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
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
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
a single head of Power Jurisdiction for to me he seemeth to hover between two as if he would gladly say more for the Pope if he could Thirdly it followeth and consequently to his Successors I like the general proposition well enough and consequently to his Successours For the reason of the first institution being of perpetual necessity seemeth to imply strongly that such an headship of order ought to continue in the Church or at least may lawfully be continued in the Church But I like not his application to the Bishops of Rome or his Successors in the See of Rome That consequence is but like a Rope of sand There is no necessity at all that he who succeedeth a man in a particular Bishoprick should succeed him in a higher office which is not annexed to that Bishoprick As if a man should argue thus Such a Bishop of such a See dyed Lord Chancellour of England therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same See must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England If the Catholick Church do nominate the Biâ—hop of Rome for the time that is another matter but that is no perpetuity to the Bishops of that See for ever whether the Church will or not Certainly Christ did leave the chief Mesuagery of his family to his Spouse that is the Church and not to any single servant further then as subservient to his spâ—use But to make Rome to be the Mâ—stris of the Church as this Resuter doth and the Bishop oâ— Rome the Master of the Church is sâ—ch an indignity and affront as no husband would tolerate much less Christ who is proposed to all husbands as the perfect pattern of coâ—jugal love Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church His argument drawn from the vicissitude of humane affaires cuâ—s the throat of his cause for what priviledge hath Rome from this vicissitude more then other places It may be demolished and destroyed by enemies it may be swallowed by an earthquake as some great Cities have been it may become heretical or Mahumetan And in all these cases must it still continue Mistris of the Church That were an hard condition Nemâ— sapiens Ligat sibimanus The Church nâ—ver disposeth so of her offices that she may not be able to move the rudder according to the change of wind and weather and to change the mesuagery of Ecclesiastical affaires according to the vicissitide of humane things Let not the Refuter trifle between a primacy of order and a Supremacy of power a Tyranny and an Anarchy are the two extreams The Church may shake off tyranny and yet not vanish into a pure Anarchy nor the frame thereof be utterly dissolved these are but made Dragons Between a tyranny and an Anarchy there is an Aristocracy which was the ancient Regiment of the Christian Church they know no Monarch but Christ their spiritual King A primacy of order is as sufficient nay more sufficient in this case to prevent all these dangers which he seemeth to fear and to procure all those advantages which he mentioneth than a Supremacy of power And I hold it a reasonable proposition that whosoever is admitted to the one should disclaime the other In the next passage he forgetteth himself over much when he maketh the Popes principality to be the bridle which our Saviour hath put into the mouth of his Church So he makes the Church to be the Beast and the Popes office to be to ride upon the Church No he quite mistaketh the matter Our Saviour hath put the bridle into the hand of his Church Dâ—c Ecclesiae tell it to the Church not into the mouth of his Church and the Pope at the best is but one of the Churches Escuriers Next he proclaimeth the advantages of the Papacy He doth well to cry up his cause No man proclaimeth in the market that he hath rotten wares to sell. But it is but with an if If this authority were duly preserved and governed no dissention in faith or discipline nay not any war among Christian Princes could annoy the world What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an arbitrator so prudent so pâ—ous so disinterressed as a good Pope should be He brings to my mind our old distinction between Plato and Aristotle Plato script sit somnians Aristoteles vigilans Plato writ dreaming and Aristotle waking the one looked upon men as they ought to be and the other as they were which was much more proper for one that was to write politicks If all things were as they should be we should have a brave world buâ— if we look upon the case without an if or as he should be we shall finde the Papacy as it is settled or would have been so far from deserving these â—ulogiums which he gives it that it hath been the cause either procreating or conserving or both of all the Schisms and all the greater Ecclesiastical dissentions in Christendom and rather an incentive to waâ— for its own interest and advantage then a means of peace and reconciliation among Christian Princes But now Reader look to thy self that thou receive no hurt for he hath undertaken to let us see all the arrowes which I have shot against them falling down upon mine own head Yes at the Greek Calends when an oblique and a perpendicular motion are the sâ—me But let us see how he attempts to prove it Because the Papacy stands firme and strong in all these Countries which have resisted the Pope when they conceived that he encroached on their liberties c. whereas as the Reformation has made England an headless Synagogue without brotherhood or order Neither â—o nor so the Eastern Southerne and Northerne Churches admit no Papacy nor any thing higher then the chiefâ—st Patriarch A great part of the Westerne Churches have shaken off the Roman yoke and the rest who do still acknowledge the Papacy do it with such cautions and reservations and restrictions especially France and Sicilly that I think the Cardinal Legate in the Councel of Trent had reason to say that he would rather perswade the Pope to give up his Keys to St. Peter then hold them upon such tearms I believe not one of them all doth admit such a Papacy as the Roman Court endeavoured to have obtruded upâ—n them Whereas he stileth England an headless Synagogue without brotherhood or order he seeth or may see that for order we are as much for it as himself for Christian Brotherhood we maintaine it three times larger then himself and for his headless Synagogue they want no head who have Christ for a spiritual head a General Councel for an Ecclesiastical head and a gracious Christian Prince for a political head That Title would better have become themselves about two or three moneths since who sometimes have two or three heads sometimes a broken head sometimes never an head The Protestants do not attempt to make themselves a distinct body from the rest of the
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
receive it when God shall reveal it to them How far this may excuse not the crime but their persons from formall Schisme either a toto or a tanto I determine not but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Reformation of the western Church Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopall Jurisdiction and the power of ordeining and confirming but the Court of Rome by their commissions and delegations for avaritious ends And could they think that the world would beleeve that necessity is not as strong and effectuall a dispensation as their mercicinary Buls It is not at all materiall whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct Oâ—ders or distinct degrees of the same Order the one subordinate to the other whether Episcopal ordination doe introduce a new Character or extend the old For it is generally confessed by both parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that the same power and authority is necessary to the extensioâ— of a Character or grace given by ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not humane but divine These avaritious practises of that Court though it be not commonly observed were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiasticall Discipline which doe now so much disturb the peace of the Church The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I endeavor to clear the English Church from Schisme only in relation to the Church of Rome not to all other Churches It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads or so many Packs of Hereticks and Schismaticks making the Roman Church and the Catholick Church to be Convertibles Secondly it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt to make a defence before we were accused None of those Churches nor any body else that ever I heard of hath accused us for deserting them before R. C. and he hath received his answer If it had been needfull the Church of Rome had saved us that labour by excommunicating them before hand I only wish more intelligence between us and them My third fault is That I endeavour principally to justifie our separation from the Roman Church for the personall faults of Popes And my fourth fault is That I justifie our separation from the Court of Rome for their evill manners That this is not lawfull to doe he proves by sundry authorities and arguments I think the rather because no man denyes it or doubts of it or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we doe deny it If he had pleased he might have contracted these two faults into one The Pope and his Court make but one consistory and personall faults and evill manners are the same thing It had been needfull to have joyned them together to give them a little more weight for being twisted they weigh not half a graine First I deny that we hold personal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation Secondly that separation which was made was made by themselves not by us Thirdly I deny that the Pope or Court of Rome ever had right to any Jurisdiction over us And if they ever had any pretence of right we had other manner of grounds for separation than evill manners As new Articles of faith obtruding of idolatrous superstitions and sinfull duties gross usurpation of the rights of the soveraign Prince and all orders and degrees of Subjects the overthrow or endangering of the publick peace and tranquillity of the Kingdome unlawfull oaths contrary to our allegiance to our King contrary to that duty which all Christians doe owe to generall Councells and lastly the Popes quitting of his Patriarchall power Yet by his leave tyranny and oppression and rapine are somewhat more than personall faults and may be just grounds to Princes and Common-wealths to substract obedience untill there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses Some personall faults as Simony aud Schism may give just occasion to Christians to separate from pretended Popes But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope not his Episcopall Office which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor his Patriarchall Office which was instituted by the Church but his pretended Monarchicall Office whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunall of the Church that is a generall Councell whereof more shall be said in due place These faults give just cause to a generall Councell to separate the Popes themselves and to take away their domineering Courts or to a soveraign Prince with a Nâ—tionall Councell to shake off their tyrannicall Yoke CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Question IN stating the Question I observed this Method first to shew what Ecclesiasticall Separations were not Schismaticall As first those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat without attempting to make any parties as those between St. Paul and Barnabas St. Hierome and Ruffinus St. Chrysostome and Epiphanius Secondly premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained if they forbear to censure one another and be ready to submit to the determination of a generall Councell are not schismaticall as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptization Thirdly where just cause of separation is given for there the Separaters are innocent and they who give the cause are Schismaticks Fourthly separation from an erroneous Church or Pastor in their errors Of all these and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all but passeth silently by them without either granting denying or distinguishing The first Exception that he takes is against my two supposed definitions of Schisme the former is Schisme is a criminous scissure rent or division in the Church an ecclesiasticall sedition like to a mutiny in an Army or a faction in a Sate The second meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own True Schisme is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church Really I doe not wonder if my definitions be not complete I doe not take my self to have so happy a vein that all that I utter should be a definition I did not hold it needfull nor had any purpose to define Schisme but only to explane it which my very words might have taught him Schisme signifies a criminous scissure not is but signifies And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition like a mutiny in an Army or faction in a State Similitudes are apt to illustrate but not to define The definition and the thing defined are ever the same Those
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
nothing of Jurisdiction From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland And not forgetfull of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto we finde nothing but Preaching and Converting and Christening not one syllable of any Jurisdiction Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kinde and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act Then certainly there were none in those dayes Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots is disputable But this is certain that whithersoever he was sent he was rejected and shortly after died In whose place succeeded St. Patrick Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon c. came to St. Patrick and declared it who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator straightway took ship c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion He saith The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagian Heresie and both Britans Scots Picts and Irish willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes nor denyed that they had any authoritie over them I am wearie of so many impertinencies Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church but of their charity and devotion which we wish their Successors would imitate I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus If it were so it concernes not this cause But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod to assist the Britans their neighbours against the Pelagians And it is most probable for they were both French Bishops St. German of Anxewe Lupus of Troyes Baronius labours to reconcile these two different relations thus It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod or it may be that Caelestine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased Admit either of these suppositions was true it will bring no advantage to his cause but much disadvantage If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch it is not credible that the Britannick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours and not at all to their Superior He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes He is still dreaming of Legates if they were Legates they were the Synods Legates not the Popes As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church which they sent to help them were Legates eodem tempore ex Britanniâ directa Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance Had they not reason to wellcome them whom themselves had invited who were come only upon their occasion Or what occasion had they to deny their authority who neither did usurpe any authority nor pretend to any authority They came to dispute not to judge Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes Apostolical Bishops not from their mission but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria authoritas c. That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons is most true that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them is most untrue Touching the precise time of his coming Historiographers doe not agree exactly All accord that it was about the six hundreth year of Christ a little more or less Before this time Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was After this time we confess that the Bishops of Rome by the consent or connivence of the Saxon Kings as they came to be converted by degrees did pretend to some formalities of right or authority over the English Church at first in matters of no great consequence as bestowing the Pall or the like But without the consent or against the good pleasure of the King they had no more power at all Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius primate of Britain was Legate of the See Apostolick I should sooner have beleeved it if he had proved it out of Gildas who lived in or about the age of Dubritius then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth who lived so many hundred years after his death whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur and resigned his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur not of the Pope King Arthur began his reign as it is commonly computed about the year 516. perhaps something sooner or later according to different accounts But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus from whence we demonstrate our exemption And so it can neither advantage his cause nor prejudice ours We are told of store of Roman Legats yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction pretended to be done by any of them Certainly either they were no Papall Legates or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any legantine Court or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes St. Samson saith he had a Pall from Rome wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether and my words also I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ but the abuse of it that is the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches When they would not suffer an Archbishop duely ellected and invested to exercise his function untill he had bought a Pall from Rome I know the contrary that they were in use formerly But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour conferred by Christian Emperours upon the Church namely Constantine and Valentinian as is most probable or assumed by Patriarches is a disputable point This is certain other Patriarches and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times which they received not from Rome This Samson was Archbishop of Wales and had his Pall But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome It may be that they had
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
case they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome as whether the Pope have invaded their priviledges or usurped more Authority then is due unto him or in contemning his censures which the Councell of Towers doth expresly allow them to doe and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not Yeeld thus much and the question is at an end That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties and of papall oppressions and usurpations and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit That Papall Authority is instituted immediately by God but not Regall Cujus contrarium verum est He was once or seemed to be of another minde For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they Kings receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters Saint Paul saâ—th expresly speaking of civill Powers The Powers that be are ordeined of God and whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God and reign by God then they are instituted by God Therefore they are justly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things He who said by me Kings reign never said by me Popes reign Kings may inherit by the Law of man or be elected by the Suffrages of men But the Regall Office and Regall Power is immediately from God No man can give that which he himself hath not The People have not power of Life and Death That must come from God By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their power to make one Father of a Country to whom doth he owe his power but to God from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ his Patriarchall power from the Church and Monarchicall power from himself After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers the subjection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mauritius the Emperor though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors and the translation of primacies by our Kings And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation first the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England Secondly their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures Thirdly because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall discipline Fourthly sundry other inconveniences to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome to have approved the Popes rebellion against generall Councels and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations Lastly the priviledge of the Britannick Churches the Popes disclaiming all his Patriarchall authority and their challenging of all this by Divâ—ne right which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome Lastly I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done All this he passeth by in silence as if it did not concern the cause at all Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope the Papacy and the Roman Church which hath been so often confuted already and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes As if all these things which are mentioned here and set down at large in the vindication were but some infirmitives or some petty faults of some few Popes I have shewed him clearly that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes but the faults of the Papacy it self And as for forsaking the Church of Rome he doth us wrong I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place that we have not forsaken it but only left their Communion in some points wherein they had left their Ancestors we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church a Mother to the Saxon Church but as a Lady or Mistrisse to no Church Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation to shew that they were insufficient The new Creed of Pius the 4 th and the withholding the Cup from the Laity Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds bâ—sides these Yet I confesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest First saith he The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation because the separation was made before the Creed He saith true if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed that did offend us But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary conditions of their Communion So as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the 4 th dealt in grosse his predecessors by retaile They fashioned the severall rods and he bound them up into a bundle He saith That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick persons as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed proposed by them to Ministers Pius the 4 th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks Seculars and Regulars to swear to his new Creed but he imposed it upon all Christians as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest they are the very words of the Bull as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved This is a greater Obligation then an Oath and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolicall Creed We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths extra quam non est salus without which there is no Salvation nor injoin Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as theologicall
prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches He referred the cause of Caecilianus an Ecclesiasticall cause to Miltiades Bishop of Rome and Marcus and Rhetecius and Maternus and Marinus as his Delegates or Commissioners visum est mihi it hath seemed good to me c. He accepted Appeals from the judgment of the Bishops He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to doe justice upon Ecclesiasticall Delinquents He sent for the Bishops assembled by his commandement at a Councell first at Tyrus then at Hierusalem that they should repaire with speed to Constantinople evestigio ad castra nostra maturetis to give an account to him of their actions and to shew how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments In a word he medled so much in Ecclesiasticall affaires that he made himself as a common Bishop constituted by God I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanitie we rejoyce but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests Eusebius and other Bishops he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the Minister of God And accordingly they were spoyled of their dignities and cast out of the Cities His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius but which Valentinian which Theodosius where this Epistle is to be found he is silent and leaveth us if it were worth the labour to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay But the truth is there is nothing in it which concerneth this question nothing which we deny The words as they be alleged by him are these All antiquity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome Our question is concerning the Politicall Principality of Kings and Emperours and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power Or at least such a Supremacy of single sovereign monarchichall Power as they require about which our controversie now is A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coyfe and Bench and in some circumstantiall respects a kinde of eminency or principality of Power but no single supremacy so as to be able to crosse their votes with a non obstante Such a supremacy of sovereing single universall power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know either at Rome or elsewhere The Bishops of Rome were so farre from having power over generall Councells that they had no single power over their fellow Patriarchs So farre from having power over Emperours that they have been delegated by Emperours as their Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes have been convened before Emperors and deposed by Emperors Primitive Bishops use to stile Popes their brethren their collegues their fellows but never Ecclesiasticall Princes If he mean the second Valentinian his authority weighs nothing he was a young Novice mis-led by his Arrian Mother a wilfull ill-advised woman If he mean another Valentinian I shall shew him that he exercised this politicall Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall affaies it may be to the questioning of his Prince of Priests His third witness is Theodosius the younger in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus his words are these It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiasticall matters Yet he did meddle with Ecclesticall matters This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures as if himself had been a Bishop This is that Theodosius which made this following Law We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius or obey his wicked Doctrine if they be Bishops be cast out of the holy Churches but if Lay men anathematized This is that Theodosius that convocated the generall Councell of Ephesus by his Authority Royall and sent Candidianus thither to be his Deputy among other things set diligenter inspiceret c. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops so see that no dissensions did arise among them to disturbe the consultations of Synods and to represse them likewise otherwise he might as well have staid at home Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus sed eae lege c. We command Candidianus to goe to this holy Synod but upon this condition that he should have nothing to doe with questions and controversies which concern Doctrines of faith for it is unlawfull for one not registred in the catalogue of Bishops to thrust himself into ecclesiasticall affairs and consultations This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperour to dispute in the Councell about Theologicall questions which it is probable he did not understanding nor to overawe the Bishops or controlle their votes We are of the same minde with Theodosius and say as much as he that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theologicall questions And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Dominions yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads but upon mature advise of free Synods of Ecclesiasticall persons who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs All men know that Candidianus could have no decisive voice in a generall Councell So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keyes of the Church either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order We confesse that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops yet the last Appeal may be to the King We say there are many things which Kings cannot doe in their own persons and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royall authority His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder It is not lawfull for me who am of the People to search curiously such matters let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please The case was this Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire Valens was an Arrian Valentinian an orthodox Christian yet so as he troubled not those who were of a contrary Opinion He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome the orthodox Bishops about the Hellespont and in Bythinia sent their Depuities unto him to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Councell for the establishment of the right Faith wherein they acknowledged him
the politicall Head of the Church It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in so sublime a question concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in this exigence of affairs being in his voyage in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor who was an Arrian and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father whose Subjects these Bishops were as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given then that he did give Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes yet not without good advise especially in such high points of Faith as that was and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods and Bishops The same method is observed by us at this day The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases but leave all to Priests No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit Which our Highnesse hath commanded to be Preached every where This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the covetousnesse of the Clergy which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of not against the Emperors who made the Law but against the Clergy who deserved it In the Code we finde Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian as that to Florianus That a Bishop rebaptizing one who had been formerly Baptized out of ignorance of the Law should be deprived of his Bishoprick It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit speaketh that in Occidentem profectus c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine and after some debates they did chuse Saint Ambrose Some may say if it was his right why did he not chuse him himself I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one as knowing his right and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time jubet Ambrosium extemplo initiari mysteriis Episcopum ordinari The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries and to be ordeined Bishop Neither was this the case of Constantine or Theodosius or Valentinian alone Socrates writes more generally That from Constantines time when the Emperors became Christians Ecclesiasticall affaires seemed to depend upon their beck His fifth witnesse is Basilius Basilius Emperor in the seventh Synod speaketh thus to the Laity He is mistaken Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod but Constantine and Irene but it is true that in the time of the 8 th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity The case is this one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Orientall Church into great dangers whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words Nullo modo nobis licet c. It is no way lawfull for us Laymen to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes nor at all to resist the whole Church and oppose an universall Synod For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs Bishops and Priests Basilius was in the right It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as Bâ—shops doe that is to say to have decisive Voices or to meddle above their capacities much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels or to vie reason for reason with them The Bishops form of subscription was this Ego B. definiens subscripsâ— I B. have subscribed to this as my definition The Laymans form was this Ego L. consentiens subscripsâ— I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it There is a great difference between defining and consenting But as Kings are never minors because they are presumed to hâ—ve a wise Councel so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay-men who have a learned Councel of Ecclesiasticall persons to direct them All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part which only is in question between us Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments His sixth witnesse is Charles the great Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wilihaâ—e by command of the high Bishop and universall Pope Adrian c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spirituall matters It is a great degree of confidence to dare to cite Charles the great to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires To cite him who convocated Councels yeerly by his own Authority and reformed the Church Who sate himself in Synods not only as a hearer but as a Judg that is with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel Auditor Arbiter adfui and made Ecclesiasticall Decrees in his own name discernimus Deo donante decrevimus Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme which was then a place but newly conquered by himself and newly converted but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self To whom this very Pope Adrian whom he citeth with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne release and acquit for ever all their claim right and interest in the election of succeeding Popes The case cited was this Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts and desired much their conversion finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno constiâ—uit Episcopatu He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure Episcopalem constituimus Cathedram and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit extat privilegium eidem Ecclesiae a memorato Rege Collatum He endowed the Churches and commanded the inhabitants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them hoc nostro Majestaâ—is
precepto That was not by the Authority of Pope Adrian All the poor pretence which he catcheth from hence is that Charles the great said that summi Pontificis universalis Episcopi Adriani praecepto by the precept of the chief and universall Bishop Adrian he had bestowed this Bishoprick upon Wilehade Yet all men know that praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction or advise as well as a command At the most it was but a complement or command of curtesie or a ghostly advise honored with that name which is familiarly done True Patrons doe dispose their Churches themselves not give mandates to others to dispose them for them It were ridiculous to imagine that Charles the great was the Patron of the Bishoprick of Rome it self as without doubt he was and that he was not the Patron of the Church of Breme which he had newly conquered or that Adrian who resigned Rome should continue Patron of Breme His seventh witnesse is Iustinian to Pope Iohn the second We suffer not any thing which belongs to the state of Churches not to be known to your Holynesse who is the Head of all holy Churches I wish he had been pleased to set down the title of the Letter Victor Justinianus pius faelix inclytus triumphator sempâ—r Augustus Joanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae Vrbis Romae Patriarchae Where Archbishop and Patriarch are his highest titles there is no Monarchy intended The words are rightly cited saving that he omitteth a clause in the middle although that which is changed be manifest and undoubted and a dangerous reason at the end for in all things as it is said we hasten to augment the honor and authority of your See If the Papacy had been a Spirituall Monarchy instituted by Christ it did not lie in Iustinians power to augment it But it is plain the honor and authority of the Roman See proceeded from the bounty of Christian Emperors and the Decrees of the Fathers Neither is there any thing in the words above mentioned worthy of a reply Suppose Iustinian made known his own Ecclesiasticall Ordinances to the Pope to the end that he might obey them and execute them This is no great matter So doth a Sovereign Prince to every Governor of an inferior Corporation Lawes are no Lawes untill they be promulged If the Pope had made the Lawes and made them known to the Emperor it had been more to his purpose But all the strength of his argument lies in these words who is Head of all holy Churches And yet he cannot chuse but know that Iustinian doth mean and must of necessity mean an Head of Order and cannot possibly mean an Head of Power and Jurisdiction having himself exalted severall other Churches as Iustiniana and Carthage to an equall degree of Power and Privileges with Rome it self A man may see to what streits he is driven when he is forced to produce such witnesses as Charles the great and Iustinian I say Iustinian who banished Pope Silverius who created Iustiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his Emperiall Power who made so many Lawes concerning Ecclesiasticall persons and Benefices and holy Orders and Appeals and the Patronage of Churches concerning Religion the Creed Sacraments Heresie Schism Sanctuaries Simony and all matters of Ecclesiasticall cognisance that if all other presidents ancient and modern were lost Iustinians alone who was the Father of the Imperiall Law were sufficient to evince the politicall Supremacy of Sovereign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions His three last witnesses are King Edgar King Withred and Edward the third But these three have been produced by him before in this very treatise and there fully answered and seeing no new weight is added in this place to his former discourse I will not weary the Reader or my self with unnecessary repetitions CHAP. 8. That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schism WE are come now to my sixth and last ground that the guilt of the Schism rests upon the Pope and the Court of Rome The first thing which I meet with is his marginall note out of Saint Austin Cathedra quid tibi fecit Ecclesiae Romanae What hurt hath the See of Rome done thee But first Petilians case to whom those words were spoken is not our case He called all the Catholick Sees thoughout the World Chairs of Pestilence so doe not we Neither doth Saint Austin attribute any thing singular to the See of Rome in this place more then to the See of Hierusalem or any other Catholick See Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastatius sedet vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit in qua hodie Joannes sedet Quibus nos in Catholica unitate connectimur a quibus vos nefario furore separastis It is not we that have furiously separated our selves from either of these Sees But it is the Court of Rome which hath made the separation both from Hierusalem and from us In the next place he inquireth what I intend by this present Schism whether the Schism of Protestants in generall or of English Protestants in particular and whether by causually I understand a sufficient cause that freeth from sinne Doubtless I must understand a sufficient cause that freeth the innocent party from sinne or understand nothing For an unsufficient cause is no cause But his induction is imperfect I doe neither understand the Schism of the Protestant Church in generall nor the Schism of the English Church in particular but directly the Schism of the Roman Church which did first give just cause of separation not only to Protestant Churches but to all the Eastern Churches and then did make the separation by their unjust and uncharitable censnres But he saith there can be no just cause of Schisms The greater is their fault who are the true Schismaticks first by giving just cause of separation from their errors and then making the separation by their censures It is true there can be no just cause of criminous Schism because there can be no just cause of sinne It is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it But there may be both just cause of separation and just separation without any crime or sinne yea vertuous and necessary as is confessed by themselves In all such cases the sinne of criminous Schism lies at their dores who introduced the errors and thereby first separated themselves from the uncorrupted Church which was before them Before he come to answer my arguments he proposeth an objection of his own that neither the Church nor Court of Rome did give any sufficient cause of separation either to Luther or to Henry the eighth In prosecution whereof he supposeth that Luther had no cause of separation but the abuse of some Preachers
Jurisdiction Secondly The Church and Kingdom of England had more lawful just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome then any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever as he cannot chuse but see in this very Chapter But who is so blind as he that will not see Thirdly We do confess that the Primitive Papacy that is an Exordium unitatis a beginning of unity was an excellent meanes of Concord We do not envy the Bishop of Rome or any Honour which the Catholick Church did allow him But moderne Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us is rather as Nilus saith the cause of all dissentions and Controversies of the Christian World Lastly To his demand concerning the English Court and Church Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelats I answer No But this will not advantage his cause at all for three Reasons First never were any such abuses as these objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Secondly we seek not the extirpation of the Papacy but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution Thirdly Monarchy and Episcopacie are of divine institution so is not a papall Sovereignty of Jurisdiction His parliamentary Prelacie hath more sound then weight We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacie as he will finde that undertakes it Sect. 6. We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome Reader observe and wonder All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds they have declaimed that there can be no just grounds of such a separation They have declared in the Hypothesis that we had no grounds but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads First The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court committed from age to age without hope of Remedy Secondly Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights Civil Ecclesiastical sacred and prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Thirdly the malignant influence and effects of this forreign jurisdiction destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline producing dis-union in the Realm factions animosities between the Crown and the Mitre intestine discord between the King and his Barons bad intelligence with neighbour Princes and forreign wars Fourthly a list of other inconveniences or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendome to approve the Popes rebellion against general Councels and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegeance to maintaine the Pope in his rebellious usurpations Lastly The weakness of the Popes pretences and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from forreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Councel of Ephesus Certainly he ought to have shewed either that these grounds conjoyned were not sufficient or that they were not true or that there were other remedies But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence which is as mueh as yeeld the Cause Thus he It is then of little concernment to examine whether his complaints be true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division What is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no It belongs not to me to shew that there was no other remedy that is to prove a negative but if he will answer my grounds it belongs to him to shew that there was other remedy yet so far as a negative is capable of proof I have shewed even in this Chapter that there was no other remedy I shewed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England so as to call them to a personal account I shewed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope in Councel out of Councel for ease from their oppressions in diversages and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner He adds And much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment This is a very euthumematical kinde of arguing If the sky fall we shall have larks He knows right well that it is his assumption which is latent that we deny that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute He proceedeth But most because all other Catholick Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends yet they remaine still in communion with the Church of Rome and after we have broke the Ice do not hold it reasonable to follow our example Few or no Catholick Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight a Well that could not be drawn dry All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Priviledge to be exempt from forreign jurisdiction as Brittaine hath Yet all other Catholick Countries do maintaine their owne Priviledges inviolated and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome Some other Catholick Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy then England doth yet England is not alone in the separation so long as all the Easterne Southerne Northern and so great a part of the Westerne Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we yet if it were otherwise we must live by precepts not by examples Nay saith he The former ages of our Countrey had the same cause to cast the Popes Supremacy out of the Land yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church then attempt so destructive an innovation Mistake not us so much we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestors at far as the Roman Court will give us leave neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon and abused by the Court of Rome and to sit still in the mean time and blow their noses They did by their lawes exclude the Popes supremacy out of England so farre as they judged it necessary for the tranquility of the Kingdome that is his patronage of Churches his Legates and Legantine Courts his buls and sentences and excommunications his legislative power his power to receive appeals except onely in cases where the Kingdome did give consent They threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them We have more experience then our Ancestours had that their remedies were not Soveraigne or sufficient enough that if we
give him leave to thrust in his head he will never rest untill he have drawne in all his body after whilest there are no bonds to hold him but nationall lawes Lastly he pleads that the pretences on which the English Schism was originally made were farre different from those which I now take up to defend it What inward motives or impulsives our Reformers had to separate from the Court of Rome God knoweth not I that concerneth themselves not me But that there were sufficient grounds of separation I demonstrate that concerneth the cause that concerneth me Their inanimadvertence might make the separation lesse Justifiable to them but no lesse lawfull in it self or to us These causes are as just grounds to us now to continue the separation as they could have bin to them then if they had been observed to make the separation and most certainly they were then observed or the greatest part of them as the liberty of the English Church the weakness of the Popes pretences the extortions of the Court of Rome their gross usurpation of all mens rights and the inconsistency of such a forreigne discipline with the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction These things he ought to have answered in particular if he would have said any thing at all but it seemeth he chose rather to follow the counsell of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his accounts that he should study rather how to give no account Sect. 7. The next thing which I set forth was the due moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This he calleth a very pleasant Topick Quâ—cquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis The saddest Subjects were very pleasant Topicks to Democritus The first part of our moderation was this we deny not to other Churches the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errours and this I shewed to have been S. Cyprians moderation whereby he purged himselfe and his party from Schisme neminem judicantis c. judging no man removing no man from our Communion for difference in opinion This is saith he to declare men Idolaters and wicked and neverthelesse to communicate with them reconciling thus light to darkenesse and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same Society I spake of our forbearing to censure other Churches and he answers of communicating with them That is one aberration from the purpose But I may give him more advantage then that in this case It is one thing to communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks in their Idolatry Heresy or Schisme which is altogether unlawfull and it is another thing to communicate with them in pious offices and religious duties which may in some cases be very lawfull The orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the Hereticall Arreans And the primitive Catholicks with the Schismaticall novations in the same publick divine offices as I have formerly shewed in this treatise But they communicated with them in nothing that did favour the Heresie of the one or the Schisme of the other The Catholicks called the Donatists their brethren and professed that they were obliged to call them brethren as we read in Optatus But the Donatists would not vouchsafe to acknowledge the Catholicks for their brethren upon this refuters principles that a man cannot say his owne Religion is true but he must say the opposite is false nor hold his owne certain without censuring another mans Yet it was not the Catholicks but the Donatists that did mingle light and darkness together These following princlples are so evident and so undeniable that no man can question the truth of them without questioning his owne judgement That particular Churches may fall into errours 2. That all errors are not essentials or fundamentals 3. That those errours which are not in essentials do not destroy the true being of a Church 4. That neverthelesse every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from them To dote so upon the body as to cherish the Ulcers and out of hatred to the Ulcers to destroy the being of the body are both extreams That is so to dote upon the name of the Church as to cherish the errours of it or to hate the errours so much as to deny the being of the Church Preposterous zeal which is like Hell hot without light maketh errours to be essentials and different opinious different Religions because it will not distinguish between the good foundation which is Christ and the hay and stubble that is builded thereupon The second proofe of our moderation is our inward Charity we leave them unwillingly as a man would leave his fathers or his brothers house infected with the Plague desirous to returne so soone as it is cleansed His answer is that if we did manifest it by our externall works they might have occasion to believe it I did prove it by our externall works namely our daily prayers for them in our Letany and especially our solemn aniversary prayer for their conversion every good Friday though we are not ignorant how they do as solemnly anathematise us the day before The third proof of our moderation was this that we do not challenge a new Church a new Religion or new holy orders we obtrude no innovation upon others nor desire to have any obtruded upon our selves we pluck up the weeds but retaine all the plants of saving truth To this he objects two things First to take away goodnesse is the greatest evill and nothing is more mischievous then to abrogate good lawes and good practises This is not to fight with us but with his owne shadow I speake of taking away errours and he speaketh against taking away goodnesse I speak of plucking up weeds and he speaks against abrogating good lawes and practises yea of taking away the new Testament Where is the contradiction between us These are no weeds but good plants We retain whatsoever the primitive Fathers judged to be necessary or the Catholick Church of this present age doth unanimously retaine which is sufficient We retaine other opinions also and practises but not as necessary Articles or Essentials Let him not tell us of the Scots reformation who have no better an opinion of it then it deservs His second Ojection is that he who positively denies over addes the contrary to what he takes away he that makes it an article that there is no Purgatory no Masse no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary Therefore this kind of moderation is a pure folly It may be he thinketh so in earnest but we know the contrary We do not hold our negatives to be Articles of Faith How should a negative that is a non em be a fundamentall This is a true proposition ether there is a purgatory or there is not a purgatory But this other is a fals proposition either it is an Article
Ecclesiasticall causes Hist conc Trid. An. 1544 An. 1545. An. 1548. The Oath of Supremacy justified Sand. de Schism p 59. De Schis Ang p. 57. Hail an 22. H. 8. Pol de Conc Resp. ad qu 74. 75. 1 Pet. 2.13 Aâ—t â—ccl Angl. Art 37. Memor de Samag Catholicâ— cap. 10. A Sancta Clara. Expos. Parapb in Art 37 Ibidem Sect. 2. No contradiction in my words Sect. 3. Constantine Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. Theodorit l. 1. c. 11. Euseb. de vita Constant l. 1. c. 35. Idem l 3. c. 23 Euseb. hist. l. 10. c. 5. Aust. epist. 162. Euseb hist. l. 10. c. 6. Socrat. l. 1. c. 22. Sozom l. 2. c. 27. Euseb. de vit Const. l. 1. c. 37. Theodor. l. 1. c. 19 Valentinian Theodosius Socrat l 7. c. 22. Evagr. l. 9. c. 12. Valentinian the elder Sozo l. 6 c. 7. Idem l. 6. c. 6. Theod. l 4 c 7 8. cod Thâ—od l 4. c. 5. In praemio l. 5. Basilius An. 869. Charles the great Albert Crantz metr l. 1. c. 7. Vindicat. c. 7. pag. 167. Epist. ad Ioan. 2. in Cedice Iustinian Sup. c. 4. sect 1. L 2. Cont. Petili c. 51. Sup c. 2. s. 4 infid unmasked c. 7 s. 112. p. 534. Indulgences The excommunication of Henry the eighth Sect. 2. Bâ—â— Pii 4. The Church of Rome no foundation of Christians Rev. 21.24 l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. 1 Pet 5.1 Sect. 3. The Church of Rome obtrudeth new Articles of Faith and excommunicateth for not receiving them An. 1564. An. 1569. The Papacy a cause of separation Bull. Pauli 4. The Pope excommunicates the Eastern Churches No Recusants in England or few in the beginning of Q Elizabeths reign The disclosing of the great Bull. Camd Elizab an 1â—70 Image of both Chuâ—ches edit an 1653 p. 442. Camd. Elizab. an 1559. More Protestants suffer now then Roman Catholicks at the Reformation Acworth Cont. Sander l. 2. p. 197. Sect. 4 Vind. c 6. s. A generall Councell complete without the Pope Greg l. 1. epist. 24 Bron. Annot in Conc. 5. The Decree of the Councel of Constance for its superiority above the Pope lawfail Sect. 1. Some Rom. Cath. formal Schismaticks The present Roman Church dâ—parted out of the ancient Roman Church And which is worse out of the Catholick Church Lib 2. Gent. Pet. c. 38. The Romanists true Donatists Ibid. Sect. 1. 2. The Roman Church not the Catholick Church L. de unit c. 6. If denyall of the Popes Supremacy maketh Protestants the World is full of Protestanns Our separation not in essentialls The Eastern Churches true parts of the catholick Church Sect. 3. The Councell of Trent not general Nor free Nor lawfull Hist Conc. Tâ—id l. 2. an 1545. The Protestants not condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople but the Romanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Knolles Turk bist in the life of Am. â— p. 1503. Ib p. 1500. Sect. 4. Why R C. not willing to argue of the Popes Patriarchall Power Answ. to the pres S. c. 1. s. 1. 1 Pet. 3.20 The Church of Rome St. Petes. Boat not Noahs Arke Our charity freeth us from Schism Sect. 6. Cal. Inst. l. 4 c. 1. c. Sect. 5. Sup. c. 1. sect 1. Sect. 6. Our Ordination justified Greg. Resp. ad Int. 8. August Continuation of the Tuck Histin the life of Amurath 4. No diffrence about sacrifice if rightly understood Sect. 7. There are fundamentalls Hebr. 5.12 and c. 6.1 c. How much is necessary to be beleeved to salvation ordinarily All revealed truths not essâ—ntialls Ancient Popes challenged not sovereignty jure divino Of the Church l. 5. a c. 31. ad c. 36. L. 2 Cont. Iovin Sup. c. 5. sect 1. Cent. Epist. Theol. ep 74. A moderate Papacy might prove usefull but dangerous Mont. Orig. Eccles. part post p. 185. The Conclusion Epist. 161. Vind. ch 4. pag. 86. â—â— H 8. c. â—2 16 R. 2. c. 5. Malm. l. 1. de Gâ—st pont Aug. Reg. Honed in h. â— 20. H. 3. c. 9. Stat. Clarendo Stat. CarLile Art Cleri 25 Ed. 3. 37 Ed. 3. ch â— â—6 Rich. 2. c. â— Placit an 1. H. 7. Placit an 32. 34. Edv 1. Ch. 7. p. 196. Ch. â— L. 2. de Roâ— Pont. c. 3â— Act. 16. Britt histâ— L. 11. c. 3. Pag. 106 Dialog de Eccles. Mcne distinct 3. Nilus de primatis 1. Cor. 3.12 C. 3. Sect. 4. Sop. cap. 3. Sect. 4. Eph. 4.4 Eph. 5. â— Bernard de consider l. 4. De concil l. 2 c. 17. De concil l. 2. c. 13. De Roma Pont. l. 4. c. 22. 24 Judg. 6. Bellarmâ—ce concil l. 1. c. 17. Pag. 24â— Vind. pag 101. Gers. p. 4. Serm. de pace unit Cyril considerat â—â—
upon uncertain suspicions No. In doubtfull cases it is alwaies presumed pro Rege lege for the King and for the Law Neither is it lawfull as a Father said some Virgins who cast themselves desperately into a River for fear of being defloured to commit a certain crime for fear of an uncertain Yea to rise yet one step higher though it were lawfull yet it were not prudence but folly for a man to thrust himself into more more apparent more real danger for fear of one lesser lesse apparent and remoter danger Or for fear of Charybdis to run headlong into Scylla He who forsakes the English Church for fear of Schism to joyn in a stricter communion with Rome plungeth himself in greater and more reall dangers both of Schism and Idolatry and Heresy A man may live in a schismaticall Church and yet be no Schismatick if he erre invincibly and be ready in the preparation of his mind to receive the truth whensoever God shall reveal it to him nor want R. C. himself being Judge either Faith or Church or Salvation And to his reason whereby he thinks to free the Church of Rome from Schism because they never went out of any Christian Society I answer two waies first It is more schismaticall to cast true Churches of Christ out of the communion of the Catholick Church either without the Keies or Clave errant with an erring Key then meerly and simply to goe out of a particular Church This the Romanists have done although they had not done the other But they have done the other also And therefore I add my second answer by naming that Christian Society out of which the present Church of Rome departed even the ancient primitive Roman Church not locally but morally which is worse by introducing corruptions in Faith Liturgy and use of the Sacraments whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the externall communion of the true primitive uncorrupted Church of Christ and became the cause of all following separation So both waies they are guilty of Schism and a much greater Schism then they object to us All that followes in his preface or the most part of it is but a reiteration of the same things without adding one more grain of reason to enforce it If I did consider that to divide any thing in any of its substantiall parts is not to reform but to destroy the essence thereof c. If I did consider that there are three substantiall parts of a true Church in substance c. If I did consider that any division of a true Church in any substantiall part thereof is impious because it is a destruction of Christs mysticall body c. If I did consider all these things c. I should clearly see that the English Protestant Church in dividing her self from the substance of the Roman Church in all her formall substantiall parts committed damnable sinne and that I in defending her therein commit damnable sinne I have seriously and impartially weighed and considered all that he saith I have given him a full account of it that we have neither separated our selves from the mysticall body of Christ nor from any essentiall or integrall part or member thereof I have shewed him the originall of his mistake in not distinguishing between sacred institutions and subsequent abuses between the genuine parts of the body and wenns or excrescences And in conclusion waving all our other advantages I doe not for the present finde on our parts the least shadow of criminous Schism He praies God to open my eies that I may see this truth I thank him for his charity in wishing no worse to me then to himself But errours goe commonly masked under the cloak of truth Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis umbra I pray God open both our eies and teach us to deny our selves that we may see his truth and preferre it before the study of advancing our own party For here the best of us known but in part and see as through a glasse darkly that we may not have the faith of Christ in respect of persons That which followes is new indeed To communicate with Schismaticks is to be guilty of Schism But the English Church joynes in communion of Sacraments and publick Praiers with Schismaticks namely Puritans and Independants This is inculcated over and over again in his book But because this is the first time that I meet with it and because I had rather be before hand with him then behind hand I will give it a full answer here And if I meet with any new weight added to it in any other place I shall endeavour to cleer that there without wearying the reader with tautologies and superfluous repetitions And first I deny his proposition To communicate with hereticks or Schismaticks in the same publick Assemblies and to be present with them at the same divine offices is not alwaies Heresy or Schism unlesse one communicate with them in their hereticall or schismaticall errours In the primitive Church at Antiâ—ch when Leontius was Bishop the Orthodox Christians and the Arrians repaired to the same Assemblies but they used different formes of doxologies the orthodox Christians saying Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Ghost And the Arrians saying Glory be to the Father by the Son in the Spirit At which time it was observed that no man could discerne what form the Bishop used because he would not alienate either party So they communicated with Arrians but not in Arrianism with hereticks but not in Heresy Take another instance the Catholicks and Novatians did communicate and meet together in the same Assemblies Illo autem tempore parum aberat quin Novatiani Catholici penitus conspirassent Nam eadeâ— de Deo sentientes communiter ab Arrianis agitati in similibus calamitatibus constituti se muâ—ua complecti benevolentia in unum convenire pariter orare caeperunt And further decreverunt deinceps inter se communicare At that time it wanted little that the Novatians and Catholicks did not altogether conspire in one for having both the same Faith concerning God suffering the same persecution from the Arrians and being both involved in the same calamities they began to love one another to assemble together and to pray together And they decreed from that time forward to communicate one with another The primitive Catholicks thought it no Schism to communicate with Novatians that is with Schismaticks so long as they did not communicate with them in their Novatianism that is in their Schism Have the English Protestants matriculated themselves into their congregational Assemblies Have they justified the unwarrantable intrusion of themselves into sacred Functions without a lawfull calling from Christ or his Church Or their dispensing the greatest mysteries of religion with unwashen or it may be with bloody hands As for communicating with them in a schismaticall Liturgy it is impossible they have
Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
Prince or Princes but a whole succession of Kings with their convocations and Parliaments proceeding according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah But he faith that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde then that he violated his conscience Neither will this uncharitable censure if it were true advantage his cause the black of a bean His conscience might make the reformation sinfull in him but not unlawfull in it self The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self depends not upon the conscience of the doer but the merit of the thing done His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders The former a great Counsellor of King Henry a contriver of the oath a propugner of the Kings Supremacy both in print and in his Sermons and a persecutor of them who opposed it For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost He had reason to say he was constrained both to hide his own shame and to flatter the Pope after his revolt whom he had so much opposed especially in the dayes of Queen Marie Otherwise he had missed the Chancellership of England and it may be had suffered as a Schismatick Yet let us hear what he faith that King Henry had a purpose to resigne the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it All this might have been and yet no intention of reconciliation Great Princes many times look one way and row another And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion or prevent a forrein warre will make no scruple to use it But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation that if he did not hear them certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus they would certainly interpret it that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves to seeke their remedy from elsewhere This was a faire intimation and they were as good as their words This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia downright for the Kings Supremacie against the Pope Lastly this is who published to the world that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point and the King alone goe against his conscience His later witness Nicholas Sanders is just such another whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry He feineth that when his death did draw nigh he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick Testimony he produceth none but his own Authority They who will not beleeve it may chuse But that which followeth spoileth the credit of his relation That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him answered that the King was wiser then all men that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration and had nothing now to fear That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bâ—shops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abhominably against his conscience as he makes this to be is not credible But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made But here is a double mistake first in the time this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made currente Rota Some intimations had been given of what was intended but the Bell was not then rung out Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement in order of time Secondly in the Subject this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine The words are these That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence untill he the King had indifferent Judges who might hear the business he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King and delivered it at Rome It was not accepted The Kings answer came not within the time limited Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence and the Separation followed So this was about the change of a Wife not of Religion before either King Henrys substraction of obedience or the Popes fulmination In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope but in no case from the Papacy which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution whereas Protestants saith he for the faults of some Popes have separated themselves both from Pope Papacy and Roman Church And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution If he had been pleased to observe it I took away this distinction before it was made shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline doe warrant a more permanent separation even untill they be reformed I doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope Papacy and Church of Rome but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another As the Pope may have his proper faults so may the Papacy so may the Church of Rome We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Roman Church In all other things we maintain communion with her We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See if he
other Churches and not Rome St. Peter might have continued Bishop of Antioch untill his death and then Antioch had still been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistriss All this is confessed by Bellarmine Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith of so great contingency that were not of perpetuall necessity How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all places when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the dayes of the Apostles who never had any thing to doe with Rome nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome If the Pope be the Master of all Christians he is but a young Master for we finde no such expression in all the primitive times Why were the ancient Bishops so grosly over-seen to stile him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow who was their Master It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions as a Generall calls all his Army fellow Souldiers but it was never heard that a private Colonell or Captain did call his Generall fellow Souldier or a Servant call his Master fellow Servant or an ordinary Clerk call his Bâ—shop his Brother St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder not a Master If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches he would have given them their due title and the whole Scripture had not been so silent in so necessarie a point But he saith the Popes Supremacy is neither against the two Creeds nor the fiâ—st four generall Councells intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation and consequently is no sufficient cause of separation I answer first that it is against the four first generall Councels if this were a proper place for the discussion of it I answer secondly that though it were not opposite to the Creed or the first four generall Councells yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed being as it is by them obtruded upon all Christians as an Article of faith or a necessarie part of saving truth extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is so obtruded Of this more in the next argument My second argument may be thus reduced That Court which obtruded newly coyned Articles of faith such as the Doctrin of the seven Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences and especially the Popes Supremacy upon the Christian world as absolutely necessary to salvation and necessarie conditions of Catholick communion and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them is fearfully schismaticall But the Court of Rome doth all this That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church wherein they are neither explicitely nor virtually comprehended That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth wherein they are added to the old Creed ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus exhibeatur that the profession of one and the same faith may be declared uniformly by all and one certain form thereof be made known to all And lastly That the Court of Rome hath solemnly excommunicated with the greater excommunication and anathematized and excluded so farre as lieth in their power from the communion of Christ all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen and reformed Churches being three times more in number then themselves for not receiving these new Articles or some of them and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth called Bulla caenae because it is read in die caenae Domini or upon Thursday before Easter In way of answer to this he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt I reply first that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this so it had not been causa procreans a productive cause of the separation yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism Secondly the revolt or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church but by the Pope and Court of Rome who excommunicated him and his Kingdome for not enduring their encroachments and usurpations He and his Kingdome were passive in it only the Court of Rome was doubly active first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Predecessors and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion But in the separation of England from the oppessions of the Court of Rome I confesse that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active And this very ground to avoid the tyranny and ambition and avarice of the Roman Court was the chief impulsive cause both to the English and Eastern Christians For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessarie point of Faith If Henry the eight had any other private sinistre grounds known only to himself they doe not render the Reformation one jod the worse in it self but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly which concerneth him not us Secondly he answereth that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it If all this were true yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ by virtue of the commandement of God But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto doe make it to be necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Councells of Constance and Basile out of the Popes own Court which was then the only Noahs Arke The words of their Oath are these Hanc veram catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This true catholick faith without which no man can be saved which I profess freely and hold truly in present I doe promise vow and swear by the help of God to retein and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly to my last gasp and will take care so farre as in me lyeth to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge If it were not necessary necessitate medii some
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
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