the adding German to it restrains the sense of Ocean to it within certain bounds and excludes many parts of the great Ocean which are without those limits Just so it is in adding Roman to Catholic Catholic alone comprehends all the Parts of the Church but Roman added to it confines the Sense of it to those who embrace the Faith received in the Roman Communion and this excludes all other Parts of the Catholic Church and so makes a Part to be the Whole 2. I objected farther that if this had been the Catholic Church meant in the Creeds this limitation ought to have been expressed in the Creeds and put to Persons to be baptized which being never done in the Roman Church it self I thence inferr'd that it did not believe it self to be the one Catholic Church which we profess to believe in the Creeds Here the Author of the Reply answers that Catholic and Roman Catholic were in the Language of Antiquity one and the same thing and this point being never called in Question in the time when the Creeds were published there was no occasion to put Roman into the Creeds no more than of putting in Consubstantial with the Father till it was denied This were a substantial way of answering the Difficulty if it would in any measure hold But I shall now prove just the Contrary to have been the Sense of Authority by plain and undeniable Instances in matters of fact in most of the Ages of the Christian Church from the very next to the Apostolical down to the Council of Trent To which I shall only premise this which I think no Roman Catholic will deny me viz. that the Roman Catholic Church doth imply Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as Supream visible Head of the Church under Christ. For Bellarmin and others make not only Faith and Sacraments necessary to the Being of the Church but submission to lâ—wful Pastors and especially to the Pope as Christ's only Vicar upon Earth and he placeth the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church in the Conjunction of the members under Christ and hâ—s Vicar as Head of the Church And from hence he excludes Schismaticks out of the Catholic Church though they have Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Hope and Spirit And the Roman Catechism makes Union with the Pope as visible Head of the Church necessary to the Unity of the Catholiâ— Church And the Proofs I bring shall not be from short or doubtful sentences but from remarkable passages and notorious Acts of the Church In the First Age of the Church the name Catholic was as little known as the Authority of the Roman Church it not being once found in the Apostolical Writings for the Inscriptions of the Catholic Epistles are of latter times And if they were allowed to be Apostolical they would be far from proving any thing to this purpose since the Roman Church is never mentioned in these Epistles unless under the name of Babylon and I suppose they would not like the Title of the Catholic Babylonish Church But in all the directions of the Apostles concerning Unity of Faith there is not one which gives the least intimation that the Roman Church in any sense was to be the Rule or Standard of Faith or Communion In the Second Age we find two remarkable Instances that the Communion of the Catholic Church was not to be taken from Conjunction with the Bishop of Rome as Head of it The first is from the Bishop of Rome's approving the Prophecies of Montanus Prisca and Maximilla This would hardly appear credible if Tertullian had not expresly affirmed it and he farther saith that had it not been for Praxeas a Heretick he had taken them into the Communion of the Catholic Church and he prevailed with him to revoke his communicatory Letters already past What a Case had the Catholic Church been in at this time if the Bishop of Rome had been look'd on as the Centre of Catholic Communion and if he had not been better informed by Praxeas a Heretick The second in the same Age is when Victor took upon him to excommunicate the Eastern Bishops for not celebrating Easter at the same time they did at Rome If now the Eastern Bishops did own the Roman-Catholic and Catholic Church to be the same they must shew it at such a time by their regard to the Pope's sentence as Head of the Catholic Church but they owned no such Authority he had over them and instead of it Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus with a Council of Bishops joyning with him about A. D. 197 wrote a smart Epistle to Victor wherein they let him know they would go on in their way notwithstanding his threats and that it was better to obey God than Man. From whence it is observable That they followed their own judgment against the Pope's and that they believed the Pope required things of them so contrary to the Will of God that they resolved to disobey him And his requiring their compliance was no Argument of his Authority but of his Usâ—rpation In the Third Age happen'd a famous contest between Stephen Bishop of Rome and the Eastern and African Bishops about Re-baptizing Hereticks I meddle not now with the Controversie it self but with the Sense of those Bishops upon occasion of it as to the Roman-Catholic Church The Bishop of Rome did at least threaten to Excommunicate the African Bishops And if Firmilian may be believed he did actually Excommunicate the Asian Bishops How did these Primitive Bishops behave themselves under this Sentence They charge Stephen with Insolence Folly Contempt of his Brethren and breaking the Peace of the Catholic Church and cutting himself off from the Unity of it The words are abscindere se à Charitatis unitate alienum se per omnia fratribus facere Now I desire to know whether these Bishops believed the necessary conjunction of Roman and Catholic together And whether Bishop of Rome were thought to be the Centre of Communion in the Catholic Church It is plain they made him the Cause of the Schism and thought themselves never the less in the Catholic Church for being out of the Roman Communion In the Fourth Age the Government and Subordination of the Catholic Church was established in the Council of Nice according to ancient Custom but we read not a word of the Roman Catholic Church there or any Priviledge or Authority the Bishop of Rome had but within his own Province and such as the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria had in theirs And when the Bishop of Rome in that Age interposed to restore some Bishops cast out of Communion by the Eastern Bishops they declared against it as a violation of the Rules of the Catholic Church and this became the Occasion of the first Breach between the Eastern and Western Churches In the same Age Liberius Bishop of Rome joyned with the Eastern Bishops in casting Athanasius out of the Catholic Church and
All his Demonstrations are out of Scripture and by the meer force of them he overthrows this Heresie And it was nothing but the clear Evidence of Scripture without any Infallible Judgment or Assistance of the Guides of the Church which did at last suppress this Heresie For no Council was called about it but as the Authority of the New Testament prevailed so this Heresie declined and by degrees vanished out of the Christian World. And it is observable That the greatest and worst of Heresies were supprest while no other Authority was made use of against them but that of the holy Scriptures So Theodoret takes notice That before his time these Heresies by Divine Grace were extinct So that the Scriptures were then found an effectual means for putting an end to some of the most dangerous Heresies which ever were in the Christian Church The other great Controversie of the first Age was about the Divinity of Christ which begun with the Ebionites and Cerinthians and was continued down by succession as appears by Theodoret's account of Heresies in his second Book Those who first embraced this Heresie rejected the whole New Testament and received only the Nazarene Gospel But after a while Artemon had the boldness to assert that the Apostles deliver'd the same Doctrine in their Writings and then the Controversie was reduced to the Sense of Scripture Paulus Samosatenus follow'd Artemon as Photinus afterwards follow'd him But Theodoret again observes That all those Heresies against the Divinity of Christ were in his time so extinct that not so much as any remainders of them were left but saith he The true Doctrines of the Gospels prevail and spread themselves over the World. And we may find what course was taken for putting an end to this Controversie by the management of it with Paulus Samosatenus In the fragment of an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria we read the Testimonies of Scripture which he produced against him and more at large in the Epistle of the Six Bishops to him who makes use of the very same Places of Scripture which are most applied to that purpose to this day To which they only add That this had been the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning and all Catholic Churches agreed in it But here is no such thing thought of as Iâ—sallibility in the Guides of the Church for there is great difference between the consent of the Christian Church as a means to find out the Sense of Scripture and the Authority of Church Guides declaring the Sense by vertue of an Insallible Assistance the one is but a Moral Argument and the other is a Foundation of Faith. Theodoret further observes That there was another set of Heresies distinct from the two former in the Primitive Church which related chiefly to matters of Discipline and Manners and most of these he saith were so far destroyed tâ—at there were none thâ—n left who were Followers of Nicolas Nepos or Patroclus and very few Novatians or Montanists or Quartodecemans so that Truth had prevailâ—d over the World and the Heresies were either quite rooted out or only some dry and withered Branches remained of them in remote and obscure Places Which being affirmed by a Person of so much Judgment and Learning as Theodoret was gives us a plain and evident Proof that the Sense of Scripture may be so fully clear'd without an Infallible Church as to be effectual for putting an end to Controversies And altho we own a great Esteem and Reverence for the Four General Councils yet we cannot but observe that Controversies were so far from being ended by them that they broke out more violently after them As the Arian Controversy after the Council of Nice the Nestorian after that at Ephâ—sus and these Gentlemen believe that Heresy continues still in the East the Eutychian Controversy gave greater Disturbance after the Council of Chalcedâ—n than before and continued so to do for many Ages Which is an Argument that the Infallibility of Councils or of the Guides of the Church was not a Doctrine then received in the Church But I proceed to shew what means were used in the Primitive Church for putting an end to Controversies Of which we have a remarkable Instance in the Dispute about Rebaptizing Hereticks This was managed between St. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa and Asia on one side and the Bishop of Rome on the other He pleaded Custom and Tradition the other That Custom without Truth was but ancient Error and that the matter ought to be examined by Scripture and many Reasons they bring from thence because Christ said in his Gospel I am Truth and the only way to prevent Errors is to have recourse to the Head and Fountain of Divine Tradition i. e. to the Holy Scriptures which St. Cyprian calls the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition So that we have the clear Opinion of the African Bishops that this Controversy ought to be decided by Scripture But here the Replier saith That Right stood for the Bishops of Rome and a General Council determined the Point and the whole Church came to an Acquiescence If the Council was in the Right the Bishop of Rome was not if St. Cyprian represent his Opinion truly and he saith he did it in his own Words which are Si quis a quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi quod Traditum est Now no Council ever determin'd so That whatsoever the Heresy was none should â—e Rebaptized For the Councils of Arles and Nice both disallow'd the Baptism of some Hereticks and therefore if the Council put an end to the Controversy it was by deciding against the Bishop of Rome as well as St. Cyprian The Donatists afterwards made use of St. Cyprians Authority in this Controversy which gave occasion to St. Augustin to deliver that noted Sentence concerning Scripture and Fathers and Councils viz That anonical Scripture is to be preferr'd before any other Writings for they are to be believed without Examination but the Writings of Bishops are to be examined and corrected by other Bishops and Councils if they see Cause and lesser Councils by greater and the greatest Councils by such as come after them when Truth comes to be more fully diservered It is hardly possible for a Man to speak plainer against a standâ—ng infallible Judg in Controversies than St. Augustin doth in these Words wherein he neither limits his Words to matters of Fact nor to Manners but he speaks generally as to the Authority of the Guides of the Church compared with Scripture Which are enter'd in the Authentick Body of the Canon Law approved and corrected at Rome only that part which relates to the correcting of Councils is left out But to make amends Gâ—atian in another place hath with admirable Ingenuity put the Popes Decretal Epistles among the Canâ—nical Scriptures and quotes St. Augustin for it too But the Roman Correctors were ashamed of so
they took upon them to define other matters for which they had no Colour in Scripture as the 2d Council of Nice did which was the first that went upon Tradition and then the Christian Church did not shew such Respect to them as was most apparent in the Case of this Council of Nice which was universally rejected in these Western parts Rome excepted as appears by the Council of Franâ—ford and the unexceptionable Testimonies of Eghinardus Hincmarus and others Would this have been a sufficient Argument against Charlemaign and the Western Bishops that they joyned in the Plea of the Ancient Hereticks and none were ever condemned by the Church but they made such complaints against the Proceedings of Councils as they did It is certain that Leo Armenus in the East as well as Charles and the Western Church rejected that Council as contrary to Scripture which shews that neither in the East or West did they think themselves so tied up by Definitions of Councils proceeding in such a manner but that they were at full Liberty to examin and if they saw Cause to reject such Definitions While Councils did declare that they intended to make use of no other Rule but Scripture and to deliver only the Sense of the Catholick Church from the beginning a great regard was to be shew'd to them but when they set up another Rule the Christian Church had just Reason not to submit to their Decrees And to say This is the Plea of all Hereticks is just as if an innocent Person might not be allowed to plead not Guilty because the greatest Malefactors do the same There must be some certain Rules whereby to proceed in this matter and this is the first We fix upon That they proceed as the Ancient Councils did according to Scriptures 2. The Ancient Hereticks were condemned by such Councils as did represent the Universal Church after another manner than the Council of Trent did I do not say There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the Universal Church which could not be done without Provincial Councils summon'd bâ—â—ore in all parts of Christendom and the Deâ—â—egation from them of such Persons as were to deliver their Sense â—n the matter of Faith to be debated in the General Council and I have Reason to question whether this were ever done But however there is a very great difference in the Ancient Councils from the modern as to this point of Representing for in them there was the Consent of all the Patriarchs and a general Summons for the Bishops from all parts to appear But in the Modern Councils four Patriarchs and the Bishops under them have been excluded and the 5th hath Summon'd the Bishops under him to meet together and then hath called this a General Council Which is just as if in the time of the Heptarchy the King of Mercia should assemble the States under him and call the Convention of them The Parliament of England Thus in the Council of Trent the Pope Summons the Bishops that owned his Supremacy and had taken Oaths to him to meet together and would have this pass for a General Council When the Council met and Cardinal Hosius was appointed President in it Stanistaus Orechovius a warm and zealous Romanist writes to Hosius That it would very much conduce to their Reputation and Interest if the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were Summon'd to the Council because the Greeks and Armenians depended upon them And he could not understand how the Catholick Church could be Represented without them nor how the Council could be called Oecumenical To which Hosivs Replied That the Pope being Oecumenical Patriarch a Council called by him was an Oecumenical Council Now this we say is extreamly different from the Notion of an Oecumenical Council in the Ancient times and overthrows the Rights of other Churches as they were setled by the Four General Councils and therefore the Case is very different as to being condemnd by General Councils and by the late Conventions assembled by the Popes Authority 3. Themselves allow that some Councils may be and ought to be rejected and therefore all our business is to enquire whether we may not with as much Reason reject some Councils as they do others They reject the Council of Ariminum which together with that of Sâ—leucia which sat at the same time make up the most General Council we read of in Church-History For Bellarmin owns that there were 600. Bishops in the Western part of it So that there were many more Bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice there was no Exception against the Summons or the Bishops present and yet the Authority of this Council is rejected because it was too much influenced by Constantius and his Agents The 2d Council of Ephesus wanted no just Summons no presence of Patriarchs or number of Bishops yet this is rejected because its Proceedings were too Violent The Councils of Constantinople against Images are rejected because but one Patriarch was present in either of them Now I desire to know whether it be not as lawful to except against other Councils as against these supposing the Reasons to be the same and greater Evidence to be given in these latter Times of the Truth of the Allegations Besides we find they are divided in the Church of Rome concerning their latter Councils Some say The Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil were true General Councils and that the Council of Lateran under Leo X. was not so others say That the former have not the Authority of General Councils but the latter hath Some say That there have been 18. General Councils so the Roman Editors of the Councils and others but a great number of these are rejected by others who allow but 8. of the number viz. those wherein the Eastern and Western Bishops met And so the Councils of Lateran and Trent besides others are cut off What becomes then of the Articles of Faith defined by those Councils For they cannot be received on the account of their Authority However we find this Objection lies equally against them as against us For do not both these differing Parties side with the Ancient Hereticks as much as we do For they except against the Supreme Judicature in the Church and decline the Judgment of these Councils as much as those Hereticks did the Councils of their own Times These are therefore but ordinary Tâ—picks which may be reasonble or not as they are applied 2. It was answer'd That the way proposed doth not hinder mens believing as they please i. e. without sufficient Reason for their Faith several Instances were given As believing the Roman Church to be the Catholick without any colour of Scripture Reason or Antiquity as is now fully shew'd in the foregoing Discourse believing against the most convincing Evidence of their own Senses Believing the lawfulness of the Worship of Images can be reconciled with Gods forbidding it the Communion in
Quiet where there is not a Supreme Judg from whom there can be no Appeal The Answer was That the natural Consequence was then that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self But how comes Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church The Defender saith That a National to the whole Church is but as a Shire to a Kingdom and a very natural and consistent Consequence it is that every Shire should have a King. One would think by such an Answer this Defender is a mighty Stranger to the ancient Polity of the Church Did he never hear of the Power of Metropolitans being setled by the Council of Nice for governing the Churches and calling Provincial Synods Did he never hear of many other Canons relating to the Power and Frequency of Provincial Synods Did he never hear of the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus forbidding all Incroachments on the ancient Rights of Churches Did he never hear that Provincial Councils have declared Matters of Faith without so much as advising with the Bishop of Rome As the African Councils did in the Pelagian Controversy and the Councils of Tolcdo in the Case of Arianism which reformed the Spanish Churches and made Canons by their own Authority which were confirmed by their Kings Reccaredus and Sisenandus Did he never hear that it was good Doctrine among Catholâ—ck Divines That particular Churches might take upon them to declare the true Catholick Faith And if so they must judg what is so Did he never hear that in a divided State of the Church Errors and Abuses may be reformed by particular Churches And that this was owned and defended by great Men in the Church of Rome if he did not he was very much unprovided for the handling such a Controversy if he did know these things he ought not to have spoken with so much contempt of the Power of Particular or National Churches And to assert their Authority is very far from being like setting up a King in every Shire for this were the highest Dilloyalty to the King who hath a just and unquestionable Authority over all the Shires Let him prove that the Pope hath such a Monarchy over all particular Churches before he make such a Parallel again But the way he takes is rather like making the Imperial Crown of this Realm to be in subjection to a Foreign Power because the Roman Emperors once had Dominion here and therefore this Kingdom could never recover its own Rights But he saith A Foreign Jurisdiction is hardly sense with respect to the Church for â—oris is out and unless the ultimate Jurisdiction be out of the Church it cannot be said to be foreign This is a shameful begging of the Question that what they call the Roman Catholick Church is the Catholick Church for if it be not which I hope I have sufficiently shewn then the pretended and usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Church over the Church of England is a Foreign Jurisdiction He adds That it is impossible to re-settle the Church among us without that which we call Foreign Jurisdiction because Dissentions in matters of Religion cannot otherwise be removed But suppose this Foreign Jurisdiction be the occasion of these Dissentions some maintaining 〈◊〉 others asserting the Rights of our Church against it Is not 〈◊〉 â—oreign Jurisdiction like to put an end to it Yes certainly For if all Parties submit there will be no longer disputing But our Question as yet is whether this be reasonable or not I complained of the Inconvenience of Appeals to a Foreign Jurisdiction He gives us a smart Answer and saith That holds no comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresy As tho it were so plain a thing that we are guilty of Heresy that it needed no manner of proof Alas what need a Man prove that it is day when the sun shines We are just as much guilty of Heresy as the good Bishop was who for denying the Antipodes was condemned by Pope Zachâ—â—y But it is a comfortable thing in a Charge of Heresy to find it no better proved He saith I mistook the matter of Appeals and that it was not understood with respect to Causes but to matters of Doctrine and Worship An Appeal must reâ—ate to a Superiour Authority and a constant Appeal to a standing Authority and whatever the pretence be the Court of Rome will challenge Supreme Jurisdiction where-ever the Pope is owned as Head of the Church And then all those Consequences will follow I mentioned before If other kind of Appeals were meant in the Papers yet they must relate to an Authority Superiour to our Church which we could wish had been more fully expressed that we might have known to whom the Appeal was to be made whether to a free General Council which we never disowned or to the Popes Authority which we yet see no cause to make our Appeals to especially as to what concerns his own Jurisdiction He pleads That Supream Power must be Judg in its own Cause for no Authority ought to be set up against the King supposing a Question be started about his Prerogative I answer This is a Case extreamly different for in matters of Prerogative the King 's Supream Power is not the Question for his Right to the Imperial Crown is and ought to be out of dispute but all the Question that can be started must relate only to the Exercise of his Power in some particular Cases where former Laws made by the King's Consent are supposed to limit it which the Courts of Judicature take Cognizance of and so are a kind of Legal Arbitrators between the King and his People But in the Case before us the Jurisdiction it self and the Right to exercise any such Authority is the very thing in Question And I desire this Gentleman to resolve me whether in the late times of Usurpation this had 〈◊〉 been good Doctrine that those who enjoy or pretend to Supream Power are to be Judges in their own Case If so then it had been impossible for Men to have justified their Loyalty to the Royal Family then very unjustly put out of possession If not then there may be a pretence to Supream Authority where it is by no means allowable for the Pretender to Judg in his own Cause As to his Appeal to the Catholick Church we by no means reject it provided he mean the Church truly Catholick as it comprehends the Apostolical Church in the first place and then all other Christian Churches which from the Apostles times have delivered down the Catholick Doctrine and Worship which they received from them But if he means that which is called a Catholick Church but is neither Catholick nor Apostolical we beg his pardon if we allow no Appeal to it since its Errors and Corruptions are the great and just Cause of our Complaints He runs into a long Discourse about Church-Security and his design is
all the Clerks of his Kingdom besides two were lately declared for him Adding That he had studied the Matter himself and Writers of it and that he found it was unlawful DE JURE DIVINO and undispensible Thus we have found the King himself declaring in Publick and Private his real dissatisfaction in Point of Conscience and that it was no inordinate Affection to Ann Bolleyn which put him upon it and the same attested by Sir Tho. More and the Circumstances of Affairs I now proceed to another Witness The next is Bishop Bonner himself in his Preface to Gardiner's Book of True Obedience For thus he begins Forasmuch as there be some doubtless now at this present which think the Controversy between the King 's Royal Majesty and the Bishop of Rome consisteth in this Point for that his Majesty hath taken the most excellent and most noble Lady Ann to his Wife whereas in very deed notwithstanding the Matter is far otherwise and nothing so So that if Bishop Bonner may be believed there was no such immediate Cause of the Schism as the Love to Ann Bolleyn And withal he adds That this Book was published that the World might understand what was the whole Voice and resolute Determination of the best and greatest learned Bishops with all the Nobles and Commons of England not only in the Cause of Matrimony but also in defending the Gospel's Doctrine i. e. against the Pope's usurped Authority over the Church Again he saith That the King's Marriage was made by the ripe Judgment Authority and Privilege of the most and principal Universities of the World and then with the Consent of the whole Church of England And that the false pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was most justly abrogated and that if there were no other Cause but this Marriage the Bishop of Rome would content himself i. e. if he might enjoy his Power and Revenues still which he saith were so insupportable that there lay the true Cause of the Breach For his Revenues here were near as great as the King 's and his Tyranny was 〈◊〉 and bitter which he had exercised here under the Title of the Catholick Church and the Authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul when notwithstanding he was a very ravening Wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing calling himself the Servant of Servants These are Bonner's words as I have transcribed them out of two several Translations whereof one was published while he was Bishop of London Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book not only affirms the King's former Marriage to be unlawful and the second to be just and lawful but that he had the Consent of the Nation and the Judgment of his Church as well as foreign Learned Men for it And afterwards he strenuously argues against the Pope's Authority here as a meer Usurpation And the whole Clergy not only then owned the King's Supremacy Fisher excepted but in the Book published by Authority called A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man c. The Pope's Authority was rejected as an Usurpation and confuted by Scripture and Antiquity K. James I. declares That there was a General and Catholick Conclusion of the whole Church of England in this Case And when some Persons suspected that it all came from the King's Marriage Bishop Bonner we see undertakes to assure the World it was no such thing The Separation was made then by a General Consent of the Nation the King and Church and People all concurring and the Reasons inducing them to cast off the Popes Usurpation were published to the World at that time And those Reasons have no relation at all to the King's Marriage and if they are good as they thought they were and this Gentleman saith not a word to disprove them then the Foundation of the Disunion between the Church of Rome and Us was not laid in the King 's inordinate Passion but on just and sufficient Reasons Thus it appears that this Gentleman hath by no means proved two parts of his Assertion viz. That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Last and Usurpation But our grim Logician proceeds from Immediate and Original to Concomitant Causes which he saith were Revenge Ambition and Covetousness But the Skill of Logicians used to lie in proving but this is not our Author's Talent for not a word is produced to that purpose If bold Sayings and confident Declarations will do the Busines he is never unprovided but if you expect any Reason from him he begs your Pardon he finds how ill the Character of a grim Logician suits with his Inclination However he takes a leap from Causes to Effects and here he tells us the immediate Effects of this Schism were Sacrilege and a bloody Persecution of such as denied the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual which no Layman no King of Israel ever exercised What the Supremacy was is best understood by the Book published by the King's Order and drawn up by the Bishops of that Time. By which it appears that the main thing insisted on was rejecting the Pope's Authority and as to the positive Part it lies in these things 1. In Defending and Protecting the Church 2. In overseeing the Bishops and Priests in the execution of their Office 3. In Reforming the Church to the old Limits and pristine Estate of that Power which was given to them by Christ and used in the Primitive Church For it is out of doubt saith that Book that Christ's Faith was then most pure and firm and the Scriptures of God were then best understood and Vertue did then most abound and excel And therefore it must needs follow that the Customs and Ordinances then used and made be more conform and agreeable unto the true Doctrine of Christ and more conducing unto the edifying and benefit of the Church of Christ than any Custom or Laws used or made by the Bishop of Rome or any other addicted to that See and usurped Power since that time This Book was published with the King's Declaration before it And therefore we have reason to look on the Supremacy to be taken as it is there explained And what is there now so wholly Spiritual that no Layman or King of Israel ever exercised in this Supremacy But this Writer never took the pains to search into these things and therefore talks so at random about them As to the Persecutions that followed it is well known that both sides blame K. Hen. 8. for his Severity and therefore this cannot be laid to the Charge of his Separation For the other Effect of Sacrilege I do not see how this follows from the Reformation For although some Uses might cease by the Doctrines of it as Monks to pray the Dead out of Purgatory yet there were others to have employed the Church Lands about as some of them were in founding New Bishopricks c. And I have nothing to say in justification of any Abuses committed
condemn the Popes Missionaries for notorious Liers for the Judgment I make of them is from the Relations they have given us And if these be true I can by no means allow them to be excluded from being Parts of the Catholic Church and so that must be of far greater extent than the Roman-Catholic Church But to go on I observed that which I thought a material difference in the Schisms of the Church some I said were consistent with both Parties remaining in the Catholic Church for which I instanced in the Bishops of Rome Excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about Easter and those of Asia and Africa about Re-baptizing Others were for excluding all out of the Church but themselves as the Novatians and Donatists The Replier tells me he doth not think this difference at all material For what Reason Because the Church is the last Tribunal in all differences and whosoever separates from her is to be reputed as a Heathen or a Publican It seems then the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter with Pope Victor were as very Heathens and Publicans as the Novatians and Donatists I hope this Gentleman after all will not make the Church so severe in all its Censures to cut Men presently off from being Members of the Catholic Church I had learnt from S. Augustin That Excommunications are sometimes used by way of Discipline to bring Persons to a sense of their Fauits and not to cut them off from the People of God. But suppose Excommunications should always cut Persons off from the Catholic Church is it not to be supposed that they are just and reasonable Suppose the matter doth not deserve it or there be false suggestions or a precipitate sentence is it really all one if the Church happens to Excommunicate But beside all this suppose one Bishop in the Church takes upon him to Excommunicate others for little or no cause and against the advice of his Brethren which was the Case of Victor about the Asian Bishops must they be cut off from the Catholic Church as effectually as if they had been guilty of the greatest Heresie or Schism But not to affix too severe a censure on the Replier in the next Page he doth acknowledge a material difference which he saith was That the whole Church was not yet engaged and till a Decision be made by the whole Church the Parts may Excommunicate each other and remain Parts of the Church still Now this in my Opinion makes very much for me For in this divided state of the Christian World the whole Church is not engaged as to any Decision of the present differences and therefore no Parts can be cut off by other Parts from the Catholic Church For since the breaches of Christendom there hath been no Representative of the Catholic Church and is not like to be and so the divided Parts remain Parts of the Catholic Church still The Council of Trent was so far from it that the famous Abbot of S. â—yprian called it a Cabal of Schoolmen influenced by the Pope And there is a great deal of difference between the Decision of Schoolmen and of the Catholic Church I cannot but still think it material to observe that in Schisms of the most dangerous nature the fault was laid on that Part which appropriated the Title of the Catholic Church to it self as in the Novatians and Donatists Here the Defender puts in his Exceptions for he saith It sounds as if I would have that Title never rightly applied but to those who do not challenge it in likelihood because they have no pretence to it The insinuation is as if I were willing any should be called the Catholic â—hurch but that which is But in earnest I am as much against any one Part being called the Whole as another And from the Case of the Novatians and Donatists I have learnt to charge the Schism on those who at best being but a Part challenge the Whole to themselves But he cannot understand how it comes to be Presumption and a cause of Schism in one part of a Division to assume it I am very sorry for it that he cannot understand it to be a presumption in a Part to call it self the Whole He saith In a Division it is not well intelligible how more than one Part can bear it I say it is not at all intelligible how any Part can bear it What thinks he of the Novatians and Donatists Was it not Presumption in them to arrogate the Title of the Catholic Church to themselves And were they not therefore guilty of the Schism In the ancient Church there were two sorts of Schisms which I think it material to observe 1. A Factious Schism 2. A Sacrilegious Schism 1. A Factious Schism when Men out of opposition to their lawful Governours in the Church set up separate Assemblies Which by the Fathers are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as by S. Basil in his Epistle to Amphilochius where he distinguisheth Heresie Schism and unlawful Meetings Heresie is against some necessary point of Faith Schism is a Separation from the Catholic Church about matters of Discipline And unlawful Assemblies are such as are set up against the Rules of the Church Those who were guilty of these were received upon due submission those who were guilty of Schism were to renounce their Schism and those who were guilty of Heresie were to be re-baptized This was S. Basil's Judgment and is followed by Balsamon Zonaras and Aristâ—nus And S. Basil himself saith This was the Sense of the Fathers before him 2. A Sacrilegious Schism is that which robs the Church of God of that which belongs to it i. e. which excludes all but their own Number from being true Members of the Church And this was the Schism charged on the Novatians and Donatists This S. Augustine very often charges upon the latter as a very high piece of Schism for saith he while they confine the Church to their own Communion they are guilty of manifest Sacrilege both against Christ and his â—hurch And whosoever follow their steps and exclude any Parts of the Church from being so and confine the Church to their own Communion they are guilty of the same Sacrilegious Schism which is of a higher nature than a meer Factious Schism But the Defender saith The Language of the World has always preserved the Title of Catholic to one Part and given the name of Sect or Part cut off to the other By the Language of the World he must mean of that Part which excludes the rest Which he calls the World by the very same Figure by which a Part challenges to be the Whole But in consequence to this for all that I can yet see these who were excluded out of the Catholic Church must be taken in by Baptism And S. Cyprian Firmilian and S. Basil saw this well enough I confess it was after carried That Hereticks were to be distinguished and those
hath as much Authority over our Church as the Rulers of it have over the Members Which ought not to have been supposed but substantially proved since the Weight of the Cause depends upon it But I see nothing like a Proof produced 2. That the Sectaries have as much reason to reject the Terms of Communion required by our Church as our Church had to reject those of the Church of Rome But this is as far from being proved as the other 2. The Defender desires to be instructed how such an Authority can be in a Church without Infallibility I hope he believes there may be Authority without Infallibility or else how shall Fathers govern their Children But not in the Church Why so Have not Bishops out of Councils Authority to rule their Diocesses Have they not a Provincial Synods Authority to make Canons tho they be not Infallible What then is the meaning of this He tells us soon after To say a Church is Fallible is to say she may be deceived There is no doubt of that And if she may be deceived her self they may be deceived who follow her And if a Church pretends to be Infallible which is not she certainly deceives those that follow her and that without Remedy But all this sort of Reasoning proceeds upon a false Suggestion viz. That our Faith must be grounded on the Chuach's Authority as the formal Reason of it Which he knows is utterly denied by us and ought to have been proved We declare the Ground of our Faith is the Word of God not interpreted by Fancy but by the Consent of the whole Christian Church from the Apostles Times This is our Bottom or if you will the Rock on which our Church is built This is far more firm and durable than a pretence to Infallibility which is like a desperate Remedy which Men never run to but when they see nothing else will help them Had the Church of Rome been able to defend her Innovations by Reason or Antiquity she had never thought of Infallibility It is a much better expedient to keep Men in Error than to keep them from it and tends more to save the Authority of a sinking Church than the Souls of Men. But he will not let the Church's Infallibility go thus For he pretends to prove that if we take that away we make Christianity the most unreasonable Thing in Nature nay absolutely impossible What! whether God hath promised to make the Church Infallible or not We understand those who offer to prove the Church Infallible by Scripture but these Scientifical Men despise such beaten Roads and when they offer to demonstrate fall short of the others Probabilities As will appear by examining his Argument Faith requires an assent to a thing as absolutely true but a fallible Authority cannot oblige me to a thing as absolutely true and therefore this would be an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction I will match his Argument with another Faith is not an Assent to a thing as absolutely true upon less than a Divine Testimony but the Church's Testimony is not Divine and therefore to believe upon the Church's Testimony is an Effect without a Cause a down-right Impossibility a flat Contradiction Let him set one of these against the other and see who makes Faith unreasonable or impossible But I will clear this Matter in few words I grant that Faith is an Assent to a thing as absolutely true and that what is absolutely true is impossible to be false I grant that a meer fallible Authority is not sufficient to produce an Act of Faith. But here I distinguish the Infallible Authority of God revealing into which my Faith is resolved as into the formal Reason of it from the Authority of the Church conveying that Revelation which is only the Means by which this Revelation comes to be known to us As when a Man swears by the Bible there is a difference between the Contents of that Book by which he swears and the Officers putting the Book into his hands 3. The Church of England is blamed for allowing no Liberty of Appeals to a higher Judicature The Question is Whether this makes her no true Church or not to have any just Authority over her own Members The Replier saith She makes her self the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine I know not where she hath done so since we own the Authority of Free and truly General Councils as the Supreme Tribunal of the Church upon Earth And accordingly receive the four first which even S. Gregory the Great distinguished from those that followed as to their Authority and Veneration The Defender had a good mind to cut off the Church of England from being a Church because she hath renounced Communion with the Church of Rome but his heart failed him And I hope he will think better of it when he sees cause to prove a little more effectually that the Church of Rome in its largest extent is the Catholick Church He argues That there must be such an Authority in a Church which may give a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties as the Judges do Temporal Differences But is it necessary for all Churches to have such a Power then there must be as many Supreme Courts as there are Churches If not we desire to know where the Supreme Court is and who appointed it And where Christ hath ever promised to his Church a Power to end Controversies when they arise as effectually as Judges do Temporal Differences For the freest and most General Councils yet assembled have not been so happy and those we look on as the most Venerable Authority to decide Differences in the Church But still our Church wants sufficient Authority in his Opinion Doth it want Authority to govern its own Members To Reform Abuses in a divided State of the Catholick Church To cast off an usurped Power as it was judged by the Clergy in Convocation who yet concurred in other things with the Church of Rome I pray what Authority had the Gallican Church so lately to declare against the Pope's Infallibility and to reduce him in that respect to the Case of an ordinary Bishop If Absolute Obedience be due to him as Head of the Church what Authority have the Temporal Princes in other Countries sometimes to forbid sometimes to restrain and limit the Pope's Bulls This at least shews that there may be just Authority to examine and restrain the Pope's Power And I see no Reason why the several Churches of Christendom may not act as well against the Pretence of the Pope's Authority as the Gallican Church hath done against his Infallibility especially since this Gentleman hath told us that Authority without Infallibility signifies nothing And those who think they may examine and reject his Dictates may do the same by his Authority the one being as liable as the other It was said in the Papers That no Country can subsist in
Doctrine of Purgatory are the same Whereas this relates to the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory by the Suffrages of the Living which makes all the gainful Trade of Masses for the Dead c. but the other related to the Day of Judgment as is known to all who are versed in the Writings of the Ancient Church But this our Church wisely passes over neither condemning it because so ancient nor approving it because not grounded on Scripture and therefore not necessary to be observed 4. But his great spite is at the Reformation of this Church which he saith was erected on the Foundation of Lust Sacrilege and Usurpation And that no Paint is capable of making lovely the hideous Face of the pretended Reformation These are severe Sayings and might be requited with sharper if such hard Words and blustering Expressions had any good effect on Mankind But instead thereof I shall gently wipe off the Dirt he hath thrown in the Face of our Church that it may appear in its proper Colours And now this Gentleman sets himself to Ergoteering and looks and talks like any grim Logician Of the Causes which produced it and the Effects which it produced The Schism led the way to the Reformation for breaking the Unity of Christ's Church which was the Foundation of it but the immediate Cause of this which produced the Separation of Hen. 8. from the Church of Rome was the refusal of the Pope to grant him a Divorce from his first Wife and to gratify his Desires in a Dispensation for a second Marriage Ergo the first Cause of the Reformation was the satisfying an inordinaâ—e and brutal Passion But is he sure of this If he be not it is a horrible Calumny upon our Church upon King Henry the 8th and the whole Nation as I shall presently shew No he confesses he cannot be sure of it For saith he no Man can carry it so high as the Original Cause with any certainty And at the same time he undertakes to demonstrate the immediate Cause to be Henry the 8s inordinate and brutal Passion And afterwards assirms as confidently as if he had demonstrated it That our Reformation was erected on the Foundations of Lust Sacrilege and Usurpation Yet saith he the King only knew whether it was Conscience or Love or Love alone which moved him to sue for a Divorce Then by his Favour the King only could know what was the immediate Cause of that which he calls the Schism Well! but he offers at some Probabilities that Lust was the true Cause Is Ergoteering come to this already But this we may say if Conscience had any part in it she had taken a long Nap of almost twenty Years together before she awakened Doth he think that Conscience doth not take a longer Nap than this in some Men and yet they pretend to have it truly awaken'd at last What thinks he of late Converts Cannot they be true because Conscience hath slept so long in them Must we conclude in such Cases That some inordinate Passion gives Conscience a jog at last So that it cannot be denied he saith that an inordinate and brutal Passion bad a great share at least in the production of the Schism How cannot be denied I say from his own words it ought to be denied for he confesses none could know but the King himself he never pretends that the King confessed it How then cannot it be denied Yea how dare any one affirm it Especially when the King himself declared in a Solemn Assembly in these words saith Hall as near saith he as I could carry them away speaking of the dissatisfaction of his Conscience For this only Cause I protest before God and in the Word of a Prince I have asked Counsel of the greatest Clerks in Christendom and for this Cause I have sent for this Legat as a Man indifferent only to know the Truth and to settle my Conscience and for none other Cause as God can judg And both then and afterwards he declared that his Scruples began upon the French Ambassador's making a Question about the Legitimacy of the Marriage when the Match was prâ—posed between the Duke of Orleance and his Daughter and he affirms That he moved it himself in Confession to the Bishop of Lincoln and appeals to him concerning the Truth of it in open Court. Sanders himself doth not deny that the French Ambassador whom he calls the Bishop of Tarbe afterwards Card. Grammont others say it was Anthony Vesey one of the Presidents of the Parliament of Paris did start this Difficulty in the Debate about this Marriage of the King's Daughter and he makes a set Speech for him wherein he saith That the King's Marriage had an ill Report abroad But then he adds That this was done by the King's appointment and that Card. Wolsey put him upon it but he produces no manner of Proofs concerning it but only that it was so believed by the People at that time who cursed the French Ambassador As tho the suspicious of the People were of greater Authority than the solemn Protestation of the King himself But I think it may be demonstrated as far as such things are capable of it from Sanders his own Story that the King 's first Scruples or the jogging of his Conscience as our Author stiles it could not come from an inordinate Passion to Ann Bolleyn For he makes Card. Wolsey the chief Instrument in the Intrigue Let us then see what Accounts he gives of his Motives to undertake it He not only takes notice of the great Discontent he took at the Emperor Charles V. the Queen's Nephew but how studious he was upon the first intimation of the King's Scruples to recommend to him the Dutchess of Alençon the King of France's Sister and that when there were none present but the King Wolsey and the Confessor Afterwards Wolsey was sent on a very splendid Ambassy into France and had secret Instructions to carry on the Match with the King of France's Sister But when he was at Calais he received Orders from the King to manage other Matters as he was appointed but not to say a word of that Match At which saith Sanders he was in a mighty rage because he carried on the Divorce for nothing more than to oblige the most Christian King wholly to himself by this Marriage How could this be if from the beginning of his Scruples he knew the King designed to marry Ann Bolleyn But Sanders thinks to come off with saying That Wolsey knew of the King's Love but he thought he designed her only for his Concubine But this is plainly to contradict himself for before he said That Wolsey knew from the beginning whom he intended to marry Besides what Reason could there be if the King had only a design to corrupt her that he should put himself and the World to so much trouble to sue out a Divorce For the Divorce was