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
nothing of Jurisdiction From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland And not forgetfull of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto we finde nothing but Preaching and Converting and Christening not one syllable of any Jurisdiction Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kinde and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act Then certainly there were none in those dayes Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots is disputable But this is certain that whithersoever he was sent he was rejected and shortly after died In whose place succeeded St. Patrick Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon c. came to St. Patrick and declared it who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator straightway took ship c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion He saith The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagian Heresie and both Britans Scots Picts and Irish willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes nor denyed that they had any authoritie over them I am wearie of so many impertinencies Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church but of their charity and devotion which we wish their Successors would imitate I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus If it were so it concernes not this cause But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod to assist the Britans their neighbours against the Pelagians And it is most probable for they were both French Bishops St. German of Anxewe Lupus of Troyes Baronius labours to reconcile these two different relations thus It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod or it may be that Caelestine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased Admit either of these suppositions was true it will bring no advantage to his cause but much disadvantage If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch it is not credible that the Britannick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours and not at all to their Superior He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes He is still dreaming of Legates if they were Legates they were the Synods Legates not the Popes As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church which they sent to help them were Legates eodem tempore ex Britanniâ directa Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance Had they not reason to wellcome them whom themselves had invited who were come only upon their occasion Or what occasion had they to deny their authority who neither did usurpe any authority nor pretend to any authority They came to dispute not to judge Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes Apostolical Bishops not from their mission but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria authoritas c. That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons is most true that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them is most untrue Touching the precise time of his coming Historiographers doe not agree exactly All accord that it was about the six hundreth year of Christ a little more or less Before this time Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was After this time we confess that the Bishops of Rome by the consent or connivence of the Saxon Kings as they came to be converted by degrees did pretend to some formalities of right or authority over the English Church at first in matters of no great consequence as bestowing the Pall or the like But without the consent or against the good pleasure of the King they had no more power at all Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius primate of Britain was Legate of the See Apostolick I should sooner have beleeved it if he had proved it out of Gildas who lived in or about the age of Dubritius then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth who lived so many hundred years after his death whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur and resigned his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur not of the Pope King Arthur began his reign as it is commonly computed about the year 516. perhaps something sooner or later according to different accounts But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus from whence we demonstrate our exemption And so it can neither advantage his cause nor prejudice ours We are told of store of Roman Legats yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction pretended to be done by any of them Certainly either they were no Papall Legates or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any legantine Court or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes St. Samson saith he had a Pall from Rome wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether and my words also I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ but the abuse of it that is the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches When they would not suffer an Archbishop duely ellected and invested to exercise his function untill he had bought a Pall from Rome I know the contrary that they were in use formerly But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour conferred by Christian Emperours upon the Church namely Constantine and Valentinian as is most probable or assumed by Patriarches is a disputable point This is certain other Patriarches and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times which they received not from Rome This Samson was Archbishop of Wales and had his Pall But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome It may be that they had
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
Beatissimus et Apostolicus vir Papa hoc nobis praecipit Nec additur Leo aut Romanus aut nobis Romae aut aliquid aliud When the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome onely is to be understood as appeareth out of the Councel of Chalcedon The most blessed and Apostolical man the Pope doth command us this Neither is there added Pope Leo or the Pope of Rome or the Pope of the City of Rome or any other thing His second exception hath no more weight then the former That there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes the See being translated 50. years before that to St. Davids Where is the contradiction The name of the old Diocess is Caerleon The new See or Throne was the new Abby Church erected aâ— Menevia which place posterity called St. Davids But St. Davids could not be called St. Davids whilst he himself lived nor afterward until custome and tract of time had confirmed such an appellation Some would make us believe that St. David and St. Gregâ—ry dyed upon the same day and then he was still living when Dinoth gave this answer But let that be as it will for it is not much material St. David after the Translation of his See dyed Archbishop of Caerleon Tunc obiâ—t sanctissimus urbis Legionum Archiepiscopus David in Meneviae Civitate c. Then dyed the most holy Archbishop of Caerleon St. David in the City of Menevia And long after his death it still reteined the name of Caerleon even after it was commonly called St. Davids So much Sr. Henry Spilman might have put him in mind of Discesserat ante haec dignitas a Caerlegione ad Landâ—viam sub Dubrâ—tio et mox â— Landavia ad Meneviam cum sancto Davide c. Sed retento pariter Caerlegionis titulo And least he should account Sr. Henry Spilman partial Let him hear Giraldus Cambrensis Habuimus apud Meneviam Vrbis legionum Archiepiscopos successive viginti quinque quorum primus fuit sanctus David c. We had at Menevia five and twenty Archbishops of Caerleon whereof St. David was the first What can be more plain should a man condemn every Author forcounterfeit wherein St. Albans is called Verolam presently after St. Albans death It is an ordinary thing for the same City to have two names and much more the same Bishoprick one from the old See another from the new or one from the Diocess another from the See as the Bishop of Ossory or Kilkenny indifferently His third exception is so slight that I cannot find the edge of it because Sr. Henry Spilman found no other antiquity in it worth the mention which shrewdly implyes that the Book was made for this alone And how doth he know that Sr. Henry Spilman found no other antiquities in it There might be many other British Antiquities in it And yet not proper for a collection of Ecclesiastical Councels Or if there had been no other Antiquity in it Would he condemn his Creed for a counterfeit because it is not hudled together confusedly with some other Treatises in one volume But to demonstrate evidently to him how vain all his trifling is against the testimony of Dionothus Why doth he not answer the coroberatory proof which I brought out of venerable Bede and others of two Brittish Synods held at the same time wherein all the Brittish Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome of which all our hystoriographers do bear witness Why doth he not answer this but pass by it in so great silence He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other since it is so well attested that Dionothus was a great actor and disputer in that business Sect. 5. In my sixth Chapter I proved three things First that the King and Church of England had sufficient authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch Secondly that they had just grounds to do it And thirdly that they did it with due moderation Concerning the first point he chargeth me the second time for insisting upon a wrong Plea that is their Patriarchal Authority which he confesseth to be humane and mutable I have formerly intimated why they are so loath to entertaine any discourse concerning the Popes Patriarchate because they know not how to reconcile a Monarchy of divine institution with an Aristocracy of humane Institution When I first undertook this subject I conceived that the great strength of the Roman Sampson did lye in his Patriarchate But since this Refuter quitteth it as the Pope himself hath done not for six hundred years onely he speaks too sparingly but for a thousand years ever since Phocas made Boniface universal Bishop I am well contented to give over that subject upon these two conditions First that he do not presume that the Pope is a spiritual Monarch without proving it Secondly that he do not attempt to make Patriarchal Priviledges to be Royal Prerogatives Yet he will not leave this humane Right before we have resolved him three questions First saith he suppose the Christian world had chosen to themselves one head for the preservation of unity in Religion What wrongs must that head do to be sufficient grounds both for the deposition of the person and abolition of the Government Nay put the case right Suppose the Christian World should chuse one for order sake to be their President or Prolocuter in their General Assembly and he should endeavour to make himself their Prince upon some fained Title Did not he deserve to be turned out of his employment if they found it expedient to have another chosen in his place Secondly He supposeth that this alteration should be made by some one party of the Christian Commonwealth which must separate it self from the communion of the rest of Christianity Ought not far weightier causes then these to be expected One mistake begets another as one circle in the water doth produce anotherâ— We have made no such separation from any just Authority instituted by the Catholick Church We nourish a more Catholick Communion then themselves But if our Steward will forsake us because we will not give him leave to become our Master who can help it Thirdly He supposeth that by setting aside this Supreme Head eternal dissentions will inevitably follow in the whole Church of Christ and then demandeth Whether the refusal to comply with the humours of a lustful Prince be ground enough to renounce so necessary an Authority How should the refusal to comply be any such ground Certainly he means the compliance with the humors of a lustful Prince I pass by the extravagancy of the expression Whatsoever they have said or can say concerning Henry the eighth so far as it may reflect upon the Church of England is cleared in my reply to R.C. First He begs the question Christ never instituted the Apostles never constituted the Catholicke Church never acknowledged any such Supreme Head of Power and
give him leave to thrust in his head he will never rest untill he have drawne in all his body after whilest there are no bonds to hold him but nationall lawes Lastly he pleads that the pretences on which the English Schism was originally made were farre different from those which I now take up to defend it What inward motives or impulsives our Reformers had to separate from the Court of Rome God knoweth not I that concerneth themselves not me But that there were sufficient grounds of separation I demonstrate that concerneth the cause that concerneth me Their inanimadvertence might make the separation lesse Justifiable to them but no lesse lawfull in it self or to us These causes are as just grounds to us now to continue the separation as they could have bin to them then if they had been observed to make the separation and most certainly they were then observed or the greatest part of them as the liberty of the English Church the weakness of the Popes pretences the extortions of the Court of Rome their gross usurpation of all mens rights and the inconsistency of such a forreigne discipline with the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction These things he ought to have answered in particular if he would have said any thing at all but it seemeth he chose rather to follow the counsell of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his accounts that he should study rather how to give no account Sect. 7. The next thing which I set forth was the due moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This he calleth a very pleasant Topick Quâ—cquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis The saddest Subjects were very pleasant Topicks to Democritus The first part of our moderation was this we deny not to other Churches the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errours and this I shewed to have been S. Cyprians moderation whereby he purged himselfe and his party from Schisme neminem judicantis c. judging no man removing no man from our Communion for difference in opinion This is saith he to declare men Idolaters and wicked and neverthelesse to communicate with them reconciling thus light to darkenesse and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same Society I spake of our forbearing to censure other Churches and he answers of communicating with them That is one aberration from the purpose But I may give him more advantage then that in this case It is one thing to communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks in their Idolatry Heresy or Schisme which is altogether unlawfull and it is another thing to communicate with them in pious offices and religious duties which may in some cases be very lawfull The orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the Hereticall Arreans And the primitive Catholicks with the Schismaticall novations in the same publick divine offices as I have formerly shewed in this treatise But they communicated with them in nothing that did favour the Heresie of the one or the Schisme of the other The Catholicks called the Donatists their brethren and professed that they were obliged to call them brethren as we read in Optatus But the Donatists would not vouchsafe to acknowledge the Catholicks for their brethren upon this refuters principles that a man cannot say his owne Religion is true but he must say the opposite is false nor hold his owne certain without censuring another mans Yet it was not the Catholicks but the Donatists that did mingle light and darkness together These following princlples are so evident and so undeniable that no man can question the truth of them without questioning his owne judgement That particular Churches may fall into errours 2. That all errors are not essentials or fundamentals 3. That those errours which are not in essentials do not destroy the true being of a Church 4. That neverthelesse every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from them To dote so upon the body as to cherish the Ulcers and out of hatred to the Ulcers to destroy the being of the body are both extreams That is so to dote upon the name of the Church as to cherish the errours of it or to hate the errours so much as to deny the being of the Church Preposterous zeal which is like Hell hot without light maketh errours to be essentials and different opinious different Religions because it will not distinguish between the good foundation which is Christ and the hay and stubble that is builded thereupon The second proofe of our moderation is our inward Charity we leave them unwillingly as a man would leave his fathers or his brothers house infected with the Plague desirous to returne so soone as it is cleansed His answer is that if we did manifest it by our externall works they might have occasion to believe it I did prove it by our externall works namely our daily prayers for them in our Letany and especially our solemn aniversary prayer for their conversion every good Friday though we are not ignorant how they do as solemnly anathematise us the day before The third proof of our moderation was this that we do not challenge a new Church a new Religion or new holy orders we obtrude no innovation upon others nor desire to have any obtruded upon our selves we pluck up the weeds but retaine all the plants of saving truth To this he objects two things First to take away goodnesse is the greatest evill and nothing is more mischievous then to abrogate good lawes and good practises This is not to fight with us but with his owne shadow I speake of taking away errours and he speaketh against taking away goodnesse I speak of plucking up weeds and he speaks against abrogating good lawes and practises yea of taking away the new Testament Where is the contradiction between us These are no weeds but good plants We retain whatsoever the primitive Fathers judged to be necessary or the Catholick Church of this present age doth unanimously retaine which is sufficient We retaine other opinions also and practises but not as necessary Articles or Essentials Let him not tell us of the Scots reformation who have no better an opinion of it then it deservs His second Ojection is that he who positively denies over addes the contrary to what he takes away he that makes it an article that there is no Purgatory no Masse no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary Therefore this kind of moderation is a pure folly It may be he thinketh so in earnest but we know the contrary We do not hold our negatives to be Articles of Faith How should a negative that is a non em be a fundamentall This is a true proposition ether there is a purgatory or there is not a purgatory But this other is a fals proposition either it is an Article
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
supreme Governor of the Realm of England which signifies no more but this that there is no other supreme Governor of the Realm but he which is most true and to say that he is the only and supreme Governor which implies that there is no other Governor but he which is most false There are both spirituall and civill Governors in England besides him To say the Pope is the only supreme Bishop in his own Patriarchate is most true but to say that he is the only and supreme Bishop in his Patriarchate is most false this were to degrade all his Suffragans and allow no Bishop in his Province but himself Secondly I answer that there is no Supremacy ascribed to the King in this Oath but meerly politicall which is essentially annexed to the Imperiall Crown of every sovereign Prince The Oath saith that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of his Highness Realms and Dominions What doth Saint Peter himself say less to his own Successors as well as others Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme How often doth Saint Gregory acknowledge the Emperor to be his supreme Governor or sovereign Lord and profess obedience and Subjection unto him and execute his commands in ecclesiasticall things That Common-wealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of Jurisdictions where there are two Supremes like a Serpent with two heads at either end one The Oath addeth in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes This is true with some limitations as first either by himself or by fit Substitutes who are ecclesiasticall Persons For our Kings cannot excommunicate or absolve in their own persons Secondly it is to be understood of those causes which are handled in foro contentioso in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience Thirdly either in the first or in the second instance by receiving the appeales and redressing the wrongs of his injured Subjects Some things are so purely spirituall that Kings have nothing to doe in them in their own persons as the preaching of the Word the administration of the Sacraments and the binding and loosing of Sinners Yet the persons to whom the discharge of these Duties doth belong and the persons towards whom these Duties ought to be discharged being their Subjects they have a Power paramount to see that each of them doe their duties in their severall stations The causes indeed are ecclesiasticall but the power of governing is politicall This is the true sense of the Oath neither more nor less as appeareth plainly by our thirty seventh Article Where we attribute to our Princes the chief government by which Titles we understand the mindes of some slanderous Folkes to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwaies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself this is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be ecclesiasticall or temporall and restrein with the civill Sword the stubborn or evill doers Here is no power asserted no punishment to be inflicted by the King in his own person but only politicall I confess persons deputed and delegated by the King doe often excommunicate and absolve and act by the power of the Keyes but this is by the vertue of their own habit of Jurisdiction All which the King contributes by his Commission is a liberty and power to act in this particular case an application of the matter which a Lay Patron or a Master of a Family or a subordinate Magistrate may doe much more a sovereign Prince This power many Roman Catholick Doctors doe justifie The King of Spain cites above twenty of them Let the Princes of this World know that they owe an account to God of the Church which they have received from him into their protection for whether peace and right ecclesiasticall Discipline be increased or decayed by Christian Princes God will require an account from them who hath trusted his Church unto their Power All this Power the King of Spain exerciseth in Sicily in all ecclesiasticall causes over all ecclesiasticall persons as well in the first instance as the second This Power a Lay-Chanceller exerciseth in the Court Christian This Power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her Nuns Whilest all the Mariners are busied in their severall employments the sovereign Magistrate sits at the Stern to command all and order all for the promotion of the great Architectonicall end that is the safty and welfare of the Common-wealth It followes in the Oâ—th as well as temporall that is as truly and as justly but not as fully nor as absolutely And that no forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realm That is to say neither the Pope nor his Court. For a generall Councel which is no standing Court but an aggregate body composed partly of our selves is neither included here nor intended If this be the new Creed of the English Protestant Church as he calls it in scorn it was the old Creed of the Britannick Church as I have proved evidently in the vindication If this profession of Royall Supremacy in our sense doe make men Hereticks and Schismaticks we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman Doctors along with us And for Sovereign Princes we shall leave them few except some necessitous person who could not subsist otherwise then by the favourable influence of the Roman Court Very many Doctors doe hold that for the common good of the Republick Princes have Iurisdiction in many causes otherwise Subject to the Ecclesiasticall Court not only by the positive Law of God but by the Law of Nature And many more give them a power indirectly in causes Ecclesiasticall over Ecclesiasticall persons so far as is necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Tranquility of the Commonwealth nec putem ullum Doctorem Catholicum refragari saith the same Author in the place cited Neither doe I think that any Catholick Doctor will be against it Now I have said my minde concerning the Oath of Allegiance who they were that first contrived it and in what sense we doe maintain it I hope agreably to the sense of the Christian World except such as are prepossessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome As our Kings out of Reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of Supreme heads of the English Church so though it bee not meet for me to prevent their maturer determinations I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of Subjects who may erre out of invincible ignorance they would be pleased to lay by the oath also God looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices why should not man doe the
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
have not separated our selves but been chased away who have only forsaken errors not Churches much lesse obstinately and least of all in essentials who would gladly be contented to winke at small faults so they would not obtrude sinfull duties upon us as a condition of their communion The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margent whose scope is far enough from going about to perswade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome for which they are cited by him Rather on the contrary if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome and allow it not the essence of a Church what doth that concern the Church of England Will he blame us for being more moderate Trust me these Authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery He telleth us That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists If ours be Religion yours is separation They may rehearse the same words indeed but neither is Saint Austins case their case nor the Donatists case our case Sometimes they crie down our Religion as a negative Religion as faulty in the defect And now they accuse us of superstition in the excesse We approve no Church with which they communicate and we doe not Doctor Field saith that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church they need not use any other Argument It is most certain we all say the same But still he confoundeth the Church that is the universall Church with a Church that is a particular Church and a metaphysically true Church with a morally true Church Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense In this Section there is nothing but crambe bis cocta a repetition of what he hath formerly said over and over of Protestants separating themselves from the whole Christian World in communion of Sacraments Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvine Doctor Potter and Master Chillingworth which have already been fully answered He saith I indeavour to prove the lawfull Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time by the testimony of publick Registers and confession of Father Oldcorne He knoweth better if he please that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeths time but in Edward the sixths time If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it The Ecclesiasticall Registers doe make their Ordination so plain that no man who will but open his eies can be in doubt of it He confesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Registers were authenticall So must every one say or think that seeth them and every one is free to see them that will But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner and judged others by himself Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholick opinions Why did he change in this more then in any of the rest Because there is no defence against a Flaile no resisting evident demonstration which doth not perswade but compell men to believe But wherefore were not these Registers shewed before King James his time They were alwaies shewed to every man that desired to see them Registers are publick Records the sight whereof can be refused to no man The Officers hand is known the Office is secured from all supposititious writings both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register and by the testimony of all others who view the Records from time to time He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not shewed Which is first publickly promulged and after that affixed to the gates of the City and of the Common-Hall and all other publick places If he could have excepted against the persons either consecraters or consecrated as that there were not such persons or not so qualified or not present at that time he had had some reason for himself But Episcopall Ordination in England was too solemn and too publick an Act to be counterfeited And moreover the Proceedings were published in print to the view of the World whilest there were very many living who were eie witnesses of the Ordination And yet by his favour if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there as there were it might have made the Ordination illegall but not invalid for which I will give him a president and a witnesse beyond exception The president is Austine the first converter of the English the witnesse Saint Gregory Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia c. And truely in the English Church wherein there is no other Bishop but thy self thou canst not ordein a Bishop otherwise then alone c. But when by the grace of God Bishops are ordeined throughout all places Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops He asketh why Bishop Jewell or Bishop Horne did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops I might even as well ask him when he citeth an authority out of Saint Austin why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject did not cite it and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing Perhaps for I can but guesse untill he cite the places Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordination Perhaps judging them to be Hereticks they thought they had lost their character which yet he himself will acknowledg to be indeleble Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants and they gave a general answer Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records or lastly perhaps or indeed without perhaps they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination in respect of the Laws of England not upon the invalidity of it as shall clearly appear in my next answer In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers Why were they not shewed saith he when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the barre What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight yeers after Now let him take one answer for all There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer and the Book of Ordination as an appendix to it to be used throughout England in the reign of Edward the sixth This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth as to the Book of Common Prayer intending but not expresly mentioning the Book of Ordination which was an appendix to it So it was restored again either expresly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer as containing the publick Prayers of the Church for that occasion or at least implicitly as being printed in the Book of
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
Jurisdiction Secondly The Church and Kingdom of England had more lawful just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome then any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever as he cannot chuse but see in this very Chapter But who is so blind as he that will not see Thirdly We do confess that the Primitive Papacy that is an Exordium unitatis a beginning of unity was an excellent meanes of Concord We do not envy the Bishop of Rome or any Honour which the Catholick Church did allow him But moderne Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us is rather as Nilus saith the cause of all dissentions and Controversies of the Christian World Lastly To his demand concerning the English Court and Church Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelats I answer No But this will not advantage his cause at all for three Reasons First never were any such abuses as these objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Secondly we seek not the extirpation of the Papacy but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution Thirdly Monarchy and Episcopacie are of divine institution so is not a papall Sovereignty of Jurisdiction His parliamentary Prelacie hath more sound then weight We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacie as he will finde that undertakes it Sect. 6. We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome Reader observe and wonder All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds they have declaimed that there can be no just grounds of such a separation They have declared in the Hypothesis that we had no grounds but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads First The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court committed from age to age without hope of Remedy Secondly Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights Civil Ecclesiastical sacred and prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Thirdly the malignant influence and effects of this forreign jurisdiction destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline producing dis-union in the Realm factions animosities between the Crown and the Mitre intestine discord between the King and his Barons bad intelligence with neighbour Princes and forreign wars Fourthly a list of other inconveniences or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendome to approve the Popes rebellion against general Councels and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegeance to maintaine the Pope in his rebellious usurpations Lastly The weakness of the Popes pretences and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from forreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Councel of Ephesus Certainly he ought to have shewed either that these grounds conjoyned were not sufficient or that they were not true or that there were other remedies But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence which is as mueh as yeeld the Cause Thus he It is then of little concernment to examine whether his complaints be true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division What is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no It belongs not to me to shew that there was no other remedy that is to prove a negative but if he will answer my grounds it belongs to him to shew that there was other remedy yet so far as a negative is capable of proof I have shewed even in this Chapter that there was no other remedy I shewed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England so as to call them to a personal account I shewed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope in Councel out of Councel for ease from their oppressions in diversages and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner He adds And much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment This is a very euthumematical kinde of arguing If the sky fall we shall have larks He knows right well that it is his assumption which is latent that we deny that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute He proceedeth But most because all other Catholick Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends yet they remaine still in communion with the Church of Rome and after we have broke the Ice do not hold it reasonable to follow our example Few or no Catholick Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight a Well that could not be drawn dry All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Priviledge to be exempt from forreign jurisdiction as Brittaine hath Yet all other Catholick Countries do maintaine their owne Priviledges inviolated and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome Some other Catholick Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy then England doth yet England is not alone in the separation so long as all the Easterne Southerne Northern and so great a part of the Westerne Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we yet if it were otherwise we must live by precepts not by examples Nay saith he The former ages of our Countrey had the same cause to cast the Popes Supremacy out of the Land yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church then attempt so destructive an innovation Mistake not us so much we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestors at far as the Roman Court will give us leave neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon and abused by the Court of Rome and to sit still in the mean time and blow their noses They did by their lawes exclude the Popes supremacy out of England so farre as they judged it necessary for the tranquility of the Kingdome that is his patronage of Churches his Legates and Legantine Courts his buls and sentences and excommunications his legislative power his power to receive appeals except onely in cases where the Kingdome did give consent They threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them We have more experience then our Ancestours had that their remedies were not Soveraigne or sufficient enough that if we