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
determine causes of Religion The Emperor did not trouble himself much at it But the Pope having created three Spanish Cardinals he forbad them to accept the armes or use the name or habit And not long after published a Reformation of the Clergy conteining twenty three points First of Ordination and Election of Ministers Secondly of the Office of Ecclesiasticall Orders Thirdly of the Office of Deans and Canons Fourthly of Canonicall hours Fifthly of Monasteries Sixtly of Schools and Universities Seventhly of Hospitals Eighthly of the Office of a Preacher Ninthly of the Administration of the Sacraments Tenthly of the Administration of Baptism Eleventhly of the Administration of Confirmation Twelfthly of Ceremonies Thirteenthly of the Masse Fourteenthâ—y of the Administration of Penitence Fifteenthly of the Administration of extreme Unction Sixteenthly of the Administration of Matrimomy Seventeenthly of Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies Eighteenthly of the Discipline of the Clergy and People Nineteenthly of plurality of Benefices Twentithly of the Discipline of the People One and twentithly of Visitations Two and twentithly of Councels Three and twentithly of Excommunication Charles the fifth and the German Dyet did assume to themselves a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes None of our Princes was ever more devoted to Rome then Queen Mary yet when Paul the 4 th revoked Cardinall Poolos Legantine power in England and designed one Petus a Franciscan to come Legate in his place She shut all the Ports of England against all messengers from Rome and commanded all the Briefs and Bulls to be taken from the bearers and delivered unto her So well was she satisfied that no Roman Legate hath any thing to doe in England without the Princes licence But I have brought instances enough untill he be pleased to take notice of them To all which he returns no answer but these generall words Seeing L. D. hath alleged diverse facts of Catholick Princes in disobeying Papall Authority and thence inferreth that they did as much as King Henry who not only disobeyed but denied Papall Authority let us allege both more ancient and greater Emperors who have professed that they had no Authority in Ecclesiasticall causes and avowed Papall Authority After this rate he may survey the whole World in a few minutes Let the Reader judge whether I have not just cause to call upon him for an answer Are they only diverse facts of Catholick Princes By his leave they are both facts and decrees and constitutions and Laws and Canons of the most famous Emperors and Princes of Christendome with their Dyets and Parliaments and Synods and Councels and Universities Or doth it seem to him that they only disobeyed Papall Authority When he reads them over more attentively he will finde that they have not only disobeyed Papall Authority but denied it as he saith Henry the 8 th did in all the principall parts and branches of it which are in controversie between them and us Nay they have not only denied to the Pope that which he cals Papall Authority to Convocate Synods to confirm Synods to make Ecclesiasticall Laws to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to receive the last Appeals in Ecclesiasticall causes but they have exercised it themselves They have disposed of the Papacy they have deposed the Popes they have shut out his Legates they have Appealed from his sentences they have not suffered their Subjects to goe upon his Summons they have caused his Decrees to be torn in pieces most disgracefully and made Edicts and Statutes and pragmaticall sanctions against his usurpations they have regulated the Clergy and reformed the Churches within their Dominions And when they thought fit during their pleasures they have stopped all entercouse with Rome The Kings of Spain suffer no more Appeals from Sicily to the Court of Rome then our Princes from England and exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdction by Delegates which certainly neither they nor other Princes would doe if they did at all believe that the Papacy was an universall Spirituall Monarchy instituted by Christ. But it seemeth that he delighteth more in the use of his sword then of his buckler and in stead of repelling my arguments he busieth himself in making new knots for me to untie He knows well that this is no logicall proceeding And I might justly serve him with the same sauce But I seek only the clear discovery of truth and will pursue his steppes throughout his oppositions The first thing that he objecteth to me is the oath of Supremacy made by King Henry and his Church in which oath saith he are sworn five things First that the King of England is not only Governor but only and supreme Governor Secondly not only in some but in all ecclesiasticall things and causes Thirdly as well in all ecclesiasticall causes as temporall Fourthly that no forrein Prelate hath any spirituall Iurisdiction in England Fifthly all forrein Iurisdiction is renounced This he is pleased to call the first new Creed of the English Protestant Church by which it is become both hereticall and schismaticall Before I give a distinct answer to this objection it will be needfull in the first place to put him in minde of some things which I have formerly demonstrated to him touching this particular which he hath been pleased to pass by in silence First who it was that first presented this Title to King Henry Archbishop Warrham whom Sanders calleth an excellent man and a Popish Convocation Secondly who confirmed this Title unto him Four and twenty Bishops and nine and twenty Abbats in Parliament none dissenting There was not one Protestant among them all Thirdly who were the flatterers of King Henry that preached up his Supremacy and printed books in defence of this Supremacy and set forth Catachismâ—s to instruct the Subjects and teach them what the Supremacy was who contrived and penned this very Oath and were the first that took it themselves and incited all others to take it even Bishop Gardiner Tonstall Heath Bonner Stokesley Thurelby c. all R. C. his Friends the greatest Opposers of the reformation and the roughest Persecuters of Protestants Lastly consider what I cited out of Cardinall Poole That God the Father hath assigned this Office to Christian Emperors that they should act the part of Christ the Son of God And again the Pope as a Priestly Head doth execute the Office of Christ the true Head but we may also truly say that the Emperour doth execute the Office of Christ as a Kingly Head These things being premised to dull the edge of his argument now I proceed to a direct answer and first I charge him with chopping and changing the words of the Oath The words of the Oath are these That the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor in this Realm But in paraphrasing upon them and pressing them he renders them thus not only Governor but only and supreme Governor There is a vast difference between these two to say the King is the only
did not know who were obstinate and who were not who erred for want of light and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences The like Spirit did possess Optatus who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists Brethren not by chance or inanimadvertence but upon premeditation he justifieth the title and professeth himself to be obliged to use it he would not have done so to Idolaters And a little before in the same Book he wonders why his Brother Parmenian being only a Schismatick would rank himself with Hereticks who were falsifiers of the Creed that is the old primitive Creed which the Councel of Trent it self placed in the front of their Acts as their North-star to direct them I wish they had steered their course according to their compass To cut off a lim from a man or a branch from a tree saith he is to destroy them most true But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body as in a gangreen The word of errour is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not cancer a crabfish because it is retrograde which was Anselmes mistake So when superfluous branches are lopped away it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better His second conclusion from hence is that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sinne And because there is no salvation out of the Church which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin to little purpose whilest no man doubts of it or denies it And hence he inferres this corollary that I say untruely that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church because there ean be no just cause of Schism My words were these that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church There is a great difference between these two But to dispell umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words We must distinguish between the Catholick oecumenicall Church and particular Churches how eminent soever As likewise between criminous Schism and lawfull separation First I did never say that the Catholick or universall Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it yea I ever said the contrary expresly And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian who never understood the Catholick Church in his sense His Catholick Church was but a particular Church with them And their Catholick Church is a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him But I did say and I doe say that any particular Church without exception whatsoever may give just cause of separation from it by heresy or Schism or abuse of their authority in obtruding errours And to save my self the labour of proving this by evidence of reason and by authentick testimonies I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey Neither can there be any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her In which case division from her is no schism or sinne but virtue and necessary And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church as he may leave his Fathers house when it is infected with some contagious sicknesse with a purpose to returne to it again when it is cleansed he answers that this may be true of a particular Church but cannot be true of the universall Church Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sinne Their damnation is just who say let us doe evil that good may come of it Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her the guilt of the Schisme lies not upon that Church which makes the separation but upon that Church from which the separation is made This is a truth undenyable and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practise liturgy and use of Sacraments may truely be said to have bene Hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the externall communion of the true uncorrupted Church We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgie and use of the Sacraments and which is more did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her And if so then by the judgement of her own Doctors the Schism is justly laid at her own door and it was no sinne in us but virtue and necessary to separate from her I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alledged as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8 and 1. Tim. 1.3 He speaks of bad manners and vitious humors and sinister affections especially in the preachers as envy contention contumacy incontinency This was his case then with the Donatists and is now the case of the Anabaptists That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18 He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiasticaâ—ll discipline He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause what doth this concern us who beleeve the same His second note is this that Protestants have forsaken the Pope the Papacy the universal Roman Church and all the ancient Christian Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian in their communion of Sacraments and to clear themselves from Schism must bring just cause of separation from every one of these I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy that is from his primacy of power from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right which two are already established from his superiority above general Councels and infallibility of judgment which are the most received Opinions
Popes but for many of the rest and especially for that which did virtually include them all that is the Legâ—slative power in ecclesiasticall causes wherein the whole body of the Kingdome did claim a neerer interest in respect of that receptive Power which they have ever injoyed to admit or not admit such new Laws whereby they were to be governed it had been folly and madness in the Popes to have attempted upon it One doubt still remains How ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction could be said to be derived from the Crown For they might be apt enough in those dayes to use such improper expressions First with the Romanists themselves I distinguish between habituall and actuall Jurisdiction Habituall Jurisdiction is derived only by ordination Actuall Jurisdiction is a right to exercise that habit arising from the lawfull application of the matter or subject In this later the Lay Patron and much more the Soveraign Prince have their respective Interests and concurrence Diocesses and Parishes were not of divine but humane institution And the same persons were born Subjects before they were made Christians The ordinary gives a School master a license or habituall power to teach but it is the Parents of the Children who apply or substract the matter and furnish him with Scholars or afford him a fit subject whereupon to exercise this habituall power Secondly we must also distinguish between the interior and exterior Court between the Court of Conscience and the Court of the Church For in both these Courts the power of the Keies hath place but not in both after the same manner That power which is exercised in the Court of Conscience for binding and loosing of sinnes is soly from Ordination But that power which is exercised in the Court of the Church is partly from the Soveraign Magistrate especially in England where Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is enlarged and fortified with a coercive power and the bounds thereof have been much dilated by the favour and piety of Christian Princes by whom many causes have been made of Ecclesiasticall cognisance which formerly were not from whom the coercive or compulsory power of summoning the Kings Subjects by processes and citations was derived It is not then the power of the Keies or any part or branch thereof in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction even in the exterior Court of the Church which is derived from the Crown But it is coercive and compulsory and coroboratory power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actuall Ecclesiasticall Jurisdicton in the Court of the Church to prevent the oppressions of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquillity of the Common-wealth which belongs to Sovereign Princes As to his corollary that never any King of England before Henry the eighth did challenge an exemption from all Iurisdiction under Christ it is as gross a mistake as all the rest For neither did Henry the eighth challenge any such exemption in the Court of Conscience Among the six bloody Articles established by himself that of auricular confession was one Nor in the Court of the Church seeing the direct contrary is expressly provided for in the Statute it self The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being and his Successors shall have power and authority from time to time by their discretions to give grant and dispose by an instrument under the Seal of the said Archbishop unto your Majesty and to your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm as well all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies Instruments and all other Writings for causes not being contrary or repugnant to holy Scriptures and Lawes of God as heretofore hatâ— been used and accustomed to be had and obtained by your Highnes or any of your most noble Progenitors or any of yours or their Subjects at the See of Rome So vain a suggestion it is That King Henry the eighth did free himself not only from Papall Authority but also and as well from Episcopall Archiepiscopall and all Spirituall Authority either abroad or in England And his Argument which he presseth so seriously to prove it is as vain That the Head of a Company is under none of that Company The Pope himself is under his Confessor who hath power to binde him or loose him in the Court of Conscience The Master of a Family is under his own Chaplain for the regiment of his Soul and under his Physitian for the government of his Body What should hinder it that a Politicall Head may not be under an Ecclesiasticall Pastor The Kings of England are not only under the forrein Jurisdiction of a generall Councell but also under their Ecclesiasticall Pastors though their own Subjects Only they are exempted from all coercive and compulsory power Let us trie whether he be more fortunate in opposing then he hath been in answering The Kings of England saith he permitted Appeales to Rome in ecclesiasticall causes as is evident in St. Wilfrides case who was never reproved nor disliked for appealing twice to Rome not so but the clear contrary appeareth evidently in Saint Wilfrides case Though he was an Archbishop and if an Appeal had been proper in any case it had been in that case This pretended Appeal was not only much disliked but rejected by two Kings successively by the other Archbishop and by the body of the English Clergy as appeareth by the event For Wilfride had no benefit of the Popes sentences but was forced after all his strugling to quit the two Monasteries which were in question whether he would or not and to sit down with his Archbishoprick which he might allwnies have held peaceably if he would This agrees with his supposed Vision in France that at his return into his Country he should receive the greatest part of his possessions that had been taken from him that is praesulatum Ecclesiae suae his Archbishoprick but not his two Monasteries But this is much more plain by the very words of King Alfride cited by me in the Vindication to which R. C. hath offered no answer That he honored the Popes Nuncios for their grave lives and honorable lookes Here is not a word of their credentiall Letters O how would a Nuncio storm at this and take it as an affront The King told them further That he could not give any assent to their legation So that which R. C. calles permitting was in truth downright dissenting and rejecting The reason followes because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter Is not this disliking What could the King say more incivillity then to tell the Popes Nuncios that their Masters demands were unreasonable or what could be more to the purpose and to the utter ruin of R. C. his cause then that the Decrees of the pope were impugned not once but twice not by a few
all fundamentals is not sufficient to salvation unless other points of Faith be imposed or obtruded upon all men whether they be revealed or not revealed to them And this had been directly contrary to the plain Decree of the general Councel of Ephesus That no new Creeds nor new points of faith should be imposed upon Christians more then the Creed then received His second objection is this though there were such fundamentals yet seeing Protestant confess they know not which they are one cannot know by them who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church I doe not blame either Protestants or others especially private and particular persons if they be very tender in setting down precisely what points of faith are absolutely necessary to salvation the rather because it is a curious needless and unprofitable salvation Since the blesed Apostles have been so provident for the Church as to deposite and commit to the custody thereof the Creed as a perfect Rule and Canon of Faith which comprehendeth all doctrinall points which are absolutely necessary for all Christians to salvation it were great folly and ingratitude in us to wrangle about circumstances or about some substantiall points of lesser concernment whether they be so necessary as others This is sufficient to let us know who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church in point of faith even all those Churches which hold the Apostles Creed as it is expounded in the four first generall Councels His third and last objection followeth All points of faith sufficiently proposed are essentiall and fundamentall nor can any such point be disbeleeved without infidelity and giving the lie to God as Protestants sometimes confess If by sufficient proposall he understand the proposall of the Church of Rome I deny both parts of his assertion Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome which are neither fundamentall truths nor inferior truths but errors which may be disbeleeved without either infidelity or sin Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent then they satisfie one another what this infallible proponent is If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent or be not assured who this infallible proponent is the proposition may be disbeleeved without giving God the lie But if by sufficient proposall he understand Gods actuall revelation of the truth and the conviction of the conscience then this third objection is like the first partly true and party false The later part of it is true that whatsoever is convinced that God hath revealed any thing and doth not beleeve it giveth God the lie and this the Protestants doe alwaies affirm But the former part of it is still false All truths that are revealed are not therefore presently fundamentalls or essentialls of faith no more then it is a fundamentall point of faith that Saint Paul had a Cloak That which was once an essentiall part of the Christian faith is alwaies an essentiall part of the Christian faith that which was once no essentiall is never an essentiall How is that an essentiall part of saving faith whithout which Christians may ordinarily be saved But many inferior truths are revealed to particular persons without the actuall knowledge whereof many others have been saved and they themselves might have been saved though those truths had never been proposed or revealed to them Those things which may adesse or abesse be present or absent known or not known beleeved or not beleeved without the destruction of saving faith are no essentialls of saving faith In a word some things are necessary to be beleeved when they are known only because they are revealed otherwise conducing little or it may be nothing to salvation Some other things are necessary to be beleeved not only because they are revealed but because beleef of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation These are those are not essentialls or fundamentalls of saving faith Another means of reunion proposed by me in the vindication was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of soveregin Jurisdiction jure divino to his exordium unitatis and to have his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sense of the Councels of Constance and Basile Against this he pleadeth first That ancient Popes practised or challenged Episcopall or pastorall Authority over all Christians jure divino in greater Ecclesiasticall causes And for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine To which I answer first that the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches had ever great Authority among all Christians and great influence upon the Church as honorable Arbitrators and faithfull Depositaries of the Genuine Apostolicall tradition but none of them ever exercised sovereign Jurisdict ion over over all Christians Secondly I answer that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes upon which their claim of universall Sovereignty jure divino is principally grounded are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits Thirdly I answer that ancient Popes in their genuine Writings doe not claim nor did practise monarchicall Power over the catholick Church much less did they claim it jure divino but what Powet they held they held by prescription and by the Canons of the Fathers who granted sundry priviledges to the Church of Rome in honor to the memory of St. Peter and the Imperiall City of Rome And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their Authority from the Councell of Nice though without ground which they would never have done if they had held it jure divino And for answer to Bellarmine whom he only mentioneth in generall I referre him to Doctor Field In the next place he citeth Saint Heirome that Christ made one Head among the twelve to avoid Schism And how much more necessary faith R. C. is such a Head in the universall Church It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierosme But thou saiest the Church is founded upon St. Peter The same is done in another place upon all the Apostles they all receive the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all I have shewed him formerly in answer to this place that in a body endowed with power as the Church is an Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against Schism His how much more should be how much less a single person is more capable of the government of a small society then of the whole world After this he citeth Melanchon As there are some Bishops who govern diverse Churches the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops and this Canonicall policy I think no-wise man doth disallow I cannot in present procure that century of Theologicall Epistles but I have perused Melancthons Epistles published by Casper Pucerus wherein I finde no such Epistle I examine not whether this Epistle by him cited be genuine or
Jurisdiction Secondly The Church and Kingdom of England had more lawful just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome then any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever as he cannot chuse but see in this very Chapter But who is so blind as he that will not see Thirdly We do confess that the Primitive Papacy that is an Exordium unitatis a beginning of unity was an excellent meanes of Concord We do not envy the Bishop of Rome or any Honour which the Catholick Church did allow him But moderne Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us is rather as Nilus saith the cause of all dissentions and Controversies of the Christian World Lastly To his demand concerning the English Court and Church Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelats I answer No But this will not advantage his cause at all for three Reasons First never were any such abuses as these objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Secondly we seek not the extirpation of the Papacy but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution Thirdly Monarchy and Episcopacie are of divine institution so is not a papall Sovereignty of Jurisdiction His parliamentary Prelacie hath more sound then weight We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacie as he will finde that undertakes it Sect. 6. We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome Reader observe and wonder All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds they have declaimed that there can be no just grounds of such a separation They have declared in the Hypothesis that we had no grounds but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads First The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court committed from age to age without hope of Remedy Secondly Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights Civil Ecclesiastical sacred and prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Thirdly the malignant influence and effects of this forreign jurisdiction destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline producing dis-union in the Realm factions animosities between the Crown and the Mitre intestine discord between the King and his Barons bad intelligence with neighbour Princes and forreign wars Fourthly a list of other inconveniences or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendome to approve the Popes rebellion against general Councels and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegeance to maintaine the Pope in his rebellious usurpations Lastly The weakness of the Popes pretences and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from forreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Councel of Ephesus Certainly he ought to have shewed either that these grounds conjoyned were not sufficient or that they were not true or that there were other remedies But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence which is as mueh as yeeld the Cause Thus he It is then of little concernment to examine whether his complaints be true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division What is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no It belongs not to me to shew that there was no other remedy that is to prove a negative but if he will answer my grounds it belongs to him to shew that there was other remedy yet so far as a negative is capable of proof I have shewed even in this Chapter that there was no other remedy I shewed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England so as to call them to a personal account I shewed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope in Councel out of Councel for ease from their oppressions in diversages and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner He adds And much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment This is a very euthumematical kinde of arguing If the sky fall we shall have larks He knows right well that it is his assumption which is latent that we deny that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute He proceedeth But most because all other Catholick Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends yet they remaine still in communion with the Church of Rome and after we have broke the Ice do not hold it reasonable to follow our example Few or no Catholick Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight a Well that could not be drawn dry All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Priviledge to be exempt from forreign jurisdiction as Brittaine hath Yet all other Catholick Countries do maintaine their owne Priviledges inviolated and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome Some other Catholick Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy then England doth yet England is not alone in the separation so long as all the Easterne Southerne Northern and so great a part of the Westerne Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we yet if it were otherwise we must live by precepts not by examples Nay saith he The former ages of our Countrey had the same cause to cast the Popes Supremacy out of the Land yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church then attempt so destructive an innovation Mistake not us so much we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestors at far as the Roman Court will give us leave neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon and abused by the Court of Rome and to sit still in the mean time and blow their noses They did by their lawes exclude the Popes supremacy out of England so farre as they judged it necessary for the tranquility of the Kingdome that is his patronage of Churches his Legates and Legantine Courts his buls and sentences and excommunications his legislative power his power to receive appeals except onely in cases where the Kingdome did give consent They threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them We have more experience then our Ancestours had that their remedies were not Soveraigne or sufficient enough that if we
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
A Replication TO THE BISHOP of CHALCEDON HIS Survey of the Vindication OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND FROM Criminous Schism Clearing the English Laws from the aspertion of Cruelty With an Appendix in answer to the exceptions of S. W. By the right Reverend JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. and Lord Bishop of Derry LONDON Printed by K. H. for Iohn Crook at the signe of the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1656. To the Christian Reader CHristian Reader of what Communion soever thou beest so thou beest within the Communion of the oecumenicall Church either in act or in desire I offer this second Treatise of Schism to thy serious view and unpartiall Iudgment The former was a Vindication of the Church of England this later is a Vindication of my self or rather both are Vindications of both In vindicating the Church then I did vindicate my self And in vindicating my self now I doe vindicate the Church What I have performed I doe not say I dare not judg the most moderate men are scarcely competent judges of their own works No man can justly blame me for honouring my spiritual Mother the Church of England in whose wombe I was conceived at whose brests I was nourished and in whose bosome I hope to die Bees by the instict of nature doe love their hives and Birds their nests But God is my witness that according to my uttermost talent and poor understanding I have endeavored to set down the naked truth impartially without either favor or prejudice the two capital enemies of right judgment The one of which like a fals mirror doth represent things fairer and straighter then they are the other like the tongue infected with choler makes the sweetest meats to taste bitter My desire hath been to have truth for my chiefest friend and no enemy but error If I have had any byasse it hath been desire of peace which our common Saviour left as a Legacy to his Church that I might live to see the re-union of Christendome for which I shall alwaies bow the knees of my heart to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. It is not impossible but that this desire of unity may have produced some unwilling error of love but certainly I am most free from the willfull love of error In questions of an inferior natu re Christ regards a charitaable intention much more then a right opinion Howsoever it be I submit my self and my poor indeavors first to the judgment of the Catholick oecumenicall essentiall Church which if some of late daies have indeavored to hisse out of the Schools as a fancy I cannot help it From the beginning it was not so And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorace which for my part I have no reason in the World to suspect yet it is not impossible when the Romanists themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what â—his catholick Church or what their infallible Iudg is I doe implicitly and in the preparation of my minde submit my self to the true catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the Pillar of Truth And seeing my adherence is firmer to the infallible rule of Faith that is the holy Scriptures interpreted by the catholick Church then to mine own private judgment or opinions although I should unwittingly fall into an error yet this cordiall submission is an implicite retractation thereof and I am confident will be so accepted by t he Father of merâ—â—â—s both from me 〈…〉 and sincerely 〈…〉 â—th Likew◠〈…〉 reprâ—sentative 〈…〉 generall Councell or so generall as can be procured and untill then to the Church of England wherein I was baptized or to a nationall English Synod To the determination of all which and each of them respectively according to the distinct degrees of their authority I yeeld a conformity and compliance or at the least and to the lowest of them an acquiescence Finally I crave this favor from the courteous Reader that because the Surveier hath overseen almost all the principall proofs of the cause in question which I conceive not to be so clearly and candidly done he will take the pains to peruse the Vindication it self And then in the name of God let him follow the dictate of right reason For as that scale must needs settle down whereinto most weight is put so the minds cannot chuse but yeeld to the weight of perspicuous demonstration An Answer to R. C. the Bishop of Chalcedons preface I Examine not the impediments of R. C. his undertaking this survey Only I cannot but observe his complaint of extreme want of necessary Books having all his own notes by him and such store of excellent Libraries in Paris at his command then which no City in the World affords more few so good certainly the main disadvantage in this behalf lies on my side Neither will I meddle with his motives to undertake it I have known him long to have been a Person of great eminence among our English Roman Catholicks and doe esteem his undertaking to be an honour to the Treatise Bos lassus fortiùs pedem figit said a great Father The weary Oxe treadeth deeper Yet there is one thing which I cannot reconcile namely a fear least if the answer were longer deferred the poison of the said Treatise might spread further and become more incurable Yet with the same breath he tels us that I bring nothing new worth answering And in his answer to the first Chapter that no other English Minister for ought he knows hath hitherto dared to defend the Church of England from Schisme in any especiall Treatise Yes diverse he may be pleased to inform himself better at his leisure What is the Treatise so dangerous and infectious Is the way so unbeaten And yet nothing in it but what is triviall Nothing new that deserves an answer I hope to let him see the contrary He who disparageth the work which he intends to confute woundeth his own credit through his adversaries sides But it seemeth that by surveying over hastily he did quite oversee all our principall evidence and the chiefest firmaments of our cause I am sure he hath quite omitted them I shall make bold now then to put him in mind of it Hence he proceedeth to five observable points which he esteemeth so highly that he beleeveth they alone may serve for a full refutation of my Book Then he must have very favourable Judges His first point to be noted is this that Schisme is a substantiall division or a division in some substantiall part of the Church And that the substantiall parts of the Church are these three Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and Lawfull Ministery I confesse I am not acquainted with this language to make Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and lawfull Ministery which are no substances to be substantiall parts of any thing either Physicall or Metaphysicall He defineth the Church to be a Society can these be
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
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
Cardinals did not know at that time how to give a reasonable answer Wherein he pleads that his Ancestors had granted free elections ad rogatum instantiam dictae sedis upon the earnest entreaty of the See of Rome which now they endeavoured to usurpe and seize upon who made himself in Parliament the Judge of all the grievances which the Kingdome sustained from the Pope who made expresse Lawes against the oppressions of the Roman Court declaring publickly That it was his duty and that he was bound by his oath to make remedies against them This was more then twenty such complements as this which is most true in a right sense That it was but a complement appeareth evidently by this The question was about Edward the thirds right to the Crown of France and his confederation with Lewis of Bavaria these were no Ecclesiasticall matters the King sent his Ambassadors to the Pope to treat with him about his right to the Crown of France But notwithstanding his supereminent judgment he gave them in charge to treat with the Pope not as a Iudge but as a private person and a common friend not in form nor in figure of judgement He attributeth no more to the Pope then to another man according to the reasons which he shall produce His own words are these parati semper nedum a vestro sancto cunctis presidente judicio imo a quolibet alio de veritate contrarii si quis eam noverit humiliter informari qui sponte rationi subjicimur aliam datam nobis intelligi veritatem cum plena humili gratitudine complectemur Being ready alwaies humbly to be informed of the truth of the contrary if any man know it not only from your holy judgement being placed in dignity before all or as it is in another place before every Creature but from any other And we who are subject to reason of our own accord will embrace the truth with humility and thankfulnesse when it is made known unto us This was Edward the thirds resolution to submit to reason and the evidence of the truth from whomsoever it proceeded Yet though the case was meerly Civil and not at all of Ecclesiasticall cognizance and though Edward the third did not would not trust the Pope with it as a Judge but as an indifferent Friend yet he gives him good words That his judgement was placed in dignity above all Creatures which to deny was to allow of Heresie Why doe we hear words when we see Deeds The former Popes had excommunicated Lewis of Bavaria and all who should acknowledge him to be Emperor Neverthelesse Edward the third contracted a firm league with him and moreover became his Lieutenant in the Empire Pope Benedict takes notice of it writes to King Edward about it intimates the decrees of his predecessors against Lewis of Bavaria and his adherents signifying that the Emperor was deprived and could not make a Lieutenant The King gives fair words in generall but notwithstanding all that the Pope could doe to the contrary proceeds renews his league with the Emperor and his Commission for the Lieutenancy and trusted more to his own judgement then co the supereminent judgement of the Pope So he draws to a conclusion of this Chapter and though he have proved nothing in the world yet he askes What greater power did ever Pope challenge then here is professed Even all the power that is in controversie between us and them He challenged the politicall headship of the English Church under pretence of an Ecclesiasticall Monarchy He challenged a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes He challenged a Dispensative power above the Lawes against the Lawes of the Church whensoever wheresoever over whomsoever He challenged liberty to send Legates and hold legantine Courts in England without licence He challenged the right of receiving the last Appeals of the Kings Subjects He challenged the Patronage of the English Church and investitures of Bishops with power to impose a new Oath upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance He challenged the first Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiasticall livings and a power to impose upon them what pensions or other burthens he pleased He challenged the Goods of Clergy-men dying intestate c. All which are expresly contrary to the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England He confesseth That it is Lawfull to resist the Pope invading either the Bodies or the Souls of men or troubling the Common-wealth or indeavoring to destroy the Church I aske no more Yea forsooth saith he if I may be judge what doth invade the Soul No I confesse I am no fit Judge No more is he The main question is who shall be Judge what are the Liberties and Immunities of a nationall Church and what are the grievances which they sustain from the Court of Rome Is it equall that the Court of Rome themselves should be the Judges Who are the persons that doe the wrong Nothing can be more absurd In vain is any mans sentence expected against himself The most proper and the highest judicature upon Earth in this case is a generall Councell as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishops and their pretended Patriarch And untill that remedy can be had it is lawfull and behooveth every Kingdome or nationall Church who know best their own rights and have the most feeling where their Shoe wrings them to be their own Judges I mean only by a judgment of discretion to preserve their own rights inviolated and their persons free from wrong sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae And especially Sovereign Princes are bound both by their Office and by their Oaths to provide for the security and indemnity of their Subjects as all Roman Catholicks Princes doe when they have occasion And here he fals the third time upon his former Theme that in things instituted by God the abuse doth not take away the use Which we doe willingly acknowledge and say with Saint Austine Neque enim si peccavit Cecilianus ideo haereditatem suam perdidit Christus sceleratae impudentiae est propter crimina hominis quae orbi terrarum non possis ostendere communionem orbis terrarum velle damnare Neither if Cecilian offended did Christ therefore lose his inheritance And it is wicked impudence for the crimes of a man which thou canst not shew to the World to be willing to condemn the communion of the World But neither was that authority of the Bishop of Rome which we have rejected either of Divine or Apostolicall institution Nor have we rejected it for the personall faults of some Popes but because it was faulty in it self Nor have we separated our selves from the conjoyned communion of the Christian World in any thing I wish the Romanists were no more guilty thereof then we Of King Henries exemption of himself from all spirituall jurisdiction we have spoken formerly in this very Chapter CAAP. 5. THe scope of my fifth Chapter was to
shew that the Britannick Churches were free from all forrein jurisdiction for the first six hundred yeers and so ought to continue For the clearing of which point I shewed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle but in the Apostolicall college I shewed that in the age of the Apostles and the age next succeeding the highest Order in the Church under the Apostles were nationall Protarchs or Patriarchs And by what means and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarchs came to be exalted above the rest and to obscure their fellowes But each of these within their own Patriarchates did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior As might be made clear by many instances when Athanasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope Iulius for their restitution I meddle not with the merits of the cause the Bishops of the East took the reprehension of Iulius as a contumely they called a Councell at Antioch they accused Iulius sharply and shewed that he had nothing to doe to contradict them more then they did contradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church Neither did the great Protopatriarchs challeng this independency only but other lesser Patriarchs also as Saint Cyprian When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in Africk addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickednesse or if it displease them and they fall from it they know whether to return for whereas it is decreed by us all and it is equall and just that every ones cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor which he is to govern and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitfull rashnesse But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes unlesse the authority of the African Bishops who have sentenced them already seem to a few desperate cast awaies to be inferior c. To say with Bellarmine that Saint Cyprian speaks only of the first instance is to contradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith expressely that the cause had been sentenced already in Africk Then I shewed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syllogisme Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ ought to continue free and exempted for ever notwithstanding the subsequent usurpation of any forrein Prelate or Patriarch This was clearly and irrefragably proved out of the words of the Councel it self And if the Bishop of Rome did intrude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper and can never prescribe to a legall possession according to the famous rule of the Law Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto But the Britannick Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their silence upon whom the proofe in law doth rest being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Britain or any of the Britannick Islands for the first six hundred yeares and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. years When the Popes Legate would have entred into Scotland to visite the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him to doe so alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such neither would he suffer it and therefore willed him at his own perill to forbear Secondly by priority of foundation the Britannick Church being the elder Sister and ancienter then the Roman and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning that was before there was a Roman Church Thirdly it was proved by the right of ordination and election of all our Primats For all other right of Jurisdiction doth follow or pursue the right of Ordination But it is most evident that all our British Primates or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius St. David Samson c. not only in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even untill the time of Henry the first after the eleven hundreth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth Semper tamen c. Yet alwayes untill the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England Henry the first the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. Davids And he likewise was consecrated by other Bishopâ— as his Suffragans without professing any manner of subjection to any other Church But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus the reverend and learned Abbat and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor and from the solemn Sentence or Decree of two British Synods in the point recorded by all our Historiographers who write the Acts of those times I confess he nâ—bles here and there at some odde ends of this discourse but taketh no â—â—ner of notice of the main grounds especially the two British Synods which are express in the point and the Answer of Dionâ—thus that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope or to receive Austin for their Archbishop That as for that man whom they called the Pope they oâ—â—gâ—â—t 〈◊〉 no obedience but the obedience of love that they were immediately under God subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon But let us take a view of his exceptions First he saith That Bellarmine hath not these words That Christ in saying these words As my Father sent use so send I you did endue his Apostles with all fullness of power that mortall men were capable of Neither did I cite his words but his sense as he might see by the Character but that Bellarmine said as much or more then this I will now make it good Let him speak for himself Therefore that the Apostles received theâ—r Iurisdiction immediately from Christ first the words of our Lord doe testifie John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you which place the Fathers Crysostome and Theophylact doe so expound that they say plainly that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of
supreme Governor of the Realm of England which signifies no more but this that there is no other supreme Governor of the Realm but he which is most true and to say that he is the only and supreme Governor which implies that there is no other Governor but he which is most false There are both spirituall and civill Governors in England besides him To say the Pope is the only supreme Bishop in his own Patriarchate is most true but to say that he is the only and supreme Bishop in his Patriarchate is most false this were to degrade all his Suffragans and allow no Bishop in his Province but himself Secondly I answer that there is no Supremacy ascribed to the King in this Oath but meerly politicall which is essentially annexed to the Imperiall Crown of every sovereign Prince The Oath saith that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of his Highness Realms and Dominions What doth Saint Peter himself say less to his own Successors as well as others Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme How often doth Saint Gregory acknowledge the Emperor to be his supreme Governor or sovereign Lord and profess obedience and Subjection unto him and execute his commands in ecclesiasticall things That Common-wealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of Jurisdictions where there are two Supremes like a Serpent with two heads at either end one The Oath addeth in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes This is true with some limitations as first either by himself or by fit Substitutes who are ecclesiasticall Persons For our Kings cannot excommunicate or absolve in their own persons Secondly it is to be understood of those causes which are handled in foro contentioso in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience Thirdly either in the first or in the second instance by receiving the appeales and redressing the wrongs of his injured Subjects Some things are so purely spirituall that Kings have nothing to doe in them in their own persons as the preaching of the Word the administration of the Sacraments and the binding and loosing of Sinners Yet the persons to whom the discharge of these Duties doth belong and the persons towards whom these Duties ought to be discharged being their Subjects they have a Power paramount to see that each of them doe their duties in their severall stations The causes indeed are ecclesiasticall but the power of governing is politicall This is the true sense of the Oath neither more nor less as appeareth plainly by our thirty seventh Article Where we attribute to our Princes the chief government by which Titles we understand the mindes of some slanderous Folkes to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwaies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself this is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be ecclesiasticall or temporall and restrein with the civill Sword the stubborn or evill doers Here is no power asserted no punishment to be inflicted by the King in his own person but only politicall I confess persons deputed and delegated by the King doe often excommunicate and absolve and act by the power of the Keyes but this is by the vertue of their own habit of Jurisdiction All which the King contributes by his Commission is a liberty and power to act in this particular case an application of the matter which a Lay Patron or a Master of a Family or a subordinate Magistrate may doe much more a sovereign Prince This power many Roman Catholick Doctors doe justifie The King of Spain cites above twenty of them Let the Princes of this World know that they owe an account to God of the Church which they have received from him into their protection for whether peace and right ecclesiasticall Discipline be increased or decayed by Christian Princes God will require an account from them who hath trusted his Church unto their Power All this Power the King of Spain exerciseth in Sicily in all ecclesiasticall causes over all ecclesiasticall persons as well in the first instance as the second This Power a Lay-Chanceller exerciseth in the Court Christian This Power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her Nuns Whilest all the Mariners are busied in their severall employments the sovereign Magistrate sits at the Stern to command all and order all for the promotion of the great Architectonicall end that is the safty and welfare of the Common-wealth It followes in the Oâ—th as well as temporall that is as truly and as justly but not as fully nor as absolutely And that no forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realm That is to say neither the Pope nor his Court. For a generall Councel which is no standing Court but an aggregate body composed partly of our selves is neither included here nor intended If this be the new Creed of the English Protestant Church as he calls it in scorn it was the old Creed of the Britannick Church as I have proved evidently in the vindication If this profession of Royall Supremacy in our sense doe make men Hereticks and Schismaticks we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman Doctors along with us And for Sovereign Princes we shall leave them few except some necessitous person who could not subsist otherwise then by the favourable influence of the Roman Court Very many Doctors doe hold that for the common good of the Republick Princes have Iurisdiction in many causes otherwise Subject to the Ecclesiasticall Court not only by the positive Law of God but by the Law of Nature And many more give them a power indirectly in causes Ecclesiasticall over Ecclesiasticall persons so far as is necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Tranquility of the Commonwealth nec putem ullum Doctorem Catholicum refragari saith the same Author in the place cited Neither doe I think that any Catholick Doctor will be against it Now I have said my minde concerning the Oath of Allegiance who they were that first contrived it and in what sense we doe maintain it I hope agreably to the sense of the Christian World except such as are prepossessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome As our Kings out of Reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of Supreme heads of the English Church so though it bee not meet for me to prevent their maturer determinations I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of Subjects who may erre out of invincible ignorance they would be pleased to lay by the oath also God looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices why should not man doe 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
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
World Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssene Russian Protestant which after all their brags of amplitude and universality is three times greater then themselves I desire no fairer issue between him and me I doe from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the World doth beleeve and practise And if I should erre in my judgement what the Catholick Church is as I am confident that he and his fellowes doe erre though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement I doe furthermore proâ—ess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me This is sufficient to preserve me from being a Schismatick This is sufficient for the salvation of a Christian. He telleth us indeed sometimes that the Roman Church is the true Catholick Church and is diffused all over the World Let him take Roman in the largest sense he can yet still it is but a particular Church of one denomination not Catholick or Universall Whom have they of their Communion in the large Abystene Empire consisting of seventeen Kingdomes Not one Whom have they of their Communion in the Russian Empire neerer home Scarcely one Whom have they of their Communion in all the Eastern Churches perhaps two or three hand-fulls in comparison of those innumerable multitudes of Christians who are subject to the other Patriarchs Before they were so forward and positive in voting for themselves that they are the Catholick Church that they are the infallible Judge it had been meet that they had first agreed among themselves what this Catholick Church is to which every Christian is bound to submit whether it be the virtuall Church that is the Pope or the Pope jointly with his Conclave of Cardinalls or the Pope with a provinciall Councell or the Pope with a generall Councell that is the representative Church or a generall Councell without the Pope or lastly the essentiall Church dispersed over the face of the World for into so many opinions they are divided He addeth that these great multitudes of Christians whereof we speak are not united among themselves but divided in points of Faith in communion of Sacraments and the ministery of them Let Saint Austine answer him Acutum autem aliquid videris dicere cum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis Communione interpretaris sed ex observatione Praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum Thou seemest to thy self to speak very wittily when thou doest not interpret the Catholick Church by the Communion of the whole World but by the Catholick Faith and the right observation of all the Sacraments and true Discipline that is in their sense submission to the Roman Court This last badge which Saint Austin did not know is the only defect of those multitudes of Christians that they will not acknowledge the monarchicall Power of the Roman Bishop As we have seen by experience that when some few of these Eastern or Northern Christians have reconciled themselves to the See of Rome and acknowledged the Papacy they were streight adjudged Orthodox and sound Christians in all other things And the latter of these did provide expresly for themselves at the time of their submission that they would retein their Greekish Religion and Rites He himself in this very place confesseth them to agree in fundamentall points that is to be free from fundamentall errors And for other lesser Controversies they have not half so many among them as the Romanists among themselves As to his marginall note out of Turtullian That Heretici pacem cum omnibus miscent Hereticks mingle themselves with all Sects making it a Symtome of Heresie to be over easie in admitting others to their Communion I doe confess it is a fault indeed But first what doth this concern the Church of England Secondly the greater fault lies on the other hand to be over severe and over vigorous and censorious in casting out or holding others from their Communion and more dangerous to the Church of Christ. In this kinde offended the Donatists the Novatians the Luciferians of old And the Romanists at this day This hath more of the Patriarchall Garbe in it stand from me for I am holier then thou CHAP. 7. That all Princes and Republiks of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same things which King Henry did WE are come now unto his seventh Chapter wherein I am much beholden to him for easing me of the labour of replying For whereas I proved my intention at large by the Acts Laws and Decrees of the Emperors with their Councels and Synods and Electorall College by the Laws of France the Liberties of the Gallicane Church the Acts of their Parliaments and Declarations of their Universities by the practice of the King of Spain his Councels his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders by the sobbes of Portugall and their bleatings and the Judgment of the University of Lisbone by the Laws and Proclamations and other Acts of the Republick of Venice throughout 68 pages He vouchsafeth not to take notice of any one particular of all this except only some few heads of what I urged concerning the Emperors which he reciteth in lesse then one page and never attempts to answer one syllable of them in particular Yet are these so diametrally opposite to the pretended rights of the Pope his Legislative power his convocating of Synods his confirming Synods his sending out Bulls his receiving Appeals his Patronage of Churches his Pardons and Dispensations his Exemption from all humane judgment his sending of Legates his Tenths and first Fruits his Superiority above generall Councels his Excommunications and in a word his whole Spirituall Sovereignty that nothing can be more opposite In these presidents we did clearly see that essentiall power and right of Sovereignty which I plead for in this Book to make Ecclesiasticall Laws for the externall regiment of the Church to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to reform Ecclesiasticall errors and abuses to be the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances to restrain Ecclesiasticall tyranny and to see that all Ecclesiasticall persons within their Dominions doe their duties And if these instances were not enough many more might be produced of the best Christian Princes Paul the third writ to Charles the fifth That the Decrees of Spira were dangerous to his Soul commands him to put away all disputes of Religion from the Imperiall Diet and referre them to the Pope to order nothing concerning Ecclesiasticall goods to revoke the grants made unto the Rebells against the See of Rome Otherwise he should be forced to use greater severity against him then he would Yet Cardinall de Monte was more angry then his Master saying That he would put his Holinesse in minde rather to abandon the See and restore the Keies to Saint Peter then suffer the Secular power to arrogate Authority to
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
deprive them of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their allegiance Let these pretended branches of Papall power be lopped off and all things restored to the primitiye forme and then the Papacy will be no more like that insana Laurus the cause of contention or division in all places In the mean time if they want that respect which is due unto them they may blame themseves who will not accept what is their just right unlesse they may have more Fourthly ' that which followes is a great mistake that it was and is the constant beliefe of the Câ—thelick world that these principles are Christs owne ordination recorded in Scripture What that S. Peter had any power over his fellow-Apostles or that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him in that power It doth not appear out of the holy text that S. Peter was at Rome except we understand Rome by the name of Babylon If it be Christs own ordâ—nation recorded in the scriptures that S. Peter should have all these priviledges and the Bishop of Rome inherit themashis successour thenthe great generall Councel of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equal prviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperial City more then the ordination of Christ. Then the whole Catholick Church was much to be blamed to receive such an unjust coustirution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome Lastly this is so farre from the constant belief of the Catholick world that it is not the beliefe of the Roman Church it self at this day The greatest defenders of the Popes Supremacy dare not say that the Bishop of Rome succedeth S. Peter by Christs owne ordination but onely by S. Peters dying Bishop of Rome They acknowledge that S. Peter might have dyed Bishop of Antioch and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him or he might have died Bishop of no place and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholick Church though he died at Rome as without doubt it is and may be contracted or enlarged or translated from one See to another for the advantage of Christian Religion His manifest evidence which he stileth so ample a memory and succession as is stronger then the stock of humane government and action That is that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it is so far from a demonstration that it scarcely deserveth the name of a Topicall argument For as an universall uncontroverted tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united is a convinclng and undeniable evidence such a tradition is the Apostles Creed comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith repeated daily in our Churches every Christian standing up at it both to expresse his assent unto it and readinesse to maintaine it professed by every Christian at his Baptisme either personally when he is of age sufficient or by his sureties when he is an infant and the tradition of the universall Church of this age a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us So the tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither so necessary to be knowne nor so firmely beleeved nor so publiquely aâ—d universally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicalages by such uninterrupted succession doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence When the Christian world is either not united or divided about particular opinions or inferiour points of faith it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages Or otherwise there is a fault in the conduit-pipe or an errour and failing in the derivatton of the tradition And both these do take much away from assurance more or less according to the degree of the opposition In such questionable and controverted points as these which are neither so universally received nor so publiquely professed his assertion is groundless and erroneous that the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed Yes in such controverted points this present age may not know yea doth not know what it self beleeveth or rather opiniateth untill it come to be voted in a Synod The most current opinions in the Schoos are not alwaies the most generaly received in the Church those which are most plaâ—sible in one place are often hissed out of another And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part or if he did how shall he know that what he beleeveth in such points is more then an indifferent opinion Or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church and delivered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession No waies but by universall tradition of the Christian world united either written or unwritten but this is all the evibence which they can expect who confound universall tradition with particular tradition the Roman Church with the Catholick Church the Christian world united with the Christian world divided and Scholasticall opinions with Articles of Faith Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences the one against the Church of England that since the reformation neither the former rule of unity of Faith nor the second of unity of governement have had any power in the English Church Whilest he himself knoweth no better what we beleeve who live in the same age how doth he presume that the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former beleeved I have shewed him already how we do willingly admit this principle wherein both his rules are comprehended that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our Forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a triall with them There is a fallacy in Logick called of more interrogations then one that is when severall questions of different natures to which one uniforme answer cannot be given yea or no are mixed confounded together So he doth not onely set down this second rule concerning governement ambiguously that a man cannot tell whether he make S. Peter onely an head of order among the Apostles or an head of single power and Jurisdiction also over the Apostles but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into S. Peters place by Christs own ordination and confounds S. Peters Ex o dium Vnitatis with the usurped power of Popes as it was actually exercised by them in latter ages His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome that the Roman Church with those Churches