obligation but the poore Peter-pence and such like petty grants must presently be the Popes Universal Authority given him by the Concession of our Kings and that as such must be impugned The Kings of England France c. cannot be said by G de Heimburgh to be free from swearing obedience to the Pope at their instalment an obligation peculiar to the Empire of Germany but presently the Doctor concludes hence an absolute power in our Princes I suppose he means in Ecclesiastical matters for in temporal none denies it so as now the very ceremony of swearing obedience to the Pope is become the very granting of the formal universal Pastorship and they that doe it not are concluded to be free from the Popes Jurisdiction though he knows well enough that the King of France who as he confesses performes no such ceremonious courtesie towards him acknowledg'd notwithstanding himselfe subject to him as the Head of Gods Church Lastly which he touches here againe he cannot read in some Authors that Kings de facto executed the erecting and removing of Patriarchates though the testimony doe not exclude the Churches fore ordering it but presently the Popes Universal Power must be supposed to be transdignifi'd into a private Patriarchate and as a Patriarchate impugned Thus nothing can come amiss to the Doctor Every argument he undertakes to manage is equally strong and unresistable A pot gun will serve him to batter downe the walls of Rome He was borne a Controvertist and it is an even wager whether hee be better in the gift of Use and Applicatioon or in the Art of Dispute and Consutation Next comes another Dilemma or forked Argument which though proceeding on the former false supposition needs no answer yet for the Readers recreation we will afford a glance First it is observable that he never brings this bug-bear Argument upon the stage but when he has made a Prologue for it of some forg'd supposition of his own and then the Thing in vertue of that acts and talkes through the vizard of a mistake and yet ere it comes to a Conclusion the Doctors weak reason cracks to make both ends meet The summe of it is this that The Authority of the Pope was either originally in our Kings so as they could lawfully grant it to the Pope or not if not then the grant
no doubt bid God give his foes a rap Then then it was that that second Solomon Robert Wisedom inspired questionless from Heaven warbled out that melodious and exquisit hymn which with a sweet twang closes up the book of Psalmes Preserve us Lord by thy dear word From Turk and Pope defend us Lord. And the rest of that devout piece able to ravish any Christian heart to hear it These and such other rarities of Reformation were then added as harmonious Epithalamiums to this under-age Bride-Church to celebrate her espousals or marriage with her infant-Infant-Head After this the Dr. treates of the Reformation made under Queen Elizabeth in his 15. Paragraph consisting of five or six lines on either side a long Parenthesis which Parenthesis tells us partly strange news that Queens as well as Kings have according to our Laws Regal Power partly open fictions that this plenitude of power is as well in Sacred as Civil affairs and that they have this by the Constitution of our Monarchy Whereas he cannot but know there had been many a Monarch in England ere their Schismatical Laws were made which first allowed the King a plenitude of power in sacred matters In the next place he touches the ordination of their new created Bishops evidenced as he saith out of the records to have been performed according to the ancient Canons by the imposition of the hands of the Bishops Yet this modest evidencing Record durst never shew its head for about fifty years notwithstanding the outcries made by Catholicks against the pretended ordinations of Protestant Bishops and strong presumptions to the contrary till at length when the memory of that present age was past which might discountenance that pretence and argue it of impudence out steps a new old Record assuring us that they were regularly ordained And this is the firmest Basis the Protestant Ministry or Bishops have to witnesse that they have any more Authority to preach then an Anabaptistical Zelot whose profession is perhaps a Weaver his Calling his own Intrusion his Pulpit a Tub and his Diocesse a Conventicle But suppose you had a material Mission from the hands of Catholick Bishops and that Mr. Mason had vindicated you in this point yet can either Mr. Mason or any else even pretend to manifest that those Catholick Bishops gave you a Mission that is sent and Authorised you to preach Protestant Doctrines or could do it in case they would having no such power from the Church from whom they have all their power Unlesse you evidence this both Mr. Mason and Dr. Hammond may as well say nothing For since they gave you no such authority as you make use of that is to preach against the formerly received Faith nor sent you any such errand as you now declare and preach it follows that whatever you do to prejudice and extinguish that doctrine to propagate which they meant your Mission is done onely upon your own head without any authority but your own selfe-assumed licentiousnesse to talk and say what you list not derived from the consecrated hands of your Catholick Ordainers but from your own unhallowed schismatical hearts But Mr. Dr. is always afraid where no fear is answering at large here a supposed objection of ours against Q. Elizabeth for unchairing some Bishops and installing others But alas I am more courteous to the Queen than the Doctor imagines and think no worse of her but onely that in that fact she did after kind for supposing her once the Head of Schisinaticks and Chief-Bishopesse of their Church I see no reason but she should depose Bishops Catholikely affected and install heretical ones and in a word she and her Bishops voâ—e and act whatever they thought good and I cannot tell what should hinder them since the now rejected Authority of Gods Church could not All the superstructures of the Reformation then which the Doctor so often and so largely in this Chapter hath shown to be done regularly I grant him to have been done as regularly as his own heart could wish or mans wit imagine for the Authority of the Church being schismatically renounced and the infallible rule of Faith which could onely oblige men to an unanimous beleefe being broken and rejected these grounds I say being layed I yeeld that the superstructure not onely of their heresie but even of Lutheranism Zuinglianism Calvinism Arminianism Puritanism Brownism Socinianism Presbyterianism Anabaptism with those of Quakers and Adamites but even of Turcism and Atheism were all very regular orderly rational and connatural superstructures upon the forelaid foundations The ruine of all Faith must needs accompany the renouncing of Certainty Yet I had forgot to let the Reader see how the Doctor excuses the Queen for devesting some Bishops of their dignity and his excuse is because those Bishops refused to take the oath of Supremacy concluding that therefore she dealt justly in devesting those Bishops which thus refused to secure her Government or to approve their fidelity to their lawfull Soveraign By which one may see the Doctor knowes not the difference between the oath of Allegiance and the oath of Supremacy The oath of Allegiance or fidelity was instituted expresly for that purpose what needed she then presse them to take the oath of Supremacy to approvâ— their Fidelity or Allegiance cannot one be a true subject to his King by acknowledging him his Liege Soveraign unless he will take his oath he is Head of the Church As if neither any of the former Kings of England nor any of the Catholike Princes that now are or ever have been had so much as one true subject because none of them takes the Oath of Supremacy What followes is onely a narration how the Schism went on and the rent was made worse At length he shuts up this Chapter by pronouncing an absolute Negative of their guiltiness of Schism from this one evidence that all was done by those to whom and to whom onely the rightful power legally pertained to wit the King and Bishops of this Nation So as the King must be Head of the Church that 's concluded hoagh all the world say and swear the contrary though himselfe have not brought one express word to prove it Nay more he hath EVIDENCE it is no Schism because the King and the Bishops voted it as if whatsoever the King and Bishops vote let it be what schismatical doctrine it will though Socianism and Turcism it must not be schismatical so blind is prejudice that it can neither see without its own spectacles nor beyond its own narrow limits The Doctor discourses all this Chapter long as if he made account all the world were comprised in one poor corner of it England like the home-bred fellow that thought the Sun set at the next town if a King or Queen here with a few Bishops partly out of feare partly out of favour some out of malice and contradicted by others decree any thing it makes the case irrefragable
the true Charge the only way for a Protestant to clear his Church from Schism is to shew it not guilty of doing this either by disproving the former to be the necessary Rule of Unity in Faith or the latter the necessary Bond of Government both which though they somtimes say yet because in these Books professedly composed for their Vindication from the guilt of Schism they directly and of set purpose handle neither it is clear they intend to shuffle not speak pithily The first Principle which also includes the truth of the second wee hold by this manifest Evidence that still the latter Age could not bee ignorant of what the former beleev'd and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could bee alter'd in it which way of assurance carries with it the Testimony of all that are truly called Christians and this by so ample a memory and succession as is stronger than the stock of human Government and action no right of Law or human Ordinances being able to offer so ample clear and continued a Title They must remember how their Forefathers who began that which they call the Reformation were themselves of this profession before their pretended reform They ought to weigh what reasons their Ancestors should have had to introduce such an alteration They must confesse themselves guilty in continuing the breach unless they can alledge causes sufficient to have begun it had the same ancient Religion descended to these daies For the constant beleefe of the Catholike world both was at the time of your division and still is that these Principles are Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our nature is capable of to attain assurance what was done in Antiquity Evidences inviolable by any humane either power or proof except perfect and rigorous demonstration to which our Adversaries doe not so much as pretend and therefore without further dispute remain unanswerably convicted of Schism And though after this it bee superfluous to say any thing to any Book which does not so much as attempt to demonstrate either of these Points false yet I shall bestow a few thoughts to declare the quality of the Lord of Derry's Arguments not examining them any further than to shew how litle they are to the purpose In his two first Chapters though there bee many things false and more taken up without proof yet I will not touch them because hee onely pretends to settle the Question which is already done for my part And so I will begin my Animadversions where he begins his Arguments in the third Chapter His first proof is because not Protestants but Roman Catholikes themselves made the first separation 1. If it were so how does that acquit you since continuance in a Breach of this nature which cannot be sodered by time is as guilty as the very beginning Now these two Bonds of Unity being of Christs own institution no time can sear the bleeding wound And this because we hold by the fore-declared strength they now must have demonstrations to contradict it as well as the first Separaters 2. How does he prove they were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants what then did not Luther persecute Carolstadius and Zuinglius doe they not now in Germany and other Countries Lutherans permit no Calvinists Calvinists no Lutherans Did not you persecute Puritans and Brownists Doe you not now complain to bee persecuted by others will you make all these Papists or why are not they Reformers as well as you you will say many of these first breakers died Catholikes True but upon Repeutance Of Gardiner whom you presse so particularly it is recorded that upon his death bed he said Peccavi cum Petro exivi cum Petro sed nondum flevi cum Petro and so fell on a bitter weeping for that offence But in a word is not this renouncing the Pope the most essential point of your Reformation All the rest your good natur'd Religion can either embrace or censure and as occasion serves admit or refuse Communion with the deniers of any other Article never so fundamental this only is indispensable Then be sure wee never hear you again deny but that they who made this first Breach had in them the quintessence of your Reformation and were far less consistent with Catholicism than your modern younger brother Sectaries are with your kind of Protestancy since your selves confess the admittance of the Popes Authority more destructive to you than the denial of Prelacy His second Argument is because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new Law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated The first part is so notoriously false that I wonder any one can have the face to pronounce it a Law was made in Henry the 8ths time an Oath invented and exacted 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 That this was a new Law none but impudence it self can deny As for the second part let us see how hee proves it Hee brings divers allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted as being in the prejudice to the State or Church of England What is this man about that hee so forgets the question Doe wee professe the Pope can pretend no more than his right or is the question of this or that particular action of the Popes or does he think a legitimate Authority in common is rejected when the particular faults of them who are in Authority are resisted Is Magistracy or Royalty rejected when Pleas are commenced against Kings or Commonwealths as going beyond their true Jurisdiction Yes but the Pope is expresly deny'd the Power to doe such or such things Why then even by this fact hee is acknowledged to have power in other things since to limit an Authority implyes an admittance of it in cases to which the restraints extend not But hee presses Lawes anciently receiv'd in our Kingdome What is his meaning were not those Lawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths Reign or was his breach but the conservation of these Lawes and wee began our Religion there Are there any of these laws which are not equivalently in France Spain Germany Nay Italy it selfe Are none of these therefore Catholikes are they in as little communication with the Pope as Henry the eighth after his breach or the Protestants in Q Elizabeths times How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking and arguing is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and ears and all evidence In this fifth Chapter hee argues out of the Liberties of the Britannick Churches But first I would know what this belongs to us unless it bee prov'd that their practicks were an obliging precedent to us have wee any Title from the Britannick Churches otherwise than by the Saxon Christians who onely were our Ancestors and by whose conquests and lawes
really apprehended by him to whom they are thus proposed to be false it is hard to affirm that that man can lawfully subscribe and therefore rather then do it the Doctor makes account he may remain out of Communion and that lawfully too This is the Doctors assertion which indeed might serve out of a Pulpit to an Auditory that he would claw with giving them that sweet and as they esteem it Christian liberty of holding what they list but to any judicious person that knows what Government is it is in reality the sublimated quintessence of perfect Non-Religion and Anarchy The Position comes to this That none should be condemned or punished by his Governors for not-doing that the contrary whereof he thinks is to be done To give which Position the least shadow of likelihood the Doctor is necessarily obliged to prove first That no Pride Interest or Passion can make one think wrong and consequently culpable in so thinking which if the Doctor do he will work wonders and with a turn of his hand convert this world of miserable sinners into a Heaven of pure and perfect Saints But let us hear an Argument or two upon the Doctors principles An ambitious or proud man blinded by his Passion begins to think and really true that the long established Government of the Commonwealth is tyrannical and upon this thought he proceeds to jumble all the Land into intestine Seditions and to dismount the Governors from the top of Authority and as he tells you conscientiously too that is with a perfect perswasion according to his present Passion Force him not to subscribe to obey his lawful Magistrate saith the Doctor he may not do it lawfully it is against his Conscience A revengeful or malicious man thinks that in all right and reason he may endamage the party that offered the affront and upon the lawfulness of his so doing while his humor possesses him he would lay his Soul Controle him not saith the Doctor he is in an â—rror but yet governs himself at present according to Conscience he may not lawfully subscribe or â—eal a pardon contrary to his present perswasion The Anabaptist thought himself nearly touched in Conscience to cut off the heads of his Mother and Sister for kneeling at the Communion Urgâ—… him not to the contrary saith the Doctor 〈◊〉 cannot lawfully spare them it is against his preseâ—… perswasion The Puritans following the Protestants example refuse obedience to the Church of England seeing in her so many dregâ—… of Popery remaining Unjustly did the Church of England saith the Doctor in obliging them to her obedience and cutting off poor Bastâ—… wicks Burtons and Prynnes Ears who did according to their Conscience or present perswasion Neither will it avail you to Answer that these were told by Gods Law that their actâ—… were unwarrantable and therefore were culpable For it is easie to reply that you were as much and as earnestly commanded by God to hear the Church and obey your lawful Superiors and incurred a far greater sin if you did not to wit the sin of Schism which your selfe unfortunate Pen has out of the Fathers described to be a venomous compound swoln with the mixt poyson of all sorts of Vices The Reader will by this see to what a pass this Doctors Logick would bring the world if his Position should take place That no man should be obliged to or punished for anything against his present perswasion which he terms his Conscience The contrary to which that I may a little more elucidate from its first grounds the Reader may please to consider That this present perswasion which a man is so fixt in may either begin in the Understanding or proceed from the Will If in the Understanding it must be onely a perfect demonstration that can beget in it so firm an adherence and then being rational it is not onely excusable but laudable Otherwise it is an irrational resolvedness sprung from a passionate distorsion of the interessed Will pushing and exciting the Understanding without due deliberation first to pitch upon and afterwards pertinaciously to adhere to a thing more then the light of Reason it self gives Which being in the Will vicious is consequently as all other Vices are culpable liable to correction and by correction reformable So as Licet non possumus opinari quando volumus that is Although we cannot deem or think a thing true but we must have some Motive or other true or false why we think so yet with this it well consists that a perverse affection in the Will may blinde and lead astray the Understanding by proposing false Motives for true ones And therefore when the Will by deserved punishment is whipt out of her viciousness the Native lustre of the Understanding will quickly disenvelop its self from the cloud of mistake in which the Passion exhaled vapors had enwrapt her You see then Doctor which perhaps you never reflected on before A man may be obliged to retract a present perswasion and however he pretends Conscience for his excuse be punished too if he does not since his bad will was the cause of his erroneous judgment as the cases of the fore-mentioned Malefactors your Clients have as I hope by this time better informed you But perhaps you would not have this method used in matters of Religion And why not Unless the violating the ever-sacred Authority of Christs Church and renouncing the main support of all Religion the Rule of Faith things in the conserving of which the eternal salvation of mankinde consists be less deserving punishment in the offenders or less worth taking notice of by the Governors of the Church then the wrong of thirteen-pence half-penny is by the Laws and Governors of the Commonwealth The result then of your discourse comes to this That all your dwindling suppisitions anâ— may bees which you wisely put down foâ— proofs and sometimes for grounds remain still in question or rather unquestionably unsupposable Your tenderness of Conscience not to sin against God in subscribing to the errors forsooth of his Church which he hath commanded you to hear onely Pharasaical arrogancy and singularity in you which makes you think and style at pleasure any thing Error which the whole Church holds if contrary to your private judgment Lastly Our pretended making Communion impossible will be found to be onely a self-opinionated pride in you and of all pride 's the most miserable and filly to adhere so pertinaciously against Evidence of Authority to a few obscure scraps of writers speaking on the by and your own self acknowledged fallibility All these and whatever pretences you here in sinuate will all lie at your doors and loudly call you Schismaticks unless you can evidence with most perfect demonstrations that those things were Errors which the Church obliged you to subscribe to that is that the Churches doctrine was or is erroneous and consequently her self not infallible This if you evidence I shall grant you have
That the Emperors did it by their own proper Power SECT 7. Of Doctor Hammond's advance towards the Question in the beginning of his Fourth Chapter THe Doctor having so wisely and securely laid his Grounds that is Having omited all Grounds that might either preiudice his Cause or touch the Question advances at length towards the Controversie it self but with the same reeling-pace as formerly In which he continues throughout the whole progress of this Chapter with such a rambling career as if what he had said hitherto were but preparatives to absurdness or but nonsence in jest which here being come to the point he more exactly performs in earnest Which if my Answer to this Chapter do not plainly demonstrate I will submit my self willingly to be branded by the Readers censure for a most unjust Calumniator But if it do then let him think of Mr. Hammonds manner of proceeding and his cause as they shall be found to deserve And first stumbling at the Threshold he expects that the Church should produce evidence for her own or her supreme Head's Authority in England Which since it is confessed by all sides That the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacy it no more belongs to us to prove just then it doth to the Emperor who had derived the succession of his right from a long train of Ancestors to evidence his title to the Kingdom ere he can punish a Rebel It is wonderful the Doctor should be ignorant of that which all the world knows and acknowledges to wit That a long-setled possession is of it self a proof until the contrary be evinced so as he who should deny the Authority of such an Emperor were truly and properly a seditious person and you for the same Reasons truly and properly Schismaticks unless he can produce sufficient that is evident Causes and Reasons why he refused obedience to that Emperor and you why you denied subjection to the Pope who as you were told before was not less found in a quiet and long-acknowledged possession of Primacy in England nay much more then any Emperor or King in Christendom was of his Crown to wit even by your own grants for the space of eight or nine hundred years Neither imagin that the Modern Protestants who finde the Pope outed from his Jurisdiction in England are therefore excusable from their Fore-fathers Schism For however changeableness of humane affairs and pretence that Temporal Laws were constituted and are disannulable by men may render such rights and titles obnoxious to alienation or alteration and so cause a deseazance of any obedience formerly due to a secular Governor Yet if Christ himself hath constituted any Authority and enjoyned obedience to it no length of time no vicissitude of secular Affairs nor intercession of humane Laws can ever disoblige from this duty So that it lies still as freshly as at the first breach encharg'd upon the Protestants under the penalty of Schism to manifest with most convincing and undeniable Arguments that the Pope could never claim any such Authority from Christ. Which claim of ours and as the Doctor will have it our first evidence he goes about to confute in this Chapter But first in big terms he layes out an ample Narration how King Henry the Eighth the Universities and Parliament not onely said but testified under their Hands and Seals nay more saith the Doctor took their Corporal Oaths on it that the Pope was not Head of the Church and All this saith Mr. Hammond is lookâ— on and condemned as an act of Schism in this Church and Nation What a piece of wit is here This is the very thing for which we accuse your Church and Nation of Schism and you by a bare Narration that it was done think it seems to have half proved it was lawfully done And all this said seal'd and sworn by a King Parliament and Universities is enough to amaze a vulgar-headed Reader into a belief That their Votes could not be other then true And I doubt not but the Doctor himself wonders That the whole Catholick Church should be so unreasonable as not to grant and think her self ever to have taught and the whole world ever to have believed a lie rather then to judge so uncharitably That a lustful and tyrannical King with some number of his Subjects partly out of flattery partly out of fear adhearing to him though these not a handful in comparison of the even-then-present Christian World should say seal and swear a falshood Especially the cause of the breach being most notorious to the whole world not to have been Conscience but vicious and unlawful pretences And on the other side multitudes of conscientious and learned men opposing it and many laying down their dearest lives in testimony of the contrary truth whose taking the Affirmative upon their deaths is more to be believed then the other true taking it upon their Corporal Oaths Among those who died in defence of the Popes Supremacy was our renowned and worthy Countryman Sir Thomas More whose esteem for Piety Learning and Prudence as the King professed was so eminent That his subscription alone if it could be procured was worth half the Realms Yet this so notorious acting and commencing of Schism though sprung from unlawful lust and managed with most cruel tyranny the Doctor seems to think so laudable that the very mentioning it will something conduce to justifie a Schismatick All this saith he is looked on and condemned as an act of Schism in this Church and Nation Next he proceeds to state the Question by branching the Objection into many parts which the Doctor will needs have belong to us to manifest ere the Objection will have any force So as possession beyond memory is of no force with him which yet is the basis of all the firm peace this poor world enjoys and the ground upon which every man remains quietly instated in his own When such a possession is once setled all Controversies are silenced when it is question'd a gap is open'd to all litigiousness Necessity therefore and evidence must both be pleaded ere any one can justly quarrel with this Nurse of Peace Yet the Church must plead her Evidence saith the Doctor that is Seem to bring in question her own longpossessed Title and at whose Bar think you must she plead it At no other then that of her quondam Sons and Subjects and now Rebels and Enemies But the Doctor most unfortunately accurate in his Divisions tells us That we must manifest first the matter of fact that thus it was in England Secondly The consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successors of Saint Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ. As for the first The Reader I doubt not will smile at the Doctors folly in telling us we are to manifest that which no man living ever denied and which himself immediately before and far more largely hereafter relates and acknowledges For who
deny but sometimes to be subject for Ordination was sign of subjection but not always The Bishop of Ostia hath the priviledge to consecrate the Pope yet the Pope is not to be his subject The Council of Sardica ordains That the next Province shall give Bishops to a Province that wants yet makes not that Province subject to it The Patriarch of Alexandria gave the Indians Bishops yet claimed no jurisdiction over them and consecrated the Patriarch of Constantinople yet was not Constantinople in his Territories Therefore this is no rule of Subjection and if it were the Doctor must say this Primate was subject to his own Suffragans Neither did ever Popes or Patriarchs in ancient times demand the Ordination of all the Bishops in their Patriarchates nor does the Pope at this day demand it in other Patriarchates though he claim jurisdiction over them But now who can tell us what the Doctor means when he says the Emperor did all this onely by making it a Primates or chief Metropolitans See and that Carthages being the prime Metropolis of Africk is expressed by having the same priviledges with Prima Iustiniana Can any man think he intendeth other then to mock his Auditory For as far as I understand these words signifie that the Emperor said onely Be thou a chief Metropolis and in so saying gave all these Priviledges Whereas all the Doctors labor hitherto and the Texts by him cited wherein every priviledge is set down so particularly make it manifest there were none or not eminent examples of any such Cities or Bishopricks and therefore so many particularities were necessary to be expressed and it be made an example to others Yet upon this relieth the Doctors main evidence and demonstration Though if you will believe him The conclusion of it self is most certain and might otherwise be testified by innumerable Evidences which we ought to suppose the Doctor omits for brevities sake and contents himself with this riff-raff and his Readers with bold promises and solemn affirmations In his tenth Section immediately following he draws out of his so strong discourse a consequence able to make any sensible man understand the former discourses were all vain and wicked For says he If from the Apostles time there hath been an independent power vested in each Primate or chief Metropolitan then how can it be necessary to the being of a Member of the Catholick Church to be subject to that one Primate Worthy Doctor your inference is very strong and good But I pray consider what is the consequent Surely this If there be no Catholick Church the obedience to the Pope is not necessary to be a member of it A very learned conclusion and worthy of so long a discourse to introduce it yet see whether it be yours or no. You say every chief Metropolitan was independent from all others they made therefore so many absolute Churches therefore made not any one Church Where then is the Catholick Church of which we ought to be members Many houses to be one house is as fairly contradictory as many men or horses to be one horse and so of many Churches to be one Church A Church saith St. Cyprian is a people united to their Bishop If then there be a Catholick Church there must be a Catholick Bishop and taking away the obedience to one Bishop you cannot save one Church I know you can talk like a Saint That Christ is the Head in which all Churches are united But the Church is a Government upon Earth and as an Army with its General or a Commonwealth with its chief Magistrate in Heaven were no Army nor Commonwealth So without subjection to a visible supreme Pastor there will be no Church on Earth left us whereof we ought to be Members which is the true Protestant Tenet whatsoever they may shuffle in words an art wherein they are the most eminent of all Modern Hereticks Therefore he had reason to enlarge himself no farther but conclude with the Authority of his Convocation An. 1537. To which I confess my self unable to answer for it is a pregnant and unavoidable Testimony Onely I may remember our old English Proverb Ask my fellow whether I am a Thief or ask Caiphas whether Pilates sentence against our Saviour was not just You know it was a Convocation of Bishops who for fear renounced their Oaths taken in their Consecration and therefore men of no credit upon their pure words in this case Now their Arguments are no other then what are already discussed that is meer Cobwebs woven out of a tainted heart Besides those who supervived that wicked King for the most part with hearty penance washed away that crime and with their tears blotted out as far as in them lay the black Indentures of that dismal Contract SECT 3. A Discovery of Dr. Hammonds Fundamental Error which runs through this Chapter and his ingratitude for our Countreys Conversion THe Doctor proceeding in his own mistaking method which is to produce faintly and then impugn our Pleas in stead of pleading for himself who stands accused of Schism entitles his sixth Chapter THEIR THIRD PLEA FROM THE BISHOP OF ROMES HAVING PLANTED CHRISTIANITY AMONG US As if we pretended the Conversion of this Nation to have been the reason why the Pope challenged here the Supremacy or That his being Head of the Universal Church depended upon his private Apostleship performed towards this Nation This is the ground of all his ensuing Chapter which being absolutely false and forged upon us it had been sufficient to have past it over with this civil reproof Doctor you mistake For what Catholick Author ever affirmed the Pope is beholden to his Ancestors care in bringing England to Christs Faith for his supreme jurisdiction there or that his title of Primacy had not been equal in this Countrey in case it had hapned Constantinople or Alexandria had sent to convert it We will therefore free the Doctor from any obligation of Subjection to the Popes Primacy which he causlesly fears may come by this title so he will acquit himself and the Church of England of another which lies heavy on them and makes up the full measure of their Schism unless they retract it For if greatest benefits draw on greatest engagements and no benefit be so great as that which rescues us from the Devils tyranny the the bonds of Infidelity and brings us by enlarging our hearts by Faith into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God Sure no Obligation can be conceived so indispensably-binding as that which is due to those who were Authors to us of so inestimable a good This consideration should make the enjoyers of that benefit while they were sons to such a Mother more humble and obedient in an especial manner and by consequence in an high measure aggravate the horrid sin of Schism in not onely rebelliously but most ingratefully abandoning the communion of so tenderly beneficial a Parent This should make them after the breach made
though they cannot yet so overcome their proper-will and proper-judgment as to return at least candidly to acknowledge the benefits received from her and to bear her a due respect however not to revile and reproach her But against all History and onely out of a few obscure and unauthentick sayings to disacknowledge your highest obligation to her in stead of grateful courtesie to slight and contemn her to naturalize in the hearts of your poor Auditors an hatred against the very name of Rome and the Pope to which Rome and its Pope you and they are beholding next and immediately under God for all the knowledge you have of Christ or his holy Word Lastly To revile that Church which till you broke from her had ever the most sacred title of Christs onely Spouse with your scolding Sermon-invectives grateful elegancies to your applauding hearers of Idolatrous Antichristian Strumpet Whore of Babylon and all the venemous spiteful expressions that ever were vomited from a malice-imposthum'd heart These things I say are they which brand you beyond infamy in the judgment of prudent men and double Dy the dark-coloured sin of Schism with the deepest tincture of the blackest ingratitude Of this ingratitude Master Doctor clear your selves first in breaking next in your carriage and comportment ever since and we will without much difficulty disoblige you from any other duty which you seem afraid you ow us upon onely that score of Conversion Yet you will needs have us hold whether we will or no That the Pope is Head of the Church because his Predecessor converted England And this ground laid in the air of your own fancy you impugn as inconsequently butting at us most formidably with a Dilemma or cornuted Syllogism and telling us That the Popes Primacy in this Iland is either from the Donation of Christ or Conversion by Austin the Monk If the latter then England was not subject to the Pope before Austin ' s coming If the former then is that other title of the Conversion by Austin a fallacious pretence A NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA c. This is the sum of his Dilemma In answer to which I confess indeed the latter title is A fallacious pretence A NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA but the fallacy is on the Doctors side who feigns us to pretend what we never thought on to wit That the Popes supremacy is grounded on any such title One of the horns then of his Dilemma is a false one and so the danger of being catcht between them easily avoided Nor is his Dilemma it self more solidly founded were both the particular pretences true for it wholly insists and leans upon this Position That no man can claim a possession upon two titles On which ground to let us see he is a Lawyer as well as a Divine he descants in these words He that claims a reward as of his own labor and travail must be supposed to disclaim Donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the former as the title of descent is of that of conquest Thus this Doctor of Law Whereas what more ordinary then to plead two titles at Law as for example birth-right and a formerly-given judgment for the same thing Or what more unreasonable then to affirm That Iacob who wrought other seven years for Rachel could not claim her as a reward of his service for that time unless he renounce his right to her due at the former years end Do not we see daily That those who have palpable right to their estate when they cannot quietly enjoy it otherwise by reason of the injustice of a wrangling adversary are forced to compound for and buy their own without â—isclaiming their former title Neither is his last instance more solid then its fellows That the title of descent is exclusive to that of conquest since the titles of Donation and Conquest are as opposite as those he mentions and yet it is well known That William the Conqueror pretended a right to the Kingdom upon both these titles and Henry the Seventh if I mistake not upon three But the thing is so clear that it requires no further proof save onely to advertise the Reader That Dr. Hammond is the first Lawyer I ever heard of who denied a possibility of a double title to the same thing Yet I am glad to see by the Doctors perfect ignorance and utter unacquaintance in Law that he is at least a good honest quiet sober soul not used much to trouble himself with Law nor wrangle with his Neighbors which is a very great commendation and better beseeming his innocent Nature which was never shaped to be a Controvertist Next proceeding still on his own false grounds he goes about first ingratefully to deny that St. Austin the Monk converted our Forefathers Secondly After some acknowledgment to prove very unmannerly and uncivilly no thanks due As for the first he tells us That this Iland was converted to the Faith of Christ long before Augustines Preaching to the Saxons citing many Authors for it Where if by the word Iland he mean the Ilanders as I suppose he must I would then ask him though the former Ilanders were before converted by the Missionaries of Pope Eleutherius yet whether those that St. Augustin was sent to convert that is the Saxons were reduced before that time to Christianity or no if they were not as I am sure he must and will acknowledge all the ancient Inhabitants the Britains being driven by them into Wales then what a perversness and want of ingenuity is it in Master Hammond to wave so ungratefully that incomparable benefit which we Englishmen received in our Ancestors by the Popes fatherly care first converted to Christs Faith and what a pitiful shift it is to shew a willingness to put it off by quibbling in the words this Iland as if they did not signifie these Ilanders or the Ilanders of the same race but these Trees Woods and Mountains The next page goes on very currantly and without any rub proving That the formerlyplanted Faith of Christ in this Iland was not totally extinguished by the ancient persecutions so to infer a less beholdingness of us Englishmen to Rome and Pope Gregory the Great for our Conversion but all in vain For unless he proves that they who had formerly embraced and retained that Faith propagated it to the after-comers the Saxons who were Ancestors to us Englishmen or that St. Austin was not the first that preached to these which he will never do all the evidence he can bring from hence is to prove himself ungrateful Then he ends this Paragraph with a Testimony out of the old obscure Annals of Gisburn and brought to light by one of his own side in which it is said That the Bishop of St. Davids was consecrated by the Suffragan Bishops oâ— that Province Nulla penitus professione vel subjectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae No profession or subjection at all being made to another
Communion of the Faithful This Rule therefore broken or rejected dissolves all positive Communion amongst Christians both in Faith and Sacraments For what tie could they possibly have to communicate in any thing consequent to Faith as Sacraments Government or any good work unless they first communicate in faith the rule and ground of those Sacraments Government and good works and how can they communicate in faith if there be no Infallibility to binde them to an Unity in it The denying therefore of this Infallibility is the reason of all Schism and even of Heresie too nay it selfe is the Heresie of Heresies opening a liberty for every man to embrace his owne new-fangled opinions and introducing principles of incertitude and at best probability in Religion whose natural course is to wander at last into a Civil kind of Atheism Nor can there be any rational pretence to oblige mens consciences to a Religion whose conâ—est uncertainty must needs infer an absolute abolishment of all Church discipline and content it selfe with a meer voluntary obedience that is legitimaâ—e all Schism by taking away the very possibility of Schismatizing Another reason may be given why the denying this infallibility perverts quite overthrows all unity in Church-government For the preservation of the Churches unity in government being essential to Religion that is to the Art of breeding up mankind to know and love God it cannot possibly be conceived to be of humane but divâ—ne institution and therefore being taught and instituted by Christ belongs to Faith and so requires to be recommended by the same never-eâ—ring Rule which teaches us the rest of his Doctrine He therefore that denies this Infallibility hath no sufficient reason to beleeve the Article of the Churches Government and consequently will easily finde evasion to excuse his obedience to her commands The Unity of the Church being thus clearly delivered there needs no new task to shew what Schism is it being nothing else but the unknitting and dissolving these several manners of this Unity and Communion and in breaking aâ—under that tye and obligation by which these Unions of the several members with one another and of all with the Head are firm'd and made inviolable What remaines to be done is onely to shew that this Anatomy of Schism is the perfect picture nay the very Sceleton of the carkasse-Church of England and that they have infring'd the lawes of Unity in all the aforesaid manners And as for the first which is the Unity of all the Members under one Head or Chief Bishop and Pastour of the Church in whom at the time of the breach all the Hierarchical Order was summed up as in the highest top of that Heaven-reaching Climax you confesse here Sect. 5. that you cast it out of this Island The Authority I say of the chief Pastourship of the Bishop of Rome to which you and the whole Church you were then in were subject acknowledged by you not Patriarchal onely but a large step higher to wit universally extended over all Patriarchs and the whole Church was that which you cast out and subtracted your selfe from its obdiencee If then you will hold to your former grounds so largely to your disadvantage laid in your third Chapter that it is Schism in a Deacon or Priest to disobey a Bishop in a Bishop to refuse subjection to his Aroh-Bishop c. How will you excuse your selves from Schism in rejecting the Authority of the Head of the Church unless you can evidence that Authority null that is that Doctrine false to which you had been subject ever since your first Conversion as to a more superiour Governour than either Bishop Arch-Bishop Primate or Patriarch In vaine then was your long frivolous digression that Kings may erect and translate Patriarchates since a greater Authority than a Patriarch was rejected by you and cast out of this Island which no King ever pretended to erect and remove at pleasure In vain do you think to shelter your Schism under the wings of the Regal power since your King being at that time actually under the Pope as far as concerned Ecclesiastical matters and acknowledging his supreme Pastourship lies himself as deeply obnoxious to the charge of Schism as you his subjects and followers or rather much more as being the Ringleader of the breach So as no plea is so unwarrantable as to bring him for your excuse who is the person accounted most guilty and who needs a plea himself for his own far more inexcusable Schism and disobedience But what excuse you bring or not bring concerns us not at present onely this remains certain and acknowledg'd that you cast out of the Island that Supreme Authority in which at that time the Faithful of the Church you were in communicated and in which chiefly consisted the Unity of the Hierarchical Government arising orderly and knit np peaceably in acknowledgment of and subjection to that One Head Whether you did this justly or no belongs to the formal part of Schism and shall be discussed in the following Section Next for what concerns the Unity of one Member-Church with another it is no lesse evident you have broke asunder all positive Communion not in Government onely as hath been shewn but in Faith and Sacraments with all Churches which communicated with the See of Rome whom before your Schism you 〈◊〉 the onely and sole true Members of Christs mystical Body That you broke from their Communion in Government hath been already manifested from your rejecting her Supreme Governour in the subjection to whom they all communicated Nor is it less evident that you have broke from their Faith as appeares from the irreconcileable diversity of the points of Faith between us and the large difference between your 39. Articles and our Council of Trent Nor has the Unity you and those Churches had in Sacraments escaped better Five of them being par'd away as unnecessary the sixth transelementated from the sacred price of our Redemption into the egena elementa of bread and wine and the seventh onely that is Baptism with much adoe remaining inviolate lest you should forfeit the name of Christians also together with the reality If the denial of these and your styling the best act of our Religion to wit the the oblation of the Unbloudy Sacrifice in your 31. Article a blasphemous fiction and pernicious imposture and lastly if your persecuting us to death be signes of a positive communion with us then killing may be called kindness and railing votes against us may perhaps be styled Communicatory letters with us All Communication then both positive and negative with the Church you were in formerly was by you renounced yet at least some pretence of excuse had been producible if departing out of that Church you had either kept or renew'd Communion with some other which was acknowledged by all the World or at least by your selves before the breach to have been a true one But you can pretend no such thing as