Schisme is an exteriour breach or a solution of continuity in the body Ecclesiastick Consider then by what nerves and Ligaments the body of the Church is united and knit together and by so many manner of ruptures it may be schismatically rent or divided asunder The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church is partly internal partly external The internal Communion consists principally in these things To believe the same intire substance of saving necessary truth revealed by the Apostles and to be ready implicitly in the preparation of the mind to embrace all other supernatural verities when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them To judge charitably one of another To exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of salvation either Eastern or Western or Southern or Northern Christians which professe the ancient faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers established in the first general Councels and comprehended in the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creed To rejoyce at their well-doing To sorrow for their sins To condole with them in their sufferings To pray for their constant perseverance in the true Christian Faith for their reduction from all their respective errours and their re-union to the Church in case they be divided from it that we may be all one sheepfold under that one great Shepherd and Bishop of our Soules And lastly to hold an actual external Communion with them in Votis in our desires and to endeavour it by all those means which are in our power This internal Communion is of absolute necessity among all Catholicks External Communion consists first in the same Creeds or Symbols or Confessions of Faith which are the ancient badges or cognisances of Christianity Secondly in the participation of the same Sacraments Thirdly in the same external worship and frequent use of the same divine offices or Leiturgies or Forms of serving God Fourthly in the use of the same publick Rites and Ceremonies Fifthly in giving communicatory Letters from one Church or one person to another And lastly in admission of the same discipline and subjection to the same supream Ecclesiastical authority that is Episcopacy or a general Councel for as single Bishops are the heads of particular Churches so Episcopacy that is a general Councel or Oecumenical Assembly of Bishops is the head of the universal Church Internal communion is due alwaies from all Christians to all Christians even to those with whom we cannot communicate externally in many things whether credenda or agenda opinions or practises But external actual communion may sometimes be suspended more or lesse by the just censures of the Church clave non errante As in the primitive times some were excluded a coetu participantium Only from the use of the Sacraments others moreover a coetu procumbentium both from Sacraments and Prayers others also a coetu audientium from Sacraments Prayers and Sermons and lastly some a coetu fidelium from the society of Christians And as external communion may be suspended so likewise it may sometimes be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or persons from their neighbour Churches or Christians in their innovations and errours Especially when they go about to obtrude new fancies upon others for fundamental truths and old Articles of faith Christian charity is not blind so as not to distinguish the integral and essential parts of the body from superfluous wens and excrescences The Canons do not oblige Christians to the arbitrary dictates of a Patriarch or to suck in all his errours like those servile flatterers of Dionysius the Sicilian Tyrant who licked up his very spettle and protested it was more sweet then Nectar Neither is there the like degree of obligation to an exact Communion in all Externals There is not so great conformity to be expected in Ceremonies as in the Essentials of Sacraments the Queens daughter was arrayed in a garment wrought about with divers colours nor in all Sacraments improperly and largely so called by some persons at some times as in Baptisme and the holy Eucharist which by the consent of all parties are more general more necessary more principal Sacraments Neither is so exact an harmony and agreement necessary in all the explications of articles of faith as in the Articles themselves nor in superstructions as in fundamentals nor in Scholastical opinions as in catechetical grounds Nor so strict and perpetual an adherence required to a particular Church as to the Universal Church nor to an Ecclesiastical constitution as to a divine Ordinance or Apostolical tradition Humane priviledges may be lost by disuse or by abuse And that which was advisedly established by humane authority may by the same authority upon sufficient grounds and mature deliberation be more advisedly abrogated As the limits and distinctions of Provinces and Patriarchates were at first introduced to comply with the civil government according to the distribution of the Provinces of the Roman Empire for the preservation of peace and unity and for the ease and benefit of Christians so they have been often and may now be changed by Soveraign and Synodical authority according to the change of the Empire for the peace and benefit of Christendom Neither the rules of prudence nor the Lawes of Piety do oblige particular Churches or Christians to communicate in all opinions and practises with those particular Churches or Christians with whom they hold Catholick communion The Roman and African Churches held good communion one with another whilest they differed both in judgment and practise about rebaptization Cannot one hold communion with the Fathers that were Chiliasts except he turn Millenary The British Churches were never judged Schismatical because they differed from the rest of the West about the observation of Easter We see that all the famous and principal Churches of the Christian World Graecian Roman Protestant Armenian Abissene have their peculiar differences one with another and each of them among themselves And though I am far from believing that when Lâ—gâ—machies are taken away their real dissensions are half so numerous or their errous half so â—oul as they are painted out by their adversaries aemulation was never equal Judge And though I hope Christ will say Come ye blessed to many whom fiery Zelots are ready to turn away with Go ye cursed yet to hold communion with them all in all things is neither lawful nor possible Yea if any particular Patriarch Prelate Church or Churches how eminent soever shall endeavour to obtrude their own singularities upon others for Catholique verities or shall injoyn sinful duties to their Subjects or shall violate the undoubted priviledges of their inferiours contrary to the Canons of the Fathers It is very lawful for their own Subjects to disobey them and for strangers to separate from them And if either the one or the other have been drawn to partake of their errours upon pretence of obedience or of Catholique communion they may without the guilt of Schisme nay they ought to reform
diminution Schisme for the most part is changeable and varies its Symptomes as the Chamaelion colours As it was said of the Schisme of the Donatists that the passion of a disordered woman brought it forth Ambition nourished it and covetousnesse confirmed it And therefore it is as hard a task to shape a coat for Schismaticks as for the Moon which changeth its shape every day The reason is because having once deserted the Catholick communion they find no beaten path to walk in but are like men running down a steep hill that cannot stay themselves or like sick persons that tosse and turn themselves continually from one side of their bed to the other searching for that repose which they do not find Hence it comes to passe that Schisme is very rarely found for any long space of time without some mixture of heretical pravity it being the use of Schismaticks to broach some new doctrine for the better justification of their separation from the Church Heretical errours in point of faith do easily produce a Schisme and Separation of Christians one from another in the use of the Sacraments and in the publick service of God As the Arrian heresie produced a different doxology in the Church The Orthodox Christian saying Gloâ—â— be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Ghost And the heretical Arrian Glory be to the Father by the Son in the Spirit So of later times the opinions of the lawfulnesse of detaining the cup from the Laity and of the necessity of adoring the Sacrament have by consequence excluded the Protestants from the participation of the Eucharist in the Roman Church Thus Heresie doth naturally destroy unity and uniformity That is one Symptome of Schisme But it destroyes order also and the due subordination of a flock to their lawful Pastour nothing being more common with hereticks then to contemne their old guides and to choose to themselves new teachers of their own factions and so erect an altar against an altar in the Church That is another principal branch of Schisme So a different faith commonly produceth a different discipline and different formes of worship A man may render himself guilty of heretical pravity four wayes First by disbelieving any fundamental article of faith or necessary part of saving truth in that sense in which it was evermore received and believed by the universal Church Secondly by believing any superstitious errours or additions which do virtually by necessary and evident consequence subvert the faith and overthrow a fundamental truth Thirdly by maintaining lesser errours obstinately after sufficient conviction But because that consequence which seems clear and necessary to one man may seem weak and obscure to another And because we cannot penetrate into the hearts of men to judg whether they be obstinate or do implicitely and in the preparation of their minds believe the truth it is good to be sparing and reserved in censuring hereticks for obstinacy Fourthly by maintaining lesser errours with frowardnesse and opposition to lawfull determinations Though it be not in the power of any Councel or of all the Councels in the world to make that truth fundamental which was not fundamental or to make that proposition heretical in it self which was not heretical ever from the daies of the Apostles Or to increase the necessary Articles of the Christian faith either in number or substance yet when inferiour question 's not fundamental are once defined by a lawful general Councel All Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possesse their soules in patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as hereticks To summe up all that hath been said Whosoever doth preserve his obedience intire to the universal Church and its representative a General Councel and to all his Superiours in their due order so far as by Law he is obliged who holds an internal communion with all Christians and an external communion so far as he can with a good conscience who approves no reformation but that which is made by lawfull authority upon sufficient grounds with due moderation who derives his christianity by the uninterrupted line of Apostolical Succession who contents himself with his proper place in the Ecclesiastical body who disbelieves nothing contained in holy Scripture and if he hold any errours unwittingly and unwillingly doth implicitely renounce them by his fuller and more firm adherence to that infallible rule who believeth and practiseth all those credenda and agenda which the universal Church spread over the face of the earth doth unanimously believe and practise as necessary to salvation without condemning or censuring others of different Judgement from himself in inferiour questions without obtruding his own opinions upon others as Articles of faith who is implicitely prepared to believe and do all other speculative and practical truths when they shall be revealed to him And in summe qui sententiam diversae opinionis vinculo non praeponit unitâ—â—tis that prefers not a subtlety or an imaginary truth before the bond of peace He may securely say My name is Christian my sirname is Catholique From hence it appeareth plainly by the rule of contraries who are Schismatiques whosoever doth uncharitably make ruptures in the mystical body of Christ or sets up altar against altar in his Church or withdrawes his obedience from the Catholique Church or its representative a General Councel or from any lawful Superiours without just grounds whosoever doth limit the Catholique Church unto his own sect excluding all the rest of the Christian world by new doctrines or erroneous censures or tyrannical impositions whosoever holds not internall Communion with all Christians and externall also so far as they continue in a Catholique constitution whosoever not contenting himself with his due place in the Church doth attempt to usurp an higher place to the disorder and disturbance of the whole body whosoever takes upon him to reform without just authority and good grounds And lastly whosoever doth wilfully break the line of Apostolical Succession which is theâ—very nerves and sinewes of Ecclesiastical unity and communion both with the present Church and with the Catholique Symbolical Church of all successive ages He is a Schismatick qua talis whether he be guilty of heretical pravity or not Now having seen who are Schismaticks for clearing the state of the Question Whether the Church of England be Schismatical or not it remaineth to shew in a word what we understand by the Church of England First we understand not the English Nation alone but the English Dominion including the Brittish and Scottish or Irish Christians for Ireland was the right Scotia major and that which is now called Scotland was then inhabited by Brittish and Irish under the names of Picts and Scots Secondly though I make not the least doubt in the world but that the Church of England before
in England for sundry ages following that a Dean and Chapter were able to deal with them not onely to hold them at the swords point but to soile them Lastly King Henry the eighth himself had been long a suiter unto Clement the seventh to have his Predecessor Iulius the seconds dispensation for his marriage with his Brothers wife to be declared void But though the Popes own Doctors Universities had declared the dispensation to be unlawfull and invalide and although the Pope himself had once given forth a Bull privately to his Legate Cardinall Campeius for the revocation thereof wherein he declared the marriage to be null and that the King could not continue in it without sinne yet the King found so little respect either to the condition of his person or to the justice of his cause that after long delayes to try if he could be allured to the Popes will in the conclusion he received a flat deniall This was no great incouragement to him to make any more addresses to Rome So what was threatened and effected in part in the dayes of Henry the third and Edward the third was perfected in the reign of Henry the eighth when the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome in England was abolished which makes the great distance between them and us Different opinions are often devised or defended on purpose to maintain faction if animosities were extinguished and the mindes of Christians free from prejudice other controversies might quickly be reconciled and reduced to primitive general truths The power Paramount of the Court of Rome hath ever been and still is that insana laurus which causeth brawling and contention not onely between us and them but between them and the Eastâ—rn Churches yea even between them and those of their own communion as we shall see in the next Chapter Yea the originall source true cause of all the Separations reformations made in the Church in these last ages As all the Estates of Castile did not forbear to tell the Pope himself not long since in a printed memoriall and the Kingdom of Portugall likewise To conclude this point These former Kings who reigned in England about the years 1200. and 1300. might properly be called the first Reformers and their Lawes of Proviso's and Prâ—munire's or more properly premoneres the beginning of the Reformation They laid the Foundation and Henry the Eighth builded upon it Now having seen the authority of our Reformers and the justice of their grounds in the last place let us observe their due moderation in the manner of their separation First they did not we do not deny the being of any Church whatsoever Roman or other nor possibility of salvation in them especially such as hold firmly the Apostles Creed and the faith of the four first Generall Councels Though their salvation be rendred much more difficult by humane inventions and obstructions And by this very sign did Saint Cyprian purge himself and the African Bishops from Schisme Neminem judicantes aut à jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes Iudging no man removing no man from our communion for difference in opinion We do indeed require subscription to our Articles but it is onely from them who are our own not from strangers nor yet of all our own but onely of those who seek to be initiated into holy orders or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment So it is in every mans election whether he will put himself upon a necessity of subscription or not neither are our Articles penned with Anathema's or curses against all those even of our own who do not receive them but used only as an help or rule of unity among our selves Si quis diversum dixerit If any of our own shall speak or preach or write against them we question him But si quis diversum senserit if any man shall onely think otherwise in his private opinion and trouble not the peace of the Church we question him not We presume not to censure others to be out of the pale of the Church but leave them to stand or fall to their own Master We damne none for dissenting from us we do not separate our selves from other Churches unlesse they chase us away with their censures but onely from their errours For clear manifestation whereof observe the thirtieth Canon of our Church It was so far from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy France Spain Germany or any such like Churches in all things which they held and practised c. that it only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their aâ—cient integrity and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first founders So moderate are we towards all Christians whether forreigners or domesticks whether whole Churches or single persons But because the Roman Catholicks do lay hold upon this charitable assertion of ours as tending mainly to their advantage Behold say they Protestants do acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But Roman Catholicks deny all possibility of Salvation in the Protestant Churches Therefore the Religion of Roman Catholiques is much safer then that of Protestants Hence proceeded their Treatise of charity mistaken and sundry other discourses of that nature wherein there are mistakes enough but little charity For answer If this Objection were true I should love my Religion never the worse Where I find little charity I look for as little faith But it is not true for when the businesse is searched to the bottom they acknowledge the same possibility of salvation to us which we do to them that is to such of either Church respectively as do not erre wilfully but use their best endeavours to find out the truth Take two testimonies of the Bishop of Chalcedon If they that is the Protestants grant not salvation to such Papists as they count vincibly ignorant of Roman errours but onely to such as are invincibly ignorant of them they have no more charity then we for we grant Church saving faith and salvation to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errours And in his book of the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals he hath these words If Protestants allow not saving faith Church and salvation to such as sinfully erre in not fundamentals sufficiently prâ—posed they shew no more charity to erring Christians then Catholicks dâ— for we allow all to have saving faith to be in the Church in way of salvation for so much as belongeth to faith who hold the fundamental points and invincibly erre in not fundamentals because neither are these sufficiently proposed to them nor they in fault that they are not so proposed Secondly as our separation is from their errours not from their Churches so we do it with as much inward charity and moderation of our affections as we can possibly willingly indeed in
Bishop of the world Which sense was far enough from the intention either of Gregory the Great or Iohn of Constantinople who had both of them so many true Archbishops and Bishops under them But this sense agrees well enough with the extravagant ambition of the later Popes and of the Roman Court who do appropriate all original Jurisdiction to themselves So many waies is the Court of Rome guilty of Schismatical pravity Besides these branches of Schisme there are yet two other novelties challenged by the Popes and their Parasitical Courtiers But neither these nor the other yet defined by their Church both destructive to Christian unity both apt to breed and nourish to procreate and conserve Schisme An infallibility of judgment and a temporall power over Princes either directly or indirectly General and Provincial Councels are the proper remedies of Schisme But this challenge of infallibility diminisheth their authority discrediteth their definitions and maketh them to be superfluous things What needs so much expence so many consultations so much travel of so many poor old fallible Bishops from all the quarters of the world when there is an infallible Judge at Rome that can determine all questions in his own conclave without danger of errour Was Marcellinus such an infallible Judge when he burned incense to Idols Or Liberius when he consented to the Arrians and gave his suffrage to the condemnation of blessed Athanasius Or Honorius when he was condemned and accursed in the sixth General Councel for a Monothelite Or Iohn the 22th when he was condemned by the Theologues of Paris before the King with sound of Trumpets for teaching that the soules of the just shall not see God untill the general resurrection were those succeeding Popes Iohn and Martine and Formosus and Stephen and Romanus and Theodorus and Iohn and Benedictus and Sergius who clashed one with another and abrogated the decrees one of another over and over again such infallible Judges Neither is it meer matter of fact to decree the Ordinations of a lawful Bishop to be void To omit many others But howsoever they tell us That the first See cannot be judged I will not trouble my self about the credit of the authorities whether they be true or counterfeit Nor whether the first See signifie Rome alone or any other of the five Proto-Patriarchates Thus much is certain that by judgment of discretion any private man may judge the Pope and withdraw from him in his errours and resist him if he invade either the bodies or the soules of men as Bellarmine confesseth That in the Court of Conscience every ordinary Pastour may judge him and bind him and loose him as an ordinary man And by their leaves in the external Court by coercive power if he commit civil crimes the Emperour if Ecclesiastical a Councel or the Emperour with a Councel may judge him and in some cases declare him to be fallen from his Papal dignity by the sentence of the Law in other cases if he be incorrigible depose him by the sentence of the Judge But there is a great difference between the judgment of Subjects aâ— those Ecclesiasticks were and the judgment of a Sovereign Prince between the judgment of a General Councel and the judgment of an assembly of Suffragans and inferiours And yet the Roman Clergy are known to have deposed Liberius their own Bishop and justly Or otherwise Foelix their Martyr had been a Schismatick Their other challenge of temporal power whether directly or indirectly and in ordine ad spiritualia cannot chuse but render all Christians especially Sovereign Princes jealous and suspicious of their power and averse from the communion of those persons who maintain so dangerous positions so destructive to their propriety The power of the keâ—es doth not extend it self to any secular rights neither can Ecclesiastical censures alter or invalidate the Lawes of God and Nature or the municipal Lawes of a Land All which do injoyn the obedience of children to their Parents and of Subjects to their Sovereignes Gregory the seventh began this practice against Henry the fourth But what Gregory did bind upon earth God Almighty did not bind in heaven His Papal blessing turned to a curse And instead of an Imperial Crown Rodolph found the just reward of his treason The best is that they who give these exorbitant priviledges to Popes do it with so many cautions and reservations that they signifie nothing and may be taken away with as much ease as they are given The Pope say they is infallible not in his Chamber but in his Chair not in the premisses but in the conclusion not in conclusions of matter of fact but in conclusions of matter of faith Not alwaies in all conclusions of matter of faith but onely when he useth the right means and due diligence And who knoweth when he doth that So every Christian is infallible if â—e would and could keep himself to the infallible rule which God hath given him Take nothing and hold it fast So likewise for his temporal power over Princes they say the Pope not as Pope but as a spiritual Prince hath a certain kind of power temporal but not meerly temporal not directly but indirectly and in order to spiritual things Quo tencam vultus mutantem Protea nodo CHAP. IX An Answer to the Objections brought by the Romanists to prove the English Protestants to be Schismaticks BUt it is not enough to charge the Church of Rome unlesse we can discharge our selves and acquit our own Church of the guilt of Schisme which they seek to cast upon us First they object that we have separated our selves Schismatically from the communion of the Catholick Church God forbid Then we will acknowledge without any more to do that we have separated our selves from Christ and all his holy Ordinances and from the benefit of his Passion and all hope of salvation But the truth is we have no otherwise separated our selves from the communion of the Catholick Church then all the primitive Orthodox Fathers and Doctours and Churches did long before us that is in the opinion of the Donatists as we do now in the opinion of the Romanists because the Romanists limit the Catholick Church now to Rome in Italy and those Churches that are subordinate to it as the Donatists did then to Cartenna in Africk and those Churches that adhered to it We are so far from separating our selves from the communion of the Catholick Church that we make the communion of the Christian Church to be thrice more Catholick then the Romanists themselves do make it and maintain Communion with thrice so many Christians as they do By how much our Church should make it self as the case stands more Roman then it is by so much it should thereby become lesse Catholick then it is I have shewed before out of the Canons and Constitutions of our Church that we have not separated our selves simply and absolutely from the
then we are whilest things continue in the same condition by so much we should render our selves lesse Catholique and plunge our selves deeper into Schisme whilest we seek to avoid it 3. For the clearer and fuller discussion and demonstration whereof I shall observe this method in the Ensuing discourse First to state the question and shew what is Schisme in the abstract who are Schismatiques in the Concrete and what we understand by the Church of England in this question Secondly I will lay down six grounds or propositions every one of which singly is sufficient to wipe away the stain and guilt of Schisme from the Church of England how much more when they are all joyned together My six grounds or Propositions are these First that Protestants were not the authors of the late great separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks themselves such as in all other points were chief Advocates and Pillars of the Roman Church and so many that the names of all the known dissenters might be written in a little ring Secondly that in abandoning the Court of Rome they did not make any new Law but onely declare and restore the old Law of the Land to its former Vigour And vindicate that liberty left them as an inheritance by their Ancestours from the incroachments and usurpations of the Court of Rome Thirdly that the ancient Brittish and Scottish or Irish Churches were evermore exempted from the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops untill Rome thirsting after an universal unlawful Monarchy quitted their lawful Ecclesiastical power And so ought to continue free and exempted from all forrein Jurisdiction of any pretended Patriarch for evermore according to the famous Canon of the General Councel of Ephesus which Gâ—egory the Great reverenced as one of the four Gospels Fourthly that though the Authors of that Separation had not themselves been Roman Catholicks and though the Acts or Statutes made for that end had not been meerly declarative but also operative And although Brittain had not been from the beginning both de jure and de facto exempted from Roman Jurisdiction yet the King and Church of England had both sufficient authority and sufficient grounds to withdraw their obedience as they did Fifthly that all the Soveraign Princes and Republicks in Europe of the Roman Communion whensoever they have occasion to reduce the Pope to reason do either practise or plead for the same right or both Sixthly that the Papacy it self qua tâ—lis as it is now maintained by many with universality of Jurisdiction or rather sole Jurisdiction Iure divino with superiority above General Councels with infallibility of Judgment and temporal power over Princes is become by its rigid censures and new Creeds and Exorbitant decrees in a great part actually and altogether causally guilty both of this and all the greater Schismes in Christendome 3. Lastly I will give a satisfactory answer to those objections which those of the Roman Communion do bring against us to prove us Schismaticks CHAP. 2. The stating of the question what is Schisme who are Schismaticks and what is signified by the Church of England in this question EVery suddain passionate heat or misunderstanding or shaking of Charity amongst Christians though it were even between the principal Pastors of the Church is not presently Schisme As that between Saint Paul and Barnabas in the Acts of the Apostles who dare say that either of them were Schismaticks or that between Saint Hierome and Ruffinus who charged one another mutually with Heresie Or that between Saint Chrysostome and Epiphanius who refused to Joyn in prayers Saint Chrysostome wishing that Epiphanius might never return home alive And Epiphanius wishing that Saint Chrysostome might not dye a Bishop both which things by the just disposition of Almighty God fell out according to the passionate and uncharitable desires of these holy persons who had Christian Charity still radicated in their hearts though the violent torrent of sudden passion did for the time bear down all other respects before it These were but personal heats which reflected not upon the publick body of the Church to which they were all Ever ready to submit and in which none of them did ever attempt to make a party by gathering disciples to himself such a passionate heat is aptly stiled by the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a paroxisme or a sharp fit of a feverish distemper which a little time without any other application will infallibly remedy Secondly every premeditated clashing of Bishops or Churches about points of doctrine or discipline long and resolutely maintained is not presently criminous Schisme so long as they forbear to censure and condemn one another and to expel one another from their Communion and are ready to submit to the determinations of a general Councel Such were the contentions of the Roman and African Bishops about rebaptization and appeals It were hard to say that those two blessed Saints Cyprian and Austine and all those pious Prelates who joyned with them lived and dyed Schismaticks With this general truth agrees that of Doctor Holden fully that when there is a mutual division of two parts or members of the mystical body of the Church one from the other yet both retein Communion with the Vniversal Church which for the most part springs from some doubtful opinion or lesse necessary part of divine worship quamcunque partem amplexus fueris Schismaticus non audies quippe quod universa ecclesia neutram damnarit whatsoever part one take he is no Schismatick because the universal Church hath condemned neither part Whether he hold himself to this principle or desert it it is not my purpose here to discusse But this is much sounder doctrine then that of Mr. Knott that the parts of the Church cannot be divided one from another except they be divided from the whole because these things which are united to one third are united also between themselves Which errour he would seem to have sucked from Doctor Potter whom he either would not or at least did not understand That whosoever professeth himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole Of which he makes this use That Protestants forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome And yet do confesse it to be a member of the body of Christ therefore they forsake the Communion of the whole Church The answer is easie that whosoever doth separate himself from any part of the Catholique Church as it is a part of the Catholick Church doth separate himself from every part of the Catholick Church and consequently from the Universal Church which hath no existence but in its parts But if one part of the Universal Church do separate it self from another part not absolutely or in Essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the Universal Church but only so far as it is
themselves so as it be done by lawfull authority upon good grounds with due moderation without excesse or the violation of Charity And so as the separation from them be not total but onely in their errours and innovations nor perpetual but onely during their distempers As a man might leave his fathers or his brothers house being infected with the Plague with a purpose to return thither again so soon as it was cleansed This is no more then what Gerson hath taught us in sundry places It is lawful by the Law of nature to resist the injury and violence of a Pope And if any one should convert his Papal dignity to be an instrument of wickednesse to the destruction of any part of the Church in temporalities or spiritualities And if there appeares no other remedy but by withdrawing ones self from the obedience of such a raging power untill the Church or a Councel shall provide otherwise it is lawful He addes further That it is lawful to sleight his sentences yea to tear them in pieces and throw them at his head Bellarmine in effect saith as much As it is lawful to resist the Pope is he should invade our bodies So it is lawful to resist him invading of soules or troubling the Common-Wealth And much more if he should endeavour to destroy the Church I say it is lawful to resist him by not doing that which he commands and by hindering him from putting his will in execution We ask no more The Pope invaded our soules by exacting new Oaths and obtruding new Articles of faith He troubled the Common-Wealth with his extorsions and usurpations He destroyed the Church by his provisions reservations exemptions c. we did not judge him or punish him or depose him or exercise any jurisdiction over him but onely defended our selves by guarding his blowes and repelling his injuries I may not here forget Saint Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople whom Pope Iohn the eighth excommunicated for detaining the Jurisdiction of Bulgaria from the See of Rome But he disobeyed the Popes censures as did also his Successours and yet was reputed a Saint after his death whom Baronius excuseth in this manner Neque est ut qui ob litem hanc c. Let no man think that for his controversie Ignatius was either disaffected to the Roman See or ingrateful seeing he did but defend the rights of his own Church to which he was bound by oath under pain of eternal damnation If it be not only lawful but necessary in the Judgment of Baronius yea necessary under the pain of damnation for every Bishop to defend the rights of his particular See against the incroachments and usurpations of the Roman Bishop and to contemn his censures in that case as invalid How much more is it lawful yea necessary for all the Bishops in the world to maintain the right of their whole order and of Episcopacy it self against the oppressions of the Court of Rome which would swallow up or rather hath swallowed up all original Jurisdiction and the whole power of the Keyes From this Doctrine Doctour Holden doth not dissent Non tamen is ergo sum c. Yet I am not he who dare affirm that diseases and bad manners and humours may not sometimes be mingled in any Society or body whatsoever yea I confesse that such kinds of faults are sometimes to be plucked up by the roots and the over-luxurious branches to be pruned away with the hook It is true he would not have this reformation in Essential Articles we offered not to toâ—ch them nor without the consent of lawful Superiours we had the free and deliberate consent of all our Superiours both Civil and Ecclesiastical A little after he addes I confesse also that particular and as it were private abuses which have onely infected some certain personâ— or Church whether Episcopal or Archiepiscopal or National may be taken away by the care and diligence of that particular Congregation we attempted no more We see then what meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick communion A loosing of the band of peace a violation of Christian charity a dissolving of the unity and continuity of the Church And how this crime may be committed inwardly by temerarious and uncharitable judgment when a man thinks thus with himself Stand from me for I am holier thou thou By lack of a true Christian Sympathy or fellow-feeling of the wants and sufferings of our Christian brethren By not wishâ—ng and desiring the peace of Christendome and the reunion of the Catholique Church By not contributing our prayers and endeavouâ—s for the speedy knitting together and consolidating of that broken bone And outwardly by rejecting the true badges and cognisances of Christians that is the ancient Creeds By separating a mans self without sufficient ground from other Christians in the participation of the same Sacraments or in the use of the same divine Offices and Leiturgies of the Church and publick worship and service of Almighty God or of the same common rites and ceremonies By refusing to give communicatory Letters to Catholique Orthodox Christians By not admitting the same discipline and by denying or withdrawing our obedience unlawfully from lawful Superiours whether it be the Church universal or particular essential or representative or any single Superiour either of divine or humane institution By separating of themselves from the communion of the Catholick Church as the Novatians or by restraining the Catholique Church unto themselves as the Donatists of old and the Romanists at this day What the Catholique Church signifies was sufficiently debated between the Catholique Bishops and the Schismatical Donatiâ—ts at the Colloquie of Carthage Neither the Church of Rome in Europe nor the Church of Cartenna in Afrique with the several Churches of their respective communions but the whole Church of Christ spread abroad throughout the whole world Afrorum Christianorum catholicorum haec vox est c. This is the voyce of the African catholick Christians we are joyned in communion with the whole Christian world This is the Church which we have chosen to be maintained c. Now the Catholique Church being totum homogeneum every particular Church and every particular person of this Catholique communion doth participate of the same name inclusively so as to be justly called Catholique Churches and Catholick Christians But not exclusively to the prejudice or shutting out of other Churches or other persons As the King of Spain stiles himself and is stiled by others the Catholick King not as if he were an universal Monarch or that there were no other Soveraign Princes in the world but himself So the Church of Rome is called a Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome a Catholique Bishop And yet other Churches and other Bishops may be as Catholick and more Catholick then they I like the name of Catholick well but the addition of Roman is in truth a
addresse for Justice to a secular Magistrate But they do not forbid him to appear before a secular Magistrate being cited And they allow him in all cases though of pure Ecclesiastical cognisance to seek to a Soveraign Prince for an equal indifferent hearing by Bishops delegated and authorised by him The testimony of this Statute is so clear and authentick in it self that it need not be corroborated with any other acts of the same kind Yet three things are urged against it First that Henry the Eighth at this time was a favourer of the Protestants Secondly that he cared not for Religion but looked onely to the satisfaction of his own humours and lusts Thirdly that to withhold due obedience is as Schismatical as to withdraw it And that the reformed Church of England may be innocent of the one and yet guilty and accessary to the other To the first exception I reply That Henry the eighth was so far both then and long after from being a friend or favourer of the Protestants that he was a most bitter persecutor of them After this the Pope himself though he was not well pleased to lose so sweet a morsel as England was so well approved of Henry the Eighth's rigorous proceedings against the Protestants that he proposed him to the Emperour as a pattern for his imitation Insomuch as some strangers in those daies coming into England have admired to see one suffer for denying the Popes Supremacy and another for being a Protestant at the same time So though they looked divers waies yet like Sampsons Foxes each had his firebrand at his taile But to clear this point home there needs no more but to view the order of the Statutes made concerning Religion and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the raign of that King The Act for no person to be cited out of his own Diocesse except in certain cases The Act prohibiting all appeales out of England to the Court of Rome The Act for the submission of the Clergy to the King The Act for payment of first fruits to the Crown An Act for Exoneration from all exactions of the Court of Rome The Act declaring the King to be Supream Head of the Church of England An Act against Popish Bulls Faculties and Dispensations And the Act for utterly extinguishing the usurped authority of the Roman Bishop were all or the most of them enacted before the eight and twentieth year of Henry the Eighth And if my notes fail me not for we are chased from our books they were all received and established in Ireland the very same year the Lord Gray being then Lord Deputy of Ireland All this while there were no thoughts of any reformation All this while the Protestants found little grace from King Henry nor indeed throughout his whole raign ordinarily As for the suppression of Monasteries in his time I shall deal clearly and declare what I conceive to be the judgment of moderate English Protestants concerning that Act. First we feare that covetousnesse had a great oare in the boat and that sundry of the principal Actors had a greater aime at the goods of the Church then at the good of the Church Or otherwise why did they not as they pretended and gave out preserve the spoiles of the cloisters for publick and charitable uses as the foundation of Hospitalls and freeing the common Wealth from a great part of its necessary charges why did they not restore the appropriated or as we call them truly impropriated tythes to the Incumbents and lawful owners who had actuall cure of souls from whom they had been unjustly withheld especially considering that in some parishes the poore vicars stipend was not sufficient to maintain a good Plow-man The Monks pretended that they had able members to discharge the cure of souls and what difference whether the Incumbent were a single person or an aggregated body But what meer Lay-men could pretend is beyond my understanding Secondly we examine not whether the abuses which were then brought to light were true or feined but this we believe that foundations which were good in their original institution ought not to be destroyed for accessary abuses or for the faults of particular persons So we should neither leave a Sun in heaven for that hath been adored by Pagans nor a spark of fire or any eminent creature how beneficial soever upon earth for they have all been abused Therefore Licurgus is justly condemned because out of an hatred to drunkenness he cut down all the Vines in Sparta whereas he should have brought the fountaines of water nearer Thirdly when the Clergy in a Kingdome are really and not upon the feined pretenses of Sacrilegious persons grown to that excessive Grandeur that they quite overballance the Laity and leave the common wealth neither sufficient men nor sufficient means to maintain it self it is lawful by prudent lawes to restrain their further growth as our Ancestors and all the nations of Europe have done by prohibiting new foundations of Religious houses and the alienation of Lands to the Church without special License As we shall see hereafter And if the excesse be so exorbitant that it is absolutely and evidently destructive to the constitution of the common wealth it is lawfull upon some conditions and cautions not necessary to be here inserted to prune the superfluous branches and to reduce them to a right temper and aequilibrium for the preservation and well-being of the whole body Politick It hath been alwayes held lawful in some cases to alienate some things that had formerly been given to the Church as for the redemption of Christian Captives for the sustenance of poor Christians who are living Temples in the daies of famine and for preservation of the Church it self from demolition But Eradication to pluck up good institutions root and branch is not reformation which we professe but destruction To conclude this digression So as Monasteries were moderated in their number and in their revenues So as the Monks were restrained from medling between the Pastor and his flock that is the Bark and the Tree as it was of old Monachus in oppido Piscis in arido a Monk in a great town was thought like a little fish upon dry land So as the abler sort who are not taken up with higher studies or weightier imployments were inured to bestow their spare howers from their devotions in some profitable labour for the publick good that idlenesse might be stripped of the cloak of contemplative devotion So as the vow of perpetuall coelibate were reduced to the forme of our English Vniversities so long a fellow so long unmarried or of the Canonesses Biggins on the other side the Seas which are no longer restrained from wedlock then they retain their places or habits So as their blind obedience were more inlightened and secured by some certain rules and bounds So as their mock poverty for what is it else to professe want and
as in justice he is bound he is not to be reputed a Schismatick If men might not be saved by a general and implicite repentance they were in a woful condition for who can tell how oft he offendeth Cleanse thou me from my secret faults And if by general and implicite repentance why not by general and implicite faith why not by general and implicite obedience So as they do their uttermost indeavours to learn their duties and are ready to conform themselves when they know them God looks upon his creatures with all their prejudices and expects no more of them then according to the talents which he hath given them If I had books for that purpose I might have cited many Lawes and many Authors to prove that the final separation from Rome was made long before the reformation of the Church of England But it is a truth so evident and so undeniable by all these who understand our affaires that I seem to my self to have done overmuch in it already I do expect that it should be urged by some that there was a double separation of the Church of England from Rome The former from the court of Rome The second from the Church of Rome The former in point of discipline The latter in point of Doctrine The former made in the daies of Henry the Eighth The other in the daies of Edward the sixth That if the Protestants were not guilty of the former yet certainly they were guilty of the later To this I give two answers first that the second separation in point of Doctrine doth not concern this question Whether the Church of England be Schismatical but another whether the Church of England be Haereticall or at least Heterodox for every error doth not presently make an haeresy which cannot be determined without discussing the particular differences between the Church of Rome and the Church of England It is an undeniable principle to which both parties do yeeld firm assent that they who made the first separation from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith Leiturgy or use of the Sacraments are the guilty party Yea though the separation were not local but onely moral by introducing errours and innovations and making no other secession This is the issue of our controversie If they have innovated first then we are innocent and have done no more then our duties It is not the separation but the cause that makes a Schismatique Secondly I answer that as Roman Catholicks not Protestants were the authors of the Separation of England from the Court of Rome so the Court of Rome it self not Protestants made the Separation of England from the communion of the Church of Rome by their unjust and tyrannical censures excommunications and interdictions which they thundred out against the Realm for denying their spiritual Soveraignty by divine right before any reformation made by Protestants It was not Protestants that left the communion of the Church of Rome but the Court of Rome that thrust all the English Nation both Protestants and Roman Catholicks together out of their doores and chased them away from them when Pope Paul the third excommunicated and interdicted England in the daies of Henry the eighth before ever any reformation was attempted by the Protestants In that condition the Protestants found the Church and Kingdom of England in the daies of Edward the sixth So there was no need of any new separation from the communion of the Church of Rome The Court of Rome had done â—hat to their hands So to conclude my first Proposition Whatsoever some not knowing or not weighing the state of our affaires And the Acts and Records of those times have rashly or ignorantly pronounced to the contrary it is evident that the Protestants had no hand either in the separation of the English Church from the Court of Rome or in their separation from the Church of Rome The former being made by professed Roman Catholicks the later by the Court of Rome it self both before the reformation following in the dayes of Edward the sixth both at a time when the poor Protestants suffered death daily for their conscience upon the six bloody Articles CHAP. IV. That the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome diâ— make no new Law but vindicate their ancient Liberties THe second Conclusion upon examination will prove as evident as the former that Henry the eighth and those Roman Catholicks with him who made the great separation from the Court of Rome did no new thing but what their predecessors in all ages had done before them treading in the steps of their Christian Ancestors And first it cannot be denyed but that any person or Society that hath an eminent reputation of learning or prudence or piety or authority or power hath ever had and ever will have a great influence upon his or their neighbours without any legal Jurisdiction over them or subjection due from them Secondly it is confessed that in the primitive times great was the dignity and authority of the Apostolical Churches as Rome Antiâ—ch Ephesus Hierusalem Alexandria which were founded by the Apostles themselves And that those ancient Christians in all their differences did look upon the Bishops of those Sees as honourable Arbitrators and faithful Depositaries of the genuine Apostolical traditions especially wherein they accorded one with another Hence is that of Tertullian Constat omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus et originalibus conspi at c. Whatsoever doctrine agrees with those Apostolical original mother Churches is to be reputed true And in this sense and no other Saint Cyprian a great admirer and imitater both of the matter and words of Tertullian whom he honoured with the title of his Master doth call the Church of Rome a Matrix and a root But if the tradition varied as about the observation of Easter between Victor Bishop of Rome and Polycrates Bishop of Ephesâ—s the one prescribing from St. Peter and S. Paul the other from S. Iohn The respective Churches did conform themselves to their Superiours or if they were free as the Britannique Churches were to their own judgment or to the example of their neighbour Churches or kept them to the tradition delivered unto them by their first converters As in this very controversie about Easter and some baptismal rites the Brittish and Scottish Bishops alwaies adhered to the Eastern Church A strong presumption that thence they received the faith and were not subordinate to the Patriarchal See of Rome But yet all this honourable respect proceeded from a free prudential compliance without any perpetual or necessary subjection Afterwards some Churches lost some gained the place and dignity of Apostolical Churches either by custome so Ephesus lost it or by the Canons of the Fathers so Constantinople did get it or lastly by Imperial priviledges so Iustiniana and Carthage obtained it Thirdly it
imperandi innocentem subditum ordo serviendi The Prince may be unjust in his commands and yet the Subject innocent in his obedience Take the case at the worst it must be doubtful at the least the Popes Soveraignty and the Jurisdiction of the Roman Court being rejected by three parts of the Christian world and so unanimously shaken off by three Kingdoms And in such a case who is fittest to be Judge the Pope the People or the King Not the Pope he is the person accused And frustra expectatur cujuslibet authoritas contra seipsum It is in vain to expect that one should imploy his authority against himself Not the people would a Judge take it well that a Gaoler should detain the Prisoner from execution untill he were satisfied of the justice of his sentence Or a Pilot that he may not move his Rudder according to the alterable face of the heavens but at the discretion of the ordinary Marriners No whensoever any question hath been moved between any kingdom or Republick of what Communion soever and the Court of Rome concerning the liberties and priviledges of the one or the extortions and incroachments of the other they have evermore assumed the last Judicature to themselves as of right it doth belong unto them The Romanists themselves do acknowledge that Soveraign Princes by the Law of God and nature not only may but are in justice obliged to oppose the tyranny of Ecclesiastical Judges and to protect and free their subjects from their violence and oppression Parsons himself wondreth that any man should deny this power to Kings in their own kingdomes But we are fully satisfied and assured that that universal power which the Pope claimes by Divine right over all Christians and particularly over the Britannique Churches without their consents And much more that Jurisdiction which de facto he did or at least would have exercised there and lesse then which he would not go to the destruction of their natural and Christian liberties and priviledges was and is a tyrannical and oppressive yoak If all Christians were as well satisfied of the truth of this our assumption as we are this controversie were at an end And thus far all Roman Catholicks not interessed nor prepossessed with prejudice do accord fully with us that by whomsoever Papal power was given whether by Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers of the Church in succeeding ages it was given for edification not for destruction And that the Roman Court in later dayes hath sought to impose grievous oppressive and intolerable burthens upon their subjects which it is lawful for them to shake off without regarding their censure as we shall see in the next proposition But because all are not so well satisfied about the just extent of Papal authority and power we must search a little higher Secondly we do both agree that Soveraign Princes may by enabled and authorized either by concession or by prescription for time immemoriall perhaps it were more properly said by vertue of their Soveraign authority over the whole body politique whereof the Clergy are a part â—o exercise all external acts of Ecclesiastical coercive Jurisdiction by themselves or at least by fit delegates praecipiendo suis subditis Sacerdotibus ut excommunicent rebelles contumaces And this is asserted in the case of Abbesses which being women are lesse capable of any spiritual Jurisdiction The truth is that as all Ecclesiastical Courts and all Ecclesiastical coercive jurisdiction did flow at first either from the Bounty and goodnesse of Soveraign Princes to the Church or from their connivence or from the voluntary consent and free submission of Christians Volenti non fit injuria consent takes away errour I except alwayes that jurisdiction which is purely spiritual and an essential part of the power of the Keies whereof Emperours and Kings are not capable So whensoever the Weal-publick and the common safety of their people doth require it for advancement of publick peace and tranquillity and for the greater ease and convenience of the subject in general according to the Vicissitude and conversion of humane affairs and the change of Monarchies they may upon well grounded experience in a National Synod or Councel more advisedly retract what their predecessours had advisedly granted or permitted And alter the face and rules of the external discipline of the Church in all such things as are but of humane right when they become hurtful or impeditive of a greater good in which cases their subjects may with good conscience and are bound in duty to conforme themselves to their Lawes Otherwise Kingdoms and Societies should want necessary remedies for their own preservation which is granted by both parties to be an absurdity Weigh all the parts of Ecclesiastical discipline and consider what one there is which Christian Emperours of old did not either exercise by themselves or by their delegates or did not regulate by their Lawes or both concerning the priviledges and revenues of holy Church the calling of Councels the presiding in Councels the dissolving of Councels the confirming of Councels concerning holy Orders concerning the patronage of and nomination to Ecclesiastical benefices and dignities concerning the Jurisdiction the suspension deposition and ordering of Bishops and Priests and Monks and generally all Persons in holy orders concerning Appeales concerning Religion and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof concerning the Creeds or common Symbols of faith concerning Heresie Schisme Judaisme the suppression of Sects against Swearing Cursing Blaspheming Prophanenesse and Idolatry concerning Sacraments Sanctuaries Simony Marriages Divorces and generally all things which are of Ecclesiastical cognisance wherein he that desires satisfaction and particularly to see how the coercive power of Ecclesiastical Courts and Judges did flow from the gracious concessions of Christian Princes may if he be not too much possessed with prejudice resolve himself by reading the first Book of the Code the Authentiques or Novels of Iustinian the Emperour and the Capitulars of Charles the great and his successours Kings of France We have been requested said Iustinian by Menna the Archbishop of this City beloved of God and universal Patriarch to grant this priviledge to the most reverend Clerkes c. in pecuniary causes referring them first to the Bishop and if he could not compose or determine the difference then to the secular Judge And in criminal causes if the crime were civil to the civil Magistrate if Ecclesiastical to the Bishop By the Councel of our Bishops and Nobles said Charles the great we have Ordained Bishops throughout the Cities that is we have commanded and authorized it to be done And do decree to assemble a Synod every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and Lawes of the Church may be restored I beseech you what did our King Henry and the Church of England more at the reformation It is true Soveraign Princes are not said properly to make Canons because they do not prescribe them
the Roman Church to be a top-â—ranch unlesse it may be the root of Christian Religion or at least of all that Jurisdiction which Christ left as a Legacy to his Church In all which claime by the Church of Rome they understand not the essential Church nor yet the representative Church a Roman Synod but the virtual Church which is invested with Ecclesiastical power that is the Pope with his Cardinals and Ministers When any member how eminent soever scorns its proper place in the body whether Natural or Political or Ecclesiastical and seekes to usurpe the Office of the head it must of necessiâ—y produce a disorder and disturâ—ance and confusion and schisme of the respective members This is one degree of schismatâ—cal pravity But in the second place we presse the crime of schisme more home against the Court of Rome then against the Church of Rome It is the Court of Rome which partly by obtruding new Creeds and new Articles of faith And especially this doctrine That it is necessary for every Christian under pain of damnation to be subject to the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ by divine Ordination upon earth that is in effect to be subject to themselves who are his Councel and Officers yea even those who by reason of their remotenesse never heard of the name of Rome without which it will profit them nothing to have holden the Catholick faith intirely And partly by their tyraninical and uncharitable censures have seperated all the Asiaâ—ick African Grecian Russian and Protestant Churches from their communion not onely negatively in the way of Christian discretion by withdrawing of themselves for fear of infection But privatively and authoritatively by way of Jurisdiction excluding them so much as in them lieth from the Communion of Christ Though those Churches so chased away by them contain three times more Christian souls then the Church of Rome it self with all its dependents and adherents many of which do suffer more pressures for the testimony of Christ then the Romanists do gain advantages and are ready to shed the last drop of their blood for the least known particle of saving truth Onely because they will not strike topsaile to the Popes crosse-keys nor buy indulgences and such like trinkets at Rome It is not passion but action that makes a schismatick to desert the communion of Christians voluntarily not to be thrust away from it unwillingly For divers years in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign there was no Recusant known in England But even they who were most addicted to Roman opinions yet frequented our Churches and publick assemblies and did joyn with us in the use of the same prayers and divine offices without any scruple untill they were prohibited by a Papal Bull meerly for the interest of the Roman Court This was the true beginning of the schisme between us and them I never yet heard any of that party charge our Leiturgy with any errour except of omission that it wanted something which they would have inserted I wish theirs as free from exception to trie whether we would shunne their communion in the publick service of God Charity would rather chuse to want something that was lawful then willingly to give occasion of offence But to lay the axe to the root of schisme in the third place the Papacy it self quâ— talis as it is now maintained by many with superiority above general Councels and a Sovereign power paramount to confirme or reject their sanctions is the cause either procreant or conservant or both of all or the most part of the schismes in Christendom To rebell against the Catholick Church and its representative a general Councel which is the last visible Judge of controversies and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court either is grosse schisme or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world I say the Bishops of Rome have exempted themselves and their Court from the Jurisdiction of an Oecumenical Councel and made themselves Sovereign Monarches and universal Bishops in totius Ecclesiae injuriam discissionem to the wrong of the Church and renting it in peeces making themselves to be not onely fathers but Masters of all Christians It is the Popes own expression in his letter to his Legate Contrary to their former professions of obedience to the Ecclesiastical constitutions of Sovereign Princes and Synods contrary to their own Lawes which allow appeales from them so often as they transgress the Canons and subject them to the judgment of the Church not onely in case of heresie which the most of themselves do acknowledge and Schisme and Simony which many of them do not deny But also of Scandal contrary to so many appellations from them by Christian Princes Prelates and Universities contrary to the judgement of almost all the Cisalpine Prelats Spanish French Dutch assembled at Trent contrary to the decrees of so many Councels both general and provincial which have limited their Jurisdiction set down the true reason of their greatnesse rescinded their sentences forbidden appeales to them condemned their pragmatical intrusion of themselves into the affairs of other Churches as being contrary to the decrees of the Fathers which have judged them and condemned them of heresie schisme Simony and other misdemeanours which have deposed them by two or three at â— time whereof one was undoubtedly the true Pope These things are so obvious in the history of the Church that it were vanity and lost labour to prove them But especially contrary to the Councel of Constance and Basile which have decreed expresly that the Pope is subject to a General Councel as well in matter of faith as of manners So as he may not onely be corrected but if he be incorrigible â—e deposed This is determined in the Councel of Constance and confirmed in the Councel of Basil with this addition that whosoever opposeth this truth pertinaciously is to be reputed an heretick This decree of the Councel wounds deep because it is so evident and clear in the point and because the decrees thereof were confirmed by Martine the fifth But the Romanists have found out a salve for it That Pope Martine confirmed onely those decrees which were conciliarly made that is with the influence and concurrence of the Pope As the condemnation of Wickliff and Hus But not those decrees which were not conciliarly made that is which wanted the influence of the Pope As the decree of the Superiority of the Councel above the Pope Which ought to be understood say they onely of dubious Popes For clearing of which doubt I propose several considerations First that it is not material whether the decree were confirmed by the Pope or not There are two sorts of confirmation Approbative and Anthoritative Approbative confirmation is by way of testimony or suffrage or reception And so an inferiour may confirm the acts of his Superiour As it is said that the Saints shall judge the world
communion of any particular Church whatsoever even the Roman it self so far forth as it is Catholick but onely from their errours wherein they had first separated themselves from their predecessours To this I adde that it was not we but the Court of Rome it self that first separated England from the communion of the Church of Rome by their unjust censures excommunications and interdictions which they thundered out against the Realm for denying their spiritual Sovereignty by Divine right before the Reformation made by Protestants Secondly we are charged with Schismatical contumacy and disobedience to the decrees and determinations of the General Councel of Trent But we believe that Convent of Trent to have been no General nor yet Patriarchal no free no lawfull Councel How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates or any Proctours or Commissioners from them either present or summoned to be present except peradventure some tltular Europaean Mock-Prelates without cures such as Olaus Magnus intituled Archbishop of Vpsala Or Sir Robert the Scottish-man intituled Archbishop of Armagh How was that Generall or so much as Patriarchal where so great a part of the West was absent wherein there were twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy the Popes professed Vassals and many of them his hungry Parasitical pensioners as there were out of all other Christian Kingdoms and Nations put together How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of faith and the exposition thereof as the King of England could have called together in his own Dominions at any one time upon a moneths warning How was that general which was not generally received by all Churches even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it We have seen heretofore how the French Ambassadour in the name of the King and Church of France protested against it And untill this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as must insue thereupon yet they did never admit it Let no man say that they rejected the determinations thereof onely in point of discipline not of doctrine for the same Canonical obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General Councell in point of discipline as in point of Doctrine And as it was not General so neither was it free nor lawfull Not free where the place could afford no security to the one party where the accuser was to be the Judge where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopped or was turned out of the Councel where the few Protestants that adventured to come thither were not admitted to dispute where the Legates gave auricular Votes where the Fathers were noted to be guided by the spirit sent from Rome in a male where divers not only new Bishops but new Bishopricks were created during the sitting of the Convent to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains Nor yet lawfull in regard of the place which ought to have been in Germany Actor debet rei forum sequi A guilty person is to be judged in his Province And the cause to be pleaded where the crime was committed And likewise in regard of the Judge In every Judgment there ought to be four distinct persons The accuser the witnesse the guilty person and the Judge But in the Councel of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself He was the right guilty person and yet withall the accuser of the Protestants the witnesse against them and their Judge Lastly no man can be lawfully condemned before he be heard But in this Councel the Protestants were not allowed to propose their case much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation Thirdly it is objected and here they think they have us sure locked up that we cannot deny but that the Bishop of Rome was our Patriarch and that we have rebelled against him and cast off our Canonical obedience in our Reformation To this supposed killing argument I give three clear solutions First That the Bâ—itish Islands neither were nor ought to be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as hath been sufficiently demonstrated in my third conclusion For all Patriarchal Jurisdiction being of humane institution must proceed either from some Canon or Decree of a General Councel or of such a Provincial Councell as had power to oblige the Britons to obedience Or from the grant or concession of some of their Sovereign Princes or from the voluntary submission of a free people Or lastly from custom and prescription If they had any such Canon or Grant or submission they would quickly produce it but we know they cannot If they plead custome and prescription immemorial the burthen must rest upon them to prove it But when they have searched all the Authours over and over who have written of British affaires in those daies and all their Records and Registers they shall not be able to find any one Act or so much as any one footstep or the least sign of any Roman Patriarchal Jurisdiction in Britaigne or over the Britons for the first 600 years And for after-ages the Roman Bishops neither held their old Patriarchate nor gained any quiet settled possession of their new Monarchy Secondly I answer That Patriarchal power is not of Divine right but humane institution And therefore may either be quitted or forfeited or transferred And if ever the Bishops of Rome had any Patriarchal Jurisdiction in Britaigne yet they had both quitted it and forfeited it over and over again and it was lawfully transferred To separate from an Ecclesiastical authority which is disclaimed and disavowed by the pretenders to it and forfeited by abuse and rebellion and lawfully transferred is no Schisme First I say they quitted their pretended Patriarchal right when they assumed and usurped to themselves the name and thing of universal Bishops Spiritual Sovereigns and sole Monarchs of the Church and masters of all Christians To be a Patriarch and to be an universal Bishop in that sense are inconsistent and imply a contradiction in adjecto The one professeth humane the other challengeth divine institution The one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province the other pretendeth to an unlimited Jurisdiction over the whole World The one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers and a meer executour of them and can do nothing either against them or besides them The other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons besides the Canons against the Canons to make them to abrogate them to suspend their influence by a non-obstaâ—te to dispence with them in such cases wherein the Canon gives no dispensative power at his own pleasure when he will where he will to whom he will Therefore to claime a power paramount and Sovereign Monarchical Royalty over the Church is implicitely and in effect to disclaime a Patriarchal
Aristocratical dignity So Non tellus cymbam tellurem cymba reliquit It was not we that deserted our pretended Patriarch but our pretended Patriarch deserted his Patriarchal office So long as the Popes contented themselves with Patriarchal rights they soared no higher then to be the executours of the Canons When Acacius complained that he was condemned by the sole authority of the Roman Bishop without a Synodal sentence Gelssius the Pope then pleaded for himself that Acacius was not the beginner of a new errour but the follower of an old And therefore it was not necessary that a new Synodal sentence should be given against him but that the old should be executed Therefore saith he I have onely put an old sentence in execution not promulged a nâ—w And as they had quitted their title so likewise they had forfeited it both by their Rebellion and by their exorbitant abuses First by their notorious rebellion against General Councels The authority of an inferiour ceaseth when he renounceth his loyalty to his superiour from whom he derives his power A General Councel is the Supreme Ecclesiastical power to which Patriarchal power was alwayes subordinate and subject General Councels with the consent of Sovereign Princes have exempted Cities and Provinces from Patriarchal Jurisdiction with the consent of Sovereign Princes they have erected new Patriarchates as at Hierusalem and Constantinople And made the Patriarch of Constantinople equal in all priviledges to the Patriarch of old Rome Against this Supreme Ecclesiastical power the Popes have not onely rebelled themselves but have compelled all Bishops under their Jurisdiction to take an oath to maintain their rebellious usurpations When a President of a Province shall rebell against his Sovereign Prince and seek to usurpe the whole Empire to himself and impose new oathes of allegiancc upon his fellow-subjects it is not Treason but Loyalty in them to thrust him by the head and shoulders out of the gates of their City When a Steward not imposed upon the family by the Master but chosen in trust by his fellow-servants during their Masters absence shall so far violate his trust that he will by force make himself the Master of the family and usuâ—pe a dominion not onely over his fellowes but over his Masters Wife and Children and oblige his fellow servants to acknowledge an independent Sovereign power in him it is not want of duty but fidelity to substract their obedience from him This is our case with the Roman Bishops They have sought to usurpe a dominion over the Catholick Church the spouse of Christ and all their fellow-servants Then ought not all good Christians to adhere to the Catholick Church and desert a schismatical Patriarch They have rebelled against the representative Church a general Councel should we involve our selves in their rebellion and perjury by swearing to maintain and make good their usurpations I confesse inferiours are not competent Judges of their Superiours But in this case of a subordinate Superiour and in a matter of Heresie or Schisme already defined by the Church the sentence of the Judge is not necessary the sentence of the Law and the notoreity of the fact are sufficient It is not we that judge him but the Councels of Constance and Basile Neither could our Ancestours hope to have a General Councel suddenly whilest so great a part of Christendom was under the Turk nor a free Occidental Councel whilest the usurper had all Ecclesiasticall power in his hands What remained then but to reform themselves According to the sage advice of Gerson I see that the Reformation of the Church will never be effected by a Councel without the presidence of a well affected wise and constant guide Let the Members therefore provide for themselves thâ—oughout the Kingdomes and Provinces when they shall be able and know hâ—w to compasse this work Moreover as they have forfeited their power by their Rebellion so they have most justly also by their rapine extortions and terrible and exorbitant abuses the most shamefull abuses that ever were committed by persons trusted To passe by the hundred grievances of Germany the complaints and protestations and pragmatical Sanctions of France the memorials of Castile the sobbes of Portugal and to confine my discourse to the sufferings of our own Nation which have been more particularly related already in this Treatise when I set down the grounds of our Reformation They robbed the King of his investitures of Bishops which Henry the first protested to the Pope himself by his Proctour that he would not lose for his Kingdome and added threatenings to his protestations Yet to gratifie Anselme who though otherwise most deserving was the first violater of the ancient customes of our Kingdome in that kind he waved his right But soon after resumed it made Rodolph Bishop of London Archbishop of Canterbury and invested him by a crosier and a ring The like he did to many others They robbed the King of his patronages by their collations and provisions and expectative graces Two or three or ten benefices were not accounted sufficient for a Roman Courtier in those daies but an hundred or two hundred or more They robbed him of the last appeales of his Subjects contrary to the ancient Lawes of England They fomented the rebellion of his own Subjects at home sometimes of his Barons sometimes of his Bishops playing fast and loose on both sides for advantage They dis-inherited him of his Crown They gave away his Kingdome for a prey to a forreign Prince They incited strangers to make war against him And they themselves by meer collusion and tricks had well near thrust him out of his Throne They robbed the Clergy in a manner of their whole Jurisdiction by their exemptions and reservations and visitations and suspensions and appeales and Legantine Courts and Nunciatures thrusting their sickles into every mans harvest They robbed them of their estates and livelihoods by their provisions and pensions by their coadjutorships and first-fruits and tenths by the vast charge of their investitures and palles and I know not how many other sorts of exactions and arbitrary impositions The most ancient of these was the pall whereof our King Canutus complained long since at Rome and had remedy promised They robbed the Nobility and Commonalty many waies as hath been formerly related If all these were not a sufficient cause of forfeiture certainly abuse did never forfeit office And though they had sometimes had a just Patriarchal power and had neither forfeited it by rebellion nor abuse Yet the King and the whole body of the Kingdome by their Legislative power substracting their obedience from them and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions it is a sufficient warrant for all English-men to suspend their obedience to the one and apply themselves to the other for the welfare and tranquillity of the whole body politick as hath before been declared Thirdly
corrupted and degenerated it doth still retein a Communion not onely with the Catholick Church and with all Orthodox Members of the Catholick Church but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated except onely in corruptions We may well inlarge the former ground that if two particular Churches shall separate themselves one from another And the one retein a communion with the Universal Church and be ready to submit to the determinations thereof And the other renounce the Communion of the Universal Church and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and the decrees thereof the former continues Catholick and the later becomes Schismatical To shew that this is our present condition with the Church of Rome is in part the Scope of this Treatise They have subjected Oecumenical Councels which are the Soveraign Tribunals of the Church to the Jurisdiction of the Papal Court And we are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Representative a free general Councel But we are not willing to have their virtual Church that is the Court of Rome obtruded upon us for the Catholick Church nor a partial Synod of Italians for a free general Councel Thirdly there may be an actual and criminous separation of Churches which formerly did joyn in one and the same Communion And yet the Separaters be innocent and the persons from whom the separation is made be nocent and guilty of Schisme because they gave just cause of separation from them It is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schisme Saint Paul himself made such a separation among his disciples And Timothy is expresly commanded that if any man did teach otherwise and consented not to wholsome words even to the words of our Lord Iesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godlinesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 withdraw thy self stand aloof or separate thy self from such persons It is true that they who first desert and forsake the Communion of their Christian brethren are Schismaticks but there is a moral defection as well as local It is no Schisme to forsake them who have first themselves forsaken the common faith wherein we have the confession of our adversaries They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practice Leiturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external communion of the true uncorrupted Church It is no Schisme to separate from hereticks and Schismaticks in their heresie and Schisme This is all the Crime which they can object to us The Court of Rome would have obtruded upon us new articles of faith we have rejected them They introduced unlawful rites into the Leiturgies of the Church and use of the Sacraments we have reformed them for our selves They went about to violate the just liberties and priviledges of our Church we have vindicated them And for so doing they have by their Censures and Bulls separated us and chased us from their communion where lies the Schisme Fourthly to withdraw obedience from a particular Church or from a lawful Superiour is not alwaies criminous Schisme Particular Churches may sometimes erre and sometimes clash with the universal Church Patriarchs and other subordinate Superiours may erre and sometimes abuse their authority sometimes forfeit their authority sometimes disclaim their authority or usurp more authority then is due unto them by the Canons They would perswade us that obedience is to be yeelded to a Church determining errours in points not fundamental But they confound obedience of acquiescence with obedience of conformity They forget willingly that we acknowledge not that they ever had any lawful authority over us par in parem non habet potestatem Equals have no Jurisdiction over their equals The onely difficulty is that this seems to make Inferiours Judges of their Superiours the flock of their Pastour the Clergy of their Bishop the Bishop of his Metropolitan the Metropolitan of his Patriarch whereas in truth it onely gives them a Judgment of discretion and makes them not to be Judges of their Superiours but onely to be their own Judges salvo moderamine inculpatae tutelae to preserve themselves from sin or heresie obtruded upon them under the specious pretences of obedience and Charity This is not deficere but prospicere not to renounce due obedience to their lawful Superiours but to provide for their own safety Some things are so evident that the Judgment of the Church or a Superiour is not needfull Some things have been already judged and defined by the Church and need no new determination If a Superiour presume to determine contrary to the determination of the Church it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him When Eunomius the Arrian was made Bishop not one of his flock rich or poor young or old man or woman would communicate with him in the publick service of God but left him to officiate alone When Nestorius did first publish his heresie in the Church in these words If any man call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God let him be accursed the people made a noise run out of the Church and refused ever after to communicate with him Valentinian the Emperour shunned the communion of Sixtus the third Many of the Roman Clergy withdrew themselves from the communion of Anastasius their Bishop because he had communicated with the Acatians Rusticus and Sebastianus two of the Popes chiefest Deacons did not onely themselves forbear the Communion of Vigilius but drew with them a good part of the Church of Rome and other Occidental Churches It cannot be denied but that among many examples of this Lyne some are reprehensible not because they did arrogate to themselves a liberty which they had not but because they abused that liberty which they had either by mistaking the matter of fact or by presuming too much upon their own judgments To prevent which inconveniencies â—he eighth Synod decreed not by way of censure but of caution as a preservative from such abuses for the future that no Clerk before diligent examination and Synodical sentence should separate himself from the communion of his proper Bishop no Bishop of his Metropolitan no Metropolitan of his Patriarch Then what is Schisme Schimse signifies a criminous scissure rent or division in the Church an Ecclesiastical Sedition like to a mutiny in an Army or 〈◊〉 in a State Therefore such ruptures are called by the Apostle indifferently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schismes or seditious segregations of an aggregate body into two opposite parties And there seems to me to be the same difference between heresie properly so called and Schisme which is between an inward sicknesse and an outward wound or ulcer Heresie floweth from the corruption of faith within