Church about Rites and Ceremonies about Precedency about Jurisdiction about the Rites and Liberties of particular Churches about matter of Fact Obstinacy in a small error is enough to make a Schism Saint Paul tel's us of Divisions and Factions and Schisms that were in the Church of Corinth yet these were not about the essentialls of Religion but about a right-handed error even too much admiration of their Pastors The Schism between the Roman and Asiatick Churches about the observation of Easter was farre enough from the heart of Religion How manny bitter Schisms have been in the Church of Rome it selfe when two or three Popes at a time have challenged Saint Peters Chaire and involved all Europe in their Schismatical contentions Yet was there no manner of dispute about Faith or Sacrements or holy Oders or the Hierarchy of the Church but meerly about matter of Fact whose election to the Papacy was right From the former ground R. C. makes two collections First that Schism is a most grievous crime and a greater sinne than Idolatry because it tendeth to the destruction of the whole Church whose essence consisteth in the union of all her substantiall parts and her destruction in the division of them What doth this note concern the Church of England which is altogether guiltles both of Schism and Idolatry I wish the Church and Court of Rome may be as able to clear themselves I am no Advocate for Schism Yet this seemeth strange paradoxicall doctrine to Christian eares What is all Schism a more grievious sin than formall Idolatry who can beleeve it Schism is a defect of Charity Idolatry is the height of impiety and a publick affront put upon Almighty God Schism is immediately against men Idolatry is directly against God And the Fathers hold that Iudas sinned more in despairing and hanging himself than in betraying his Master because the later was against the humanity the former against the Divinity of Chriist Idolatry is a spirituall Adultery and so stiled every where in holy Scriptures A scolding contentious Wife is not so ill as an Adulteress neither is that Souldier who straggles from his Camp or deserts his Generall out of passion so ill as a professed Rebel who attempts to thrust some base Groom into his Soveraigns Throne Saint Paul calls Idols Devils and their Altars the tables of Divels Can any sinne be more grievous than to give divine honour to the Divel It is true that some Schism in respect of some circumstance is worse than some Idolatry as when the Schism is against the light of a mans knowledge and the Idolatry proceeds out of ignorance But the learned Surveior knoweth very well that it is a gross fallacy to argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciser to applie that which is spoken respectively to some one circumstance as if it were spoken absolutely to all intents and purposes as if one should say that many men were worse than beasts because each kinde of beasts hath but one peculiar fault and that by naturall necessitation as the Lion cruelty the Fox subtilty the Swine obscenity the Wolf robbery the Ape flattery whereas one may finde an epitome of all these in one man and that by free election yet he were a bad disputant who should argue from hence that the nature of man is absolutely worse than the nature of brute beasts Saint Austin faith indeed that Schismaticks baptising Idolaters doe cure them of the wound of their Idolatry and infidelity but wound them more grievously with the wound of Schism The deepest wound is not alwaies the most deadly For the Sword killed the Idolaters but the Earth swallowed up the Schismaticks And Optatus addes that Schisme is summum malum the greatest evill That is not absolutely but respectively in some persons at some times No man can be so stupid as to imagine that Schism is a greater evil than the sin against the Holy Ghost or Atheism or Idolatry The reason of Optatus his assertion followeth the same in effect with Saint Austines for the Idolatrous Ninevites upon their fasting and prayer obtained pardon but the earth swallowed up Korah and his company All that can be collected from Saint Austin or Optatus is this that God doth sometimes punish wilfull Schismaticks more grievously and exemplarily in this life than ignorant Idolaters which proveth not that Schisme is a greater sinne than Idolatry Ieroboam made Gods people Schismaticks but his hand was dried up then when he stretched it out against the Prophet yet the former was the greater sinne The judgements of God in this life are more exemplary for the amendment of others than vindictive to the delinquents themselves And for the most part in the whole historie of the Bible God seemeth to be more sensible of the injuries done unto his church and to his servants then of the dishonor done unto himself In the Isle of Man it is death to steal an Hen not to steal an Horse because there is more danger of the one than of the other in respect of the situation of the Country Penall lawes are imposed and punishments inflicted according to the exigence of places the dispositions of persons and necessities of times But because he hath appealed to Saint Austin to Saint Austin let him goe I desire no better Expositor of Saint Austin than Saint Austin himself Exceptis illis duntaxat quicunque in vobis sunt scientes quid verum sit pro animositate suae perver itatis contra veritatem etiam sibi notissimam dimicantes Horum quippe impietas etiam I. dololatriam forsitan superat Excepting only those Donatists whosoever among you know what is true and out of a perverse animosity doe contend against the Truth being most evidently known to themselves For these mens impiety doth peradventure exceed even Idolatry itself The case is cleare Saint Austin and Optatus did only undestand wilfull perverse Schismaticks who upheld a separation against the evident light of their own conscience comparing these with poor ignorant Idolaters and even then it was but a peradventure peradventure they are worse than Idolaters But I wish R. C. and his party would attend diligently to what followes in Saint Austin to make them leave their uncharitable censuring of others Sed quia non facile convinci possunt in animo namque latet hoc malum omnes tanquam à nobis minùs alieni leviori severitate coercemini But because these can not be easily convicted for this evill obstinacy lies hid in the heart we do use more gentle coertion to you all as being not so much alienated from us I wish all men were as moderate as St. Austin was even where he professeth that he had learned by experience the advantage of severity St. Austin and the primitive Church in the person of which he speaks spared the whole sect of the Donatists and looked upon them as no such great strangers to them because they
beliefe of some great atchievements which he hath made elsewhere or to excuse his present defects upon pretense of large supplies and recruits which he hath ready in another place but where the Reader cannot come to see them And what if the Reader have them not to see as it is my condition in present What am I or he the worse If he see no more in some of them then I have seen heretofore he will see a great many of mistated and mistaken questions a great many of Logomachies or contentions about words a great many of private errours produced as common principles of Protestants a great many of authours cited contrary to their genuine sense and meaning and very little that is materiall towards the discussion of this or any other question Just as Master Chillingworth is cited here to prove That Protestants have separated themselves in communion of Sacraments and publick service of God not only from the Roman Church but also from all other Christian Churches in the World which is not only contrary to his sense but also contrary to his very words in the place alleged It is not all one saith he though you perpetually confound them to forsake the errour of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her errours and simply to forsake the Church c. The former then was done by Protestants the later was not done Nay not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman did they separate per omnia but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious Not only from the Roman Church but from also all other Christian Churches in the world saith R.C. Not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman Church saith Mr. Chillingworth In communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God saith R. C. Only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious saith Mr. Chillingworth But because there is no question wherein they studdy more to blunder and trouble the water and to involve themselves in dark Clouds of obscure generalities I will doe my endeavour to distinguish that which is deceitfull and confused and represent the naked truth to the eies of the Reader First I acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a true Christian Church in that sense that I have declared that is metaphysically because it still reteins all the essentialls of a true Church To have separated from it in any of these had been either formall Heresie or formall Schisme or both But we have reteined all these as much as themselves and much more purely than themselves For it may seem doubtfull whether some of their superstitious additions doe not virtually overthrow some of the fundamentalls of Religion But with us there is no such danger Secondly I acknowledge that besides the Essentials of Christian Religion the Church of Rome reteins many other truths of an inferior nature in Doctrine in Discipline in Sacraments and many lawfull and laudable Practises and Observations To have separated from these had been at least materiall Schisme unless the Church of Rome should obtrude them upon other Churches as necessary and fundamentall Articles of Christian Religion and so presume to change the ancient Creed which was deposited with the Church by the Apostles as the common Badge and Cognisance of all Christians for all suceeding Generations Thirdly It is agreed that one may not one must not separate himself from the communion of a true Christian Church for the vices or faults of particular Persons in point of manners We may not leave the Lords Field because there are Tares nor his Floare because there is Chaff nor his House because there are Vessels of dishonor nor his College because there was a Iudas Fourthly Some errors and abuses are not simply sinfull in themselves but to those that did first introduce them to those who maintain and practise them for ambitious or avaritious ends they are sinfull These are pressures and grievances to the Christian Flock rather than sins They suffer under the burthen of them but they are innocent from the guilt of them And so reum facit Superiorem iniquitas imperandi innocentem subditum ordo serviendi A Superior may sin in his commands and yet his Subject be innocent in his obedience These are no just cause of separation to a private Christian Charity covers a multitude of sinnes But they are just cause of Reformation to a nationall Church or a Synod Fiftly There are some errors in disputable points and some abuses are meer excesses without guilt rather blemishes than sinnes And for these alone no man ought to separate himself from a Christian Society or abandon a true Church for triviall dissentions Our duty in such a case is to pray and perswade without troubling the peace of the Church and to leave the rest to God Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Lastly We affirm that in the superstructions of Christian Religion the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence and sinfull innovations in point of Doctrine and Discipline and administration of the Sacraments and Feasts and Fasts c. This we are ready to maintain Neither doth she only profess and practise these errors and abuses which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential Truths and necessary Articles She injoins sundry of them as a condition of her Communion She commands all Christians to beleeve and practise them under pain of damnation and whosoever refuseth she casteth them out of her society Such is their new Creed in point of Faith directly contrary to the Canon of the generall Councel of Ephesus Such is the Popes Supremacy of power in point of Discipline expressly contrary to the determinations of the Councells of Constance and Basile Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine the detention of the Cup from the People their unknown langguage c. in the administration of the Sacraments and in the publick service of God From these sinfull duties thus injoined as necessary all men ought to separate Lawfull authority of man may oblige one to suffer but no authority of man can warrant or oblige one to doe sinfull duties Such a cause justifies a separation untill the abuse be reformed for which the separation was made And being thus separated from sinfull Innovations it may be lawfull or convenient to reform lesser errors which were not of such dangerous consequence nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves But here I must advertise the Reader of a double manner of expression used by English Protestants concerning this separation They agree that the Roman Church reteineth the Essentials of a true Church They
produce no Schism whilest one Church did not condemn another and all did submit themselves to the determination of a generall Councell as the highest Judge of controversies upon Earth The reason of their agreement was plainly this because all Churches received the primitive Creed and no Church exacted more in point of Faith then the primitive Creed It would better become the Church of Rome to repent of their rash temerarious censure in excluding above three parts of the Christian World from the communion of Saints out of passion and self interest because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Bishop no more then their predecessors did before them from the beginning If these dispersed and despised multitudes of Christians would but submit to the Roman yoke their religion would be found orthodox enough and they would no longer be held a masse of Monsters and a Hydra of many Heads but passe muster for good Catholicks Take an instance or two Of all these multitudes of Christians the Assyrians or the Nestorians have not the best repute Yet when Elias a pety Patriarch of Muzall submitted to the Bishop of Rome and sent the confession of his Faith it was found to be Orthodox Of later daies about the yeer 1595. when part of the Russians subject to the Crown of Poland submitted themselves to the Papacy because they could not have free accesse to the Patriarch of Constantinople in their submission they articled for the free exercise of the Greek Religion To come neerer home This is certain that Pius the 4 th sent Vincentio with Letters of Credence to Queen Elizabeth with secret instructions for he intreated her in his Letter to give the same credit to his Agent which she would doe to himselfe If these instructions were not written we need not wonder Such instructions are not to be seen publickly unlesse they take effect But some of our Authours of great note in these daies write positively others probably upon common report that he offered the Popes confirmation of the English Liturgy and the free use of the Sacrament in both kindes c. so she would join with the Romish Church and acknowledge the primacy of the Chair of Rome It is interest not Religion that makes Catholicks and Hereticks or Schismaticks with the Court of Rome Lastly all these famous Churches or the most of them which he calls multitudes of Christians have a perfect concord both among themselves with the primitive Church in all essentials How should it be otherwise whilest they hold the same Creed without addition or subtraction They agree in most lesser truths They hold their old Liturgies and forms of administration of the Sacraments with lesse variation then the Church of Rome If there be some differences among them the Romanists have as great among themselves One of these Churches alone the Church of Constantinople hath as many dependents and adherents as all the Churches of the Roman communion put together And I believe a greater harmony within it self in Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Whereas he chargeth me that I professe to communicate with the Catholick Church only in fundamentals not in any other thing he wrongs me much but himself more For I professe my self ready to adhere to the united communion of the true Catholick Church in all things whether they be fundamentals or no fundamentals whether they be credenda or agenda things to be believed or to be practised He saith the Church of Rome is not homogenall with the Protestant Church This is true qua tales as they are Roman and Protestant The Roman Church is not a Protestant Church nor the Protestant Church a Roman Church Yet both the one and the other may be homogeneous Members of the Catholick Church Their difference in essentials is but imaginary Yet he goes about to prove it by three arguments First An Indolatrous Church differs essentially from a true Church But he saith I charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the adoration of the Sacrament Judge Reader if this be not like the envious man in the Fable who was contented to have one of his own Eies put out that his fellow might lose both his Eies He had rather his own Church should be questioned of Idolatry then that the Protestant Church should be a coheire with her of Salvation Because the Eare is not the Eie is it therefore not of the Body In the places alleged by him I doe not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry In the one place I speak of the adoration of the Sacrament as an abuse but not one word of Idolatry In the other place I speak of the peril of Idolatry but not a word of the adoration of the Sacrament If he cite his Authors after this manner he may prove what he list Again The Sacrament is to be adored said the Councel of Trent That is formally the body and blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament that is the species of Bread and Wine say others That we deny and esteem it to be Idolatrous Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry for the error of a party Lastly I answer that a true Church out of invincible ignorance may fall into material Idolatry He himself confesseth that it may fall in materiall Heresie and Schism And Schism with him is worse then Idolatry Though the Church of Rome doe give divine worshâ—p to the Creature or at least a party among them yet I am so charitable as to hope that they intend it to the Creator From the adoration of Sacrament he passeth to justification by speciall Faith only and from thence to the propitiatory Sacrifice in the Masse As if two Churches could not differ about any questions nay not in the forms of expression but presently the one of them must cease to be a true Church I dare say that when I have declared my Faith in these two particulars he dare not step one step beyond me Or if he doe he steps into a manifest errour I doe acknowledge tâ—ne inherent righteousnesse in this life though imperfect by which a Christian is rendred truly just as Gold is true Gold though it be mixed with some drosse But if justification be opposed to condemnation and signify a legall acquittall from guilt formerly contracted as It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth Then it is the free Grace of God that justifieth us for the merits of Christ by the new evangelicall Covenant of believing But where doth the Church of England teach that man is justified by speciall Faith Now here He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that is a part of the Catholick Faith But I believe and am Baptized that is justifying Faith Therefore I shall be saved that is speciall Faith There may be Catholick Faith without justifying Faith and justifying Faith without speciall Faith because a man
so they place him not so high as Christ nor make him Superior to the whole conjoint college of Apostles The truth is this King Ina builded a magnificent Temple at Glastenbury to the honor of Christ and memory of St. Peter and St. Paul and upon the same caused some verses to be engraven wherein St. Peter and St. Paul were compared together Doctior hic monitis celsior ille gradu or St. Paul was more learned but St. Peter higher in degree St. Paul opened the hearts St. Peter the eares St. Paul opened heaven by his Doctrine St. Peter by his Keyes St. Paul was the way St. Peter the gate St. Peter was the rock St. Paul the Architect Theologicall truths ought not to be founded upon Poeticall licence He knows right well that their own Doctors doe make St. Paul equall in all things to St. Peter except in primacy of order We acknowledge that St. Peter was the beginning of unity why then might he not have the first place according to his primacy of Order But the question between them and us is of another nature concerning a supremacy of Power When St. Peters Nets were full he did but beckon and his fellows came to partake But the Court of Rome use him more hardly For whatsoever was ever said or done to his honour or advantage rests not upon his person who was still no more but a fellow of the Apostolicall college but devolves wholly upon his Successors to make them Monarchs of the Church and Masters of all Christians They suffered their Bishops to teach That St. Peter had a Monarchy Was next after Christ the foundation of the Church And that neither true Faith nor good Life would save out of the unity of the Roman Church As if our Ancestors had ever understood the Roman Church in that sense which they doe now for the universall Church or heard of their new coyned distinction of a mediate and immediate foundation as if Saint Peter was laid immediatly upon Christ and all the rest of the Apostles upon Saint Peter or as if the Court of Rome were Saint Peters sole Heir If their Bishops had taught any such Doctrine in the Councells of Constance and Basile they would have gone near to have been censured for Hereticks unless they had explained themselves better then he doth Though it is true that after the Popes by violence and subtlety had gained so much upon the World as to be able to impose new upstart Oaths first upon Archbishops and then upon Bishops inconsistent with their Oaths of Allegiance and had falsified the very forms of their own Oaths from regulas sanctorum Patrum the rules of the holy Fathers to regalia sancti Petri the Royalties of Saint Peter then they had the Bishops bound hand and foot to their devotion But who were these Bishops What were their names What were their words Who were the Kings that suffered them Nay he telleth us not but leaveth us in the dark first to divine what was his dream and then to shew him the interpretation of it Only he referreth us to a treatise of his own called the flowers of the English Church which I never see nor heard of but from himself If there be any thing that is pertinent and deserveth an answer had it not been as easie to have cited his Authors as himself in the margent When his latent testimonies come to be viewed and examined it will be found that his Monarchy is nothing but a primacy or principality of Order his foundation a respective not an absolute foundation and his Roman Church the Catholick Church Or else it will appear that instead of gathering flowers he hath been weeding the Doctors of the Church They admitted Legates of the Pope whom he sent to examine the faith of the English Church The intended Pope was Pope Agatho The pretended Legate was Iohn the precentor whom the Pope sent into England at such time as the Heresie of Eutyches was frequent in the orientall parts ut cujus esset fidei Anglorum Ecclesia diligenter edisceret that he should learn out diligently what was the faith of the English Church He saith not to examine juridically but to learn out diligently This Iohn his supposed Legate had no more power then an ordinary Messenger Well a Synod was called by whom by the supposed Legate No but by the English Who presided in it the pretended Legate No but Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury There is not the least footstep of any forrein Jurisdiction or Authority in the whole business They caused divers Bishopricks to be erected at the commandement of the Pope If it had been proper for the Pope or if he had had power to have erected them himself why did he put it upon others To command them to erect new Bishopricks had been a power paramount indeed This was more then to execute the Canons The history is recited not in the ninth chapter but in the fifth chapter of the second Book of William of Malmesburie de Gestis Regum Anglorum not as his own relation but transcribed out of a nameless Writer verbis eisdem quibus inveni scripta interseram In the dayes of Edward the elder the Region of the West-Saxons had wanted Bishops upon what ground doth not appear per septem annos plenos seven whole years And it may be that some of the Bishopricks had been longer vacant perhaps ingrossed by the Bishops of Winchester and Shireborne which two I finde to have been alwaies of great note in the Court of the West-Saxon Kings The ground of my conjecture is the words of the Author Quod olim duo habuerunt in quinque diviserunt What two for â—ome space of time had possessed they divided into five Formosus the then Pope resented this R. C. remembers what tragicall stirres he made at Rome but as to this particular a better man might have done a worse deed He sent his Letters into England misit in Angliam Epistolas and it seemeth that they were very high quid a Papa Formoso praeceptum sit but praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction as well as a commandement And again dabat excommunicationem maledictionem Regi Edwardo omnibus Subjectis ejus he bestowed an excommunication and a curse upon King Edward and all his Subjects Why what had the poor Subjects offended or King Edward for any thing that appeareth This was sharp work indeed the first summons an excommunication with a curse A man of Formosus his temper who was indeed a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church though he violated his oath to obtain it and who supposed himself to be not only the Patriarch of Britaine but a Master of misrule in the Church might adventure farre But to doe him right I doe not beleeve that this was any formall sentence that had been too palpably unjust before a citation I remember not that any other Author mentions it which they would have done
jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus ita figeret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet Because some Fathers say that Peter did suffer Martyrdome at Rome by the commandement or at least according to the premonition of Christ it is not improbable that the Lord did likewise openly command him that he should so fix his Chair or See at Rome that the Roman Bishop should absolutely succeed him Judge Reader freely if thou didest ever meet with a poorer foundation of a divine right because it seemeth not improbable alltogether to a professed sworn Vassall and partial Advocate well fed by the party It is no marvell if they build but faintly upon such a groundless presumption licet fortè non sit de jure divino although peradventure it is not by divine right He might â—ell have omitted his peradventure Wherefore doubting that this supposition will not hold water he addeth That though it were not true it would not prove that the Pope is not Successor to Saint Peter ex asse but only that he is not so jure divino It is an old artifice of the Romanists when any Papall priviledge is controverted to question whether the Pope hold it by divine right or humane right when in truth he holds it by neither so diverting them from searching into the right question whether he have any right at all taking that for granted which is denyed But for humane right they think they have it cocksure The reason is manifest because S. Peter himself left the Bishoprick of Antioch but continued Bishop of Rome untill his death This will afford them no more helpe then the other When the Apostles did descend and deign to take upon them the charge of a particular Church as the Church of Rome or Antioch they did not take it by institution as we doe They had a generall institution from Christ for all the Churches of the World When they did leave the charge of a particular Church to another they did not quit it by a formall resignation as we doe This had beene to limit their Apostolicall Power which Christ had not limited But all they did was to depute a Bishop to the actuall cure of Soules during their absence reteining still an habituall cure to themselves And if they returned to the same Citie after such a deputation they were as much Bishops as formerly Thus a Bishop of a Diocess so disposeth the actuall cure of Soules of a particular Parish to a Rector that he himself remains the principall Rector when he is present Saint Peter left Rome as much as he left Antioch and dyed Bishop of Antioch as much as he dyed Bishop of Rome He left Antioch and went to Rome and returned to Antioch again and governed that Church as formerly he had done He left Rome after he first sate as Bishop there and went to Antioch and returned to Rome again and still continued the principall Rector of that Church Linus Clemens or the one of them were as much the Bishop or Bishops of Rome during the life of St. Peter and St. Paul as Evodius and Ignatius or the one of them were the Bishop or Bishops of Antioch Suppose a Rector having two Benefices dies upon the one of them yet he dies the Rector of the other as much as that I confesse an Apostle was not capable of pluralities because his Commission was illimited otherwise then as a Bâ—shop is Rector of all the Churches within his Diocess And though he can die but in one Parish yet he dies governor of all the rest as much as that If we may believe their History St. Peter at his death was leaving Rome in probability to weather out that storme which did hang then over his head in Antioch as he had done in a former persecution If this purpose had taken effect then by their Doctrine St. Peter had left the Bishoprick of Rome and dyed Bishop of Antioch Thus much for matter of fact Secondly For matter of right I doe absolutely denie that Saint Peters death at Rome doth entitle the Bishop of Rome as his Successor to all or any of those priviledges and prerogatives which he held in another capacitie and not as he was Bishop of Rome Suppose a Bishop of Canterbury dies Chancellor of England another Bishop dies Chancellor of the University of Cambridge or Oxford must their respective Successors therefore of necessity be Chancellors of England or of that University No the right of donation devolves either to the Patron or to the Society So supposing but not granting that one who was by speciall priviledge the Rector of the Catholick Church died Bishop of Rome it belongs either to Christ or his Vicegerent or Vicegerents invested with Imperiall power to name or to the Church it self to choose a Successor If they could shew out of Scripture that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in a spirituall Monarchy it would strike the question dead Or that St. Peter did designe the Bishop of Rome to be his Successor in his Apostolicall power Or lastly that the Catholick Church did ever elect the Roman Bishops to be their ecclesiasticall Sovereigns it were something But they doe not so much as pretend to any such thing The truth is this that after the death of St. Peter that preheminence I doe not say Sovereingty which he had by the connivence or custome of the Church devolved to his Successors in his Chaire the Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria for I look upon Saint Marke as St. Peters Disciple and Antioch among whom the Bishop of Rome had priority of Order not of Power to which very primacy of Order great priviledges were due Yet not so but that the Church did afterwards add two new Protopatriarchs to them of Constantinople and Hierusalem and equalled the Patriarch of Constantinople in all priviledges to the Patriarch of Rome which they would never have done nor have proposed the honor which they gave to Rome with a placet Doth it please you that we honor the memory of St. Peter If they had beleeved that Saint Peters death at Rome had already setled a spirituall Monarchy of that See which had been altogether as ridiculous as if the Speaker of the House of Commons should have moved the House in favour of the King Doth it please you that we honour the King with a judiciary power throughout his own Kingdome Hitherto R. C. hath not said much to the purpose now he falls on a point that is materiall indeed as to this ground if he be able to make it good That the Bishops of Rome exercised ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction over the Britannick Churches before the generall Councell of Ephesus or at least before the six hundreth year of Christ. First he complaineth that few or no Records of British matters for the first six hundred years doe remain If so few doe remain that he is not able to produce so much as one instance his
of indulgences whom the Pope of that time rebuked severely Nor Henry the eighth but the excommunication of Clement the seventh That of Luther is altogether without the compass of the question between him and me which concerneth only the Church of England I shall only make bold to tell him that whensoever it comes to be examined it will be found that Luther had many other causes of what he did then the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences If he will not give me credit let him cousult the hundred grievances of the German Nation That the Pope rebuked those Preachers of Indulgences severely is more then I have read only this I have read that Carolus Militius did so chide Tecelius the Popes Pardoner about it that shortly after he died of grief Concerning Henry the eighth the excommunication of Clement the seventh was so far from being a totall adequate cause of his separation that it was no more but a single occasion The originall priviledges of the British Churches the ancient liberties and immunities of the English Church daily invaded by the Court of Rome the usurpation of the just Rites and Flowers of his own Crown the otherwise remediles oppression of his Subjâ—â—ts and the examples of his noble Predecessors were the chief grounds of his proceedings against the Court of Rome He asketh could not Henry the eighth have been saved though he was excommunicate yes why not Justice looseth unjust bonds But I see that this question is grounded upon a double dangerous error First that all reformation of our selves is a sinfull separation from other Churches Whereas he himself confesseth that it is sometimes vertuous and necessary Nay every reformation of our selves is so far from being a sinfull separation from others that it is no separation at all except it be joyned with censuring and condemning of others The second error intimated in this question is this that so long as there is possibility of salvation in any Church it is not lawfull or at least not necessary to separate from the abuses and corruptions thereof A Church may continue a true particular Church and bring forth Children to God and yet out of invincible ignorance maintain materiall Heresie and require the profession of that Heresie as a condition of communicating with her in which case it is lawfull nay necessary after conviction to separate from her errors Those errors and corruptions are pardonable by the goodness of God to them who erre out of invincible ignorance which are not pardonable in like manner to them who sinne contrary to the light of their own conscience He addeth that this excommunication was not the fault of the Roman Church which neither caused it nor approved it Yea saith he divers of them disliked it both then and since not as unjust but as imprudent and some have declared themselves positively that a Prince and a multitude are not to be excommunicated It were to be wished for the good of both parties that all men were so moderate To his argument I give two answers First as the Church of Rome did not approve the excommunication of Henry the eighth So neither did Henry the eighth separate himself from the Cchurch of Rome but only from the Pope and Court of Rome Secondly what are we the better that some in the Roman Church are moderate so long as they have no power to help us or hinder the acts of the Roman Court They teach that a Prince or a multitude are not to be excommunicated But in the mean time the Court of Rome doth excommunicate both Princes and multitudes and whole Kingdomes and give them away to strangers Whereof there are few Kingdomes or Republicks in Europe that have not been sensible more or less and particularly England hath felt by wofull experience in sundry ages Clement the seventh excommunicated King Henry but Paul the third both excommunicated and interdicted him and the whole Kingdome and this was the first separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome and the originall of the Schism wherin the Church of England was meerly passive So the Court of Rome was the first cause of the Schism We are come now to my first argument to prove the Court of Rome to be causually schismaticall My proposition is this whatsoever doth leave its proper place in the body either naturall or politicall or ecclesiasticall to usurp the Office of the Head or to usurpe an higher place in the body then belongs unto it is the cause of disorder disturbance confusion and Schism among the Members my assumption is this but the vertuall Church of Rome that is the Pope wiâ—h his Court being but a coordinate Member of the Catholick Church doth seek to usurpe the Office of the Head being but a Branch doth châ—llenge to himself the place of the Root being but a Stone in the building will needles be an absolute Foundation for all persons places and times being but an eminent Servant in the Familie takes upon him to be the Master To the proposition he taketh no exception And to the assumption he confesseth that the Church of Rome in right of the Pope doth seek to be Mistriss of all other Churches and an externall subordinate foundation of all Christians in all times and places which is no more then is conteined in the new Creed of Pius the fourth I acknowledg the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistriss of all Churches And I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. But all this he justifieth to be due to the Pope and included in the Supremacy of his Pastorall Office But he saith that it is not the Doctrine of the universal Roman Church that the Pope is the root of all spiritual Iurisdiction Though it be not the Doctrine of the whole Roman Church yet it is the Doctrine of their principall Writers at this day It is that which the Popes and their Courtiers doe challenge and we have seldome seen them fail first or last to get that setled which they desired The Pope hath more Benefices to bestow then a Councell If the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians then Linus and Cletus and Clemens were the foundations of St. Iohn who was one of the twelve foundations laid immediately by Christ How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians when they doe not agree among themselves that the Chair of St. Peter is annexed to the See of Rome by divine right How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians at all times when there was a time that there were Christians and no Bishop or Church at Rome when it happens many times as in this present vacancy that there is no Bishop at Rome St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome then there was a time when Antioch was the Mistriss and foundation of all
the Councel That there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent and ingageth himself to secure it The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany the redress which they sough was in Germany Germany not Italy had been the proper place for the Councel R. C. proceedeth the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope It may be so but not in a legall or judiciary way He confesseth That in doubtfull cases there ought to be four distinct persons the accuser the witness the person accused and the Iudge but not in notorious rebellion in which case there needs neither witness nor accuser And doth not this merit the reputation of a doubtfull case wherein so great a part of the occidental Church are ingaged who are ready to prove evidently that he who is their accuser and usurps the office of their Judge is the notorious Rebell himself I confess that in some cases the notority of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the Law to be Rebellion or Heresie or the like The Popes Rebellion hath been already condeâ—â—ed in the Councel of Constance and his heretical maintaining of it in the Councel of Basile But the Protestants renouncing of his usurped authority hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other Yet he saith The Protestants were condemned not only by the Councel of Trent but by the Patriarch of Constantinople to whom they appealed One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise would beleeve that the Protestants in general had appealed from the Councel of Trent and were juridically condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople Who gave the Appellants procuration to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the Appeal Where is the condemnation Is the English Church included therein No such thing The case was this One or two forrein particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them And he delivered his opinion it should seem as R. C. conceiveth more to the advantage of the Romanists thâ—n of the Protestants This he calleth an Appeal and a condemnation I crave pardon of the Reader if I doe not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarchs answer It is thirty years since I see it Neither doe I know how to procure it Thus farre I will charge my memorie that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated and the Patriarchs answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome then of the Church of England The right stating of the question is all in all When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way they will make them more apposite more to the purpose But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him goe I mean Cyrillus since the time of Hieremy whom that learned Gentleman Sir Thomas Roe then Ambassador for our late King at Constantinople had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church He published a Treatise of his own much about the year 1630 which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a confession of the Christian Faith so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England that it might seem rather to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury then by the Patriarch of Constantinople I will cull out a few flowers and make a posie for him to let him see whether the Patriarchs of Constantinople doe condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome In the second Chapter he declareth That the authority of the Scripture is above the authority of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for it is not equall or alike to be taught of the holy Ghost and to be taught of man In his tenth Chap. he declareth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall men can by no means be the head of the Church and that our Lord Iesus Christ alone is the head of it In the thirteenth Chapter he asserteth justification by Faith alone just according to the Doctrine of the Church of England In the fifteenth Chapter he acknowledgeth but two Sacraments In the seventeenth Chapter he professeth a true reall presence of Christ the Lord in the Eucharist just as we doe and rejecteth the nâ—w devise of transubstantiation In the eighteenth Chapter he disclaimeth purgatorie c. All this he declarâ—th to be the Faith which Christ taught the Apostles preached and the orthodox Church ever held and undertaketh to make it good to the World And after in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him he excludeth the Apocryphall Books out of the Canon of holy Scripture and condemneth the worship of Images In a word he is wholy ours And to declare to the World that he was so he resolved to dedicate his confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England When this Treatise was first published it is no marvel if the Court of Rome and the congregation for propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it and use their uttermost indevor to ruine him But he justified it before the Ambassadors of Roman Catholick Princes then remaining at Constantinople and came off fairly in despite of all those who did calumniate him and cast false aspersions upon him Besides his own autograph and the testimonies of the Ambassadors then present if there had been nothing else to justifie this truth the instructions given by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope alone had been sufficient proof and the plots which they contrived against him either to have him taken away by death or deposition For at the same time they decryed the Treatise here as supposititious and accused him there as criminous for being the Author of it But God delivered him out of their hands He pleadeth moreover That the Bishops assembled in Trent were not the Popes Ministers Yet he knoweth right well that they had all taken an Oath of obedience to the Pope for maintenance of the Papacy Were these equall Judges I confess there were many noble souls amongst them who did limit their Oath according to the Canons of the Church But they could doe nothing being over-voted by the Popes Clients and Pensioners He asketh who were the accusers witnesses and Iudges of the Pope in the Parliament 1534 but King Henry himself and his Ministers I answer that they were not King Henries Ministers but the Trustees of the Kingdome they were not sworn to maintain King Henrie's usurpations they acted not by a judiciary but by a legislative power neither did they make any new Law but only declare the ancient Law of the Land Otherwise they medled not with the person of
counterfeit and if genuine whether Melancthons words be rightly rehearsed and if rightly rehearsed at what time it was written whether before he was a formed Protestant or after It appeareth plainly in the words here cited that Melancthon was willing to acknowledge the Papacy only as a Canonicall pollicy And so we doe not condemn it whilest it is bounded by the Canons of the Fathers But then where is their jus divinum or the institution of Christ Where is their absolute or universall Sovereignty of Power and Jurisdiction In all probability if these be the words of Melancthon his meaning was confined to the Roman Patriarchate which was all the Church that he was much acquainted with And that either these are none of his words or that they were written before he was a formed Protestant or that he intended only the Roman Patriarchate is most evident from his later and undoubted writings wherein he doth utterly and constantly condemn the Papall universall Monarchy of the Roman Bishop And lastly what Melancthon faith is only in point of prudence or discretion he thinks no wise man ought to dislike it We are not so stupid as not to see but that some good use might be made of an exordium unitatis Ecclesiasticae especially at this time when the Civill Power is so much divided and distracted But the quere is even in point of prudence whether more good or hurt might proceed from it We have been taught by experience to fear three dangers First when we give an Inch they are apt to take an Ell Tyrants are not often born with their teeth as Richard the the third was but grow up to their excesse in processe of time Secondly when we give a free Alms as Peterpence were of old they streight-way interpret it to be a tribute and duty Thirdly what we give by humane right they challenge by Divine Right to the See of Rome And so will not leave us free to move our rudder according to the variable face of the Heavens and the vicissitude of humane affairs These are all the testimonies which he citeth but he presenteth unto us another dumb shew of English Authors in the margent Whitakers Laude Potter Chillingworth Mountague besides some forreiners But if the Reader doe put himself to the trouble to search the severall places notwithstanding these titles or superscriptions he will finde the boxes all empty without one word to the purpose as if they had been cited by chance and not by choise And if he should take in all the other writings of these severall Authors they would not advantage his cause at all Bishop Mountague is esteemed one of the most indulgent to him among them though in truth one of his saddest Adversaries yet I am confident he dare not stand to his verdict Habeat potestatem ordinis directionis consiliis consultationis conclusionis executionis dellegatam Subsit autem illa potestas Ecclesia auferibilis sit per Ecclesiam cum non sit in Divinis Scripturis instituta non Petro personaliter addicta Let the Bishop of Rome have delegated unto him that is by the Church a power of Order Direction Counsail Consultation Conclusion or pronouncing sentence and putting in execution But let that power be subject to the Church let it be in the Churches power to take it away seeing it is not instituted in the holy Scriptures nor tied personally unto Peter To conclude the same advise which he giveth unto me I return unto himself Attendite ad Petram unde excisi estis Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn Look unto the Church of Hierusalem and remember That the Law came out of Sion and the Word of the Lord out of Hierusalem Look unto the Church of Antioch where the Disciples were first called Christians Look unto the other Eastern Churches in whose Regions the Son of Righteousnesse did shine when the day of Christianity did but begin to dawn in your Caosts Look to the primitive Church of Rome it self Whose Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World and needed not the supplementall Articles of Pius the 4 th Lastly look unto the true catholick oecumenicall Church whose Priveleges you have usurped and seek not to exclude so many millions of Christians from the hope of Salvation and the benefit of Christs Passion In whom all the Nations of the World were to be blessed This indeed is the only secure way both to Unity and Salvation to keep that entire form of Doctrine without addition or diminution which was sufficient to save the holy Apostles which was by them contracted into a Summary and deposited with the Churches to be the true badge and cognisance of all Christians in all succeeding ages more then which the primitive Fathers or rather the representative Church of Christ did forbid to be exacted of any person that was converted from Jewism or Paganism to Christianity And as many as walk according to this rule of Faith Peace be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israell of God FINIS A REPLIE TO S. Ws. REFVTATION OF The Bishop of DERRIES just Vindication of the CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE most of S. W s. Exceptions have been already largely and particnlarly satisfied in the fotmer reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon Yet lest any thing of moment might escape an answer I will review them and answer them generally and succinctly as they are proposed by him To his Title of Downe derry I have nothing to say but that it were strange if he should throw a good cast who seals his bowle upon an undersong Sect. 1. In the first place he professeth to shew the impertinency of my grounds and to sticke the guilt of Schisme not only with colour but with undenyable evidence upon the English Church by the very position of the case or stating of the question between us and this he calleth a little after their chief Objection against us what then is stating of the question and objecting all one I confesse the right position of a case may dispell umbrages and reconcile controversies and bring much light to the truth But as the lion asked the man in the Fable who made the picture we may crave leave to demand who shall put this case surely he meaneth a Roman Catholick For if a Protestant state it it will not be so much for their advantage nor the bare proposition of it bear such undeniable evidence in it I hope a man may view this engine without danger In the beginning of Henry the eighths raigne and immediately before his sustraction of obedience from the See of Rome The Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome and all the resâ— of her Communion in two points which were then and still are the bonds of unity betwixt all her members the one concerning Faith the other Government For Faith her rule was that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles were solely
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
deprive them of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their allegiance Let these pretended branches of Papall power be lopped off and all things restored to the primitiye forme and then the Papacy will be no more like that insana Laurus the cause of contention or division in all places In the mean time if they want that respect which is due unto them they may blame themseves who will not accept what is their just right unlesse they may have more Fourthly ' that which followes is a great mistake that it was and is the constant beliefe of the Câ—thelick world that these principles are Christs owne ordination recorded in Scripture What that S. Peter had any power over his fellow-Apostles or that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him in that power It doth not appear out of the holy text that S. Peter was at Rome except we understand Rome by the name of Babylon If it be Christs own ordâ—nation recorded in the scriptures that S. Peter should have all these priviledges and the Bishop of Rome inherit themashis successour thenthe great generall Councel of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equal prviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperial City more then the ordination of Christ. Then the whole Catholick Church was much to be blamed to receive such an unjust coustirution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome Lastly this is so farre from the constant belief of the Catholick world that it is not the beliefe of the Roman Church it self at this day The greatest defenders of the Popes Supremacy dare not say that the Bishop of Rome succedeth S. Peter by Christs owne ordination but onely by S. Peters dying Bishop of Rome They acknowledge that S. Peter might have dyed Bishop of Antioch and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him or he might have died Bishop of no place and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholick Church though he died at Rome as without doubt it is and may be contracted or enlarged or translated from one See to another for the advantage of Christian Religion His manifest evidence which he stileth so ample a memory and succession as is stronger then the stock of humane government and action That is that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it is so far from a demonstration that it scarcely deserveth the name of a Topicall argument For as an universall uncontroverted tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united is a convinclng and undeniable evidence such a tradition is the Apostles Creed comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith repeated daily in our Churches every Christian standing up at it both to expresse his assent unto it and readinesse to maintaine it professed by every Christian at his Baptisme either personally when he is of age sufficient or by his sureties when he is an infant and the tradition of the universall Church of this age a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us So the tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither so necessary to be knowne nor so firmely beleeved nor so publiquely aâ—d universally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicalages by such uninterrupted succession doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence When the Christian world is either not united or divided about particular opinions or inferiour points of faith it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages Or otherwise there is a fault in the conduit-pipe or an errour and failing in the derivatton of the tradition And both these do take much away from assurance more or less according to the degree of the opposition In such questionable and controverted points as these which are neither so universally received nor so publiquely professed his assertion is groundless and erroneous that the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed Yes in such controverted points this present age may not know yea doth not know what it self beleeveth or rather opiniateth untill it come to be voted in a Synod The most current opinions in the Schoos are not alwaies the most generaly received in the Church those which are most plaâ—sible in one place are often hissed out of another And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part or if he did how shall he know that what he beleeveth in such points is more then an indifferent opinion Or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church and delivered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession No waies but by universall tradition of the Christian world united either written or unwritten but this is all the evibence which they can expect who confound universall tradition with particular tradition the Roman Church with the Catholick Church the Christian world united with the Christian world divided and Scholasticall opinions with Articles of Faith Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences the one against the Church of England that since the reformation neither the former rule of unity of Faith nor the second of unity of governement have had any power in the English Church Whilest he himself knoweth no better what we beleeve who live in the same age how doth he presume that the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former beleeved I have shewed him already how we do willingly admit this principle wherein both his rules are comprehended that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our Forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a triall with them There is a fallacy in Logick called of more interrogations then one that is when severall questions of different natures to which one uniforme answer cannot be given yea or no are mixed confounded together So he doth not onely set down this second rule concerning governement ambiguously that a man cannot tell whether he make S. Peter onely an head of order among the Apostles or an head of single power and Jurisdiction also over the Apostles but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into S. Peters place by Christs own ordination and confounds S. Peters Ex o dium Vnitatis with the usurped power of Popes as it was actually exercised by them in latter ages His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome that the Roman Church with those Churches
which continue in communion with it are the onely Churches which have true doctrine in vertue of the first principle above mentioned and the right governement in virtue of the second and consequently are the entire Catholick or Vniversall Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schisme being excluded Our answer is ready that the Church of Rome or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplementall Articles and erroneous additions contrary to the first principle and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawfull 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 themselves guilty of supertio n and Schisme And lastly where he saith that my onely way to clear our Church from Schisme is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith or the latter the necessary bond of governement he is doubly mistaken First we are the persons accused our plea is negative or not guilty So the proof lieth not upon us but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismaticks Secondly if the proof did rest upon our sides we do not approve ofâ—his adviâ—e It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our substractions but they by their additions There is no doubt but Christs legacy ought to be preserved inviolable but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters heir by Christs ordination And that this was the constant beliefe of the Catholick world at any time This is his province let him either make this good or hold his peace Sect. 2. So his Prologue is ended now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments My first ground was because not Protestants but Roman Catholicks themselves did make the first separation To which his first answer is If it were so how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning Many waies First it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence when their best friends and best able to judge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for them who in all other things were great zeloâ—s of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Fagot did yet condemn thâ—m and justify this separation Secondly though it doth not alwaies excuse a tâ—to from all guilt and punishment to be misled by others into errour If the blind llead the blind both fall into the ditch yet it doth alwaies excuse a tanto it lesseneth the sin and extenuateth the guilt Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schisme If this separation be an Errour in Protestants the Roman Catholicks do owe an account to God both for themselves and us did they find cause to turne the Pope out of England as an intruder and usurper and could Protestants who had no relation to Rome imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again Thirdly in this case it doth acquit us not onely a tanto but a toto not onely from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schisme so longas we seek carefuly after truth and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents if he enquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and to correct his errours when he finds them he is not to be reputed an hereticke If this be true in the case of heresy it is more true in the case of Schisme Thus if it had been a crime in them yer it is none in us but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us but a just and necessary duty Secondly he answereth that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants because they persecuted Protestants For Protestants persecute Protestants Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians Puritans and Beownists persecute one another VVhat then were VVarham and Heath aud Thureleby Tunscall and Stokesley and Gardiner and Bonner c. all Protestants did Protestants enjoy Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks iâ— England and say Masses in those daies will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church and opposers of the Reformation If he had wriâ— thus much whilest they were living they would have been very angry with him Yet at the least if they were Protestants let him tell me which of these Sects they were of Lutheranâ— c. But he telleth us that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essentiall part of our reformation and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant He is mistaken This part of the reformation was done to our hands it was their reformation not ours But if he will needs have the kingdomes and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths daies onely for renouncing the Popes absolute universall Monarchy I am well contented we shall not lose by the bargain Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants then all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day then we want not store of Protestants even in the besome of the Roman Church it self Sect. 3. My second Ground saith he was because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated This he is pleased to call notoriously false impudence it self because a law was made in Henry the eighths time and an oath invented by which was given to the King to be head of the Church and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England Is this the language of the Roman Sâ—hooles or doth he think perhaps with his outcriâ—s and clamours as the Turks with their Alla Alla to daunt us and drive us from our cause Christian Reader of what Communion soever thou art be but indifferent and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falshood and impudence doth rest between him and me I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome did make no now law but vindicate their ancient Liberties It seemeth he confureth the Titles without looking into the Chapters did I say they made no new statutes No I cited all the new statutes which they did make and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here Yet I said they made no new law because it was the law of the land before that statute was made The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the
did not know who were obstinate and who were not who erred for want of light and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences The like Spirit did possess Optatus who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists Brethren not by chance or inanimadvertence but upon premeditation he justifieth the title and professeth himself to be obliged to use it he would not have done so to Idolaters And a little before in the same Book he wonders why his Brother Parmenian being only a Schismatick would rank himself with Hereticks who were falsifiers of the Creed that is the old primitive Creed which the Councel of Trent it self placed in the front of their Acts as their North-star to direct them I wish they had steered their course according to their compass To cut off a lim from a man or a branch from a tree saith he is to destroy them most true But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body as in a gangreen The word of errour is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not cancer a crabfish because it is retrograde which was Anselmes mistake So when superfluous branches are lopped away it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better His second conclusion from hence is that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sinne And because there is no salvation out of the Church which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin to little purpose whilest no man doubts of it or denies it And hence he inferres this corollary that I say untruely that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church because there ean be no just cause of Schism My words were these that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church There is a great difference between these two But to dispell umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words We must distinguish between the Catholick oecumenicall Church and particular Churches how eminent soever As likewise between criminous Schism and lawfull separation First I did never say that the Catholick or universall Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it yea I ever said the contrary expresly And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian who never understood the Catholick Church in his sense His Catholick Church was but a particular Church with them And their Catholick Church is a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him But I did say and I doe say that any particular Church without exception whatsoever may give just cause of separation from it by heresy or Schism or abuse of their authority in obtruding errours And to save my self the labour of proving this by evidence of reason and by authentick testimonies I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey Neither can there be any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her In which case division from her is no schism or sinne but virtue and necessary And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church as he may leave his Fathers house when it is infected with some contagious sicknesse with a purpose to returne to it again when it is cleansed he answers that this may be true of a particular Church but cannot be true of the universall Church Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sinne Their damnation is just who say let us doe evil that good may come of it Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her the guilt of the Schisme lies not upon that Church which makes the separation but upon that Church from which the separation is made This is a truth undenyable and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practise liturgy and use of Sacraments may truely be said to have bene Hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the externall communion of the true uncorrupted Church We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgie and use of the Sacraments and which is more did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her And if so then by the judgement of her own Doctors the Schism is justly laid at her own door and it was no sinne in us but virtue and necessary to separate from her I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alledged as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8 and 1. Tim. 1.3 He speaks of bad manners and vitious humors and sinister affections especially in the preachers as envy contention contumacy incontinency This was his case then with the Donatists and is now the case of the Anabaptists That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18 He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiasticaâ—ll discipline He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause what doth this concern us who beleeve the same His second note is this that Protestants have forsaken the Pope the Papacy the universal Roman Church and all the ancient Christian Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian in their communion of Sacraments and to clear themselves from Schism must bring just cause of separation from every one of these I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy that is from his primacy of power from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right which two are already established from his superiority above general Councels and infallibility of judgment which are the most received Opinions
and near establishâ—ng in the Roman Church We have renounced their Patriarchall power over us because they never exercised it in Britain for the fiâ—st six hundred years nor could exercise it in after ages without manifest usurpation by reason of the Canon of the Oecumenicall Councell of Ephesus Yea because they themselves waved it and implicitely quitted it presently after the six hundreth year Disuse in law forfeits an office as well as abuse But we have not separated from the Pope or Papacy as they were regulated by the Canons of the Fathers We look upon their universal Roman Church as an upstart innovation and a contradiction in adjecto We finde no footsteps of any such thing throughout the primitive times Indeed the Bishops of Rome have somtimes been called Oecumenicall Bishops so have the other Patriarchs for their universal care and presidency in general Councels who never pretended to any such universality of power But for all ancient Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian c. none excluded not the Roman it self we are so farre from forsaking them that we make the Scriptures interpreted by their joint beleef and practice to be the rule of our reformation And wherin their Successors have not swerved from the examples of their Predecessors we maintain a strict Communion with them Only in Rites and Ceremonies and such indifferent things we use the the liberty of a free Church to chuse out such as are most proper for our selves and most conducible to those ends for which they were first instituted that is to be advancements of order modesty decency gravity in the service of God to be adjuments to attention and devotion furtherances of edification helpes of memory exercises of Faith the the leaves that preserve the fruit the shâ—ll that preserves the kernell of Religion from contempt And all this with due moderation so as neither to render Religion sordid and sluttish nor yet light and garish but comely and venerable Lastly for communion in Sacraments we have forsaken no Sacraments either instituted by Christ or received by the primitive Christians We refuse no Communion with any catholick Christians at this day and particularly with those ancient Churches which he mentions though we may be and have been misrepresented one unto another yea though the Sacraments may be administred in some of them not without manifest imperfection whilst sinfull duties are not obtruded upon us as conditions of communion Under this caution we still retein coÌ„munion in Sacraments with Roman Catholicks If any person be baptized or admitted into holy Orders in their Church we baptize them not we ordain them not again Wherein then have we forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments not in their ancient Communion of genuine Sacraments but in their septinary number and suppositious Sacraments which yet we retein for the most part as usefull and religious Rites but not under the notion of Sacraments not in their Sacraments but in their abuses and sinfull injunctions in the use of the Sacrament As their administration of them in a tongue unknown where the people cannot say Amen to the prayers and thanksgivings of the Church contrary to Saint Paul As their deteining the Cup from the Laity contrary to the institution of Christ drink ye all of this that is not all the Apostles only for the Apostles did not consecrate in the presence of Christ and according to the doctrine of their Schools and practise of their Church as to the participation of the Sacrament at that time were but in the condition of Laymen As their injunction to all Communicants to adore not only Christ in the use of the Sacrament to which we doe readily assent but to adore the Sacrament it self And lastly as their double matter and form in the ordination of a Priest never known in the Church for above a thousand years after Christ. These and such like abuses were the only things which we did forsake so as I may truly say non tellus Cymbam tellurem Cymba reliquit It was not we that did forsake them in the Communion of their Sacraments but it was their Sacraments that did forsake us And yet we doe not censure them for these innovations in the use of the Sacraments or the like nor thrust them out of the communion of the Catholick Church but provide for our selves advise them as Brethren and so leave them to stand or fall to their own Master So on our parts there is a reformation but no separation His third point is that Protestants vary in giving the pretended just cause of their separation from the Roman Church For at the first their only cause was the abuse of some that preached Indulgences Since some others give the adoration of the blessed Sacrament or communion in one kind others give the Oath made by Pius the 4 th which they call a new creed others other causes Which variety is a certain sign of their uncertainty of any true just cause of their separation That the Pardoners and Preachers of Indulgences and the envy of other Orders and the passionate heat of the Court of Rome tange montes fumigabunt touch the high mountains and they will smoak did contribute much to the breach of this part of Christendome is confâ—ssedly true But it is not only the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences but much more the abuse of Indulgences themselves which we complain of that a treasury should be composed of the blood of Christ and the sufferings and supererogatory works of the Saints to be disposed by the Pope for money What is this but to mingle Heaven and Earth together the imperfect works of man with the sacrified blood of Christ Neither was it the Doctrine and abuse of Indulgences alone but the injunction to adore the Sacrament also and Communion in one kind and the new Creed of Pius the 4 th or the new Articles since comprised in that Creed and the Monarchy of the Pope by divine right and sundry other abuses and innovations all put together which gave just cause to some Protestants to separate themselves so far as they were active in the separation But we in England were first chased away by the Popes Buls If these abuses were perhaps not discovered or at least not pleaded all at once what wonder is it Dies diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicat scientiam day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge His fourth point which he saith is much to be noted is reduced by himself to a Syllogism Whosoever separate themselves in substance that is in essentials from the substance of a Catholick and true Church in substance are true Schismaticks But Protestants have separated themselves in substance from the Roman Church which is a Catholick and true Church in substance therefore Prostants are true Schismaticks His proposition is proved by him because the substances of things doe consist in indivisibili and the changing
be ashamed of what is evident truth We expected thanks for our moderation and behold reviling for our good will He might have been pleased to remember what himself hath cited so often out of my vindication That our Church since the Reformation is the same in substance that it was before If the same in substance then not substantially separated Our comfort is that Caleb and Ioshua alone were admitted ino the Land of promise because they had been Peace-makers in a seditious time and indeavoured not to enlarge but to make up the breach He addes that the chiefest Protestants doe confess that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church Who these chiefest Protestants are he tel's us not nor what they say but referrs us to another of his Treatises which I neither know here how to compass nor if I could deem it worth the labor When these principall Protestants come to be viewed throughly and seriously with indifferent eies it will appear that either by substantially they mean really that is to say that the differences between us are not meere logomachies or contentions about words and different formes of expression only but that there are some reall controversies between us both in credendis and agendis and more and more reall in agendis than in credendis Or secondly that by substance they understand not the old Essentials or Articles of Christian Religion wherein we both agree but the new Essentials or new Articles of Faith lately made by the Romanists and comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth about which we doe truly differ So we differ substantially in the language of the present Romanists But we differ not substantially in the sense of the primitive Fathers The generation of these new Articles is the corruption of the old Creed Or lastly if one or two Protestant Authours either bred up in hostility against new Rome as Hanniball was against old Rome or in the heat of contention or without due consideration or out of prejudice or passion or a distempered zeal have overshot themselves what is that to us Or what doth that concern the Church of England He saith St. Austine told the Donatists that though they were with him in many things yet if they were not with him in few things the many things wherein they were with him would not profit them But what were these few things wherein St. Austine required their communion Were they abuses or innovations or new Articles of Faith No no the truth is St. Austine professed to the Donatists that many things and great things would profit them nothing not only if a few things but if one thing were wanting videant quam multa quam magna nihil prosint si unum quidem defuâ—rit videant quid sit ipsum unum And let them see what this one thing is What was it Charity For the Donatists most uncharitably did limit the Catholick Church to their own party excluding all others from hope of salvation just as the Romanists doe now who are the right successours of the Donatists in those few things or rather in that one thing So often as he produceth St. Austine against the Donatists he brings a rod for himself Furthermore he proveth out of the Creed and the Fathers that the communion of the Church is necessary to salvation to what purpose I doe not understand unlesse it be to reprove the unchristian and uncharitable censures of the Roman Court. For neither is the Roman Church the Catholick Church nor a communion of Saints a communion in errours His sixth and last point which he proposeth to judicious Protestants is this that though it were not evident that the Protestant Church is Schismaticall but only doubtfull Yet it being evident that the Roman Church is not schismaticall because as Doctor Sutcliff confesseth they never went out of any known Christian Society nor can any Protestant prove that they did it is the most prudent way for a man to doe for his Soul as he would doe for his lands liberty honour or life that is to chuse the safest way namely to live and die free from schism in the communion of the Roman Church I answer first that he changeth the subject of the question My proposition was that the Church of England is free from schism he ever and anon enlargeth it to all Protestant Churches and what or how many Churches he intendeth under that name and notion I know not Not that I censure any forrein Churches with whose lawes and liberties I am not so well acquainted as with our own But because I conceive the case of the Church of England to be as cleer as the Sun at noon-day and am not willing for the present to have it perplexed with heterogeneous disputes So often as he stumbleth upon this mistake I must make bold to tell him that he concludes not the contradictory Secondly I answer that he disputes ex non concessis laying that for a foundation granted to him which is altogether denied him namely that it is a doubtfull case whether the Church of England be schismaticall or not Whereas no Church under Heaven is really more free from just suspicion of schism then the Church of England as not censuring nor excluding uncharitably from her communion any true Church which retains the essentials of Christian Religion Thirdly I answer that it is so far from being evident that the Roman Church is guiltlesse of schism that I wish it were not evident that the Roman Court is guilty of formall schism and all that adhere unto it and maintain its censures of materiall schism If it be schism to desert altogether the communion of any one true particular Church what is it not only to desert but cast out of the Church by the bann of excommunication so many Christian Churches over which they have no jurisdiction three times more numerous then themselves and notwithstanding some few perhaps improper expressions of some of them as good or better Christians and Catholicks as themselves who suffer daily and are ready to suffer to the last drop of their blood for the name of Christ. If contumacy against one lawfull single superiour be schismaticall what is rebellion against the soveraign Ecclesiasticall Tribunall that is a generall Councell But I am far from concluding all indistinctly I know there are many in that Church who continue firm in the doctrine of the Councels of Constance and Basile attributing no more to the Pope then his principium unitatis and subjecting both him and his Court to the jurisdiction of an Oecumenicall Councell Fourthly I answer that supposing but not granting that it was doubtfull whether the Church of England were schismaticall or not and supposing in like manner that it were evident that the Church of Rome was not schismaticall yet it was not lawfull for a son of the Church of England to quit his spirituall mother May a man renounce his due obedience to a lawfull Superiour
no Liturgy at all but account it a stinting of the Spirit And for the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ it is hard to say whether the use of it among them be rarer in most places or the congregations thinner But where the ministers are unqualified or the form of Administration is erroneous in essentials or sinfull duties are obtruded as necessary parts of Gods service the English Protestants know how to abstain from their communion let the Roman Catholicks look to themselves for many say let the Faith be with the authours that sundry of the Sons of their own Church have been greater sticklers in their private Conventicles and publick Assemblies then many Protestants Secondly I deny his assumption that the Church of England doth joyn in communion of Sacraments and publick Praiers with any Schismaticks What my thoughts are of those whom he terms Puritans and Independants they will not much regard nor doth it concern the cause in question Many Mushrome Sects may be sprung up lately in the world which I know not and posterity will know them much lesse like those mishapen creatures which were produced out of the slime of Nilus by the heat of the Sun which perishâ—d soon after they were generated for want of fit organs Therefore I passe by them to that which is more materiall If the Church of England have joyned in Sacraments and publick Praiers with Schismaticks let him shew it out of her Liturgy or out of her Articles or out of her Canons and constitutions for by these she speaks unto us Or let him shew that any genuine son of hers by her injunction or direction or approbation did ever communicate with Schismaticks or that her principles are such as doe justify or warrant Schism or lead men into a communion with Schismaticks otherwise then thus a nationall Church cannot communicate with Schismaticks If to make Canons and Constitutions against Schismaticks be to cherish them If to punish their Conventicles and clandestine meetings be to frequent them If to oblige all her sons who enter into holy Orders or are admitted to care of souls to have no communion with them be to communicate with them then the Church of England is guilty of communicating with Schismaticks or otherwise not But I conceive that by the English Church he intends particular persons of our communion If so then by his favour he deserts the cause and alters the state of the question Let himself be judge whether this consequence be good or not Sundry English Protestants are lately turned Romish Proselytes therefore the Church of England is turned Roman Catholick A Church may be Orthodox and Catholick and yet sundry within its communion be hereticks or Schismaticks or both The Church of Corinth was a true Church of God yet there wanted not Schismaticks and hereticks among them The Churches of Galatia had many among them who mixed circumcision and the works of the Law with the faith of Christ. The Church of Pergamos was a true Church yet they had Nicholaitans among them and those that held the doctrine of Balaam The Church of Thyatira had a Preaching Iesabel that seduced the servants of God But who are these English Protestants that communicate so freely with Schismaticks Nay he names none We must take it upon his word Are they peradventure the greater and the sounder part of the English Church Neither the one nor the other Let him look into our Church and see how many of our principall Divines have lost their Dignities and Benefices only because they would not take a schismaticall Covenant without any other relation to the Warres Let him take a view of our Universities and see how few of our old Professors or Rectors and Fellows of Colledges he findes left therein God said of the Church of Israell that he had reserved to himself seven thousand that had not bowed their knees unto Baall I hope I may say of the Church of England that there are not only seven thousand but seventy times seven thousand that mourn in secret and wish their heads were waters and their eies fountain of teares that they might weep day and night for the devastation and desolation of the City of their God And if that hard weapon Necessity have enforced any perhaps with an intention to doe good or prevent evill to complie further than was meet I doe not doubt but they pray with Naman The Lord be mercifull to me in this thing Suppose that some Persons of the English Communion doe go sometimes to their meetings it may be out of conscience to hear a Sermon it may be out of curiosity as men go to see May games or Monsters at Faires it may be that they may be the better able to confute them As St. Paul went into their heathenish Temples at Athens and viewed their Altars and read their Inscriptions yet without any approbation of their Idolatrous devotions Is this to communicate with Schismaticks or what doth this concern the Church of England CHAP. 1. A Replie to the first Chapter of the Survey HOw this Chapter comes to be called a Survey of the first Chapter of my vindication I doe not understand unless it be by an antiphrasis the contrary way because he doth not survey it If it had not been for the title and one passage therein I should not have known whither to have referred it In the first place he taxeth me for an omission that I tell not Why the objection of Schisme seemeth more forcible against the English Church then the objection of Heresie And to supply my supposed defect he is favorably pleased to set it down himself The true reason whereof saith he is because Heresy is a matter of doctrine which is not so evident as the matter of Schisme which is a visible matter of fact namely a visible separation in communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God I confess I did not think of producing reasons before the question was stated but if he will needs have it to be thus before we inquire why it is so we ought first to inquire whether it be so for my part I doe not beleeve that either their objections in point of Heresy or in point of Schisme are so forcible against the Church of England So he would have me to give a reason of a non entity which hath neither reason nor being All that I said was this that there is nothing more colourably objected to the Church of England at first sight to Strangers unacquainted with our affaires or to such Natives as have looked but superficially upon the case then Schisme Here are three restrictions Colourabley at first sight to Strangers Colourably that is not forcibly nor yet so much as truly He who doubteth of it may doe well to trie if he can warme his hands at a Glowe-worm At first sight that is not by force but rather by deception of the sight So fresh water Seamen at
separate from other Churches but from their own errours In a large garden suppose there should be many quarters some weeded some unweeded there is indeed a separation of the Plants from the Weeds in the same quarters but no separation of one quarter from another Or if a man shall purge out of himself corrupted humours he doth not thereby separate himself from other persons whose bodies are unpurged It is true that such weeding and purging doth produce a distinction between the quarters weeded and the quarters unweeded and between Bodies purged and Bodies unpurged But either they stand in no such need of weeding or purging or it is their own fault who doe not weed or purge when they have occasion If they will needs misconstrue our lawfull reformation to be an unlawfull and uncharitable separation how can we help it We have separated from no Eastern Southern Northern or Western Church Our Article tells them the same either let them produce some Act of ours which makes or implies such a separation or let them hold their peace for ever But all this noise proceeds from hence that R. C. conceives that we will no more join with those Eastern Churches or any of them in their Creeds in their Liturgies or publick forms of serving God nor communicate with them in their Sacraments then we doe with the Church of Rome If we communicate not with the Roman Church in some things it is not our faults It is not their serving of God nor their Sacraments that we dislike but their disservice of God and corrupting of the holy Sacraments But for these Grecian Russian Armenian and Abissine Churches I finde grosse superstitions objected to some of them but not proved I finde some inusitate expressions about some mysteries which are scarcely intelligible or explicable as the procession of the holy Ghost and the Union of the two natures in Christ which are not frequently used among us but I beleive their sense to be the same with ours The Grecians doe acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son And all the other Churches are ready to accurse the errours both of Nestorius and Eâ—tyches But that which satisfies me is this that they exact of no man nor obtrude upon him any other Creed or new Articles of Faith then the Apostolicall Nicene and Athanasian Creeds with the explications of the generall Councels of Ephesiu Constantinople and Chalcedon all which we readily admit and use daily in our Liturgy If the Church of Rome would rest where they doe we might well have disputable questions between us but no breach of unity in point of Faith Likewise in point of discipline all these Churches ascribe no more to the Pope then a primacy of Order no supremacy of Power or universal Jurisdiction They make a generall Councel with or without the Popes suffrage to be the highest Ecclesiasticall tribunall Let the Romanists rest where they doe rest and all our controversies concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline will fall to the ground Thirdly they have their Liturgy in a language understood they administer the Sacrament in both kinds to all Christians They doe not themselves adore much lesse compell others to adore the species of Bread and Wine Howsoever they have a kind of elevation They have no new matter and form no tradition of the paten and chalice in Presbyterian ordination but only imposition of hands They know no new Sacrifice but the commemoration representation and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse. Just as we believe Let the Romanists but imitate their moderation and we shall strait come to joyn in Communion in Sacraments and Sacramentals also Yet these are the three essentials of Christian Religion Faith Sacraments and Discipline So little ground had R. C. to tell us that we had separated our selves from all Christian Churches in the World But Calvin saith we have been forced to make a separation from all the world Admit he did say so What will he conclude from hence that the Church of England did the same This consequence will never be made good without a transubstantiation of Mr. Calvin into the English Church He himself knoweth better that we honor Calvin for his excellent parts but we doe not pinn our Religion either in Doctrine or Discipline or Liturgy to Calvins sleeve Whether Calvin said so or not for my part I cannot think otherwise but that he did so in point of Discipline untill some body will be favorably pleased to shew me one formed nationall or provinciall Church throughout the world before Geneva that wanted Bâ—shops or one lay Elder that exercised Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in Christendome I confess the Fratres Bohemi had not the name of Bishops but they wanted not the order of Bishops under the name of Seniores or Elders who had both Episcopall Ordination after their Presbyterian Episcopal Jurisdiction and Episcopall Succession from the Bishops of the Waldenses who had continued in the Church under other names time immemotiall and gave them charge at their Reformation long before Luthers time to preserve that Order All which themselves have published to the World in private I confâ—ss likewise that they had their lay Elders under the name of Presbyteri from whence Mr. Calvin borrowed his But theirs in Bohemia pretended not to be Ecclesiasticall Commissioners nor did nor durst ever presume to meddle with the power of the keies or exercise any Jurisdiction in the Church They were only inferior Officers neither more nor less than our Church-Wardens and Sydemen in England This was far enough from ruling Elders Howsoever what doth this concern the Church of England which never made nor maintained nor approved any such separation No more did Calvin himselfe out of judgment but out of necessity to complie with the present estate of Geneva after the expulsion of their Bishop As might be made appeare if it were needfull by his publick profession of their readines to receive such Bishops as the primitive Bishops were or otherwise that they were to be reputed nullo non anathemate digni By his subscription to the Augustane confession which is for Epicopacy cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi By his confession to the King of Polonia The ancient Church instituted Patriarchater and assigned primacie to single Provinces that Bishops might be better knit together in the bond of unity By his description of the charge of a Bishop that should joyn himself to the reformed Church to doe his indeavour that all the Churches within his Bishoprick be purged from Errors and Idolatry to goe before the Curates or Pastors of his Diocess by his example and to induce them to admit the Reformation And lastly by his letters to Arch-bishop Cranmer the Bishop of London and a Bishop of Polonia I have searched the hundred one and fortieth Epistle and for fear of failing the hundred and one and fortieth page also in my edition but I
it But we doe not think Schismaticks to be equally in the Church with Catholicks nor to be capable of salvation without repentance particular or generall He saith That universall Schism or a division from the whole Church is alwaies wicked because the universall Church can give no just cause of division from her And he proves it out of St. Austin His words are these sâ— possunt quod fieri non potest aliqui habere justam causam qua communionem suam separent a communione orbis terrarum If any could have a just cause to separate their commuion from the whole communion of the whole World which cannot be Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against himself It is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole World Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures We have made no absolute separation even from the Roman Church it self I say more that all Schism whether universall or particular is wicked But still he confounds Schism which is alwaies unlawfull with separation which is many times lawfull I take the word according to its use not according to its derivation Hear R.C. his ingenuous confession in this place which overthrowes and casts flat to the ground all that he hath endeavoured to build in this Survey Neither indeed can there by any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of Heresie or Schism and so may require profession of her Heresie as a condition of communicating with her in which case division from her is no Schism or sin but virtue and necessary Applie but this to the Roman and English Churches and the controversy is ended The Roman Church is such a particular Church as he hath here described The English Church hath been separated but we will suppose that it had seperated it self from the Roman In this case by his own confession the Schism lies at the dore of the Roman Church from which the separation was made if they separated first from the pure primitive Church which was before them not locally but morally Yet saith he this erroneous Church is still morally a true particular Church either this Church hath not all the essentials of a Christian Church and then how doth it still continue a true Church Or it hath all the essentials and then a true Church in substance may give just ground to separate from her in materiall Heresie and Schism I will be as free with him concerning the universall Church If any man or Society of Christians separate themselves from the united communion of the whole Catholick Church dispersed throughout the World I cannot excuse him from Schism For whether the Catholick Church of this present age may erre or not this is certain she cannot erre universally in any thing that is necessary to Salvation nor with obstinacy And other inferiour errours if there be any such are not of weight enough to yeeld sufficient ground of separation from the communion of the Catholick Church united But for the divided parts of the Catholick Church a man may differ from all of them in inferiour points some in one thing some in another wherein they differ one from another and separate from some of them in their errors without criminous Schism And yet maintain a perfect union with the Catholick Church united I must not here forget to put R. C. in minde of sundry propositions laid down by me in this place tending much to the clearing of this present controversy all which he passeth by untouched as this That externall communion may sometimes be lawfully suspended or withdrawn That there is not the like necessity of communicating in all externals That Catholick communion implies not unity in all opinions That inferiours in some cases may lawfully substract communion from their Superiours and in speciall the Bishop of Rome that in tract of time abuses will creep into Christian Churches and ought to be reformed Only whereas I said in the vindication that the ancient Britannick Churches were never judged that is censured by a judgement of Jurisdiction to be Schismaticks for their different observation of Easter he saith they were judged Schismaticks both by Catholicks of that time and since and Protestants and that he hath proved it in one of his Treatises I never see his treatise but I know his manner of proof well enough I say it over again that I doe not believe that they were ever judged Schismaticks for it either by the Church or by a Councel or by any lawfull or supposed Superiour which shews plainly that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome For it is not credible that he should excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops for that observation and suffer his own Subjects to differ from him under his Nose which is the only reason why I urged it And I expect the proof of the contrary at the Greeks Calends My assertion is negative that they were not sentenced as Schismaticks this is affirmative that they were censured The burthen of the proof lies upon him Let him shew who judged them when and where or that they were censured at all I shewed cleerly in the vindication out of the Colloquy between the Catholicks and Donatists at Carthage that the Catholick Church is no Church of one denomination but the whole Christian World True saith he Neither the Church of the City of Rome nor of Africk is the Catholick Church but the whol Church of Christ. By the Church of Rome I understand not either the Church of the City of Rome or the Diocesse of Rome or the Patriarchate of Rome but all Churches of the Roman communion which altogether doe not make the fourth part of the Christian World yea saith he but the whole Church is not such a multitude or multitudes of Christians who agreed only in Fundamentals but disagree in other points of Faith and differ wholy in Communion of Sacraments All these great multitudes of Christians he feareth not to call a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads because they are not wholly one in profession of Faith Communion of Sacraments and lawfull Ministery as that Catholick primitive Church was I wonder he should forget their own distinction of the virtual representative and essentiall Church that is these multitudes of dispersed Christians I hope there be others that will not sleight them so much I confesse that primitive Catholick Church had an exact communion in all essentials or fundamentals and in many other things But that they had differences also of lesser moment in points of Doctrine and Discipline and forms of Administration of the holy Sacraments and Liturgies no man can doubt that hath his eies in his head Yet these lesser inconsiderable differences could
untill of later daies that the Popes hving gotten into their hands the bestowing of the most and best ecclesiasticall Preferments in Europe did finde out their own advantage in that behalfe above a generall Councell which hath neither Dignities nor Benefices to bestowe When or where or by whom the primacy of Order was conferred upon Saint Peter it concernes R. C. to enquire more then me They have yet another evasion that the highest ecclesiasticall Power was given not only to Saint Peter but to all the rest of the Apostles but to Saint Peter as an ordinary Pastor to descend from him to his Successors because they were appointed heads of the universall Church which they could not govern without universall Power and to the rest of the Apostles as Delegates or Commissioners only for tearm of their lives not to descend to their Successors This distinction I called a drowsie dream hatched lately without either reason or authority divine or humane Against this he takes exception And I am ready to maintain my assertion That if he can produce but one Text of holy Scripture expounded in this sense by any one ancient Interpreter or but one Sentence of any one Councel or single Father for a thousand years after Christ who taught any such Doctrine or made any such distinction as this is directly without far fetched consequences and I wâ—ll retract but I am confident he cannot produce one Author or Authority in the point All his reason is because Saint Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest of the Apostles but Delegates which is a meer begging of the question Neither was Saint Peter sole Pastor of the Church nor his universal Authority necessary to a true Pastor neither were the Apostles meer Delegates for then they could have had no Successors which yet he acknowledgeth that they had Sometimes Bellarmine will admit no proper Successors of the Apostles no not of St. Peter as an Apostle At other times he makes the Pope an Apostolicall Bishop his See to be an Apostolicall See and his Office to be an Apostleship It is strange the Spirit of God should be so silent in a piece of Doctrine which they assert to be necessary and that the blessed Apostles and the Nicene Fathers and holy Athanasius should be so forgetfull as not to insert it into their Creeds But that the whole Church should be ignorant of such a mystery for fifteen hundred years is not credible I passe by their comparison of a Bishop who is Pastor and ordinary of his Diocesse whose Office descends to his Successors and a Frier licenced by the Pope to Preach throughout the same Diocesse whose Office determineth with his Life So what they can not prove they endeavour to illustrate Before they told us that the Apostles were the Vicars of Christ are they now become the Vicars of Saint Peter and his Coadjutors Before they taught us that the Apostolicall power was summa plenissima potestas a most high a most full power and comprehended all Ecclesiasticall power and is it now changed to a licence to Preach No the Apostles had more then licences to Preach even as ample power to govern as Saint Peter himself The Pope having instituted one man into a Bishoprick cannot during his incumbency give the joint government of his Church to another This were to revoke his former grant I confesse that which R. C. saith is in part a truth That the rest of the Apostles did not leave an universall and Apostolicall authority and jurisdiction to their successors But it is not the whole truth for no more did Saint Peter himself The Apostles had diverse things peculiar to their persons and proper for the first planters of the Gospel Which were not communicated to any of their successors As universality of jurisdiction for which their successors have assignation to particular charges Immediate or extraordinary vocation for which their Successors have episcopall Ordination The gift of strange Tongues and infallibility of Judgment for which we have Christian Schools and Universities The grace of doing miracles and giving the holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands If the Bishops of Rome will take upon them to be Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and pretend that their Office is an Apostleship and that they themselves are truely Apostolici excluding all others from that priviledge let us see them doe some Miracles or speak strange Languages which were Apostolicall qualifications If they cannot certainly they are not Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and though their See be Apostolicall yet their Office is no Apostleship Nor may they challenge more then they shew good evidence for or then the Church is pleased to conferre upon them The Bishops of Rome pretend to none of these Priviledges but only this of universall jurisdiction for though they challenge besides this an infallibility of judgment yet it is not an Apostolicall infallibility because they challenge no infallibility by immediate revelation from God but from the diligent use of the means neither doe they challenge an infallibility in their Sermons and writings as the Apostles did but only in the conclusions of matters of Faith And why doe they pretend to this Apostolicall qualification more then any of the rest Either because that if they should pretend to any of the rest the deceit would presently be discovered for all men know that they can work no Miracles nor speak strange Languages nor have their calling immediately from Heaven but are elected by their Conclave of Cardinals many times not without good tugging for it Or else because this claim of universall power and authority doth bring more moliture to their mill and more advantage to the Court of Rome This is certain that when the Pope is first elected Bishop it may be of some other See before he be elected Pope he is ordained after the ordinary form of all other Bishops he receives no other no larger character no more authority and power either of order or of jurisdiction then other ordinary Bishops doe Well after this he is elected Pope but he is ordeined no more Then seeing the power of the Keies and all habituall jurisdiction is derived by Ordination and every Bishop receiveth as much habituall jurisdiction at his Ordination as the Pope himself tell me first how the Pope comes to be the root of all Spirituall jurisdiction Which though it be not the generall Tenet of the Roman Church as R. C. saith truely yet it is the common Doctrin of the Roman Court. Secondly tell me how comes this dilatation of his power and this Apostolicall Universality Since all men doe confesse that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a character or Grace given by Ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not Humane but Divine But the election of the Cardinals is a meer Humane policy without all manner of Sacramentall virtue and therefore can neither
truths for the preservation of unity among us and the extirpation of some growing errors Secondly He adds that the deteyning of the Cup could be no sufficient grounds of separation because Protestants doe confesse That it is an indifferent matter of it self and no just cause to seperate Communion Doth the Church of England confesse it to be an indifferent matter No nor any Protestant Church All their publick confessions doe testifie the contrary Nay more I doe not believe that any one Protestant in his right wits did ever confesse any such thing But this it is to nible at Authors and to stretch and tenter their words by consequences quite beyond their sense It may be that Luther at some time said some such thing but it was before he was a formed Protestant whilest he was half sleeping half waking Bellarmine stiles it in initio Apostasiae But after his eies were well opened he never confessed any such thing but the just contrary Suppose that Brentius saith that abstemious persons such whose nature doth abhorre wine may receive under one kinde what a pittifull argument is this drawn from a particular rare case of invincible necessity to the common and ordinary use of the Sacrament The Elephant was exempted from doing obeisance to the Lion because he had no knees But it is the height of injustice to withhold his right from one man because another cannot make use of it Suppose that Melancthon declare his own particular opinion that those Countries where Wine is not to be had should doe well to make use of honied water in the Sacrament What doth this signifie as to the cause he hath in hand whether they use some other liquor in the place of Wine or use no liquor at all Invincible necessity doth not only excuse from one kinde but from both kindes And where the Sacrament cannot be had as it ought the desire to have it sufficeth before God We read of some Christians in India where they had no Wine that they took drie Raisons and steeped them in water a whole night and used that liquor which they squeesed out of them in the place of Wine for the Sacrament It would trouble one as much in many parts of the World to finde right Bread as Wine That nourishment which Indians eat in the place of Bread being made of the roots of Plants doth differ more from our Bread made of Wheat then Cyder or Perry or honnied water doe differ from the juice of the Grape which are such many times as are able to deceive a good tast If Wine were as rare and precious in the World as right Balm which they make to be the matter of a Sacrament there were more to be said in it They themselves doe teach that it is absolutely necessary that the Sacrament be consecrated in Wine and that it be consumed by the Priest They who can procure Wine for the Priest may procure it for the People also if they will The truth is all these are but made Dragons No man ever was so abstemious but that he might taste so much Wine tempered with water as they use it as might serve for the Sacrament where the least imaginable particle conveieth Christ to the receiver as well as the whole Chalice full Neither is there any Christian Country in the World where they may not have Wine enough for this use if they please So notwithstanding any thing he saith to the contrary their dayly obtruding new Articles of Faith and their deteining the Cup in the Sacrament were just grounds of separation but not our only grounds We had twenty other grounds besides them And therefore he had little reason to say That at least the first Protestants were Schismaticks and in this respect to urge the authority of Optatus against us to prove us to be the Heirs of Schismaticks Optatus in the place by him cited speaks against the traditors with whom we have nothing common and the Donatists their own Ancestors not ours whose case is thus described there by Optatus cujus in Cathedra tenet quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat whose Chair thou possessest which had no originall before Majorinus a schismaticall Donatist This is not our case We have set up no new Chairs nor new Altars nor new Successions but continued those which were from the beginning There is a vast difference between the erecting of a Chair against a Chair or an Altar against an Altar which we have not done and the repairing of a Church or an Altar wherein it was decayed which we were obliged to doe In the next place he endeavoreth to prove by the generall Doctrine of Protestants that they differ from Papists in fundamentall points necessarie to salvation If they doe it is the worse for the Romanists In the mean time the charitie of Protestants is not to be blamed We hope better of them And for any thing he saith to the contrarie we beleeve that they doe not differ from us in fundamentalls But let us see what it is that the Protestants say Some say that Popish errors are damnable Let it be admitted many errors are damnable which are not in fundamentalls Errors which are damnable in themselves are often pardoned by the mercie of God who looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices Others say that Popish and Protestant opinions are diametrally opposite That is certain they are not all logomachies But can there be no diametrall opposition except it be in fundamentalls There are an hundred diametrall oppositions in opinion among the Romanists themselves yet he will not confess that they differ in fundamentalls Lastly others say that the Religion of Protestants and the Religion of the Church of Rome are not all one for substance I answer first that the word substance is taken sometimes strictly for the essentialls of any thing which cannot be separated without the destruction of the subject Thus a man is said to be the same man in substance while his soul and body are united though he have lost a legg or an arme or be reduced to skin and bone And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Church and Religion are the same in substance At other times the word substance is taken more largly for all reall parts although they be separated without the destruction and sometimes with the advantage of the subject And so all the members yea even the flesh and blood and other humors are of the substance of a man So we read Thine eyes did see my substance being yet unperfect and in thy books were all my members written And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Religion are not the same in substance Secondly the word substantialls may either signifie old substantialls beleeved and practised by all Churches in all ages at all times which are contained in the Apostles Creed And thus our Religion and the Roman Religion are the same in substance Or new
other Churches and not Rome St. Peter might have continued Bishop of Antioch untill his death and then Antioch had still been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistriss All this is confessed by Bellarmine Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith of so great contingency that were not of perpetuall necessity How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all places when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the dayes of the Apostles who never had any thing to doe with Rome nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome If the Pope be the Master of all Christians he is but a young Master for we finde no such expression in all the primitive times Why were the ancient Bishops so grosly over-seen to stile him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow who was their Master It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions as a Generall calls all his Army fellow Souldiers but it was never heard that a private Colonell or Captain did call his Generall fellow Souldier or a Servant call his Master fellow Servant or an ordinary Clerk call his Bâ—shop his Brother St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder not a Master If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches he would have given them their due title and the whole Scripture had not been so silent in so necessarie a point But he saith the Popes Supremacy is neither against the two Creeds nor the fiâ—st four generall Councells intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation and consequently is no sufficient cause of separation I answer first that it is against the four first generall Councels if this were a proper place for the discussion of it I answer secondly that though it were not opposite to the Creed or the first four generall Councells yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed being as it is by them obtruded upon all Christians as an Article of faith or a necessarie part of saving truth extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is so obtruded Of this more in the next argument My second argument may be thus reduced That Court which obtruded newly coyned Articles of faith such as the Doctrin of the seven Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences and especially the Popes Supremacy upon the Christian world as absolutely necessary to salvation and necessarie conditions of Catholick communion and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them is fearfully schismaticall But the Court of Rome doth all this That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church wherein they are neither explicitely nor virtually comprehended That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth wherein they are added to the old Creed ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus exhibeatur that the profession of one and the same faith may be declared uniformly by all and one certain form thereof be made known to all And lastly That the Court of Rome hath solemnly excommunicated with the greater excommunication and anathematized and excluded so farre as lieth in their power from the communion of Christ all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen and reformed Churches being three times more in number then themselves for not receiving these new Articles or some of them and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth called Bulla caenae because it is read in die caenae Domini or upon Thursday before Easter In way of answer to this he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt I reply first that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this so it had not been causa procreans a productive cause of the separation yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism Secondly the revolt or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church but by the Pope and Court of Rome who excommunicated him and his Kingdome for not enduring their encroachments and usurpations He and his Kingdome were passive in it only the Court of Rome was doubly active first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Predecessors and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion But in the separation of England from the oppessions of the Court of Rome I confesse that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active And this very ground to avoid the tyranny and ambition and avarice of the Roman Court was the chief impulsive cause both to the English and Eastern Christians For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessarie point of Faith If Henry the eight had any other private sinistre grounds known only to himself they doe not render the Reformation one jod the worse in it self but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly which concerneth him not us Secondly he answereth that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it If all this were true yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ by virtue of the commandement of God But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto doe make it to be necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Councells of Constance and Basile out of the Popes own Court which was then the only Noahs Arke The words of their Oath are these Hanc veram catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This true catholick faith without which no man can be saved which I profess freely and hold truly in present I doe promise vow and swear by the help of God to retein and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly to my last gasp and will take care so farre as in me lyeth to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge If it were not necessary necessitate medii some
Christian world much less do they arrogate to themselves alone the name of the true Church as the Romanists do but they content themselves to be part of the Catholick Church That they have any differences among them either in doctrine or discipline it is the fault of the Court of Rome which would not give way to an uniforme reformation of the Westerne Church But that their controversies are neither so many nor of any such moment as he imagineth the Harmony of Confessions published in print will demonstrate to all the world So far is he wide from the truth that they have no more unity then a body composed of Turks Jewes Hereticks and Christians who have neither the same body nor the same spirit nor the same hope of their calling nor the same Lord nor the same faith nor the same baptism nor the same God to their Father But he faith our faith consisteth in unknown Fundamentals which is a meer shâ—ft until we exhibite a list of such points We need not the Apostles have done it to our hands in the Creed and the Primitive Church hath ordained that no more should be exacted of any of Turks or Jewes in point of faith when they were converted from Paganisme or Jewisme to Christianity Sect. 9. In the eighth chapter I proved that the Pope and the Court of Rome were most guilty of the Schisme and shall not need to repeat or fortifie any thing that which he opposeth being of so little consequence To the first argument he denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a mother and not a Mistris to other Churches It is their saying it and our denying it saith he till they have proved what they affirme To gratifie him I will do it though it be needless Let him consult with St. Bernard in his fourth Book of consideration to his most loving friend Eugenius the Pope so he stiles him Amantissime Eugeni If they would listen to St. Bernards honest advice it would tend much to the peace of Christendome Si auderem dicere If I durst say it these are the pastures of devils rather then of sheep And Exi de Hur Caldeorum or Go out of this Hur of the Caldeans Rome It will not repent thee of thy banishment to have changed the City for the world But to satisfie his demand Thus that Father Consideres ante omnia sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam cui Deo auctore praees Ecclesiarum matrem esse non Dominam te vero non Dominum Episcoporum sed unum ex ipsis Above all things consider that the holy Roman Church over which thou art placed by God is a Mother of other Churches not a Lady or Mistris and thou thy self art not a Master of other Bishops but one of them Secondly He denieth that the Church of Rome obtrudeth any new Creeds whereas I accused not the Church of Rome for it but the Court of Rome for proof produced the Bull of Pius the fourth in the point as it is set down at the end of the Councel of Trent wherein he sets forth a new form of confession of faith containing many new Articles which he enjoyneth all the Clergy and all Religious persons to swear unto and that they will teach it to all others under their charge that there may be an uniforme confession of faith among Christians Extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation If he deny this authority he and I are nearer an union then the Court of Rome and he My third argument was because they maintaine the Pope in his rebellion against a general Councel To this argument he answers not a word so as I am confirmed more and more in my suspition that notwithstanding all his specious pretences for the Papacy he himself is one of those who prefer the Councel before the Pope and attribute to the Pope only an Exordium unitatis But he spareth me not upon the by telling the Reader that I lay the axe not to the roote of Schisme but to mine own legs bids me good night my wits are in the dark If it were so that I should steal a nap it is neither fellony nor treason Aliquando bonus dormit at Homerus But what is it that raiseth this great wind of words forsooth because I say that the Papacy qua talis as it is now maintained by many with Superiority above General Councels c. is the cause either procteant or conservant or both of all or the most part of the Schisms in Christendome To say as it is maintained by many doth imply that it is not so maintained by all and therefore not the Papacy qua talis for so Catholicks have not the least difference among them He might as well tell us that wherein they all agree they have no difference But do not some Roman Catholicks subject the Pope to a General Councel and other subject a General Councel to the Pope Do not the greater part of them both for number dignity and power who sit at the sterne who hold the bridle that he spoke of even now in their hands to govern the Church subject a General Councel to the Pope And then might not I say well the Papacy qua talis my conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in general but against the Pope and Court of Rome that they were guilty of Schism And now to let him see that I did not sleep I will reduce mine argument into forme without a qua talis They who subject a General Councel which is the highest Tribunal of Christians to the Pope are guilty of Schisme but the Pope and Court of Rome with all their maintainers that is the much greater part of their writers do subject a General Councel to the Pope therefore they are guilty of Schism Of the same nature is his exception to my fourth charge They who take away the line of Apostolical succession throughout the world except in the See of Rome who make all Episcopal Jurisdiction 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 maintainers do thus To which his onely answer is that this is a more grosse and false imputation then any of the rest Because it is not their general tenet neither did I urge it against them all in general But because he takes no notice of these tenets but as private opinions If you will dispute against private opinions cite your Authors and argue against them not the Church Let him know that these are the most common most current opinions of their writers Of the former Bellarmine saith that it is almost de fide a point of faith He saith that the Councel of Florence seemed to have defined it though not so expresly and that the Councel of Lateran
hath defined it most expresly And the words of that Councel seem to import no less that it is most manifest that the Bishop of Rome hath authority over all Councels Tanquam super omnia Consilia authoritatem habentem And for the latter opinion Bellarmine declares it to be most true quae sententia est verissima cites great Authors for it and saith that it seemeth to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen That Bishops do derive all their Iurisdiction from the Pope as all the vertue of the members is derived from the head or as all the vertue of the branches springs from the root or as the water in the stream flowes from the fountain or as the light of the beams is from the Sun This is high enough Sect. 10. I answered that we hold communion with thrice so many Christians as they do He replyeth that if by Christians I mean those who lay claim to the name of Christ he neither denies my answer nor envies me my multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. without number do all usurpe the honour of this title adding that he doth most faithfully protest he doth not think I have any solid reason to refuse communion to the worst of them O God how is it possible that prejudice and partiality or an habit of alteration should make Christians and Pastours of Christs flock to swerve so far not only from truth and charity but from all candour and ingenuity Wherein can he or all the world charge the Church of England or the Church of Greece or indeed any of the Easterne Southerne or Northerne Christians with any of these Heresies It is true some few Easterne Christians in comparison of those innumerable multitudes are called Nestorians and some others by reason of some unusual expressions suspected of Eutychianisme but both most wrongfully Is this the requital that he makes to so many of these poor Christians for maintaining their Religion inviolated so many ages under Mahumetan Princes Yet Michael the Archangel when he disputed with the devil about the body of Moses durst not bring a â—ailing accusation against him but said the Lord rebuke thee The best is we are either wheat or chaff of the Lords ffoare but their tongues must not winnow us Manes a mad-man as his name signifies feigned himself to be Christ chose twelve Apostles and sent them abroad to preach his errours whose disciples were called Manichees they made two Gods one of good called light another of evil called darkness which evil God did make impure creatures of the more faeeulent parts of the matter he created the world he made the old testament Hereupon they held flesh and wine to be impure and marriage to be unlawful and used execrable purifications of the creatures They taught that the soul was the substance of God that war was unlawful that bruite beasts had as much reason as men that Christ was not true man nor came out of the wombe of the Virgin but was a phantasme that Iohn Baptist was damned for doubting of Christ that there was no last Judgement that sins were inevitable many of which errours they sucked from the Gnosticks and Carpocratians The Nestorians divided the person of Christ and the Eutychians confounded his natures what is this to us or any of those Churches which we defend we accurse all their errors If he be not more careful in making his charge he will soon forfeit the stock of his credit He ingageth himself that if I can shew him but one Church which never changed the Doctrine which their Fathers taught them as received from the Apostles which is not in communion with the Roman Church he will be of that ones communion I wish he may make good his word I shew him not only one but all the Easterne Southerne Northerne and I hope Westerne Churches who never changed their Creed which comprehends all these necessary points of saving truth which they received from their Ancestors by an uninterrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles As for Opinions or Truths of an inferiour nature there is no Church of them all that hath changed more from their Ancestours even in these very controversies that are between them and us then the Church of Rome For the clear proof whereof I refer him to Doctor Fields appendix to his third book of the Church the first part of his appendix to four books at the latter end of the first Chapter I pleaded that the Councell of Trent was not general I had reason The conditions of a generall councell recited by Bellarmine are that the summons be generall there none were summoned but onely out of the western Church That the four Protopatriarchs be present by themselves or their deputies there was not one of them present That some be present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces there were none out â—f three parts of foure of the Christian world He saith the other Patriarchs were Hereticks Though it were true yet until they were lawfully heard condemned in a general Councel or refused to come to their triall and were condemned for their obstinacy they ought to have been summoned yea of all others they especially ought to have been summoned But where were they heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Councel or person that had Jurisdiction over them Others of his fellows will be contented to accuse them of Schisme and not pronounce them condemned hereticks Guido the Carmelite is over partiall and tâ—merarious in accusing them without ground as some of his owne party do confesse and vindicate them And Alphonsus á castro taketh his information upon trust from him The plaine truth is their onely crime is that they will not submit to the Popes spirituall Monarchy and so were no fit company for an Italian Councell His demand Is not a Parliament the generall representative of the nation unlesse every Lord though a knowne and condemned Rebell be summoned or unlesse every member that hath a right to sit there be present is altogether impertinent Neither hath the Pope that power over a generall Councell that the king hath over the Parliament Neither are the Protopatriarchs knowne condemned Rebels Neither is this the case whether the necessary or neglective absence of some particular members but whether the absence of whole Provinces and the much greater part of the Provinces of Christendome for want of due summons do disable a Councell from being a generall representative of the whole Christian world And as it is impertinent so it makes altogether against himselfe Never was there a session of a nationall Parliament in England wherein so few members were present as were in the pretended generall Councell of Trent at the deciding of the most weighty controversy concerning the rule of Faith Never was there lawfull Parliament in England wherein there were more Knights and Burgesses out of one Province then out of all the rest of