Alan Apol. c. 4. p. 59. Sond de Schism p 103 b. Denique nulla in re a side Catholica discessit nisi libidinis luxuâ—iâ— causa Sect. 4. A full justification of our penall Laws L 3. L. 1. de Orator Leg. 12. tal Aen Gaz. in Theo. phâ—asium Cont Aristâ—câ—aetem Timocratem Sand de Schis l. 1. Camd Annal Eliz. l. 2. p. 7. Id. l. 2. p. 98. Id l 4. p. 145 p. 150. p 164. Câ—md Annal l 3 p. 11 Ibid. l. 3. p. 44. l. 3. p. 74. Camd. An. l. 3. p. 132 Apol. Marc. p. 329. Camd. An. l 3. p. 11. Apr. 1. El. 23. ex Apol. Mart. Edm. Camp epist. ad Conc. R. Aug. pag. 127. Camb. Annal Eliz an 1581. Camb. Annal. Eliz an 1581. Sect. 1. The Kings of England alwaies politicall Heads of the English Church Not only acts of Papall Power but the Power it self contrary to our Laws Jurisdiction is from Ordination but Princes apply the matter Jurisdidiction enlarged and fortified with coercive power by Princes Henry the eighth not exempt from the power of the Keyes An. 25. H. 8. C. xxi Sect. 2. Saint Wilfrid Spel. conc An. 705. Bed l. 5. Ecc. hist c. 20. St. Austin and his â— Fellowes Bed l. 2. c 4. Bed l. 1. e. 25. See Speed l. 6 c. 9. 11.22 Fed. l. 1. c. 29. Bed l. 2. c. 2. Bed l. 2. c. 4. St. Melit L. 2. c. 4. Ibidem Bed l. 3. c 29. An Aâ—ch bâ—shop sent from Rome L. 4 c. 1. Bed l. 3. c 25. St. Peter Poâ—ter of Heaven Camd. Brit. p. 165. St Peter Superior to Saint Paul L. 2. Flor. c. 11. St. Peter a Monarch Bed l. 4 c. 18. John the precentor Malm. l 2â— Reg. c 9. Bishoprickâ— erâ—cted in England by the Pope answered Wil Malmes l. 1. Reg. c. 6. L. 2â— Floâ— c. 11. Edgar apud Ealred in orati ad Episcopos withred a pud Speim Conc p. 192 Clergy-men not exempted from seculaâ— Judges Plat. in politico Ibâ—dem 〈◊〉 Ser. 25 in 14 c 〈◊〉 Rome hath no certainâ—y of iâ—tallibilitiâ— Bell. de Ro. Pont. l. 4. â— 4. Aclred de vita Mirac Edw. Conf. superseriptions to Popes 2 Cor. 11. 28. Aclred ibidem Walsing Aâ— 133 How the Pope presideth above all Creatures Wâ—lsiâ—g â— An 1343. 25 E. 3. Wals. An. 1343. Wals. ibidem Aust. Ep. 50. Sect. 2. Patriarchs indâ—pâ—ndent upon a single Superior Socrat. l. 2. â— 11 Cypr. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3. Conc. â—â—hâ—sia part 1. act 7. Bâ—itain enjoyed the Cyprian pâ—iviledge Math Paris in H 3. an 1238. Itineâ—az Caâ—â—b l 2. c 1. Bellarmine maâ—â—s the Apostles all equal in power I. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 23. L. 4 de Ro. pont c. 16. L 1. de Ro Pont. c. 12. Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae Cont. Iovin l. 1. c. 14. How Peter head of the rest A superiority of Order is sufficient to prevent Schisme The rest Pastors as well as Peter De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. l. 1. c. 9. Sect. 2. Universality an incommunicable qualification of the Apostles 9 c. 8. s. 2. Bel l. 4. de Ro. Pont c â—4 All Episcopall jurisdiction is not derived from the Pope Sect. 3. The Chair of St. Peter not fixed to Rome by Divine right l. 2. de Pont. Ro. c. 12. Bel. de Pont. Ro. l. â—â— c. 23. Io 21.18 Bel de Râ— Poâ— 2. c. 12. Ibidem Nor by humane right Sect. 4. Gild. in Prol. Whether St. Peter converted Britain Onuph Of Eleutherius his sending into Engand And Victors into Scotland Ninian Bed l. 3â— c. 4. Palladius and S. Patrick Bed in viâ—a St. Patriâ— l. 1. Germanus and Lupus Prosp. in Chron. Constant de vita Germ. l. 1. Bed l 1. c. 17. Baron an 429. Constant l. c. 19. Idem c. 23 Austine Dubritius St. Samson Vind. p. 150. Pol. Virg. l 13 hist. Angl. Itiâ— Camb l. 1. c. 1. Râ—g â—â—ved An. anno 1â—99 King Iames. Matrix Ecclesia Sect. 5. Bed l. 2. c. 2. â—ed l. 3. c. 25. Vind. p. 115 116. Aqui. ◠〈◊〉 2.2 quaest 88. Art 2. 10. A King hath all power needfull for the preservation of his Kingdome A respective necessity is a sufficient ground of a Reformation Act. 15.28 Act. 21 20 Senec. Our Reformation was necessary Hall 24. Hen. 8. sol 205. The Regiment of the Church conformed to that of the Commonwealth conc chalc c. 11. vel 12. Dist. 99. In gain or losse all circumstances to be considered 1 Pet. 1.7 Our Reformation not contrary to the Decrees of generall Councels Novell 11 131. p. 127. But in pur suance of them King Henries Divorce lawfull but no ground of the Reformation Hall in Hen. 8. an 20. sol 180. b. an 21 f. 182. All the Cardinals of Rome opposed the Dispensation Hall An. 1. H. 8. Acworth emt Sand 1 2. c 13. 14 Hall An. 19. H 8. fâ—l 161. Sand de Schism p. 11. 12. Steph. Wint. de vera Obedientia apnd Gild. t. 1. p. 721. Ld. Cherb in Hen 8. An 1530. p. 303. Sufficere sant alioqui debuisset causae ipsius c. The Parliament not forced Idem p. 334. Anno. 1530. De vera Obedien tia Ibâ—dem p. 719. King Henry did not act against conscience c 3. s. 5. Ld. Cherb H. 8. an 1530. p. 305. Consilio divino Sand. de Sâ—hism p. 102. Lord Cherb fol. 398. P 128. Our separation from the Papacy was not for the faults of Popes but of the Papacy it self Luk. 13.7 whether Popes have done more good or hurt to England not materiall 2 King 18.4 Sect. 2. Conc. Turor Râ—sp ad Art 3. 48. It was lawfull to withdraw obedience from Papâ—ll Authority corrupted Princes the last Judges of the injuries done to their Subjâ—cts by Popes Bish. Epist. ad Reg. Iocob p. 11. Rom. 13.1 2. Prov. â— 15 Kingly Authority from God not Papal Sect. 3. The grounds of our sâ—paration An. 30. Sect. 4. The Popes new Articles of Faith a just cause of separation The deâ—â—ining of the Cup in the Sacrament a just cause of separation Odoardus Barlosa forma Celebrandi c. Papists right Heirs of the Donatists Optat. l. 2. Whether Protestants and Papists differ in Essentials Psal. 139.16 Sect. 5. Papists acknowledge possibility of our salvation as much as we of theirs Sect. 6. Our separation only from errors Math. 15.9 We arrogate to our selves no new Church c. Whether our Religion be the same with theirs or not we are no Schismaticks Quaest 14. de side Aâ—t 1. Justification by speciall faâ—â—h no Aâ—â—icle of our Church Probl. 22. Probl. 26. Our negatives no Articles of Faith Sect. 7. An implicite submission to the Catholick Church sufficient to salvation 〈…〉 Papists agree not what is their infallâ—ble proponent Aust. epist. 48. The name of Catholick from universall Communion not right beleefe c. 2 sect 6. More dangerous to exclude then to include others in our Communion The politick Supremacy of Princes in
first sight think the shore leaves them terraeque urbesque recedunt but straightwaies they finde their error that it is they who leave the shore To Strangers c. that is to unskillfull Judges A true diamond and a counterfeit doe seem both alike to an unexperienced person Strangers did beleeve easily the Athenian fables of Bulls and Minotaures in Creete But the Crecians knew better that they were but fictitious devises The seeming strength lyeth not in the objections themselves but in the incapacity of the Judges But to his reason the more things are remote from the matter and devested of all circumstances of time and place and persons the more demonstrable they are that is the reason why Mathematicians doe boast that their Principles are so evident that they doe not perswade but compell men to beleeve Yet in the matter of fact and in the application of these evident rules where every particular circumstance doth require a new consideration how easily doe they erre in so much as let twenty Geometricians measure over the same plot of ground hardly two of them shall agree exactly So it seemeth that an error in point of doctrine may be more easily and more evidently convinced than an error in matter of fact He saith the separation is visible True but whether the separation be criminous whether party made the first separation whether there was just cause of separation whether side gave the cause whether the Keies did erre in separating whether there was not a former separation of the one party from the pure primitive Church which produced the second separation whether they who separated themselves or others without just cause doe erre invincibly or not whether they be ready to submit themselves to the sentence of the Catholick Church is not so easy to be discerned How many separations have sprung about elections or jurisdiction or precedency all which Rites are most intricate and yet the knowledge of the Schisme depends altogether upon them This Surveier himself confesseth That a Church may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her Heresy or Schisme in which case it is no Schisme but a necessary duty to separate from her In this very case proposed by himself I desire to know how it is so easie by the only view of the separation to judge or conclude of the Schisme But the true ground why Schisme is more probably objected to the Church of England than Heresie is a false but prejudicate opinion That the Bishop of Rome is the right Patriarch of Britain That we deserted him and that the differences between us are about Patriarchall Rites all which with sundry other such like mistaken grounds are evidently cleared to be otherwise in the vindication This is all that concernes my first Chapter The rest is voluntary The next thing observable in his Survey is that Protestants confesse that they have separated themselves not only from the Roman Church but also from all other Christian Churches in the communion of the Sacraments and publick worship of God And that no cause but necessity of salvation can justifie such a separation from the crime of Schisme And it must needs seem hard to prove that it was necessary for the salvation of Protestants to make such a separation from all Churches in the World As if there had been no Christian Church in whose communion in Sacraments they could finde salvation whence it will follow that at that time there was no true Church of God upon earth For proof of the first point That Protestants have separated from all Christian Churches he produceth Calvin Chillingworth and a treatise of his own It were to be wished that Professors of Theology would not cite their testimonies upon trust where the Authours themselves may easily be had only impossibility is stronger than necessity as the spartan Boy once answered the old Senator after the Laconicall manner and that they would cite their Authors fully and faithfully not by halves without adding to or new molding their authorities according to their own fancies or interest It may seem ludicrous but it was a sad truth of a noble English Gentleman sent Ambassador into forrein parts and with him an honorable Espy under the notion of a Companion by whom he was accused at his return to have spoken such and such things at such and such times The Gentleman pleaded ingenuously for himself that it might be he had spoken some of those things or it might be all those things but never any one of them in that order nor in that sense I have said he several Suits of apparel of purple cloth of green Velvet of white and black Sattin If one should put my two purple Sleeves to my green velvet Dublet and make my Hose the one of white Sattin the other of black and then swear that it was my apparrell they who did not know me might judge me a strange man To disorder authority to contract or enlarge them to misapply them besides the scope contrary to the sense of the Author is not more discommendable than common I have seen large volumes containing some hundreds of controversies as was pretended between Protestants and Papists And among them all not above five or six that I could owne as if they desired that the whole woven Coat of Christ should be torn more insunder than it is or that they might have the honor to conquer so many fictious Monsters of their own making I have seen authorities mangled and miâ—applied just like the Ambassadors clothes so as the right Authors would hardly have been able to know them So much prejudice and partiality and an habit of alteration is able to doe like a tongue infected with Choler which makes the sweetest meates to taste bitter or like coloured glass which makes every object we see through it to appear of the same colour Wherefore I doe intreat R. C. to save himself and me and the Reader so much labor and trouble for the future by forbearing to charge the private errors or opinions of particular persons it skilleth not much whether upon the Church of England the most of which were meer strangers to our affaires and many of them died before controversies were rightly stated or truly understood for none of which the Church of England is any way obliged to be responsable And likewise by forbearing to make so many empty references to what he beleeves or pretends to have proved in some of his other books See the Author of the Protestant Religion See the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals See the sufficient proposer of faith See the Protestants plain confession See the Flowers of the English Church See the Epistle to King James See the prudential Ballance See the collation of Scripture To what end can this serve but either to divert us from the question we have in hand or to amuse the Reader and put him into a
truths for the preservation of unity among us and the extirpation of some growing errors Secondly He adds that the deteyning of the Cup could be no sufficient grounds of separation because Protestants doe confesse That it is an indifferent matter of it self and no just cause to seperate Communion Doth the Church of England confesse it to be an indifferent matter No nor any Protestant Church All their publick confessions doe testifie the contrary Nay more I doe not believe that any one Protestant in his right wits did ever confesse any such thing But this it is to nible at Authors and to stretch and tenter their words by consequences quite beyond their sense It may be that Luther at some time said some such thing but it was before he was a formed Protestant whilest he was half sleeping half waking Bellarmine stiles it in initio Apostasiae But after his eies were well opened he never confessed any such thing but the just contrary Suppose that Brentius saith that abstemious persons such whose nature doth abhorre wine may receive under one kinde what a pittifull argument is this drawn from a particular rare case of invincible necessity to the common and ordinary use of the Sacrament The Elephant was exempted from doing obeisance to the Lion because he had no knees But it is the height of injustice to withhold his right from one man because another cannot make use of it Suppose that Melancthon declare his own particular opinion that those Countries where Wine is not to be had should doe well to make use of honied water in the Sacrament What doth this signifie as to the cause he hath in hand whether they use some other liquor in the place of Wine or use no liquor at all Invincible necessity doth not only excuse from one kinde but from both kindes And where the Sacrament cannot be had as it ought the desire to have it sufficeth before God We read of some Christians in India where they had no Wine that they took drie Raisons and steeped them in water a whole night and used that liquor which they squeesed out of them in the place of Wine for the Sacrament It would trouble one as much in many parts of the World to finde right Bread as Wine That nourishment which Indians eat in the place of Bread being made of the roots of Plants doth differ more from our Bread made of Wheat then Cyder or Perry or honnied water doe differ from the juice of the Grape which are such many times as are able to deceive a good tast If Wine were as rare and precious in the World as right Balm which they make to be the matter of a Sacrament there were more to be said in it They themselves doe teach that it is absolutely necessary that the Sacrament be consecrated in Wine and that it be consumed by the Priest They who can procure Wine for the Priest may procure it for the People also if they will The truth is all these are but made Dragons No man ever was so abstemious but that he might taste so much Wine tempered with water as they use it as might serve for the Sacrament where the least imaginable particle conveieth Christ to the receiver as well as the whole Chalice full Neither is there any Christian Country in the World where they may not have Wine enough for this use if they please So notwithstanding any thing he saith to the contrary their dayly obtruding new Articles of Faith and their deteining the Cup in the Sacrament were just grounds of separation but not our only grounds We had twenty other grounds besides them And therefore he had little reason to say That at least the first Protestants were Schismaticks and in this respect to urge the authority of Optatus against us to prove us to be the Heirs of Schismaticks Optatus in the place by him cited speaks against the traditors with whom we have nothing common and the Donatists their own Ancestors not ours whose case is thus described there by Optatus cujus in Cathedra tenet quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat whose Chair thou possessest which had no originall before Majorinus a schismaticall Donatist This is not our case We have set up no new Chairs nor new Altars nor new Successions but continued those which were from the beginning There is a vast difference between the erecting of a Chair against a Chair or an Altar against an Altar which we have not done and the repairing of a Church or an Altar wherein it was decayed which we were obliged to doe In the next place he endeavoreth to prove by the generall Doctrine of Protestants that they differ from Papists in fundamentall points necessarie to salvation If they doe it is the worse for the Romanists In the mean time the charitie of Protestants is not to be blamed We hope better of them And for any thing he saith to the contrarie we beleeve that they doe not differ from us in fundamentalls But let us see what it is that the Protestants say Some say that Popish errors are damnable Let it be admitted many errors are damnable which are not in fundamentalls Errors which are damnable in themselves are often pardoned by the mercie of God who looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices Others say that Popish and Protestant opinions are diametrally opposite That is certain they are not all logomachies But can there be no diametrall opposition except it be in fundamentalls There are an hundred diametrall oppositions in opinion among the Romanists themselves yet he will not confess that they differ in fundamentalls Lastly others say that the Religion of Protestants and the Religion of the Church of Rome are not all one for substance I answer first that the word substance is taken sometimes strictly for the essentialls of any thing which cannot be separated without the destruction of the subject Thus a man is said to be the same man in substance while his soul and body are united though he have lost a legg or an arme or be reduced to skin and bone And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Church and Religion are the same in substance At other times the word substance is taken more largly for all reall parts although they be separated without the destruction and sometimes with the advantage of the subject And so all the members yea even the flesh and blood and other humors are of the substance of a man So we read Thine eyes did see my substance being yet unperfect and in thy books were all my members written And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Religion are not the same in substance Secondly the word substantialls may either signifie old substantialls beleeved and practised by all Churches in all ages at all times which are contained in the Apostles Creed And thus our Religion and the Roman Religion are the same in substance Or new
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
of Faith that there is a purgatory or it is an article of Faith that there is no purgatory Faith is a certain assent grounded upon the truth and authority of the revealer opinion is an uncertain inclining of the mind more to the one part of the contradiction then the other There are an hundred contradictions in Theologicall opinions between the Romanists themselves much grearer then some of these three controversies wherin he instanceth Yet they dare not say that either the affirmatives or negatives are articles of Faith In things not necessary a man may fluctuate safely between two opinions indifferently or incline to the one more then the other without certain adherence or adhere certainly without Faith We know no other necessary Articles of Faith but those which are comprehended in the Apostles creed The last proof of our moderation was our readinesse in the preparation of our minds to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present age doth universally believe and practise This he saith is the greatest mock foole proposition of all the rest Wherefore For two reasons First we say there is no universall Church Then we have not onely renounced our Creed that is the badge of our Christianity whereof this is an expresse Article but our reason also If there be many particular churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ himselfe is head and king His onely ground of this calumny is because we will not acknowledge the Roman Church that is a particular Church to be the universall Church The second reason is because we say if there be a Catholick Church it is indetermined that is no man knows which it is Then it is all one as if it were not Non existentis non apparentis eadem est ratio It is a brave thing to calumniate boldly that something may stick We know no virtuall Church indeed that is one person who hath in himself eminently and virtually as much certainty of truth and infallibility of judgement as the universall Church but we acknowledge the representative Church that is a generall councell and the essentiall Church that is the multitude or multitudes of believers either of all ages which make the Symbolicall Church or of this age which make the present Catholick Church but mala mens malus animus He knoweth right well that they themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what that Catholick Church is into the authority whereof they make the last resolution of their Faith So it is not true of us but of themselves it is true that their Catholick Church is indeterminate that is they know not certainly what it is Sect. 8. My fifth ground was that what the king and Church of England did in the separation of themselves from the Court of Rome is no more then all other Princes and Republicks of the Roman communion have done in effect or pleaded for that is made themselves the last Judges of their owne liberties and grievances For proof whereof I instanced in the Emperors the Kings of France and the liberties of the Sallicane Church the Kings of Spaine in their Kingdomes and Dominions of Sicily Castile Flanders the Kings of Portugall the Republick of Venice and in all these particular cases which were in difference between the Popes and us concerning the calling of Ecclesiasticall Synods making of Ecclesiasticall lawes disposing Benefices reforming the Churches within their owne dominions rejecting the Popes sentences buls Legates Nuncios shutting up their Courts forbidding appeals taking away their tenths first fruits pensions impositions c. To all which neither R. C. nor S. W. answers one word in particular Yet he paies me in generals Vir dolofus versatur in generalibus If his cause would have borne it we had had a more particular answer First he asketh what nonsense will not an ill cause bring a desperate man to Concedo omnia I grant all saving onely the application He must seek for the nonsense and the ill cause and the desperate man nearer home But what is the ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction first I would perswade the world that Papists are most injurious to Princes perjudicing their Crowne and subjecting their dominions to the will of the Pope and when I have scarce done saying so with a contrary blast I drive as far back again confessing all I said to be false and that the same Papists hold the Doctrine of the Protestants in effect If he will accuse other men of contradiction he must not overshoot himself so in his expressions but keep himself to the rules of opposition ad idem secundum idem eodem tempore Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect and do them right in another They may be disloyall at one time and loyall at another Here is no shadow of contradiction But his greatest fault is to change the subject of the proposition I did not plead either that Papists were injurious to Princes or that the same Papists did hold the very doctrine of the Protestants nor so much as mention Papists in generall either to justifie them or to accuse them But I said that the Pope and the Court of Rome had been injurious to Roman Catholick Princes and that Roman Catholick Princes with their party had done themselves right against Popes and their Court. Here is no contrary blast nor contradiction any more then it is a contradiction to say that the Gnelphes maintained the Popes cause against the Emperour and the Gibilines maintained the Emperours cause against the Pope because both factions were Roman Catholicks both Italians He urgeth that the Popes did not cast out of their Communion those Cotholick divines who opposed them which argueth that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publick tenet in their Church that binds any to these rigorous assertions which the protestants condemne I know it is not their religion Our Religion and theirs is the same I know it is not the generall tenet of their Church But it is the tenet of the Court of Rome and the governing party amongst them It is but a poor comfort to one that is oppressed by their Court to know that there are particular Doctors which hold that he is wronged But to his question Did the Pope never excommunicate those Doctors that opposed him Yes sundry times both Princes and Doctors and whole Nations Sometimes he spared them perhaps he did not take notice of them whilest they were living the Pope and his Court have somewhat else to do then to inquire after the tenets of private Doctors perhaps they lived about the time of the councels of Constance and Basile when it had been easier for the Pope to have cast himselfe out of his throne then them out of the Church or perhaps they lived in places without his reach he knows who it was that said my Lord the Emperour defend me with the sword and I will defend thee with my pen. What
did the Sorban Doctours in former ages value the Court of Rome Now of late the Court of Rome have learned another method to purge their Doctours when they displease them It is a shrewd signe when men are glad to cut out the tongues of their owne witnesses Here he fals into a bitter invective against our bloody lawes and bloodier execution It is hard when they come to accuse us of blood guiltiness I could require him with a black list of murthers and Massacres to the purpose indeed the Waldenses alone might furnish me with overmuch store of matter whose first beginning is so ancient that it seemeth to me like the Spring head of Nilus scarcely to be searched out but innocent blood crieth lowde enough of it selfe without help I chuse rather at this time to use the buckler then the sword the accusation of them is no acquitall of us whatsoever he saith here against the Church or State of England for cruelty is clearly and satisfactorily answered in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon whither I refer him Afterwards he telleth how unlucky I am in this Chapter that do absolutely clear their Religion of Calumny which Protestants most injuriously charge upon them that their Vassalage to the Pope destroyes their subjection to their Prince by citing so many instances where Catholicks remaining such have disobeyed the Pope Their Religion is the same with ours that is Christian and needeth not to be cleared from being a source of sedition or an incentive to rebellion It is not accused by us but the envious man hath sowed tares among the wheate No man can deny but that seditious opinions have been devised and dispersed and cherished in the Church of Rome in this last age which were destructive to Loyalty and due subjection to Princes and how some of our own countrey men came to be seasoned with these pernicious principles more then other nations I have partly shewed in the place alledged The instances by me cited in this chapter were before these poisonous opinions were hatched and so are alogether impertinent to that purpose for which he urgeth them They prove that those Roman Catholicks at that time were loyal Subjects they do not prove that all Roman Cathoâ—icks at this time are loyal Subjects that were to infer a general concluâ—iâ—n from particular premisses or to argue à minore ad majus affirmativè which is mere Sophistry But I shall readily grant more then he proveth and as much as he can seek with reason that those seditiâ—us doctrines were never generally received nor yet by the greater and sounder part of the Roman Church and that at this day I hope they are almost buried If ever God be so gracious unto us as to suffer us to meet together in a Councel or Assembly either of the Christian world or of the Western Church the first thing to be done were to weed out all seditious opinions both among them and us which are scandalous to Religion and destructive to all civil societies In the next place he fancieth to himself a platforme of the Christian Church That Christ being to build his spiritual Kingdom upon the Basis of a multitude of earthly Kingdoms saw it necessary to make a bond of unity betwixt the Churches that for this reason he gave the principality among his Apostles to St. Peter and consequently to his Successors the Bishops of Rome which one See mâ—ght by the ordinary providence of Almighty God keep a continuance of succession from St. Peter to the end of the world which the vicissitude of humane nature permitted not to all the Apostolical Sees Hence Rome is invested with the priviledge of Mother and Mistris of the Church and the hinge upon which the common government and unity of the Church depends which being removed the Church vanisheth into a pure Anarchy Excellently well contrived Sr. Thomas Moores Eutopia or my Lord Verulams new Atlantis may give place unto it What great pitty it was that he had not been one of Christs Counsellers when he first formed his Church Only it seemeth a little too saucy with Christ. Christians should argue thus Christ formed his Church thus therefore it is the best form Not thus this is the best forme therefore Christ formed his Church after this manner The old Hermite prayed to God for raine fair weather for his Garden as he thought most expedient for it and had his desire yet his Garden did not prosper whereas other Gardens which wanted that speciall priviledge prospered well his brother Hermite told him the reason of it Thou fool diâ—st thou think thy self wiser then God I wonder he did not go one step higher to make the Bishop of Rome universal Emperour also for prevention of Civil Wars and bloodshed among Christians and so he might have been Rex idem hominum dâ—vumque Sacerdos Now let us take his frame in pieces and look upon it in parcels St. Paul reckons up not one but seven bands of unity among Christians one body one spirit one hope of our calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of all First one body What can be more prodigious then for the members of the same body to warre one wâ—th another One Spirit that is the Holy-Ghost which is the soul that enliveth the Church Can there be a better bond of unity to the body then the soul One hope of our Calling we must be all friends in Heaven Why do we bite and kick one another in the way thither One Lord by whose blood we are redeemed Should they pursue one another as mortal enemies who serve the same Lord One faith delivered by the Apostles do not adulterate it with new devises to raise contentions One Baptism we are marked with the same cogniscance we use the same word we fight under the same Standard why do we mistake one another for enemies Lastly One God and Father of all who is above all by his excellency through all by his providence and in all by the inhabitation of his grace Above all as Father through all as Son in all as Holy-Ghost for Christian to fight against Christian is to divide this one God and committe him against himself Among all these bands of unity why did St. Paul forget unus Papa one Bishop of Rome or spiritual Monarch If there had been any such thing here had been the proper place for it Secondly I will not dispute with him about this whether Christ did give St. Peter a principality among the Apostles so he do not rob Paul to cloath Peter but likewâ—se consent to me that this was but a principality of order and that the principality of power did râ—st in the Colledge of the Apostles there and now in their Successors a General Councel which is a sufficient band of unity as I have formerly demonstrated I wish this Refuter had expressed himself more clearly whether he be for a beginning of order unity or for
substantiall parts of a Society as much as rationability being but a faculty or specificall quality is a substantiall part of a man because it is a part of his definition or his essentiall difference But I suppose that by substantiall parts he means essentialls as we use to say the same Church in substance or the same religion in substance that is in essence And if so then he might have spared the labour of proving it and pressing it over and over For we maintain that an entire profession of saving truth a right use of the Word and Sacraments and an union under lawfull Pastors being taken joyntly doe distinguish the Church essentially from all other Societies in the World We have been told heretofore of other notes of the Church which did not please us so well as Antiquity and Universality and Splendour c. which may be present or absent with the Church or without the Church As if a man should describe money by the weight and colour and sound or describe a King by his Crown and Scepter or describe a man as Plato did to be a living creature with two leggs without feathers which Diogenes easily confuted by putting a naked Cock into his School saying behold Plato's man Such separable communicable accidents are not notes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and at all times but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accidentally and at sometimes whereas these three doe belong unto the Catholick Church and to all true particular Churches inseparably incommunicably and reciprocally and are proper to the Church quarto modo to every true Church only to a true Church and alwaies to a true Church Yet I foretell him that this liberall concession will not promote his cause one hairs breadth As will appear in the sequell of this discourse But yet this essentiality must not be pressed too farre for fear least we draw out blood in the place of milk I like Stapletons distinction well of the nature and essence of a Church from the integrity and perfection thereof These three essentials doe constitute both the one and the other both the essence and the perfection of a Church Being perfect they consummate the integrity of a Church being imperfect they doe yet contribute a being to a Church It doth not follow that because Faith is essentiall therefore every point of true Faith is essentiall or because discipline is essentiall therefore every part of right discipline is essentiall or because the Sacraments are essentiall therefore every lawfull rite is essentiall Many things may be lawfull many things may be laudable yea many things may be necessary necessitate praecepti commanded by God of divine institution that are not essentiall nor necessary necessitate medii The want of them may be a great defect it may be a great sinne and yet if it proceed from invincible necessity or invincible ignorance it doth not absolutely exclude from Heaven The essences of things are unalterable and therefore the lowest degree of saving Faith of Ecclesiasticall discipline of Sacramentall Communion that ever was in the Catholick Church is sufficient to preserve the true being of a Church A reasonable Soul and an humane Body are the essentiall parts of a man Yet this body may be greater or lesser weaker or stronger yea it may lose a legg or an arm which before they were lost were subordinate parts of an essentiall part and yet continue a true humane body though imperfect and maimed without destroying the essence of that individuall man Sensibility and a locomotive faculty are essentiall to every living creature Yet some living creatures doe want one sense some another as sight or hearing Some flie some runne some swimme some creep some scarcely creep And yet still the essence is preserved Naturalists doe write of the Serpent that if there be but two inches of the body left with the head the Serpent will live a true Serpent but much maimed and very imperfect Much lesse may we conclude from hence that the want of true essentialls in cases of invincible necessity doth utterly exclude from Heaven or hinder the extraordinary influence of divine Grace No more then the actuall want of circumcision in the Wildernesse did prejudice the Jews God acts with means without means against means And where the ordinary means are desired and cannot be had he supplies that defect by extraordinary Grace So he fed the Israelites in a barren Wildernesse where they could neither sow nor plant with Manna from Heaven True Faith is an essentiall yet Infants want actuall Faith Baptism the laver of regeneration is an essentiall yet there may be the baptism of the Spirit or the baptism of Blood where there is not the Baptism of water He that desires Baptism and cannot have it doth not therefore want it So likewise Ecclesiasticall discipline is an essentiall of a true Church yet R. C. himself will not conclude from thence that actuall subordination to every link in the chain of the hierarchy is so essentially necessary that without it there can be no salvation Thus he saith We professe that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ. But we say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it unlesse it be sufficiently proposed to them What he confesseth we lay hold on that subjection to the Pope is not essentially necessary What he affirmeth further that it is preceptively necessary or commanded by Christ we doe altogether deny I urge this only for this purpose that though Ecclesiasticall discipline be an essentiall of the Church yet by his own confession every particular branch of it may not be essentiall though otherwise lawfull and necessary by the commandment of God But if by profession of faith he understand particular formes of confession often differing in points of an inferiour nature not comprehended either actually or virtually in the Apostles Creed or perhaps erroneous opinons If by communion in Sacraments he understand the necessary use of the same rites and the same forms of Administration whereof some may be lawfull but not necessary to be used others unlawfull and necessary to be refused Lastly if by lawfull ministery he understand those links of the Hierarchy which have either been lawfully established by the church as Patriarchall authority or unlawfully usurped as Monarchicall power we are so farre from thinking that these are essentiall to the Church that we beleeve that some of them are intollerable in the Church The other Branch of this first note that Schisme is a division in som substantiall parts of the Church of God is true but not in his sense All Schisme is either between Patriarchall Churches or Provinciall Churches or Diocesan Churches or some of these respectively or some of their respective parts But his sense is that all Schism is about the essence of Religion A strange paradox Many Schisms have arisen in the
Church about Rites and Ceremonies about Precedency about Jurisdiction about the Rites and Liberties of particular Churches about matter of Fact Obstinacy in a small error is enough to make a Schism Saint Paul tel's us of Divisions and Factions and Schisms that were in the Church of Corinth yet these were not about the essentialls of Religion but about a right-handed error even too much admiration of their Pastors The Schism between the Roman and Asiatick Churches about the observation of Easter was farre enough from the heart of Religion How manny bitter Schisms have been in the Church of Rome it selfe when two or three Popes at a time have challenged Saint Peters Chaire and involved all Europe in their Schismatical contentions Yet was there no manner of dispute about Faith or Sacrements or holy Oders or the Hierarchy of the Church but meerly about matter of Fact whose election to the Papacy was right From the former ground R. C. makes two collections First that Schism is a most grievous crime and a greater sinne than Idolatry because it tendeth to the destruction of the whole Church whose essence consisteth in the union of all her substantiall parts and her destruction in the division of them What doth this note concern the Church of England which is altogether guiltles both of Schism and Idolatry I wish the Church and Court of Rome may be as able to clear themselves I am no Advocate for Schism Yet this seemeth strange paradoxicall doctrine to Christian eares What is all Schism a more grievious sin than formall Idolatry who can beleeve it Schism is a defect of Charity Idolatry is the height of impiety and a publick affront put upon Almighty God Schism is immediately against men Idolatry is directly against God And the Fathers hold that Iudas sinned more in despairing and hanging himself than in betraying his Master because the later was against the humanity the former against the Divinity of Chriist Idolatry is a spirituall Adultery and so stiled every where in holy Scriptures A scolding contentious Wife is not so ill as an Adulteress neither is that Souldier who straggles from his Camp or deserts his Generall out of passion so ill as a professed Rebel who attempts to thrust some base Groom into his Soveraigns Throne Saint Paul calls Idols Devils and their Altars the tables of Divels Can any sinne be more grievous than to give divine honour to the Divel It is true that some Schism in respect of some circumstance is worse than some Idolatry as when the Schism is against the light of a mans knowledge and the Idolatry proceeds out of ignorance But the learned Surveior knoweth very well that it is a gross fallacy to argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciser to applie that which is spoken respectively to some one circumstance as if it were spoken absolutely to all intents and purposes as if one should say that many men were worse than beasts because each kinde of beasts hath but one peculiar fault and that by naturall necessitation as the Lion cruelty the Fox subtilty the Swine obscenity the Wolf robbery the Ape flattery whereas one may finde an epitome of all these in one man and that by free election yet he were a bad disputant who should argue from hence that the nature of man is absolutely worse than the nature of brute beasts Saint Austin faith indeed that Schismaticks baptising Idolaters doe cure them of the wound of their Idolatry and infidelity but wound them more grievously with the wound of Schism The deepest wound is not alwaies the most deadly For the Sword killed the Idolaters but the Earth swallowed up the Schismaticks And Optatus addes that Schisme is summum malum the greatest evill That is not absolutely but respectively in some persons at some times No man can be so stupid as to imagine that Schism is a greater evil than the sin against the Holy Ghost or Atheism or Idolatry The reason of Optatus his assertion followeth the same in effect with Saint Austines for the Idolatrous Ninevites upon their fasting and prayer obtained pardon but the earth swallowed up Korah and his company All that can be collected from Saint Austin or Optatus is this that God doth sometimes punish wilfull Schismaticks more grievously and exemplarily in this life than ignorant Idolaters which proveth not that Schisme is a greater sinne than Idolatry Ieroboam made Gods people Schismaticks but his hand was dried up then when he stretched it out against the Prophet yet the former was the greater sinne The judgements of God in this life are more exemplary for the amendment of others than vindictive to the delinquents themselves And for the most part in the whole historie of the Bible God seemeth to be more sensible of the injuries done unto his church and to his servants then of the dishonor done unto himself In the Isle of Man it is death to steal an Hen not to steal an Horse because there is more danger of the one than of the other in respect of the situation of the Country Penall lawes are imposed and punishments inflicted according to the exigence of places the dispositions of persons and necessities of times But because he hath appealed to Saint Austin to Saint Austin let him goe I desire no better Expositor of Saint Austin than Saint Austin himself Exceptis illis duntaxat quicunque in vobis sunt scientes quid verum sit pro animositate suae perver itatis contra veritatem etiam sibi notissimam dimicantes Horum quippe impietas etiam I. dololatriam forsitan superat Excepting only those Donatists whosoever among you know what is true and out of a perverse animosity doe contend against the Truth being most evidently known to themselves For these mens impiety doth peradventure exceed even Idolatry itself The case is cleare Saint Austin and Optatus did only undestand wilfull perverse Schismaticks who upheld a separation against the evident light of their own conscience comparing these with poor ignorant Idolaters and even then it was but a peradventure peradventure they are worse than Idolaters But I wish R. C. and his party would attend diligently to what followes in Saint Austin to make them leave their uncharitable censuring of others Sed quia non facile convinci possunt in animo namque latet hoc malum omnes tanquam à nobis minùs alieni leviori severitate coercemini But because these can not be easily convicted for this evill obstinacy lies hid in the heart we do use more gentle coertion to you all as being not so much alienated from us I wish all men were as moderate as St. Austin was even where he professeth that he had learned by experience the advantage of severity St. Austin and the primitive Church in the person of which he speaks spared the whole sect of the Donatists and looked upon them as no such great strangers to them because they
of them either by addition or by subtraction is not a reformation but a destruction of them And therefore it is a contradiction to say that a Church which hath the substance or the essence of a Church can give just cause to depart from her in her essentials and not only a contradiction but plain blasphemy to say that the true Church of Christ in essence his mysticall body his Kingdome can give just cause to forsake it in essentials The assumption is proved by him because we confesse that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance and yet have forsaken it in the essentials of a true Church namely the Sacraments and the publick worship of God His proposition admits little dispute I doe acknowledge that no Church true or fals no society of Men or Angâ—â—s good or bad can give just or sufficient cause to forsake the essentials of Christian Religion or any of them and that whosoever do so are either heriticks or schismaticks or both or which is worse then both down right Infidels and Apostates For in forsaking any essential of Christian Religion they forsake Christ and their hopes of Salvation in an ordinary way But here is one thing which it behoveth R. C. himself to take notice of That if the essences of all things be indivisible and are destroied as well by the addition as by the subtraction of any essential part how will the Roman Church or Court make answer to Christ for their addition of so many not explications of old Articles but new pretended necessary essentiall Arricles of Faith under pain of damnation which by his own rule is to destroy the Christian Faith who have coined new Sacraments and added new matter and form that is essentials to old Sacraments who have multiplied sacred Oâ—ders and added new lincks to the chain of the Hierarchy This will concern him and his Chuâ—ch more neerly then all his notes and points doe concern us Concerning his assumption two questions come to be debated first whether the Church of Rome be a true Church or not secondly whether we have departed from it in essentials Touching the former point a Church may be said to be a true Church two waies metaphysically and morally Every Church which hath the essentials of a Church how tainted or corrupted soever it be in other things is metaphysically a true Church for ens verum convertuntur So we say a theef is a true man that is a reasonable creature consistng of an humane body and reasonable soul. But speaking morally he is a faulty filching vitious person and so no true man So the Church of Rome is metaphysically a true Church that is to say hath all the essentials of a Christian Church but morally it is no true Church because erroneous contraries as truth and errour may be predicated of the same subject so it be not ad idem secundum idem codem tempore Truth in fundamentalls and errour in superstructures may consist together The foundation is right but they have builded much hay and stuble upon it And in respect of this foundation she may and doubtless doth bring forth many true Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdome of Heaven The Church of the Jews was most erroneous and corrupted in the dayes of our Saviour yet he doubted not so say Salvation is of the Iews I know it is said that Christ hath given himself for his Church to sanctifie it and cleanse it and present it to himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle But that is to be understood inchoactively in this life the perfection and consummation thereof is to be expected in the life to come To the second question whether the Church of England in the Reformation have forsaken the essentials of the Roman Church I answer negatively we have not If weeds be of the essence of a Garden or rupt Humors or Botches or Wennes and Excrescences be of the essence of man If Errors and Innovations and Superstitions and sperfluous Rites and pecuniary Arts be of the essence of a Church then indeed we have forsaken the Roman Church in its essentials otherwise not We retein the same Creed to a word and in the same sense by which all the primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Councell they did forbid all persons under pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks and anathematisation to Laymen to compose or obtrude any other upon any Persons converted from Paganisme or Judaisme We retein the same Sacraments and Discipline which they reteined we derive our holy Orders by lineall succession from them we make their doctrine and their practise under the holy Scriptures and as best Expositors thereof a Standard and Seal of truth between the Romanists and us It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the modern Roman Church by substraction But they who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Romau Church by addition Can we not forsake their new Creed unless we forsake their old faith Can we not reduce the Liturgy into a known tongue but presently we forsake the publick worship of God Can we not take away their tradition of the Patine and Chalice and reform their new matter and form in Presbyterian ordination which antiquity did never know which no Church in the World besides themselves did ever use but presently we forsake holy Orders The truth is their errours are in the excesse and these excesses they themselves have determined to be essentials of true Religion And so upon pretence of interpreting they intrude into the Legislative office of Christ and being but a Patriarchall Church doe usurpe a power which the universal Church did never own that is to Constitute new essentials of Christian Religion Before the determination their excesses might have past for probable Opinions or indifferent Practises but after the determination of them as Articles of faith extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation they are the words of the Bull they became inexcusable errors So both the pretended contradiction the pretended blasphemy are vanished in an instant It is no contradiction to say that a true humane body in substance may require purgation nor blasphemy to say that a particular Church as the Church of Rome is may erre and which is more than we charge them withall may apostate from Christ. In the mean time we preserve all due respect to the universal Church and doubt not to say with St. Austin that to dispute against the sense thereof is most insolent madness His fifth point to be noted hath little new worth noting in it but tautologies and repetitions of the same things over and over Some Protestants saith he doe impudently deny that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church If this be impudence what is ingenuity If this be such a gross error for man to
be ashamed of what is evident truth We expected thanks for our moderation and behold reviling for our good will He might have been pleased to remember what himself hath cited so often out of my vindication That our Church since the Reformation is the same in substance that it was before If the same in substance then not substantially separated Our comfort is that Caleb and Ioshua alone were admitted ino the Land of promise because they had been Peace-makers in a seditious time and indeavoured not to enlarge but to make up the breach He addes that the chiefest Protestants doe confess that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church Who these chiefest Protestants are he tel's us not nor what they say but referrs us to another of his Treatises which I neither know here how to compass nor if I could deem it worth the labor When these principall Protestants come to be viewed throughly and seriously with indifferent eies it will appear that either by substantially they mean really that is to say that the differences between us are not meere logomachies or contentions about words and different formes of expression only but that there are some reall controversies between us both in credendis and agendis and more and more reall in agendis than in credendis Or secondly that by substance they understand not the old Essentials or Articles of Christian Religion wherein we both agree but the new Essentials or new Articles of Faith lately made by the Romanists and comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth about which we doe truly differ So we differ substantially in the language of the present Romanists But we differ not substantially in the sense of the primitive Fathers The generation of these new Articles is the corruption of the old Creed Or lastly if one or two Protestant Authours either bred up in hostility against new Rome as Hanniball was against old Rome or in the heat of contention or without due consideration or out of prejudice or passion or a distempered zeal have overshot themselves what is that to us Or what doth that concern the Church of England He saith St. Austine told the Donatists that though they were with him in many things yet if they were not with him in few things the many things wherein they were with him would not profit them But what were these few things wherein St. Austine required their communion Were they abuses or innovations or new Articles of Faith No no the truth is St. Austine professed to the Donatists that many things and great things would profit them nothing not only if a few things but if one thing were wanting videant quam multa quam magna nihil prosint si unum quidem defuâ—rit videant quid sit ipsum unum And let them see what this one thing is What was it Charity For the Donatists most uncharitably did limit the Catholick Church to their own party excluding all others from hope of salvation just as the Romanists doe now who are the right successours of the Donatists in those few things or rather in that one thing So often as he produceth St. Austine against the Donatists he brings a rod for himself Furthermore he proveth out of the Creed and the Fathers that the communion of the Church is necessary to salvation to what purpose I doe not understand unlesse it be to reprove the unchristian and uncharitable censures of the Roman Court. For neither is the Roman Church the Catholick Church nor a communion of Saints a communion in errours His sixth and last point which he proposeth to judicious Protestants is this that though it were not evident that the Protestant Church is Schismaticall but only doubtfull Yet it being evident that the Roman Church is not schismaticall because as Doctor Sutcliff confesseth they never went out of any known Christian Society nor can any Protestant prove that they did it is the most prudent way for a man to doe for his Soul as he would doe for his lands liberty honour or life that is to chuse the safest way namely to live and die free from schism in the communion of the Roman Church I answer first that he changeth the subject of the question My proposition was that the Church of England is free from schism he ever and anon enlargeth it to all Protestant Churches and what or how many Churches he intendeth under that name and notion I know not Not that I censure any forrein Churches with whose lawes and liberties I am not so well acquainted as with our own But because I conceive the case of the Church of England to be as cleer as the Sun at noon-day and am not willing for the present to have it perplexed with heterogeneous disputes So often as he stumbleth upon this mistake I must make bold to tell him that he concludes not the contradictory Secondly I answer that he disputes ex non concessis laying that for a foundation granted to him which is altogether denied him namely that it is a doubtfull case whether the Church of England be schismaticall or not Whereas no Church under Heaven is really more free from just suspicion of schism then the Church of England as not censuring nor excluding uncharitably from her communion any true Church which retains the essentials of Christian Religion Thirdly I answer that it is so far from being evident that the Roman Church is guiltlesse of schism that I wish it were not evident that the Roman Court is guilty of formall schism and all that adhere unto it and maintain its censures of materiall schism If it be schism to desert altogether the communion of any one true particular Church what is it not only to desert but cast out of the Church by the bann of excommunication so many Christian Churches over which they have no jurisdiction three times more numerous then themselves and notwithstanding some few perhaps improper expressions of some of them as good or better Christians and Catholicks as themselves who suffer daily and are ready to suffer to the last drop of their blood for the name of Christ. If contumacy against one lawfull single superiour be schismaticall what is rebellion against the soveraign Ecclesiasticall Tribunall that is a generall Councell But I am far from concluding all indistinctly I know there are many in that Church who continue firm in the doctrine of the Councels of Constance and Basile attributing no more to the Pope then his principium unitatis and subjecting both him and his Court to the jurisdiction of an Oecumenicall Councell Fourthly I answer that supposing but not granting that it was doubtfull whether the Church of England were schismaticall or not and supposing in like manner that it were evident that the Church of Rome was not schismaticall yet it was not lawfull for a son of the Church of England to quit his spirituall mother May a man renounce his due obedience to a lawfull Superiour
upon uncertain suspicions No. In doubtfull cases it is alwaies presumed pro Rege lege for the King and for the Law Neither is it lawfull as a Father said some Virgins who cast themselves desperately into a River for fear of being defloured to commit a certain crime for fear of an uncertain Yea to rise yet one step higher though it were lawfull yet it were not prudence but folly for a man to thrust himself into more more apparent more real danger for fear of one lesser lesse apparent and remoter danger Or for fear of Charybdis to run headlong into Scylla He who forsakes the English Church for fear of Schism to joyn in a stricter communion with Rome plungeth himself in greater and more reall dangers both of Schism and Idolatry and Heresy A man may live in a schismaticall Church and yet be no Schismatick if he erre invincibly and be ready in the preparation of his mind to receive the truth whensoever God shall reveal it to him nor want R. C. himself being Judge either Faith or Church or Salvation And to his reason whereby he thinks to free the Church of Rome from Schism because they never went out of any Christian Society I answer two waies first It is more schismaticall to cast true Churches of Christ out of the communion of the Catholick Church either without the Keies or Clave errant with an erring Key then meerly and simply to goe out of a particular Church This the Romanists have done although they had not done the other But they have done the other also And therefore I add my second answer by naming that Christian Society out of which the present Church of Rome departed even the ancient primitive Roman Church not locally but morally which is worse by introducing corruptions in Faith Liturgy and use of the Sacraments whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the externall communion of the true primitive uncorrupted Church of Christ and became the cause of all following separation So both waies they are guilty of Schism and a much greater Schism then they object to us All that followes in his preface or the most part of it is but a reiteration of the same things without adding one more grain of reason to enforce it If I did consider that to divide any thing in any of its substantiall parts is not to reform but to destroy the essence thereof c. If I did consider that there are three substantiall parts of a true Church in substance c. If I did consider that any division of a true Church in any substantiall part thereof is impious because it is a destruction of Christs mysticall body c. If I did consider all these things c. I should clearly see that the English Protestant Church in dividing her self from the substance of the Roman Church in all her formall substantiall parts committed damnable sinne and that I in defending her therein commit damnable sinne I have seriously and impartially weighed and considered all that he saith I have given him a full account of it that we have neither separated our selves from the mysticall body of Christ nor from any essentiall or integrall part or member thereof I have shewed him the originall of his mistake in not distinguishing between sacred institutions and subsequent abuses between the genuine parts of the body and wenns or excrescences And in conclusion waving all our other advantages I doe not for the present finde on our parts the least shadow of criminous Schism He praies God to open my eies that I may see this truth I thank him for his charity in wishing no worse to me then to himself But errours goe commonly masked under the cloak of truth Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis umbra I pray God open both our eies and teach us to deny our selves that we may see his truth and preferre it before the study of advancing our own party For here the best of us known but in part and see as through a glasse darkly that we may not have the faith of Christ in respect of persons That which followes is new indeed To communicate with Schismaticks is to be guilty of Schism But the English Church joynes in communion of Sacraments and publick Praiers with Schismaticks namely Puritans and Independants This is inculcated over and over again in his book But because this is the first time that I meet with it and because I had rather be before hand with him then behind hand I will give it a full answer here And if I meet with any new weight added to it in any other place I shall endeavour to cleer that there without wearying the reader with tautologies and superfluous repetitions And first I deny his proposition To communicate with hereticks or Schismaticks in the same publick Assemblies and to be present with them at the same divine offices is not alwaies Heresy or Schism unlesse one communicate with them in their hereticall or schismaticall errours In the primitive Church at Antiâ—ch when Leontius was Bishop the Orthodox Christians and the Arrians repaired to the same Assemblies but they used different formes of doxologies the orthodox Christians saying Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Ghost And the Arrians saying Glory be to the Father by the Son in the Spirit At which time it was observed that no man could discerne what form the Bishop used because he would not alienate either party So they communicated with Arrians but not in Arrianism with hereticks but not in Heresy Take another instance the Catholicks and Novatians did communicate and meet together in the same Assemblies Illo autem tempore parum aberat quin Novatiani Catholici penitus conspirassent Nam eadeâ— de Deo sentientes communiter ab Arrianis agitati in similibus calamitatibus constituti se muâ—ua complecti benevolentia in unum convenire pariter orare caeperunt And further decreverunt deinceps inter se communicare At that time it wanted little that the Novatians and Catholicks did not altogether conspire in one for having both the same Faith concerning God suffering the same persecution from the Arrians and being both involved in the same calamities they began to love one another to assemble together and to pray together And they decreed from that time forward to communicate one with another The primitive Catholicks thought it no Schism to communicate with Novatians that is with Schismaticks so long as they did not communicate with them in their Novatianism that is in their Schism Have the English Protestants matriculated themselves into their congregational Assemblies Have they justified the unwarrantable intrusion of themselves into sacred Functions without a lawfull calling from Christ or his Church Or their dispensing the greatest mysteries of religion with unwashen or it may be with bloody hands As for communicating with them in a schismaticall Liturgy it is impossible they have
beliefe of some great atchievements which he hath made elsewhere or to excuse his present defects upon pretense of large supplies and recruits which he hath ready in another place but where the Reader cannot come to see them And what if the Reader have them not to see as it is my condition in present What am I or he the worse If he see no more in some of them then I have seen heretofore he will see a great many of mistated and mistaken questions a great many of Logomachies or contentions about words a great many of private errours produced as common principles of Protestants a great many of authours cited contrary to their genuine sense and meaning and very little that is materiall towards the discussion of this or any other question Just as Master Chillingworth is cited here to prove That Protestants have separated themselves in communion of Sacraments and publick service of God not only from the Roman Church but also from all other Christian Churches in the World which is not only contrary to his sense but also contrary to his very words in the place alleged It is not all one saith he though you perpetually confound them to forsake the errour of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her errours and simply to forsake the Church c. The former then was done by Protestants the later was not done Nay not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman did they separate per omnia but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious Not only from the Roman Church but from also all other Christian Churches in the world saith R.C. Not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman Church saith Mr. Chillingworth In communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God saith R. C. Only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious saith Mr. Chillingworth But because there is no question wherein they studdy more to blunder and trouble the water and to involve themselves in dark Clouds of obscure generalities I will doe my endeavour to distinguish that which is deceitfull and confused and represent the naked truth to the eies of the Reader First I acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a true Christian Church in that sense that I have declared that is metaphysically because it still reteins all the essentialls of a true Church To have separated from it in any of these had been either formall Heresie or formall Schisme or both But we have reteined all these as much as themselves and much more purely than themselves For it may seem doubtfull whether some of their superstitious additions doe not virtually overthrow some of the fundamentalls of Religion But with us there is no such danger Secondly I acknowledge that besides the Essentials of Christian Religion the Church of Rome reteins many other truths of an inferior nature in Doctrine in Discipline in Sacraments and many lawfull and laudable Practises and Observations To have separated from these had been at least materiall Schisme unless the Church of Rome should obtrude them upon other Churches as necessary and fundamentall Articles of Christian Religion and so presume to change the ancient Creed which was deposited with the Church by the Apostles as the common Badge and Cognisance of all Christians for all suceeding Generations Thirdly It is agreed that one may not one must not separate himself from the communion of a true Christian Church for the vices or faults of particular Persons in point of manners We may not leave the Lords Field because there are Tares nor his Floare because there is Chaff nor his House because there are Vessels of dishonor nor his College because there was a Iudas Fourthly Some errors and abuses are not simply sinfull in themselves but to those that did first introduce them to those who maintain and practise them for ambitious or avaritious ends they are sinfull These are pressures and grievances to the Christian Flock rather than sins They suffer under the burthen of them but they are innocent from the guilt of them And so reum facit Superiorem iniquitas imperandi innocentem subditum ordo serviendi A Superior may sin in his commands and yet his Subject be innocent in his obedience These are no just cause of separation to a private Christian Charity covers a multitude of sinnes But they are just cause of Reformation to a nationall Church or a Synod Fiftly There are some errors in disputable points and some abuses are meer excesses without guilt rather blemishes than sinnes And for these alone no man ought to separate himself from a Christian Society or abandon a true Church for triviall dissentions Our duty in such a case is to pray and perswade without troubling the peace of the Church and to leave the rest to God Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Lastly We affirm that in the superstructions of Christian Religion the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence and sinfull innovations in point of Doctrine and Discipline and administration of the Sacraments and Feasts and Fasts c. This we are ready to maintain Neither doth she only profess and practise these errors and abuses which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential Truths and necessary Articles She injoins sundry of them as a condition of her Communion She commands all Christians to beleeve and practise them under pain of damnation and whosoever refuseth she casteth them out of her society Such is their new Creed in point of Faith directly contrary to the Canon of the generall Councel of Ephesus Such is the Popes Supremacy of power in point of Discipline expressly contrary to the determinations of the Councells of Constance and Basile Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine the detention of the Cup from the People their unknown langguage c. in the administration of the Sacraments and in the publick service of God From these sinfull duties thus injoined as necessary all men ought to separate Lawfull authority of man may oblige one to suffer but no authority of man can warrant or oblige one to doe sinfull duties Such a cause justifies a separation untill the abuse be reformed for which the separation was made And being thus separated from sinfull Innovations it may be lawfull or convenient to reform lesser errors which were not of such dangerous consequence nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves But here I must advertise the Reader of a double manner of expression used by English Protestants concerning this separation They agree that the Roman Church reteineth the Essentials of a true Church They
separate from other Churches but from their own errours In a large garden suppose there should be many quarters some weeded some unweeded there is indeed a separation of the Plants from the Weeds in the same quarters but no separation of one quarter from another Or if a man shall purge out of himself corrupted humours he doth not thereby separate himself from other persons whose bodies are unpurged It is true that such weeding and purging doth produce a distinction between the quarters weeded and the quarters unweeded and between Bodies purged and Bodies unpurged But either they stand in no such need of weeding or purging or it is their own fault who doe not weed or purge when they have occasion If they will needs misconstrue our lawfull reformation to be an unlawfull and uncharitable separation how can we help it We have separated from no Eastern Southern Northern or Western Church Our Article tells them the same either let them produce some Act of ours which makes or implies such a separation or let them hold their peace for ever But all this noise proceeds from hence that R. C. conceives that we will no more join with those Eastern Churches or any of them in their Creeds in their Liturgies or publick forms of serving God nor communicate with them in their Sacraments then we doe with the Church of Rome If we communicate not with the Roman Church in some things it is not our faults It is not their serving of God nor their Sacraments that we dislike but their disservice of God and corrupting of the holy Sacraments But for these Grecian Russian Armenian and Abissine Churches I finde grosse superstitions objected to some of them but not proved I finde some inusitate expressions about some mysteries which are scarcely intelligible or explicable as the procession of the holy Ghost and the Union of the two natures in Christ which are not frequently used among us but I beleive their sense to be the same with ours The Grecians doe acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son And all the other Churches are ready to accurse the errours both of Nestorius and Eâ—tyches But that which satisfies me is this that they exact of no man nor obtrude upon him any other Creed or new Articles of Faith then the Apostolicall Nicene and Athanasian Creeds with the explications of the generall Councels of Ephesiu Constantinople and Chalcedon all which we readily admit and use daily in our Liturgy If the Church of Rome would rest where they doe we might well have disputable questions between us but no breach of unity in point of Faith Likewise in point of discipline all these Churches ascribe no more to the Pope then a primacy of Order no supremacy of Power or universal Jurisdiction They make a generall Councel with or without the Popes suffrage to be the highest Ecclesiasticall tribunall Let the Romanists rest where they doe rest and all our controversies concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline will fall to the ground Thirdly they have their Liturgy in a language understood they administer the Sacrament in both kinds to all Christians They doe not themselves adore much lesse compell others to adore the species of Bread and Wine Howsoever they have a kind of elevation They have no new matter and form no tradition of the paten and chalice in Presbyterian ordination but only imposition of hands They know no new Sacrifice but the commemoration representation and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse. Just as we believe Let the Romanists but imitate their moderation and we shall strait come to joyn in Communion in Sacraments and Sacramentals also Yet these are the three essentials of Christian Religion Faith Sacraments and Discipline So little ground had R. C. to tell us that we had separated our selves from all Christian Churches in the World But Calvin saith we have been forced to make a separation from all the world Admit he did say so What will he conclude from hence that the Church of England did the same This consequence will never be made good without a transubstantiation of Mr. Calvin into the English Church He himself knoweth better that we honor Calvin for his excellent parts but we doe not pinn our Religion either in Doctrine or Discipline or Liturgy to Calvins sleeve Whether Calvin said so or not for my part I cannot think otherwise but that he did so in point of Discipline untill some body will be favorably pleased to shew me one formed nationall or provinciall Church throughout the world before Geneva that wanted Bâ—shops or one lay Elder that exercised Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in Christendome I confess the Fratres Bohemi had not the name of Bishops but they wanted not the order of Bishops under the name of Seniores or Elders who had both Episcopall Ordination after their Presbyterian Episcopal Jurisdiction and Episcopall Succession from the Bishops of the Waldenses who had continued in the Church under other names time immemotiall and gave them charge at their Reformation long before Luthers time to preserve that Order All which themselves have published to the World in private I confâ—ss likewise that they had their lay Elders under the name of Presbyteri from whence Mr. Calvin borrowed his But theirs in Bohemia pretended not to be Ecclesiasticall Commissioners nor did nor durst ever presume to meddle with the power of the keies or exercise any Jurisdiction in the Church They were only inferior Officers neither more nor less than our Church-Wardens and Sydemen in England This was far enough from ruling Elders Howsoever what doth this concern the Church of England which never made nor maintained nor approved any such separation No more did Calvin himselfe out of judgment but out of necessity to complie with the present estate of Geneva after the expulsion of their Bishop As might be made appeare if it were needfull by his publick profession of their readines to receive such Bishops as the primitive Bishops were or otherwise that they were to be reputed nullo non anathemate digni By his subscription to the Augustane confession which is for Epicopacy cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi By his confession to the King of Polonia The ancient Church instituted Patriarchater and assigned primacie to single Provinces that Bishops might be better knit together in the bond of unity By his description of the charge of a Bishop that should joyn himself to the reformed Church to doe his indeavour that all the Churches within his Bishoprick be purged from Errors and Idolatry to goe before the Curates or Pastors of his Diocess by his example and to induce them to admit the Reformation And lastly by his letters to Arch-bishop Cranmer the Bishop of London and a Bishop of Polonia I have searched the hundred one and fortieth Epistle and for fear of failing the hundred and one and fortieth page also in my edition but I
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
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
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
produce no Schism whilest one Church did not condemn another and all did submit themselves to the determination of a generall Councell as the highest Judge of controversies upon Earth The reason of their agreement was plainly this because all Churches received the primitive Creed and no Church exacted more in point of Faith then the primitive Creed It would better become the Church of Rome to repent of their rash temerarious censure in excluding above three parts of the Christian World from the communion of Saints out of passion and self interest because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Bishop no more then their predecessors did before them from the beginning If these dispersed and despised multitudes of Christians would but submit to the Roman yoke their religion would be found orthodox enough and they would no longer be held a masse of Monsters and a Hydra of many Heads but passe muster for good Catholicks Take an instance or two Of all these multitudes of Christians the Assyrians or the Nestorians have not the best repute Yet when Elias a pety Patriarch of Muzall submitted to the Bishop of Rome and sent the confession of his Faith it was found to be Orthodox Of later daies about the yeer 1595. when part of the Russians subject to the Crown of Poland submitted themselves to the Papacy because they could not have free accesse to the Patriarch of Constantinople in their submission they articled for the free exercise of the Greek Religion To come neerer home This is certain that Pius the 4 th sent Vincentio with Letters of Credence to Queen Elizabeth with secret instructions for he intreated her in his Letter to give the same credit to his Agent which she would doe to himselfe If these instructions were not written we need not wonder Such instructions are not to be seen publickly unlesse they take effect But some of our Authours of great note in these daies write positively others probably upon common report that he offered the Popes confirmation of the English Liturgy and the free use of the Sacrament in both kindes c. so she would join with the Romish Church and acknowledge the primacy of the Chair of Rome It is interest not Religion that makes Catholicks and Hereticks or Schismaticks with the Court of Rome Lastly all these famous Churches or the most of them which he calls multitudes of Christians have a perfect concord both among themselves with the primitive Church in all essentials How should it be otherwise whilest they hold the same Creed without addition or subtraction They agree in most lesser truths They hold their old Liturgies and forms of administration of the Sacraments with lesse variation then the Church of Rome If there be some differences among them the Romanists have as great among themselves One of these Churches alone the Church of Constantinople hath as many dependents and adherents as all the Churches of the Roman communion put together And I believe a greater harmony within it self in Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Whereas he chargeth me that I professe to communicate with the Catholick Church only in fundamentals not in any other thing he wrongs me much but himself more For I professe my self ready to adhere to the united communion of the true Catholick Church in all things whether they be fundamentals or no fundamentals whether they be credenda or agenda things to be believed or to be practised He saith the Church of Rome is not homogenall with the Protestant Church This is true qua tales as they are Roman and Protestant The Roman Church is not a Protestant Church nor the Protestant Church a Roman Church Yet both the one and the other may be homogeneous Members of the Catholick Church Their difference in essentials is but imaginary Yet he goes about to prove it by three arguments First An Indolatrous Church differs essentially from a true Church But he saith I charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the adoration of the Sacrament Judge Reader if this be not like the envious man in the Fable who was contented to have one of his own Eies put out that his fellow might lose both his Eies He had rather his own Church should be questioned of Idolatry then that the Protestant Church should be a coheire with her of Salvation Because the Eare is not the Eie is it therefore not of the Body In the places alleged by him I doe not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry In the one place I speak of the adoration of the Sacrament as an abuse but not one word of Idolatry In the other place I speak of the peril of Idolatry but not a word of the adoration of the Sacrament If he cite his Authors after this manner he may prove what he list Again The Sacrament is to be adored said the Councel of Trent That is formally the body and blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament that is the species of Bread and Wine say others That we deny and esteem it to be Idolatrous Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry for the error of a party Lastly I answer that a true Church out of invincible ignorance may fall into material Idolatry He himself confesseth that it may fall in materiall Heresie and Schism And Schism with him is worse then Idolatry Though the Church of Rome doe give divine worshâ—p to the Creature or at least a party among them yet I am so charitable as to hope that they intend it to the Creator From the adoration of Sacrament he passeth to justification by speciall Faith only and from thence to the propitiatory Sacrifice in the Masse As if two Churches could not differ about any questions nay not in the forms of expression but presently the one of them must cease to be a true Church I dare say that when I have declared my Faith in these two particulars he dare not step one step beyond me Or if he doe he steps into a manifest errour I doe acknowledge tâ—ne inherent righteousnesse in this life though imperfect by which a Christian is rendred truly just as Gold is true Gold though it be mixed with some drosse But if justification be opposed to condemnation and signify a legall acquittall from guilt formerly contracted as It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth Then it is the free Grace of God that justifieth us for the merits of Christ by the new evangelicall Covenant of believing But where doth the Church of England teach that man is justified by speciall Faith Now here He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that is a part of the Catholick Faith But I believe and am Baptized that is justifying Faith Therefore I shall be saved that is speciall Faith There may be Catholick Faith without justifying Faith and justifying Faith without speciall Faith because a man
assenting to the erecting of it And I aske how it was not legally established which was established by soveraign authority according to the direction of the Convocation with the confirmation of the Parliament What other legall establishment can there be in England By the Lawes of England a Bishop had but his single vote either in Parliament or Convocation Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops whether for not assenting or for other reasons will require further proof than his bare assertion This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Papacy in the reign of Henry the eighth He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament under King Charles Why should I add a notorious untruth as contrary to my conscience as to my affections I might have said oppressed I could not say suppressed The externall splendor was abated when the Baronies of the Bishops and their votes in Parliament were taken away but the Order was not extinguished So far from it that King Charles himself suffered as a Martyr for the English Church If his meaning be that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royall he cannot be so great a stranger in England as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity Yet he is pleased to stile it a dead Church and me the Advocate of a dead Church even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves or as the Sun is set when it is behinde a Cloud or as the Gold is destroyed when it is melting in the Furnace When I see a seed cast into the ground I doe not aske where is the greeness of the leaves where is the beauty of the flowers where is the sweetnes of the fruit but I expect all these in their due season Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe The rain is fallen the wind hath blown and the floods have beaton upon their Church but it is not fallen for it is founded upon a Rock The light is under a Bushell but it is not extinguished And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candlestick yet the Church of England is not dead whilest the Catholick Church survives Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution And though some of the Church doe suffer yet it is not for Religion but matters of State What can a man expect in knotty questions from them who are so much transported with prejudice as to deny those things which are obvious to every eie If it be but some that have suffered it is such a some as their Church could never shew wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed may read the Martyrology of London or the List of the Universities and from that paw guess at the proportion of the Lion But perhaps all this was for matters of State No our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State nor our Ecclesiasticall Revenues exposed to sale for matters of State The refusall of a schismaticall Covenant is no matter of State How many of the orthodox Clergy without pretence of any other delinquency have been beggered how many necessitated to turn Mechanicks or day-Laborers how many starved how many have had their hearts broken how many have been imprisoned how many banished from their native Soil and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World No man is so blinde as he that will not see His tenth Section is a summary or repetition of what he hath already said wherein I finde nothing of weight that is new but onely one authority out of St. Austin That Catholicks are every where and Hereticks every where but Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks different every where If by Catholicks he understand Roman Catholicks they are not every where not in Russia nor in Aethiopia and excepting some hand-fulls for the most part upon toleration not in any of the Eastern Churches The words of Saint Austin are these Vbicunque sunt isti illic Catholica sicut in Africa ubi vos non autem ubicunque Catholica est aut vos istis aut Heresis quaelibet earum Wheresoever they are there is the Catholick Church as in Africa where you are but wheresoever the Catholick Church is you are not nor any of those Heresies St. Austins scope is to shew that the Catholick Church is more diffused or rather universall than any Sect or all Sects put together If you please let this be the Touchstone between you and us But you will say that you are united every where and we are different every where Nothing less You are united in one pretended head which some of you acknowledge more some less We are united in the same Creed the same Sacraments and for the most part the same discipline Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place of the Novatians Arrians Patripassians Valentinians Patricians Apellites Marcionites Ophites all which condemned all others but themselves and thereby did separate themselves Schismatically from the Catholick Church as it is to be feared that you doe Our case is quite contrary we reform our selves but condemn no others CHAP. 3. Whether Protestants were Authors of the separation from Rome WE are now come from stating the Question to proofs where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the province which he hath undertaken To shew that Protestants were not the Authors of the Separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks I produced first the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point that the Bishop of Rome had no greater Jurisdiction within England conferred upon him by God in the Scripture than any other forrein Bishop Secondly the decrees of two of our nationall Synods Thirdly six or seven Statutes or Acts of Parliament Fourthly the attestation of the prime Roman Catholick Bishops and Clergy in their printed Books in their Epistles in their Sermons in their Speeches in their Institution Fiftly the unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome of England testified by Bishop Gardiner and of the Kingdome of Ireland proved out of the Councell Book Lastly the Popes own Book wherein he interdicted and excommunicated the whole Church of England before the reformation made by Protestants So as apparently we were chased away from them Heare the judgement of a Stranger This year the Pope brake the wise patience or rather dissimulation which for four years together he had used towards England And sent against the King a terrible thundring Bull such as never was used by his Predecessors nor imitated by his Successors It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is What doth he answer to all this Not one word And so I take my first ground pro confesse That Protestants were not Authors of the separation of the English
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
might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
the Church of Rome it self so long as there are any followers of the Councells of Constance and Basill But some Protestants have confessed That he was a Member of the Catholick Church Why not There are many Members of the Catholick Church besides Protestants Others call him a true Defender of the true Faith a Denfender of the Gospell an Embracer of the pure Gospell of Christ rejecting devises of men contrary thereunto All this may be true and yet they neither say nor intend this absolutely but comparatively not universally but respictvely to some particular controverted points and principally this of the Supremacy I charged some for making the cruelty of the Protestants and the rigour of their Laws the motives of their falling away from the English Church And shewed that more Protestants suffered not only death but extreme torments in death for Religion in the short reign of Queen Mary then Roman Catholicks in all the much longer reigns of all the Protestant Princes since the Reformation And that the Kingdome of France and the Common-wealth of Venice had made the like Lawes to ours Whatsoever I say in our defense he takes no notice of but declaimes against the injustice of our Laws and Judges not without a specious shew of reason Wherefore because it intrencheth upon the honour of our Church and Nation I will take the libertie to search this sore to the bottome I confesse that no man or Society of men can be justly punished notwithstanding the brutish opinions of some persons because they are noxious unless they be noxious in the eye of the Law No not by a legislative authority Where a man cannot give sentence innocently he cannot vote innocently The reason is plain Where there is no Law there is no transgression and where there is no transgression there is no guilt nor just punishment Secondly I confesse that a Law made like a Casting-net to throw over mens lives is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most lawless Law In the twelve Tables which Livy calls the fountains of publick and private right which alone said Tully do excell all the Libraries of all the Philosophers in the World it is thus enacted according to the excellent concise simplicity of their stile Privilegia ne inroganto Let no private Laws be made to any mans hurt or prejudice Likewise it was the Law of Solon That no Law should be made of particular men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless it were imposed upon all the Athenians indifferently said Demosthenes For the same reason when the Thebans had a minde to banish Heraclitus they durst not name him but pointed him out in generall If there was any man in the Citie that never laught and hated all Mankinde let him depart before Sun-set Thinking vainly to hide the nakedness of their Law with a few figg-leaves of generall expressions So universally was this received throughout the World that Laws should not be made for the ruine of particular Subjects Thirdly We must Take notice that many things are lawfull in publick Justice that is in Warre or Legislation or the like which are not lawfull in particular Justice between Subject and Subject As it is lawfull to pull down any Citizens house to save the whole Citie from fire It is lawfull to make use of any mans land to make a bank to save the whole Country from inundation in which cases nevertheless the publick is obliged to repaire the Subjects damage Suppose the greater part of a Citie should force the honester part to submit to their pleasure and contribute to their rebellious courses or force them to it the party forced is innocent Yet in the recoverie of the Towne the honestest Citizens are as subject to be slain their houses to be burned their goods to be plundered as the most disloyall And justly For it being lawfull to reduce the Citie to obedience by warre this justifies all necessarie means of reduction And the honest party who suffer without fault cannot blame the Magistrates for their sufferings nor the Souldiers who doe their commands but their fellow Citizens But when this necessity is over and the Citie is reduced and distinction can be made particular Justice must take place again and then none ought to suffer but Delinquents according to the degree of their Delinquency Fourthly To proceed one step neerer to the case in question The same necessity doth justifie those Lawes which are enacted for the common safety and tranquillity of the whole body politick under whatsoever penalties they aâ—e pleased to impose as banishment confiscation of goods imprisonment or death it self so they be proportioned to the exigence of the dangers greater or lesser though these Lawes prove burthensome to particular Citizens or restrain Subjects from the exercise of those things which oâ—herwise were benefiâ—iall lawfull and laudable to them in particular Suppose a Generall should make an Edict That no Souldier uâ—der pain of death should leave the Câ—mp Yet one goes to visit his Father being sick and suffâ—rs for it This is not for doing his filial duty but for violating of his Generalls Edict In Ireland it was forbidden by Statute under pain of most severe punishment to use the words Crumabo and Butlerabo because they were badgets of Faction and incentives to Sedition The Philistims did not suffer a Smith in Israel least the Hebrews should make themselves Swords and Spears The King of Spain weighing the danger that might arise from the numerous multitudes of Moors within his Dominions sent them all packing away by an Edict The Athenians thought it no injustice to banish their chiefest and most loyall Citizens if they fâ—ared a tyranny or necessity of State did require it All Nations have their Imbargues and prohibited goods and forbid all Commerce and Conversation with those that are in open hostility against them If a ship arrive from any places infected with some contagious disease they keep the pasâ—â—ngers from mixing with their Subjects untill they have given sufficient proof that they are â—ound If they find cause to banish a citizen either for a prefixed terme or for ever under pain of death or forfeiture of all their goods if there be a necessity in it to secure the Common-wealth they may doe it And if the persons to banished will return on their own heads upon pretence that they love their Country so well that they canâ—ot live out of it or if any of them being a Clergy man should pretend that he returns out of conscience to doe the offices of his Function among his Countrymen it is not the Law but they who pull the penalty of the Law upon themselves In summe it is cleer that whensoever a Prince or a Republick out of just necessity and for the preservation of the Common-wealth shâ—ll restrain their subjects from anything that threatens the same with imminent dangers upon whatsoever penalty it be so it be proportionable to the danger it is
and necessities of England Is not the Prince At least with his Councel and the representative body of the whole Kiâ—gdome When all these unanimously have declared that there is a necessity and have prescribed the best means that possibly they could devise to prevent the danger shall a forrein Prelate and he not only interessed but the very source of all the danger have power to contradict it and to send his suspected Emissaries more frequently then ever into the Kingdome A Pit is digged true but the Authors of these seditious opinions and practises are they who digged it The Queen did what she could to cover it by her Proclamations and Acts of Parliament to premonish every one of the danger If the Pope and their Superiors would be so cruell to thrust out their Emissaries upon desperate attempts upon their vow of blinde obedience and a promise of Celestiall rewards their blood is upon their heads The Queen said further That for the most part of these silly Priests she did not believe them to be guilty of practising the destruction of their Country but their Superiors were they whom she held to be the instruments of this foul crime for as much as they who were sent committed the full and free disposition of themselves to their Superiors So first R. C. inserts these words into the Queens speech whom she executed she executed none she condemned none Those who were executed in her long reign of above fourty four yeers were not so many This expression would have fitted the short reign of Queen Mary much better Secondly he adds these words were guilty of treason whereas the Queen said no such thing but were guilty of practising the destruction of their Country Can none have an hand in the destruction of their Country but only they who are practisers and plotters and contrivers of it Are none guilty of treason but only they who practised the destruction of their Country There are Instruments in treason as well as Engeniers who are not privy to the intrigues of the conspiracy And yet suffer justly for acting their parts in it Yea without practising or acting the very concealment of treason alone is sufficient by the Law of England and by the Law of Nations to condemn a person for not discovering it Lastly he leaves out these words which are a clear exposition of the whole sentence But their Superiors were they whom she held to be the Instruments of this foul crime for as much as the Emissaries did commit the whole disposure of themselves to their Superiors So she makes the Superiors and some others who weâ—e most busie most subtil and most affected among them to be the contrivers and grand traitors But for the most part of the silly Priests she took them to be but executers of the designes of their Superiors to shâ—ot those Bolts which they had made and to pull the Chesnuts out of the fire with their naked fingers for their Superiors to eat What dealing may others expect from them in citations who are not afraid to cast undeserved durt upon Majesty and prevaricate with their naturall Pâ—incesse under the gratious protection of whose just government they first beheld the light It may serve as one instance of his undue citing testimonies and authorities that whereas I say that dangerous and bloody positions and practises produce severe Lawes And that I wish all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes with the memory of them buried in perpetuall oblivion he inferreth that I seem to confesse that the Lawes made against Catholicks were cruell and unâ—ust He did well to say it seemeth for I neither say the one nor the other though my wishes be the same they were On the contrary I justifie them upon this undeniable ground that no Kingdome is destiture of necessary remedies for its own conservation That which I said I spake indifferently both of their Lawes and ours That Law which was justly enacted may be over-rigorously executed when that necessity which was the only ground of the Law is abated I wish the necessity had not been then so great as to require Lawes written in blood and that a lesser coercion would have sufficed then for a remedy The necessity being abated I wish the rigor may be likewise abated To divide their Lawes and our Lawes or the necessity and the remedy is a fallacy and contrary to what I said when I wished all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes were buried in oblivion He addeth That perhaps mine own persecution hath taught me this lenity At last he confesseth that we suffer persecution which even now he denied The Earl of Strafford then Lieutenant of Ireland did commit much to my hands the politicall regiment of that Church for the space of eight yeers In all that time let him name one Roman Catholick that suffered either death or imprisonment or so much as a pecuniary mulct of twelve pence for his Religion upon any penall Statute If he cannot as I am sure he cannot then it is not my present persecution that taught me that lenity I remember not one Roman Catholick that suffered in all that time but only the titular Archbishop of Cashells who was indeed imprisoned for three or four daies not only upon suspicion but upon information out of Spain that he was a pensioner of the Catholick Kings and being found to be no such dangerous person upon my representation was dismissed Let no man hence imagine that we neglected our duties We did our work by more noble and more successefull means then penall Lawes by building of Churches and mansion Houses for Ministers by introducing a learned Clergy by injoyning them residence by affording them countenance and protection and means of hospitality by planting and ordering Schools for the education of youth and by looking carefully to the education and marriages of the Kings Wards To look to the Ecclesiasticall Regiment was the care of particular Bishops To look to the publick safety of the Kingdome and to free it from sedition masked under the Visard of Religion was the care of the Soveraign Magistrate CHAP. 4. IN the fourth Chapter of the vindication I set forth the dignitie of Apostolicall Churches he great influence they had upon their neighbour Churches yet without any legall jurisâ—iction over them especially the Roman Church in the West I shewed how they endeavored to convert this honorable Presidency into Monarchicall power But that the power which they endeavored to usurpe was in it self uncapable of prescription And if it had been capable yet they had no prescription for it That the British Saxon Danish and Norman Kings successively were the onely Patrons and Protectors of the Church within their Dominions and disposed of all things concerning the externall regiment thereof by the advise of their Prelats called ecclesiasticall Synods made ecclesiasticall Laws punished ecclesiasticall persons prohibited ecclesiasticall Judges received Appeales from ecclesiasticall Courts rejected the ecclesiasticall Laws of
cause is desperate Howsoever he proveth his intention out of Gildas who confesseth that he composed his History non tam ex scriptis Patriae c not so much from British Writings or Monuments which had beene either burned by their enemies with fire or carried beyond Sea by their banished Citizens as from transmarine relations Though it were supposed that all the British Records were utterly perished this is no answer at all to my demand so long as all the Roman Registers are extant Yea so extant that Platina the Popes Librarie keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the primitive Bishops of Rome and the persons ordained It was of these Registers that I spake let them produce their Registers Let them shew what British Bishops they have ordained or what British Appeals they have received for the first six hundred years Though he be pleased to omit it I shewed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter eleven by Linus fifteen by Clement six by Anacletus five by Evaristus five by Alexander and four by Sixtus c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province none to spare for Britain He saith Saint Peter came into Britain converted many made Bishops Priests and Deacons That Saint Elutherius sent hither his Legates Fugatius and Damianus who baptized the King Queen and most of his People That St. Victor sent Legates into Scotland it seemeth they had no names who baptized the King Queen and his Nobility That Saint Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts That Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland where as yet was no Bishop And Saint Patrick into Ireland and Saint Germane and Lupus into Britain to confute the Pelagian Heresie And in the year 596 St. Gregory sent over St. Austin and his Companions to convert the Saxons and gave him power over all the Bishops in Britain and gave him power to erect two Archiepilcopall Sees and twenty four Episcopall And moreover that Dubritius Primate of Britannie was Legate to the See Apostolick And lastly That Saint Samson had a Pall from Rome I confesse here are store of instances for Preaching and Baptizing and ordeining and Converting but if every word he saith was true it is not at all materiall to the question Our question is concerning exterior Jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiae But the Acts mentioned by him are all Acts of the Key of Order not of the Key of Jurisdiction If he doe thus mistake one Key for another he will never be able to open the right dore He accustometh himself to call every ordinarie Messenger a Legate But let him shew me that they ever exercised Legantine authority in Britain That he doth not because he cannot The Britannick and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to forrein Nations to convert them to baptize them to ordain them Pastors yet without challenging any Jurisdiction over them Now to his particular instances We should be glad that he could prove St. Peter was the first converter of Britain and take it as an honor to the Britannick Church But Metaphrastes is too young a witness his authority over small and his person too great a stranger to our affaires If it could be made appear out of Eusebius it would finde more credit with us If St. Peter did ever tread upon British ground in probability it was before he came first to Rome which will not be so pleasing to the Romanists For being banished by Claudius he went to Hierusalem and so to Antioch and there governed that Church the second time Whether St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Iames or Simon Zelotes or Aristobulus or Ioseph of Arimathea was the first converter of Britain it makes nothing to the point of Jurisdiction or our subjection to the Bishop of Rome But for Ioseph of Arimathea we have the concurrent testimonies of our own Writers and others the tradition of the English Church the reverent respect borne to Glastenbury the place where he lived and died the ancient characters of that Church wherein it is stiled the beginning of Religion in this Island the buriall place of the Saints builded by the Disciples of the Lord. The very name of the Chappell called St. Iosephs the Armes of King Arthur upon the walls and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the second doe all proclaime this truth aloud His second instance hath more certainty in it That Pope Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus two learned Divines into Britain to baptize King Lucius But it is as true that Lucius was converted before either in whole or in part and sent two eminent Divines of his own Subjects Eluanus Avalonus Eluan of Glastenbury the Seminarie of Christian Religion in Britain and Medvinus of Belga that is of Wells a place neer adjoyning to Glastenbury to Rome to intreat this favour from Pope Eleutherius So whatsoever was done in this case as it was no act of Jurisdiction so it was not done by Eleutherius by his own authority but by licence and upon request of King Lucius And not to diminish the deserts of Fugatius and Damianus who in all probability were strangers and understood not the Language certainly Eluan and Medwin and many more British Natives had much more opportunity to contribute to the conversion of their native Countrie then forreiners who were necessitated to speak by an Interpreter at least to the vulgar Britans Concerning Pope Victors sending of Legates into Scotland to baptize the King Queen and Nobles when he tells us who was the King who were the Legates and who is his Author he may expect a particular answer But if there be nothing in it but baptizing he may as well save his labour unless he think that baptizing is an act of Jurisdiction which his own Schooles make not to be so much as an act of the Key of Order Ireland was the ancient Scotland The Irish Scots were converted by St. Patrick the British Scots by St. Columba Next for Saint Ninian he was a Britan not a Roman Neither doth venerable Bede say that he was taught the Christian Faith at Rome simply but that he was taught it there regularly that is in respect of the observation of Easter the administration of Baptism and sundry other Rites wherein the British Church differed from the Roman Nor yet doth Bede say that he was sent from Rome to convert the Picts His words are these The Southern Picts as men say long before this had left the errour of their Idolatry and received the true Faith by the preaching of Ninias a Bishop a most reverend and holy man of the British Nation who was taught the Faith and mysteries of truth regularly at Rome Capgrave findes as much credit with us as he brings authority And in this case saith nothing at all to the purpose because
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
precepto That was not by the Authority of Pope Adrian All the poor pretence which he catcheth from hence is that Charles the great said that summi Pontificis universalis Episcopi Adriani praecepto by the precept of the chief and universall Bishop Adrian he had bestowed this Bishoprick upon Wilehade Yet all men know that praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction or advise as well as a command At the most it was but a complement or command of curtesie or a ghostly advise honored with that name which is familiarly done True Patrons doe dispose their Churches themselves not give mandates to others to dispose them for them It were ridiculous to imagine that Charles the great was the Patron of the Bishoprick of Rome it self as without doubt he was and that he was not the Patron of the Church of Breme which he had newly conquered or that Adrian who resigned Rome should continue Patron of Breme His seventh witnesse is Iustinian to Pope Iohn the second We suffer not any thing which belongs to the state of Churches not to be known to your Holynesse who is the Head of all holy Churches I wish he had been pleased to set down the title of the Letter Victor Justinianus pius faelix inclytus triumphator sempâ—r Augustus Joanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae Vrbis Romae Patriarchae Where Archbishop and Patriarch are his highest titles there is no Monarchy intended The words are rightly cited saving that he omitteth a clause in the middle although that which is changed be manifest and undoubted and a dangerous reason at the end for in all things as it is said we hasten to augment the honor and authority of your See If the Papacy had been a Spirituall Monarchy instituted by Christ it did not lie in Iustinians power to augment it But it is plain the honor and authority of the Roman See proceeded from the bounty of Christian Emperors and the Decrees of the Fathers Neither is there any thing in the words above mentioned worthy of a reply Suppose Iustinian made known his own Ecclesiasticall Ordinances to the Pope to the end that he might obey them and execute them This is no great matter So doth a Sovereign Prince to every Governor of an inferior Corporation Lawes are no Lawes untill they be promulged If the Pope had made the Lawes and made them known to the Emperor it had been more to his purpose But all the strength of his argument lies in these words who is Head of all holy Churches And yet he cannot chuse but know that Iustinian doth mean and must of necessity mean an Head of Order and cannot possibly mean an Head of Power and Jurisdiction having himself exalted severall other Churches as Iustiniana and Carthage to an equall degree of Power and Privileges with Rome it self A man may see to what streits he is driven when he is forced to produce such witnesses as Charles the great and Iustinian I say Iustinian who banished Pope Silverius who created Iustiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his Emperiall Power who made so many Lawes concerning Ecclesiasticall persons and Benefices and holy Orders and Appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all matters of Ecclesiasticall cognisance that if all other presidents ancient and modern were lost Iustinians alone who was the Father of the Imperiall Law were sufficient to evince the politicall Supremacy of Sovereign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions His three last witnesses are King Edgar King Withred and Edward the third But these three have been produced by him before in this very treatise and there fully answered and seeing no new weight is added in this place to his former discourse I will not weary the Reader or my self with unnecessary repetitions CHAP. 8. That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schism WE are come now to my sixth and last ground that the guilt of the Schism rests upon the Pope and the Court of Rome The first thing which I meet with is his marginall note out of Saint Austin Cathedra quid tibi fecit Ecclesiae Romanae What hurt hath the See of Rome done thee But first Petilians case to whom those words were spoken is not our case He called all the Catholick Sees thoughout the World Chairs of Pestilence so doe not we Neither doth Saint Austin attribute any thing singular to the See of Rome in this place more then to the See of Hierusalem or any other Catholick See Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastatius sedet vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit in qua hodie Joannes sedet Quibus nos in Catholica unitate connectimur a quibus vos nefario furore separastis It is not we that have furiously separated our selves from either of these Sees But it is the Court of Rome which hath made the separation both from Hierusalem and from us In the next place he inquireth what I intend by this present Schism whether the Schism of Protestants in generall or of English Protestants in particular and whether by causually I understand a sufficient cause that freeth from sinne Doubtless I must understand a sufficient cause that freeth the innocent party from sinne or understand nothing For an unsufficient cause is no cause But his induction is imperfect I doe neither understand the Schism of the Protestant Church in generall nor the Schism of the English Church in particular but directly the Schism of the Roman Church which did first give just cause of separation not only to Protestant Churches but to all the Eastern Churches and then did make the separation by their unjust and uncharitable censnres But he saith there can be no just cause of Schisms The greater is their fault who are the true Schismaticks first by giving just cause of separation from their errors and then making the separation by their censures It is true there can be no just cause of criminous Schism because there can be no just cause of sinne It is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it But there may be both just cause of separation and just separation without any crime or sinne yea vertuous and necessary as is confessed by themselves In all such cases the sinne of criminous Schism lies at their dores who introduced the errors and thereby first separated themselves from the uncorrupted Church which was before them Before he come to answer my arguments he proposeth an objection of his own that neither the Church nor Court of Rome did give any sufficient cause of separation either to Luther or to Henry the eighth In prosecution whereof he supposeth that Luther had no cause of separation but the abuse of some Preachers
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
interessed And that which was uncharitably begun and schismatically may be charitably piously and necessarily continued as by many reasons and instances may be made appear but that it is besides our question CHAP. 9. A defence of our Answers to the objections of the Romanists IN the first place he observeth a difference between Protestants and Roman Catholicks That Protestants doe not charge Roman Catholicks with formall Schism but only with causall Schism whereas Roman Catholicks doe charge Protestants with formall Schism To which I give three answers First if Protestants doe not charge them with formall Schism their charity is the greater and the Roman Catholicks are the more obliged to them Certainly we have better grounds to charge them with formall Schism then they have to charge us But indeed Protestants doe charge the Roman Court and all Roman Catholicks who maintain it and adhere unto it out of ambitious avaritious or other sinister ends and not out of simplicity of heart and invincible or at least probable ignorance with formall Schism Secondly causall Schism may be and in this case of the Romanists is as well formall nay sometimes more formall then actuall Schism or to speak more properly then actuall separation Whosoever give just cause of separation to others contrary to the light of their knowledge out of uncharitable or other sinister ends are causall and formall Schismaticks Whereas they who seperate actually and locally upon just cause are no criminous Schismaticks at all and they who separate actually without just cause may doe it out of invincible ignorance and consequently they are not formall but only materiall Schismaticks Thirdly when the case comes to be exactly weighed it is here just as it is in the case of possibility of Salvation that is to say the very same Protestants doe not charge all Roman Catholicks with formall Schism but only such as break the bond of unity sinfully whether it be by separating themselves or others unduely from the Catholick Communion or giving just cause of separation to others Nor doth R. C. himself charge all Protestants with formall Schism For he confesseth that all those Protestants who erre invincibly doe want neither Church nor Salvation Formall Schismaticks whilest they continue formall Schismaticks want both Church and Salvation therefore whosoever want neither Church nor Salvation are no formall Schismaticks The reason of his former assertion is this because Protestants can name no Church out of whose communion the present Church of Rome departed His reason shewes that he confounds materiall and formall Schism with causall and actuall Schism Whereas actuall Schism may sometimes be only materiall and causall Schism may also sometimes be formall To his reason I give two clear answers First Protestants can name a particular Church out of whose Communion the present Roman Church departed even the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome which was before it by introducing errors abuses and corruptions into it There is a morall departure out of a Church as well as a locall and acknowledged by themselves to be culpable and criminous Schism Secondly That Church which departs out of the Communion of the Catholick or universall Church is more schismaticall then that which departs only out of the Communion of a particular Church both because our Obligation is greater to the Catholick Church then to any particular Church and because the Catholick or universall Church doth comprehend all particular Churches of one denomination in it When the Court of Rome by their censures did separate three or four parts of the Christian World who were as Catholick or more Catholick then themselves then they departed out of the Communion of the Catholick Church as the Donatists did of old There is but this difference between the Donatists and them that the Donatists did it only by their uncharitable opinions and verball censures but the Court of Rome did it moreover by a solemn Juridicall Decree which is much the greater degree of Schism He telleth us That it is vain to liken them to the Donatists because the Donatists said that the Catholick Church of that time was but a part of the Church as Protestants say now of the Roman for which Saint Austine laughed at them The truth is the Donatists said that they being but a small part of the catholick Church if any part were the true catholick Church and that the true catholick Church was no catholick Church nor any part of it which is expresly contrary to what he saith here Just as the Romanists say now that they themselves being with all their dependents not a fourth part of the Christian World are the catholick Church and that the Patriarchate of Constaentinople which is as large as theirs and the Patriarchate of Alexandria which including the seventeen Kingdomes of Prester Iohn all Christians and dependents upon that Patriarchate is likewise as large and the Patriarchates of Antioch and Hierusalem and all the lesser Patriarchates in the East and the whole Empire of Russia and all the Protestants in Europe are no parts of the catholick Church Is not this to make the part to be the whole and the whole to be nothing beyond that part as the Donatists did Ovum ovo non similius And therefore Saint Austine might well laugh at them or rather pitty them as indeed he did for speaking such evident absurdities Si mihi diceres quod Ego sim Petilianus non invenirem quomodo te refellerem nisi aut jocantem riderem aut insanientem dolerem Sed quia jocari te non Credo vides quid restet If thou shouldest tell me that I am Petilian or any such thing that is evidently fals I should not know how to confute thee unlesse I should either laugh at thy folly or pity thy frenzie But because I believe not that thou jeastest thou seest what remaineth When they tell us in such earnest that the Roman Church is the catholick Church they might even as well tell us that Petilian was Saint Austine Their first objection is that we have separated our selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church to which I gave this answer that we had not separated our selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church for we are ready to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church doth unanimously beleeve and practise No nor yet from the Roman Church in the essentialls of Christian Religion or any of them but only in their errors and innovations and that it was the Court of Rome that made the separtion To this answer he takes great exception but as it seemeth to me in a most confused manner For method sake I will reduce all which he saith to four heads First that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church Secondly That we have separated our selves from it in essentialls Thirdly That all the other Patriarchates except the Roman are no parts of the Catholick Church Fourthly That we hold no Communion with
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
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
have not separated our selves but been chased away who have only forsaken errors not Churches much lesse obstinately and least of all in essentials who would gladly be contented to winke at small faults so they would not obtrude sinfull duties upon us as a condition of their communion The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margent whose scope is far enough from going about to perswade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome for which they are cited by him Rather on the contrary if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome and allow it not the essence of a Church what doth that concern the Church of England Will he blame us for being more moderate Trust me these Authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery He telleth us That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists If ours be Religion yours is separation They may rehearse the same words indeed but neither is Saint Austins case their case nor the Donatists case our case Sometimes they crie down our Religion as a negative Religion as faulty in the defect And now they accuse us of superstition in the excesse We approve no Church with which they communicate and we doe not Doctor Field saith that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church they need not use any other Argument It is most certain we all say the same But still he confoundeth the Church that is the universall Church with a Church that is a particular Church and a metaphysically true Church with a morally true Church Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense In this Section there is nothing but crambe bis cocta a repetition of what he hath formerly said over and over of Protestants separating themselves from the whole Christian World in communion of Sacraments Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvine Doctor Potter and Master Chillingworth which have already been fully answered He saith I indeavour to prove the lawfull Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time by the testimony of publick Registers and confession of Father Oldcorne He knoweth better if he please that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeths time but in Edward the sixths time If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it The Ecclesiasticall Registers doe make their Ordination so plain that no man who will but open his eies can be in doubt of it He confesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Registers were authenticall So must every one say or think that seeth them and every one is free to see them that will But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner and judged others by himself Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholick opinions Why did he change in this more then in any of the rest Because there is no defence against a Flaile no resisting evident demonstration which doth not perswade but compell men to believe But wherefore were not these Registers shewed before King James his time They were alwaies shewed to every man that desired to see them Registers are publick Records the sight whereof can be refused to no man The Officers hand is known the Office is secured from all supposititious writings both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register and by the testimony of all others who view the Records from time to time He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not shewed Which is first publickly promulged and after that affixed to the gates of the City and of the Common-Hall and all other publick places If he could have excepted against the persons either consecraters or consecrated as that there were not such persons or not so qualified or not present at that time he had had some reason for himself But Episcopall Ordination in England was too solemn and too publick an Act to be counterfeited And moreover the Proceedings were published in print to the view of the World whilest there were very many living who were eie witnesses of the Ordination And yet by his favour if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there as there were it might have made the Ordination illegall but not invalid for which I will give him a president and a witnesse beyond exception The president is Austine the first converter of the English the witnesse Saint Gregory Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia c. And truely in the English Church wherein there is no other Bishop but thy self thou canst not ordein a Bishop otherwise then alone c. But when by the grace of God Bishops are ordeined throughout all places Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops He asketh why Bishop Jewell or Bishop Horne did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops I might even as well ask him when he citeth an authority out of Saint Austin why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject did not cite it and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing Perhaps for I can but guesse untill he cite the places Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordination Perhaps judging them to be Hereticks they thought they had lost their character which yet he himself will acknowledg to be indeleble Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants and they gave a general answer Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records or lastly perhaps or indeed without perhaps they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination in respect of the Laws of England not upon the invalidity of it as shall clearly appear in my next answer In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers Why were they not shewed saith he when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the barre What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight yeers after Now let him take one answer for all There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer and the Book of Ordination as an appendix to it to be used throughout England in the reign of Edward the sixth This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth as to the Book of Common Prayer intending but not expresly mentioning the Book of Ordination which was an appendix to it So it was restored again either expresly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer as containing the publick Prayers of the Church for that occasion or at least implicitly as being printed in the Book of
deprive them of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their allegiance Let these pretended branches of Papall power be lopped off and all things restored to the primitiye forme and then the Papacy will be no more like that insana Laurus the cause of contention or division in all places In the mean time if they want that respect which is due unto them they may blame themseves who will not accept what is their just right unlesse they may have more Fourthly ' that which followes is a great mistake that it was and is the constant beliefe of the Câ—thelick world that these principles are Christs owne ordination recorded in Scripture What that S. Peter had any power over his fellow-Apostles or that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him in that power It doth not appear out of the holy text that S. Peter was at Rome except we understand Rome by the name of Babylon If it be Christs own ordâ—nation recorded in the scriptures that S. Peter should have all these priviledges and the Bishop of Rome inherit themashis successour thenthe great generall Councel of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equal prviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperial City more then the ordination of Christ. Then the whole Catholick Church was much to be blamed to receive such an unjust coustirution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome Lastly this is so farre from the constant belief of the Catholick world that it is not the beliefe of the Roman Church it self at this day The greatest defenders of the Popes Supremacy dare not say that the Bishop of Rome succedeth S. Peter by Christs owne ordination but onely by S. Peters dying Bishop of Rome They acknowledge that S. Peter might have dyed Bishop of Antioch and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him or he might have died Bishop of no place and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholick Church though he died at Rome as without doubt it is and may be contracted or enlarged or translated from one See to another for the advantage of Christian Religion His manifest evidence which he stileth so ample a memory and succession as is stronger then the stock of humane government and action That is that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it is so far from a demonstration that it scarcely deserveth the name of a Topicall argument For as an universall uncontroverted tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united is a convinclng and undeniable evidence such a tradition is the Apostles Creed comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith repeated daily in our Churches every Christian standing up at it both to expresse his assent unto it and readinesse to maintaine it professed by every Christian at his Baptisme either personally when he is of age sufficient or by his sureties when he is an infant and the tradition of the universall Church of this age a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us So the tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither so necessary to be knowne nor so firmely beleeved nor so publiquely aâ—d universally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicalages by such uninterrupted succession doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence When the Christian world is either not united or divided about particular opinions or inferiour points of faith it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages Or otherwise there is a fault in the conduit-pipe or an errour and failing in the derivatton of the tradition And both these do take much away from assurance more or less according to the degree of the opposition In such questionable and controverted points as these which are neither so universally received nor so publiquely professed his assertion is groundless and erroneous that the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed Yes in such controverted points this present age may not know yea doth not know what it self beleeveth or rather opiniateth untill it come to be voted in a Synod The most current opinions in the Schoos are not alwaies the most generaly received in the Church those which are most plaâ—sible in one place are often hissed out of another And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part or if he did how shall he know that what he beleeveth in such points is more then an indifferent opinion Or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church and delivered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession No waies but by universall tradition of the Christian world united either written or unwritten but this is all the evibence which they can expect who confound universall tradition with particular tradition the Roman Church with the Catholick Church the Christian world united with the Christian world divided and Scholasticall opinions with Articles of Faith Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences the one against the Church of England that since the reformation neither the former rule of unity of Faith nor the second of unity of governement have had any power in the English Church Whilest he himself knoweth no better what we beleeve who live in the same age how doth he presume that the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former beleeved I have shewed him already how we do willingly admit this principle wherein both his rules are comprehended that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our Forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a triall with them There is a fallacy in Logick called of more interrogations then one that is when severall questions of different natures to which one uniforme answer cannot be given yea or no are mixed confounded together So he doth not onely set down this second rule concerning governement ambiguously that a man cannot tell whether he make S. Peter onely an head of order among the Apostles or an head of single power and Jurisdiction also over the Apostles but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into S. Peters place by Christs own ordination and confounds S. Peters Ex o dium Vnitatis with the usurped power of Popes as it was actually exercised by them in latter ages His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome that the Roman Church with those Churches
which continue in communion with it are the onely Churches which have true doctrine in vertue of the first principle above mentioned and the right governement in virtue of the second and consequently are the entire Catholick or Vniversall Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schisme being excluded Our answer is ready that the Church of Rome or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplementall Articles and erroneous additions contrary to the first principle and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawfull government contrary to the second principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of supertio n and Schisme And lastly where he saith that my onely way to clear our Church from Schisme is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith or the latter the necessary bond of governement he is doubly mistaken First we are the persons accused our plea is negative or not guilty So the proof lieth not upon us but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismaticks Secondly if the proof did rest upon our sides we do not approve ofâ—his adviâ—e It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our substractions but they by their additions There is no doubt but Christs legacy ought to be preserved inviolable but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters heir by Christs ordination And that this was the constant beliefe of the Catholick world at any time This is his province let him either make this good or hold his peace Sect. 2. So his Prologue is ended now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments My first ground was because not Protestants but Roman Catholicks themselves did make the first separation To which his first answer is If it were so how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning Many waies First it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence when their best friends and best able to judge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for them who in all other things were great zeloâ—s of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Fagot did yet condemn thâ—m and justify this separation Secondly though it doth not alwaies excuse a tâ—to from all guilt and punishment to be misled by others into errour If the blind llead the blind both fall into the ditch yet it doth alwaies excuse a tanto it lesseneth the sin and extenuateth the guilt Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schisme If this separation be an Errour in Protestants the Roman Catholicks do owe an account to God both for themselves and us did they find cause to turne the Pope out of England as an intruder and usurper and could Protestants who had no relation to Rome imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again Thirdly in this case it doth acquit us not onely a tanto but a toto not onely from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schisme so longas we seek carefuly after truth and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents if he enquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and to correct his errours when he finds them he is not to be reputed an hereticke If this be true in the case of heresy it is more true in the case of Schisme Thus if it had been a crime in them yer it is none in us but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us but a just and necessary duty Secondly he answereth that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants because they persecuted Protestants For Protestants persecute Protestants Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians Puritans and Beownists persecute one another VVhat then were VVarham and Heath aud Thureleby Tunscall and Stokesley and Gardiner and Bonner c. all Protestants did Protestants enjoy Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks iâ— England and say Masses in those daies will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church and opposers of the Reformation If he had wriâ— thus much whilest they were living they would have been very angry with him Yet at the least if they were Protestants let him tell me which of these Sects they were of Lutheranâ— c. But he telleth us that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essentiall part of our reformation and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant He is mistaken This part of the reformation was done to our hands it was their reformation not ours But if he will needs have the kingdomes and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths daies onely for renouncing the Popes absolute universall Monarchy I am well contented we shall not lose by the bargain Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants then all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day then we want not store of Protestants even in the besome of the Roman Church it self Sect. 3. My second Ground saith he was because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated This he is pleased to call notoriously false impudence it self because a law was made in Henry the eighths time and an oath invented by which was given to the King to be head of the Church and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England Is this the language of the Roman Sâ—hooles or doth he think perhaps with his outcriâ—s and clamours as the Turks with their Alla Alla to daunt us and drive us from our cause Christian Reader of what Communion soever thou art be but indifferent and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falshood and impudence doth rest between him and me I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome did make no now law but vindicate their ancient Liberties It seemeth he confureth the Titles without looking into the Chapters did I say they made no new statutes No I cited all the new statutes which they did make and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here Yet I said they made no new law because it was the law of the land before that statute was made The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the
land when soever these were infringed or an attempt made to destroy them as the liberties of the Crowne and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope it was the manner to restore them or to declare them by a statute which was not operative to make or create new law but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law This I told him expressely in the vindication and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers Fitz Herbirt and my Lord Cook to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law but declarative to restore ancient law This appeareth undeniably by the statute it self That England is an Empire and that the King as head of the body politicke consisting of the spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall Iustice for all matters Here he seeth expressely that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality which is all that we assert at this day was the an e nt fundamentall law of England And lest hâ—e should accuse this Parliament of partialiâ—y I produced another that was more ancient The Crowne of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to be submitted to the Pope Here the Kings politicall Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamentall Law of the Land Let him not say that this was intended onely in temporall matters for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressely Ecclesiasticall What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more and to accuse me of impudence Secondly he saith that I bring diverse allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted or where the Pope is expressely denied the power to do such and such things Do we professe the Pope can pretend no more then his right Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted He stileth the Authorities by me produced meer Allegations yet they are as authentick Records as England doth afford But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in generall expressions of the Popes pretences and such or such things as if the controversy had been onely about an handfull of goats wool I will make bold to represent some of the Popes pretences and their declarations against them And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestours in those particulars he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question They declared that it was the custom or common law of the land ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa that no Pope might be appealed unto without the Kings licence They made a law that if any one were found bringing in the Popes letters or mandates into the kingdome let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and kingdome They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiasticall causes concerning the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church over all Ecclesiastical persons in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars nor make spiritual corporations nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary nor appropriate Churches nor to dispose Benefices by lapse nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy but the King did all these things as I shewed at large in the vindication They permitted not the Popes canon law to have any place in England further then they pleased to receive it They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishopricks and investitures of Bishops They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the Kings license They admitted no Legates from the Pope but meerly upon courtesy and if any was admitted he was to take his oath to doe nothing derogatory to the King or his Crowne If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication in England without the Kings consent or bring over the Popes bull he forfeited all his goods So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject nor dispose of an English Benefice nor send a Legate a latere orso much as an authoritative bul into England nor to reâ—eive an appeal out of England without the kings license But saith he To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not This was not meerly to limit an authority but to deny it VVhat lawfull Jurisdiction could remain to him in England who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence nor to send any Citation or sentence thither nor execute any authority over an English Subject either at Rome by himself or in England by his deputies without licence That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent Give us the same limitation which our Ancestours alwayes claimed that no forraign authority shall be exercised in England withour leave and then give the Pope as much authority as you please volenti non fit injuria consent takes away error He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him He demandeth first were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths raign Yes but it is no strange matter to explaine or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses as we see in magna Charta the statute of proviso's and many other Statutes Secondly he asketh whether we began our Religion there that is at that time when these ancient lawes were made no I have told him formerly that these statutes were onely declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdome VVe began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time before they had a Church at Rome But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion Lastly he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France Spaine Germany and Italy it self and yet they are Catholicks and hold communication with the Pope Yes there are some such laws in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English as I have shewed in the vindication And therefore the Popes friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience loyall Countries VVhat â—use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more then we in England concerns not me nor this present discourse And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section he cries out How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and
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
agree that she hath introduced errors and abuses into Christian Religion They agree that she obtrudes sinfull Innovations as necessary conditions of her Communion They agree that the separation is only from these errors and abuses and are ready to return to a Communion when these errors and abuses are removed So in effect they say the very same thing neither more nor less But because these errors and abuses are inherent in their Confessions Liturgy and forms of administration of holy Sacraments therefore some say that they are separated from the externall communion of the Roman Church And because these errors and abuses are but adventicious accidently inherent and may be and ought to be removed therefore others say that their separation is not from the Communion of the Roman Church as it was and may be and ought to be but only from the errors and abuses The one speaks simply and absolutely from the errors and abuses The others speak respectively and secundum quid from the externall communion of the Roman Church that is so far as it is corrupted by these errors and abuses and not further and so in sense they say the very same thing And therefore it is meer sophistry and a groundlesse cavill to argue from their separation from errours to their separation from truths and from their separation in abuses to their separation in the Sacraments themselves Suppose one who is appointed to minister diet to another will give him nothing but poisonous meats And he knowing it will not receive it tell me who is the refuser he that will not eate poison or he that will not give him healthfull food The Roman Catholicks doe professe themselves to be as loyall to their Soveraign as any of his best Subjects And that they are as ready as any others to give assurance of it by oath Yet they say there are some clauses inserted in the form prescribed which they may not they dare not take If any man should accuse them hereupon to have deserted the communion of the English Monarchy in point of loyalty they would be angry and they had good reason for it Upon the same equity let them forbeare to accuse us of leaving the communion of their Church in Sacraments when we only left their abuses Distinguish between old institutions and new errours and the case is cleer Likewise supposing but not granting that we were not chased away by the censures of the Court of Rome but had out of conscience separated our selves from their errours in such manner as I have declared yet the crime or guilt of the Schism sticks close to them A conscientious Christian is as much chased away by imposing upon him the performance of sinfull duties as by the thunderbolt of excommunication Schism is a voluntary separation but our separation was no more voluntary on our parts then the three children were willing to be cast into the fiery furnace that is they did chuse rather to die Innocents then to live Nocents to suffer burning rather then to commit Idolatry To be separated might be our consequent will because we could not help it But it was farr enough from our antecedent will or that we did desire it If we should see one pushed and thrust out of an house with Swords and Whips and Clubs would any man in his right wits call this man a Fugitive and a Runaway or accuse him to have forsaken the House Sin is a more dangerous Edge-tool then a Sword and the wrath of God heavier then the weight of Clubs and the secret lashes of a guilty Conscience sharper then Whips If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinfull duties and offending God and wounding our own Consciences whilest we staied among them then we did not leave them but they did drive us from them Ioseph came into his Masters house to doe his duty his Mistrisse tempts him to Sinne. Ioseph flies away What From his duty No. But from the offence of God and she that thought to hold him was the person that did drive him away He urgeth that nothing but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation as he hath fancied to himself from the crime of Schism Let it be soâ—â— He might have spared his Authours in the margent to prove it His defect lies on the other side Doth not he think it necessary to Salvation for every man so farre as he can to escheu deadly sinne Or thinks he that a man may live securely in known errours contrary to the dictate of his Conscience without any prejudice to Salvation This was our condition But yet there was Salvation to be had in the Church of Rome So it was not necessary to Salvation to make such a separation A strange consequence just like this other God hath mercy in store for sinners therefore it is not necessary to Salvation to forsake sinne Gods extraordinary mercy is one thing our duty another Because his compassion is great towards his poor Creatures that offend out of invincible ignorance is it therefore not necessary to Salvation for those who are convinced of their errours to follow the commandement of God and the light of their own Conscience This is so evident that it admits no doubt He adds That we separated our selves not only from the Roman Church but from all Christian Churches in the World as if there had been no Christian Church in the World in whose communion we could finde Salvation whence it will follow that at that time in their conceits there was no true Church upon Earth This he inculcates over and over in severall places according to his manner And in his ninth Chapter and fifth Section he triumpheth in it where he endeavours to prove out of Calvine and Chillingworth and Doctor Potter that Protestants separated themselves from the whole World That is as he expresseth himself in other places from all Christian Churches And particularly from the Roman Grecian Armenian and Aethiopian Church and all other ancient Churches whatsoever If it be so then he may truely call us Penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos Of the Roman Church in particular and how that possibility of Salvation in any Church is not in true reason impeditive of its just reformation we have already spoken sufficiently It remaineth to give an answer concerning our separation from these Eastern Churches Our particular reformation cannot be said to be any separation from them For they doe neither pretend to be the Catholick or universall Church as the Roman doth nor challenge any jurisdiction over the Britannick Churches as the Court of Rome doth neither doe we deny them the right of Christian Churches or the right hand of fellowship In coordinate Churches whereof one is not subordinate to another some Churches reforming themselves and not censuring or condemning others which are unreformed whilest they preserve their duty entire to the Oecumenicall Church and its representative a generall Councell doe not
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