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
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
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
is a Murtherer What will it avail a man to be a Catholick in the eie of the World and a Schismatick in the eie of God to be a Member of the visible Church and to be cast into utter darkness He is not a Iew who is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh But he is a Iew who is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the heart So he is not a Catholick who is one outwardly but he who is a Catholick inwardly whose praise is not of men but of God Then I set down wherein the externall Communion of Catholicks doth consist in the same Creeds or Confessions of faith in the participation of the same Sacraments in the same Liturgies or divine Offices in the use of the same publick Rites and Ceremonies in the communicatory Letters and admission of the same Dâ—scipline These observations about the parts of the Catholick Communion are so innocent so indifferent and so unsubserviant to either party that I hoped they might pass without any censure But behold there is not one of them can escape an exception To the first part of Catholick communion in the same Creeds he takes two exceptions first That communion in faith is pretended a sufficient excuse from true Schism Fear it not no man dreameth that communion with the Church in her Creed doth acquit from Schism but not communicating with the Church in her Creed doth make both Schism and Heresie The having of faith doth not supplie the want of Charity but the want of one necessary requisite renders the having of another insufficient Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis malum ex quolibet defectu His second Exception is That true saving faith requireth not only a communion in the Creed but in all Gods words cleerly revealed to him and sufficiently proposed I answer What is necessary for this man at this time in this place is one thing what is necessary for all Christians at all times in all places is another thing Though all revealed truths be alike necessary to be beleeved when they are known yet all revealed truths are not alike necessary to be known And they who know them not are not obliged to communicate in the beleefe of them untill they know them So to beleeve them when they are revealed to us is a necessary duty of all Christians And yet the explicite beliefe of them is no necessary part of Christian communion He that holds fast the old Creed of the Church hath all things that are absolutely necessary in point of Faith Perhaps he thinks that the determination of the Roman Church is a sufficient proposall we know no such thing Let him first win the privilige and then enjoy it To the second and third parts of Catholick Communion he objects That it is not sufficient to participate in Catholick Sacraments unless it be done with Catholicks This is true How can they be parts of Catholick Communion if no Catholicks doe participate of them But here are two advertisements necessary the one that Sacraments purely administred and Sacraments corruptly administred so long as the abuses doe not destroy the essence are the same Sacraments As Baptisme administred in pure water and Baptisme administred with salt and spittle also is the same Baptisme The other that it is not any Church of one denomination whatsoever either Roman or other that either is the Catholick Church or is to judge under Christ who are true Catholicks There are many more Catholicks without the Roman Communion than within it Our Separatists in England having first laid their own drowsie conceits for infallable grounds that their Discipline is the Scepter of Christ that they alone are Zion and all other societies Babilon then they apply all the power and priviledges and prerogatives of the Church unto themselves So the Church of Rome having flattered it self into an opinion that she alone is the Catholick Church and all other Churches divided from her hereticall or schismaticall Conventicles though they be three or four times larger than her self presently laies hold on the keies of the Church opens and shuts le ts in and thrusts out makes Catholicks and unmakes Catholicks at her pleasure He tels us That the Communion of the Church doth not necessarily imply the same Rites and Ceremonies I know it right well The Queens Daughter was arraied in a Garment wrought about with divers colours No men have been so much too blame as the Church of Rome in obtruding indifferent Rites as necessary duties upon other Churches But yet the more harmony and uniformity that there is in Rites the greater is the Communion The Church is compared to an Army with banners What a disorderly Army would it be if every Souldier was left free to wear his own colours and to give his own words I know the Communion of the Church did not consist in communicatory Letters but they were both expressions and excellent helpes and adjuments of unity and antidotes against Schism What he saith now the third time of our communicating with Schismaticks hath been answered already Wherefore saith he since I. D. hath failed so many waies in defining Schism let us define it better And then he brings in his definition triumphantly True Schism is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church that is in some essentiall of Christian Religion Where lies the difference I call it a separation and he calles it a division I say culpable and he saith voluntary omnis culpa est voluntaria My expressions are more significant and emphaticall All the difference lies in these words in some substantiall part of the true Church Which for the form of expression is improper to make essentiall properties to be substantiall parts and for the matter is most untrue for there have been are and may be many Schismes which doe not concern any essentialls of Christian Religion I would borrow one word more with him why he calles it rather a division of the true Church than a division from the true Church I know some Roman Catholicks have doubted and suspended their judgements whether Schismaticks be still Members of the Catholick Church others have determined that they are And we are of the same minde that in part they doe remain still coupled and mortised to the Church that is in those things wherein they have made no separation ex ea parte in texturae compage detinentur in caetera scissi sunt And that in this respect the Catholick Church by their baptism doth beget Sonnes and Daughters to God And we think we have St. Austin for us in this also Vna est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur quicquid suum habet in Communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis per hoc quod suum in iis habet ipsa utique generat non illae This perhaps is contrary to R. C. his opinions howsoever we thank him for
substantialls lately coyned and obtruded upon the Chrurch as those Articles which are comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth And in this sense our Religion and theirs are not the same in substance The former substantialls were made by God the later substantialls devised by man I pleaded that when all things were searched to the bottome Roman Catholicks doe acknowledge the same possibility of Salvation to Protestants which Protestants doe afford to Roman Catholicks And for proof thereof I produced two testimonies of his own To this he answers first that Protestants doe allow saving faith and salvation to the Roman Church and to formall Papists But Roman Catholicks doe denie saving faith and salvation to the Protestant Church and to formall Prrtestants and grant it only to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errours who are not formall Protestants but rather Protestantibus credentes persons deceived by giving too much trust to Protestants We say the very same that we allow not saving faith or salvation to the Popish Church as it is corrupted but as it reteins with Protestants the same common principles of saving truth and is still jointed in part to the Catholick Church Nor to formall Papists but to such as erre invincibly and are prepared in their mindes to receive the truth when God shall reveal it Such are not formall Papists but Papist is credentes such as give too much trust to Papists His second answer is a second errour grounded only upon those imaginarie ideas which he hath framed to himself in his own head of the opinions of particular Protestants and laboured much to little purpose to prove by conjecturall consequences which hang together like a roap of sand That Protestants affirm that such as erre in fundamentall Articles and such as erre sinfully in not fundamentalls may be saved Neither the Church of England against which he ought to bend his forces in this question nor any genuine sonne of the Church of England nor any other Protestant Church ever said that Papists might be saved though they held not the fundamentalls of saving truth or though they held lesser errors pertinaciously without repentance If any particular Protestants were ever so mad to maintain any such thing in an ordinarie way for we speak not now of the extraordinarie dispensations of Gods grace in case of invincible necessity we disclaime them in it Let him not spare them But I beleeve that when all is done about which he makes such a stirre it will prove but Moonshine in the water To what I said that our separation is from their errours not from their Church he answereth that it shews my ignorance what their Church is For their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors and therefore they who separate from them separate from their Church In my life I never heard a weaker plea But I desire no other advantage then what the cause it self affords Doth he himself beleeve in earnest that any errors are essentialls of a Church Or would he perswade us that weeds are essentials of a Garden or ulcers and wenns and such superfluous excrescences essentials of an humane body Or doe weeds become no weeds aud errors no errors because they are called pretended weeds or pretended errors or because they are affirmed to be essentials This is enough to justifie my distinction So it was not my ignorance but their obstinacy thus to incorporate their errors into their Creeds and matriculate their abuses among their sacred Rites In vain doe they worship me saith God teaching for Doctrines the commandements of men Suppose an Arrian or a Pelagian should charge him to be a Schismatick or an Apostate because he deserted their communion To which he should answer that his separation was from their Arrian or Pelagian errours not from their Church as it was a Christian Church and that he held all other common principles of Christianity with them And suppose the Arrian or Pelagian should plead as he doth that their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors or that their pretended errors are essentials of their Church and of their Religion This might well aggravate their own faults but not infringe the truth of his answer Errors continue errors though they they be called essentials There was a time before Arrianism did infest the Church and there succeeded a time when it was cast out of the Church Their old essentials which were made essentials by Christ we doe readily receive Their new essentials which were lately devised by themselves we doe as utterly reject and so much the rather because they have made them essentials Their Church flourished long without these errors and we hope the time will come when it shall be purged from these errors In setting forth the modderation of our English Reformers I shewed that we doe not arrogate to our selves either a new Church or a new Religion or new holy orders Upon this he falls heavily two waies First he saith it is false as he hath shewed by innumerable testimonies of Protestants That which I say is not the falser because he calls it so nor that which he saith the truer because I forbear For what I said I produced the authority of our Church he letteth that alone and sticketh the falshood upon my sleeve It seemeth that he is not willing to engage against the Church of England For stiâ—l he declineth it and changeth the subject of the question from the English Church to a confused companie of particular Authors of different opinions of dubious credit of little knowledge in our Engâ—ish affairs tentered and wrested from their genuine sense Scis tu simulare Cupressum quid hoc It was not the drift or scope of my undertaking to answer old volumes of impertinencies If he have any testimonies that are materiall in the name of God let him bring them into the lists that the Reader may see what they say and be able to compare the evidence with the answer and not imagine more then is true Let him remember that I premonish him that all his innumerable testimonies will advantage him nothing Secondly he would perswade us that if it were so that our Church Religion and holy Orders were the same with theirs then what need had we to goe out of theirs for salvation then we are convinced of Schism Alas poor men what will become of us Hold what we will say what we can still we are Schismaticks with them If we say our Church Religion and holy Orders are the same with theirs then we are Schismaticks for deserting them If we say they are not the same then we are Schismaticks for censuring and condemning them But we appeale from the sentence of our Adveâ—sarie to the sentence of that great Judge who judgeth righteous judgment We are either Wheat or Chaff but neither their tongues nor their pennes must winnow us If we say our Church Religion and holy Orders be
the Pope or his Office If Luther proceeded not in form of Law against the Pope it is no marveil I remember no process in Law that was between them He challenged only verbum informans not virgam reformantem Doe you think that if he or any other had cited the Pope to have appeared in Germanie or England he would have obeyed the Summons They might as well have called again yesterday Howsoever Luther's acts concern not us Their third objection is that we have quitted our lawfull Patriarch which argument he saith he will omit because we have spoken enough of that before Either I am mistaken or this is a fallacie of no cause for a cause The true cause why he omitteth it being not because we have spoken enough of it for he hath continually declined it but rather because he seeth that it is incompatible with that sovereignty and universality of Power which the Roman Bishops doe challenge at this day Let them lose the substance whilest they catch at the shadow But in the place of this he proposeth another objection which he calleth their most forcible argument against us which in brief is this No Church is to be left in which salvation is to be had but we confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance the true Church c. I cannot but observe what difference there is in the judgements of men for of all their objections I take this to be the weakest And so would he also if he would cease to confound the Catholick Church with a Catholick Church that is the universall Church with a particular Church and distinguish the essentialls of a Church from the corruptions of a Church and make a difference between a just reformation of our selves and a causless separation from others But be the argument what it will forcible or weak it hath been answered abundantly in this Treatise over and over again And therefore though he pleased I use his own expressions to say it often to repeat it often to inculcate it Yet I dare not abuse the patience of the Reader with so many needless tautologies He taxeth me for not answering some testimonies which he hath collected in a book of his called the Protestants plain Confession which he saith I have read and therefore I ought not to have dissembled them but perhaps I thought them too hard to be answered I confess I have read some of his books formerly but I deny that I have one of them in-present If I had doth he think it reasonable or indeed possible that in one Chapter I should take notice of all that hath been written upon this Subject I confess I have answered many impertinences in this Treatise but a man would not willingly go so far out of his way to seek an impertinence When I did read some of his Treatises I pitied the mispending of so much time in weeding and wresting of Authors of severall reformations who writ in the beginning of the Controversie between sleeping and waking Sometimes he condemneth us of Schism for communicating with them some other times he citeth them as our Classicall Authors and at other times from the different Opinions of the Sons of the same Church he impugneth the conclusion wherein they doe all accord As if I should argue this If the bread be transubstantiated into the body of Christ it is either by production or aâ—duction but such and such Roman catholick Authors doe deny that it is by produduction and such and such other Roman catholick Authors doe deny that it is by adduction therefore by the plain confession of Roman Catholicks there is no transubstantiation If I had omitted any testimonies of weight cited by him in this Treatise as he hath done the most of all my grounds then with better reason he might have called it dissembling He seemeth to me to take this course only to make his credulous Reader beleeve that there is more in his books then there is It is the Church of England which he hath undertaken to combate Let him not leave his chosen Province to seek out petty adversaries among strangers and think to wound the Church of England through their sides He needeth not to be so much abroad whilest he may have enough to doe at home He urgeth that there is no salvation out of the Church no more then there was out of the Arke of Noah howsoever or for whatsoever one went out That Noahs Arke was a figure of baptisme St. Peter doth assure us and it may also very fitly represent the Church but that is the catholick or universall Church and then we yeeld the conclusion that there is no salvation out of the Church But particular Churches are like severall Chambers or Partitions within the Arke of Noah A man might goe out of one of them untill it was cleansed into another without any danger The Church of Rome is not Noahs Arke but St Peters Boat The rest of the Apostles had their Boats as well as Saint Peter He beateth but the aire in citing Saint Austin and Saint Hierome against us who have neither left the Church nor the Communion of the Church He maketh our Church to be in worse condition then the Church of the Donatists because Protestants grant that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essence of a true Church but the Donatists did deny that the catholick Church of their time was a true Church Doth he not see that he argueth altogether against himself The Schism of the Donatists consisted therein that they did uncharitably censure the catholick Church to have lost the essence of the Church this was indeed to goe schismatically out of the Communion of the Church and on the other side this is our safety and security that we are so far from censuring the catholick Church that we doe not censure the Roman Church which is but a particular Church to be no Church or to have lost its Communion with Christ nor have separated from it in any essentiall of Christian Religion but only in corruptions and innovations Our Charity freeth us from Schism The uncharitableness of the Donatists rendred them Schismaticks It may be a good lesson for the Romanists who tread too much in the steppes of the Donatists What Calvine saith That God accounteth him a forsaker of his Religion who obstinately separateth himself from any Christian Society which keepeth the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments Or that there may some vice creep into the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments which ought not to alienate us from the communion of a true Church Or lastly that we must pardon errors in those things which may be unknown without violaâ—ing the summe of Religion or without losse of Salvation or we shall have no Church at all doth not concern us who doe not dream of an Anabaptisticall perfection and upon this very ground doe admit them to be a true Church though imperfect who
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
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
persons sent into Ireland by the Pope that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesties Dominions was to prepare the Subjects to assist forrein invaders to excite the People to Rebellion and to deprive her Majesty of her Crown and dignity and life it self Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some Though many of them who were bred in those Seminaries were Pensioners of the Pope the King of Spain or the Duke of Guise all which at that time were in open hostility with the Crown of England Is it not lawfull to forbid Subjects to be bred in an enemies Countrie or to turn their Pensioners or if they doe goe out of themselves to exclude them from their native Soyle Yet in other places and it may be in those Colleges also many others preserved their principles of loyalty At the same time Doctor Bishopp one of the Roman communion writ a Book to prove that the constitution obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran Councell upon which the Popes authority of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their allegiance is founded was not decreed by the Fathers nor ever admitted in England but was a private Decree of Pope Innocent the third If all his Fellowes had held the same moderation there had been no need of such Lawes But it is a remediless misery of Societies that when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and the Innocent publick Justice which seeks to prevent the common danger looks upon the whole Society with one eie And if any innocent persons suffer they must not blame the Law but their own Fellowes who gave just occasion for the making of such severe Lawes So we see how many things here were of their own election First they were warned by an Edict not to study in those Seminaries which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in publick hostility with the Crown of England Nevertheless they would not doe it They were commannded to return home by a prefixed time They would not doe it This alone had been sufficient to punish them as Traitors by the ancient lawes of the Land Yet further they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England nor to exercise their priestly Functions there Yet they did it And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Councel That he was come over and would not desist untill he had either turned them to be Roman Catholicks or died upon their Lances To conclude if we view the particular Lawes we shall finde that they looked more upon the Court of Rome then the Church of Rome The Act and Oath of Supremacy were framed in the daies of Henry the eighth by Roman Catholicks themselves The first penall Lawes of this nature that I finde made by Queen Elizabeth were in the sixth year of her reign against those who should maintain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing or refuse the Oath of â—upremay twice The second in the fourteenth year of her reign against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an Heretick Schismatick or Infidell And likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome to reconcile any of the Queens Subjects or Indulgences or Agnus Dei or the like Yet was this never put in execution for six years untill the execution of it was extorted All this either concerned the Court of Rome or such Acts as were not necessary to a Roman Catholick for the injoyment of his conscience A man might beleeve freely what his conscience dictated to him or practise his own religion so he prated not too much nor medled with others Afterwards in the twenty third year of her reign issued out the Proclamation against the English Seminaries wherein her Subjects were bred Pensioners to the enemies of her Crown The last Lawes of this kinde were made in the twenty fourth year of her â—eign against those who should diswade English Subjects from their obedience to their Prince or from the Religion established or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome In all these Lawes though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions and treasons and deprivations and extremest necessity there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen Maryes Priest or any that were ordained within the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving so they were not over busie and medled with others These might have sufficed or officiating to Roman Catholicks if the Pope had pleased But he preferred his own ends before their safty Non his juvenius orta parentibus infecit aequor sanguine These were not principled for his purpose nor of that temper that his affaires required And therefore he erected new Seminaries and placed new Readers according to his own minde And in conclusion forced the Queen to use necessary remedies so save her selfe and the Kingdome These things being premised it will not be difficult to answer to all which R. C. saith First he saith that in all the pretended cases of treason there is no election but of matters of Religion and that they suffer meerly for matters of Religion without any shew of true Treason I confess that Treason is complicated with Religion in it But I deny that they suffer meerly for Religion any more then he that poisoned an Emperour or a Prior in the Sacrament could have been said to suffer for administring the Sacrament and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament or then he who out of blinde obedience to his Superior kills a man can be said to suffer death for his conscience or he who being infected with the Plague and seeking to infect others if he be shot dead in the attempt can be said to suffer for his sickness In so many designs to take away the Queens life in so many rebellions in so many seditious tenets in so many traitorous books and lastly in adhering unto and turning Pensioner to a publick professed Enemy of their Prince and native Country can he see no treason nothing but matters of Religion If he cannot or will not yet they who were more nearly concerned in it had reason to look better about them He asks how I can tearm that politicall Supremacy which is Supremacy in all causes to wit Ecclesiasticall or Religious I answer very well As the King is the Keeper of both Tables to see that every one of his Subjects doe his duty in his place whether Clergy-man or Lay-man and to inflâ—ct politicall punishment upon them who are delinquent And where he saith that Queen Elizabeth challenged more he doth her wrong She Challenged no more And moreover in her first Parliament tooke order to have the head of the English Church left out of her Title He demands further whether Nero by the same right might not have condemned St. Peter and St. Paul of Treason for coming to Rome with forbidden Orders and seeking to seduce his Subjects from the
Religion estabished No for no Orders were forbidden in Rome by law true or false Neither did those blessed Apostles seduce Subjects when they converted them from vanities to serve the living God Let him shew that Saint Peter by his declaratory Bull did deprive Nero of his Empire and absolve his Subjects from their allegiance or had his Emissaries to incite them to rebellion or sent hollowed banners and Phenix plumes and plenarie indulgences to those who were in Arms against him or plotted how to take away his life or that Christians in those dayes did publish any such seditions books or broach Opinions so pernicious to all civil government And then his question will deserve a further answer Untill then it may suffice to tell him the case is not the same Still he confounds politicall Supremacy with ecclesiasticall and the accidentall abuses of holy Orders with holy Orders themselves Upon this mistake he urgeth an Enthymeme against us Popish Priesthood and Protestant Ministry are the same in substance Therefore if the one be treasonable the other is treasonable also His consequence is just such another as this Thomas and Nicholas are both the same creatures in substance that is men therefore if Thomas be a Traitor Nicholas is another How often must he be told that their Treason did not lie in the substance of their holy Orders but in the abuses and in the treasonable crimes of the persons constituted in holy Orders in their disobedience to the Lawes in being Pensioners to publick enemies of the Kingdome c. But he presseth this Argument yet further If Popish Priests can be lawfully forbidden by Protestants to return into England contrary to the Lawes under pain of Treason then Protestant Ministers may be also forbidden by Puritans and Independents to return into England contrary to their Lawes upon pain of Treason Hoc Ithacus velit magno mercentur Achivi This is that which many of them desire They doubt not at long running to deal well enough with the rest but the English Protestants are a beam in their eie To his Argument I answer by denying his consequence which halts downright upon all fower First Let him shew that those whom he tearms Puritans and Independents have the same just power Secondly That there is such a Law in force Thirdly That there are as just grounds now for such a Law as there were then That the Protestant Clergy on this side the Seas are so formidable either for their number or for their dependency upon the Pope or forrein Princes Let him shew that they left the Kingdome contrary to Law and have been bred here in such Seminaries contrary to Law and are so principled with seditious opinions which threaten such imminent aâ—d unavoydable danger and ruin to the Kingdome If he fail in any one of these as he will doe in every one of them his consequence falls flat to to the ground In the close of this Chapter he produceth two testimonies beyond exception to prove that Popish Priests in England died for Religion The one of King Iames in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance I doe constantly maintain that which I have said in my Apology that no man either in my time or in the late Queens ever died here for his conscience Priests and Popish Church-men only excepted that receive Orders beyond Seas The other of Queen Elizabeth that she did think that most of the poor Priests whom she executed were not guilty of Treason and yet she executed them for Treason What saâ—â—sfaction he will make to the Ghosts of these two great Princes I know not This is apparent that he hath done them both extrâ—am wrong First to King Iames by coupling together two divided and disjointed sentences and likewise by cutting off his sentence in the middest For evident proof whereof I will here lay down the sentence word for word as they are in the French edition for I have neither the Latine nor the English by me I maintain constantly and it is most true which I said in my Apology that never neither in the time of the late Queen nor in my time any man whatsoever hath been executed simply for Religion Here is a full truth without any exception in the World Then followes immediately For let a man be as much a Papist as he will let him publish it abroad with as much constancy and zeal as he pleaseth his life never was nor is in danger for it Provided that he attempt not some fact expresly contrary to the Lawes nor have an hand in some dangerous and unlawfull enterprise Then followes the exception Priests and Popish Church-men excepted which receive their Orders beyond the Seas Which exception is not referred to the former clause never hath been executed simply for Religion but to the later clause his life never was nor is in danger for it Their lives were in danger indeed being forfeited to the Law but they were never executed by the grace and favour of the Prince The words following which he hath altogether clipped off doe make the fraud most apparent who which Priests for many and many treasons and attempts which they have kindled and devised against this estate being once departed out of the Kingdome are prohibited to return render pain of being reputed attainted and convicted of the crime of treason And neverthelesse if there were not some other crime besides thâ—ir simple return into England never any of them were executed We see plainly that these penall Lawes were not made in Order to Religion but out of necessary reason of Estate to prevent treason Nor was any man executed for disobedience to those penall Lawes unlesse it was complicated with some other crime To come to Queen Elizabeth If that which he saith here be true then that flower of Queens was a tyrant worse then Nero to thirst not only after humane blood but after innocent blood yea after the blood of those who were designed to the service of God Shall we never have one testimony ingenuously cited Reader I beseech thee take the pains to pâ—ruse the place and thou shalt finde that nothing was more mercifull then that Royall Queen and nothing more cruell then the Pope and their Superiors who sacrificed those poor Priests to the ambition of the Roman Court having first blindfolded them with their vow of obedience and exposed them to slaughter as the Turks doe their common Souldiers only to fill up Ditches with their Carkasses over which themselves may mount the Walls First the Author alledged doth testifie That the Queen never thought mens consciences were to be forced no sign of purposed cruelty quaeque dolet quoties cogitur esse ferox Secondly that she complained many times that she was driven of necessity to take these courses unlesse she would see the destruction of her self and her Subjects under colour of conscience and the Catholick Religion Tell me who are the supream Judges of the publick dangers
the same with theirs we are no Schismaticks because we doe not censure them uncharitably If we say they be not the same we are still no Schismaticks because we had then by their own confession just reason to separate from them But to come up closer to his argugument Religion is a virtue which consisteth between two eâ—treams Heresie in the defect and Superstition in the excess Though their Church Religion and holy Orders be the same with ours and free from all hereticall defects yet they may â—e and are subject to superstitious excesses Their Church hath sundâ—y blemishes Their Religion is mixed with errors And gross abuses have crept into their holy Orders From these superstitious errors and abuses we were obliged to separate our selves wherein they had first separated themselves from their Predecessors So if there be Schism in the case it was Schism in them to make the first separation and Virtue and Pietie in us to make the second I said most truly that our positive Articles are those generall truths about which there is no controversie Our negation is only of humane controveâ—ted additions Against this he excepts sundry wayes First Because our principall positive Article is that of justification by speciall Faith which as he saith is most of all in controversie Aquinas makes a great difference between opinari and credere between a scholasticall opinion and a necessary Article of Faith Sometimes the understanding doth fluctuate indifferently between the two parts of the contradiction and this is properly doubting Sometimes it inclineth more to the one part then to the other yet not without some fear or suspicion of the truth of the other part This is properly opinion Sometimes the understanding is determined so as to adhere perfectly to the one part And this determination proceeds either from the intelligible object mediately or immediately and this makes knowledge Or from the will upon consideration of the authority and truth of the revealer and this makes faith Justification by speciall faith was never accounted an Article of the English belief either by the English Church or by any genuine Son of the English Church If he trust not me let him read over our Articles and reading satisfie himself I confess some particular persons in England did sometimes broach such a private Opinion but our most learned and judicious Professors did dislike it altogether at that time as I have heard from some of themselves But shortly after it was in a manner generally rejected as Franciscus a Sancta Clara ingeniously confesseth jam hic novus error vix natus apud nostrates sepultus est and now this new error being scarcely born among our Country-men was buried And more plainly elsewhere quibus omnibus bene pensatis saenè nulla bodie reperietur differentia in confessione Anglica sanctissima definitione Tridentina all which things being duely weighed truly there will be found noe difference at this day in the English confession and the sacred definition of the Tridentine Councell meaning about this Subject of justification But saith he if they be not points of our Faith what doe they in our confessions of Faith I answer they are inserted into our confessions not as supplements of our Creed or new Articles but as explanations of old Articles and refutations of their supposititious Principles Contraries being placed together by one another doe make one another more apparent He proceedeth Have not Protestants a positive faith of their negative Articles as wâ—ll as of their positive Articles Commandements may be either affirmative or negative and the negative Commandements binde more firmely then the affirmative because the affirmative binde alwaies but not to the actuall exercise of obedience at all times semper but not ad semper But negative Commandements binde both semper and ad semper both alwaies and to all times But we finde no negatives in the rule of Faith For the rule of Faith consists of such supernaturall truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to beleeve them but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tollerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to salvation How can a negative be a means Non entis nulla est efficacia In the Apostles Creed from the beginning to the end we finde not the least negative Particle And if one or two negatives were added in the subsequent ages as that begotten not made in the Nicene Creed they were added not as new Articles but as explanations of the old to meet with some emergent errors or difficulties just as our negatives were Yea though perhaps some of our negatives were revealed truths and consequently were as necessary to be beleeved when they are known as affirmatives yet they doe not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith I suppose yet further that though some of our negatives can be deduced from the positive fundamentall Articles of the Creed some evidently some probably as the necessity of the consequence is more or less manifest For it is with consequences as it was with Philo's row of iron Rings the first that touched the Load-stone did hang more firmely the rest which were more remote still more loosly I say in such a case that no man was bound to receive them either as Articles or as Consequences but only he that hath the light to see them nor he further then the evidence doth invite him And howsover they are no new Articles but Corollaries or deductions from the old So grossly is he mistaken on all sides when he saith that Protestants he should say the English Church if he would speak to the purpose have a positive beleefe that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. Which were to contradict the words of Christ this is my body He knowes better that Protestants doe not deny the thing but their bold determination of the manner by transubstantiation themselveâ— confessing that the manner is incomprehensible by humane reason Neither doe Protestants place it among the Articles of the Faith but the opinions of the Schools He acknowledgeth That if I had a true preparation of minde to beleeve whatsoever the true reall Catholick Church universally beleeveth and practiseth the matter were ended But he addeth that by the Catholick Church I mean an imaginary Church or multitude of whatsoever Christians Catholicks Hereticks Schismaticks wâ—â— agree in fundamentall points but disagree in other points of Faith and wholy in communion of Sacraments and ministery of them I accept this offer and I tie him to his word If he stand to this ground there are no more controversies between him and me for the future but this one what is the true Catholick Church whether the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents or the Church of the whole
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
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
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