Councell then there will need no turning out Secondly he objecteth So a man may reject all Government of the Church the Procession of the Holy ghost all the Sacraments all the Scriptures and yet continue a Member of Gods Church Why so When I said the Creed was a â—ufficient Rule of Faith or Credendorum of things to be believed I neither said nor meant that it was regula agendorum a Rule of such things as are to be practised such as the Acts of discipline and of the Sacraments are The Creed conteined enough for Salvation touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost before the words Filioque were added to it and there is great cause to doubt that the Contentions of the Eastern and Western Churches about this Subject are but a meer Logomachy or strife about words The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith but one and the same Rule dilated in the Scripture contracted in the Creed the end of the Creed being to contein all Fundamentall points of Faith or a summary of all things necessary to Salvation to be believed Necessitate medii But in what particulaâ— writings all these fundamentall points are conteined is no particular fundamentall Article it self nor conteined in the Creed nor could be conteined in it since it is apparent out of Scripture it self that the Creed was made and deposited with the Church as a Rule of Faith before the Canon of the new Testament was fully perfected Arrians and Socinians may perhaps wrest the words of the Apostles Creed to their Hereticall Sense but not as it is explained by the first foure Generall Councells which all Orthodox Christians doe admit He saith they and we differ about the sense of two Articles of the Creed that is the descent of Christ into Hell and the Catholick Church but setteth not down wherein we differ He hath reason to understand our Differences having been of both Churches but I for my part do rather believe that he understandeth neither part right Howsoever it be the Different Sense of an Article doth make an Heretick after it is defined by the Vniversall Church not before He saith he hath already shewed in the foregoing Section that the Protestant Grounds have left no Order and Subordination of Vniversall Government in Gods Church But he hath neither shewn it in the foregoing Section nor any where else nor is able to shew it We have the same subordination that the Primitive Church of Inferiour Clergy men to Bishops of Bishops to Archbishops of Archbishops to Patriarchs and of Patriarchs to a Generall Councell or as Generall as may be Let him shew any one linke of this Subordination that we have weakened I said we acknowledge not a Virtuall Church or one man as infallible as the Vniversall Church He rejoineth Nor they neither I wish it were so Generally but the Pope and Court of Rome who have the power of the Keys in their hands whoÌ„ onely we accuse in this behalf do maintain the Contrary that a Generall Councell without the Pope may erre that the Pope with any Councell Generall or particular cannot erre that the infallibility of the Church is radicated in the Pope by virtue of Christs prayer for S. Peter that his faith should not faile not in a company of Counsailers nor in a Councell of Bishops that the Pope cannot define temerariously in matters of Faith or good manners which concern the whole Church What a Generall Councell is and what the Vniversall Church is and who ought to be excluded from the one or the other as Hereticks I have shewed already namely all those and onely those who doe either renounce their Creed the badge of their Christianity the same Faith whereinto they were baptised or who differing about the sense of any Article thereof have already been excluded as Hereticks by the sentence of an undoubted Generall Councell Howsoever he sleighteth the Controversies which they have among themselves concerning the last resolution of Faith as if they were of no moment yet they are not of so little concernment to be so sleighted What availeth it to say they have the Church for an infallible Iudge whilest they are not certain or do not know what the Church is or who this infallible Iudge is May not a Man say unto them as Elijah said unto the Israelites Why halt ye between two Opinions Or rather why halt yet betwixt five or six Opinions If the Pope alone be infallible Iudge follow him If a Generall Councell alone be this infallible Iudge follow it If the Essentiall Church be the infallible Iudge Adhere to it If the Pope and a Generall Councell oâ— the Pope and a particular Councell or the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinalls be this infallible Iudge follow them He telleth us that their Vniversall Church is as Visible as the sun at Noone day to wit those Countryes in Communion with the See of Rome Without doubt they are Visible enough but it is as Visible that they are not the Vniversall Church What shall become of all the rest of the Christian world They are the elder Christians and more numerous fower for one both Patriarchs and people It is against reason that one single Protopatriarch should cast out fower out of the Church and be both party and Iudge in his own Cause But here it ends not If the Pope will have his Visible Church to be one Homogeneous body he must cast out a great many more yet and it is to be suspected this very Dispatcher himself among the rest for all his shewes They flatter the Pope with Generall Terms of Head and Chief Governour and First Mover which signify nothing but in reality they would have the Pope to be no more then the Duke of Venice is in the Venetian Common wealth that is lesse then any single Senatour Or that which a Generall Maister is in a Religious Order Above all Priours and Provincialls but subject to a Congregation Generall Wherein doe these men differ from us Sect. 8. That all Princes â—nd Republiques of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same thing whicâ— Henry the eighth did when they have Occasion or at least doe plead for it This was the Title and this was my scope of my Fifth ground which I made good by the Lawes and decrees of the Emperours with their Councells and Synods and Electorall College by the Lawes of France the Liberties of the Gallican Church the Acts of their Parliaments and declarations of their Vniversities By the practise of the King of Spain his Councells his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders By the sighs of Portugall and their bleaâ—ings and the Iudgement of the Vniversity of Lisbone By the Lawes and Proclamations of the Republick of Venice This I made good in every particular branch of Papall power which we have cast out of England the Patronage of the English Church The right to call and confirm Synods to conferre Bishopricks to
SCHISME GARDED and beaten back upon the right owners Shewing that our great controversy about Papall power is not a quaestion of faith but of interest and profit not with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome wherein the true Controversy doth consist who were the first innovators when and where these Papall innovations first began in England with the opposition that was made against them By JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. Bishop of Derry Act. 25. 10. I stand at Caesars judgmēt seate where I ought to be judged Psalm 19. 2. Dies diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicat scientiam GRAVENHAGH Imprinted by JOHN RAMZEY Anno M.DC.LVIII To the CHRISTIAN READERS especially the Roman-Catholicks of England CHristian Reader the great Bustling in the Controversy concerning Papall power or the discipline of the Church hath been either about the true sense of some Texts of holy Scripture As thou art Peter and upon this rocke will I build my Church and to thee will I give the Keies of the Kingdome of heaven and feed my sheepe Or about some privileges conferred upon the Roman See by the Canons of the Fathers and the Edicts of Emperours but praetended by the Roman Court and the mainteiners thereof to be held by divine right I ēdevour in this Treatise to disabuse thee and to shew that this challenge of divine right is but a Blind or Diversion to withhold thee from finding out the true State of the Quaestion So the Hare makes her doubles and her iumpes before she come to her Forme to hinder Tracers from finding her out I demonstrate to thee that the true controversy is not concerning St. Peter we have no formed difference about St Peter nor about any point of faith but of interest and profit nor with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome and wherein it doth consist namely in these quaestions VVho shall conferre English Bishoprickes who shall convocate English Synods who shall receive tenths and first fruites and Oathes of Allegiance and Fidelity VVhether the Pope can make binding Lawes in England without the consent of the King and Kingdome or dispense with English Lawes at his owne pleasure or call English Subjects to Rome without the Princes leave or set up Legantine Courtes in England against their wills And this I shew not out of the opinions of Particular Authors but out of the publick Lawes of the Kingdome I prove moreover out of our fundamentall Lawes and the writings of our best Historiographers that all these branches of Papall power were abuses and innovations and usurpations first attempted to be introduced into England above eleven hundred yeares after Christ with the names of the Innovators and the praecise time when each innovation began and the opposition that was made against it by our Kings by our Bishops by our Peeres by our Parliaments with the groanes of the Kingdome under these Papall innovations and extortions Likewise in point of doctrine thou hast been instructed that the Catholick faith doth comprehend all those points which are controverted betvveene us and the Church of Rome vvithout the expresse beliefe vvhereof no Christian can be saved vvhereas in truth all these are but opinions yet some more dangerous then others If none of them had ever bene started in the vvorld there is sufficient to salvation for points to be believed in the Apostles Creed Into this Apostolicall faith professed in the Creed and explicated by the foure first Generall Councells and onely into this faith vve have all been baptised Farre be it from us to imagine that the Catholick Church hath evermore baptised and doth still baptise but into one half of the Christian faith In summe doest thou desire to live in the Communion of the true Catholick Church So do I. But as I dare not change the cognisance of my Christianity that is my Creed nor enlarge the Christian faith I meane the essentialls of it beyond those bounds vvhich the Apostles have set So I dare not to serve the interest of the Roman Court limit the Catholick Church vvhich Christ hath purchased vvith his blood to a fourth or a fifth part of the Christian vvorld Thou art for tradition So am I. But my tradition is not the tradition of one particular Church contradicted by the tradition of another Church but the universall and perpetuall tradition of the Christian vvorld united Such a tradition is a full proofe vvhich is received semper ubique ab omnibus alvvaies every vvhere and by all Christians Neither do I looke upon the oppositiō of an handfull of Heretickes they are no more being compared to the innumerable multitudes of Christians in one or two ages as inconsistent vvith universality any more then the highest mountains are inconsistent vvith the roundnesse of the earth Thou desirest to beare the same respect to the Church of Rome that thy Ancestours did So do I. But for that fullness of power yea coactive power in the exteriour Court over the subjects of other Princes and against their vvills devised by the Courte of Rome not by the Church of Rome it is that pernicious source from vvhence all these usurpations did spring Our Ancestours from time to time made Lavves against it and our reformation in pointe of discipline being rightly understood vvas but a pursueing of their steppes The true controuersy is vvhether the Bishop of Rome ought by divine right to have the externall Regiment of the English Church and coactive jurisdiction in English Courtes over English Subjects against the vvill of the King and the Lavves of the Kingdome SCHISME GARDED and beaten back upon the right owners Or A cleare and CIVIL ANSWER to the railing accusation of S. W. in his late Booke called SCHISME DISPAT'CHED Whatsoever S. W. alias Mr. Serjeant doth intimate to the contrary for he dare not cough out it is a most undeniable truth that no particular Church no not the Church of Rome it self is exempted from a possibility of falling into errours in faith When these errours are in Essentials of faith which are necessary to salvation necessitate medii they destroy the being of that Church which is guilty of them But if these errours be in inferiour points such as are neither absolutely necessary to Salvation to be known nor to be believed before they be known such an Erroneous Church erring without obstinacy and holding the truth implicitly in praeparatione animi may and doth still continue a true member of the Catholick Church and other coordinate Churches may and ought to maintein Communion with it not withstanding that they dissent in opinion But if one Church before a lawfull determination shall obtrude her own Errours or Opinions upon all other Churches as a necessary condition of her communion or after Determination shall obtrude doubtful opinions whether they be Erroneous or not as necessary Articles of Christian faith and so not onely explain but likewise enlarge the Ancient Creeds she becommeth Schismaticall As on the
otherside that Church which shall not oâ—twardly acquiesce after a legall Determination and cease to disturb Christian Vnity though her Iudgement may be sound yet her Practise is Schismaticall This is the very case betwixt the Churches of Rome and England Shee obtrudeth Doubtfull Opinions as Necessary Articles of faith and her own Errours as necessary conditions of Communion Which Mr. Serjeant everywhere misseth and misteth with his Praevarications I cannot more fitly resemble his Discourse then to a Winter Torrent Which aboundeth with Water when there is no need of it but in Summer when it Should be useful it is dried up So he is full of proofes which he miscalleth Demonstrations where there is no controversy between us and where the water sticks in deed he is as mute as a fish He taketh great paines te prove that the Catholick Church is infallible in such things as are necessary to Salvation Whom doth he strike He beateth but the aire Wee say the same But wee deny that his Church of Rome is this Catholick Church and that the Differences between us are in such things as are necessary to Salvation Here where he should Demonstrate if he could he favours him self He proveth that it is unreasonable to deny that or doubt of it which is received by the universall Tradition of the whole Christian World What is he seeking Surely he doth not seek the Question here in Earnest but as he who sought for an Hare under the Leads because he must seek her as well where she was not as where she was We confesse that writing addeth no new Authority to Tradition Divine Writings and Divine Tradition Apostolicall Writings and Apostolical traditions if they be both alike certain have the same authority And what greater certainty can be imagined then the Vniversall Attestation of the Catholick Symbolicall Church of Christ. But the right Controversy lyeth on the other hand Wee deny that the Tradition whereupon they ground their Opinions wherein wee and They dissent is universall either in regard of time or place He endeavoureth with Tooth and Nayle to establish the Roman Papacy Iure divino but for the extent of Papall power he leaveth it free to Princes commonwealths Churches Universities and particular Doctors to Dispute it and bound it and to be Judges of their own Privileges Yet the maine controversy I might say the onely necessary controversy between them and us is about the extent of Papall power as shall be seen in due place If the Pope would content himself with his exordium Vnitatis which was all that his primitive praedecessors had and is as much as a great part of his own Sons will allow him at this day wee are not so hard hearted and uncharitable for such an innocent Title or Office to disturb the peace of the Church Nor doe envy him such a preheminence among Patriarchs as S. Pieter had by the confession of his own party amoÌ„g the Apostles But this will not be accepted either he will have all or none patronages tenths first fruits investitures appeales legantine courts and in one word an absolute Soveraignty or nothing It is nothing unlesse he may bind all other Bishops to maintein his usurped Roialtâ—es under the pretensed name of Regalia Sancti Petri by an Oath contradictory to our old Oath of allegiance althoâ—gh all these encroachmeÌ„ts are directly destructive to the ancient lawes and liberties both of the British and English Churches So we have onely cast of his boundlesse TiraÌ„ny It is he and his Court who have deserted and disclaymed his own just regulated authority as appeareth by the right stating of the question But M. Serjeant lapwing like makes the most pewing and crying when he is furthest from his nest What he is I neither know nor much regard I conclude he is but a young divine because he himself stileth his Treatise the Prentisage of his Endeavours in controversy Pag 2. And is it not a great boldnesse for a single apprentice if he doe not shoot other mens bolts after he hath bestowed a little Rhetoricall Varnish upon them to take up the Bucklers against two old Doctors at once and with so much youthfull presumption of victory that his Titles sound nothing but disarming and dispatching and knocking down as if Caesars Motto I came I see I overcame were his Birthright He that is such a conquerour in his apprentisage what victoryes may not he promise himself wheÌ„ he is grown to be an experienced Master in his profession But let him take heed that his over daring doe not bring him in the conclusion to catch a Tartar that is in plaine English to lose himself The cause which he oppugneth is built upoÌ„ a rock though the wind bluster aÌ„d the waues beat yet it cannot fall I heare moreover by those who seem to know him that he was sometimes a Novice of our English Church who deserted his Mother before he knew her If it be so to doe he oweth a double account for Schism and one which he wil not claw of so easily And if no man had informed me I should have suspected so much of my self Wee find Strangers civill and courteons to us every where in our Exile except they be set on by some of our own but sundry of those who have run over from us proved violent and bitter Adversaries without any provocation as Mr. Serjeant for example I cannot include all in the same Guilt Whether it proceed from the Consciousnesse of their owne guilt in deserting us at this time especially or the Contentment to gaine Companions or fellow Proselites or they find it necessary to procure themselves to be trusted or it be injoyned to them by their Superiours as a Pollicy to make the Breach irreparable Or what else is the true reason I doe not determine But this wee all know that Fowlers doe not use to pursue those Birds with Clamour whith they have a desire to catch His manner of writing is petulant railing and full of Praevarication as if he had the gift to turn al he touched into Absurdities Calumnâ—es and Contradictions Sometimes in a good mode he acknowledgeth my poore labours to be a pattern of wit and industry and that there is much commendable in them At other times in his passion he maketh them to be absurd non sensicall ridiculous and every where contradictory to them selves and mee to be Worse then a Madman or born foole Good words If better were within better would come out Sometime he confesseth mee to be candid and downright and to speake plaine at other times he accuseth me for a falsifier and a Cheater without ingenuity A signe that he uttereth whatsoever commeth upon his tongues end without regard to truth or falshood If he can blow both hot and cold with the same Breath there is no great regard to be had of him The Spartans brought their Children to love Sobriety by shewing them the detestable Enormityes which their Servants committed being Drunken
become indifferent unconcerning Opinions because they are Negative I wish no more disparagement to any man then to be the authour of such an absurd assertion Either they are Fundamentall Articles or unconcerning Opinions How should they cease to be Articles which never were Articles That there is one God and one Saviour Iesus Christ that the life of the Saints is everlasting and the Fire of the devills Everlasting are Articles of Faith but every thing which may be deduced from these is not a distinct Article of Faith To the latter part of my plea that we tooke nothing away but weeds he pleadeth first that it is but a self supposition or a begging of the Question By his leave I have demonstrated that all the Branches of Papall power which are in controversy between them and us are all grosse Vsurpations and weeds which did never sprout up in the Church of England untill after 1100 yeares no man can say without shame that such were planted by Christ or his Apostles Secondly he excepteth that to take away Errours is a requisite act af Iustice not a proofe of Moderation On the contrary therefore it is a proofe of Moderation because it is a requisite Act of Iustice all virtue consisteth in the meane or in a moderation It is not his particular pretended supposititious Tradition which doth secure us that Christ was and that the Holy Scripture is the Genuine word of God but the Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition of the Catholick Church of Christ. My last proofe of our Moderation was that we are ready in the preparation of our minds to believe and practice whatsoever the Catholick Church of this present Age doth believe and practice And this is an infallible preservative to keep a man within the Pale of the Church whosoever doth this Cordially cannot possibly be a formall Heretick or Schismatick because he is invincibly ignorant of his Heresy or Schisme No man can have iust cause to seperate his Communion a Communione orbis Terrarum from the Communion of the Christian world If he would have confuted this his way had been to have proposed something which the Christian World united doth believe or practise which wee are not ready to believe or Practice This he doth not so much as attempt to doe but barketh and raileth without rime or reason First he telleth us we say that there is no Vniversall Church Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy wherein we pray dayly that God will inspire the Vniversall Church with the Spirit of Truth Vnity and Concord He telleth us that they doe not doubt but we have renounced our Creed Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy wherein we make profession dayly of the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds He telleth us that we have renounced our reason If he had said onely that we had lost our reason it is more then any man in his right wits would say but to say we have renounced our reason is incredible The reason of all this is because we give no certein Rule to know a true Church from an Hereticall He supposeth that no Hereticall Church is a true Church The Bishop of Chalcedon may instruct him better that an Hereticall Church is a true Church whilest it erreth invincibly He saith that he hath lived in Circumstances to be as well acquainted with our Doctrin as most men are Yet he professeth that if his life were at stake be could not Determine absolutely upon our Constant Grounds VVhether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the Vniversall Church or no. The nearer relation that he hath had to the Church of England the more shame for him to scoffe so often at the supposed Nakednesse of his Mother and to revile her so virulently without either ground or Provocation which gave him his Christian being He hath my Charitable Iudgement of Presbyterians in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle And for the other Sects it were much better to have a little patience and suffer them to dye of themselves then trouble the world so much about them they were produced in a Storme and will dye in a Calme He may be sure they will never molest him at any Councell either Generall or Occidentall It is honour enough for them to be named in earnest by a Polemick writer But what manner of Disputing is this to bring Questions in stead of Arguments As what new Form of Discipline the Protestants have introduced What are the certain Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell What is the Vniversall Church and of what particular Churches it doth consist What are the notes to know a true Church from an Hereticall We have introduced no new discipline but reteined the old Our Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell are the same they were not altogether so rigorously exacted in case of invincible necessity We are readier to give an account of ourselves then to censure others either to intrude ourselves into the Office of God to distinguish perfectly formall Schismaticks from materiall Or into the Office of the Catholick Church to determine precisely who ought to be excluded from her Communion who not We exclude all those whom undoubted Generall Councells have excluded the rest we leave to God and to the determination of a free Councell as Generall as may be But because I would not leave him unsatisfied in any thing I am contented to admit their own Definition of the Vniversall Church That is the Company of Christians knit together by the profession of the same faith and the Communion of the same Sacraments under the Government of lawfull Pastours Taking away that purple patch which they have added at the latter end of it for their own Interest And especially of the Roman Bishop as the onely Vicar of Christ upon Earth And if they had stinted at a Primacy of Order or beginning of unity I should not have excepted against it He objecteth that Protestants have no grounds to distinguish true believers from false That were strange indeed whilest we have the same Scriptures interpreted by the same perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church according to the same Analogy of Faith wherein we give this honour to the Fathers not to be Authours but witnesses of Tradition whatsoever grounds they have to distinguish true believers from false we have the same But because I made the Apostles Creed to be the rule of Faith he objecteth First then the Puritans who deny the Article of Christs descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the Vniversall Church If they be so what is that to the Church of England if they be turned out yet let them be heard first They plead that the manner of Christs descent is not particularly determined but let it be determined or not they ought to be turned out of the Vniversall Church by a Generall Councell and it may be they will submit to the Authority of a Generall
phantastick Persons who have been great pretenders to demonstration but always succeslesse and for the most part ridiculous They are so conceitedly curious about the premisses that commonly they quite mistake their conclusion Causes encombred with Circumstances and those left to the election of free agents are not very capable of demonstration The Case in difference between us is this as it is stated by me Whether the Church of England have withdrawn themselves from Obedience to the Vicar of Christ and seperated from the Communion of the Catholick Church And upon those Termes it is undertaken by him in the words immediatly following And that this Crime is justly charged upon his Church not onely with Colour but with undeniable Evidence of fact will appeare by the position of the Case and the nature of his exceptions We have the State of the Controversy agreed upon between us Now let us see how he goeth about to prove his intention What Church soever did upon probable reasons without any neeessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches is guilty of Schisme But the Church of England in Henry the eightâ—s dayes did upon probable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches therefore the church of England is guilty of Schisme I doe readily assent to his Major proposition and am ready to grant him more if he had pleased to insert it That that Church is Schismaticall which doth breake the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in his Gospell whatsoever their reasons be whether convincing or probable and whosoever doe either consent to them or dissent from them But I deny his Minor which he endeavoureth to prove thus Whatsoever Church did renounce or reject these two following Rules or Principles first that The doctrines which had been inherited from their Forefathers as the Legacyes of Christ and his Apostles were solely to be acknowledged for Obligatory and nothing in them to be changed Secondly that Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this World and to whom all others in difficulties concerning Matters belonging to Universall faith or Government should have recoâ—rse and that the Bishops of Rome as Successors from St. Peter inherited from him this privilege in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles That Church did breake the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in his Gospell and agreed upon between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and the rest of her communion But the Church of England did all this in Henry the eyghts dayes that very yeare where in this unhappy Separation began upon meerly probable no convincing grounds Therefore c. To his former Proposition I made this exception That he would obtrude upon us she Church of Rome and its dependents for the Catholick Church Uppon this he flyeth out as it is his Custome into an invective discourse telling me I looke a squint at his position of the case He will not find it so in the conclusion And that I strive Hocus-pocus like to divert my Spectators eyes With a great deale more of such like froath where in there is not a syllable to the purpose except this that he did not mention the word Catholick in that place The greater was his fault It is a foule Solecisme in Logick not to conclude contradictorily I did mention the Catholick Church in the State of the Question Whether the church of England had separated it self from the communion of the Catholick Church And he had undertaken in the words immediatly following to charge that very Schisme upon us with undeniable Evidence And in his very first Essay shuffles out the Catholick Church and in the place thereof thrusts in the Church of Rome with all the rest of her communion He might have known that wee doe not looke upon the Church of Rome with all the rest of her Communion as the Catholick Church Nor as above a fifth part of the present Catholick Church And that wee doe not ascribe any such in fallibility in necessary truths to the Roman Church with all her dependants as wee doe to the true Catholick Church Nor esteem it alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the modern Roman Church Namely in those points wherein shee had first seperated both from the primitive Roman Church and from the present Catholick Church But wee confesse it to be alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the Communion of the Catholick Church united Thus much he ought to take notice of and when he hath oecasion hereafter to write upon this Subject not to take it for granted as they use to doe that the Catholick Church and the Roman Church are convertible Termes or tell us a Tale of a Tub what their Tenet is that these Churches which continue in Communnion with the Roman are the onely true Churches We regard not their Schismaticall and uncharitable Tenets now no more then we regarded the same tenets of the donatists of old They must produce better authority then their Owne and more substantiall proofes then he hath any in his Budget to make us believe that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church It is charity to acknowledge it to be a Catholick church inclusively but the greatest uncharitablenesse in the world to make it the Catholick church exclusively that is to seperate from Christ and from hope of Salvation as much as in them lieth all Christians who are not of their own communion Howsoever it is well that they who used to vaunt that the Enemy trembled at the name of the Catholick church are now come about themselves to make the Catholick Church to be an appendix to the Roman Take notice Reader that this is the first time that Mr. Serjeant turns his back to the question but it will not be the last My next taâ—ke is to examine his two Rules or Bonds of Unity And first concerning his Rule of faith I doe not onely approve it but thanck him for it and when I have a purpose to confute the 12 new Articles of Pius the fourth I will not desire a better medium then it And I doe Cordially subscribe to his Censure that the Transgressors there of are indeed those who are truly guilty of that horrid Schisme which is now in the Christian world To his second Rule or principle for Government that Christ made Sâ— Peter First or Chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the church after he departed out of this world to whom all others should have recourse in greater Difficulties If he had not been a meer Novice and altogether ignoranâ— of the Tenets of our English Church he might have known that wee have no controversy
fourth Custome was this that when an Arch Bishoprick Bishoprick Abbacy or Priory did fall void the Election was to be made by such of the Principall Dignitaryes or Members of that respective Church which was to be filled as the king should call together for that purpose with the kinges consent in the kings own Chappell And there the person elected was to doe his Homage and Fealty to the King as to his Liege Lord The Pope had no part to Act neither to collate nor consent nor confirm nor Institute nor induct nor ordeine The Second Law is the Statute of Carlile made in the time of Edward the First The summe of it is this That the king is the Founder of all Bishopricks and ought to have the Custody of them in the Vacancyes and the right of Patronage to present to them And that the Bishop of Rome usurping the Right of Patronage giveth them to aliens That this tendeth to the annullation of the State of holy Church to the Disinheriting of Kings and the Destruction of the Realm And they ordained in full Parliament that this is an Oppression that is as much as an entroachment or Vsurpation and should not be suffered The third law was made in the 15th yeare of Edward the third called the Statute of Provisors wherein they affirm that Elections were First granted by the Kings Progenitors upon a certain form or Condition to demand Licenfe of the King to chuse and after the Election to have his Royall Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to resort to his First nature And there fore conclude that in case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch Bishoprick c. Our Soveraign Lord the King and his Heirs shall have and enjoy the Collations for the same time to the said Arch Bishopricks Bishopricks and other dignityes Elective which be of his Aavowre such as his Progenitors had before the free Election was granted They tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Land is such that the King is bound to make remedyes and Lawes against such mischiefes And they acknowledge that he is Advowée Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benifices which are of the Advowry of holy Church That is as much as Soveraign Patron of the Church Where no Election can be made without the Kings Congé d' Estire or leave antecedent nor stand good without his subsequent consent it is all one as if the Crown did Collate I come next to the second Branch of the First Question about the Patronage of the Church Who hath power to Convocate and Dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and whether the Crown or the Pope have usurped one upon another in this particular I cannot tell whether Henry the eighth or Paul the third did mistake more about that Aiery title of the head of the english church Henry the eight supposing that the right to convocate and dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and to receive Tenths and First fruits did esseÌ„tially follow this Title And Paul the third declaringe it to be Hereticall and Schismaticall To be head of the English Church is neither more nor lesse then our Lawes and Histories ancient and Modern doe every where ascribe to our English Kings To be Governers of Christians To be the Advocates of the Church To be Patrons and Advowées Paramont of all Churches To be Defenders of the Faâ—h there Professed And to use the Words of the Convocation it self Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectores singulares Vnicos Supremos Dominos The same body may have severall heads of severall kinds upon Earth as Politicall and Ecclesiasticall and then that which takes care of the Archirectonicall end to see that every member doe his Duty is alwayes Supreme That is the Politicall head This truth Cardinall Poole did see clearly enough and reconcile the seeming difference by distinguishing between a Regall head and a Sacerdotall head This truth the French Divines see wel enough and doubt not to call their King the Terrene head of the Church of his Realme without attributing to him any Sacerdotall right Wee had our Sacerdotall heads too in EnglaÌ„d without seeking for theÌ„ so far as Rome As the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reigns of our English Monarchs who of old was Nullius unquam Legati ditioni subjectus Never subject to the Iurisdiction of any Legate When the Pope sent over Guy Archbishop of Vienna into England as his Legate throughout Britaigne for the Apostolicall See It was received with wonder and Admiration of all men Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Episcopum Cantuariae All men did know that it was never heard in Britagne that any Man whatsoever had Apostolicall power over them but onely the Archbishop of Canterbury And accordingly the new Legate did speed so it followeth Wherefore as he came so he returned received as Legate by no man nor having exercised any part of his Legantine power This was the ground of that Letter of the English Bishops to the Pope That the Church of Canterbury might not be deprived of its dignity in his times and that he would neither Diminish it him self nor suffer it to be diminished As appeareth by the Popes acknowledgment in his answer But to come up close to the Difference The Question is not whether â—he Bishop of Rome have Authority to call Synods He is a Bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Prince in his own Dominions As a Bishop he may Convocate his Diocesse As a Metropolitan his Province As a Patriarch his Patriarchate under the pain of Ecclesiasticall Censure more or lesse compulsory according to that Degree of Coactive power which hath been indulged to him in these Distinct Capacities by former Soveraigns And as a Prince he may convocate his Subjects under Politicall paines The more these two powers are united and complicated the more terrible is the Censure And therefore our kings would have their Bishops denounce spirituall paines also against the Violaters of their great Charters Spirituall paiues are more heauy then Politicall but Politicall most commonly are more speedy then Spirituall And more certain Spirituall paines doe not follow an erring Key but Politicall doe Neither will I dispute at praesent whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or Beginning of Unity may lawfully call an Oecumenicall or Occidentall Councell by power purely Spirituall which consists rather in Advise then in Mandates properly so called or in Mandates of Courtesy not Coactive in the Exteriour Court of the Church considering the Division and Subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present Distractions of Christendome it seemeth not altogether in convenient Wee see the Primitive Fathers did Assemble Synods and â—ake Canons before there were any christian Emperours but that was by aurhority meerly spirituall they
is the Keeper of both the Tables and wee say that for the first Table the Bishops ought to be his Interpreters Thirdly as wee question not the Popes legislative or coactive power over his own subjects so we submit to the judgemeÌ„t of the Catholick church whether he ought to have a primacy of order as the successour of S. Peter and as a consequent thereof a right if he would content himself with it to summoÌ„ Councells when and where there are no Christian Soveraignes to doe it and to joyne with other Bishops in making spirituall Lawes or Canons such as the Apostles made and such as the primitive Bishops made before there were christiaÌ„ Emperours But then those Canons are the Lawes of the Church not of the Pope As those Canons in the Acts of the Apostles were the Lawes of the Apostolicall College The Apostles and Elders and Brethren not the Lawes of S. Peter Then their Lawes have no Coactive Obligation to compell Christians in the outward Court of the Church against their Wills or further then they are pleased to submit theÌ„selves All exteriour coactive power is from the Soveraigne Prince and therefore when and where Emperours and Kings are Christians to them it properly belongeth to summon Councells and to confirm their Canons thereby making them become lawes Because Soveraign Princes onely have power to License and Command their Subjects to Assemble to assign fit places for their Assembling to protect them in their Assemblyes and to give a Coactive power to their Lawes without which they may doe their best to drive away Wolves and to oppose Heriticks but it must be with such Armes as Christ had furnished them withall that is persuasions Prayers Teares and at the most seperating them from the Communion of the faithfull and leaving them to the Iudgement of Christ. The Controversy is then about new upstart Papall Lawes either made at Rome such are the decretalls of Gregory the ninth Boniface the eighth Clement the fifth and succeeding Popes Or made in England by Papall Legates as Otho and Othobone Whether the Pope or his Legates have power to make any such Lawes to bind English Subjects and compell them to obey them against their Wills the King of England contradicting it The first time that ever any Canon of the Bishop of Rome or any legislative Legate of his was attempted to be obtruded upon the King or Church of England was eleven hundred yeares after Christ. The first Law was the Law against taking Investitures to Bishopricks from a Lay hand And the first Legate that ever presided in an English Synod was Iohannes Cremensis of both which I have spoken formerly Observe Reader and be astonished if thou hast so much faith to believe it That the Pope should pretend to a legislative power over British and English Subjects by divine right and yet never offer to put it in execution for above eleven hundred yeares It remaineth now to prove evidently that Henry the eighth by his Statute made for that purpose did not take away from the Bishop of Rome any Privilege which he and his Predecessors had held by Inheritance from St. Peter and been peaceably possessed of for fifteen hundred yeares But on the contrary that eleven hundred yeares after St. Peter was dead the Bishops of Rome did first invade the right of the Crown of England to make Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church which the Predecessors of Henry the eighth had enjoyed peaceably untill the dayes of William Rufus nemine contradicente And that the Kings Lawes were evermore acknowledged to be true Lawes and obligatory to the English Subjects but that the Popes decrees were never esteemed to be binding Lawes in England except they were incorporated in to our Lawes by the King and Church or Kingdome of England Whence it followeth by irrefragable consequence that Henry the eighth was not the Schismatick in this particular but the Pope and those that maintain him or adhere to him in his Vsurpations First for the Kings right to make Lawes not onely concerning the outward RegimeÌ„t of the Church but even coÌ„cerning the Keys of Order and jurisdiction so far as to oblige them who are trusted with that power by the Church to doe their dutyes it is so evident to every one who hath but cast his Eyes upon our English Lawes that to bestow labour on proving it were to bring Owles to Athens Their Lawes are extant made in all Ages concerning faith and good Manners Heresy Holy Orders the Word the Sacraments Bishops Priests Monkes the Privileges and Revenues of Holy Church Marriages Divorces Simony The Pope his SenteÌ„ces his oppressions and usurpations Prohibitions Appeales from Eeclesiasticall judges and generally all things which are of Ecclesiasticall Cognifance and this in those times which are acknowledged by the Romanists themselves to have been Catholick More then this they inhibited the Popes own Legate to attempt to decree any thing contrary to the Kings Crown and dignity And if they approved the decrees of the Popes Legates they confirmed them by their Royall Authority and so incorporated them into the Body of the English Lawes Secondly that the Popes decrees never had the force of Lawes in England without the Confirmation of the King Witnesse the decrees of the Councell of Lateran as they are commonly called but it is as cleare as the day to any one who readeth the eleveÌ„th the six and fortieth and the one and sixtieth Chapters that they were not made by the Councell of Lateran but some time after perhaps not by InnoceÌ„t the third but by some succeeding Pope For the author of them doth distinguish himself expresly from the Councell of Lateran It was well provided in the Councell of Lateran c. But because that statute is not observed in many Churches we confirming the foresaid statute doe adde c. Again It is known to have been prohibited in the councel of Lateran c. But we inhibiting the same moro strongly c. How soever they were the Popes decrees but never were received as Lawes in England as wee see evidently by the third Chapter That the Goods of Clergimen being convicted of Heresy be forfeited to the Church That all Officiers Secular and Ecclesiasticall should take an Oath at their Admission into their Office to their power to purge their Territories from Heresy That if a Temporall Lord did neglect being admonished by the Church to purge his Lands from Heresy he should be excommunicated And if he contemned to satisfy within a yeare the Pope should absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance And by the three and fortieth Chapter That no Ecâ—â—â—siasticall person be compelled to swear allegiance to a Lay man And by the six and fortieth Chapter that Ecclesiasticall persons be free from taxes Wee never had any such Lawes all Goods forfeited in that kind were ever confiscated to the King We never had any such Oaths Every one is to answer for himself We know
as inferiour truths to those who are under their Iurisdiction nor the obliging of their Subjects not to oppose their Determinations for peace and tranquilities sake but the adding of new Articles or Essentialls to the Creed with the same Obligation that the old Apostolicall Articles had to be believed under pain of Damnation Either all these 12 new Articles which were added to the Creed by Pius the Fourth were implicitly or virtually comprehended in the 12 old Articles of the Apostles and may be deduced from them by necessary Consequence the contrary where of is evident to all men or it is appareâ— that Pius the 4. hath corrupted the Creed and changed the Apostolicall Faith He might even as well let our 39. Articles alone for old acquaintance sake Dissuenda non dissecanda est amtcitia as to bring them upon the Stage and have nothing to say against them Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed some others of them are practicall truths which come not within the proper list of points or Articles to be believed lastly some of them are pious opinions or inferiour truths which are proposed by the Church of England to all her Sonnes as not to be opposed not as Essentialls of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians Necessitate medii under pain of damnation If he could charge us with this as we do them he said something The Nicene Constantinopolitan Ephesian Chalcedonian and Atbanasian Creeds are but Explications of the Creed of the Apostles and are still called the Apostles Creed He will not for shame say that Pius the fourths Creed is onely an Explication of the Apostles Creed which hath 12. new distinct Articles added at the Foot of the 12. old Articles of the Apostles I doe not say that there can be no new Heresy but what is against some point found in the Creed I know that as there are some Errours heretical in their own nature so there are other Errours which become hereticall meerly by the Obstinacy of them who hold them Yet if I had said so I had said no more then some Fathers say and sundry of their own Authors Neque ulla unquam exit it heresis quae non hoc Symbolo damnart poâ—uerit There was never any Heresy which might not be condemned by this Creed And so he may see clearly if he will that it was no incomparable straine of weaknesse nor self contradicting absurdity nor nonsense as he is pleased to Vapour to charge them with changing the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles by the Addition of new Essentialls of Faith I will conclude this point with the excellent Iudgement of Vincentius Lirinensis Peradventure some man will say shall there be no growth of the Religion of Christ in the Church Yes very much but so that it be a growth of Faith not a change Let it increase but onely in the same kind the same Articles the same sense the same Sentences Let the Religion of soules imitate the manner of bodies c. The members of infants are little young mens great yet they are the same Children have as many joints as men c. But if any thing be added to or taken from the number of the members the body must of necessiâ—y perish or become monstrous or be enfeebled so it is meet that Christian Religion doe follow these Lawes of Proficiency c. But now he brings a rapping Accusation against me charging me with four falsifications in one sentence and then concludes triumphantly Goe thy wayes brave Bishop If the next Synod of Protestants doe not Canonise thee for an Interpreter of Councells they are false to their best interests Who so bold as blind Bayard Here is a great deale more Cry then Wooll But let us examin these great falsifications my words were these The Question is onely who have changed that doctrin or this Disciplin we or they we by Substraction or they by Addition The Case is cleare The Apostles contracted this Doctrin into a Summary that is the Creed the Primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer Explication Then follow the words which he excepteth against The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession It is strange indeed to find four falsifications in two short lines but to find four falsifications where there is not one sillable cited is altogether impossible I relate as of my self what the Councell of Ephesus did I cite no Authority at all neither in the â—â—ext nor in the Margent nor put one word into a different Character His pen is so accustomed to overreach beyond all aime that he cannot help it A Scotch man would take the Liberty to tell him that he is very good Company The truth is I did forbear to cite it because I had cited it formerly in my answer to Monsieur Militier where he might have found it if he had pleased That it should be lawfull for no man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed then that which was defined by the Nicene Councell And that whosoever should dare to compose or offer any such to any persons willing to bâ— converâ—ed from Paganisme Iudaisme or Heresy if they should be Bishops or Clerkes should be deposed if Laymen Anathematised If he can find any Falsification in this let him not spare it but to find four falsifications where not one word was cited was impossible In a word to deale plainly with him his fâ—ur pretended Falsifications are a silly senslesse ridiculous Cavill To cleare this it is necessary to consider that this word Faith in holy Scripture Councells and Fathers is taken ordinarily for the Obâ—ect of Faith or for the summe of things to be believed that is the Creed and so it is taken in this very place of the Councell of Ephesus and cannot be taken otherwise for it is undeniable that that Faith which was defined published and composed by the Nicene Fathers was the Nicene Creed or the Creed of the Apostles explicated by the Nicene Fathers Secondly we must consider that the Catholick Church of Christ from the very Infancy of Christian Religion did never admit any person to Baptisme in an ordinary way but it required of them a free profession of the Creed or Symbolicall Faith either by themselves or by their sureties if they were Infants and so did baptise them in that Faith This was the practise of the Apostolicall Church this was that good profession which Timothy made before many witnesses This was the universall practise in the Primitive Church and continued ever since untill this day Abrenuncâ—as Abrenuncio Credis Credo Dost thou renounce the Devill and all his workes I do renounce them Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty c. All this I stedfastly believe Wilt thou be baptised in this Faith It is my desire This baptisticall profession which he ignorantly laugheth
Councells which St. Gregory honoured next to the foure Gospells This is one of those Councells which every succeeding Pope doth sweare solemnly to observe to the least tittle I hope the Pope hath a better Opinion of it then he at least for his Oaths sake Good Reader observe what Clusters of Forgeries this great Censurer hath repacked together in the compasse of a few Lines I need to cite no other Authority to convince him but the very Acts of the Councell Remember whilest thou livest to distrust such Authors First he saith This was no free Act most falsly the Bishops all owned it as their free Act by their Subscriptions and by their Testimonies before the Iudges Secondly he saith the Clergy of Constantinople extorted it with tumultuous importunity most falsly for it had been once decreed before in the free generall Councell of Constantinople and then the Clergy of Constantinople did intreat the Popes Legates to be present at the first debate of it but they refused and when the said Legates alleged in Councell that the Fathers were forced they all unanimously testified against theÌ„ Nemo coactus est Thirdly he saith it was voted after most of the Fathers were departed and onely those of the party of Constantinople left most falsly the Fathers were forbidden to depart and three of the Proto-patriarchs with their subordinate Bishops determined it and subscribed the first day Fourthly he saith it was disavowed by the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him most falsly for the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him did ratify it aÌ„d subscribe it in Councell Fifthly he saith No Patriarch of Alexandria was there Good reason For there was none in being the See being vacant by the turning out of Dioscorus Though this be not so false as the rest yet it is as deceitfull as the worst of them Sixthly he saith the Alexandrian Metropolitans and Bishops refused to subscribe it They did not refuse to subscribe it but they requested the Councell that because it was their Custome to subscribe nothing untill first it was subscribed by their Patriarch that the Subscription might be deferred untill they had a new Patriarch chosen and they themselves were contented to stay in Chalcedon untill this was effected Now Iudgâ— freely Reader whether this man do not deserve a whetstone That which followeth concerning Immediate Tradit on is but one of his Ordinary Meanders or an improper Repetition of an heap of vntruths and uncertainties blundred together to no purpose without any proofe That the Tradition of all Churches of the Roman Communion is necessarily an Vniversall Tradition That onely those Churches of the Roman Communion do adhere to the rule of Tradition and all other Churches have renounced it That all those who differ from the Church of Rome did never pretend immediate Tradition for those points wherein they differ from it are so many grosse untruths That the very same which is delivered by some Christian Parents to their Children is delivered by all Christian Parents after the same manner That whatsoever is delivered by Christian Parents of this Age is necessarily derived from the Apostles by au uninterrupted Succession And that externall Vnity doth necessarily imply an Identity of Tradition Are contingent uncertainties which may be true or may be false His reason that it is impossible for the beginners of a Novelty to pretend that their immediate Fathers had taught them that which the whole World sees they did not is absurd and impertinent and may serve equally to both parties First it is absurd and Contrary to the Sense of the whole World Wee see dayly by experience that there are Innovations in Doctrine and Discipline and both parties pretend to ancient and immediate Tradition he might as well tell us Nil intâ—a est oleum nil extra est in Nuce duri The Arrians pretended to immediate Tradition as well as the Orthodox Christians Secondly it is impertinent Changes in Religion are neither so suddain nor so visible as he imagineth but are often made by degrees in tract of Time at leisure insensibly undiscernibly An Errour comes first to be a Common Opinion then a pious Doctrin lastly a point of faith but seldome do Errours appeare at first in their own shape Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis umbrâ A beginning of Vnity in time may grow to be a Soveraignty of power Investitures were taken away from Kings for feare of Simony and this feare of Simony before the wheele had done running produced the most sublimated Art of Simony that ever was devised Who would or could have suspected that those huge Cryes for free Liberty of Election should have ended in Papall Provisions or the Exemption of Clergymen from their Allegiance to their native Prince have been an Introduction to a â—ew Oath of Allegiance to a Forrain Prelate The subjection of the Emperours to the Popes began with Pictures proceeded to Poetry and ended in down right Maxims of Theology There hath alway been a Mystery of Iniquity as well as a Mystery of Piety the Tares were sown whilest men slept and were not presently discerned It is not I who have changed faith into opinion My faith is the very same that alwaies was professed throughout the Christian World by every Christian at his Baptisme and comprehended in the ancient creed of the Church But it is they who have changed Opinion into faith when Pius the fourth metriculated 12. new Opinions among the ancicient articles of the creed Let them be probable or pious or erroneous or what you will I am sure they are but Opinions and consequently no Articles of faith I said such Opinions of an inferiour Nature are not so necessary to be known He asketh Whether they be necessary or no If they be not necessary why do I grant them to be necessary by saying they are not so necessary If they be necessary why call I them but Opinions Doth he know no distinction of things necessary to be known that some things are not so necessary as other Something 's are necessary to be known necessitate medii to obtain Salvation Something 's are necessary to be known onely necessitate Precepti because they are Commanded and they may be Commanded by God or Man the latter are not so necessary as the former Something 's are absolutely necessary to be known by all Men Some other things are onely by some Men Art thon a Master in Israell and knowest not these things Something 's are enjoined to be held onely for Peace sake those are not so necessary to be known as the Commandements or the Sacraments or the Articles of the Creed The Popes infallibility in his definitions of faith is but an Opinion and yet they hold it necessary The Superiority of a Generall Councell above the Pope was a necessary Opinion in the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile and now the Contrary Opinion is fere de Fide almost an Article
he peradventure never read it But what doth he thinke of the Councells of Constance and Basile who professe themselves every where to be qualified to reform the Church tam in Capite quam in membris as well in the head as in the members They escape fairly if he doe not censure them as Protestants for they were great Reformers and they were no great Papists placing the Soveraign power under Christ in the Church and not in the first Mover I might well call the Reformation in Henry the eights time their Reformation the Papists Reformation rather then ours if the Reformers were more Papists then Protestants as it most evident I pressed him that if the Renunciation of the Bishop of Romes absolute vniversall Monarchy by Christs own Ordination be the essence of a Protestant then the Primitive Church were all Protestants He answereth it is flatsy false I am contented to be silent for the present but when time serveth it may be made appeare to be flatly true and that all that the Primitive Fathers did attribute to the Bishop of Rome was no more them a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity and that an absolute Monarchy by Christ Ordination is absolutely repugnant to the Primitive Discipline I proceeded then all the Graecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants this day He answereth that it it is partly true and partly false and serveth onely to prove that the Protestants have fellow Schismaticks And why partly true and partly false when all the world seeth that all these Churches doe disown and disclaime the Popes Monarchy This is just the old condemned Tenet of the Schismaticall Donatists who did most uncharitably limit the Catholick Church to their own Party excluding all others from hope of Salvation as the Romanists doe now The best is we must stand or fall to our owne Master But by this means they have lost one of the notes of their Church that is multitude for they exclude three or four times more Christians out of the Communion of the Catholick Church then they admit into it I proceeded yet higher then we want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self His answer is that to speake moderately it is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility for whosoever renounceth the Substance of the Popes Authority and his being head of the Church becomes totally disunited from the Church Good words His groundworke is to weake to support the weight of such an heavy accusation A Primacy of Order implyeth an headship as well as Supremacy of power neither is it destitute of all power It hath some power essentially annexed to it to congregate sub paena purè spirituali to propose to give sentence according to the votes of the College It may have an accessary power to execute the Canons according to the Constitutions of Councells and Imperiall Sanctions and Confirmations But all this commeth far short of that headship which he asserteth a Soveraign Monarchicall Headship of absolute power above the whole Church by Christs Ordination This is that Headship which he mainteineth against me every where This is that Headship which the Primitive Church never acknowledged This is that Headship which the Grecians Russians Armenians Abyssines and the Church of England renounce at this day This is that Headship which many of his own Communion who live in the bosome of the Roman Church do not believe as the Councells of Constance and Basile and Pisa the Schoole of Sorbon and very many others every where who do all reject it some more some lesse The maine difference and almost the whole difference between him and me is concerning Coactive power in the Exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes against their wills this is so far from being vniversaly believed throughout all places of the Roman Communion that it is practically received in few or no places further then it seemeth expedient to Soveraign Princes If the Pope himself did believe that he had such an absolute Soveraignty of Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination to him and his Successors How could he alienate it from his Successors almost wholy to the Princes of Sicily and to their Heirs for ever within that Kingdome Or how could the Princes retein it If the King and Kingdome of France did believe that the Pope had such an absolute Monarchicall power in the Exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination how could the King of France forbid the Popes Legates without his License or restrain their Legantine Commissions by his Parliaments or sweare them to act nothing contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church and to cease to execute their Commissions whēsoever the King and Kingdome should prohibit them or reject Papall decrees further then they are received in that Kingdome Or if the Councell of Brabant did believe it how could they forbid the Subjects to repaire to Rome out of their own Country upon the Popes Summons All men know that there is no Privilege or Prescription against Christs own Ordination Qui pauca considerat facile pronunciat This is ever the end of his Contradictions Lastly he Chargeth me for omitting to answer to his reason that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantisme Truly I neither did nor do hold it worth answering Cannot he distinguish between the whole Essence of any thing and one Essentiall He might as well affirm that he who believeth but one Article of his Creed is a Christian. This requireth no great skill to explicate it but I have remitted this Controversy to the Reader as fittest for his determination Sect. III. That Henry the 8. made no new Law But onely vindicated the ancient Liberties of England CHristian Reader thou hast seen hitherto how Mr. Serjeant hath failed altogether to make good his pretensions and in stead of those great mountains of Absurdities and falsifications and Contradictions which he promised hath produced nothing worthy of so weighty a cause or an ingenious Schollar but his own wilfull ridiculous mistakes We are now come to his third Section wherein thou maiest see this young Phaeton mounted in his Triumphant Chariot driving the poore Bishop as a Captive before him now expect to see him tumbling down headlōg with a fall answerable to his height of pride and insolence He professeth himself willing to stand to the Award of the most partiall Protestant living who hath so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Suns shining at noone day or that the same thing cannot both be and not be at once If after this lowd confident bragge he be not able to make any thing good that is of weight against me he hath forfeited either his Iudgement or his ingenuity and deserveth not to be a writer of Controversies I need no partiall Iudges but appeale to the indifferent Reader of what communion soever he be he needeth but to compare my Vndication his Answer my Reply his Rejoinder and my
the Lawes and histories of his native Country If he had perused them diligently he might have observed how the Court of Rome and Crown of England were long upon their Gards watching one another and the one or the other gained or lost mutually according to the Vigour of their present Kings or Popes or according to the exigence of the times His seventh Objection that the like Lawes to ours in England were made in the Papacy it self but those could not be against the Popes Headship of the Church and his tenth Objection that then there never was a Papist Country in the world because equivaleÌ„t Lawes to ours were made in France Spaine Italy Sicily Gormany Poland c and his answer to my demand what law full Iurâ—sdiction could remaine to the Pope in England where such and such Lawes had force The same that remaines still to him in France Spaine Italy where the like lawes are in force in his last paragraph are a dish of unsavoury mushromes all sprung up from his own negligent mistake or wilfull Falsification let him chuse whether he will in confounding the Lawes of Mortmain with the other Lawes against the Popes Vsurpations Which I distinguished exactly both at the beginning of that discourse the Statute of Mortmain justified and at the Conclusion But to leave this Digression But besydes this grosse errour there want not other inconsequences and fallacies in his discourse as in his seventh Objection from the Popes particular Headship of his own Church to an Vniversall Headship over the Catholick Church and from an Headship of order to a Monarchicall Headship of power and in his tenth Objection from like lawes to the same Lawes from Lawes made to Lawes duely observed We had Lawes made against Non-conformists in England will he conclude thence that we have no Non-conformists in England the Argument would hold better the Contrary way Ex malis moribus bonae leges And in his last Paragraph from Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court to Iurisdiction purely Spirituall in the Court of Conscience and from Coactive Iurisdiction with the leave of the Prince to the same without Leave Wee see all Roman Catholick Countries doe stint the Popes Coactive Iurisdiction over their Subjects more or lesse according to their severall Liberties which they could not doe at all if he held it by Christs own Ordination His eighth Objection that upon this new Law made by Henry the eighth England stood at another distance then formerly from Rome is a Fallacy non causae pro causa when a false cause is assigned for a true cause Our just Lawes are not the right cause of our distance from Rome but the Popes unjust Censures and that Character which some of our Countrimen give of us But this distance is greater among the Populacy then between the Estates who do not much regard the Popes Censures either in making or observing of Leagues To his ninth Objection in his order and his last in my order that this Posiâ—â—on takes away the Question and makes all the Controvertists in England on both sides talke in the aire because it makes the Pope to have had no Authority there to be cast out I answer I wish it did but it doth not The Pope had Authority there and Authority usurped fit to be cast out notwithstanding our former good Lawes But yet I must confesse this Position doth much change the Question from spirituall Iurisdiction in the inner Court to Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court and makes him and many other such Controvertists talk in the aire who dispute onely about Headships and First Moverships when the true Controversy lieth in point of Interest and profit Sect. 4. That the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrein Iurisdiction for the first six hundred years and so ought to continue After I had shewed the Equality of the Apostles except onely a Priority of Order and that the Supremacy of power did not rest in any single Apostolicall College that Nationall Patriarchs were the highest Order constituted by the Apostles in the Church and how some Patriarchs came to be advanced above others with the true dignity or Preheminence of Apostolicall Churches the summe of all the rest of this Section might be reduced to a Syllogisme Those Churches which were exempted from all forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600 years cannot be subjected to any forrain Iurisdiction for the future against their own wills But all the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first six hundred yeares The Major Proposition was proved by me undeuiably out of the first Generall Councell of Ephesus to which Mr. Serjeant hath objected nothing Next I proved the Minor First by Prescription Affirmanti incumbit probatio The burthen of the proofe in Law resteth upon the Affirmer but they are not able to shew so much as one single act of Iurisdiction which ever any Bishop of Rome did in Brittaign for the first six hundred yeares Secondly I proved it from the Antiquity of the Britannick Church which was ancienter then the Roman it self and therefore could not be subject to the RomaÌ„ from the beginning Thirdly because the Britannick Churches sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman and therefore were not subject to the Roman Foâ—rthly because they had their Ordinations ordinarily at home which is an infallible sign of a free Church subject to no Forrein Iurisdiction Lastly because they renounced all Subjection to the Bishop of Rome I am forced to repeat thus much to let the Reader see the contexture of my discourse which Mr. Serjeant doth whatsoever he can to conceale or at least to confound and disjoint Out of this he picketh here and there what he pleaseth First he pleadeth that my Title is the Vindication of the Church of England but the Church of England can derive no title from the Britannick or Scottish Churches He never read or quite forgetteth the State of the QuestioÌ„ I will help his memory Let him read the Vindication by the Church of England we understand not the English Nation alone but the English dominion including the British and Scotish or Irish Christians So at unawares he hath yielded the Bishopricks of Chester Hereford Worcester for all these were Suffragans to Carleon Wales Cornwall Ireland Scotland with all the adjacent Ilands that is to say two third parts of the English Dominion Secondly he pleadeth that for this many hundred yeares they acknowledged the Popes Authority as well as the Church of England I answer that this will doe him no good nor satisfy the Generall Councell of Ephesus at all which hath decreed expresly in the case of the Cyprian Prelates and they Command the same to be observed in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors and if any doe occupy another Province that in this case let him restore it
that the Canons of the Fathers be not sleighted But they who never exercised one Act of IurisdictioÌ„ in the Brittannick Iland for the first 600 years cannot pretend that it was under their power in the time of the Councell of Ephesus or long after It was not for nothing that he concealed the words of the Councell Yet he asketh what do the Scots concern the Church of Englands Vindication Do they not Are not the Scots a part of the Britannick Ilands and so comprehended under the name of the Church of England in this Question Besides he must know that I challenge some Interest among the Irish Scots from whom I derive my Episcopall Orders Against the Irish Ordination never any man had any pretense of Exception to this Day The Irish were the ancient and principall Scots and the Britannick Scots a Colony derived from them That they are the ancient Scots who did join with the Britons in not submitting to the See of Rome I shall shew him clearly from the Authority of Lawrence Successor to S. Austin in his Archbishoprick and the other English Bishops of that Age in their Letter to the Bishops of Scotland To conclude he tooke not onely Care of the new Church collected of the English but of the old Inhabitants of Britain and also of the Scots who inhabit Ireland the next Island to Britain For assoone as he knew that their life and profession in their Country was like that of the Brittons in Britany not Ecclesiasticall c. That is to say not Roman He seeth I had some reason not to â—eave out the Scots Besides the Britons the Scots and the Irish I urged that the great Kingdomes of Morcia and Northumberland were converted by the Scots and had their Religion and Ordination first from the Scots afterwards among themselves without any forrein dependence and so were as free as the Britons He saith all the force lieth in these words without any Forrein dependence wich I obtrude â—pon them without any proofe His mistakes are infinite my proofe is Demonstrative They who had their first Ordination from the Scots and ever after were Ordeined among themselves never had any Ordination from the Bishop of Rome and consequently were never subject to the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome For it is a Maxime in the Law and is most evident in the case of the Cyprian Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus that the right of â—urisdiction doth follow the right of Ordination And if it were not so yet what man in his right wits could Imagin that the Scots who were the Converters should renounce Subjection to the Bishop of Rome themselves and teach their Converts the Mercians and Northumbrians to submit to the Bishop of Rome But if I had said no more but onely that they were without any forrein dependence it had been enough on my part It belongeth not to me to prove a Negative and such a continued Negative as this is but the burthen of the proofe resteth wholy upon him both in reason and Law to prove his Affirmative that the MerciaÌ„s and Northumbrians did depend upon the Bishop of Rome in those dayes in point of practise for Ordination and Iurisdiction which he is not able to doe What he addeth that I said Ordination is nothing at all to Iurisdiction is for want of Vnderstanding because he is not able to distinguish between the right of Ordination and the Act of Ordeining We attribute to the Scots the Act of Ordeining not a Superiour right of Ordination In the next place I urged that a world of British Christians staid behind among the Saxon Conquerours every where all over England such whom they had no cause to feare for their power Activity or Influence upon others which poore Conquered Christians had a right to the just Privileges of their Ancestours He would perswade us First that all of them or all except some few fled into Wales or Cornwall What to do To be repacked there as herrings Or like Camelions to live upon the aire and leave all the rest of the Kingdome desolate It was not ten or twenty nor a hundred nor aâ— thousand little Vessells could bring over Saxons enough with their wifes and Children and Servants to plant the Kingdomes of England We see dayly that the very Armies of such Conquerours doe consist for the greater part of Natives and that it is not their forrain Numbers but their Military Skill and resolution which gaineth them the Victory Looke upon all the Kingdomes of the world Italy Spain France England c. and what are they but mixed Societies of Forreiners and Natives Conquerers and Conquered persons now iâ—corporated with little or no distinction by long Tract of time After the Norman Conquest hundreds of English inhabited England for one Norman In the beginning of the late Insurrection in Ireland notwithstaÌ„ding those great nâ—mbers which came over daily into Ireland and Scotland to seeke for Plantations for thirty or forty yeares together yet there were ten Irish for one English and Scotch and yet we do not find that these Saxon warres were so bloudy as the Irish warres or that either they persecuted the persons of the Britons with Cruelty or so much as demolished their Churches But he supposeth that if there were any such British Christians yet they became subject to the Pope I believe some of them were subject to the Pope as to the Bishop of their Mother Church and all of them as to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church that is to be guided by his grave advise and direction but I deny that ever the Saxon Bishops were subject to the Pope as to an absolute Monarch by Christs own ordination or that the Pope enjoyed the Soveraign Patronage of the Saxon Church or the Supreme Legislative Iudiciary or dispensative power over it This the Saxon Kings and their Bishops under theÌ„ ever enjoyed as the Britons did before them and this is all which our Kings desire or we claime for them If he have any thing to say to this point let him bring Authorities not words He saith This is all one as if some few men setling by accident in France should pretend an exemption from the French Lawes and expect English Privileges Nay it is cleare contrary as if some French men comming into Britaine and planting and propagating there should expect the British Privileges to their Posterity So the Saxons planting in Britain so soone as their Posterity was capable of them by becomming Christians might justly claime the Liberties and Privileges of British Christians I said the Saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the Privileges as to the Lands of the Britons He stileth it a rare reason as if I meant that Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction were a thing of that nature to be won by the sword Or rather as if he meant Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court and Iurisdiction purely Spirituall which Christ left unto his Church is all one I
hold out encroachments with the point of the sword without any medling with just right Other division then this which he himself hath allowed we believe our Ancestours intended none we hold none and so are accountable for none The main Question is whether the Britannick Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not I have demonstrated the contrary already that they were not and had alwaies their Ordinations at home But his Conclusion which he puts upon me that true complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government is a vain assertion of his own no CoÌ„clusion of mine He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit whether he that mainteineth the Negative or he that mainteineth the Affirmative ought to prove He saith according to his old Pueriles that a Negative may be proved in Logick No man doubteth of it or denieth it Quis eâ—im potest negare I said on the Contrary that in this case which commeth here in difference between us according to the strict rules of Law the burthen to proue resteth onely on his side who affirmeth As the Question is here between us whether we had other Remedies then to make such a Reformation as we did We say No. They say Yea. It is possible to â—rove there might be other Remedies â—ut it is impossible to prove there were no â—ther Remedies Galen or Hippocrates himâ—elf would not have undertaken such a Taske to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease then that which they used It is not for want of Logicall Forms that Negatives are not to be proved â—n matter of Fact but for want of sufficient Mediums He saith he is no Bowler and so â—nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowle It may be it is true but if I should put him to prove this Negative it is impossible But so farre as a Negative of that nature is capable of proofe I did prove it by our Addresses to Popes and Councells and long expectation in vain that we had no other Remedy then that which we used to thrust out their Vsurpations by the power of the sword which course he himself adviseth and we practised The division is not made by them who thrust out Vsurpations but by them who brought them in and defend them I said that not onely our Ancestors but all Catholick Countries did maintein their own privileges inviolated and make themselves the last Iudges of their Grievances from the Court of Rome Hence he concludeth with open Mouth therefore there were other Remedies there needed no Division Alas poore man how he troubleth himself about nothing They and we used the very same Remedies the same that he adviseth in this place The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made What then had not the King the Sword in his own hands Did it not lie in his power to right himself as he listed and to admit those pretended encroachments onely so far as he thought just and fitting Yes the King had the sword in his hands and did right him self and cast out those Papall Usurpatious so far as he found Iust and now when we have followed your own advise you call us Schismaticks and Dividers Sr. we are no Dividers but we have done our Duties and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Vsurpations as we have done you are the Schismaticks by your own Confession He pleadeth If Papall Authority be of Christs Institution then no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment Right But those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out are neyther of Christs Institution nor of Mans Institution but meer Vsurpations Neither doe we seek to abolish Papall Authority but to reform it from Accidentall Abuses and reduce it to its first Institution The best Institutions Divine or Humane may sometimes need such Reformation Here is nothing like proofe but his World of Witnesses and his Immemoriall Tradition presumed not proved To shew that no Nation suffred so much as England under the Tyranny of the Roman Court he saith I produce nothing but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope Well would he have a better witnesse against the Pope then the Pope him self Habemus confitentem reuÌ„ He was pleasant indeed but Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat VVhat hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing He asketh whether those Testimonies which I produce be Demonstrative or rigorous Evidences I thinke he would have me like the unskilfull Painter to write over the Heads of my Arguments This is a Demonstration It would become him better to refute them and shew that they are not Demonstrative then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions I shewed that England is not alone in the Seperation so long as all the Eastern Southern Northern and so great a part of the Western Church have seperated themselves from the Court of Rome and are seperated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we In answer to this he bids me shew that those I call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith c. This is first to hang men up and then to examine their cause first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke and embrace their upstart Vsurpations with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely before they gave such a temerarious sentence against the much greater part of Christendome in so weighty a cause But for their rule of Faith they have a more certain and Authentick Rule then he himself by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentick rule of Faith then Pius the fourths Creed and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground then particular supposititious Tradition which wanteth both Perpetuity and Vniversality I said that we desired to live in the peaceable Communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestours as far as the Roman Court will give us leave He answereth that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers c That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled had no mind to be hanged That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us but a request of an unreasonable favour from them to admit us into their Communion and would be most absurd in Government c. Whether they hold us for theirs or not is not much materiall if they did it were the better for themselves if they doe not it is not the worse for us so as Christ own us for his it skilleth not much whether they say come ye blessed or goe ye cursed whether we be the wheat or Chaffe their tongues must not winnow us Although he snuffe at
Vnity in Faith and Government errours and Falshoods If any of our Preachers being exasperated 〈◊〉 some such Boutifeus as himself have in theiâ— Pulpits used any Virulence or Petulancâ— against the Church of Rome Let him makâ— use of his stile against them who wilâ— furnish him with Lettuce suitable to hiâ— Lips What is that to the Church of England what is that to us Quid immerentes hospites vexat Canis Ignavus adversus lupos Let him but observe what Liberty be himself taketh without any maÌ„ner of Provocation But as for my self he doth me notorious wrong I did not mention any Principles of Vnity in this place nor so much as dream of them but that he must needs bring them in by head and shoulders in every Paragraph All I said was this That we doe not separate from other Churches but from their Accidentall Errours but some men are like Nettleâ— touch them gently and they sting you The first part of our Moderation was not to censure other Churches for no Churches nor deny them possibility of Salvation nor thrust them from our Communion which I shewed in the Example of St. Ciprian In answer to this he sheweth the unlawfulnesse of Communicating with Idolaters which is reconciling Christ with Anti-Christ Was not this impertinent if he himself were Iudge I said it might be very lawfull in some cases to communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks aÌ„d Schismaticks that is such as erre through ignorance and frailty not obstinacy in Religious Duties And for proofe hereof I produced the instaÌ„ce of the Primitive Christians communicating in some cases with the Hereticall Arrâ—ans and the Schismaticall Novatians He demands first who forbids them to goe visit the sick I adde or pray with them also which was as much as I said there but because he falleth with such Violence upon the point I will now take the Liberty to expresse my self more fully First it is to be remembred that I did speake onely of Materiall Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks not Formall SecoÌ„dly of pious Offices not of Idolatrous Acts nor any thing favouring Heresy or Schisme Thirdly I do new exclude case of Scandall for just scandall may make that Act to be unlawfull which in it self is Lawfull Fourthly I except cases of Just Obedience the prohibition of a lawfull Superiour Civill or Ecclesiasticall may make that Act to be unlawfull which was Indifferent Lastly I distinguish between persons Learned and grounded in Religion and persons unlearned and ungrounded the former may and ought to communicate with Idolaters Hereticks and Schismaticks as far as they can with a good Conscience to gain them to the truth the latter are obliged not to come over near to pitch least they be defiled The Question being thus stated I believe the main point hath no great Difficulty in it For they who are Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks onely materially not formally that is against their meanings resolutions and intentions are no Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks in the eyes of God or discerning men neither are they out of the Pale of the Church or out of the way of Salvation as the Bishop of Chalcedon saith most truely VVe allow all those to have saving Faith to be in the Church in way of Salvation for so much as belongeth to Faith who hold the Fundamentall points and invincibly erre in not Fundamentalls But all Idolaters Hereticks and Schismaticks who are onely materially Idolatrous Hereticall or Schismaticall doe erre invincibly for if they erred vincibly then they were formall Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks Thus much I lay down for certain the rest I onely propose that although they were formall Hereticks or Schismaticks yet they are not altogether out of the Pale of the Church but onely in part Ex ea parte in texâ—urae compage deâ—inentur in caeâ—era scissi sunt So farre they are woven into the web for the rest they are divided as St. Austin saith And Bellarmâ—ne out of him acknowledgeth that they are absolutely in the Church untill they goe out of it by Obstinacy which they who ate onely materially Hereticks or Schismaticks do not and after they are gone out of the Church by Obstinacy yet they are still in the Church secundum aliquid non simpliciter not absolutely but respectively or in part And after he hath vapoured a long time to no purpose thus much is acknowledged by himself as long as Schismaticks are not hardened into an Obstinacy as no Schismaticks are who are onely materially Schismaticall there is a prudentiall Latiâ—ude allowed by the Church delaying her Censures as long as she can possibly without wronging her Government as was de facto practised in England till the 10 of Queen Elizabeth This is full as much as I said that it may be lawfull to communicate in some cases with materiall Schismaticks And whatsoever I said was rather to make a Charitable Construction of their materiall Idolatry then out of fear that they should be able to attaint us of any Schisme either materiall or formall if he had any thing of reality to object against us he would be ashamed to intimate our inclinations to favour Arrianisme which he himself knoweth our soules abhorre and which he himself knoweth to be expresly condemned in the second Article of our Church He may find my Instances of the Primitive Christians communicating with the Arrians and Novatians in Church Offices in my answer to the Bishop of Chalcedons Preface pa. 36 if he have any thing to say to them Neither was it at the first sprouting of the Arrian Heresy but after they had formed severall Doxologies to themselves nor at the First beginning of the Novatian Schisme but towards the Conclusion of it I cited St. Cyprian for no other purpose but to shew that his moderation in absteining from censuring did preserve him free from Schisme although he was in an errour When Optatus called the Donaâ—ists his Brethren he did not mean his Brethren in Adam but his Brethren in Christ and wonders why his Brother Parmenian a Donatist would ranke himself with Heretieks who were falsifiers of the Creed If this be the infallible marke of an Heretick Let Pius Quartus and his party looke to themselves I disliked a position of his which the Reader shall have in his own words I cannot say my Religion is true but I must say the Opposite is false mine is good but I must say the Opposite is naught mine necessary but I must Iudge that which is inconsistent carries to damnation Therefore who does not censure a Contrary Religion holds not his own certain that is hath none Upon this he pursueth me with a full Crye that the Common Principle of Nature if any thing be true the Opposite is false or a thing cannot both be and not be at once is denyed by the Bishop Stay Mr. Serjeant be not so fierce the Bishop knoweth as well as your self that the disjunction of Contradictories is eternall and
Opinions of the Romanists and yet some of my Instances were in Cardinall Richlieus dayes and since very lately Adding that I contradict myself yet once more affirming that I hope those seditious doctrins at this day are almost buryed What Satisfaction doth this man owe to his Reader to conceale from him all the Presidents Lawes Sentences of Emperours Kings Common-wealths Vniversities and to present him nothing but such Fopperies as these I will not vouchsafe to spend any time about them but onely give the Reader an Ariadnes clew to guide him out of this Imaginary Maze I have shewed him what these seditious Opinions were where they were hatched and when namely in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reign And though some few of my Instances were after that time yet the maine body of them was much more ancient as in the Empire from Charles the great to Charles the fifth and in France from Carolus Calvus downward So I might truely say that the Instances cited by me were long before those disloyall Opinions were hatched and yet they are not so lately hatched but I hope they are almost buried at this day A man would have thought that I deserved thankes for my Charity not to be traduced But it is all one let the Reader judge who it is that trippeth up his own heeles When I said It was great Pity that he was not one of Christs Counsaâ—lers when he formed his Church It did not suppose that Christ had any Counsailers but to taxe him who takes upon him so Magisterially to dictate what was necessary then for Christ to doe This I called sawcinesse and justly Good Christians as I told him formerly ought to argue thus Christ formed his Church thus Therefore this is the best Forme not thus This is the best Forme therefore Christ Formed it after this manner The onely reason why I cited that text of St. Paul One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptisme one God and Father of all was this that St. Paul reckoning up seven Bonds of Vnity should omit this which Mr. Serjeant makes to be the onely Bond of Vnity namely unus Papa One Pope or one Bishop of Rome Christ saw it necessary to make a Bond of Vnity between the Churches And that for this reason he gave the Principality to St Peter and Consequently to the Bishops of Rome All this he supposeth on his own head but doth not goe about to prove any thing if St. Paul had been of the same mind that was the proper place to have recorded it and doubtlesse he would not have omitted it This Argument which onely I used he doth not touch but fancieth that I make these seven Bonds of Vnity or Obligations to Vnity or meanes of Vnity to be seven markes of those which be in the Church which I never dreamed of And therefore I passe it by as impertinent Onely adding that our Ground for Vnity of Faith is our Creed and for Vnity of Government the very same forme of Discipline which was used in the Primitive Church and is derived from them to us When I wished that he had expressed himself more clearly whether he be for a beginning of Order and Vnity or for a single head of Power and Iurisdiction I spake of St. Peter of whoÌ„ the case is cleare that he had no more power over his Fellow Apostles then they had over him and that the Supremacy of Power rested in the Apostolicall College All that St. Peâ—er had was a beginning of Vnity What St. Peter had the Pope may pretend a claime to what he had not the Pope hath no pretence for Neither Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople nor any other ancient Bishop nor yet St. Gregory himself did ever dream of such a singular Headship of Power as he mentions that is that no Bishop in the Church should have Power but he Although the Court of Rome and their adherents come very near it at this day deriving all the power of Iurisdiction of all other Bishops from the Pope That Power which Iohn affected and St. Gregory impugned then and we impugne now is the Power of Vniversall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court If that were an Heresy in him as he confesseth let them looke to themselves Neither is the Bishops Primacy of Order so dry a Primacy as he pretendeth nor destitute of those Privileges which belong to a Primate of Order by the Law of Nature To call Assemblies sub paena spirituali or to intimate the necâ—ssity of calling them to propose doubts to receive Votes and to execute so farre as he is trusted by the Church This is the single Power of a Primate of Order but besides this he hath also a conjoint power in the Government of the Church What he saith to the prejudice of Generall Councells I have answered formerly He askes me What other Successour St. Peter had who could pretend to an Headship of Order except the Bishop of Rome I answer that I did not speake of what St. Peter had but what he might have had or may have whensoever the Representative Church that is a Generall Councell should give the Primacy of Order to another Bishop Since he is so great a Friend to the Schoole of Sorbon he can not well be ignorant what their learned Chancellour hath written expresly upon this Subject in his Booke de Aâ—seribilitate Papae not the taking away of the Papacy but Removall of it And what Bellarmine confesseth that neither Scripture nor Tradition doth prove that the Apâ—sâ—olicall See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed He urgeth that then the Church should remaine without this Principality at the death of every Pope untill all the Churches in Iapan China and India had given their consent yet I acknowledge it to be of perpetuall necessity First he doth me wrong I did not say positively that it is of perpetuall necessity but that I like it well enough and the reason being of perpetuall necessity seemeth strongly to imply the necessity of the thing Secondly I answer that there is no need to expect such far fetched Suffrages so long as the Primacy may remaine fixed where it is unlesse a Generall Councell or one as Generall as may be think fit to remove it and if a Generall Councell remove it it will take order for the future succession And this same reason doth clearly take away his answer to my instance That as the Dying of such a Bishop Lord Chancellour of England doth not perpetuate the Chancellourship to that Bishoprick because there is a Soveraign Prince to elect another so the dying of St. Peter Bishop of Rome doth not perpetuate the Primacy to that Bishoprick because a Generall Councell when it is in being hath power to transferre it to another See if they find it expedient for the publick good The Bishop knoweth right well that the Church of Christ is both his Spouse and his Family both the Governesse and the
Governed The Supreme Governesse in respect of its Representative a Generall Councell to which all Ecclesiasticall Officers higher or lower whether Constituted by Christ or substituted by the Church doe owe an account And the Governed in respect of that Vniversality of Christians which he mentioneth And this sounds much more sweetly in Christian eares then to make either the Pope the Maister or the Church of Rome the Mistresse of the Church He brought an Argument for the Succession of the Roman Bishop drawn from the Vicissitude of Humane affairs I retoâ—ted it upon himselfe that Rome itself was as much subject to this Vicissitude as any other place it may be destroyed with an Earthquake He saith It must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocesse if the City be destroyed yet the Clergy of the Roman Diocesse can elect to themselves a new Bishop But this new elected Bishop shall be no more the Bishop of Rome after it is destroyed But that which concerneth him and the cause more is he proposeth my Objection by halfes I said it might be destroyed by warres also that is both City and Diocesse and become a place for Satyrs to Dance in and Owles to scrâ—ech in As great Cityes as Rome have run that Fortune In that case what will become of his Election I added it may become Hereticall or Mahumetan He answereth True so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to Order causes No by his leave not so Christ hath promised that his Vniversall Church shall never faile but he hath not promised that Rome shall never faile I said the Church never disposeth so of her Offices as not to be able to change her Mesnagery according to the Vicissitude of Humane affaires He opposeth that I granted in the foregoing Page that Christ himself and not the Church instituted this Prineipality or Primacy and bids me shew that the Church hath Authority to change Christs Institution I did not grant it but suppose it but whether granted or supposed it is not materiall to the purpose The Church hath no power to change Christs Institution in Essentialls but all Ecclesiasticall Officers whatsoever are her Officers and she hath power to dispose of them and govern them and to alter what is not Essentiall I know there are other meaus between Tyranny and Anarchy besides Aristocracy even all lawfull Formes of Government as Monarchy and Democracy but in the Government of the Catholick Church Monarchy and Democracy had no place unlesse it were in respect of Particular Diocesses or Provinces and therefore to have named Monarchy here had been superfluous and impertinent But the Government of the Primitive Church in the Apostles and their Successours was ever Aristocraticall first by an equall Participation of power in the Apostles and then by a Subordination of Bishops in their Successours and this as well out of Generall Councells as in them as well before there were Generall Councells as after It is not my want of Memory but his want of Iudgement to pursue such shadowes as these and nickname them Contradictions He askes how should a Primate of Order who hath no power to Act at all in order to the Vniversall Church have more power to prevent her good or procure her harme then one who hath Soveraignty of power This is his perpetuall Practise to dispute from that which is not granted St. Peter was a Primate of Order aâ—ong the Apostles and no more yet he had power to act singly as an Apostle and as a Primate among the Apostles he had power also to Act jointly with the Aposâ—olicall College so have all other Primates of â—rder Whatsoever Mr. Serjeant thiâ—kes Our Saviâ—uâ— thought this Form of Goveâ—ment as conducible to the good of his Church both to procure her Good and to prevent her harm as an absolute Soveraignty I doe not feast the Reader with Contradictions Nothing is more true then my Assertion but he abuseth his Reader with notorious Fictions If the Papacy be the Bridle in the mouth of the Church then without peradventure the Pope is the Rider though the Papacy be not I said enough before to let him see the unfitnesse of his lâ—dicrâ—us Allegory and taxed him for it if he delight in it let him pursue it Nos hac a Scabie tenemus ungues How the Church doth both govern and is governed I have shewed him formerly In his answer he fell into a large Encomiuâ— of the Papacy demanding among other things What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an Arbitrator so prudent so pâ—â—â—s so distinteressed as a Good Pope should be and if this Authority were duely Governed I told him that to looke upon men as they should be was to write dreaming He rejoineth that he lookes not upon men at all in this place but speakes of the Office it self And challengeth me what say you to the Office it self I answer first he saith not truely for he did looke at men in this place otherwise why did he adde this Condition as a good Pope should be And this other If this Authority were duely governed Certainly he who lookes upon an Arbitrator so prudent so pious so Disinteressed as a good Pope should be looketh something upon men And so in truth he ought to doe but his fault is that he lookes upon them as they should be and not as they commonly are which is the same fault I taxe him with to write Dreaming not waking Now to his Question What say you to the Office it self I say first that though he hath stated it p. 624 Yet he hath not stated it at all neither I feare dare he state it nor is willing to state it He telleth us indeed sometimes of the Substance of the Papacy but wherein the Substance of the Papacy consists except some Generall unsignificant Expressions of an Headship or Chief Governourship or First Movership about which we have no Controversy with them and which are equally appliable to a Primacy of Order and a Soveraignty of Power he saith nothing Whether the Pope be an absolute Monarch or a duke of Venice inferiour to the whole Senate whether he have a Coactive power in the Exteriour Court throughout all other Princes dominions without their leaves Whether he have the right to conferre Bishopricks Convocate Synods Impose Pensions For bid Oaths of Allegiance and require new Oaths of Allegiance to himself Set up Legantine Courts Receive Appeales make Lawes dispense with Lawes at his pleasure he saith nothing yet these are the onely Controversies we have with them to aske what we say to the Popes Authority without stating of it without stinting of it is an unreasonable demand I say secondly that he ought to explain himself by what right he doth challenge this Authority Divine or Humane or onely out of Prudentiall reasons If he challenge it by divine right or Humane right he ought to prove the right according to the just extent of
or humane Law and refuse to contend with us when we prove them to be Vsurpations to what end doth he interest himself and break other mens heads with the clattering noise of his Sabots SECT X. An Answer to their Objections THeir first Objection was that we had seperated ourselves from the Communion of the Catholick Church I answered that we hold Communion with thrice so many Catholick Christians as they doe that is the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians besides Protestants He interpreteth these Christians with whom we hold Communion to be numâ—erlesse Multitudes of Manichees Gâ—osticks Carpocratians Arrians Nestorians Eutichians c. Adding that he protesteth most faithfully he doth not think that I have any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Reader learn how to value his faithfull Protestations hereafter I shew that we all detest those damned Heresies and complaine of his Partiality and want of Ingenuity to abuse the Reader with such lying suggestions which he himself knoweth to be most false and challenge him to shew that any of us are guilty of any of these Heresies now see what he produceth to free himself from such an horrid Calumny First he saith that the Bishops taxe is evidently this to shew some solid reasons why he admits some of these and rejects others This is not the purging of his old Calumny but the twisting of a new Calumny to it Labhominate and Anathematise them all and he will have a reasoÌ„ of me why I admit some of them and reject others Well done brave disputant Secondly he urgeth Suppose he could not charge the Church of England or any of these otâ—er Churches with any of these Heresies are there no other Hereâ—sies in the world but thesâ— old ones Or is it impossible that a new Heresy should arise There are other Heresies in the world and it is possible that a new Heresy my arise but what doth that concern the Church of England unlesse he thinke that there is no Heresy in the world nor is possible to be but the Church of England must be guilty if it Worser and Worser He proceedeth that he accused not the Church of England or the Bishop for holding those materiall points but that having no determinate certein Rule of Faith they had no grounds to reject any from their Communion who hold some common points of Christianity with them It is well habemus câ—nfiâ—entem reum Mr. Serjeant retracts his Charge The Church of England and the Bishop are once declared innocent of those old Heresies which he made a Muster of to no purpose To let him see that I say nothing new and how he thrasheth his own Friends blind fold Peter Lombard Thomas a Iesu Cardinall Tolet and many others do make the Question about the procession of the Holy Ghost to be Verball onely without Reality and that the Grecian expressions of Spiritus Filii The Spirit of the Sonne and per Filium by the Sonne doe signify as much as our Filioque and from the Son And of the Nestorians Onuphrius giveth this Iudgement These Nestorians doe seem to me to have reteined the name of Nestorius the Heretick rather then his errours for I find nothing in them that savoureth of that Sect. And for the supposed Eutychians Thomas a Iesu giveth us ample Testimony That the suspicion did grow upon a double mistake They were suspected of Eutychianisme because they reteined not the Councell of Chalcedon and they received not the Councell of Chalcedon because they suspected it of Nestorianisme but yet they accurse Eutyches for an Heretick and so did the Councell of Chalcedon Anathematise Nestorius The same is asserted by Brerewood out of the Confessions of the Iacobites Nestorians Armenians Cophites and Abyssines To his Objection I answer First that though we had no such certein Rule of Faith yet it was not presently necessary that we must tumble headlong into such abhominable errours as many of these Hereticks held which the Discreeter Heathen did detest Secondly we have a certain Rule of Faith the Apostles Creed dilated in the Scriptures or the Scriptures contracted into the Apostles Creed and for that ugly Fardle of Heresies which he mentioneth we can shew that they are all diametrally opposite to the Apostles Creed as it is explained in the foure first Generall Councells Reader have a care to presere Epicteâ—us his Iewell Remember to distrust such faithfull or rather feigned Protestations He argueth All those Hereticks had the Same Rule or Grounds of their Faith that Protestants have namely the Holy Scripture therefore they are all of the Protestant Communion In good time All those Hereticks had the same Rule or grounds of their Faith that Roman Catholicks have namely the Holy Scriptures therefore they are of the Roman Catholick Communion If he except that the bare Letter of the Scriptures is not the Ground or Rule of Faith to Roman Catholicks but the Scripture interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and Tradition of the Church the Church of England saith the very same for it self So if this be the source of all errour to abandon the Tradition of the Church we are far enough from the source of all errour This is the onely difference in this particular betweene me and Mr. Serjeant what he attributeth to the Tradition of immediate Forefathers I ascribe to the perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition of the Catholick Church Who would believe that this man himself had deserted the Tradition of his Immediate Forefathers That which he addeth the Traditioâ— of Immediate Forefathers is the onely Ground of Faiths certainty and the Denying of it more Pestilentiall then the Denying of the Godhead of Christ or the asserting the worst of those errours which any of those old Hereticks held as there are two Gods a Good God and an Evill God is most false and Dangerous to tumble into a certain Crime for feare of an uncertein What he addeth concerning Sects new sprung up in England and Luther and Carolostadius concerneth not us nor the present Controversy I said that some few Eastern Christians were called Nestorians and some others by reasoÌ„ of some unusuall expressioÌ„s suspected of Eâ—tichianisme but most wrongfully and in our Name and in the name of all those Churches which hold Communion with us I accursed all the Errours of those Hereticks Notwithstanding all this he saith that nothing is more right then to call them so that what I say here is contrary to the publick and best intelligence we have from those remote Countries that I have a mind to cling in very Brotherly aud very lovingly with the Nestorians aud Eutychians though I say I will not that I stroake those errours which I accurse with a gentle hand stiling them but unusuall expressions First for so much as concerneth my self I have renounced those errours I have accursed them if yet he will not crâ—dit me there is nothing left for me to doe but to appeale to God
His Friend Possivine calls him a Virulent Adversary and if ever Mr. Serjeant read him throughly it is ten to one he will change his note Thus much for my Communion with the Eastern Churches it is the same with the Southern and Northern Churches all which doe plead better Tradition then himself Whereas he saith that my Assertion that the Creed conteined all points necessary to be believed is grounded onely upon my falsifying of the Councell of Ephesus he bewrayeth his ignorance both in the Fathers and in his own Authours The Scripture is none of those particular Articles which are necessary to Salvation to be believed but it is the Evidence whereby those Articles are revealed and wherein they are comprehended The Creed was composed before the Canon of Scripture was perfected They have not onely changed from their Ancestours in Opinions but they have changed their own Opinions into necessary Articles of Faith which is worse I denied that the Councell of Trent was a Generall Councell as wanting the requisite Conditions of a Generall Councell which they themselves judge to be necessary The summons ought to have been generall but it was not The great Patriarchs ought to have been present but they were not neither the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem nor any of them nor yet the Patriarchs of Armenia Abissina Mosco Mussall c. nor any of them He answereth they had no right to be summoned thither unlesse to be called to the Barre as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians It had need to be a large Barre indeed to hold them all Was it ever heard before that a fifth part of a Councell did call foure parts to the Barre Their Ancestours had right to be summoned to a Generall Councell and to sit and vote there as well as the best how have their posterity lost this right Had they been heard and condemned in a Generall Councell No. But he urgeth what need hearing when themselves in the Face of the whole world publickly confessed and maintaine their imputed fault How what needed hearing O Iust Iudge He that giveth a right Sentence yet if he give it without hearing is an unrighteous Iudge They confessed their imputed Fault but did they confesse it to be a Fault No I warrant you he can not say it for shame Or how should they confesse it in the Face of the whole Christian world They are the Christian world themselves and your Roman world is but a Microcosme in comparison of them The case is so evident and notorious that no man can doubt of it The Continent hath not left St. Peters Boat but St. Peters Boat hath left the Continent The Innovation or swerving from Apostolicall Tradition was not in the Christian world but in the Court of Rome who would have advanced their Aristocraticall power to a Soveraign Monarchicall power but the Christian world would not give way to it if this were an errour in them all their Ancestours were guilty of it as well as they But the Court of Rome being conscious to themselves that they were the Innovators to free themselves from feare of being censured by the Christian World adventured to give the first blow by censuring the whole Christian world it self This was a Bolder Act then that of Pope Victor which Irenaeus misliked so much He will never leave his Socraticall manner of disputing by Questions what certain Rule have we to know what Sects are of she Church Although I needed not yet I have answered this demand formerly All those are of the Church who weare the Badge and Cognisance of Christians that is the Apostles Creed as it is explicated by the foure first Generall Councells as all those Churches doe and have not been cast out of the Church by the Sentence of a Generall Councell as none of these Churches have no nor yet by the Sentence of the Roman Church it self if we may trust the Bishop of Chalcedons Survey cap. 8. Neither doth the Roman Church excommunicate all the Christians of Affrick Asia Greece and Russia but onely such as doe vincibly or sinfully erre He addeth that there are innumerable who are not formall Hereticks but onely Hereticis Credentes These continue good Christians still and are Churches still and ought not to be excluded froÌ„ Generall Councells though supposed to be materially in an errour much lesse being innocent and in no Heresy or Schisme either formall or Materiall I pleaded that though it were true that all the other Patriarchs were such Materiall Hereticks yet of all others they ought especially to have been summoned The reason is evident because they that are sick have more need of the Physitian then they that are in health Hence he inferreth that it is more necessary that Hereticks be called to a Generall Councell then Orthodox Fathers Not so both are necessary the one to Cure the other to be cured but the especiall Consideration or end of a Councell is for those that erre that they may be reduced I said the Pope hath not that Authority over a Generall Councell that the King hath over a Parliament He answereth that he is so plaine a man that he understandeth not what the Authority of King or Parliament signifies I will help him The King may dissolve a Parliament when he pleaseth so may not the Pope a Generall Councell against their wills If the King dye by whose writ it was called the Parliament is dissolved so is not a Generall Councell by death of the Pope The King hath a Negative voice in Parliament so hath not the Pope in a Generall Councell I urged that the Protoâ—patriarchs are not known or condemned Rebells He answereth first this is onely said againe not proved He is alwaies stumbling upon the same Block It doth not belong to me to prove they were not condemned but to himself who accuseth them to shew when and where they where condemned Secondly he answereth that their Errours have been condemned by Councells and for the most part some of their own party being present But the condemning of their errours is no sufficient warrant for the excluding of their persons out of Generall Councells Neither were these Councells Generall Councells or such as had any Iurisdiction over the Protopatriarchs Moreover they condemne Papall Errours as well as he condemneth their Errours whether is more Credit to begiven to the Pope in his own cause charging all the Patriarchs in the world or to all the other Patriarchs in the world unanimously condemning his Vsurpations in the name of the Catholick Church He demands whether there might not be a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the Members found in that Councell and yet be a lawfull Parliament I think there might if the absence of all the rest proceeded from their own neglect but not if it proceeded from want of Summons as the absence of the Protopatriarchs did He bids me rub up my memory he believes