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
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
with Sâ— Peter nor with any other about the privileges of St. Peter Let him be First Chiefe or Prince of the Apostels in that sense wherein the Ancient Fathers stiled him so Let him be the First Ministeriall Mover And why should not the Church have recourse to a prime Apostle or Apostolicall Church in doubtfull cases The learned Bishop of Winchester of whom it is no shame for him to learn might have taught him thus much not onely in his own name but in the name of the King and Church of England Neither is it questioned among us whether St. Peter had a Primacy but what that Primacy was And whether it were such an one as the Pope doth now Challenge to him self and you challenge to the pope But the King doâ—h not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the Apostles I wonder how it commeth to passe that he who commonly runneth over in his expressions should now on a suddain become so dry upon this Subject If this be all be needed not to have forsaken the Communion of the Church of England for any great Devotion that he beareth to St. peter more then wee But yet wee dare not rob the rest of the Apostles to cloath St. Peter Wee say clearly with St. Cyprian Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit petrus pari consortio praediti honoris Poâ—estatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficisciâ—ur Primatus Petro daâ—ur ut una christi Ecclesia una caâ—hedr a monstretur The rest of the Apostles were even the same thing that Peter was endowed with an equall Fellowship both of honour and power but the beginning commeth from Vnity the primacy is given to Peter to signify one church and one chaire It is wel known that St. Cyprian made all the Bisshop ricks in the World to be but one masse Episcopatus unus est Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus whereof every Bishop had an entire part cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur All that he attributeth to St. Peter is this beginning of Vnity this primacy of Order this preheminence to be the Chief of Bishops To be Bishop of the principall Church from whence Sacerdot all Vnity did spring Yet I esteem St. Ciprian as fauorable an Expositor to the See of Rome as any they wil find out of their own Chaire that was no more interessed in that See This primacy neither the Ancients nor wee doe deny to St. Peter of Order of Place of preheminence if this first Movership would serve his turn this controversy were at an end for our parts But this Primacy is over leane The Court of Rome have no Gusto to it They thirst after a visible Monarchy upon earth an absolute Ecclesiasticall Soveraignty A power to make Canons to abolish Canons to dispense with Canons to impose pensions to dispose dignities to decide Controversies by a single Authority This was that which made the breach not the innocent Primacy of St. Peter as I shall demonstrate by evident proofes as cleare as the noone day light Observe Reader that Mr. Serjeant is making another Vagare our of the lists to seeke for his Adversary where he is sure not to find him here after if he have a mind to employ his pen upon this subject and not to barke at the Moonshine in the water let him endeavour to demonstrate these foure things which wee deny indeed First that each Apostle had not the same power over the Christian world by virtue of Christ Commission As my Father senâ— mee so send I you which St. Peter had Secondly that St. Peter ever excercised a single Iurisdiction over the persons of the rest of the Apostles more then they over him besides and over and above his Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity Thirdly that St. Peter a lone had his Commission granted to him by Christ as to an Ordinary Pastour to him and his Successors And all the rest of the Apostles had their CoÌ„missions onely as Delegates for term of life This new hatched Distinction being the foundation of the present Papacy I would be glad to see one good author for it who writ within a thoâ—sand yeares after Christ. Lastly that the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction rested in St. Peter alone and was exercised by him alone and not by the Apostolicall College During the hystory of the Acts of the Apostles Now let us proceed from St. Peter to the Pope which is the second part of his rule of Government And that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of St. Peter inherited from him this Privilige in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles And actually exercised this power in all the Countreyes which kept Communion with the Church of Rome what Privilege To be the first Bishop the Chiefe Bishop the principall Bishop the first mover in the Church just as S. Peter was among the Apostles we have heard of no other Privilege as yet If a man would be pleased ou of meer pitty to his starving cause to suppose thus much what good would it doe him Doth he think that the pope or the court of Rome would ever accept of such a Papacy as this or thanke him for his double diligence He must either be meanly versed in the Primitive Fathers or give little credit to them who will deny the Pope to succced St Peter in the Roman Bishoprick or will envy him the Dignity of a Patriarck with in his just Bounds But the Breach between Rome and England was not about any Episcopall Metropolitical or Patriarchall rightes A Patriarch hath more power in his proper Bishoprick then in his province and more in his province then in the rest of his Patriarchate But papall power is much greater then any Bishop did ever challenge in his own Diocesse In my answer to his Assumtion I shal shew sufficiently who they were that Brake this Bond of Vnion and are the undoubted Authors of Schisme But before I come to that I would know of him how the Pope did inherit all those Privileges which he claimeth from S. Peter or how he holds them by Christs own ordination in holy Scripture First all the Eastern Churches doe affirm Confidently that the most of these Privileges were the Legacyes of the Church representative not Christ or St. Peter And it seemeth to be very true by that of the Councell of Sardica Si vobis placet Sancti Petri memoriam honoremus If all these Priuileges were the popes inheritance it was not wel done of old Osius to put it upon a Si placet content or not content and to assigne no better a reason then the memory of a Predecessour It semeth likewise to be true by the Councel of Chalcedon which attributeth the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Decrees of the Fathers and the dignity of that imperiall City And when the popes
Legates did oppose the Acts of the Councell Gloriosissimi Iudices dixerunt The most glorieus Iudges said let both partyes plead the Canons By the Canons that great Councell of six hundred and thirty Fathers did examin it By the Canons they did determin it there was no inheritance pretended in the case Secondly if the Bishop of Rome did hold all his privileges by inheritance from S. Peter how much were three successive Popes over seen Zosimus Bonifacius and Caelestinus to ground them upon the canoÌ„s of the councell of Nice and these either counterfeited or mistaken for the Canons of Sardica Which when the African Fathers did find oâ—t by the true Copyes of the Nicene Councell they rejected that part of papall power as appeareth by their Letter to Pope Caelestine We earnestly beseech you that hence forwards you doe not easily lend an eare to such as come from hence nor which Bellarmine cuts of guilefully receive any more such as are excommunicated by us into your Communion with this sharp intimation Ne fumosum typum saeculi in Ecclesiam videamur inducere If soveraigne Iudicature did belong to the Bishop of Rome by Inheritance from St. Peter why did three popes challenge it upon the Decrees of the Nicene Concell and why did the Affrican Fathers refuse to admit it because it was not conteined in the Decrees of the Nicene Councell Thirdly if by Prince of Bishops Mr Serjeant understand an absolute Prince one who hath a single Legislative power To make Canons To abolish Canons to dispense with Canons as seemeth good in his owne eies if he makea greater Prince of the Steward then he doth of the Spouse of Christ he will have an hard Province to secure him self from the Censures of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the former of which were personally present one Empereur Two Popes Two Patriarchs All the Cardinalls The Embassadors of all' the Princes in the West and the Flower of Occidentall Schollars Divines and Lawyers These had reason to know the Tradition of the Universall Church as well as Mr. Serjeant Lastly before he can determine this to be an vndeniable truth and a necessary Bond of Vnity that the Bishop of Rome is Inheriâ—er of all the Privileges of St. Peter And that this Principle is Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture He must first reconcile him self to his own party There is a Comentary upon the Synodall answer of the councell of Basile printed at Colone in the yeare 1613. wherein is mainteined That the Provinces subject to the foure great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian church did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarchs And if the Pope be a Primate it is by the church If he be the head of all churches it is by the church and where as wee have said that it is expressed in the councell of Nice that many provinces were subjected to the church of Rome by Ecclesiasticall custome and no other right the Synod should doe the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome if it should attribute those things to him onely from Custom which were his due by divine right Gerson goeth much more accurately to worke distinguishing Papall rights into three sorts divine which the Bishop of Rome challengeth by succession from St. Peter Canonicall wherewith he hath been trusted by generall councells and civil granâ—ed to that See by the Emperours Of the first sort he reckoneth no more but three privileges To call councells To give sentencee with councels and Iurisdiction purely spirituall Among the Propositions given in to the councell of Pisa and printed with the acts of the councell wee find these first Although the Pope as he is the Vicar of Christ may after a certain manner be called the head of the church Yet the Vnity of the church doth not depend necessarily or receive its beginning from the Vnity of the Pope Secondly The church hath power and authority originally and immediatly from Christ its head to congregate it self in a gonerall councell to preserve its Vnity It is added That the Catholick church hath this power also by the Law of Nature Thirdly In the Acts of the Apostles we read of four Councells Convocated and not by the Authority of Peter but by the Common Consent of the Church And in one Councell celebrated at Ierusalem we read not that Peter but that Iames the Bishop of the Place was President and gave Sentence He concludeth that the Church may call a Generall Councell without the Authority of the Pope and in some cases though he contradict it The Writers and writings of those times in and about the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells doe a bound with such expressions Before he determined positively The divine right of the Papacy as it includeth a Soveraignty of power he ought to consider seriously what many of his own friends have written about it as Canus and Cusanus and Stapleton and Soto and Driedo and Segovius as it is related by Aeneas Sylvius and others That the Popes succession is not revealed in Scripture That Christ did not limit the Primacy to any particular Church That it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is perpetuall Prince of the Church That the Glosse which preferreth the Iudgement of the Roman Church before the Iudgement of the world singular and foolish and unworthy to be followed That it hath been a Catholick Tenet in former times that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop doth depend not upon divine but human right and the positive Decrees of the Church That men famous in the Study of Christian Theology have not been affraid in great Assemblies to assert the Humane Right of the Pope He ought to Consider what is said of a great King that Theologians affirmed that the Pope was the head of the Church by divine right but when the King required them to prove it they could not demonstrate it And lastly what the Bishop of Chalcedon saith lately To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters Successour and this all Fathers Testify and all ihe Catholick Church believeth but whether he be so Jure divino or humano is no point of Faith Here Reader I must intreat the before wee proceed a step-farther to read his Assertion That the Constant beliefe of the Catholick World was and is that this Principle namely that the Bishop of Rome inherited the Privileges of St. Peter is Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture Derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our Nature is capable of What a strange Confidenee is this to tell his Readers he cares not what so it may serve his present turne How should this be recorded in Scripture when the Bisshoprick of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture nor so much as whether St. Peter ever was at Rome Except we understand Rome by Babilon but this is too remote and too obscure to
be Christs own Ordinance If it be recorded in Scripture it is either in Nicodemus his Gospell or in the Popes Decretall Epistles Certainly in the Genuine Scriptures there is no manner of mention of any such thing Heare the ingenuons Confession of a more learned Adversary Neque Scriptura neque Traditio habet sedem Apostolicam it a fixam esse Romae ut inde auferri non possit there is neither Scripture nor Trrdition to prove that the See of St. Peter is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be taken from it But if the Bishop of Rome did in herit the Privileges of St. Peter By Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture then there were Scripture to prove that it cannot be taken away from Rome Christs own Ordination must not be violated Behold both his grounds Scripture and Tradition swept away at once It will not serve his turne at all to say that I take him in a Reduplicative sense as if he spake of the Bishops of Rome as of Rome Either Christ ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in his privileges And then the Bishop of Rome doth succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome Or Christ hath not ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his privileges And then the Bishop of Rome is not St. Peter Successour by Christs own Ordination He may be his Successour upon another account but by Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture he cannot be if Christ himself have not ordained in holy Scripture that he should be He addeth that I picked these Words out of a Paragraph a leafe after Why is he not bound to speake truth in one Paragraph as well as in another Or will he oblige one who combatteth with him to watch where his Buckler is ready and be sure to hit that These things are as cleare as the light and yet he vapours about my frivolous and impertinent answers and wonders how any man can have the patience to read such a Trisler Let the Reader judge which Scale hath more weight in it How should the Bishop of Romes Succession to S. Peter be Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture When both his fellowes and he himself doe ground the Bishop of Romes right to succeed St. Peter upon the fact of St. Peter Namely his dying Bishop of Rome Bellarmine distinguisheth between the Bishop of Romes succession of St. Peter and the reason of his succession The succession saith he is from the institution of Christ by divine right and commanded by Christ but the reason of this succession is from the fact of S. Peter not from the institution of Christ. Which two are irreconciliable For if Christ commanded that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter as he saith Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem quae autem jubet Deus mutari ab hominibus non possunt Then not the fact of St. Peter but the mandate of Christ is the reason of the succession There was no need that St. Peter should doe any thing to perfect the commandement of Christ and on the otherside if the fact of St. Peter be the true reason of the Bishop of Romes succession theÌ„ it is evident that Christ did not command it Let it be supposed to avoid impertinent disputes that Christ did create a chiefe Pastor of his church as an office of perpetuall necessity without declaring his pleasure who shall be his successour but leaving the choise either to the chief Pastor or to the church without peradventure in such a case the Office is from Christ and the perpetuity is from Christ but the right of the Successour is from them who make the application whether if be the Cheif Pastor or the Church The Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter is not recorded in Scripture The fact of S. Peter is not recorded in Scripture No such ordination of Christ is recorded in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should be S. Peters Successour And therefore it is impossible that the Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter should be Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture Then what is this Mandate of Christ and where conteined The Mandate is an old legend conteined in Marcellinus Leo Athanasius Ambrose and Gregory some of which point at it others relate it some define it as a matter of faith That S. Peter a little before his Passion being ready to depart out of Rome did meete Christ in the gate who told him that he came to Rome to be Crucified againe Thereby intimating that St. Peter must suffer martyrdome there Here is no mandate of Christ to S. Peter to fixe his See at Rome much lesse that he should place it there for ever never to be removed True saith Bellarmine but yet non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus it a figeret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet It is not improbable that the lord did command plainly that Peter should fixe his See at Rome that the Roman Bishop should succeed him absolutely Alas this is but a poore ground to build a mans faith upon that it is not improbable And therefore the said Author proceedeth Tameâ—si forte c. Although peradventure it be not of divine right that the Romaen Bishop because he is the Roman Bishop doth succeed S. Peter in the prefecture of the Church And though it were supposed a point of faith That the Bishop of Rome were S. Peters Successour Yet it cannot be a point of faith that Pope Vrban or Pope Clement are S. Peters Successours and true Bishops of Rome because there can be no more then morall Certeinty for it Who can assure us of their right Baptisms and right Ordinations according to the common Roman grounds How can wee be sure of their Canonicall Election that two third parts of the Cardinalls did concurre or that the Election by Cardinalls now and by the Emperours and by the People formerly were all Authentick formes though I doubt not but any of these might serve to obteine an humane right But especially what can secure us from the â—aint of Simoniacall Pravity which they who knew the Intrigues of States doe tell us hath born too great Vogue in the Conclave of late dayes And if it cannot be a point of Faith to believe the present Pope is St. Peters Successour for these reasons neither can it be a point of Faith that any of them all hath been his Successour for the same reasons I doe not urge these things to encourage any man to withdraw Obedience from a lawfull Superiour either upon improbable or probable suppositions but to shew their temerarious presumption who doe soe easily chaÌ„ge humane right into Divine right and make many things to be necessary points of Faith for which there never was revelation or more then Morall Certainty Sest I. Cap. II. The next
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
no such power in the Pope to absolve Subjects from their allegiance in our Law With us Clergymen did ever pay Subsidies and taxes as well as lay men This is one Liberty which England hath not to admit of the Popes Lawes unlesse they like them A second Liberty of England is to reject the Popes Lawes in plaine termes The Pope made a Law for the Legitimation of Children borne afore Matrimony as well as those borne in Matrimony The Bishops moved the Lords in Parliament that they would give their consent to the Common Order of the Church But all the Earles and Barons answered with one voice that they would not change the Lawes of the Realm which hitherto had been used and approved The Popes legislation could not make a Law in England without the concurrence of the three Orders of the Kingdome and they liked their own old Lawes better then the Popes new Law A Third Liberty of England is to give a legislative Interpretation to the Popes Lawes which the Pope never intended The Bishop of Rome by a constitution made at the Councell of Lions excluded Bigamists men twice Married from the Privilege of Clergy that is that should Marry the second time de futuro But the Parliament made an Act that the constitution should be understood on this wise that whether they were Bigamists before the constitution or after they should not be delivered to the Prelates but Iustice should be executed upon them as upon other Lay people Ejus est Legem Interpretari cujus est condere They that can give a Law a new sense may abrogate it if they please A fourth Liberty of England is to call the Popes Lawes Vsurpations Encroachments Mischiefs contrary to and destructive of the Municipall Lawes of the Realme derogatory to the Kings Regality And to punish such of their Subjects as should pursue them and obey them with Imprisonment with Confiscation of their Goods and Lands with outlawing them and putting them out of the Kings Protection Witnesse all those noble Lawes of Provisors and Premunire Which we may truely call the Palladium of England which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast Gulfe of the Roman Court made by Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second and Henry the fourth All those Collations and Reservations and Provisions and Privileges and Sentences which are condemned in those Statutes were all grounded upon the Popesâ—Lawes and Bulls and Decrees which our Ancestors entertained as they deserved Othobon the Popes Legate in England by the Command of Vrban the fifth made a Constitution for the endowment of Vicars in Appropriations but it prevailed not whereas our Kings by two Acts of Parliament did easily effect it No Ecclesiastical Act is impossible to them who have a Legislative power but many Ecclesiasticall Acts were beyond the Sphere of the Popes Activity in England The King could make a spirituall Corporation but the Pope could not The King could exempt from the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary but the Pope could not The King could Convert Seculars into Regulars but the Pope could not The King could grant the Privilege of the Cistercians but the Pope could not The King could Appropriate Churches but the Pope could not Our Lawes never acknowledged the Popes plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power which was the ground of his legislation Euphemius objected to Gelasius that the Bishops of Rome alone could not condemne Acatius ab uno non potuisset damnari Gelasius answered that he was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon and that his Predecessor was but the Executor of an old Law and not the Author of a new This was all the ancient Bishops of Rome did challenge to be Executors of Ecclesiasticall Lawes and not single Law makers I acknowledge that in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania he attributeth much to the Bishops of Rome wich a Councell but it is not in making new Lawes or Canons but in executing old as in the case of Athanasius and Chrysostome The Privileges of the Abby of Saint Austin in EnglaÌ„d granted by the Popes were condemned as null or of no validity because they were not ratified by the King and approved by the Peers William the Conquerer would not suffer any man within his Dominions to receive the Pope for Apostolicall Bishop but by his command nor to receive his letters by any meanes â—nlesse they were first shewed to him It is â—ikely this was in a time of Schisme when there were more Popes then one but is sheweth how the King did interest himself in the affaires of the Papacy that it should have no further influence upon his subjects then he thought fit He who would not suffer any man to receive the Popes letters without his leave would much less suffer them to receive the Popes lawes without leave And in his prescript to Remigius Bishop of Lincolneâ— know ye all Earles and Viscounts that I â—ave judged that the Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall lawes which have bene of force untill my time in the Kingdome of England being not well constituted according to the praecepts of the holy Canons should be amended in the common assembly and with the Counsaile of my arch-Arch-Bishops and the rest of the Bishops and Abbats and all the Princes of my Kingdome He needed not the helpe of any forreine Legislation for amending Ecclesiasticall Canons and the externall regiment of the Church Now let us see whether the Libertyes of France be the same with our English Privileges The second Liberty is this The Spirituall Authority and power of the Pope is not absolute in Franee if it be not absolute then it is not singly Legislative but limited and restreined by the Canons and ancient Councells of the Church If it be limâ—ted by Ancient Canons then it hath no power to abrogate Ancient Canons by new Canons Their ancient Canons are their Ecclesiasticall Lawes as well as ours and those must be received in that Kingdome They may be excellent Advisers without reception but they are no Lawes without publick reception Canons are no Canons either in England or in France further then they are received The third Liberty is No Command whatsoever of the Pope Papall decrees are his chief Commands can free the French Clergy from their Obligation to obey the Commands of their Soveraign But if Papall power could abrogate the ancient Lawes of France it did free their Clergy from their Obedience to their Soveraign Prince The sixteenth Liberty is The Courts of Parliament have power to declare null and voide the Popes Bulls wheÌ„ they are found contrary to the Liberties of the French Church or the Prerogative Royall The twentieth Liberty The Pope cannot exempt any Church Monastery or Ecclesiasticall Body from the jurisdiction of their Ordinary nor erect Bishopricks into Arch Bishopricks nor unite them nor divided them without the Kings license England and France as touching their Liberties walk hand in hand To conclude the Popes
his First Governourship are but generall unsignificant Termes which may agree as well to a beginning of Vnity or Primacy of Order as to an absolute Monarchy or plenitude of power If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly particulars began the breach particulars must stop rhe breach I have given him an account what particular Differences we have with him concerning St. Peter what particular Differences we have with him concerning the Pope let him apply him self to those aud not make continuall Excursions as he doth out of the Lists When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church as a Bishop in his Diocesse as a Metropolitan in his Province as the Bishop of an Apostolicall See and Successour of St. Peter I expected thaÌ„kes there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps without a new conflict But behold the evill natures or evill manners of this Age I am accused for this of frivolousnesse and insincerity Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology that whensoever the case commeth to be solidly discussed it will be found that the principall grounds if I had said the onely grounds I had not said much amisse of the Popes pretended Monarchy are the just rights and Privileges of his Patriarchateship his Protopatriarchateship and his Apostolicall Chaire mistaken for Royalties for want of good Distinction I know the Court of Rome who have been accustomed in these latter times to milke the purses of their Clients doe not love such a dry Primacy as he phraseth it but where they have no more right and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges they must have patience perforce His Parallel between the King of England and the Pope will be then to some purpose when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy untill then it is a mere begging of the Question what a grosse Solecisme that is in Logick he cannot chuse but know But since he is favourably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papall power so they believe the Substance of it and yet he himself either cannot or dare not determin what the Substance of Papall power is he might out of his Charity have compassion and not stile us Mountebankes who know no difference between Roman Catholiks and our selves about the Papacy but onely about the extent of Papall power Although he stile us hereticks now yet he was lately one of us himself and would have continued so longer if he had understood himself better or the times bene less Clowdy Let him call it Substance let him call it extent let him call it what he will I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy let him satisfy them as well as he â—an and let truth prevaile We have not â—enounced the substance of the Papacy exâ—ept the substance the Papacy doe consist â—n Coactive power I side with no parties â—ut honour the Church of England and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur He telleth his Reader that I grant the whole question where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over as the Bishop of â—n Apostolicall Church or Successor of St. Peter Much good may it doe him As if every Bishop of an Apostolicall Church were straight way an universall Monarch or as if Authority did alwaies necessarily imply jurisdiction or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legall judge I had reasoÌ„ to place a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in my Climax after a Patriarch for the larger extension of his Authority every where not for the higher intension of his jurisdiction any where I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter by the ordinance of Christ in this Privilege to be the Prince and Soveraign of the Church endowed with a single Soveraignty of power that the Great Councell of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equall Privileges to the Patriarch af Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperiall City more then the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument that the great Councell of Chalcedon did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople upon the Imperiall Dignity of those two Cities and to much more which is urged there against him he is as mute as a Fish but to the former part he answereth that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain superiour in Iurisdiction though they had equall Privileges Very pretty indeed He would have his Readers to believe that a Soveraign and his Subjects have equall Privileges Equalls have no power one over another there may be a Primacy of Order among Equalls but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peters Privilege to be Prince of the Apostles And doth not he tell us that this Privilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome Then if the Bishop of Constantinople have equall Privileges with the Bishop of Rome he is equall to him in this Privilege which descended froÌ„ S. Peter Let him listen to the eight and twentieth Canon of that Councell where having repeated and confirmed the decree of the Generall Councell of Constantinople to the same purpose they conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople moved with the same consideration did give equall Privileges to the See of new Rome Rightly judging that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equall Privileges with the ancient Imperiall City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiasticall affaires as well as it being the second in Order from it And in the last sentence of the Iudges upon the Review of of the Cause The Archbishop of the Imperiall City of Constantinople or new Rome must enjoy the same Privileges of honour and have the same power out of his own Authority to ordain MetropolitaÌ„s in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocesses That is as much in Law as to say have equall Iurisdiction for all other rights doe follow the right of Ordination But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon telling us that it was no free Act but voted tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Councell Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be It was done before the Bishops had their License to depart It had a secâ—nd hearing and was debated by the Popes own Legates on his behalf before the most glorious judges and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Councell This was one of those four
of Faith He knoweth better by this time what I understand by points of Faith publickly professed even the Articles of the Creed which every Christian that ever was from Christs time untill this day professed at his Baptisme All the Christian world have ever been baptised into the Faith of the old Creed never any man yet was baptised into the Faith of their new Creed If these new Articles be as necessary to be known and publickly professed for the common salvation as the Old they doe them wrong to baptise them but into one half of the Christian Faith He troubleth himself needlesly with Iealousy and suspicion least under the notions of Faith universally professed and the Christian world united I should seeke a shelter or Patrociny for Arrians or Socinians or any other mushrome Sect as if the Deity of Christ were not delivered by Vniversall Tradition or not held by the Christian world united because of thei◠Opposition I doe not looke upon any such Sects which did or do oppose the Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition of the Catholick Church before their dayes as living and lasting Streames but as suddain and violent Torrents neither do I regard their Opposition to the Catholick Church any more then of a Company of Phrenetick persons whilest I see plainly a parte ante that there was a time when the wheat did grow without those Tares and a parte post that their Errours were condemned by the Catholick Church This exception of his hath great force against his immediate Tradition should the Children of Arrians or Socinians persist in their Arrian or Socinian Principles because they were delivered to them as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles by their erring Parents But against my Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition they have no force at all Neither do I looke upon their petty interruption as an empeachment to the Succession from the Apostles no more then I esteem a great mountain to be an Empeachment to the roundnesse of the Earth Neither was it the Church of Greece and all the other Eastern Southern and Northern Churches which receded from this Vniversall Tradition in the case in Difference between us concerning the disciplin of the Church but the Church of Rome which receded from them Non tellus Cymbam tellurem Cymba reliquit He knoweth little in Antiquity who doth not know that the Creed was a Tradition both materially as a thing delivered by the Apostles and Formally as being delivered by Orall Tradition But he who shall say as he doth that all the points controverted between us and them were delivered as derived from the Apostles in a Practise as dayly Visible as is the Apostles Creed by our Forefathers as invoking Saints for their intercession the the lawfulnesse of Images praying for the dead Adoration of the Sacrament and in particular the Subjection to the Pope as Supreme head to use his own phrase is a frontlesse man His very mumbling of them and chopping of them by halves as if he durst not utter them right out is a sufficient Evidence of the Contrary We doe not charge them onely with invoking Saints for their intercession or to speake more properly with the invoking God to heare the intercession of his Saints but with more insolent formes of ultimate prayers to the Creatures to protect them at the houre of death to deliver them from the Devill to conferre spirituall Graces upon them and to admitt them into heaven precibus meritisque not onely by their prayers but likewise by their merits As improper and Addresse as if one should fall down on his Knees before a Courtier and beseech him to give him a Pardon or to knight him meaning onely that he should mediate for him to the King We do not question the lawfulnesse of their having of Images but worshipping of them and worshipping of them with the same worship which is due to the Prototype We condemne not all praying for the dead not for their resurrection and the consummation of their happinesse but their prayers for their deliverance out of Purgatory We our selves adore Christ in the Sacrament but we dare not adore the Species of bread and wine And although we know no divine right for it yet if he would be contented with it for peace sake we could afford the Bishop of Rome a Primacy of Order by humane Right which is all that antiquity did know And if any of our Ancestours in any of these particulars did swerve from the Vniversall Perpetuall Tradition of the Church we had much better warrant to return to the Apostolicall line and Levell then he himself had to desert those principles temerariously which his immediate Forefathers taught him as delivered by the Apostles and derived from them His next exception is a meere Logomachy that I call two of his Assertions Inferences What doth this concern either the person or the Cause Either this is to contend about the shadow of an Asse or I know not what is Let thē be premisses or Conclusions which he will they may be so disposed to make them either if they be neither what do they here if they be conclusions they are inferences He calleth the former Conclusion their chiefe Objection who ever heard of an Objection without an Inference And the second is so far from being no Inference that it comprehendeth four Inferences one from the first Principle another from the second Principle and the third from both Principles That Churches in Communion with the Roman have the onely right Doctrine in virtue of the First Principle and the onely right Government in virtue of the second Principle and Vnity necessary to Salvation in virtue of both Principles And the last conclusion is the Generall Inference from all these And by consequence we hold them onely to make the entire Catholick Church I said truely that we hold both their Rules of Vnity I adde that we hold them both in the right sense that is in the proper literall sense of the words but what their sense of them is concerneth them not us If by the Popes Supremacy he understand a single Soveraignty or Supremacy of power by virtue of Christs own Ordinance we hold it not indeed neither did the Catholick Church of Christ ever hold it So likewise if by Tradition of our Ancestours he understand Vniversall and Perpetuall Tradition or as it were Vniversall and perpetuall we joine hands with him but if by Tradition he understand the particular and Immediate Tradition of his Father or ten thousand Fathers or the greater part of the Fathers of one Province or one Patriarchate in one Age excluding three parts of the Catholick Church of this Age and not regarding former Ages between this Age and the Apostles we renounce his Rule in this Sense as a Bond of Errour not of Vnity And yet in generall according to the Literall sense of the words we embrace it as it is proposed by him self that The Doctrins inherited from our Fore
fathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles are onely to be acknowledged or Obligatory So we acknowledge both his Rules in the Literall sense de facto but the Popes single Supremacy of Power and particular Tradition were never Principles of Vnity neither de facto nor de jure and so he may seek for his flat Schismatick de facto at Rome I said there was a Fallacy in Logick of more interrogations then one when Questions of a different nature are mixed to which one Vniform answer can not be given He saith he put no Interrogatory at all to me True but he propounded ambiguous Propositions to be answered by me confounding St. Peter and the Pope an Headship of Order and an Headship of power which is all one An head of Order hath power to Act First as well as sit â—irst but he acteth not by his own single power but by the conjunct power of the body or College To shew him that I am not ashamed of my voluntary railing as he phraseth it too silly to merit transcribing or answering I will transcribe it for him The Church or Court of Rome have Sophisticated the true Doctrin of Faith by their supplementall Articles contrary to the First Principle and have introduced into the Church a Tyrannicall Government contrary to the second Principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made them selves guilty of Superstition and Schisme If this be railing what Terme doth his Language deserve If this be silly what pitifull stuffe is his He said my onely way to cleare our church from Schisme was to disprove his two Rules I answered he was doubly mistaken first in putting us to prove or disprove who are the persons accused the defendants duty is to answer not to prove that is the duty of the accuser They accuse us of Schisme therefore they ought to prove their Rules whereon they ground their Accusation in that Sense wherein they take them not put us to disprove them He urgeth that by this Method no Rebell ought to give any reason why he did so because he is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour By his leave he that condemneth a Subject of Rebellion before he have proved his accusation doth him wrong But he saith the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side defends it self against the others Accusations but we were the first accusers who could not with any Face have pretended to reform unlesse we accused first our actuall Governour of Vsurpation I told him before that he was doubly mistaken now I must be bold to tell him that he is three wayes mistaken First the Pope was none of our actuall Governour in the externall Regiment of the Church by the Lawes of England Secoâ—dly our Reformation was no Accusation but an Enfranchisement of our selves sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae Thirdly I have already manifested the VsurpatioÌ„s of the Court of Rome upoÌ„ other manner of grounds them his ambiguous Rules As we have proved our intention so let him endeavour to prove his My second answer was that although the proofe did rest on oursides Yet I did not approve of his advise that was to disprove his two Rules My reason is evident we approve of his two rules as they were set down by himself it is not we but they who have swerved from them and therefore it were madnesse in us to disprove them He saith he dare sweare in my behalf that I never spake truer word in my life and out of his Supererogatory kindnesse offers him self to be bound for me that I shall never follow any advise that bids me speake home to the point What silly nonsense is this should I follow any maÌ„s advise to disprove that which I approve I have spoken so home to the point without any advise that I expect little thankes from him and his fellowes for it What he prateth of a discipline left by Christ to the Church of England in Henry the eighths time is ridiculous indeed And it equally ridiculous to hope to make us believe that the Removall of a few upstart Usurpations is a change of the discipline left by Christ to his Church And lastly it is ridiculous to Fancy that later usurpations may not be reformed by the Pattern of the Primitive times and the ancient Canons of the Church and the Practise of succeeding Ages because we received them by particular Tradition from our immediate Fathers That one place which he repeateth as having been omitted by me hath been answered fully to every part of it The rest of this Section is but a Repetition of what he hath said without adding anything that is new and in the Conclusion of this Treatise he giveth us a Summa totalis of it again either he must distrust his Readers memory or his Iudgement and yet for feare of not being understood he recapitulates it all over again in his Index Surely he thinketh his discourse so profound that no man understands him except he repeat it over and over again and for my part I did never meet with such a Torrent of Words and such Shallownesse of matter And so I leave him to S. Austins censure alledged by himself In mala causa non possunt aliter at malam causam quis coegit eos habere Sect. II. That they who cast Papall power out of England were no Protestants but Roman Catholicks throughout except onely in that one point of the Papacy HItherto he saith he hath been the larger in his reply because the former points were Fundamentall concerning and totally decisive of the Question They doe concern the Question indeed to blunder and to confound Vniversal Tradition with particular Tradition a Primacy of Order with a single Supremacy of power Iurisdiction purely Spirituall with externall Iurisdiction in foro contensioso otherwise they concern not the Question And for deciding of the Question wherewithall should he decide it who hath not so much as alledged one Authority in the Case Divine or Humane not a Text of Scripture not a Canon of a Councell not a Testimony of a Father who hath not so much as pretended to any Vniversall or perpetuall Tradition but onely to the Particular immediate Tradition of the Roman Church and this he hath onely pretended to but neither proved it nor attempted to prove it nor is it possible for him to prove by the particular TraditioÌ„ of the Roman Church it self that the Bishop of Rome is the Soveraign Monarch of the Church by Christs own Ordination His onely grounds are his own Vapourous Fancies much like Zenoes Vaunts who used to bragge that he sometimes wanted Opinions but never wanted Arguments My six grounds he stileth Exceptions And why Exceptions But let them be grounds or exceptions or whatsoever he will have them to be and let him take heed that every one of those Trifles and Toyes
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
truth of what I said take the very words of two Canons of that Councell But if a Clerk have a cause against his own Bishop or against another Bishop let him be Iudged by the Synod of the Province but if a Bishop or a Clerke have a Complaint against the Metropolitan of the same Province let him repaire either to the Primate of the Diocesse or the See of their royall City of Constantinople aend let him be judged there Wee see every Primate that is to say every Patriarch in generall in his own Diocesse or Patriarchate and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular out of his own Diocesse is equalled by the Councell of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth Canon that if there shall happen any Difference concerning the Possessions of the Churches it shall be lawfull to them who affirm themselves to be grieved to sue before the Holy Synod of the Province but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan let him be judged by the Primate of the Diocesse or by the holy See of Constantinople I have read those silly Evasions which your greatest Schollars are forced to make use of for answers to these downright Canons Sometimes by Primate of the Diocesse which signifieth all Patriarchs they understand and the Pope Do men use such improper expressions which no man can understand in penning of Lawes Is it not a great Condiscension for the Visible Monarch of all Christendome to stoupe to so meane a Title as the Primate of one single Diocesse But alas it will do him no good For if it were taken in this sense it were the most uniust Canon in the world to deprive all Patriarchs of their Patriarchall Iurisdiction except the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople The Councell which is so carefull to preserve the Bishop his right and the Metropolitan his right could not be so carelesse to destroy Patriarchall right or the Patriarchs themselves who were present at the making of this Canon so stupid to joine in it At other times they tell us that this is to be understood onely of the first Instance not of Appeales This is weaker and weaker What hath a Metropolitan to doe with private causes of the first instance out of his own Bishoprick What have the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople to doe to Iudge causes of the first Instance in other Patriarchates The case is cleare if any man be grieved by his Bishop he may appeale to his Metropolitan and a Synod and if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan he may appeale to his Patriarch And if this absurd sēse which they Imagin were true yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive Appeales from all parts of the world as well as the Bishop of Rome Let them winde and wrest and turn things as they can they shall never be able to reconcile the Papall Pretensions with the Councell of Chalcedon I have neither changed my mind nor my note concerning Eleutherius his Letter to King Lucius I did I doe esteem it to be of dubious Faith So much I intimated if it be not counterfeit So much he intimated as much as we have Records in our Histories Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over so often as we may take occasion Thus far then we are of accord but in the rest we differ wholy He is positive as much as we have Records the Popes Authority doth appeare I am as positive as much as we have Records the Kings Authority doth appeare For if those Records be true Eleutherius left the Legislative part to King Lucius and his Bishops This was enough to answer him He addeth though our Faith relieth on immediate Tradition for its certain Rule and not upon Fragments of old Authors that is in plain English upon his bare word without any Authority How should a man prove ancient Tradition but by Authors Yet after all this flourish he produceth us not one old Author but St. Prosper a stranger to our affaires and him to no purpose◠who saith onely what he heard in Italy That Pope Celestine sent St. German in his own stead to free the Britons from Pelaginisme and converted the Scots by Palladius If all this were as true as Gospell it signifieth just nothing I have shewed formerly that there is no Act of Iurisdiction in it but onely of the Key of Knowledge He rejoineth that he relied on these words vice sua in his own stead which sheweth that it belonged to his Office to doe it Why should it not The Key of Order belongeth to a Bishop as well as the Key of Iurisdiction And more especially to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as Pope Celestine was and in such a case as that was the Pelagian Controversy to testify the Apostolicall Tradition he was bound by his Office to doe it and he trusted S. German to doe it in his place All this is nothing to the purpose there is no Act of Iurisdiction in the Case but of Charity and Devotion Yet if it were not altogether impertinēt to the purpose we have in hand I should shew him that there is ten times better ground to believe that it was done by a French Synod then by Pope Celestine not out of an obscure Author but out of Authentick undoubted Histories as Constātius in the Life of S. German Venerable Bede Mathew Westminster and many others Is it not strange that they being so much provoked are not able to produce a proofe of one Papall Act of Iurisdiction done in Britain for the first six hundred years Here he catcheth hold at a saying of mine which he understandeth no more then the Man in the Moone that all other rights of Iurisdiction doe follow the right of Ordination which he taketh as though I meant to make Ordination it self to be an Act of Iurisdiction though I deny it and distinguish it from it To make the Reader to understand it we must distinguish between actuall Ordination and a right to ordaine Actuall Ordination where there was no precedent Obligation for that person to be ordeined by that Bishop doth imply no Iurisdiction at all but if there was a precedent right in the Ordeiner to ordein that man and a precedent Obligation in the person Ordeined to be ordeined by that Bishop then it doth imply all manner of Iurisdiction suitable to the Quality of the Ordeiner as if he were a Patriarch all Patriarchall Iurisdiction if he were a Metropolitan all Metropoliticall Iurisdiction if he were a Bishop all Episcopall Iurisdiction And the Inference holdeth likewise on the Contrary side that where there is no right precedent to Ordein nor Obligation to be ordeined there is no Iurisdiction followeth but I shewed out of our own Histories and out of the Roman Registers so far as they are set down by Platina that the Bishop of Rome had no right to ordein our British Primates but that they
Subjection at all to another Church They all agree in this the Britons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all waies ordained at home independent upon any forrain Prelate ought no subjection to Rome And there fore it is no great wonder if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the favourite both of the Pope and people not long before his own promotion to the Papacy whether the Ilanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet who having commended this Dinoth for a learned and a prudent man he addeth that Austin meeting him did demand that they should performe subjection to him as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome and demanded further that he would help him in preaching but he denied the one and the other Still Subjection is denied With these Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry Spellman and all our Antiquaries doe agree exactly And none of our Historiographers that I know doe disagree from it in the least who write upon that subject though some set it down more fully then others Iudge now Reader of Mr. Serjeants Knowledge or Ingenuity who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play and when I said the British Clergy did renounce all obedieÌ„ce to the Bishop of Rome citing Bede and all others telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once I challenge him to name but one Historiographer who affirmeth the contrary to that which all these doe affirm if he be not able as he is not I might safely say without asking him leave that it striketh the Question dead His third Exception that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry Spellman found any other Antiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth mentioning is so dull and unsignificant a piece that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it And such like are his other Obâ—ections which helpresseth not but toucheth gently the Heads of them will not merit a repetition having been answered already by Doctor Hammond But when he is baffeld in the cause he hath a Reserve that Venerable Bede and Gildas and Fox in his Acts and Monuments do brand the Britons for wicked men making them as good as Atheists Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one he will neither wish the Pope such Friends nor envy them to the Protestants What needed this when he hath got the worst of the cause to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stinke We read no other Character of Dinoth but as of a pious learned and prudent man If Gildas or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular persons There were St. Davids St. Dubricius's St. Thelaâ—s's St. Oudoceus's and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda What have they said more of the Britons then God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people or more then the Saxons have said one of another or more then maybe retorted upon any NatioÌ„ in Europe Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions theÌ„ St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints The Question is whether the British Church did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome Let him adorn this Sparta and leave other impertinencies Sect. V. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdrawe their obedience from Rome The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consisting of these three particulars That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it And that they did it with due moderation His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three SectioÌ„s whereof this is the first Whatsoever he prateth in this Section of my shuffing away the whole Question by balking the Bishop of Romes divine right to his Soveraignty of power to treat of his Patriarchall right which is humane is first vain For I alwayes was and still am ready to joine Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Romes divine right to a Monarchicall power in the Church saving alwaies to myself and my cause this advantage That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiasticall are inconsistent And this right being saved I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Popes Monarchy then about his Patriarchate Secondly as it is vaine so it is altogether impertinent for my Ground is this that a Soveraign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the publick good to change any thing in the externall Regiment of the Church which is not of divine Institution but the Popes pretended Patronage of the English Church and his Legislative Iudiciary and dispensative power in the exteriour Courtes of the same Church doe concern the externall Regiment of the Church aud are not of divine Institution Here the Hindge of our Controversy doth move without encombring our selves at all with Patriarchall Authority Thirdly I say that this discourse is not onely vaine and extravagant but is likewise false The Popes Protopatriarchall power and the Authority of a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as the keper of Apostolicall Traditions deposited in that Church are the fairest flowers in his Garland Whatsoever power he pretendeth to over the whole Church of Christ above a Primacy of Order is altogether of humane right and the Application of that Primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of humane right And whatsoever he presumeth of the Vniversall Tradition of the Christian Church or the Notion which the former and present world and we our selves before the Reformation had of the Papacy that is of the Divine right of the Popes Soveraignty is but a bold ratling groundlesse bragge I did and doe affirm that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand yeers since not explicitly by making a formall Resignation of it but implicitly by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it I was contented to forbeare further disputing about Patriarchall rights upon two Conditions one that he should not presume that the Pope is a Spirituall Monarch without proving it The other that he should not attempt to make Patriarchall Privileges to be Royall Prerogatives This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me If he had had so much Civility in him he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him of two Errours which I was sure he would Commit After all his Bravadoes all that he hath pretended to prove is but a Headship a First Movership a Chief Governourship about which we have no Difference with them and all the proofe he bringeth even of that is a bold presumption that there
Apostolicall Bishop and his Primacy of Order so loÌ„g as the Church thought fit to continue it to that See if this would content him To my third reason he excepteth If Monarchy be of Divine Institution the Venetians and the Hollanders are in a sad case I am glad when I find any thing in him that hath but a resemblance of matter more then wind and empty words although they weigh nothing when they come to be examined The Venetians and Hollanders may be in a sad Condition in the Opinion of such rash Censurers as himself is who have learned their Theology and Politicks but by the halues Who taught him to argue from the Position of one lawfull forme of Government to the Deniall of another All lawfull Formes of Government are warranted by the Law of Nature and so have their Institution from God in the Law of Nature The Powers that be are ordained of God whether they be Monarchicall or Aristocraticall or Democraticall Man prepareth the Body God infuseth the Soule of Power which is the same in all Lawfull Formes But though all lawfull Formes of GovernmeÌ„t be warranted by the law of nature yet not all in the same Degree of Eminency There is but one soule in the body one Sun in the heaven one Maister in a Family and anciently one Monarch in each Society all the first Governours were Kings The soule of Soveraign Power is the same in all Formes but the Organ is more apt to attain its end in one Form then another in Monarchy then in Aristocracy or Democracy And we say God and Nature doe alwaies intend that which is best Thus it is in the Law of Nature which is warrant sufficient for any form of Government but in the Positive Law of God he never instituted or authorised any form but Monarchy In the last Paragraph where I say that the Popes Headship of Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution he excepteth that it is my bare saying and my old â—rick to say over againe the very point in dispute between us If this be the very point in dispute beâ—ween us as it is indeed it is more shame for him who letteth the very point in dispute alone and never offereth to come neare it especially having made such lowd bragges that he would charge the Crime of Schisme upon the Church of England with undeniable Evidence and prove the Popes Headship of Iurisdiction or Power by a more ample cleare and continued Title then any right of Law or Humane Ordinances can offer Quid tanto dignum tulit hic promiss or hiaâ—u As for my part I know my Obligation whilest I am upon the defensive to make good my ground and when it is my turn to assault I shall discharge my duty If he have any thing to say to the Huguenots of France they are at age to answer him themselves Our Controversy is onely concerning the Church of England SECT 6. That the King and Church of England had sufficieÌ„t grounds to seperate from the Court of Rome I had reason to wonder not at our Grounds but their sileÌ„ce that having so long so ofteÌ„ called for our grounds of Seperation and charged us that we have no grounds that we could have no grounds now when sufficient Grounds are offered to them two of them one after another should passe by them in deep silence And this Dispatcher being called upon for an answer unlesse he would have the cause sentenced against him upon a Nihil dicit with more haâ—â— then good speed gives us an answer and no Answer like the Title of an empty Apothecaries Box. If there be any Monster the Reader may looke for it on that side not on our side He may promise the View of a strange Monster in his Antepasts and Postpasts and blow his Trumpet to get pence a piece to see it as he phraseth it but if the Readers expect till he shew them any such rare sight they may wait untill Dooms day and all the remedy he offers them is to say he hath abused them as he doth often Now roome for his Case or his two Principles of Vnity which are evermore called in to help at a dead lift But his case is not the true case and his Rules are leaden Rules they might be streighâ— at the beginning but they have bended them according to their self Interest Both his case and his Principles have been sufficiently discussed and fully cleared so that I will not offend the Reader with his sleight dish of Coleworts sodden over and over againe He is angry that I make our seperation to be rather from the Court of Rome then from the Churcâ— of Rome and stileth it perfect Impudence So my Assertion be evidently true I weigh not his groundlesse Calumnies Let any man looke upon our GrievaÌ„ces and the Grounds of our Reformation 1. the intollerable extortion of the Roman Court 2. the unjust Vsurpations of the Roman Court 3. the malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body politick 4. the like malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body Ecclesiastick 5. and lastly the Violation of ancient Liberties and Exemtions by the Roman Court and he can not doubt from whence we made our Separation All our sufferings were from the Roman Court then why should we seek for ease but where our Shoe did wring us And as our GrievaÌ„ces so our ReformatioÌ„ was onely of the Abuses of the Roman Court Their bestowing of prelacies and dignities in England to the prejudice of the right patrons Their Convocating Synods in England without the Kings leave Their prohibiting English Prelates to make their old Feâ—dall Oaths to the King and obliging them to take new Oaths of Fidelity to the Pope Their imposing and receiving Tenths and First fruits and other arbitrary Pensions upon the English Clergy And lastly their usurping a Legislative Iudiciary and Dispensative Power in the exteriour Court by Politicall Coaction These are all the Branches of Papall power which we have rejected This Reformation is all the Separation that we have made in point of Discipline And for Doctrine we have no Difference with them about the old Essentialls of Christian Religion And their new Essentialls which they have patched to the Creed are but their erroneous or at the best probable Opinions no Articles of Faith He is still bragging of his Demonstrations yet they are but blind Enthymematicall Paralogismes wherein he maketh sure to set his best legge formost and to conceale the lamenesse of his Discourse as much as he can from the eyes of the Reader and still calling upon us for rigorous Demonstration I wish we knew whether he understaÌ„d what rigorous Demonstration is in Logick for no other Demonstration is rigorous but that which proceedeth according to the strict Rules of Logick either a priore or a posteriore from the cause or the effect And this Cause in Difference between us whether those Branches of power which the Pope claimeth and we have
obey their Priests then their Kings But they must move their Rudder according to the Various Face of the Sky and await for a fitter opportunity As our Kings did which fell oâ—t at the Reformation when they followed his Counsaile in good earnest and with the Civill sword did lop away all Papall Vsurpations and abuses Other Division then this to divide between the rotteâ— and the sound we made none The great division which followed our Reformation was made by themselves and their Censures Our Articles do testify to all the world that we have made no division from any Church but onely from Errours and Abuses Seventhly he pleadeth that in case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable yeâ— Ecclesiasticall Communion ought not to be broken for temporall Concernments To prove this Conclusion he bringeth six reasons some pertinent some impertinent and very improper but he might have saved his labour For if he understand his Conclusion in that sense wherein he ought to understand it and wherein I hope he doth understand it of deserting the Communion of the Catholick Church or of any member of the Catholick Church qua â—ale as it is a Member for meer temporall respects Concedo omnia I grant the conclusion but if by breaking Ecclesiasticall Communion he understand deserting the Communion of a particular Church as it is erroneous and wherein it is erroneous his Conclusion is not pertinent to his purpose nor his six proofes pertinent to his conclusion But he might remember first that our Grounds by his own Confession do not all relate to temporall inconveniences but some of them to Eternity and Conscience and that they ought to be considered conjointly Secondly that we do not make these temporall Inconveniences to be irremediable we our selves have found out a Remedy and it is the same which he himself adviseth in this place to thrust out all entroachments and Vsurpations with the civill sword If they will grow Angry upon this and break Ecclesiasticall Communion themselves it is their Act not ours who have acted nothing who have declared nothing against any right of the Bishop of Rome divine or humane but onely against his encroachments and Vsurpations and particularly against his Coactive poweâ— in the Exteriour Court within the English Dominions They might take us to be not onely very tame Creatures but very stupid Creatures first to suffer them to entrench and encroach and usurp upon us dayly and theÌ„ to be able to perswade us to Isachars condition to undergoe our burthen with Patience like Asses because we may not break Ecclesiasticall Communion for temporall concernments We have done nothing but what we have good warrant for from the Lawes of God and nature let them suffer for it who either seperate from others without just cause or give others just cause to seperate from them In the next place followeth a large Panegyricall Oration iâ— the praise of Vnity of the Benefit and Necessity of it mixed with an Invective against us for breaking both the Bonds of Vnity The former of those considerations is altogether superfluous To praise Vnity which no man did ever dispraise but to his own perpetuall Disgrace The latter is a meer Taâ—tology or repetition of what he hath said before which I will not trouble the Reader withall but onely where I find some new weight added He saith wee acknowledge the Chnrch of Rome to be a true Church Right Metaphisically a true Church which hath the true essence and being of a Church but not Morally true or free from Errours He demands what is the certain Method to know the true sense of Scripture If he please to take so much paines to View my answer to Militier he may find both whom wee hold to be fit Expositors of Scripture and what is the right manner of expounding Scripture If he have any thing to say against it he shall have a faire hearing He telleth us that our best Champions Chillingworth and Falkland doe very candidly confesse that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely He citeth no place and I do not hold it worthy of a search whether they doe confesse it or not It is honour enough for them to have been genuine Sonnes of the English Church I hope they were so and men of rare parts whereof no man can doubt yet one of them was a Lay man it may be neither of them so deeply radicated in the right Faith of the English Church as many others But our chiefest Champions are those who stick closest to the Holy Scriptures interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and the Perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church but for that Assertion which you father upon them that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely We detest it And when you or any other is pleased to make tryall You will find that we have as great assuraÌ„ce altogether for our faith as your selves have for your old Articles of faith and much more then you have for your new Articles He accuseth us for joining iu Communion with Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. And after he addeth Roman Catholicks Are not Huguenots Presbyterians in his Sense If they be why doth he disjoin them I know no reason why we should not admit Greeks and Lâ—â—herans to our Communion and if he had added them Armenians Abyssines Muscovites and all those who do professe the Apostolicall Creed as it is expounded by the first four Generall Councells under the Primitive Discipline and the Roman Catholicks also if they did not make their Errours to be a Condition of their Communion As for Adamites and Quakers we know not what they are and for Socinians we hold them worse then Arrians The Arrians made Christ to be a Secondary God erat quando non erat but the Socinians make him to be a meer creature And for Presbyterians what my Iudgement is he may find fully set down in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle But saith he every one of these hath a different head of the Church The English head is the King The Roman Catholick head is the Pope The Grecian head is the Patriarch The Presbyterian head is the Presbytery or Synod and the Lutheran head is the Parish Minister First for the Lutherans he doth them egregious wrong Throughout the Kingdomes of Denwark and Sweden they have theit Bishops name and thing and throughout Germany they have their Superintendents And to the rest I answer him that there are severall Heads of the Church Christ alone is the Spirituall head the Soveraign Prince the Politicall head the Ecclesiasticall head is a Generall Councell and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order We who maintain the King to be the Politicall head of the English Church doe not deny the spirituall Headship of Christ nor the supreme power of the
Represētative Church that is a Generall Councell or Synod nor the Executive headship of each Patriarch in his Patriarchate nor the Bishop of Romes headship of Order among them and thus this great Objection is vanished By this he may see that we have introduced no new Form of Ecclesiasticall Government into the Church of England but preserved to every one his due right if he will accept of it and that we have the same Dependence upon our Ecclesiasticall Superiours which we had evermore from the Primitive times He chargeth us that we give no certain Rule to know which is a Generall Councell which not or who are to be called to a Generall Councell There is no need why we should give any new Rules who are ready to observe the old Rules of the Primitive Church Generall Summons to all the Patriarchs for them and their Clergy Generall Admittance of all Persons capable to discusse freely and to define freely according to their distinct Capacities and lastly the presence of the five Protopatriarchs and their Clergy either in their persons or by their suffrages or in case of Necessity the greater part of them doe make a Generall Councell Whilest we set this rule before us as our pattern and swerve not from it but onely in case of invincible Necessity we may well hope that God who looketh upon his poore Servants with all their Prejudices and expecteth no more of them then he hath enabled them to performe who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his name there will he be in the midst of them Will vouchsafe to give his assistence and his Blessing to such a Councell which is as Generall as may be although perhaps it be not so exactly Generall as hath been or might have been now if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently In summe I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the Determinaation of a Councell so Generall as is possible to be had so it may be equall not having more Iudges of one Country then all the rest of the Christian world as it was in the Councell of Trent but regulated by the equall votes of Christian Nations as it was in the Councells of Constance and Basile and so as those Nations which cannot in probability be personally present may be admitted to send their Votes and Suffrages as they did of old and lastly so it may be free called in a free place whither all parties may have secure accesse and Liberty to propose freely and define freely according to the Votes of the Fathers without being stinted or curbed or overruled by the Holy Ghost sent in a Curriers Budget And for the last part of his exception that Hereticks should not be admitted I for my part should readily consent provided that none be reputed Hereticks but such as true Generall Councells have evidently declared to be Hereticks or such as will not pronounce an Anathema against all old Heresies which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted Generall Councells But to imagin that all those should be reputed Hereticks who have been condemned of Heresy or Schisme by the Roman Court for their own interest that is foure parts of five of the Christian world is silly and senselesse and argueth nothing but their fear to come to a faire impartiall Tryall And this is a full answer to that which he allegeth out of Doctor Hammond that Generall Councells are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and Divided into so many Communions It is not credible that the Turke will send his Subjects that is four of the Protopatriarchs with their Clergy to a Generall Councell or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendome in a Generall Councell it being so much against this own Interest but yet this is no impediment why the Patriarchs might not deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers and this is enough to make a Councell Generall In the First Councell of Nice there were onely five Clergymen present out of the Western Churches In the Great Councell of Chalcedon not so many In the Councells of Constantinople and Ephesus none at all And yet have these four Councells evermore been esteemed truly Generall because the Western Church did declare their consent and concurrence Then as there have been Generall Orientall Councells without the personall presence of a Western Bishop so there may be an Occidētall Councell without the personall presence of one Eastern Bishop by the sole Communication of their sense and their Faith Neither is such Communication to be deemed impossible considering what correspondence the Muscovian Church did hold long with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Abyssine hath long held and doth still hold with the Patriarch of Alexandria It is cōfessed that there are too many different Communions in Europe it may be some more then there is any great cause for and perhaps different Opinions where there is but one Communion as difficult to be reconciled as different Communions But many of these Mushrome Sects are like those inorganicall Creatures bred upon the Bankes of Nilus which perished quickly after they were bred for want of fit Organs The more considerable parties and the more capable of reason are not so many if these could be brought to acquiesce in the determination of a free Generall Councell they would towe the other like lesser Boats after them with ease No man wil say that the Vnity of the Church in point of Government doth consist onely in their actuall subordination to Generall Councells Generall Councells are extraordinary Remedies proper for curing or composing new differences of great Concernment in Faith or discipline That being done Generall Councells may prove of more Danger then use No healthfull man delighteth in a continuall course of Phisick But Vnity consisteth also and Ordinarily in Conformity and submission to that discipline which Generall Councells have recommended to us either as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles or as Ecclesiasticall Policies instituted by them with the Concurrence or Confirmation of Christian Soveraigns for the publick good of the Catholick Church He chargeth us that we have so formed Gods Church that there is no meanes left to asssemble a Generall Councell having renounced his Authority whose proper Office it was to call a Generall Councell His errours seldome come single but commonly by Clusters or at least by paires What height of Confidence is it to affirm that it is the proper Office of the Pope to call Generall all Councells when all ingenuous men doe acknowledge that all the First Generall Councells were Ab Imperatoribus Indicta Called by Emperours To which the Popes Friends adde that it was by the Advise and with the Consent of the Pope And Bellarmine gives diverse reasons why it could not be otherwise First because there was a Law which did forbid frequent Assemblyes for feare af Sedition Secondly
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
in the Chiefe Clergy whom they call Cardinalls as secure a Course as mans wit can invent As Chiefe as their Cardinalls are the much greatest part of them were but Ordinary Parish Priests and Deacons of old The Cardinalls indeed have to doe with the Church of Rome in the Vacancy but what pretense have they from St. Peter What have they to doe with the Vniversall Monarchy of the Church Before he told us that theiâ— Headship was Christs own Ordination now he telleth us that this Headship is sometimes in the College of Cardinalls and that it is as secure a Course as mans wit can invent What a Contradiction would he make of this He demandeth doth the Harmony of Confessions shew that we have one Common certain Rule of Faith or any particular sort of Government obliging us to an Vnity under the Notion of Governed I doe shew him one Common certain Rule of Faith even the Apostles Creed and a particular sort of Government even the same was used in the Primitive Times What am I the better he will take no notice of them because I will not fixe upon that Rule of Faith and that Form of Government which he Fancieth Yet I am for Tradition as well as he but it is Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition such a Tradition is the Creed and in deed is that very Tradition which is so renowned in the Ancients He chargeth me with saying That Hereticks can have no Baptisme Let him either make his accusation good or suffer as a Falsifier All that I say is Turkes Iewes Hereticks and Christians have not the same Baptisme The reason is plaine because Turkes and Iewes have no Baptisme at all Secondly we ought to distinguish between the Baptisme of Hereticks and Hereticall Baptisme if the Baptisme it self be good the Administration of it by Hereticks doth not invalidate it at all but if the Heretick baptise after an Hereticall Forme as without due Matter or not in the Name of the Trinity such Baptisme is Hereticall and naught But all this is needlesse to understand the right scope of my words I said that a Body cousisting of Iewes Turkes Hereticks and Christians had not the same Baptisme I did not say that every one of these wanted true Baptisme He might as well charge me with saying that Christians can have no true Baptisme I have manifested elswhere that the Creed is a List of all Fundamentalls and in the same Section and Chapter the Reader shall find that the Bishop is not a Falsifier bu Mr. Serjeant is both an egregious Calumniator and Falsifier of the Councell of Ephesus I toâ—ke the word Paganisme in the ancient Primitive sense for Infidelity as it is contradistinguished to Christianity The true reason of that Appellation was because Country Villages did continue long in their Infidelity after Cities were converted to Christianity So the Turkes are the onely Pagans which we have now in this part of the World What a piece of Goteham Wisdome is this to quarrell about names when we agree upon the things Turkes and Pagans in my sense were the same thing both Infidells But he instructs the Learned Bishop that the Turkes acknowledge a God So did the Pagans also if Lactantius say true Non ego illum Lapidem colo quem video sed servio eiquem non video He addeth that I affirme the Councell of Ephesus held in the yeare 430 Ordered something concerning Turkes which sprang not up till the yeare 630 and calleth this good sport If there be any sport it is to see his Childish Vanity If I listed to play with words I could tell him that the Mahumetans sprung up about the yeare 630 the Turkes many Ages after But the answer is plaine and easy the Councell of Ephesus did give Orders for all Ages ensuing concerning Infidells but Turkes are Infidells and so it gave Order concerning Turkes Socinians and Arrians may admit the Apostles Creed interpreted their own way but they ought to admit it as it is interpreted by the Frst foure Generall Councells that they doe not and so they believe not all Fundamentalls as they should doe What he Objecteth further that Puritans hold not the Article of Christs descent into Hell and the Roman Catholicks and Protestants differ about the sense of two other Articles hath been answered formerly The Puritans will tell him that the manner of Christs descent hath not bene determined hitherto And I doubt much he understandeth not the Romish and English Tenets so well as he should SECT IX That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schisme My first Charge was this That Member of any Society which leaveth its proper place to assume an higher place in the Body is Schismaticall But the Pope and his Party do not content themselves that the Church of Rome should be the Sister of other Patriarchall Churches and the Mother of many Churches unlesse she be Lady and Mistrisse of all Churches or that the Pope should be the Brother of Other Bishops or a fellow of other Bishops as he was stiled of old unlesse he may be the Lord and Maister of all Bishops That the former is his proper place I clearly proved by Letters not of himself to other Bishops that might be Condiscension as for a Generall to call his Officers Fellow souldiers but of other Bishops to him no under Officer durst presume to call his Generall fellow souldier That he assumeth the other place to himself is proved out of the new Creed of Pius the fourth I acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches and I promise and sweare true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. And in the Oath of Allegiance which all Bishops sweare to the Pope IAB Bishop c. will be Faith full to St. Peter and to the holy Apostolicall Church of Rome and to our Lord Pope Alexander c. There is a great distance between the old Brother Bishop and fellow Bishop and this Oath of Allegiance to the Pope as to their LiegeLord First he Chargeth me that I doe flatly falsify his words which doe never deny her to be a mother but a Sister onely Either I falsified his words or he falsified mine My words were these First they make the Church of Rome to be not onely the Sister of all other Patriarchall Churches and the Mother of many Churches but to be the Lady and Mistresse of all Churches The two Former Branches of Sister and Mother are both acknowledged the last onely of Lady and Mistresse is denyed He falsifieth my words in his answer thus because she takes upon her to be Mistresse where she is but Sister to other Churches You see the word Mother is left out and because I bring it in againe as I ought to make the Argument as it was before his Curtaling of it I am become the Falsifier with him and he who is the Falsifier in earnest is innocent I
by all Catholicks c. For which you are excommunicated It is true they did not deny us Communion for holding this Opinion nor presse upon us an unconscientious Approbation of this Opinion directly for any thing that I know but neverthelesse they have by their power subjected a Generall Councell to the Pope they have procured it to be defined though not expresly in the Councell of Florence and to be expresly defined in the Councell of Lateran under Leo the tenth Hence it is that all the Councells since the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells have wanted Conciliary Freedome and been altogether at the Disposition of the Popes to prorogue them to tranfferre them to stin◠them what matters they might handle and what not to deferre their Determinations untill he had formed or created a party or wrought some of the dissenting Bishops to his will to ratify or reject their decrees at his pleasure When or where was it ever heard before that there was twice as many Bishops of one Nation in a Generall Councell as of all other Nations in the world Hence was that complaint of the Fathers in the Councell of Trent that the Synode was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male. If it had not been for this thing but the Fathers had been permitted freely to have proceeded in the Councell of Trent in the Resolution of that noble Question concerning the Residence and divine Right of Bishops in all probability this great rent had been made up and he and I had not needed to have disputed this Question at this Day Thus by this Opinion and by their Sinister Practises to establish it they are causally and formally Schismaticall and have been both the procreating and conserving Cause of this great Schisme the procreating cause by altering the Hierarchy and Disordering the Members which doth necessarily produce a disturbance and Schisme in the Body and the conserving cause by destroying the Freedome of Councells which are the proper Remedies of Schisme Whether these later Councells were Occumenicall or Occidentall or neither is not the point in debate They are those which they call Generall They were as Generall as they would permit them to be and to conclude it was their fault that they were not more Generall So though this were not the very cause alleged by them why they did excommunicate us yet it was one of the Causes of the Schisme and consequently of our Excommunication I leave every man free to Iudge for himself but for mine own part I am so great a Lover of the peace of Christendome that I should not oppose the Bishop of Romes headship of Order if he would be content with it and that is as much as many whom he stileth his own Sons do yield him But though that be sufficient for the Catholick Church it is not sufficient for the Court of Rome to fill their Coffers they love not such a Dry Papacy I dispute onely whether the Popes right be Divine or humane or mixed as Gerson thought either score may justly challenge Duty But I am very positive that whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath more then this Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity he had it by humane right and by humane right he may lose it Neither doe I goe about to deprive the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whatsoever of any Iurisdictiō purely spirituall which was left them as a Legacy by Christ or by his Apostles but I deny that Apparitors or Pursivants or Prisons are of Christs Institution I deny that Christ or his Apostles did ever either exercise themselves or grant to others Authority to exercise Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes within their Dominions and without their leaves If Subjects submit Volenti non fit injuria but then it is not Coactive If Princes give leave as they have done in all Ages so far as they judged it expedient for the publick good then it is very lawfull but without the Subjects submission or the Princes leave there may be indeed a spirituall kind of Coactiō in the interiour Court of Conscience but no true coactiō in the exteriour Court of the Church I see he understandeth not the sense of that Logicall restriction The Papacy as it is such which signifieth not the Papacy as it ought to be or so far as all Roman Catholicks doe agree about it but the Papacy as it is Qualified in present or as it is owned or obtruded or endeavoured to be obtruded by the Pope and Court of Rome So the Papacy as it is such is opposed or contradistinguished to the Ancient Papacy in the purer and more Primitive times which was not guilty of those Vsurpations which the modern Popes have introduced Thus still my Contradiction doth end in his misunderstanding My fourth ād last charge of Schisme upō the Pope and Court of Rome was thus They who take away the Line of Apostolicall Successiō throughout the world except in the See of Rome who make all Episcopall Iurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome and to be founded in his Lawes to be imparted to other Bishops as the Popes Vicars and Coadjutors assumed by them into part of their Charge are Schismaticks But the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners do thus Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners are Schismaticks To this Argument he vouchsafeth no answer at all in due Forme as it ought to be and I have no reason to insist long upon his Voluntary Iargon All the Answer which he intimateth is this that this Tenet is not Generall among them but points of Faith are held generally Here is an answerlesse Answer without confessing or denying either Proposition such an Answer doth not become one who maketh himself so great a Master in the Art of disputing I charge not their whole Church but the Pope and Court of Rome and all their Abetters and Mainteiners with the Crime of Schisme I conclude no more then I assume He answers that the whole Church dot not hold these Tenets What is that to the purpose As if a Particular person as the Pope or a Particular Society as the Court of Rome or the greater part of a Church as all their Abetters and mainteiners could not be Schismaticks except the whole Church be Schismaticall which is most absurd I am free to charge whom I will if he will not answer for them he may be silent but if he undertake to be their Advocate let him defend them in due Forme as he ought and not tell us that he is not concerned as a Controvertist to defend any thing but Points of Faith Which is neither better nor worse in plain English then to run away from the Question All our Controversy is whether such and such pretended Privileges be Papall Rights or Papall Vsurpations If he dare not maintein them to be just rights either by divine Law
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
there is a breach between them and us is too evident and void of Question Whether they or wee be guilty of making this breach They by excommunicating us or obtruding unlawfull Conditions of their Communion upon us or wee by seperating from them without sufficient Grounds is a question between us But that which changeth the whole state of the Question is this If any Bishop or Church or Court Whatsoever shall presume to change the ancient Discipline of the Church and Doctrin of Faith either by Addition or by Substraction either all at once or by degrees and in so doing shall make a Breach between them and the Primitive Church or between them and the present Catholick Church To separate from him or them in those things wherein they had first separated from the Ancient or present Catholick Church is not Schism but trûe piety Now wee affirm that the later Bishops of Rome did alter the Discipline of the Church and Doctrin of Faith by changing their beginning of Vnity into a Plenitude and Universality of Soveraign Iurisdiction and by adding of new Essentialls of Faith to the Creed and in so doing had made a former Breach between them selves and all the rest of the Christian World Here the Hindge of the Controversy is moved Hitherwards all his supposed Demonstrations oâ—ght to have looked Neither will it availe him anything to say there can be no sufficient cause of Schism for in this case the Separation is not Schisme but the cause is Schism Secondly if by Demonstrative and rigorous Evidence he understand perfect Demonstrations according to the exact rules of Logick Neither is this cause capable of such demonstrations nor can his Mediums amount unto it but if by Demonstrative evideÌ„ce he understand onely convincing proofes as it seemeth by opposing it to probable reasons I have made it evident that the Popes Authority which he did sometimes excercise in England before the ReformatioÌ„ when they permitted him and which he would have excercised alwayes de futuro if he could have had his own will was a mere Usurpation and innovation never attempted in the Brittish Churches for the first six hundred yeares Attempted but not admitted by the Saxon Churches for the next five hundred yeares And damned by the Lawes of the successive Norman Kings ever since as destructive to the rights of the English Crown and the Liberties of the English Church as shall be manteined where soever occasion offers it self Yet all this while I meddle not with his beginning of Vnity If he want that respect from me it is his own fault And this includeth an answer to his third ground that the Papall Authority which wee rejected was so strongly supported by long possession and the Vniversall Delivery of Forefathers as come from Christ. He had alwayes some shew of right for his beginning of Vnity but no pretence in the world for his Soveraignty of power To make Lawes To repeale Lawes to dispense with the Cannons of the Vniversall Church to hold Legantine Courts to dispose of Ecclesiasticall prefermeÌ„tes to cal the subjets out of the kingdoms to impose tributes at his pleasure and the like Wee will shew him such an usurpation as this Let him prove such a Papacy by universall tradition and he shall be great Appollo to mee Wee doe not hold it prudence to hazard a Schism upon probabilities but trust me such a multitude of palpable usurpations as wee are able to reckon up so contrary to the fundamentall Lawes of England which were grounded upon the ancient Privileges of the Brittish and Saxon Churcheâ— together with the addition of twelve new articles or Essentialls to the Creed at once by Pius the fourth I say addition not explication are more then probabilities He converseth altogether in Generalls a Papacy or no Papacy which is commonly the Method of deceivers but if he dispute or treate with us wee must make bold to draw him down to particulars Particulars did make the Breach I censured his light and ludicrous title of Down derry modestly in these words It were strange if he should throw a good cast who soales his Bowle upon an undersong alluding to that ordinary and elegant expression in our English tongue Soale your bowle well that is be carefull to begin your work well Dimidium facti qui bene cepit habet The Printer puts seales for soales which easy errour of the presse any rationall man might have found out but Mr. Serjeants pen runs at random telling the Reader that I am Mystically proverbiall that I am far the better Bowler Surely he did but dreame it And that he him self is so inexpert as not to understand what is meant by sealing a Bowle upon an undersong If he were such a stranger in his Mothers Tongue Yet he might have learned of some of his friends what soaling a Bowle was rather then burthen the presse and trouble the World with such empty and impertinent Vanities Neither did his pleasant humour rest here but twice more in his short Rejoinder he is pursuing this innocent Bowle Afterwards he telleth us that I was beholden to the merry Sâ—ationer for this Title who without his knowledge or approbation would needs make it his Post-past to his bill of fare This answer if it be true had excused himself but it sheweth that the Stationer was over scurriloufly audacious to make such Antepasts and Postpasts at his pleasure Neither is it likely that the composer was such a perfect stranger to our langnage as he intimateth in his Epistle and the merry Stationer so well versed in our Vndersongs But after all this he owneth it by telling us that the jeast was very proper and fatall Yes as fatall as it is for his Rejoinder to contein 666 pages which is just the number of the Beast His merry Stationer might easily have contrived it otherwise for feare of a fatality by making one page more or lesse but his mind was otherwise taken up how to cheat his Customers with counterfeit bills of fare which they will never find I will endeavour to cure him of his opinion of fatality Sect I. Cap I. BEcause Mr. Serjeant complaineth much of wording and yet giveth his Reader nothing but words and calleth so often for rigorous demonstrations yet produceth nothing for his part which resembleth a strict demonstration and because this first part of his discourse is the Basis or ground worke of the whole building whereof he boasteth that it doth charge the guilt of Schisme upon our Church not onely with Colour but with undeniable Evidence I will reduce his discourse into a Logicall forme that the Reader may see clearly where the Water sticks between us Whatsoever he prateth of a rigorous demonstrative way as being onely conclusive it is but a Copy of his countenance He cannot be ignorant or if he be he will find by experience that his glittering principles will faile him in his greatest need and leave him in the durt I have known sundry
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
well tell us that it is impossible to make a crooked line with a leaden Rule Particular Tradition is flexible and is often bended according to the interests and inclinations of particular ages and places and persons He saith that there can be no encroachments so as men adhere to this method that is immediate Tradition He telleth us that they did adhere to this Method and that there was such immediate Tradition and yet we have seen and felt that encroachments and vsurpations and abuses did not onely creep into the Church but like a Violent Torrent did beare down all opposition before them I produce but two Witnesses but they are beyond exception The one is Pope Adrian the sixth in his Instructions to his Nuncio Franciscus Cheregatus when he sent him to the German Princes at the diet of Nuremberg Wee know that in the holy See for some yeares past many things have been to be abhominated Abuses in Spirituall things Excesses in Mandates and all things changed perversly Neither is it to be marveiled at if sicknesse descend from the head to the members from the Chiefest Bishops to other inferiour Prelates c. And againe Wherein for so much as concerneth us you shall promise that wee will doe our uttermost endeavour that in the first place this Court from whence peradventure this evill hath proceeded may be reformed that as the Corruption flowed from thence to all inferiours so likewise the health and reformation of all may proceed from thence Pope Adrian Confesseth abominable abuses and excesses and perverse mutations and corruptions and yet Mr. Serjeant would make us believe that where this Method of Orall and immediate Tradition is used there can be no changes Either this Method was not used or this Method is not a sufficient preservative against innovations both wayes his demonstration falleth to the ground My other Witnesse is the Councell of nine cheife Cardinalls who upon their Oaths delivered up as their veredict a bundle of abuses grievons abuses abuses not to be tolerated they are their own words ye a Monsters to Paul the third in the yeare 1538 beseeching him that these spots might be taken away which if they were admitted in any Kingdome or Republick would streight bring it to ruine Never any man did make encroachments and innovatious to be impossible before this man His assumtion is as false as his major proposition But these two Rules whereof this is one part that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of S. Peter did inherit from him this privilege to be the first or Chiefe or Princes of Bishops c. Were agreed upon unanimously between the church of Rome and its dependents and the church of England and delivered from hand to hand in them all by the Orall and immediate Tradition of a World of Fathers to a World of children successively as a Rule of discipline received from Christ and his Apostles c. If all this were true it concerneth us nothing we may perhaps differ from them in judgmeÌ„t but have no formed quarrell with them about this that I know of We are willing to submit not onely to the Ordinances of Christ bâ—t to the just ordinances of man and to yeeld for the common Peace and Tranquility of Christendome rather more then is due then lesse But otherwise how was that unanimously agreed upon between the Churches of Rome and England and so delivered by Fathers to Children as a thing accorded whereof the Church of Rome is no better accorded within it self unto this day I mean concerning the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to all the privileges of St. Peter when the Popes greatest Champions maintein it so coldly as a thing that is not improbable that peradventure may be peradventure may not be as grounded upon a fact of St. Peter that is as much as to say not upon the Mandate of Christ And though wee should be so kind-hearted as to suppose that there is some part of Papall power in the abstract not in the concrete which is of Christs own institution Namely The beginning of Vnity that is a power to Convocate the Church and to preside in the Church and to pronounce the sentence of the Church so far and no further then power purely spirituall doth extend although there be no speciall mandate of Christ to that purpose for one to be the successour of S. Peter or any prime or chiefe of all other Bishops yet in the Iudgement even of the greatest opposers of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy it is the dictate of nature that one should preside over the rest Ex dei ordinatione perpetua necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit Yet what is this to that great Bulke of Ecclesiasticall Authority which hath been conferred upon that See by the decrees of oecumenicall councells and by the Civill Sanctions of Christian Emperours which being Humane Institutions may be changed by Humane Authority Can one scruple of divine right convert a whole masse of Humane right into divine Wee see Papall power is not equall or alike in all places but is extended or contracted variously according to the different Privileges and liberties of severall Churches and kingdomes We see at this day the Pope hath very little to doe in Sicily as I have shewed in my Vindication of the Church of England by reason that one of his Predecessors long since hath alienated in a manner the whole Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to the Soveraign Prince of the Country and to his Heirs Wee may call it by deputation or delegation but this is plain it is to him and his Heâ—res for ever This is certain divine right cannot be extended or contracted There is no Privilege or prescription against divine right That which belongeth to one person by divine right cannot be alienated to another person by humane right for then Humane right should be stronger then divine right In summe although there be some colour or pretext of divine right for a beginning of Vnity wheresoever the Catholick Church should fix it yet it appeareth evidently by the Vniversall practice of the Christian world in all ages that there is no Colour nor so much as a shadow of divine right for all the other Branches of papall power and those vast Privileges of the Roman Court. In the Councell of Constance they damned most of the Articles of Iohn Wickliffe down right without hesitation but when they came to the one and fortieth Article It is not necessary to Salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme among other Churches they paused and used some reservation It is an errour if by the Roman Church he understood the Vniversall Chureh or a Generall Councell or for as much as he should deny the primacy of the Pope above other particular Churches Their judgement is clear enough they yeilded to the Pope primatum not suprematum A primacy of
power to name and constitute two and thirty Commissioners sixteen of the Clergy and other sixteen of the Peers and Parliament to view the Ecclesiasticall Lawes of the Kingdome and declare which were fit to be retained and which were to be abrogated The same Law is confirmed and enlarged The Sixth Law restreineth the payment of Tenths and First Fruits to the Bishop of Rome And prescribeth how Arch-bishops Bishops c. are to be elected and consecrated within the Realm without payment of any thing to Rome for Bulls and Pals c. The seventh law is an Act of Eâ—oneration of the Kings subjects from exactions and impositions heretofore paid to the See of Rome for Pensions Peterpence Licenses Dispensations Confirmations faculties c. and for having licenses and dispensations within the Realm without further suing for the same As being Vsurpations coâ—trary to the law of the land The eighth Act is Concerning the Kings Highnesse to be supreme Head of the Church of England that is Politicall head and to have Authority to redresse all Errours Heresies and Abuses in the same That is to say with externall Coactive Iurisdiction Wee never gave our Kings the power of the Keys or any part of either the Key of Order or the Key of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall but onely that Coactive power in the externall Regiment of the Church which their Predecessors had alwayes enjoyed The Ninth Act is for the annexing Tenths and first fruits to the Crown for the better supportation of the Burthens of the Commouwealth The tenth Act is au Act extinguâ—shing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or extirpating it out of this Realm That is Not the Bishop of Romes Primacy of Order Not his beginning of Vnity Not that respect which is dne to him as Bishop of an Apostolicall See If he have not these it is his own fault This is not our quarrell It is so far from it that wee do not envy him any just legacies of Christian Emperours or Generall Councells But that which our Ancestors did extinguish and endeavour to extirpate out of England was the Popes externall Coactive power over the Kings Subjects in foro contentioso as wee shall see by and by when we come to state the quarrell rightly between us After this Act there followed au eleventh Act made for corroborating of this last Act to exclude the usurped power and Iurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome And both these Acts are backed with new Oaths as those times were fruitfull of Oaths such as they were The last Act of any moment was an Act of Ratification of the Kings Majestjes Style of Supreme head of the Church of England making it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it But as well the eighth Act which gave the King that title of the Head of the Church as this twelfth Act which makes it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it are both repealed and never were restored So are likewise the tenth Act of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome and the eleventh act made for corroboration of that Act with both their Oaths included in them All that hath been added since of moment which concerneth the Bishop of Rome is one Act Restoring to the Crown the ancient Iurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall and abolishing all forrain power repugnant to the same Here is no power created in the Crown but onely an ancient Iurisdiction restored Here is no forrein power abolished but onely that which is repugnant to the ancient Lawes of England and to the Prerogative Royall In a word here is no power ascribed to our Kings but meerly Politicall aud Coactive to see that all their Subjects doe their Dutyes in their severall places Coactive power is one of the Keys of the Kingdome of this world it is none of the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven This might have been expressed in Words lessé subject to exception But the case is clear The Grand Act xxv Hen. 8. cap. 12 The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth The Articles of our Chutch Art 37. doe all proclaime that this power is merely Politicall Christ gave St. Peter a Commission to preach to baptise to bind and loose in the Court of Conscience but where did he give him a Commission to give Licenses to grant Facultyes to make Lawes to dispense with lawes to receive appeales to impose Tenths and First fruits in other mens Kingdomes whether the right owner will or no Who gave him power to take other mens Subjects against their Wills to be his Officers and Apparitors That is more power then Christ himself did challenge here upon Earth And now Reader take a Stand and looke about thee See among all these Branches of Papall power which were cast out of England if thou caust find either of St. Peters Keys or his Primacy of Order or his Beginning of Vnity or anything which is purely Spirituall that hath no further influence then merely the Court of Conscience No but on the other side behold a pack of the grossest Usurpations that ever were hatched and all so late that is was above a thousand years after the death of S. Peter be fore any of his pretended Privileges did see the sun in England observe them one by one The first is a power to dispense with English Subjects for holding Plurality of Benifices contrary to the Lawes of England And for non Residents contrary to the Statutes of the Realm It had been much to have made Merchandise of his own Decrees but to Dispense with the Lawes of the Land Non auderet haec facere Viduae mulieri He durst not doe so much to a poore widow woman as he did to the Church and Kingdome of England to dispense with their Lawes at his pleasure It is but vain for the Flower of our Kingdome to assemble aud consult about healthfull Lawes if a Forrainer have power to dispense with the breach of them as it seemeth good in his Eyes They might as well sit them downquietly fall to pilling of rushes The second Branch of Papall power which was Excluded out of England was the Popes Iudiciary power I doe not mean in Controversies of Faith when he is in the Head of a councell Yet Eugeniur the fourth confesseth that in points of Faith the sentence of the councel is rather to be atteÌ„ded theÌ„ the sentence of the Pope But I mean in points of meum and tuum not onely in some rare cases between Bishop and Bishop which had been lesse intollerable and had had more shew of Iustice but generally in all cases promiscuously as if the whole nation wanted either discretion or Law to determin their own differences at home without the help of the Roman Courtier tosqueese their purses It was not Henry the eighth but the old Lawes of England which gave them this blow against Appeales to Rome The third Branch of papall
had no coactive power to compell any man against his Will The Vttermost they could doe was to separate him from their Communion and to leave him to the Comming or Iudgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha The true Controversy then is this Whether the Bishop of Rome by his Legates have Coactive power in the exteriour Court to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England when he will where he will whom he will without their Consents and without the leave of the Soveraign Prince or King of England The Case being thus stated determineth it self Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England Wee see by often experience that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Councell in Italy within the Dominions of another Soveraign Prince or Republick although they be of his own Communion he must First aske leave and obtein leave before he can tell how to doe it Or how should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King Thus for point of right Now for matter of Fact First I doe utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Synod in the Brittish Island during the First eleven hundred yeares Or preside in any by his Legates Or confirm them by his Authority If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary he may cry guilty to the Vsurpation where of he is accused and hold his peace forever Secondly I doe confesse that after eleven hundred yeares The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civill combustions and prostituting the reputation of the Apostolicall See to their temporall ends did by the leave of our Kings not otherwise sometimes call Synods in England and preside in them The first Synod held in England by any of the Popes Legats was at London in the yeare 1125. by Ioannes Cremensis Which moved England into no smal indignation to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdome of England A Priest sitting president upon an high throne above Arch Bishops Bishops bats c. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference betwen affirmative and negative Presidents All which this proveth is that the King did give leave or connive at that time But it doth not prove it cannot prove a right to doe the same at other times when the King contradicteth it Further wee ought to take notice that there is a greate deale of difference between an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation Although in truth our Convocations be Synods So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them Convocari facias All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Synod but all the whole Clergy of the Kingdome were present at a Convocation either in their Persons or by their Proctors sufficiently authorised Secondly the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papall Synod as they had to the Acts of a royall Convocation sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates Lastly to drive the naile home and to demonstrate clearly the Grossenesse of this Papall usurpation it remaineth onely to shew that by the Ancient Lawes of England the calling of Convocations or Synods belonged properly to the King not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates And first by reason By the Lawes of England more ancient then the Popes intrusion no Roman Legat could enter into the Kingdome withont the Kings leave nor continue in it longer then he had his License as wee shall see hereafter and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor doe any Synodicall Act without the Kings leave Secondly by Records of the English Convocation itself that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are alwayes have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532. Thirdly by the Form of the Writt which hath ever been the same in all succeding Ages constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces The very Form speakes it English sufficiently For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church and the peace tranquility publik good and defence of our Kingdome and Subjects Wee command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe â—o us that you cause to be convocated with convenient speed in due manner all and singular Bishops of your Province Deanes and Priors of Cathedrall Churches c. And the whole Clergy of your diocesse and Province to meet before you c. Another Writ did alwayes issue from the King for the dissolution Wee command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation this very day in due manner without any delay c. Lastly by the concurring Testimonyes of all our Historiographers That all the space of time of eleven hundred yeares wherein the Popes did neither call Councells nor Preside in them nor Confirm them and after unto the very Reformation Our Kings did both call Councells and Preside in them and Confirm them and own their Lawes as I have shewed him by the Lawes of Ercombert Ina Withred Alfred Edwerd Athelstan Edmund Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor in my Vindication And particularly that Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Presided in a Councell in the Presence of Iohn the Popes Legate That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decreâ—um Regis The Kings decree That King Withred called a Councell at Becancelde and Presided in it and that the decrees of the Councell issued in his name and by his Authority Firmiter decernimus c. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon All this he pretendeth to have answered but it is with deep silence If he desire more Presidents and more witnesses he may have a cloud of Authors upon holding up his Finger to prove undeniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them and confirm their Acts with in his own Dominions but followed the steps of his Roâ—al Predecessors in all Ages from the first planting of religion untill his own dayes And not onely of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours The President of Charles the great is very conspicuous To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf In the French Synod I Charlemain Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Servants of God and my Princes have congregated the Bishops wich are in my Kingdome with the Priests to a Synod for the feare of Christ to Counsaile me how the Law of God and Ecclesiasticall Religion may be recovered which in the Dayes of forepassed Princes is dissipated and fallen
to ruine c. And by the Counsaile of my Clergy and princes we have ordained Bishops through out the Cities and constituted over them Arch-bishop Boniface the Popes Legate Qui est missus Sancti Petri. Andâ—we have decreed every Yeare to congregate a Synod that in our Presence the Canonicall Decrees and the Rights of the Church may be restored and Christian Religion Reformed And in the Synod of Arles held under the said Emperour they begin the Synod with a solemne prayer for the Emperour The Lord of all things establish in the Conservation of his Faith our Most Serene and religious Lord the Emperour Charles by whose Command wee are here congregated And they conclude the Synod with a submission to him These things which wee judged worthy to be amended wee have briefly noted and decreed them to be presented to our Lord the Emperour beseeching his Clemency that if any thing be here waâ—tinâ— it may be supplied by his Prudence if any thing be amisse it may be amended by his Iudgement if any thing be reasonably taxed it may be perfected by his help through the assistance of the Divine Clemency So the Councell of Toures begin their Synodicall Acts That which was enjoined us by so great a Prince we accomplished in meeting at the time and place appointed Where being congregated wee noted such things by Chapters as needed to be amended according to the Canonicall Rule to be shewed to our most serene Emperour So they conclude their Acts These things wee have ventilated in our Assembly but how our most pious Prince will be pleased to Dispose of them wee his faithfull servants are ready at his beck and pleasure with a willing mind Lastly the Synod called Synodus Cabilonensis in the dayes of the said Emperour beginneth thus Our Lord Iesus Christ assisting us and the most renowned Emperour Charles commanding us c. We have noted out certain Chapters wherein reformation seemed necessary to us which are hereafter inserted to be presented to our said Lord the Emperour and referred to his most sacred Iudgement to be confirmed by his prudeÌ„t examination of those things which wee have reasonably decreed and wherein wee have been defective to be supplied by his Wisdome So they conclude We have ventilated these things in our Assembly but how it shall please our most pions Prince to dispose of them we his fathfull servants with a willing mind are ready at his beck and pleasure One Egge is not liker to another then these Synodicall Representations are to our old English Customes Yet these were Catholick times when Kings convocated Synods of their own Subjects and either confirmed or rejected their Acts as they thought meete for the publick good aud did give the Popes own Legate his power of presiding in them by their Constitutions who joined with the rest in these Synodicall Acts. I proceed to the third Branch of the Popes first usurpation concerning the tying of English Prelates by Oath to a new Allegiance to the Pope No man can serve two supreme Masters where there is a possibility of clashing one with another It is true one is but a Politicall Soveraign and the other pretendeth but a Spirituall Monarchy Yet if this supposed Spirituall Monarch shall challenge either a direct power and Iurisdiction over the Temporall in the exteriour Court as Pope Boniface did Nos nos imperia regna principaâ—us quicquid habere mortales possunt auferre dare posse Wee even Wee have power to take away and give Empires Kingdomes Principalities and what soever morâ—all men are capable of Or challenge an indirect power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spirituall good which is the opinion of Bellarmine and his party Or lastly shall declare those things to be purely spirituall which are truly Politicall as the Patronage of Churches and all Coactive power in the exteriour Court of the Church In all such cases the subject must desert the one or the other and either suffer justly as a Traitour to his Prince or be subjected unjustly to the Censures of the Church and be made as an Heathen or Publicane This is a sad case But this is not all If this poore subject shall be further perswaded that his Spirituall Prince hath Authority to absolve him from all Sinnes Lawes Oaths knowing that his temporall Prince doth challenge no such extravagant power what Emperour or King can have any assurance of the Fidelity of his own naturall subjects It is true a Clerk may sweare allegiance to his King and Canonicall obediente to his Bishop but the cases are not like No Canonicall obedience either is or can be in consistent with true allegiance The law full Canons oblige without an Oath And all that Coactive power which a Bishop hath is derived from the Prince and Subjected to the Prince The question then is not whether a Pastor may enjoine his Flock to abstaine from an unjust oath An oath of allegiance to a naturall Prince is justifiable both before God aÌ„d man Nor yet whether the Clergy have immunities orought to enjoy immunities such as reÌ„der them more capable of serving God alwayes the first Article in our Great Charter of England Let the Churâ—h injoy her Immunities The question is not whether Clergy men transgressing of the Canons ought to be tryed by Canonicall Iudges according to the Canons especially in the first instance For by the Law of England the Delinquent was alwayes allowed the liberty to appeale to Caesar. But the question is whether the Pope by any Act or decree of his can acquit English Subjects or prohibit them to do homage aud sweare Allegiance to their King according to the Ancient Lawes of the Realme because they are Clergymen And can Command them whether the King will or not to take a new Oath never heard of or practised formerly An Oath of Allegiance aud Obedience to himself So it is called expresly in the Edition of Gregory the thirteenth Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apostolica Pallium non tradet nisi prius praestet fidelitatis Obedientiae Iuramentum The Apostolicall See will not deliver the Pall to an Archbishop elect unlesse he first take aâ— Oath of Fidelity aud Obedience Wee have seen already how Henry the First was quietly seised aud possessed of the Homage of his Prelates aud their Oaths of and their Oaths of Fidelity and his Predecessors before him So wee have heard Platina confessing that before the Popedome of Paschalis the second the Homage and Feudall Oaths of Bishops were performed to Lay Men that is to Kings not Popes Thus much Eadmerus and Nauclerus and William of Malmesbury and Hoveden and Iorvalensis doe all assure us This agreeth sweetly not onely with the Ancient Law of Feuds from whence they borrowed the name of Investitures but also is confirmed by the decrees of ancient Councels as diverse Toletan Councells and that of Aquisgrane which who so desireth to see may find
Church of England Lastly these Papall Oaths doe necessarily suppose a Voiage to Rome either to take the Oath there or if the Oath was sent them into England one Clause in the Oathâ—was that they should come to Rome in person to receive the Popes Commands within a prefixed time But this is directly contrary to the Lawes of England which allow no Subject Clergiman or other to goe to Rome without the Kings Leave Thus much both the Prelates and Peers of the Realm told Anselm when he had a miâ—d to visit the Pope Thus much wee find attested by the Generall Assembly of the Kingdome in the Statute or Assise of Clarendon where one of the Customes or Lawes of the Kingdome is That No Ecclesiasticall person might depart out of the Kingdome without the Kings License No not though he were expresly summoned by the Bishop of Rome And at a Parliament held at Northampton in the Reign of Henry the third it was enacted that if any persons departed out of the Kingdome un lesse they would return within a prefixed time and answer it in the Court of our Lord the King let them be outlawed This was the unanimous complaint of the whole Kingdome to the Pope That the English were drawn out of the Realm by his authority contrary to the Customes of the Kingdome No Clergy man may goe to Rome without the Kings License say the ancient Lawes of the Realm Every English Prelateâ— shall come to Rome upon my command saith the Pope What Oedipus can reconcile the English Lawes and Papall mandates Commonly good Lawes proceed from evill manners and abuses doe ordinarily precede their Remedies But by the Providence of our Ancestors our English Remedies were preexistent before their Vsurpations Non remittitur Peccaâ—um nisi restituatur ablatum Vntill they restore those rights whereof they have robbed the King and Kingdome Wee may pardon them but they can hope for no forgivenesse from God I will conclude this point with an ancient Fundamentall Law in the Britannick Island anotherâ—Prince â—Prince professing Fidelity and obedience to any one besides the King Let him lose his head I come now to the last Branch of the first Papall Vsurpation Tenths and First fruits If Christ be still crucifyed between two Thieves it is between an old overgrown Officer of the Roman Court and a Sacrilegious Precisian The one is so much for the Splendour of Religion and the other for the Purity of Religion that between themâ— thâ—y destroy Religion Their Faces like Samsons Foxes locke contrary wayes but both of them have Firebrands at their tailes both of them prate of Heaven altogether both of them have their hearts nailed to the Earth On the one side if it had not been for the Avaricious Practises of the Roman Court the Papacy might have beeÌ„ a great advantage to the ChristiaÌ„ world in point of Order and Vnity at least it had not been so intolerable a BurtheÌ„ It is feared these will not suffer an Eugenius an Adrian or an Alexander to be both honest and long-lived On the otherside these Counterfeit Zelots do but renew the Policy of the two old Sicilian Gluttons to blow their Noses in the dishes that they might devour the meate alone that is cry down Church Revenues as Superstitious and Dangerous because they gape after them themselves If it were not for these two factioÌ„s wee might hope to see a reconciliation Self interest and self profit are both the procreating and conserving cause of Disunion Who would Imagin that the large Patrimony of St. Peter should not conteÌ„t or suffice an old Bishop abundantly without preying upon the poore Clergy for Tenths and First fruits and God knowes how many other waies The Revennes of that See were infinite yet the Bishops of ten complained of Want Gods blessing did not goe along with these Ravenous Courses So Pharohs lean Kine devoured the fat yet were nothing the Fatter them selves The first Tenth which the Pope had from the English Clergy was onely a single Tenth of their moveable Goods not by way of Imposition but as a Benevolence or free gift out of Courtesy But the Roman Bishops having once tasted the sweet meant not to give over so Non missura cutem nisi plena cruoris â—irudo The next step was to impose Tenths upon the Clergy not in perpetuity or as a certain Revenue due to the Papacy but for a fixed number of yeares as a stock for the Defence of Christendome against the incursions of the Turke About the same time First fruits began to be exacted not generally but onely of the Popes own Clerkes as a Gratuity or in plain English as a handsome Cloak of Simony But he that perfected the Work and made both Tenths and First fruits a certain annuall Revenue to the See of Rome was Boniface the ninth or Iohn the two and twentieth his Successor so saith Platina And with him almost all other writers doe agree This Boniface lived about the year fourteen hundred whom Turselline maketh to have been the restorer of Papall Majesty whose prudence did transcend his Age for he was but thirty yeares old He was the Vsurper that tooke away from the Romans the free choise of their Magistrates Iohn the two and twentieth lived in the time of the Councell of Constance some thing above the fourteen hundreth yeare It was he that called the Councell and was him self deposed by the Councell for grievous Crimes and the payment of First fruits abolished For neither the paiment of Tenths nor First fruits did agree with the palate of the Councells of Constance and Basile Notwithstanding their gilded pretences The Councell of Constance decreed that it was not lawfull for the Bishop of Rome to impose any Indictions or Exactions upon the Church or upon Ecclesiasticall persons in the Nature of a Tenth or any other way Which Decree was passed in the nineteenth Session though it be related afterward According to this Decree Pope Martin issued out his Mandate Wee Command that the Lawes which prohibit Tenths and other Burthens to be imposed by the Pope upon Churches and Ecclesiasticall persons be observed more Strictly And the Councell of Baâ—ill Commandeth that as well in the Roman Court as elswhere c Nothing be exacted for Tenths or Firstfruits c. But for all this the Popes could not hold their Hands Leo the tenth made a new imposition for three yeares Ad triennium proxime futurum for the old ends And it should seem that their mind was that thence forward as the cause lasted so should the imposition But the Germane Nation were not of the same mind who made this their nineteenth Grievance for as much as concerneth Tenth which Ecclesiasticall Prelates paid yearely to the Pope which the Germane Princes some yeares since did consent unto that they should be paid to the See of Rome for a certain time upoÌ„ Condition that this money should be
deposited at Rome as a stock for defence against the Turk and no otherwise But the time is effluxed since and the Princes have learned by Experience that the moneys have not been imployed againsâ— the Turkes but converted to other Vses c. The Emperour Charles the fifth was not of the same mind as appeareth by his Letter to Pope Adrian the sixth where in he reciteth the same fraud and requireth that the Tenths may be detained in Germany for that Vse for which they were first intended Lastly Henry the eighth and the Church and Kingdome of England were not of that mind nor intended to indure such an egregious cheat any longer so extremely contrary to the Fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and destructive to them By which Lawes the King himself who onely hath Legislative power in England may not compell his Subjects to pay any such Pensions without the Good will and Assent of the Arch-Bishops Bishops Earls Barons Knights Burgesses and other Freemen of the land Much lesse can a forrain Prince or Praelate whatsoever he be impose any such payments by his own Authority This is that which is so often Condemned in our Statutes of Provisors Namely the imposing Pensions and exporting the Treasure of the Realme The Court of Rome is so far from any Pretense of Reparation that if their Predecessors were living they were obliged to make restitution These are all the Differences that are between us concerning the Patronage of the Church of EnglaÌ„d Yet now least he should urge that these Lawes alledged by mee are singular obsolete Lawes not Consonant to the Lawes of other Christian Kingdomes I will Paralell them with the Lawes and Liberties of France which he him self acknowledgeth to be a Catholick Country as they are recorded in two Authentick Bookes One of the Rights and Libertyes of the Gallican Church The Other The Defence of the Court of Paris for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Roman Court both printed by Authority First for the Patronage of the Church The fourth Liberty is The King hath power to Assemble or cause to be Assembled Synods Provinciall or Nationall and therein to treat of such things as concern Ecclesiasticall Order The seventh Liberty is The Prelates of the French Church although commanded by the Pope for what cause so ever it be may not depart out of the Kingdome without the Kings Commandement aâ—d License The eleventh Liberty is The Pope cannot impose Pensions in France upon any Benifices having Cure of Soules Nor upon any other but according to the Canons c. The Fourteenth Liberty is Ecclesiasticall persons may be Convented Iudged and sentenced before a secular Iudge for the First enormious Crime or for lesser offences after a relapse The fifteenth Liberty is All the Prelatest of France are obliged to swear Fealty to the King and to receive from him their Investitures for their Fees and Manours The nineteenth Liberty is Provisions Reservaâ—ioÌ„s expectative graces have no place in FraÌ„ce This is the brief summe of those Liberties which concern the Patronage of the Gallican Church agreeing perfectly with our old English Customes I shall shew him the same perfect Harmony between their Church Liberties and our English Customes the Assise of Clarendon the Statutes of Provisors and Premunire through out Either Mr. Serjeant must make the Gallican Church Schismaticall which he dare not doe and if I conjecture rightly hath no mind to doe or he must acknowledge our English Lawes to be good Catholick Lawes for Company Sect. I. Cap. VI. The next Vsurpation which offereth it self to our Consideration is the Popes Legislative power ouer the Church and Kingdome of England either in his person or by his Legates For the clearer understanding whereof the Reader in the first place may be pleased to take notice that we receive the ancient Canons of the Catholick church and honour them more then the Romanists themselves as being selected ouâ— of the Canons of Primitive Councells before the Roman Bishops did challenge any plenitude of Legislative power in the Church And especially of the first four General Councells of which King Iames said most truly that Publica Ordinum nostrorum Sanctione recâ—pta sunt They are received into our Lawes We acknowledge that just Canons of Councells lawfully Congregated and lawfully proceeding have power to bind the Conscience of Subjects as much as Politicall Lawes in themselves not from themselves as being humane lawes but from the Ordinance of God who commandeth Obedience of Subjects to all sorts of Superiours We receive the Canons of other Primitive Councells but not with the same degree of Reverence as wee doe the first four generall Councells No more did S. Gregory of old No more doth the Pope now in his solemne Profession of his Faith at his election to the Papacy according to the decree of the Councell of Constance That which restrained them restraineth us I am more troubled to thinke how the Pope should take himself to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch and yet take such a solemne Oath In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost to keep the Faitâ— of the Councell of Chalcedon to the least Tittle What the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon was in this greate Controversy about the Papacy may appeare by the six teenth Session and the Acclamation of the Fathers to the Sentence of the Iudges Haec justa Sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent c. This is a just Sentence These things wee all say These things please us all c Secondly we acknowledge that Bishops were alwayes esteemed the proper judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution that to make them Lawes the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needfull The former part of this caution is evident in Iustinians confirmation of the fifth Generall Synod Haec pro communi Pace Ecclesiarum Sanctissimarum statuimus haec sententiavimus sequentes Sanctorum PatruÌ„ dogmata c. These things wee ordaine these things wee have sentenced following the opinion of the Holy Fathers c. Quae Sacerdotio visa sunt ab Imperio confirmata Which were approved by the Clergy and confirmed by the Emperour The second part of the caution is evident out of the Lawes of William the conquerour Qui decimam deâ—inuerit per justitiaÌ„ Episcopi Regis si necesse fueriâ— ad soluttioneÌ„ arguatur c. Who shall detain his Tythe Let him be convinced to pay it by the justice of the Bishop and if it be needfull of the King For these things S. Austin preached and taught and these things that is both Tythes and jurisdictioÌ„ were granted froÌ„ the King the Barons and the People So hitherto there is no difference betweeÌ„ us they acknowledge that the King
legislative power in England was a grosse Vsurpation and was suppressed before it was well formed But they are affraid of the old Rule Breake ice in one place and it will crack in more If they did confesse one Errour they should be suspected of many If their Infallibility was lost all were gone And therefore they resolve to bear it out with head and shoulders and in place of disclaiming a single power to make Ecclesiasticall Lawes and to give them a coactive obligation in exteriour Courts they challenge a power to the Pope some say ordinarily others extraordinarily some say directly other indirectly to make and abrogate Politicall Lawes throughout Christendome against the Will of Soveraign Princes They who seem most moderate and Cautelous among them are bad enough and deserve right well to have their workes inserted into the Rebells Catechisme If a Civill Law be hurtfull to the Soules of Subjects and the Prince will not abrogate it If another Civill Law be healthfull to the Soules of the Subjects and the Temporall Prince will not enact it The Pope as a Spirituall Prince may abrogate the one and establish the other For Civil power is inferiour and consequently subject to Spirituall power And The Ecclesiastick Republâ—ck ought to be perfect and sufficient to atteine its end But the power to dispose of things Temporall is necessary to atteine Spirituall ends And It is not lawfull to chuse an Infidel or Hereticall Prince but it is the same danger or dammage to chuse one who is no Christian and to tolerate one who is no Christian and the determination of the Question whether he be fit to be tolerated or not belongs to the Pope In good time From these premisses wee may well expect a necessary Collusion Who ever see such a Rope of Sand so incoherent to it self and consisting of such Heterogeneous parts composed altogether of mistakes Surely a man may conclude that either nocte pinxit The learned Author painted this Cypresse tree in the night or he hath a pittifull penurious Cause that will afford no better proofes But I hope the quarrel is dead or dying and with it much of that Animosity which it helped to raise in the World At least I must doe my Adversaryes in this cause that right I find them not Guilty of it Let it dye and the memory of it be extinguished for ever and ever Sect. I. Cap. VII So I passe over from the Popes Legislative power to his Iudiciary power Perhaps the Reader may expect to find something here of that great Controversy between Protestants and Papists whether the Pope be the last the highest the infallible Iudge of Controversies of faith with a Councell or without a Councell For my part I doe not find them so well agreed at home who this Iudge is All say it is the Church but in Determining what Church it is they differ as much as they and wee Some say it is the Essentiall Church by reception whatsoever the Vniversall Church receiveth is infallibly true Others â—ay it is the Representative Church that is a Generall councell Others say it is the Virtuall Church that it is the Pope Others say it is the Virtuall Church and the Representative Church together that is the Pope with a Generall Councell Lastly others say it is the Pope with any councell either Generall or Patriarchall or Provinciall or I thinke his College of Cardinalls may serve the turne And concerning his infallibility all men confesse that the Pope may erre in his Iudgement and in his Tenets as he is is a private Doctor but not in his Definitions SecoÌ„dly the most men doe acknowledge that he may erre in his Definitions if he Define alone without some Councell either generall or Particular Thirdly others goe yet higher that the Pope as Pope with a particular Councell may Define erroneously or heretically but not with a Generall Councell Lastly many of them which goe along with others for the Popes Infallibility doe it upon a Condition Si maturus procedat consilium audiat aliorum Pastorum If he proeeed maturely and hear the Counsell of other Pastors Indeed Bellarmine saith that if any man should demand Whether the Pope might erre if he defined rashly Without doubt they would all answer that the Pope could not define rashly But this is meer presumption without any colour of proofe I appeale to every rationall man of what communioÌ„ soever he be whether he who saith The Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely upon due advise doe presume that the Pope cannot proceed immaturely or without due advise or not rather that he may proceed rashly and without due advise Otherwise the condition was vainly and suâ—eâ—fluously added frustra fit perplura quod fieri potest per pauciora But the truth is wee have nothing concerning this Question nor concerning any Iurisdiction meerly Spirituall in all the Statutes of Henry the eighth They doe all intend Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court of the Church Yet although nothing which he saith doth constrain me I will observe my wonted Ingenuity Wee give the Supreme Iudicature of Controversies of Faith to a Generall Councell and the Supreme Power of Spirituall Censures which are Coactive onely in the Court of conscience but if the Soveraign Prince shall approve or confirm the Acts of a generall Councell then they have a Coactive power in the Exteriour Court both Politicall aud Ecclesiasticall There is nothing that wee long after more then a generall Councell rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidentall Councell as Generall as may be But then wee would have the Bishops to renounce that Oath which hath been obtruded upon them and the Councell to declare it void I. A. Bishop c. will be faithfull to St. Peter and to the Holy Apostolicall Church of Rome and to our Lord Pope Alexander c. I will be an assistent to retein and to defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter Where this Oath is esteemed Obligatory I doe not see how there can be a Free Councell But I retire my self to that which concerneth our present Question and the Lawes of Henry the eyghth concerning Iudiciary Power in the Exteriour Court of the Church The First Branch of this third Vsurpation s Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeales from England and send for what English Subjects he pleaseth to Rome without the Kings leave The First President and the onely President that we have of any Appeale out of England to Rome for the First thousand yeares after Christ was that of Wilfrid Arch-Bishop of Yorke though to speak the truth that was rather an Equitable then a Legall appeale to the Pope as the onely Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in the west and an honorable arbitrator and a Faithfull Depositary of the Apostolicall Traditions not as a Superiour Iudge For neither were the Adverse Parties summoned to Rome nor any witnesses produced both
Matrimony of Cloysterers from their Vowes of Celibate of all sorts of persons from all Obligations Civill or sacred And whereas no Dispensation ought to be granted without just cause now there is no cause at all inquired after in the Court of Rome but onely the Price This is that which the nine choise Cardinalls laid so close to the conscience of Paul the third How Sacred and Venerable the Authority of the Lawes ought to be how unlawfull and pernicious it is to reape any gaine from the exercise of the Keys They inveigh sadly throughout against dispeÌ„satioÌ„s and among other things that Simoniacall persons were not affraid at Rome first to commit Simony and presently to goe buy an AbsolutioÌ„ and so reteine their Benefice Bina Venena juvant Two grosse Simonies make a title at Rome Thankes to the Popes dispensations But I must contract my discourse to those Dispensations which are intended in the Lawes of Henry the eight that is the power to dispense with English Lawes in the Exteriour Court Let him bindor loose inwardly whom he will whether his Key erre or not we are not concerned Secondly as he is a Prince in his own Territories he that hath power to bind hath power to loose He that hath power to make Lawes hath power to dispense with his own Lawes Lawes are made of Common Events Those benigne Circumstances which happen rarely are left to the dispensative Grace of the Prince Thirdly as he is a Bishop whatsoever dispensative power the ancient Ecclesiasticall Canons or Edicts of Christian Emperours give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories which were subject to his Iurisdiction by Humane right we do not envy him So he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities freed from his encroachments and Vsurpations The Chief ground of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall Canon was Let the Old Customes prevaile A Possession or Prescription of eleven hâ—ndred yeares is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against humane Right and much more against a new pretense of divine right For eleven hundred yeares our Kings and Bishops enjoyed the â—ole dispensative power with all English Lawes Civill and Ecclesiasticall In all which time he is not able to give one Instance of a Papall Dispensation in England nor any shadow of it when the Church was formed Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legislative power no Iudiciary power in the Exteriour Court by necessary consequence they could have no Dispensative power The first reservation of any Case in England to the Censure and absolution of the Pope is supposed to have been that of Albericus the Popes Legate in an English Synod in the yeare 1138. Neque quisquam ei praeter Romanum Pontificem nisi mortis urgente periculo modum paenitenttae finalis injungat Let no man injoyn him the manner of finall Pennance but the Bishop of Rome except in danger of death But long before this indeed from the beginning our own Bishops as the most proper Iudges who lived upon the place and see the nature of the Crime and the degree of the Delinquents Penitence or Impenitence did according to equity relaxe the rigour of Ecclesiasticall Canons as they did all over the Christian world before the Court of Rome had usurped this gainfull Monopoly of Dispensations In the Lawes of Alured alone and in the conjoint Lawes of Alured and Guâ—thrun we see how many sortes of Ecclesiasticall crimes were dispeÌ„sed withall by the sole authority of the King and Church of England and satisfaction made at home to the King and to the Church and to the Party grieved or the Poore without any manner of reference at all to the Court of Rome or to any forrein Dispensation The like we find in the the lawes of some other Saxon Kings There needed no other paenitentiary taxe Dunstan the Arch-Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count He made his Peace at Rome and obteined the Popes Commaund for his restitution to the bosome of the Church Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I see him paenitent But it is not Gods will that he should lie in his sinne free from Ecclesiasticall discipline to insuâ—t over us God forbid that I should relinquish the law of Christ for the cause of any mortall man Roman dispensations were not in such Request in those daies The Church of England dispensed with those Nunnes who had fled to their Nunneries not for the love of religioÌ„ but had takeÌ„ the veile upon them meerly for feare of the French and this with the counseile of the King in the daies of Lanfranke and with Queene Maud the wyfe of HeÌ„ry the First in the like case in the daies of Anselme without any suite to Rome for a forreine dispensatioÌ„ There can be nothing more pernicious then where the sacred Name of Law is prostituted to avaricious ends Where Statutes or Canons are made like Pitfals or Traps to catch the Subjects by their purses where profitable faults are cherished for private Advantage by Mercinary Iudges as beggers doe their sores The Roman Rota doth acknowledge such ordinary avaricious Dispensations to be Odious things The Delected Cardinalls make them to be sacrilegious things an unlawfull selling of the power of the Keys Commonly they are called Vulnera Legum The woâ—nds of the Lawes And our Statutes of Provisers doe stile them expresly the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land The King the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the whole Common wealth of England complained of this abuse as a mighty Grievance Of the frequent comming among them of this infamous Messenger the Popes Non Obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customes Writings Grants Statutes Rights Privileges were not onely weakened but exinanited Sometimes these Dispensative Bulls came to legall Tryalls and were condemned By the Law of the Land the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visiter of the Vniversity of Oxford Boniface the eyght by his Bull dispeÌ„sed with this law and exeÌ„pted the Vniversity from the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop Whereupon there grew a Controversy and the Bull was decreed voide in Parliament by two succeding Kings as being obtained to the Prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome in favour of Lollards and hereticks and the probable Ruine of the said Vniversity How the Liberties of France and the Lawes and Customes of England doe accord in condemning this Vsurpation wee have seen formerly The power of the Pope is not absolute in France but limitâ—ed and restrained by the Canons of Ancient Councells If it be Limitted and restrained by Ancient Canons then it is not Paramount above the Canons then it is not dispensative to give Non Obstante's to the Canons And the Popes Legate may not execute his Commission before he have promised under his Oath upon his holy Orders that he will not attempt any thing in the exercise of his Legantine power to
the Prejudice of the Decrees of Generall Councells or the Privileges of the French Church Then he must give no Dispensarions against the Canons or Contrary to those Privileges Thus we have viewed all the reall differences between the Church of Rome and us concerning Papall power which our Lawes take notice of There are some other petâ—y Abuses which we complain of but they may be all referred to one of these four heads The Patronage of the Church of England The Legislative The Judicary and Dispensative powers Other differences are but the Opinions of particular Persons But where no Law is there is no Transgression Wee have seen evidently that Henry the eighth did cast no Branch of Papall power out of England but that which was diametrally repugnant to the Ancient Lawes of the Land made in the Reign of Henry the fourth Richard the second Edward the third Edward the first Henry the third Henry the second And these Lawes ever of Force in England never repealed no not so much as in Queen Maryes time when all the Lawes of Henry the eighâ—h and Edward the sixth which concerned the Bishop of Rome were repealed So that I professe clearly I doe not see what advantage Henry the eighth could make of his own Lawes which he might not have made of those ancieÌ„t lawes except onely a gawdy title of Head of the English Church which survived him not long and the Tenths and first fruits of the Clergy which was so late an usurpation of the Pope that it was not in the nature of things wheÌ„ those ancient lawes were made And since I have mentioned the Novelty of that upstart Vsurpation give me leave to let you see how it was welcommed into England whilest it was but yet hatching with the shell upon the Head of it By a Law of Henry the fourth about an Hundred yeares before Henry the eyghth so late this Mushrom began to sprout up For the grievous Complaints made to the King by his Commons in Parliament of the horrible Mischiefs and Damnable Custome which is introduced of new in the Church of Rome that none could have Provision of an Archbishoprick untill he had compounded with the Popes Chamber to pay great excessive summes of money as well for the First fruits as other lesser Fees and Perquisites c The King ordeineth in Parliament as well to the Honour of God as to eschew the Dammage of the Realm and perill of soules That whosoever shall pay such summes should forfeit all they had or as much as they might forfeit Wherein are Henry the eights Lawes more bitter against the Bishop of Rome or more severe then this is To conclude we have seen the precise time when all these Weeds did first begin to peep out of the earth The very first Introduction to the intended Pageant was the spoiling of Christian Kings of the Patronage of the Church which Bellarmine confesseth that they held Per non breve tempus For a long time A long time indeed so long as there had been Christian Princes in the world from Constantine the Great to Henry the fourth in the Empire and yet longer with us in Brittaine from King Lucius to Henry the First The Clergy of Liege say Nimium effluxit tempus quo haeâ— consuetudo incepit e. It is too long since this Custome of swearing fidelity to Princes did begin Aud under this Custome Holy and Reverend Bishops have yielded up their soules to God giving to Caesar that which was Caesars and to God that which was Gods But theÌ„ rose up Pope Hildebrand otherwise called Gregory the seventh Fortissimus Ecclesiae Dei Vindex The most undaunted Vindicator of the Church of God Who feared not to revoke and defend the old Holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes With this accordeth the Church of Liege Hildehran dus Papa Author hujus Novelli Schismatis primus Levavit Sacerdotalem Lanceam contra Diadema Regni c. Pope Hildebrand the author of this new Schisme first lift up his Episcopall Lance against the Royall diadeÌ„ And a little after Si utriusque Legis totam Bibliothecam c. If I turn over the whole Library of the old and new Law and all the ancient Expositors thereof I shall not find an Example of this Apostolicall precept onely Pope Hildebrand perfected the Sacred Canons when he Commanded Maud the Marchionesse to subdue Henry the Emperour for remission of her Sinnes I take no exceptions to the person of Pope Hildebrand others have done it sufficiently Whether the Title of Antichrist was fastened upon him justly or injustly I regard not Yet it was in the time of this Hildebrand and Paschalis his Successor that the Arch-bishop of Florence affirmed by revelatioÌ„ for he protested that he knew it most certainly that Antichrist was to be revealed in that age And about this time the Waldenses of whom St. Bernard saith that if we inquire into their Faith nothing was more Christian if into their Conversation nothing was more irreprehensible made their Secession from the Bishop of Rome And not long after in the yeare 1120. published a Booke to the world that the great Antichrist was come That the present Governers of the Roman Church armed with both Powers Secular and Spirituall who under the specious Name of the Spouse of Christ did oppose the right way of Salvation were Antichrist But I cannot but wonder what are those old holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes which Bellarmine mentioneth Those Institutions of the Holy Fathers which Hildebrand himself professeth to follow Sanctorum Patrum instituta sequenâ—es Why doe they mention what they are not able to produce or pretend what they never can perform Bellarmin hath named but one poore counterfeit Canon without Antiquity without Authority without Vse without Truth If Mr. Serjeant be able to help him with a recruit it would come very seasonably for without some such helps his pretended Institutions of the Fathers will be condemned for his own Innovations and for arrant Vsurpations and the Guilt of Schism will fall upon the Roman Court. Sect. I. Cap. IX But I expect it should be objected that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church the Legislative the Iudiciary the Dispensative power of Popes there are two other Statutes made by Henry the eighth The one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome The other an Act for establishing the Kings Succession in the Crown wherein there is an Oath that the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any Iurisdiction or Authority in this Realm And that it is declared in the 37. Article of our Church that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Kingdome of England And in the Oath ordained by Queen Elisabeth That no Forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall with in this Realm I answer this Objection three wayes First as to the two Lawes
of Henry the eighth They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary and never were restored by any succeding Prince If there were any thing blame worthy in them let it dye with them I confesse I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another nor the swearing before hand to Statutes made or to be made But De mortuis nil nisi bonum Secondly I answer according to the equity aâ— my second ground that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over reached themselves and the truth in some expressions yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the Line and Level of Apostolicall Tradition Thirdly and principally I answer That our Ancesters meant the very same thing that we doe Our onely difference is in the use of the Words Spirituall Authority or Iurisdiction Which we understand properly of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall which extendeth no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spirituall Authority or Iurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court which in truth is partly Spirituall partly Politicall The interiour habit which enableth an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to Excommunicate or Absolve or degrade is meerly Spirituall but the Exteriour Coaction is Originally Politicall So our Ancestors cast out Externall Ecclesiasticall Coactive Iurisdiction The same doe wee They did not take away froÌ„ the Pope the power of the Keyes or IurisdictioÌ„ purely Spirituall No more doe wee To cleare the whole businesse We must know that in Bishops there is a threefold power The first of Order The second of Interiour jurisdiction The third of Exteriour jurisdictioÌ„ The first is referred to the Consecrating and Administring of the Sacraments The second to the Regiment of Christians in the interiour Court of Conscience The third to the Regiment of Christian people in the Exteriour Court of the Church Concerning the two former I know no Controversy between the Church of Rome and us but one Whether the Bishop of Rome alone doe derive his Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ and all other Bishops do derive theirs mediatly by him Yet I confesse this Controversy is but with a part of the Church of Rome For many of them are of our mind that all Bishops hold their Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ as well as the Pope And if it were otherwise it were the grossest absurdity in the world For thousands of Bishops in Christendome doe not at all derive their holy Orders from S. Peter or any other Roman Bishop either mediatly or immediatly especially in Asia and Africa but froÌ„ the other Apostles Must all these poore Bishops waÌ„t the Key of Iurisdiction and be but half Bishops to humour the Court of Rome For they never had ordination or Delegation or Commission from Rome either mediatly or immediatly yet the ChristiaÌ„ World hath evermore received them for true complete Bishops But we have a Controversy with some others who acknowledge no power of Governing in a Bishop but meerly directive neither more nor lesse then a Phisitian hath over his Patient To advise him to abstain from some meats because they are hurtfull to him which advise the Patient may either obey or reject without sinne But all the Schooles have tyed two Keys to the Churches Girdle the Key of Order and the Key of Iurisdiction and I doe not mean to rob my Mother of one of her Keys What will ye shall I come unto you with a Rod A rod is more then chiding The principall Branch of this Rod is Excommunication a Punishment more to be feared in the Iudgement of the Fathers then all earthly Paines The Spirituall Sword Like the cutting of a member in the Body naturall Or the out lawing of a Subject in the body Politicall It is a Question in the Schooles whether the Pastors Sentence in binding and loosing be onely Declarative or also â—perative As if such glorious promises and so great solemnity where with this power was given did imply a naked declaration Keys are not given to signify the doore is open or shut but to opeÌ„ or shut it indeed For my part I have alwayes esteemed this QuestioÌ„ to be a meer Logomachy or Contention about words They who make the Sentence onely declarative in respect of man doe acknowledge it to be operative in respect of God And they who make it to be Operative make it to be Operative by the power of God not of maÌ„ Whether the effect be attributed to the principall cause or to the Instrument being rightly understood it is both wayes true But this will not excuse our Innovators who have robbed the Church of one of her Keys the Key of Spirituall jurisdiction They are so Iealous of the honour of God that they destroy the beauty of the world and jumpe over the backes of all second causes and so they would make the holy Sacraments to be bare Sigus As it was said of old the sword of the Lord and of Gideon so we may say now the Key of Christ and his Pastor St. Paul taxeth the Corinthians for saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas I am of Christ What saith he is Christ divided Is Christ divided from his Ministers As it is an Errour on the one hand to depend so much upon Paul and Apollo and Cephas or any of them as not to depend principally upon Christ so it is an Errour on the other hand so depend so upoÌ„ Christ as to neglect Paul Apollo and Cephas In summe Christ made his Apostles not onely Lawiers to give Advise but Iudges to give Sentence He gave them not onely a Command but a Commission As my Father sent me so send I you That is I doe constitute you my Deputies and Surrogates with as ample power and commission as my Father gave me Bind Loose Remitt Retein whatsoever you doe on earth Clave non errante as long as your Key erreth not I confirm in heaven This is the Difference between the binding and loosing of Christ and the binding and loosing of his Ministers His power is Originall Primitive Soveraign Imperiall Their power is derivative Subordinate Delegate Ministeriall His Sentence is absolute ad Sentenâ—iandum simplicitâ—er Their Sentence is Conditionall ad Sententiandum si His Key never erreth Their Key may erre and many times doth erre To conclude the Apostles had a legislative power It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater Burthen then these Necessary things The Observation of Sunday was an Apostolicall precept so is the Order of Deacons They had a Iudiciary power and their Tribunalls Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three witnesses They had a dispensative power To whom I forgave any thing for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ But all this is onely in the interiour Court of Conscience The third power of Bishops is the power of exteriour IurisdictioÌ„ in the
Court of the Church whereby men are compelled against their wills by Exteriour Meanes This the Apostles had not froÌ„ Christ nor their Successours froÌ„ them Neither did Christ ever assume any such power to him self in the world My Kingdome is not of this world And Man who made me a Iudge or divider over you Yet the greatest Controversies at this day in the Ecclesiasticall Court are about Possessions as Glebes Tithes Oblations Portions Legacies Administrations c. And if it were not for these the rest would not be so much valued in Criminibus non in Possessionibus potestas vestra quontam propter illa non propter has accepistis Claves regni Caelorum Saith St. Bernard well to the Pope Your power is in Crimes not in possessions for those and not for these you received the Keys of the kingdome of Heaven But suppose the Controversy to be about a Crime Yet who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison or punish them for not appearing without his leave All that power which Ecclesiasticall Iudges have of Externall Coaction they owe it wholy either to the Submission of the parties where the Magistrate is not Christian as the Iewes at this day doe undergoe such Penitentiall Acts as are enjoined them by their Superiours because the Reverence of them who obey doth supply the defects of their power who Command Or where the Magistrate is Christian they owe it to his Gracious Concessions Of which if any Man doubt and desire to see how this Coactive power how these externall Privileges did first come to be enjoyed by Ecclesiasticall persons Let him read over the first booke of the Code and the Authenticks or Novels of Iustinian And for our English Church in Particular let him consult with our best Historiographers Eadmerus was one whom they need not suspect of partiality as being Pope Vrbanes own Creature and by his speciall appointment placed over Anselm at his own intreaty as a Superviser to exercise his Obedience Whose injunctions had so much power over him that if he placed him in his Bed he would not onely not rise without his Command but not so much as turn him self from one side to another Vt cum Cubili locasset non solum sine praecepto ejus non surgereâ— sed nec latus inverteret What Marvell is it if the ancient Liberties of the English Church went first to wrack in Anselms Dayes about the Yeare of our Lord 1000 for he died Anno 1109 who being a Stranger Primate had so totally surrendered up his own reason to the Popes Creature Yet this Eadmerus saith of Lanfranke His wisdome recovered other Customes which the Kings of England by their Munificence had granted to the Church of Canterbury in ancient times and established them for ever by their sacred Decrees that it might be most free in all things All externall exemption and Coaction is Politicall and proceedeth originally from the Soveraign Prince This is that which S. Paul teacheth us The weapons of our warfare are not Carnall The weapons of the Church are Spirituall not worldly not externall But Citations and Compulsories and Significavits and Writs ad excommunicatum capiendum which are not written by the Bishops own hand yet at his beck and Apparitors and Iaolers c Are Weapons of this world and tend to externall Coaction For all which the Church is beholden to the Civill power to whom alone externall Coaction doth properly and originally belong This is that which St. Chrysostome observed in his comparison between a Bishop and a Shepheard It is not lawfull to cure men with so great Authority as the Shepheard cureth his Sheep For it is free for the Shepheard to bind his sheep to drive them from their meat to burn them to cut them But in the case of the Bishop the Faculty of curing consisteth not in him who administreth the Phisick but in him that is sick c. St. Chrysost. speaketh of power purely Spirituall which extendeth it self no further theÌ„ the Court of conscieÌ„ce where no man can be cured against his will But Soveraign Princes have found it expedieÌ„t for the good both of the Church and of the Commonwealth to strengthen the Bishops haÌ„ds by imparting some of their Politicall authority to him from whose gracious indulgence all that externall coactive power which Bishops have doth proceed Now to apply this to our purpose Wheresoever our Lawes doe deny all Spirituall Iurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sense that wee call the exteriour Court of the Churâ—h the Spirituall Court They doe not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the Keys or of any Spirituall power that was bequeathed unto him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy Yea even in relation to England it self Our Parliaments never did pretend to any power to change or Abridge divine right Thus much our very Proviso in the body of our Law doth testify that it was no part of our meaning to vary from the Articles of the Catholick Faith in any thing Nor to vary from the Church of Christ in any other thing declared by the holy Scripture and the word of God necessary to salvation If wee have taken away any thing that is of divine right it was retracted before it was done Then followeth the true Scope of our Reformation Onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in peace unity and tranquillity from ravine and spoile insuing much the ancient Customes of this Realm in that behalf That wich professed it self a Politick Ordinance doth not meddle with Spirituall Jurisdiction If it had medled with Spirituall Iurisdiction at all it had not insued the ancient Customes of the Realm of England In summe that externall Papall power which we rejected and cast out and which onely we cast out is the same which the English Bishops advised Aâ—selm to renounce when it was attempted to be obtruded upon the Kingdome But know that all the Kingdome complaineth against thee that thou endeavourest to take away from our Common Maister the Flowers of his Imperiall Crown Whosoever takes away the Customes which pertein to his royall dignity doth take away his Crown and Government together for we prove that one cannot be decently had without the other But we beseech the consider and cast away thy Obedience to that Vrban who cannot help the if the King be offended nor hurt thee if the King be pacified Shake of the yoke of Subjection and freely as it becomes an Arch-bishop of Canterbury in all thy Actions expect the Kings pleasure and Commands What soever power our Lawes did divest the Pope of they invested the King with it but they never invested the King with any Spirituall power or Iurisdiction witnesse the Injunctions of Queen Elisabeth witnesse the publick Articles of
whole Circuit of Cathage with a Bulls hide by her art so he within his First Movership can comprehend the Patronage of the English Church and the right to Convocate and dissolve and confirm English Synods and to invalidate old Oaths and to impose new Oaths of Allegiance and to receive Tenths and first fruits and all Legislative Judiciary and dispensative power Coactively in the exteriour Court of the Church over English Subjects He cannot plead any Charter from England we never made any such Grant and althoâ—gh we had yet considering how infinitely prejudiciall it is to the Publick Tranquility of the Kingdome we might and ought more advisedly to retract what we unadvisedly once resolved And for Prescription he is so far to seek that there is aâ— cleare Prescription of eleven hundred Yeares against him So there is nothing remaineth for him to stick to but his empty pretense of divine Right which is more ridiculous then all the rest to claime a divine right of such a Soveraign power which doth branch it self into so many particulars after eleven hundred Yeares which for so many Ages had never been acknowledged never practised in the English Church either in whole or in part We cannot believe that the whole Christian world were Mole-eyed or did sit in darknesse for so many Centuries of years untill Pope Hildebrand and Pope Paschalis did start up like two new Lights with their Weapons in their hands to thumpe Princes and knock them into a right Catholick beliefe And indeed this Answer to his pretended demonstration by a reall demonstration where the true Controversie doth lye and who are the true innovators doth virtually answer whatsoever he hath said So I might justly stop here and sâ—spend my former paines but that I have a great mind to try if I can find out one of those many Falsifications and Contradictions which he would make ns believe he hath espied in my discourse if it be not the deception of his sight First he telleth us that our best Champions doe grant that our faith and its grounds are but probable Surely he did write this between sleeping and waking when he could not well distinguish between necessary points of faith and indifferent Opinions concerning points of faith Or to use Cajetans expression between determinare de fideformaliter and determinare de eo quod est fidei Materialiter Between points of faith necessary to be believed And such Questions as doe sometimes happen in things to be believed As for Essentialls of faith the Pillars of the Earth are not founded more firmly then our beliefe upon that undoubted Rule of Vincentius Quicquid ubique semper ab omnibus c. Whatsoever we believe as an Article of our faith we have for it the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and therein the Church of Rome it self But they have no such perpetuall or Vniversall Tradition for their twelve new Articles of Pope Pius This Objection would have become me much better then him Whatsoever we believe they believe and all the Christian World of all Places and all Ages doth now believe and ever did believe except condemned Hereticks But they endeavour to obtrâ—de new Essentialls of faith upon the Christian World which have no such Perpetuall no such Vniversall Tradition He that accuseth another should have an eye to himself Does not all the World see that the Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome then it did in Henry the sevenths dayes He addeth further that it is confessed that the Papall power in Ecclesiastical affaires was cast out of EnglaÌ„d in Henry the eights dayes I answer that there was no Mutation concerniâ—g faith nor concerning any Legacy which Christ left to his Church nor concerning the power of the Keys or any Iurisdiction purely Spirituall but concerning coactive power in the exteriour Court concerning the Politicall or Externall RegimeÌ„t of the Church concerning the Patronage or civill Soveraignty over the Church of EnglaÌ„d and the Legislative Iudiciary and Dispensative power of the Pope in EnglaÌ„d over English Subjects Which was no more then a Reinfranchisement of ourselves from the upstart Vsurpations of the Court of Rome Of all which I have shewed him expresly the first source who began them when and where before which he is not able to give one instance of any such Practises attempted by the Bishop of Rome and admitted by the Church of England Who it is that lookes asquint or awry upon the true case in Controversy between us let the ingenuous Reader Iudge I doe not deny nor ever did deny but that there was a reall separation made yea made by us from their Vsurpations but I both did deny and doe deny that there was any SeparatioÌ„ made by us from the Institution of Christ or from the Principles of Christian Vnity This Separation was made long since by themselves when they first introduced those novelties into the Church and this Seperation of theirs from the pure Primitive Doctrine and Discipiine of the Church doth acquit us and render them guilty of the Schisme before God and man And therefore it is a vain and impertinent Allegation of him to tell us that Governours may lawfully declare themselves publickly and solemnly against the renouncers of their Authority by Excommunication unlesse he could shew that the Bishop of Rome hath such an absolute Soveraignty over us as he imagineth extending it self to all those Acts which are in Controversy between us And that in the exercise of the power of the Keys they proceded duely in a legall manner And especially that they did not mistake their own Vsurpation for the Institution of Christ as we affirm and know they did His whole Discourse about immediate Tradition is a bundle of uncertain presumptions and vain Suppositions First he supposeth that his Rule of so vast a multitude of Eye-witnesses of Visible things is uniform and vniversall but he is quite mistaken the practiâ—e was different The Papalms made Lawes for their Vsurpations and the three Orders of the Kingdome of England made Lawes against them To whom in Probability should our Ancestors adhere to their owâ— Patriots or to Strangers Secondly he presumeth that this uniform practise of his Ancestors was invariable without any shadow of Change but it was nothing lesse First Investitures were in the Crown and an Oath of Fidelity made to the King without any Scruple even by Lanfranke and Anselm both Strangers Afterwards the Investitures were decried as profane and the Oath of Fidelity forbidden Next a new Oath of Allegiance was devised of Clergimen to the Pope First onely for Archbishops then for all Prelates And this Oath at first was moderate to observe the Rules of the holy Fathers but shortly after more Tyrannous to maintain the Roâ—alties of Sainct Peter as their own Pontificalls the old and the new do witnesse First when they tooke away Investitures from the Crown they were all
their fore fathers to be the infallible voice of the Church At other times he maketh the extent of Papall power to be a matter of Indifferency wherein every Church is free to hold their own Opinions In his Rule of Discipline he maketh St. Peter onely to be the Head the Chiefe the Prince of the Apostles the First mover in the Church all which in a right sense we approve or do not oppose Why doth he not acknowledge him to be a visible Monarch an absolute Soveraign invested with a plenitude of power Soveraign Legislative Iudiciary Dispensative All the rest of the Apostles were First Movers in the Church even as well as St. Peter except onely his Primacy of order which we allow When your men come to aâ—swer this they feign the Apostles were all equall in relatioÌ„ to ChristiaÌ„ people but not in relatioÌ„ to one another Yes even in Relation to themselves and one another as hath beeÌ„ expresly declared long since in the First Generall Councell of Ephesus not now to be contradicted by them Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Peter and Iohn were of equall Dignity one towards another A Primacy of Order may confist with an Equality of Dignity but a Supremacy of power taketh away all Parity Par in parem non habet potestatem He is blind who doth no see in the History of the Acts of the Apostles that the supremacy or Soveraignty of power did not rest in the person of any one single Apostle but in the Apostolicall College These indefinite Generalities he stileth Determinate points It may be Determinate for the generall truth but Indeterminate for the particular manner about which all the Controversy is Yet he who never wanteth Demonstrative Arguments to prove what he listeth will make it evident out of the very word Reformation which we own and extoll that we have broken the Rule of Unity in Discipline If he doe he hath good luck for by the same reason he may prove that all the Councells of the Christian world both Generall and Provinciall have broken the Bond of Vnity by owning and extolling the very word Reformation both name and thing As for the points of our Reformation I doe not referre him to Platonicall Ideas to be found in the Concave of the Moone but to our Lawes and Statutes made by all the Orders of our Kingdome Church and Commonwealth not as they are wrested by the tongnes and pens of our Adversaries Malice may be a good informer but a bad judge but as they are expounded by the Genuine and Orthodox Sons of the English Church by our Princes by our Synods by our subsequent Parliaments by our Theologians by our most Iudicious Lawiers in their Injunctions in their Acts in their Canons in their writings which he may meete with if he have such a mind in earnest without any great search in every Library or Stationers shop Sect I. Cap. XI We doe not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither doe we looke upon them as Essentialls of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and of his Apostles but in a meane as pious Opinions fitted for the Preservation of Vnity neither doe we oblige any man to believe them but onely not to contradict them Yet neither is the Bishop got into a wood nor leaveth his Reader in another further from knowing what these Doctrines of saving Faith are then he was at first It is Mr. Serjeants Eyesight that failes him through too much light which maketh him mistake his ancient Creed for a wood and the Articles for trees persons who are gogle eied seldome see well wherein all things necessary to be believed are comprehended And although he inquire Where are the processions of the Divine Persons the Sacraments Baptism of Children the Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as Scripture to be be found in the creed The Bishop is so far from being gravelled with sâ—ch doughty Questions that he pitieth his simplicity aÌ„d returneth him for answer that if he be not mopâ—eyed he may find the Procession of the Divine Persons in his Creed that the Sacraments and Discipline of the Church are not to be reckoned amoÌ„g the Credenda or things to be believed but among the Agenda or things to be acted and the Holy Scripture is not a particular Doctrin or point of Faith but the Rule wherein and whereby all Fundamentall Doctrins or points of Faith are comprehended and tried So still his truth remaineth unshaken that the Creed is a Summary of all particular points of saving faith which are necessary to be believed He proceedeth that the Protestants have introduced into the Church since the Reformation no particular Form of Government in stead of that they renounced A grievous accusation We had no need to introduce new formes having preserved the old They who do onely weed a Garden have no need to set new Plants We have the Primitive Discipline of the Church and neither want Spirituall nor Ecclesiasticall nor Politicall Government If you have any thing to say against it cough out and spare not And although we want such a free and generall Communion with the Christian World as we could wish and such as Bishops had one with another by their formed Letters Yet we have it in our desires and that we have it not actually it is principally your faults who make your Vsurpations to be Conditions of your Communion And so I leave him declaiming against Libraries of Bookes filled with dead words and thousands of Volumes scarcely to be examined in a mans whole life time and quibling about Forefathers and inheriting and Reformation and Manasseh Ben Israel and repeating the same things over and over againe as if no man did understand him who did not heare him say over the same things an hundred times He Chargeth me that having granted that They and we do both maintain his Rule of Vnity yet I do immediatly disgrace it by adding that the Question is only who have changed that Doctrin or this Discipline we or they We by substraction or they by Addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is no Rule at all When he and his Merry Stationer were set upon the Pin of making Contradictions doubtlesse this was dubbed a famous Contradiction or an absurdity at least As if a man might not hold one thing in his Iudgement and pursue another in his Practice professe one thing in words and perform another in deeds Video melior a proboque Deterior a sequor Medea see that which was right and approved it but swerved altogether from it in her Practise They professe saith St. Paul that they know God but in workes they deny him The Church of Rome professeth in words to adde nothing to the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in their deeds they doe adde and adde
at is attested by Fathers by Councells by Leiturgies ancient and modern even by the Leiturgies of the Roman Church it self And this is the undoubted sense of this place of the Councell of Ephesus that no man should dare to offer any other Creed to any person willingâ— to be converted from Paganisme or Iudaisme to Christianity that is to say to be baptised Alwaies upon Palm sunday such of the Catechument as were thought fit to be admiâ—ted into the number of the Faithfull did petition for Baptism the Anniversary time where of did then approach who from their joint petitioning were called competentes and from that day forward had some assigned to expound the Creed unto them whereof they were to make solemn profession at their Baptism as we find by the Homilies of the Fathers upon the Creed made to the Competentes So we keep ourselves to the old faith 〈◊〉 the whole Christian World that is the Creed of the Apostles explicated by the Nicene Constantinopolitan Ephesine and Chalcedonian Fathers the same which was professed by them of old at their Baptisme and is still professed by us at our Baptisme the same wherein all the Christian World and themselves among the rest were Baptised None of us all ever made any profession at our Baptismes of the Vniversality of the Roman Church or of the Soveraign Monarchicall power of the Roman Bishop by divine right or of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Indulgences Imageworship or the like Wherefore we are resolved to adhere to that faith which hath been professed alwaies everywhere and by all Persons and particularly both by them and us at our Baptisms in which faith and which alone we were made Christians without either diminution or Addition of any new Essentialls This was their faith formerly and this is ours still But he objecteth it is a great Absurdity that thus the Creed defined by the Fathers in the Councell of Nice and the Apostles Creed according to the Bishop are one and the same Creed Have you found out that Yes indeed are they and alwayes have been so reputed in the Church even in the Roman Church it self in their ancient Leiturgies which call the Nicene Creed the Evangelicall Creed the Creed of the Apostles inspired by the Lord instituted by the Apostles and when he groweth older he will be of the same mind I hope by this time he seeth that although I did not cite the Councell of Ephesus in this place and therefore could be no falsifier of it Yet the Councell of Ephesus saith more then I did in every respect I said onely the Councell did forbid but the Councell it self goeth higher that whosoever should dare I said forbid to exact but the Councell itself goeth higher whosoever should dare to compose or publish or offer The Originall word is Prospherein to offer and as it is translated into Latin Qui verò ausi fuerint aut componere fidem alteram aut proferre aut offerre Whosoever shall dare to compose or to utter or to offer another faith or Creed One may compose or publish and not offer one may offer and not exact but whosoever doth exact doth more then offer If the Councell doth forbid any man to compose or publish or offer any other Creed much more doth it forbid them to exact it Thirdly I said to exact any more then the Apostles Creed as it was explicated by the Fathers that is concerning Essentialls of saith but the Councell goeth higher to compose or publish or offer alteram fidem another Creed containing either more or lesse either new Essentialls or new Explications I said onely at our Baptismall profession but the Councell extendeth it further to the reconciliation of Hereticks as well as the Baptism of Pagans and Iewes and generally to all occasions not allowing any man Clergy or Lay to compose or publish any other Creed or form of profession So every way the Councell saith more then I said But he saith there is nothing in the Councell of Baptismall profession except the bare word fidem Well fides in that place signifieth the Creed and that Creed which all Christians did professe at their Baptisme is their Baptismall Profession But that is not all for as fides signifies their Creed or Profession of faith so those other words to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganisme or Iudaisme signiâ—ieth as much as who desire to be Christened or to be Baptised But he saith these words if the proposers of another faith â—e Lay men let them be excommunicated do make it impossible to have relation to Baptism because the Ordinary Minister of Baptisme is a Clergy man If a Sophister should have brought such an Argument in the Schooles he would have been hissed out for his labour Because one part of the Canon hath reference to Lay men therefore no part of it can have reference to Clergy men Iust like this an Aethiopians teeth are white therefore it is impossible that any part of him should be black Whereas the CanoÌ„ saith expresly the Contrary if they be Bishops or Clerkes let them be deposed if LaymeÌ„ Anathematised But this great Censurer himself doth falsify the Councell of Ephesus indeed twice in this one place Once in omitting the word Prospherein to offer Secondly where he saith that Charisius had made a wicked Creed It was not a wicked Creed but a wicked exposition of the Creed which the Councell condemned Depravata Symboli Expositio Which was indeed produced by Charisius but neither made by him nor approved by him but condemned by him as well as by the Councell Observe Reader with what grosse Carelesnesse these great Censurers doe read Authors and utter their fictitious Fancies with as great Confidence He would have called this Forgery in another Sect. I. Cap. XII He saith I charged their whole Church with changing the ancieÌ„t discipline of the Church into a Soveraignty of power above Generall Councells whereas I confesse that it is not their Vniversall Tenet and withall acknowledge that they who give such Exorbitant Privileges to Popes do it with so many Cautions that they signify nothing And then curteously askes me whether this be a matter deserving that Church Vnity should be broken for it I doe easily believe that this is one of his merry Stationers Contradictions What pittifull Cavills doth he bring for just exceptions First I doe not clap it upon their whole Church that is one injury or if I should speake in his language a grosse Falsification but upon the guilty party Secondly I never said that they who change the ancient Government of the Church into a Soveraignty of power do it with so many Cautions but I spake expresly of them who ascribe infallibility and temporall power over Princes to the Pope This is another injury or falsification Thirdly how often must I tell him that we did not disunite our selves from their Church but onely reinfranchise ourselves from their Vsurpations Lastly this party which
advanceth the Papacy above the Representative Church is no worse then their Virtuall Church the Pope and the Court of Rome with all their adherents they who have the Keys in their hands such a party as he dare not say his soule is his own against them nor maintain the Contrary that a Generall Councell is above the Pope He urgeth that I ascribe no more to S. Peter and the Pope for their first Movership but onely Authority to sit first in Councell or some such things I ascribe unto the Pope all that power which is due unto him either by divine right or humane right at the Iudgement of the Church but I doe not hold it meet that he should be his own Carver And for S. Peter why doth he not leave his wording of it in Generalls and fall to work with Arguments in particular if he have any We offer him a faire tryall for it that S. Peter never enjoyed or exercised any greater or higher power in the church then every one of the Apostles had either extensively or intensively either in relation to the Christian world or the Apostolicall College except onely that Primordium Vnitatis or Primacy of Order which he scoffeth at every where Yet neither do we make his first Movership void of all Activity and influence as he accuseth us First we know he had Apostolicall power which was the highest spirituall power upon Earth As my Father sent me so send I you Secondly some power doth belong to a First Mover even by the Law of nature besides the First seate As to convocate the Members to preserve Order to propose such things as are to be discussed to receive the Votes to give the Sentence and to see it executed so far as he is trusted by the Body What the Church of England believeth of the Popes inheriting St. Peters Privileges and the exercise of that power before the Reformation and how the breach was made and when I have shewed abundantly already Wee have seen his rare skill in the discovery of a Falsification or a ContradictioÌ„ now let us see if his sent be as good to find out an Absurdity He maketh me argue thus The Pope did not exercise St. Peters power because he exercised St. Peters power and much more which is as much as to say totum est minus parte aud more does not contain lesse and then he Crowes out his Victory aloud a hopefull Disputant who châ—seth rather to run upon such Rocks c. What Rocks doth he mean I hope none of the Acroâ—eraunia those ridiculous things which he calls Rocks are soapy bubbles of his own Blowing This inference is none of mine but his own Is it not possible for this great pretender to sincerity to misse one Paragraph without Falsifications Give him leave to make Inferences and Periphrases which is as much as to say and Africa did never abound so much with Monsters as he will make the most rationall writing in this world abound with Absurdities I desire the Courteous Reader to view the place and either to pitty his Ignorance or detest his Impudence The words which I answered were these That the Bishops of Rome actually exercised St. Peters power in all those Countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very yeare when this unhappy Seperation began My answer was that this Assertion did come far short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more Power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever St Peter pretended to Here is no other inference but this The Pope exercised more power then ever St. Peter pretended to therefore this Assertion that he exercised St. Peters power came short of the truth which consequence is so evideâ—t that it can admit neirher denyall or doubting What hath this to do with his whole is lesse then the part or more does not contain the lesse But now suppose I had said as he maketh me to say on his own head that in this case the whole is lesse then the part or more does not contain the lesse what had he to carpe at Hath he never heard or read that in morality the half is more then the whole Hath he forgotten his Ethicks that he who swerveth from the Meane or strict measure of virtue whether it be in the excesse or in the defect is alike Culpable and commethshort of his Duty If the Pope as Successour to S. Peter did usurp more power then S. Peter had right to no man in his right wits can call it the actuall exercising of S. Peters power The second part of my answer was that as the Pope exercised more power then was due to him in some places where he could get leave so in other places no lesse then three parts of foure of the Christian World that is all the Eastern Southern and Northern Churches his Vniversall Monarchy which he claimed was Vniversally rejected For this I am first reviled Are moderate expressions of shamelesnesse sufficient to Character this man c. If better was within better would come out But Stultis the saurus iste est in linguasitus ut discant male loqui melioribus And then when he hath first censured me he attempteth to answer me as well as he is able that the Pope exercised his power over them by excommunicating them as Revolters As Revolters In good time They were Christians and had Governours of their own before either there was a Church of Rome or Bishop of Rome and never acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects untill this day nor regarded his Excommunicatious upon that score at all If they were Revolters the Apostolicall Age and all succeding Ages were joined in the Revolt These are his rigorous demonstrations to prove the Popes single Iurisdiction by divine right from his own impotent Actions If the Pope have a Supremacy of Power by divine right he hath it over the world but that we see evidently he never enjoyed from the beginning if he did did not enjoy it universally from the beginning then certainly it cannot be an Apostolicall Tradition I doe begin with the Eastern Church because their case is plainest as having Proto-patriarchs of their own and Apostolicall Churches of their own but when that is once acknowledged I shall be contented to joine issue with him in the West First for our Britannick Churches and next even for the Church of Rome it self that the Popes Vniversall Monarchy and plenitude of Soveraign power by divine right was neither delivered from Parents to Children by perpetuall Tradition as a Legacy of Christ and his Apostles nor received by the Sonnes of that Individuall Church as a matter of Faith but onely a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity which we do not oppose nor yet those accessions of humane power which Christian Emperours and Oecumenicall Councells have conferred upon that See provided they be not exacted as a divine right His First Movership and
surmise or rather it is incredible and not onely incredible but impossible They were the men that advised the King to assume the Supremacy Arch-Bishop Warham told the King it was his right to have it before the Pope Bishop Gardmer was the chiefe framer of the oath of Supremacy Bishop Tonstall and Longlands were the chiefe Preachers up of the Kings Supremacy at St. Pauls Crosse. Tonstall justifieth it in his Letter to Cardinal Poole Gardiner and Beckenshaw did write Polemick bookes in defence of the Kings Supremacy The whole Convocation did set forth a Catechisme or Catecheticall booke to instruct the people in the Kings right to the Supremacy called the Institution of a Christian man Bishop Bonner bloudy Bonner who made such Bonefires of the poore Protestants being then the Kings Embassadour with Clement the 7th did so boldly and highly set forth King Henryes Supremacy in the Assembly of Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessel of Scalding lead if he had not secured himself by flight Suppose it was credible that they all voted out of feare and tooke the Oath of Supremacy out of Feare what feare could constrain them to advise the King to assume the Supremacy as his right to frame the Oath of Supremacy to instruct others in the Kings right to the Supremacy by private Letters by publick Catechismes to preach up his Supremacy to propugn his Supremacy in their Polemick writings in their Orations before the Cardinalls themselves with hazard of their lifes to tickle the Kings ears with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy Who shall still say what these men did was out of feare must be a very credulous man The contrary is as evident to the world as Noone day light I will conclude this point of the Feare of the Kings violent Cruelty with Bishop Gardiners Testimony of himself He objecteth that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintein the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answereth that what was holily sworn is more holily omittedâ— then to make an Oath the Bond of Iniquity He confessed him self to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second wife but after the return of his firsâ— wife that is the truth to which he was espoused in his Baptism being convicted with undeniable evidence he was necessitated out of Conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular Question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first wife the truth and after her to his Prince the Supreme head of the English Church upon earth Secondly I pleaded that although it doth not alwaies excuse a toto from all guilt to be misled by others into errour yet it alwaies excuseth a tanto it extenuateth the Guilt This Allegation is so evidently true that he hath not confideÌ„ce enough to deny it which is a wonder but argueth against it first how could we thinke their example to be followed whom we confesse to have done what they did out of feare Or rather what a shamlesse untruth is this His witnesse saith that feare might be the Occasion of the debate but reason and Conscience were their directours in the decision and we have demonstrated that their actions could not possibly proceed from feare His second answer is why doe we not rather follow them in renouncing their Schisme as those Bishops did after the Kings death Once proved false is alwaies presumed to be false Who told him that they made any retractation afâ—er the Kings death after they were freed from their imminent feare They made no Retractation but held their Bishopricks in King Edwards time untill other Questions did arise and executed the Statute of Supremacy as rigorously as they did in Henry the eighths time For proofe where of I cite the Testimony of Queen Elizabeth given to their Faces in their lives times before the most eminent Embassadours of the greatest Princes when they might have contradicted it if they could when the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops She gave them this answer that they did now obstinately reject that Doctrin which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private persons but publick Magistrates Observe the words first of their own accords Secondly not onely under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth therefalleth his Plea to the ground Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates and consequently in a Capacity of doing rather then of suffering Lastly with heart and hand not onely in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings We use to say there is no defence against a Flaile certainly against Subscriptions and publik writings there can be no Defence To the Queenes testimony I adde another of Sanders that the Bishops of Winchester London Durrham Worcester Chichester Excellent Men and inwardly Catholicks yet being made Bishops in the Schisme they had not the Spirit of courage Therefore they resisted faintly to the Kings Primacy or rather they subscribed simply both to it and all other innovations which seemed not to conteine open haeresy least they should lose their Bishopricks When may we expect a true word from him Thirdly he urged the beginners of a fault may be lesse culpaâ—le then their followers when their Provocations be greater Their Provocations were no lesse then expectation of death and destruction by the Kings inhumane Cruelty but our continuance in Schâ—sme compared to the Motives of theirs is in a manner gratis all our reasons being for our Livings and Interest heretofore and now a vain glorious Itch to approve ourselves to our party We have had many proofes of his Veracity here is one more of his Charity Suppose his new light had lead him into ready Paths not Precipices which no man will grant him but his own Fellowes Yet why should he accuse us of Hipocrisy rather then of errour in Iudgement who have lost all our estates for our Consciences which probably he never had to loose nor would have quitted it so if he had had it but onely that his own guilt doth dictate such uncharitable Censures to him No Mr. Serjeant we are no such Changlings or turning weather cocks that is your own part And you may live to act it over againe such hot water freeseth soonest Are you so blind that you do not see that this Accusation might be retorted upon you and upon your great Coâ—verts whom you propose to us for Patterns Who as you say had been Schismaticks in Henry the eighths time you might as well say for the most part of them in Edward the sixths time also and had no other way in the World to preserve or recover their Bishopricks in Queen Maryes dayes but by preteÌ„ding at least such a Conversion But we are not so uncharitable as you we
doe not mean that power purely Spirituall is to be won by the Sword but I believe that exemtion from Coactive power in the exteriour Court is to be won by the sword So the Scots eased the Archbishop of York of the trouble of a great part of his Province◠So just Conquerours may and doe often change the Externall Policy of the Church for the publick good He bids me shew that the English Bishops were impowered by the British Bishops or else let me confesse that they could inherit no Privileges from them I can shew him that I my self was impowered and did receive my Episcopall Ordination from the ancient Scotch Bishops by an uninterrupted Succession And many English Bishops have received their orders mediatly or immediatly from the British Bishops I said most truely that before he can allege the Authority of the Councell of Sardica for Appeales to Rome he must renounce the divine institution of the Papacy or at least the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to the Papacy because that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the Fathers and grounded it upon the Memory of St. Peter not the Institution of Christ. The reason of this Consequence is most evident For the Councell of Sardica would not nor could have submitted that which is the Popes right by Christs own Ordination to the good pleasure of the Fathers whether he should have it or not nor would have assigned their respect to the Memorie of Saint Peter for a ground of that for which they had the Commandement of Christ But the Councell of Sardica did submit the Popes right to receive Appeales to the good pleasure of the Fathers Placetne doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter Therefore they did not hold this right of the Pope to receive Appeales to be due to the Pope by Christs own Ordinance or Commandement This he is pleased to call a flat Falsification of the Councell there being not a word in it either concerning Papall power it self or its institution but concerning Appeales onely I am grown pretty well acquainted with his Falsifications Did I say there was any thing in the Councell concerning the Papacy or Institution of it If I did let him tell us where and when or els it is his own Falsification But by his own Confession there is something in the Councell concerning Appeales to the Pope and this is submitted by the Councell to the good pleasure of the Fathers and no higher ground assigned for it then the respect to the Memory of St. Peter yet this right of receiving Appeales is made by him and all his Partakers an Essentiall Branch of Papall power Therefore if he and his Partakers say true the Councell of Sardica did submit an Essentiall Branch of Papall Power or Papall power in part to the good pleasure of the Fathers which is as much as to say they held it not to be of divine Institution By this time I hope he understandeth my meaning better He presumeth that some British Bishops sate in Councell of Sardica it may be Athanasius intimateth as much He presumeth that they assented to the Sardican Canon about Appeales It may be or it may not be I should rather assent to their voting to acquit Athanasius who testifieth of them that they were right to the Nicene Faith But surely among all the Subscibers in the Sardican Councell there is not one British Bishop named And in the Synodall Letters of the Councell it self wherein they reckon all the Provinces Britain is not named But what is the right of receiving Appeales to an Vniversall Monarchy or the decree of a Councell to Christs own Ordination If we would be contented to abrogate our old Lawes and give the Bishop of Rome leave to execute that power which the Sardican Fathers did give him he would scorn it and much more their manner of giving it Si vobis placet if it please you or of it seem good to your Charity let us honour the Memory of St. Peter as both the Latin and the Greek Edition have it I said that the Councell of Sardica was no Generall Councell after the Eastern Bishops were departed not out of any ill will to Athanasius or favour to the Arrians as for Arrianisme the Sardican Fathers did no more then the Nicene had done before them but out of another Consideration because the presence of the five great Patriarchs with their respective Bishops or at least the greater part of them was ever more held necessary to the being of a Generall Councell as Bellarmine himself confesseth that the seventh Synod judged the Councell of Constantinople against Images to have been no General Councell because it had not Patriarchs enough If the Councell of Sardica had been a Generall Councell why doe St. Gregory the great Isiodore and Venerable Bede quite omit it out of the number of Generall Councells Why did St. Austin Alypius and the African Fathers sleight it And which is more then all this why doe the Eastern Church not reckon it among their seven Generall Councells nor the western Church among their eight first Generall Councells To Conclude why did the English Church leave the Sardican Councell out of the number of Generall Councells in the Synod of Hedtfelde in the yeare 680 and embrace onely these for Generall Councells untill that day The Councell of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus the Councell of Chalcedon and the second of Chalcedon Here he may see a plain reason why I say the Councell of Sardica was never incorporated into the English Lawes I would know whether he or I be of the old English Religion in this point The five First Generall Councells were incorporated into the Law of England but the Councell of Sardica was none of them Therefore no Generall Councell I have given him a further account concerning this Councell Sect. 1 c. 7. to which I refer him I said and I said most truely that the Canons of the Sardican Councell touching Appeales were never received in England nor incorporated into our English Lawes For proofe hereof I bring him an evident demonstration out of the Fundamentall Law of England as it is recorded in that famous Memoriall of Clarendon All Appeales in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and if the Archbishop failed to doe Iustice the last complaint must be to the King to give Order for redresse Our Ancestours had not so much respect for Pope Iulius nor thought appeales to Rome any honour to the Memory of St. Peter I said the Canon of the Councell of Sardica was cōtradicted after by the Great Councell of Chalcedon He rejuneth that I neither thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the Abrogation of the Sardican Canon is found worth mentioning Pardon me I said nothing of Abrogation but I did say it contradicted it and for proofe of the
rejected be the Legacies of Christ or Papall VsurpatioÌ„s is not capable of such rigorous Demonstration but dependeth upon Testimony which Logicians call an Inartificiall way of arguing But if by rigorous Demonstration he uâ—derstand convincing proofes those grounds which I offer in this Section do contain a rigorous Demonstration That Discipline which is brimfull of intollerable Rapine and Extortion and Simony and Sacrilege which robbeth Kings and Subjects Ecclesiasticall and Secular of their just rights which was introduced into the Church of England eleven hundred yeares after Christ which hath a Malignant Influence upon the Body Politick which is Destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which in stead of securing men in peace doth thrust them into Manifest and manifold Dangers both of soule and body which is contrary to Generall Councells and the ancient Liberties of particular Churches qua talis as it is such is no Legacy of Christ but ought to be purged and reformed from all such abuses and VsurpatioÌ„s But such is that Papall Discipline which the Bishop of Rome excercised in EnglaÌ„d before the Reformation and lesse then which they will not goe and such are all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out The truth of this AssertioÌ„ I have made manifest in my Vindication c. 6 and this is the place of a further examination of it if he did discharge the part of a faire solid Disputant to leave his windy Invectives which signify nothing to the cause but to his own shame and to proceed closely and ingenuously to the investigation of truth without prejudice or partiality But on the Contrary he minceth my grounds and concealeth them and skippeth over whatsoever disliketh him and choppeth them and chaÌ„geth them and confoundeth them that I caÌ„not know mine own Conceptions againe as he hath dressed them aÌ„d disordered them and mutilated them I proposed five distinct Grounds of our ReformatioÌ„ aÌ„d casting out so many Branches as we did of Papall power if he dealt like a just Adversary he should pursue my Method step by step but he reduceth my five grounds into three that between two Methods he may conceale and smother whatsoever he hath no disposition to answer as he dealeth with many points of weight and moment and particularly with all those Testimonies and instances I bring to prove the intolerable extortions and manifold Vsurpations and malignant Influence of the Roman Coutt upon the Body Politick and Ecclesiastick being much the greater part of my discourse But I doe not altogether blame him for they are so foule that a man can find small credit or contentment in defending them For once rather then loose his Company I will pursue his Method Let us give him the hearing He reduceth my five grounds to three first such as entrench upon Eternity and Conscience May not any Heretick object that the Church imposed new Articles of faith c. or complain of new Creeds when she addeth to her publick Professions some points of Faith held formerly Might not he Complaine of perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for Surplesses c Might not he pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks were good Christians and that the Church was Tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might he not shuffle together Faith with Opinion and falsly allege as you doe here you were forced to approve the Popes Rebellion against Generall Councells and take Oaths to maintain Papall Vsurpations This is all the Answer I get of this brave Disputant as if the unjust complaints of the Puritans did satisfy the just exceptions of the Protestants It is probable enough that he him self was one of our Brother Puritans in those dayes otherwise he could not well have talked so wildly of perill of Idolatry from Surplesses His discourse is so sleight and impertinent that I will not vouchsafe any answer but leave it to the Reader to compare my Vindication and Reply with his Rejoinder That they have added new Essentialls to Faith is fully evinced against them in this Treatise Sect. 1. cap. 11. What our Iudgement is concerning their Idolatry he shall find exactly set down in my answer to Militier Pa. 133. As for the Oaths of Fidelity which every Bishop must make to the Pope he may satisfy him self Sect. 1. Cap. 5. and see the From of it cap 7. Or if he Desire to see a later form let him take this I Henry Archbishop of Canterbury will be faithfull and Obedient to St. Peter from this houre as formerly and to the holy Apostolick Church of Rome and to my Lord Pope Alexander the sixth and his Successours I will give no counsaile nor consent nor act any thing towards the losse of their lifes or members or liberty I will discover their Counsailes to no man to their prejudice which they have communicated to me by themselves or their Messengers I will help them to retein and defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter saving my Order against all men I will entertein the Popes Legates honorably going and comming and help them in their necessities I will visit the Papall Court every yeare if it be on this side the Alpes and every two yeares if it beyond the Alpes unlesse the Pope dispense with me So help me God and the Holy Gospell What fidelity can a King expect from a Subject who hath taken this Oath if the Pope please to attempt any thing against him If the Popes Superiority above a Generall Councell be but held as an indifferent Opinion in their Church and not a point of Faith as he intimateth yet it is such an Opinion as he dare not contradict it is fere communis it is almost the Common OpinioÌ„ of all RomaÌ„ Catholicks if Bellarmine say true and fere de fide almost a point of Faith upoÌ„ which modern Popes and Councells are accorded It is determined expresly in their last Generall Councell of LateraÌ„ that the Bishop of Rome alone hath Authority over all Councells Were these all the grounds he could find which entrench upon Eternity and Conscience He might have found more that by means of Papall abuses there described hospitality was not kept the poore not susteined the word not preached churches not adorned the Cure of soules neglected divine Offices not performed Churches ruined He might have found Oaths Customes writings grants statutes rights privileges to have been not onely weakened but exinanited by the Popes infamous Messenger called Non obstance And all this attested by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the whole Common-wealth of England But it is no matter whether he take notice of it or not whilest he answereth nothing He faith my second sort of Grounds are those which relate to Temporall inconveniences and injuries to the State by reason of the Popes pretended encroachments which I huddle together in big Terms Do I huddle theÌ„ together Nay I haÌ„dled them distinctly under three heads or notions First the intolerable
OppressioÌ„s and ExtortioÌ„s of the Court of Rome in points of Fact Secondly their grosse and grievous usurpations in point of Right Thirdly the malignant influence of forrain discipline in point of Policy It is he that huddles them together because they are so foule and so evident that he dare not take a view of them singly much lesse repeat them and so they might be buried in Oblivion for him unlesse the Reader be pleased to take a review of them I shall not willingly adde a word more either to the Extortions or Malignant Influence because I Iudge in Charity that all good men doe wish them amended as well as I And for the Vsurpations being matter of perpetuall right I hope I have cleared them sufficieÌ„tly in this Treatise throughout the first SectioÌ„ But what is his answer to all this That it is disputable between Canon and Civill Lawiers whether many of these were abuses or just rights of which kind of Controversy he neither thinkes me nor himself competent Iudges Adding that these Questions doe not concern our present quarrell How not concern our Quarrell They are all the Quarrell we have and not a Primacy of Order or any power purely spirituall in the Court of Conscience If he have nothing to doe with these why doth he meddle to no purpose whatsoever power was given by Christ or is recorded in Scripture is expresly excepted out of our Law And once more Reader observe and wonder that these men who called upon us often for the Grounds of our Seperation must be called on as often for a faire answer He promised to shew the Readers a Monster in this Section for pence a piece It seemeth by his bogling he seeth something that he is affraid to meddle with I doubt he will prove a true Prophet of himself that all the Readers satisfaction for their money will be to tell them that he hath abused them But it may be he is better at his sword then at his Buckler at opposing in Generalls then defending himself from Particulars Althoâ—gh he hath not given us one particular answer to the truth or falshood of the Crimes and inconvenieÌ„ces objected yet he giveth in seven generall Exceptions but it is with as much hast as the dogge by Nilus which runnes and drinkes First he saith those inconveniences which I mention if they had been true are abuses in theâ— Officer not faults in the Office which ought not to be taken away for them Intolerable extortions and grosse Vsurpations are no more with him then inconveniences This Objection was answered by me before it was moved by him if he had not thought fit to smother it where I distinguish between the personall faults of Popes and faulty principles or Lawes and shew how farre the one and the other doe warrant a Seperation The former onely from the faulty person to preserve ourselves from participating with him in his Crimes The latter from the faulty Office so farre as it is faulty untill it be reformed Neither have we taken away any Office but onely abuses and Vsurpations Secondly he excepreth that some of these pretended abuses are onely my own Deductions which I shew not evidently ouâ— of the Science of Politicks but out of two or three matters of Fact I answer that experience is the Polititians best Schoolmaster and that every man findeth where his own Shoe wringeth him much better by wearing it himself then by hearing others discourse of it But I thanke him for his Memento and the next time I have occasion to make use of it I shall demoÌ„strate to him out of the ScieÌ„ce of Politicks that Forrain IurisdictioÌ„ is uselesse and chargeable to the Subject Dangerous and destructive to the King and Commonwealth a Rack and Gibbet to the Conscience by subjecting it to two Supremes who may possibly clash one with another and altogether opposite to the Ecclesiasticall Policy of the Primitive times which conformed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to the Civill Thirdly he pleadeth that I doe not prove that some of these pretended abuses were not just rights but onely shew that such and such things were done and that either party had learned Lawiers for them and that sometimes the Kings renounced their pretenses as in point of Investitures I answer that the Opposition of King and Kingdome to any branch of Papall power sheweth evidently that they did not believe that the Pope had any right to it divine or humane and clearly destroieth his Foundation of immediate Tradition How should they leave that to their Children as a Legacy of Christ or his Apostles which they themselves rejected Our Kings never renounced their right of Investitures onely they consented that they should not give Investitures in their own persons but by a Bishop still reteining both the right of Patronage and their Feudall Oaths Fourthly he saith that these temporall Lawes which I cite concluder not evidently a right and reason gives more particular respect to Ecclesiasticall lawes then to temporall I answer though such Lawes doe not alwaies prove a right Yet they alwaies prove the common consent of the Kingdome what they esteem to be right they alwayes disprove the Popes Prescription But he is wholy mistaken many of those Lawes which I cited were Ecclesiasticall Lawes And the Popes Decretalls which he intimateth for Lawes are no Lawes nor ever were held for Lawes in England without the reception of the Church and Kingdome Reason gives more respect to the Sanctions of Bishops then of Kings in cases purely spirituall but more respect to the Lawes of Kings then of Bishops in the Externall Regiment of the Church within their own dominions Fifthly he chargeth me for saying that the Pope usurped most injustly all right Civill Ecclesiasticall Sacred Prophane of all Orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Which he calleth a lowd â—outhed Calumny By his favour he doth me wrong and himself more with his foule Language when he is not provoked at all I said not all right in the abstract but all rights in the concreâ—e Hath he forgotten that which every boy in the Vniversity knoweth to distinguish betwixt singula generum and genera singulorum Some of all sorts and all without exception My words onely signify some rights of all sorts as is evident by the words following Civill Ecclesiasticall sacred prophane of all Orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. which is an ordinary and proper expression and cannot possibly be extended to all rights without exception Sixthly he urgeth that grant all these abuses had heen true was there no other remedy but division Had not the Secular Governours the sword in their hand Did it not lye in their power to chuse whether they would admit things destructive to their rights I answer that it doth not alwaies rest in the power of the Civill Magistrate to doe that which is best in it self especially in seditious times when the Multitude as a good Authour saith doe more readily
because no reason doth permit that such an Assembly should be made in an Imperiall City without the leave of the Lord of the place Thirdly because Generall Councells were made then at the Publick Charge He might have added that Councells did receive their Protection from Emperours and they who sit in Councells were the Subjects of Emperours In the second place he erreth in this also that we have taken away the meanes of assembling Generall Councells We have taken away no power from the Pope of convocating any Synods except onely Synods of the King of Englands Subjects within his own dominions without his leave which Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth to be agreable to reason If the Pope have any right either to convocate Generall Councells himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit seasons for Convocation of them either in respect of his Beginning of Vnity or of his Protopatriarchate we do not envy it to him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed Bellarmine confesseth that that power which we acknowledge that is that though the Pope be no Ecclesiasticall Monarch but onely chief of the Principall Patriarchs yet the right to convocate Generall Councells should pertein unto him But it may be this is more then Mr. Serjeant did know My last Ground was the Exemtion of the Britannick Churches from forrein Iurisdiction by the Generall Councell of Ephesus As to the Exemtion of the Britannick Churches he referreth himself to what he had said formerly and so do I. To the Authority of the Councell of Ephesus he answereth that howsoever Cyprus and some others are exemted from a Neighbouring Superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them yet I shall never shew a Syllable in the Councell of Ephesus exemting from the Popes Iurisdiction as head of the Church Not directly a maÌ„ may safely sweare it for the Councell never suspected it the world never dreamed of it the Popes themselves never pretended to any such headship of Power and Vniversall Iurisdiction over the whole Church in those dayes All that the Primitive Popes claymed by divine right was a Primacy of Order or Beginning of Vnity due to the Chaire of St. Peter all that they claimed by humane right were some Privileges partly gained by Custome or Prescription and partly granted by the Fathers to to the See of Rome because it was the Imperiall City But there is enough in this very Canon collaterally to overthrow all the Vsurpations of the Roman Court There is no need that Britain should be named particularly where all the Provinces without exception are comprehended Let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces There is no need that the Bishop of Rome should be expressed where all the Bishops are prohibited That no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessours If the Fathers were so tender of pride creeping into the Church in those dayes or of the danger to lose their Christian Liberty in the case of the Bishop of Antioch who pretended neither to divine right nor Vniversall Iurisdiction what would they have said or done in the present case of the Bishop of Rome who challengeth not onely Patriarchall but Soveraign Iurisdiction not over Cyprus onely but over the whole world not from Custome or Canons but from the institution of Christ If Maister Serjeant be in the right then the Bishop of Antioch was quite out to sue for the Iurisdiction of Cyprus which beloÌ„ged more to the Bishops of Rome then to him Then the Bishops of Cyprus were quite oâ—t to challenge the Ordination of themselves and Iurisdiction over one another as a proper right belongiâ—g to themselves which they hold onely by Courtesy and favour from the Bishop of Rome Then the holy Synod was quite out to Determine so positively that not onely Cyprus but every Province should enjoy its rights and Customes inviolated which it had from the beginning without a Salvo or saving the right of the Bishop of Rome or a restriction so long as he pleaseth to permit them and to doe it in such Imperiall Terms It hath pleased the holy Synod or such is our pleasure Lastly the Pope himself was out to ratify the Privileges and exemptions of the Cyprian Bishops not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch but from himself also and to suffer his divine right to be trampled under foot by Customs and Canons which are of no force without him But this is the least part of the passages in the foure First Generall Councells which are repugnant to the Popes pretensions of a Generall Monarchy The Eastern Churches doe still adhere firmly to the Primitive Discipline and for this cause the Pope hath thought fit to excommunicate them Si violandum jus est regnandi causâ violandum est Against all our Grounds the most intolerable extortions that ever were heard of most grievous Vsurpations malignant Influence both upon the State Politick and Ecclesiastick and undoubted Privileges he produceth nothing but immediate Tradition and you must be content to take his bare word for it for he is altogether unfurnished of proofes Some men by telling strange Stories over and over do come at last to believe them It may be he believeth there was a Tradition for those Branches of Papall power which we cast out but we deny it altogether and require him to prove first that there was such a Tradition in England next that a particular Tradition is a sufficient proofe of divine Institution We admit readily that the Vnity of the Church is of great importance and the breaking of it an heinous Crime and that no abuses imaginable are sufficient excuse for a totall desertion of a just power Thus far in the Thesis we agree but in the Hypothesis we differ That which is a sufficient ground for a reformation is not a sufficient Ground for an extirpation So many so grievous so unconscionable extortions and Vsurpations and malignant influences as we complain of and prove are without all peradventure a sufficient ground of Reformation which is all our Ancestours did or we defend though not a sufficient cause of the extirpation of any just Authority Our Grounds are sufficient for a Reformation of abuses and encroachments which we acknowledge and which is all we did at the Reformation but for the abolition of any just power it is his fond Imagination we disclaime it altogether We have cast out all Papall Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court as being Politicall not Spirituall but for any Papall Iurisdiction either purely spirituall or justly founded we have not medled with it Those things which we have cast out are onely abuses and Vsurpations So there is no need of that Consideration which he proposeth whether the abuses were otherwise remediable or not for our Reformation is that very Remedy which he himself hath prescribed to
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
it seemeth by what passed lately between us that he understandeth the Rules of Opposition or right Contradiction better then your self First the Emphasis lieth not in the word true but in the words say and censure Cannot a man believe or hold his own Religion to be true but he must necessarily say or ceÌ„sure another mans which he coÌ„ceiveth to be opposite to it to be false Truth and Falshood are Contradictory or of eternall Disjunction but there is a meane between believing or holding mine own Religion to be true and saying or censuring another mans which perhaps is opposite to be false both more prudentiall and more charitable that is silence to looke circumspectly to myself and leave other men to stand or fall to their own Maister S. Cyprian did believe or hold his own Opinion of Rebaptisation to be true yet did not censure the opposite to be false or remove any man from his Communion for it Rabshakeh was more censorious then Hezekiah and down right Atheists then conscionable Christians Secondly that which he calleth his Religion is no more in truth then his Opinion and different Opinions are stiled different Religions In opinions it is not necessary to hold with any party much lesse to censure other parties Sometimes seeming different Opinions are both true and all the Opposition is but a Contention about words and then mutuall censures are vaine sometimes they are both false and then there is more use of Mutuall Charity then mutual Censures and evermore whether true or false an Errour against Charity is much greater then a meer speculative errour in Iudgement Prejudice and selâ—love are like a coloured glasse which makes every thing we discern through it to be of the same colour and on the otherside rancour and animosity like the tongue infected with Choller maketh the sweetest meats to tast bitter In each respect censures are daÌ„gerous and his principle pernicious that He who doth not censure every Religion whieh he reputeth contrary to his own hath no Religion I set down some Principles whereof this is the first particular Churches may fall into Errours He answereth t is true if by Errours he means Opinions onely No I mean Fundamentall Errours also and not onely fall into some Fundamentall Errours but apostate from Christ and turn Turkes and change their Bible into the Alchorâ—a whereof we have visible experience in the world He answers that Principle is not so undeniable as I thinke in case that Particular Church adhere firmly to her rule of Faith Immediate Tradition Well but we see visibly with our eyes that many particular Churches have not adhered to any Tradition Vniversall or Particular Mediate or Immediate but have abandoned all Apostolicall Tradition then to what purpose serveth his Exception in case that Church adhere firmly to immediate Tradition when all the World seeth that they have not adhered firmly to Apostolicall Tradition His Preservative is much like that which an old Seaman gave a freshwater Passenger when he was to goe to Sea to put so many pibble stones into his mouth with assurance that he should not cast whilest he held them between his teeth What sort of Tradition ought to be reputed Apostolicall what not I have shewed formerly My second Principle was that all Errours are not Essentialls or Fundamentalls He demands what is this to his Proposiâ—â—oÌ„ which spake of Religion not of Opinions Very much because he maketh Opinions to be Essentialls of his Religion as wee see in the new Creed of Pius of fourth so do not we To the third Principle we agree thus farre that an Errour de side formaliter or in those things which are Essentialls of Faith doth destroy the being of a Church I adde that Errours in those things Quae sunt fidei materialiter that is in Inferiour Questions which happen in or about things believed or which are not in Essentialls howsoever they may be lately crowded into the Catalogue of Essentialls do not destroy the being of a Church My fourth Principle was that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from such Errours as are not in Essentialls He answereth Why so my Lord if those errours be not Essentiall they leave accordinâ— to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then you ought to breake Church Communion c. As if no Errours ought to be remedied but onely those which are absolutely exclusive from all hope of Salvation as if those Errours which are onely impeditive of Salvation ought not to be eschewed The least Errour maintained or committed against the dictate of Conscience is a sinne every good Christian ought to doe his uttermost endeavonr to free himself from sinne it is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it Yes saith he but not to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church or to endanger our soules where there is no necessity First they who free themselves from known Errours doe not thereby break Church Communion but they who make their Errours to be a Condition of their Communion Let him heare the Conclusion of the Bishop of Chalcedon In case a Particular Church do require profession of her Heresy as a Condition of Communicating with her Division from her in this case is no Schisme or sinne but virtue and necessary Where he speaketh onely of materiall Heresy It was they who made their Errours the Condition of their Communion and therefore the Schisme and sinlyeth at their doores Secondly Schisme doth not destroy the being of a Church for the Church continueth a Church still after the Schismaticks are gone out of it but it destroyeth the Schismaticks themselves Lastly to free ourselves froÌ„ known Errours when they are made Conditions of Communion is so far from being dangerous to salvation that as the Bishop confesseth truely it is virtue and necessary The second proofe of our Moderation was our Charity that we left them as one should leave his Fathers house whilest it is infected with some contagious Sicknesse with an hearty desire to return again so soone as it is cleansed This Charitable desire of ours I prooved by our daily prayers for theÌ„ in our Letany that God would bring them out of the way of Errour into the way of truth and particularly by our prayer on Good Fryday for them That God would have mercy upon all Hereticks and fetch them home to his Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of true Israelites and be made one fold under one Shepheard Iesus Christ our Lord. And this our Charity is the more conspicuous by this that in bulla caenae that is the next day before anniversarily they doe as solemnly curse and Anathematize us To this he answereth first that they doe more for us and hazard their lifes dayly to convert us They hazard their lifes to serve a forrein interest not to convert but
to pervert as many as they can not to sow good seed in the Lords Field but to superseminare or sow Tares above the wheat We should thank them more to stay at home then to compasse Sea and Land to gaine Proselites as the Pharisees did and made them twofold more the Children of Hell then themselves He saith that this is the solemne Custome of their Church every Good Friday Let it be so but they have not the same incentive and provocation which we have we do not curse and Anathematise theÌ„ the day before as they doe us This Advantage we have over them that we render blessing for cursing which they doe not He addeth that they cannot be understood under the notion of Hereticks first because we acknowledge theirs to be a true Church and therefore not hereticall Secondly they are of Christs Flock already and therefore not reductble to his Flock To the First â— answer that a particular Church which is onely materially Hereticall not formally doth still continue a true Church of Christ. The Bishop of Chalcedon understood these things much better then himself this is confessed by him in the place formerly alleged A particular Church may be really Hereticall or Schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her Heresy or Schisme We agree with him wholy in the sense onely we differ in the expression What he calleth really Hereticall we stile materially Hereticall and what he calleth morally a true Church we use to stile Metaphysically a true Church that is by truth of Entity not of Morality Secondly I answer that the Flock of Christ is taken variously sometimes more largely sometimes more strictly more largely for all those that are In domo by outward profession more strictly for those who are Ex domo so in the Church that they are also of the Church by inward Sanctification And our Collect hath reference to this later acception of this word Flock So Fetch them home blessed Lord to thy Floek that they may be saved He taketh it ill that our Church hath chaÌ„ged these words in the Missall recall them to our Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick Church into this dwindling puling puritanicall expression of one Floek and one Fold under one Shepheard Whether it be because he hath a Pick against Scripture phrases as sounding too preacherlike or rather because our Church did presume to name the right Shepheard Iesus Christ and not leave it to their Glosses to entitle the Pope to that Office But certainly the Authority of the Catholick Church is not formidable at all to any Genuine Sonnes of the Church of England I doe readily acknowledge that it is the duty of each Orthodox Church to Excommunicate Formall Hereticks and them who swerve from the Apostles Creed as the rule of Faith but this doth not oblige the Church of England to Excommunicate all materiall Hereticks who follow the dictate of their conscience in inferiour Questions which are not Essentialls of Faith and do hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds Neither do I ever know that the Church of England did ever excommunicate Papists in grosse qua tales but onely some particular Papists who were either convicted of other Crimes or found Guilty of Contumacy It were to be wished that the Court of Rome would use the same Moderation and remember how Ireneus reproved Pope Victor that he had not done rightly to cut of from the Vnity of the Mysticall body of Christ so many and so great Churehes of God This is that great nonsense which this egregious Prevaricatour hath found in our Collect that the English Church cannot reconcile her doctrine and her practise together Let him not trouble his head with that but rather how to recoucile himself with his own Church He will have prayers to be onely words no works but his Church maketh Prayer Fasting and Almes to be three satisfactory works My third proofe of our Moderation was that we doe not challenge a new Church a new Religion or new holy Orders but derive our Church our Religion our Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession we obtrude no Innovations upon others All this is quite omitted by this great pretender to Sincerity and yet he knoweth or may know that there have been pretended Reformers who have committed all these excesses But he catcheth hold of two words of my defence that we have added no thing I wish they could say as much nor taken away any thing but Errours To the former part he excepteth that he who positively denies ever addes the contrary to what he takes away He that makes it an Article there is no Purgatory no Masse no prayers to Saincts hath as many Articles as he who holds the Contrary I have taken away this answer before and Demonstrated that no negative can be a Fundamentall Article or necessary Medium of Salvation because it hath no Entity That there are an hundred greater disputes and Contradictions among them selves in Theologicall Questions or in these things quae sunt fideâ— materialiter then those three are between us and them Yet they dare not say that either the Affirmatives or Negatives are Articles of Faith The ChristiaÌ„ Church for fifteen hundred yeares knew never more then 12. old Articles of Faith untill Pius the 4th added twelve new Articles And now this young Pythagoras will make us more then 1200. Articles affirmative Articles and Negative Articles Fundamentall Articles and Superstructive Articles Every Theologicall truth shall either be a Fundamentall Article or an indifferent and unconcerning Opinion He saith our 22. Article defineth the Negative to Purgatory yet I like an ill tutored Child tell my old Crasy Mother the Church of England that she lies I hope by this time the Reader knoweth sufficiently that his penne is no slander If the Church of England did ever ill it was when she begot him Neither doe I tell the Church of England she lies nor dissent in the least from the Definition of the Church of England neither doth the Church of England define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medâ—i or necessitate praecepti which is much lesse but onely bindeth her sonnes for peace sake not to oppose them But he himself can hardly be excused from lying where he telleth us the good simple Ministers did sweare to maintein them Perhaps he was one of the simple Ministers did he ever sweare to maintein them did he ever know any man who did sweare to maintein them For him to urge such falshoods after they have been so often detected is double Effronterie Periisse puto â—ui pudor periit He inferreth further By the Bishops Logick these propositions that there are not two Gods that the devills shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damned that there is no Salvation but through Christ must cease to be Articles of Faith and
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
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
that Authority which he doth challenge and not wave the extent as a thing Indifferent If he challenge it out of Prudentiall Reasons it ought to be considered whether the Hopes or the Hazards the Advantages or Disadvantages the ConvenieÌ„ces or Inconveniences of such a Form of Government particularly circumstantiated doe over ballance the one or the other And the surest tryall of this is by experience It will trouble him to find so many Advantages which the Church and Kingdome of England have received from Papall Iurisdiction I speak not of the Key of Order as may overweigh all those Disadvantages which they have susteined by the Extortions and Vsurpations and Malignant Influence of the Papacy If he attribute no more power to the Pope then all Roman Catholicks universally do approve which is the onely Rule that he giveth us to know what is the Substance of Papall Authority he need not be so impetuous this Question is near an end He askes whether wee and the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians be under the Government of Patriarchs or any other Common Government I answer wee and they are under the same Common Government which the Primitive Church was under from the Dayes of the Apostles long before there were any Generall Councells that was the Government of Bishops under Primates or Patriarchs For as I have said formerly a Protarch and a Patriarch in the Language of the Primitive Church are both one We have as much Opportunity to Convocate Synods as they had then before there were Christian Emperours and more yet by such Councells as they could Congregate though they were not Generall they governed the Church If there be not that free Communication of one Church with another that was then either by reason of the great distance or our mutuall misunderstanding one of another for want of the old Canonicall Epistles or Literae Formatae the more is the Pity We are sorry for it and ready to contribute our uttermost endeavours to the Remedy of it With these western Churches which have shaken of the Roman Yâ—ke we have much more Communion by Synods by Letters by Publishing our Confessions aÌ„d we might justly hope for a much nearer union yet both in doctrine and Discipline if God would be graciously pleased to restore an happy Peace That we have it not already in so large a measure as we might is their onely Faults who would not give way to an Vniform Reformation Sometimes they accuse us for having too much Communion with them at other times they will not grant us to have any at all Concerning the rest of the Western Churches which submit to the Papacy we have the same Rules both of Doctrine and Discipline which they had We have the same that they have saving their Additionall Errours We have broken no Bonds of Unity either in Faith or Discipline we have renounced no just Authority either Divine or Humane we adhere to the Apostles Creed as the ancient and true Rule of Faith into which alone all ChristiaÌ„s that ever were have been baptised and we renounce the upstart additionall Articles of Pius the fourth We are willing for peace sake to give the Pope the same Primacy of Order which St. Peter had above his Fellow Apostles but the Supremacy of power was not in St. Peter but in the Apostolicall College neither is now in the Bishop of Rome but in a Councell of Bishops He saith we maintein a larger Brotherhood then they but never goe about to shew any visible Tye of Government We shew them the same Badge or Cognisance of our Christianity that is the same Creed and the same Discipline or Government that is the same Colours derived down from the Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession The same Doctrine and the same Discipline is Tye enough To take an exact View it is necessary the Organ should be perfect the Medium fit and the Distance convenient if any one of these were Defective in Mr. Rosses View he might well mistake but I may not doe him that wrong to trust your Testimony without citing his words He urgeth If Christ have left any Vnity of Government in his Church and Commanded it to be kept and we have taken a Course to leave no such Vnity then we have rebelled against Christ and his Church and falsly pretend to have him our Spirituall head I admit this now let him Assume But you Protestants have taken a Course to leave no Vnity of Government in the Church which Christ left and Commanded to be kept I deny his Assumtion altogether and he saith not one word to prove it This is his Enthymematicall manner of Arguing He procedeth That to have a Generall Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Head is to confesse that there is no Ordinary Vnity of Government in Gods Church but extraordinary onely when a Councell sits I deny this Proposition altogether and the reason is Evident because besides a Generall Councell which sitteth but rarely neither is it needfull that it should sit often Nisi dignus Vindice nodus inciderit there are particular Councells which in lesser Exigents serve the turn as well as Generall There are Patriarchs and Bishops which are Ordinary and perpetuall In an Aristocracy it is not necessary that the Governours should be evermore actually Assembled In the first three hundred yeares there were no Generall Councells held there was lesse hope of ever holding them then then now yet there was an Ordinary Vnity of Government in Gods Châ—rch in those dayes for which they were not indebted at all to any visible Monarch Bâ—t when a Generall Councell doth sit the Supreme Ecclesiasticall power rests in it He wonders why I should make the King onely a Politicall Head Contrary to our Common Assertion It seemeth that though he hath been bred among us yet he hath not been much versed in our Authors No man that ever understood himself made him otherwise Yet this Politicall Head hath a great Influence upon Ecclesiasticall Causes and persons in the Externall Regiment of the Church He demandeth is there any Orderly Common Tye of Government obliging this Head to Correspond with the other head If not where is the Vnity I answer yes the direction of his Spirituall Guides that is his Bishops and Synods If this Method be so great a Rarity with him it is his own fault He had said more properly to Correspond with the other Heads then Head He saith It is false to say that they have sometimes two or three heads since there can be but one true or rightly chosen Pope True but the Election may be uncertain that no man living can know the true Pope so whether there be three Popes or one Pope and two pretenders yet if the right Pope cannot be made appeare it is all one relatively to the Church If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battell He telleth us further that when the See of Rome is vacant the Headship is
cited the words of St. Bernard to prove that the Pope was not Lord or Maister of other Bishops and the Roman Church a Mother of other Churches not a Lady or Mistresse He distinguisheth between Dominam and Magistram an Imperious proud Lady Mistrisse and a Schoole-Mistresse or Teacheresse Adding that they use the word Magistram in the latter sense So they say no more then we we do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Teacheresse and the Pope a Teacher as it is an Apostolicall Church and he an Apostolicall Bishop but all the Question is of the other word Dominum which the Pope taketh to him self as well as Magistrum as we have seen in the Oath of Allegiance which he makes all Bishops to sweare Neither doth St. Bernard oppose proud Imperious Dominion to Gentle Dominion but he contradistinguisheth Dominion to no Dominion and thy self not a Lord of other Bishops but one of them Not a Lord of other Bishops saith St. Bernard A Lord of other Bishops saith the Oath of Fidelity I will be faithfull to our Lord Pope Alexander He urgeth that the Bishop hath brought a Testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too St. Bernard asserted the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches so did the Bishop but not to be the Mother of all other Churches no more did the Bishop particularly not of the Church of Britain which was ancienter then the Church of Rome and so could not be her daughter Let them prove their right that they are our Mother and we are ready to doe our filiall Duty saving alwayes that Higher duty which we owe to our Mother Paramount the Vniversall Church But neither can they prove their right that they are our Mother neither is that Subjection which they Demand the Subjection due to a particular Mother but to an Vniversall Lord. But Schisme involves in its Notion disobedieÌ„ce c. And so the Bishop concludes the Mother Schismaticall because she is disobedient to her Daughter His first errour is to make the Church of Rome to be our Mother The second to thinke that a Mother may challenge what Obedience she listeth of her Daughter The third that Schisme consisteth altogether in the Disobedience of Subjects Causall Schisme may and doth Ordinarily consist in the unlawfuli Injunctions of Superiours My second reason to convince them as guilty of Schisme was the new Creed set out by Pius the fourth This he calleth a Calumny He cannot speake lower then Calumnies Absurdities Contradictions Falsifications c. A high Calumny to slander them with a matter of truth It is such a Calumny as they will never be able to shake of He referreth the Reader to what he hath said in the first Section and I to my Answer there He saith it is known that each point in that profession of Faith that is the twelve new Articles was held of Faith by the former Church How held of Faith as an Essentiall of Faith And this known to whom to the man in the Moone But here is the maddest Contradiction that ever was and might well have become his Merry Stationer It is a Contradiction to pretend that he Pius the 4. made a new Creed till it be shewn that any of these points was not formerly of Faith and be proved satisfactorily that the Apostles Creed conteined all necessary points of Faith A Contradiction I see many men talke of Robin Hood who never shot in his Bowe talke of Contradictions who know not what they are Observe the equity of these men They Visibly insert 12 new Articles into the Creed and then would put us to prove that they were not of Faith before and that all necessary points of Faith are contained in the Apostles Creed He is resolved to keep two strings to his Bowe and knoweth not which of them to trust to Heare you Sr. If they be Articles of Faith now as you have made them then they were alwayes Articles of Faith and all those were damned which did not believe them but that you dare not say My third Charge of Schisme was because they mainteine the Pope in his Rebellion against Generall Councells Here he distinguisheth between a Schooleman and a Controvertist to no manner of purpose for it is altogether impertinent There is no man who inveigheth so much against wording aÌ„d Quibling as himself and yet the world hath not a greater Worder or Quibler then he is Wherefore to prevent the Readers trouble and mine own and his shifting and flinching and to tye him within his Compasse perforce I made bold to reduce my Argument to a Syllogisticall Forme They who subject a Generall Councell which is the Highest Tribunall of Christians to the Pope are guilty of Schisme But the Pope and Court of Rome with all their mainteiners that is much the Greater part of of their writers doe subject a Generall Councell to the Pope Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome with all their Mainteiners that is the much greater part of their Writers are Guilty of Schisme Here he should have answered Punctually to the Proposition or Assumtion either by denying granting or distinguishing but for all his calling for a Rigorous Demonstrative way he liketh it not because he cannot make such impertinent extravagant excursions as he useth to doe which are the onely help he hath at a dead lift All the Answer he giveth is this He the Bishop is accused of a Contradiction and Nonsense and to cleare himself he telles us he will now lay aside the one part of the Contradiction and endeavour to make good sense of the other To what Proposition to what â—erme doth he apply this answer I see no Contradiction I see no Nonsense in my discourse nor any body living but himself I said no such thing as he pretendeth What doth the man meane by these waves of brainlesse butterd fish by these heterogeneous incoherent Fopperies and Chimaeraes which have no existence but in his own pate If he meane to answer let him doe it clearly like a Schollar since I have found this way to tye him to his matter and restraine his torrent of words I shall put it in practice oftner Yet if I meet with any such thing as is substantiall among his vapouring expressions which hath but the least resemblance of an answer though it be not reduced into Forme I will gleane it out and examine the weight of it Such is this which followeth Was it for this Opinion of the Pope above the Councell c. How were they guilty of Schisme for this unlesse they had denyed you Communion for holding the Contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Foole not your Readers my Lord It was not for this Tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Popes Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all Gods Church held
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
the searcher of all hearts that what I say is true and his accusations are groundlesse Calumnies But as to the merit of the cause he addeth that these unusuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures Thus he saith but what Authours what Authority doth he produce that any of these Churches are guilty of any such expressions None at all because for all his good intelligence he hath none to produce nor ever will be able to produce any and so his good intelligence must end in smoke and stinke as his most faithfull protestation did before I will conclude this point to his shame with the Doctrin of the English Church Art 2. That the two Natures Divine and Humane are perfectly and inseperably conjoined in the Vnity of the person of Christ. Doth this agree with his counterfeit expressions Christ hath two distinct persons no distnct natures When I used this expression the best is we are either wheat or chaffe of the Lords Floore but their tongues must not winnow us these words the best is had no such immediate Relation unto the words immediatly following we are either wheat or Chaffe but to the last words their tongues must not winnow us making this the complete sense we are either wheat or chaffe but the best is whether we be wheat or chaffe their tongues must not winnow us What poore boyish pickquering is this In my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon occasionally I shewed the Agreement of the Greek Churches with the Church of England in the greatest Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome out of Cyrill late Patriarch of Constantinople which he taketh no notice of but in requitall urgeth a passage out of Mr. Rosse in his booke called a View of all Religions It is an unequall match between Mr. Rosse a private Stranger and the Patriarch of Constantinople in a cause concerning his own Church I meddle not with Mr. Rosse but leave him to abound in his own sense I know not whether he be truly cited or not but with Mr. Serjeant I shall be bold to tell him that if he speaketh seriously and bona fide he is mistaken wholy Neither doe the Greekes place much of their Devotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and painted Images Heare Cyrill the Patriarch we give leave to him that will to have the Images of Christ and of the Saints but we disallow the Adoration and worship of them as prohibited by the Holy Ghost in Holy Scripture And another They give great honour to the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ but they neither adore her nor implore her aide And for the Intercession prayers help and Merits of the Saints taking the word Merit in the sense of the Primitive Church that is not for Desert but for Acquisition I know no Difference about them among those men who understand themselves but onely about the last words which they invocate in their Temples rather then Churches A Comprecation both the GreciaÌ„s and we do allow an ultimate invocatioÌ„ both the Grecians and we detest so do the Church of Rome in their Doctrine but they vary from it in their practise It followeth They place IustificatioÌ„ not in Faith but in workes Most Falsly Heare Hieremy the Patriarch We must doe good workes but not confide in them And Cyrill his Successour VVe believe that man is justified by Faith not VVorkes Before we can determine for whom those Eastern Southern and Northern Christians are in the Question concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse it is necessary to know what the right state of this Controversy is I have challenged them to goe one step further into it then I do and they dare not or rather they cannot without Blasphemy The next instance concerning Purgatory is so grosse and notorions a mistake that it were a great shame to confute it They believe that the soules of the Dead are bettered by the prayers of the living Which way are they bettered That the soules of damned are released or eased thereby the Modern Greeks deny and so do we That there are any soules in Purgatory to be helped they deny and so do we That they may be helped to the Consummation of their Blessednesse and to a speedier Vnion with their Bodies by the resurrection thereof they do not deny no more do we We pray dayly Thy Kingdome come and Come Lord Iesus come quickly and that we with this our Brother and all other departed in the Faith may have our perfect Consummation and blesse both in body and Soule They hate Ecclesiasticall Tiranny and lying supposititious Traditions so do we but if they be for the Authority of the Church and for genuine Apostolicall Traditions Gods blessing on their hearts so are we Lastly the Grecians know no feast of Corpus Christi nor carry the Sacrament up and down nor elevate it to be adored They adore Christ in the use of the Sacrament so do we They do not adore the Sacrament no more do we Yet from hence he inferreth that there is not a point of Faith wherein they dissent from the Church of Rome except that one of the Popes Supremacy It is well they will acknowledge that Yet the Grecians agree with us and differ from them in his two Rules or Bonds of Vnity In the Rule of discipline the Grecians and we have the same Government of Bishops under Patriarchs and Primates Secondly in the Rule of Faith the Grecians and we have both the same Canonicall bookes of Scripture both reject their Apocryphall Additions from the Genuine Canon They and we have both the same Apostolicall Creed both reject the new Additions of Pius the fourth In summe they and wee doe both deny their Transubstantiation their Purgatory their Iustification by workes in sensu forensi their doctrine of Merits and Supererogation their Septenary number of the Sacraments their Image worship their Pardons their private Masses their half-Communion And to be briefe the Grecians doe renounce and reject all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out of the Church of England As the Popes Soveraignty over the Catholick Church by divine Right as Nilus saith It is intollerable that the Roman Bishop will not be subject to the Canons of the Fathers since he had his Dignity from the Fathers Secondly his Legislative power as Peter Stewart Vice-chanceller of Ingolstad witnesseth that the Grecians object it as an errour to the Latines that they make the Popes Commandements to be their Canons and Lawes Thirdly his Iudiciary power equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome or rather preferring him Lastly his dispensative power accusing his Pardons and Dispensations as things that open a gaâ—e to all Kind of Villany I am glad that Nilus is in his good grace to be stiled by him one of the gravest Bishops and Authors of that party for one moderate expression wherein he saith no more then we say
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
I will find an English Law that sixty Members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parliament I have done his Commands and I know no such law nor he neither and then he must be a very confident man to cite such a Law Perhaps he hath heard of some Ordinance of the House of Commons how many members at the least must be present at doing of some inferiour Acts but neither is this Ordinance an English Law â—or that House an English Parliament He saith I excepted against the superproportioned multitude of Members out of one Province which never lawfull Parliament had Superproportioned indeed where there were double the Number of Italian Bishops to all the other Bishops of the Christian world this is no equall representative and these assembled thither not to dispute as he fancieth vainly but meerly to overvote the Tramontanes A few Bishops had sufficed to relate the Beliefe or Tradition of Italy as well as the rest of the world but that had not sufficed to doe the Popes worke that was to overswey the rest of the Christian world with his Superproportioned multitude of Italian Bishops He saith perhaps I will pretend that had the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces been there they would have voted against their Fellow Catholicks in behalf of Luther and Calvin which were a wise answer I heed not much what he calleth wise or foolish I doe not onely pretend but I see clearly that If the Bishops of other Countries had been proportioned to those of Italy they had carried the Debate about Residence and the Divine right of Episcopacy and that had done the bâ—sinesse of the Western Church and undone the Court of Rome But he quite omitteth the most materiall part of my Discourse concerning his resemblance between a Parliament and a Generall Councell That the absence of whole Provinces and the much greater part of the Provinces either of England or of Christendome for want of due Summons doth disable such a Parliament or such a Councell from being a Generall Representative of the whole He might even as well say that an Assembly of the Peers and Burgesses of Wales upon Summons without any appearance or summons of all the rest of the Kingdome of England was a lawfull Parliament of all England as say the Councell of Trent was a Generall Representative of the Christian world which was never summoned I proved that the Councell of Trent was no Generall Councell because it was not Generally received no not among the Occidentall Churches particularly by the Church of France in point of Discipline He answereth that notwithstanding They acknowledge it to be a lawfull Generall Councell and receive it in all Determinations belonging to Faith Adding that the Disciplinarian Lawes of a Generall Councell doe bind particular Countries onely in due Circumstances and according to their Conveniences But the Contrary is most apparent that Councells truly Generall being the Supreme Tribunalls of the Catholick Church doe bind particular Churches as well in point of Discipline as of Faith The Generall Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon did set the See of Constantinople before AlexaÌ„dria and Antioch And equall it to Rome notwithstanding the Popes Opposition What OpinioÌ„ the King and Church of France had of the Councell of Trent in those Dayes appeareth by the solemne Protestation of the French Ambassadour made in the Councell in the name of his Master and the French Church that seeing all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent and the decrees there published were rather the decres of Pius the fourth then of the Councell of Trent We denounce said he and protest before you all that whatsoever things are decreed and published in this Assembly by the mere will and pleasure of Pope Pius neither the most Christian King will ever approve nor the French Church ever acknowledge to be the decrees of a Generall Councell That the Councell of Trent was not a free Councell I proved first by the Testimony of Sleidan secondly by the bitter complaint of the Fathers in the Councell of Trent that it was guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male thirdly by the Popes creating â—ot onely new Bishops but new Bishopricks in the time of the Councell to make his party able to overvote their Opposers To the first he saith that Sleidan was a notorious lying Authonr of our own side Who fitter to relate the Grievances of the Protestants then a Protestant which he did not say in a Corner but published to the world in print when they might have refuted it if they could To the second he answereth that it was a jeering expression Yes it was biting as well as jeering Ridiculum acri Fortius melius magnas plerumque secat res The French Ambassador whom he thought to passe by in silence did not jeere yet he said the same thing in sad earnest To my third Argument he saith â—t is nothing to the purpose How nothing to the purpose for the Pope when his affaires were going retrograde and his party like to be overvoted to create new Bishopricks to ordaine new Bishops and pack them away presently to the Councell to assist his party and by that means to gaine a plurality of Voices Is this nothing to the purpose in his Opinion It may be he thinkes that Italy had not Bishops enough there yet they had two thirds of the Councell before or that these new Bishops did understand the Tradition and Beliefe of Italy better then all the rest If it be his mind to wave the Popes Patriarchall power I am contented otherwise his proofe will not weigh much unlesse we admit strangers who know little or nothing of our Privileges more then we know the Cyprian Privilege before the Councell of Ephesus to be competeÌ„t judges and will interpret a Western Patriarch to be the onely Patriarch of all the west The Archbishop of Yorke is Primate of EnglaÌ„d and yet all England is not subject to his Iurisdiction Forfeiture and Quitting are two distinct Charges an Office is Forfeited by abuse and quitted by assuming a new Office inconsistent with the former as I have shewed the Papacy and a Patriarchate that is a Soveraign and Subordinate power to be But a Patriarchate and a Bishoprick being both subordinate to a Generall Councell are not inconsistent and much lesse the Office of a King and Master of a Family the one being Politicall the other Oeconomicall But an Vniversall Monarchy by divine right and the Presidency of a Particular Province by Humane right are inconsistent I gave him my reasons for it and he taketh no notice of them He excepteth against my styling Patriarchall Authority a Patriarchall Aristocraticall dignity which he calleth my thrice repeated non sense It is well he did not make it a Contradiction His reason is because a Patriarchaâ—e is a Government by one an Aristocracy by many The answer is Obvious and easy a Patriarch is a Monarch in the Government
of his own Patriarchate yet subordinate to a Generall Councell but in a Generall Councell or in the GovernmeÌ„t of the Catholick Church he is but one of the Optimates or a Fellow governour with other Bishops He saith it was never pretended by Catholicks that the Pope was the King of the Church I wonder that he is no betâ—er acquainted with the Sorbone disputes whether the Regiment of the Church be an absolute Monarchy tempered with an Aristocracy We have a Meritorious Sacrifice that is the Sacrifice of the Crosse We have a Commemorative and Applicative Sacrifice or a Commemoration and Application of that Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist A Suppletory Sacrifice to supply any want or defects in that Sacrifice he dare not owne and unlesse he do owne it he saith no more then we say What I spake of our Registers I intended principally of that Register of the right Ordination of Protestanâ— Bishops that he may see when he will for his love and have the Copy of any Act in it for his money but he had rather wrangle about it then take such paines if he will have a little Patience I will ease him of that Labour and Expences It is no insuperable difficulty nor any difficulty at all to us to find out that Catholick Church which we have in our Creed but to find out his Roman Catholick Church is both a Contradiction in adjecto and an Apple of Contention serving to commit him and his Friends together among themselves which he knoweth and therefore declineth it I called not the Ancient Bishop of Italy either Episcopelles or the Popes hungry Parasiticall Pensioners but the Flaâ—terers of the Roman Court and Principally those petty Bishops which were created during the Councell of Trent to serve the Popes turne If he think that Court free from such Moths he is much mistaken Neither are these expressions mine originally I learned them from the ancient Bishops of Italy themselves who gave them those very names of Episcopelles c. Neither did I taxe any man in particular He desires me to examine my Conscience whether I doe not get my living by preaching that Doctrine which I put in my Bookes which how many notorious Falsities Contradictions and Tergiversations they have in them may be judged by this present worke Yes if he and his merry Stationer may be my Iudges Now his worke is ended and answered I will make him a faire offer If he be able to make but one of all his Contradictions and Falsifications and absurdities good I will be reputed guilty of all the rest if he be not I desire him both to examine his own Conscience and Discretion what reward he deâ—erveth both at the hands of God and man for so many notorious Calumnies As for his Faults I shall rather leave them to the Iudgement of the Reader then trouble myself with the Recapitulation of them In the close of my Discourse I answered an exception of his that I cited Gerson against myself The words of Gerson or rather of the Eastern Church when they seperated from the Roman are these Potentiam tuam recognoscimus Avarâ—â—iam tuam implere non possumus Vivite per vos We know thy power we cannot satisfy thy Covetousnesse Live by yourselves They knew that he had a Patriarchall power and that he was the first or chiefe of the Patriarchs but this power we deny not that power which we deny is a Supremacy of single power and that by Christs own Ordination The Question is whether the Grecians did acknowledge such a power due to the Pope in these words That they did not I prove first by the practice of most of all the Eastern Churches who excommunicate the Pope yearly as a Schismatick for challenging this power Secondly I prove it by the Testimony of all their writers especially the modern Greeks as Hieremy and Cyrill the two succeeding Patriarchs of Constantinople and Nilus an Archbishop c. who all deny this power to the Pope in the name of the Greek Church Thirdly I prove it by his own confession in this very Chapter There is no one point produced by him which our Church lookes upon as a point of Faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Popes Supremacy How doe they grant the Popes Supremacy and deny the Popes Supremacy and yet continue the same without Variation as they have done I doe not say this is a Contradiction but let the Reader Iudge His reasons are mere Prevarications not reasons First here is no Opposition between power and covetousnesse unlesse he mean all Affirmatives and Negatives whatsoever be the Subjects or Predicates are Opposites and if they were it signifieth nothing Secondly he demands what power had the Pope over them except Spirituall Iurisdiction I answer he shewed them sufficiently at the Division of the Greek Empire and then they stood in need of his assistence against the Turke His third fourth and fifth Arguments may be reduced to one and when they are twisted they will not have the weight of one single haire The Difference was about undue Subsidâ—es and Taxes but the Demanding Subsidies seems incredible had there not been some preacknowledged power to ground such demands upon Yes there was his Protopatriarchall power and that tentered and stretched out to the uttermost extent and when he would have extended it yet higher the Grecians cast out his Vsurpations I see he doth but grope in the darke I will help him to some light Peter Steward upon Caleca tells him what these undue Subsidies and Exactions were when the Popes Legates brought yearly the Chrisme from the Apostolick See to Constantinople they would not depart from thence unlesse they had eighty pound weight of Gold besides other Gifts bestowed upon them Lastly he addeth Gerson concludes that upon this Consideration they might proceed to the Reformation of the French Churches notwithstanding the Contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make which evidenceth that the acknowledgement of the Popes just power was reteined and encroachments on their Liberties onely denyed Concedo omnia His Protopatriarchall power was acknowledged his Soveraignty of Iurisdiction was denyed as an encroachment and this is the same Method which we observed in England And so Mr. Serjeant concludes his Rejoinder that the Bishop began like a Bowler and ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three Iust Mr. Serjeant just As your mind thinketh so the Bell clinketh If there be any of those Artificers here it is yourself whose constant Custome is to make holes where there are none and out of an eager desire of Contradicting others to plunge yourself irrecoverably into reall Contradiction With Scurrility you began this Rejoinder and with Scurrility you end it That which followeth is a Dish of thrice sodden Coleworts or a vain recapitulation of his own Imaginary Achievements which the Reader
on one Day sâ—me years after this meeting And it is an usuall thing for Bishopricks to have two names as the Bishoprick of Ossory and Kilkenny is the same Bishoprick â—he Bishoprick of Kerry and Ardfert is the same Bishoprick The See of Derry was long removed from Ardstrath to Derry before it was commonly called the Bishoprick of Derry and so was Lindesfern to Durham I produced two witnesses for this very Place of Caerleon that it still reteined the old name The one the British History Then died David the most holy Archbishop of Caerleon in the City of Menevia And yet it is thought that the first removall of the See was made by Dubritius to Landaff and after from Landaffe to Menevia by St. David at whose death it was stiled the Archbishoprick of Caerleon The other witness was Geraldus Cambrensis we had at Menevia five and twenty Archbishops of Caerleon successively whereof St. David was the First He takes no notice of the first Testimony and puffes at the second and sleights it but answereth nothing Materiall but that which will cut the throat of his cause Had Caerleons Archbishops saith he onely for some conveniency resided at Menevia and the right of Iurisdiction still belonged to Caerleon it might more easily be conceived faâ—sible Take notice then that the Bishops of Caerleon did remove from a populous City in those dayes as Caerlegion or the City of the Roman Legion was to Menevia onely for the conveniency of a solitary life and contemplative devotion and it is more then pâ—obable that the active part of his Iurisdiction was still executed at Caerleon The See is changed so soone as the Church is builded but the City will require longer time to be fitted for Inhabitants and furnished All that he opposeth to this is that it was ordinarily called the Bishoprick of Menevia Who douhteth of it but that doth not prove that it was not also called Caerleon It was First the Bishoprick of Caerleon alone then the Bishoprick of Caerleon or Menevia indifferently afterward the Bishoprick of Menevia or St. Davids indifferently and now the Bishoprick of St. Davids onely He carpeth at the name of Caerleon upon Vske Why so why not as well Caerleon upon Vske as Kingston upon Hull or Newark upon Trent or Newcastle upon Tine Where there are severall Cities of one name as there were Caerlegions or Cities of Roman Legions in Brittain it is ever usuall to give them such a marck of Distinction But why doth he wrangle about names and persecute an innocent paper after this manner The thing is sure enough that there was one Dinoth a learned Abbat of Bangor at that time who did oppose Austin and stand for the Iurisdiction of his own Archbishop of Caerleon or Menevia chuse you whether Thus much he him self acknowledgeth in this very Paragraph citing out of Pitseus a booke of this very Dinoths the title whereof was Defensorium Iurisdictionis Sedâ—s Menevensis an Apology for the IurisdictioÌ„ of the Seeof Menevia And against whom should this Apology be but against Austin and the Romans no men els did oppose the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Menevia With this agreeth that of Venerable Bede That Austin by the help of King Ethelbert called to a Conference or Councell the Bishops and Doctors of the greatest and nearest Province of the Britons and began to perswade them with brotherly Admonitions to hold Catholick peace with him to undertake the Common work of preaching to the Pagans for they observed not Easter in due time and did many other things contrary to the Vnity of the Church The end of this first Assembly was They would give no assent neither to the prayers nor exhorâ—ations nor reprehensions of Austin and his fellowes but preferred their own Traditions before all others throughout the Church And among all their Traditions there was none which they held more tenaciously then this inserted in this Manuscript that is the Independent Iurisdiction of the British Primate which they never deserted till after the Norman Conquest To maintaine the Independence of their own Primate is as much as to disclaime obedience to the Pope But this is clearer in their resolution after the second Synod whereat were seven British Bishops and very many learned men especially of the most noble Monastery of BaÌ„gor whereof that time Dinoth was Abbat who gave this finall answer to Austins three demands mentioned here by Mr. Serjeant At illi nihil â—orum se facturos neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant They answered they would do none of them nor hold him for an Archbishop Here wee see Dinoth was Abbat at that time Dinoth was present at that Councell and all the Britons did not onely reject those three propositions which he acknowledgeth but did moreover in renouncing Austin disclaiÌ„me St. Gregories Authority over them whose Legate he was What is this lesse then Dinoths Manuscript The authour of the old British History called Brutus relateth this answer of the Britons thus Se Caerleonensi Archiepiscopo obedire voluisse Augustino autem Romano Legato omnino noluisse That they would obey the Archbishop of Caeâ—leon but they would not obey Austin the Roman Legate Here he hath expresse testimony of their adhering to their British Primate and their renouncing Papall Authority and lastly of the very name of the Archbishop of Caerleon at that day To the same purpose Graiâ—s in Scala Cronica and Grocelinus in his greater History are cited by Caius de Antiquit Acad. Cantab With them agreeth Geoffry of Monmouth who saith there were at least one and twenty hundred Monkes in the Monastery of Bangor who did all live by the Labour of their own haÌ„ds and their Abbot was called Dinoth marveilously learned in the liberall Arts who shewed to Austin requiring subjection from the British Bishops and perswading them to undertake with him the Common labour of preaching by diverse reasons that they did owe him no Subjection nor to preach to their enemies Seing they had an Arch prelate of their own c. And a little after Ethelbert King of the Kentishmen when he see the Britons did disdain to subject themselves to Austin and to despise his preaching stirred up the Saxon Kings to collect a great Army against Bangor to destroy Dinoth the Abbat and the other Clerkes of that Monastery who had despised Austin This is the very same in effect with Dinoths Welsh manuscript and there fore it was no welsh Ballad first made in Edward the sixths time by some English Schoolmaister to teach welsh boyes English as Mr. Serjeant Vapoureth With him agreeth Giraldus Cambrensis But yet alwaies untill Wales was fully subdued which was done by Henry the first King of the English the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of Menevia And he the Archbishop of Menevia in like manner was consecrated by others as being his Suffragans without making any Profession of
passe muster for once Here is a Contradiction deserves a Bell and a Bable Catholick Countries did maintein their Privileges inviolate by such means at one time not at another in one place not in another in one degree not in another in one respect not in another The last mock Contradiction is that I say The Lawes which denied the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient Remedies against the abuses of that Authority Which had quite taken them away This is not finding of Contradictions but making of them Give him leave to use this id est that is and he will make a hundred Contradictions in every page of the Bible as here actually in force that is which actually left the Pope no Authority or which had quite taken his Authority away If this id est that is be mine then he may object the Contradiction to me if it be not then he may keep the Contradiction to himself such as it is He knoweth and all the world know that a law is said to be actually in force whilest it is unrepealed in this sense I did and all men but himself doe use that expression And here he committeth a third grosse fault against the Rule of Opposition which ought to be ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Respect The Law taketh away abuses as a Rule but the Magistrate by due execution as an Artificer The Law is sufficient when it is sufficiently penned and promulged but the effect followeth the due execution The not observing of this obvious and easy truth hath made us all this stirre about Imaginary Contradictions as I have shewed in my answer to his last â—â—ragraph which alone is a sufficieâ—â— answer to all these pretended Contradictions but whether it will be so actually in force to procure his assent is more then I know if it do not it detracteth nothing frem the sufficiency of the answer Goe Mr. Serjeant goe bring us lesse wind and more weight Saepius in libro memor atur Perseus uno Quam levis in totâ Tharsus Amazonide In the last Paragraph is nothing but a Calumny against Henry the eight which he is not able to prove and if he were it neither concerneth us nor the Question SECT VII That the King and Church of England proceeded with due Moderation THis Section doth not much concern either us or the merit of the cause A Reformation might be just and necessary although the Reformers did exceed the bounds of due Moderation neither are we answerable for their excesses further then we ourselves doe maintein them I passe by his pleasant Topick unsaluted as being impertinent and having nothing in it deserving the least stay of a serious Reader I reckoned this as the first Branch of our moderation that we deny not to other Churhes the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor seperate from Churches but from Accidentall Errours For all his scoffing if their Church would use the like moderation it would save the world a great deale of needlesse debate Against that which I say he objecteth thus Now the matter of Fact hath evidenced undeniably that they the Protestants seperated from those points which were the Principles of Vnity both in Faith and Government He hath brought his matter of Fact and his Principles of Vnity so often upon the Stage already and they have been so often clearly answered that I will not insist upon such a threedbare subject or trouble the Reader with an irksome repetition We have seen how far his Principles of Vnity or his Fundamentall of Fundamentalls is true and ought to be admitted and in a right sense we adhere much more firmly unto them then the Church of Rome it self He procedeth that the Church of England defines that our Church the Church of Rome erreth in matter of Faith Artic. 19. The words of the Article are Non solum quoad agenda Ceremoniarum ritus verum etiam in iis quae credenda sunt that is Not onely in Practicall Observations and Ceremoniall rites but also in those things which are to be believed that is to use Cardinall Cajetans distinction Not in those things which are de fide formaliter in necessary Fundamentall Articles for we acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essentialls of Faith but in those things which are fidei materialiter in inferiour Questions which happen in things to be believed that is to say Opinions wherein himself acknowledgeth that a particular Church may erre That this is the right sense of the Article appeareth hence that the Article doth contradistinguish Credenda or things to be believed not to Opinions but to agenda things to be practised He urgeth that we have declared four points of their faith to be vain Fictions contradictory to Gods word Artic. 22. That is to say their Doctrin of Purgatory Indulgences their Adoration of Images and Relicks Invocation of Saints Right four points of their new Faith enjoined by Pius the fourth but no Article of the old Apostolicall Faith and at the best onely Opinions Yet neither doth he cite our Article right which doth not define them to be contrary to Scripture but onely besides the Scripture or not well grounded upon any Texts of Scripture He addeth the like Character is given of another point Art 28. That is Transubstantiation Our highest Act of Devotion Art 31. is stiled a blasphemous fiction and pernicious imposture that is the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse Concerning Transubstantiation what is our Opinion I referre him to my answer to Militier in the very beginning of it And concerning their Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse to the same answer pag. 152. Edit 2. The true state of the Controversy was not so clearly understood at first on either side as it is now He cannot goe one step further then we doe in that cause without tumbling into direct Blasphemy It followeth And Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publickly should be held as Heathens and Publicans Well here is no distinction between Roman Catholicks and Protestants And Franciscus a Sancta Clara in his Paraphrasticall ExpositioÌ„ of the English Articles giveth this Iudgement of this Article This Article is Catholick and agreeable as well to holy Scripture as to antiquity Then why doth he snarle at this Article which he cannot except against Because he conceiveth that the Article meaneth Catholicks or at least doth include them Iudge Reader what a spirit of Contradiction dâ—th possesse this man who when he is not able to pick any quarrell at the words of the Article calumniateth the meaning upon his own groundlesse suspicion But nothing was more common in the mouths of our Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the VVhore of Babilon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous and to make up the Measure of his Forefathers sinnes the Bishop calles here the two Principles of