Opinions of the Romanists and yet some of my Instances were in Cardinall Richlieus dayes and since very lately Adding that I contradict myself yet once more affirming that I hope those seditious doctrins at this day are almost buryed What Satisfaction doth this man owe to his Reader to conceale from him all the Presidents Lawes Sentences of Emperours Kings Common-wealths Vniversities and to present him nothing but such Fopperies as these I will not vouchsafe to spend any time about them but onely give the Reader an Ariadnes clew to guide him out of this Imaginary Maze I have shewed him what these seditious Opinions were where they were hatched and when namely in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reign And though some few of my Instances were after that time yet the maine body of them was much more ancient as in the Empire from Charles the great to Charles the fifth and in France from Carolus Calvus downward So I might truely say that the Instances cited by me were long before those disloyall Opinions were hatched and yet they are not so lately hatched but I hope they are almost buried at this day A man would have thought that I deserved thankes for my Charity not to be traduced But it is all one let the Reader judge who it is that trippeth up his own heeles When I said It was great Pity that he was not one of Christs Counsaâ—lers when he formed his Church It did not suppose that Christ had any Counsailers but to taxe him who takes upon him so Magisterially to dictate what was necessary then for Christ to doe This I called sawcinesse and justly Good Christians as I told him formerly ought to argue thus Christ formed his Church thus Therefore this is the best Forme not thus This is the best Forme therefore Christ Formed it after this manner The onely reason why I cited that text of St. Paul One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptisme one God and Father of all was this that St. Paul reckoning up seven Bonds of Vnity should omit this which Mr. Serjeant makes to be the onely Bond of Vnity namely unus Papa One Pope or one Bishop of Rome Christ saw it necessary to make a Bond of Vnity between the Churches And that for this reason he gave the Principality to St Peter and Consequently to the Bishops of Rome All this he supposeth on his own head but doth not goe about to prove any thing if St. Paul had been of the same mind that was the proper place to have recorded it and doubtlesse he would not have omitted it This Argument which onely I used he doth not touch but fancieth that I make these seven Bonds of Vnity or Obligations to Vnity or meanes of Vnity to be seven markes of those which be in the Church which I never dreamed of And therefore I passe it by as impertinent Onely adding that our Ground for Vnity of Faith is our Creed and for Vnity of Government the very same forme of Discipline which was used in the Primitive Church and is derived from them to us When I wished that he had expressed himself more clearly whether he be for a beginning of Order and Vnity or for a single head of Power and Iurisdiction I spake of St. Peter of whoÌ„ the case is cleare that he had no more power over his Fellow Apostles then they had over him and that the Supremacy of Power rested in the Apostolicall College All that St. Peâ—er had was a beginning of Vnity What St. Peter had the Pope may pretend a claime to what he had not the Pope hath no pretence for Neither Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople nor any other ancient Bishop nor yet St. Gregory himself did ever dream of such a singular Headship of Power as he mentions that is that no Bishop in the Church should have Power but he Although the Court of Rome and their adherents come very near it at this day deriving all the power of Iurisdiction of all other Bishops from the Pope That Power which Iohn affected and St. Gregory impugned then and we impugne now is the Power of Vniversall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court If that were an Heresy in him as he confesseth let them looke to themselves Neither is the Bishops Primacy of Order so dry a Primacy as he pretendeth nor destitute of those Privileges which belong to a Primate of Order by the Law of Nature To call Assemblies sub paena spirituali or to intimate the necâ—ssity of calling them to propose doubts to receive Votes and to execute so farre as he is trusted by the Church This is the single Power of a Primate of Order but besides this he hath also a conjoint power in the Government of the Church What he saith to the prejudice of Generall Councells I have answered formerly He askes me What other Successour St. Peter had who could pretend to an Headship of Order except the Bishop of Rome I answer that I did not speake of what St. Peter had but what he might have had or may have whensoever the Representative Church that is a Generall Councell should give the Primacy of Order to another Bishop Since he is so great a Friend to the Schoole of Sorbon he can not well be ignorant what their learned Chancellour hath written expresly upon this Subject in his Booke de Aâ—seribilitate Papae not the taking away of the Papacy but Removall of it And what Bellarmine confesseth that neither Scripture nor Tradition doth prove that the Apâ—sâ—olicall See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed He urgeth that then the Church should remaine without this Principality at the death of every Pope untill all the Churches in Iapan China and India had given their consent yet I acknowledge it to be of perpetuall necessity First he doth me wrong I did not say positively that it is of perpetuall necessity but that I like it well enough and the reason being of perpetuall necessity seemeth strongly to imply the necessity of the thing Secondly I answer that there is no need to expect such far fetched Suffrages so long as the Primacy may remaine fixed where it is unlesse a Generall Councell or one as Generall as may be think fit to remove it and if a Generall Councell remove it it will take order for the future succession And this same reason doth clearly take away his answer to my instance That as the Dying of such a Bishop Lord Chancellour of England doth not perpetuate the Chancellourship to that Bishoprick because there is a Soveraign Prince to elect another so the dying of St. Peter Bishop of Rome doth not perpetuate the Primacy to that Bishoprick because a Generall Councell when it is in being hath power to transferre it to another See if they find it expedient for the publick good The Bishop knoweth right well that the Church of Christ is both his Spouse and his Family both the Governesse and the
thing which offereth it self to our Consideration is his Minor Proposition Whether the church of England did breake these Bonds of Vnity c But I hold it more Methodicall to examine first the Proofes of his Major That these were the right Bonds of Vnity and so dispatch that part out of my hands All which was agreed upon unanimouslly between the Church of Rome and its dependents and the Church of England and delivred from hand to hand in them all by the Orall and immediate Tradition of a World of Fathers to a world of Children successively as a rule of Faith or Difcipline received from Christ and his Apostles which so vast a Multitude of Eye witnesses did see visibly practised from Age to Age is undoubtedly true and such a rule is infallible and impossibe to be Crooked But these two Rules are such Rules And so he concludeth that they are incapable of Vsurpations and as easy to teach faith as Children learn their A B C. I have given his Argument as much force and edge as I could possibly but all this Wind shakes no Corn. His other two Rules were not so much to be blamed as this Rule of Rules Orall and immediate Tradition Of such Orall and immediate Tradition it was that our Saviour told the Sribes and Pharisees That they made the Commandements of God of none effect by their Tradition And St. Peter told the dispersed Iewes that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ from their vain Conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers These were such Traditions as The Iewes pretended they had receiued from Moses and the Prophets as the Romanists pretend now to have received their Traditions from Christ and his Apostles Otherwise wee doe not onely admit Orall Traditions in generall as an excellent Introduction to the Doctrin of saving truth and a singular help to expound the holy Scriptures but also particular unwritten Traditions derived from the Apostles and delivered unto us by the manifest Testimony of the Primitive Church being agreeable to the holy Scriptures The Apostles did speak by inspiration as well as write and their Tradition whether by word or writing indifferently was the word of God into which faith was resolved The Traditions of the Catholick Church of this present or another age have this Privilege to be free from all Errours that are absolutely Destructive to Salvation but this they have not from the nature of Tradition which is subject to Errour to Corruption to Change to Contradiction Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo but from the speciall Providence and protection of Christ who hath promised to be with his Church untill the end of the World In summe I deny both his Propositions First his Major Immediate Tradition from Parents to Children is not a certain and infallible Rule of Truth and Faith Traditions are often doubtfull doe often change with the times and sometimes contradict one another As we see in the Different Traditions of the Eastern and Western Churches about the observation of Easter And the Councells of Nice and Frankford about Images c. Neither points of Faith nor Papall rights are so visible as he imagineth Credulity and Ignorance and Prejudice and Passion and Interest doe all act their parts Upon his Grounds there can be no Ecclesiasticall Usurpations yet Experience teacheth us that there have been such Vsurpations in all Ages If he had reason to renounce the immediate Tradition of his Father and Grandfather and great Grandfather Then others may have the like and better reasons Let him believe the Suns dancing upon Easter morn and the Swanssinging and the Pellicans digging of her Breast with her Bill and all the Storyes of King Arthur and Robin Hood for it may be he hath received all these from his Elders by immediate Tradition He him self Confesseth that the possession of goverument must be such a possession as may be presumable to haue come from Christ not of such an one as every one knowes when it began P. 49. To what purpose is it to pretend tradition for all those branches of Papall power which are in controversy betweene them and us seeing all of them had their first originall eleven hundred yeares after Christ Secondly this is not all he ascribeth moreover too much to the immediate Tradition of the present Church but much more then too much to the immediate Tradition of his elders to make it absolutely infallible cui non potest subesse falsum and to resolve Faith into it The last resolution of Faith must be into that which is formally the word of God The voice of the present Church may be materially the word of God in regard of the matter and thing testified but it cannot be formally the word of God in respect of the Witnesses and manner of testifying But immediate Tradition is often a Seminary of Errours Thirdly he makes the Orall and immediate Tradition of Fathers to their Childâ—ren to be a more ready and safe Rule of Faith then the holy Scriptures which are the Canon of Faith and so ready that it is as easy as for Boyes to learn their A B C. aud so safe that it is impossible to be made crooked Lastly he Confoundeth the Tradition of the Roman Church with the Tradition of the Catholick Church yet the one is but particular the other Universall Tradition Saint Augustine setteth us downe a certeine rule how to know a true genuine Apostolicall tradition Quod univers a tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper Retentum est nonnifi authoriate Apostolica traditum verissiÌ„ me creditur Whatfoever the whole Church doth hold which was not instituted by councells but allwayes received is most rightly beleeued to have bene delivered by Apostolicall authority These three markes conjoinctly do most firmly prove an Apostolicall Tradition I do not denie but that there have bene Apostolicall Traditions which have wanted some of these Markes but they were neither necessary to salvation nor can be proved at this day after sixteene hundred yeares to have bene Apostolicall Traditions Whatsoever wanteth either universality or perpetuiâ—y is not absolutely uecessary Neither can the reception of one Apostolicall Church proue a tradition to be Apostolicall if other Apostolicall Churches do reject it and contradict it To conclude we give all due respect to Tradition but not so much to Orall Tradition as to Written Tradition as beingmore certain lesse subject to mistakes and more easily freed from mistakes Liter a scriptamanet A serious person if he be but to deliver a long message of importance from one to another will be carefull either to receive it in writing or put it in writing Nor so much to particular immediate Tradition as we do to Vniversall and perpetuall tradition He overshooteth himself beyond all aime in affirming of immediate and Particular Tradition that where it hath place it is impossible for usurpations or abuses to enter or find admittance He might as
fathers as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles are onely to be acknowledged or Obligatory So we acknowledge both his Rules in the Literall sense de facto but the Popes single Supremacy of Power and particular Tradition were never Principles of Vnity neither de facto nor de jure and so he may seek for his flat Schismatick de facto at Rome I said there was a Fallacy in Logick of more interrogations then one when Questions of a different nature are mixed to which one Vniform answer can not be given He saith he put no Interrogatory at all to me True but he propounded ambiguous Propositions to be answered by me confounding St. Peter and the Pope an Headship of Order and an Headship of power which is all one An head of Order hath power to Act First as well as sit â—irst but he acteth not by his own single power but by the conjunct power of the body or College To shew him that I am not ashamed of my voluntary railing as he phraseth it too silly to merit transcribing or answering I will transcribe it for him The Church or Court of Rome have Sophisticated the true Doctrin of Faith by their supplementall Articles contrary to the First Principle and have introduced into the Church a Tyrannicall Government contrary to the second Principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made them selves guilty of Superstition and Schisme If this be railing what Terme doth his Language deserve If this be silly what pitifull stuffe is his He said my onely way to cleare our church from Schisme was to disprove his two Rules I answered he was doubly mistaken first in putting us to prove or disprove who are the persons accused the defendants duty is to answer not to prove that is the duty of the accuser They accuse us of Schisme therefore they ought to prove their Rules whereon they ground their Accusation in that Sense wherein they take them not put us to disprove them He urgeth that by this Method no Rebell ought to give any reason why he did so because he is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour By his leave he that condemneth a Subject of Rebellion before he have proved his accusation doth him wrong But he saith the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other and each side defends it self against the others Accusations but we were the first accusers who could not with any Face have pretended to reform unlesse we accused first our actuall Governour of Vsurpation I told him before that he was doubly mistaken now I must be bold to tell him that he is three wayes mistaken First the Pope was none of our actuall Governour in the externall Regiment of the Church by the Lawes of England Secoâ—dly our Reformation was no Accusation but an Enfranchisement of our selves sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae Thirdly I have already manifested the VsurpatioÌ„s of the Court of Rome upoÌ„ other manner of grounds them his ambiguous Rules As we have proved our intention so let him endeavour to prove his My second answer was that although the proofe did rest on oursides Yet I did not approve of his advise that was to disprove his two Rules My reason is evident we approve of his two rules as they were set down by himself it is not we but they who have swerved from them and therefore it were madnesse in us to disprove them He saith he dare sweare in my behalf that I never spake truer word in my life and out of his Supererogatory kindnesse offers him self to be bound for me that I shall never follow any advise that bids me speake home to the point What silly nonsense is this should I follow any maÌ„s advise to disprove that which I approve I have spoken so home to the point without any advise that I expect little thankes from him and his fellowes for it What he prateth of a discipline left by Christ to the Church of England in Henry the eighths time is ridiculous indeed And it equally ridiculous to hope to make us believe that the Removall of a few upstart Usurpations is a change of the discipline left by Christ to his Church And lastly it is ridiculous to Fancy that later usurpations may not be reformed by the Pattern of the Primitive times and the ancient Canons of the Church and the Practise of succeeding Ages because we received them by particular Tradition from our immediate Fathers That one place which he repeateth as having been omitted by me hath been answered fully to every part of it The rest of this Section is but a Repetition of what he hath said without adding anything that is new and in the Conclusion of this Treatise he giveth us a Summa totalis of it again either he must distrust his Readers memory or his Iudgement and yet for feare of not being understood he recapitulates it all over again in his Index Surely he thinketh his discourse so profound that no man understands him except he repeat it over and over again and for my part I did never meet with such a Torrent of Words and such Shallownesse of matter And so I leave him to S. Austins censure alledged by himself In mala causa non possunt aliter at malam causam quis coegit eos habere Sect. II. That they who cast Papall power out of England were no Protestants but Roman Catholicks throughout except onely in that one point of the Papacy HItherto he saith he hath been the larger in his reply because the former points were Fundamentall concerning and totally decisive of the Question They doe concern the Question indeed to blunder and to confound Vniversal Tradition with particular Tradition a Primacy of Order with a single Supremacy of power Iurisdiction purely Spirituall with externall Iurisdiction in foro contensioso otherwise they concern not the Question And for deciding of the Question wherewithall should he decide it who hath not so much as alledged one Authority in the Case Divine or Humane not a Text of Scripture not a Canon of a Councell not a Testimony of a Father who hath not so much as pretended to any Vniversall or perpetuall Tradition but onely to the Particular immediate Tradition of the Roman Church and this he hath onely pretended to but neither proved it nor attempted to prove it nor is it possible for him to prove by the particular TraditioÌ„ of the Roman Church it self that the Bishop of Rome is the Soveraign Monarch of the Church by Christs own Ordination His onely grounds are his own Vapourous Fancies much like Zenoes Vaunts who used to bragge that he sometimes wanted Opinions but never wanted Arguments My six grounds he stileth Exceptions And why Exceptions But let them be grounds or exceptions or whatsoever he will have them to be and let him take heed that every one of those Trifles and Toyes
obey their Priests then their Kings But they must move their Rudder according to the Various Face of the Sky and await for a fitter opportunity As our Kings did which fell oâ—t at the Reformation when they followed his Counsaile in good earnest and with the Civill sword did lop away all Papall Vsurpations and abuses Other Division then this to divide between the rotteâ— and the sound we made none The great division which followed our Reformation was made by themselves and their Censures Our Articles do testify to all the world that we have made no division from any Church but onely from Errours and Abuses Seventhly he pleadeth that in case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable yeâ— Ecclesiasticall Communion ought not to be broken for temporall Concernments To prove this Conclusion he bringeth six reasons some pertinent some impertinent and very improper but he might have saved his labour For if he understand his Conclusion in that sense wherein he ought to understand it and wherein I hope he doth understand it of deserting the Communion of the Catholick Church or of any member of the Catholick Church qua â—ale as it is a Member for meer temporall respects Concedo omnia I grant the conclusion but if by breaking Ecclesiasticall Communion he understand deserting the Communion of a particular Church as it is erroneous and wherein it is erroneous his Conclusion is not pertinent to his purpose nor his six proofes pertinent to his conclusion But he might remember first that our Grounds by his own Confession do not all relate to temporall inconveniences but some of them to Eternity and Conscience and that they ought to be considered conjointly Secondly that we do not make these temporall Inconveniences to be irremediable we our selves have found out a Remedy and it is the same which he himself adviseth in this place to thrust out all entroachments and Vsurpations with the civill sword If they will grow Angry upon this and break Ecclesiasticall Communion themselves it is their Act not ours who have acted nothing who have declared nothing against any right of the Bishop of Rome divine or humane but onely against his encroachments and Vsurpations and particularly against his Coactive poweâ— in the Exteriour Court within the English Dominions They might take us to be not onely very tame Creatures but very stupid Creatures first to suffer them to entrench and encroach and usurp upon us dayly and theÌ„ to be able to perswade us to Isachars condition to undergoe our burthen with Patience like Asses because we may not break Ecclesiasticall Communion for temporall concernments We have done nothing but what we have good warrant for from the Lawes of God and nature let them suffer for it who either seperate from others without just cause or give others just cause to seperate from them In the next place followeth a large Panegyricall Oration iâ— the praise of Vnity of the Benefit and Necessity of it mixed with an Invective against us for breaking both the Bonds of Vnity The former of those considerations is altogether superfluous To praise Vnity which no man did ever dispraise but to his own perpetuall Disgrace The latter is a meer Taâ—tology or repetition of what he hath said before which I will not trouble the Reader withall but onely where I find some new weight added He saith wee acknowledge the Chnrch of Rome to be a true Church Right Metaphisically a true Church which hath the true essence and being of a Church but not Morally true or free from Errours He demands what is the certain Method to know the true sense of Scripture If he please to take so much paines to View my answer to Militier he may find both whom wee hold to be fit Expositors of Scripture and what is the right manner of expounding Scripture If he have any thing to say against it he shall have a faire hearing He telleth us that our best Champions Chillingworth and Falkland doe very candidly confesse that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely He citeth no place and I do not hold it worthy of a search whether they doe confesse it or not It is honour enough for them to have been genuine Sonnes of the English Church I hope they were so and men of rare parts whereof no man can doubt yet one of them was a Lay man it may be neither of them so deeply radicated in the right Faith of the English Church as many others But our chiefest Champions are those who stick closest to the Holy Scriptures interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and the Perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church but for that Assertion which you father upon them that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely We detest it And when you or any other is pleased to make tryall You will find that we have as great assuraÌ„ce altogether for our faith as your selves have for your old Articles of faith and much more then you have for your new Articles He accuseth us for joining iu Communion with Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. And after he addeth Roman Catholicks Are not Huguenots Presbyterians in his Sense If they be why doth he disjoin them I know no reason why we should not admit Greeks and Lâ—â—herans to our Communion and if he had added them Armenians Abyssines Muscovites and all those who do professe the Apostolicall Creed as it is expounded by the first four Generall Councells under the Primitive Discipline and the Roman Catholicks also if they did not make their Errours to be a Condition of their Communion As for Adamites and Quakers we know not what they are and for Socinians we hold them worse then Arrians The Arrians made Christ to be a Secondary God erat quando non erat but the Socinians make him to be a meer creature And for Presbyterians what my Iudgement is he may find fully set down in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle But saith he every one of these hath a different head of the Church The English head is the King The Roman Catholick head is the Pope The Grecian head is the Patriarch The Presbyterian head is the Presbytery or Synod and the Lutheran head is the Parish Minister First for the Lutherans he doth them egregious wrong Throughout the Kingdomes of Denwark and Sweden they have theit Bishops name and thing and throughout Germany they have their Superintendents And to the rest I answer him that there are severall Heads of the Church Christ alone is the Spirituall head the Soveraign Prince the Politicall head the Ecclesiasticall head is a Generall Councell and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order We who maintain the King to be the Politicall head of the English Church doe not deny the spirituall Headship of Christ nor the supreme power of the
hold out encroachments with the point of the sword without any medling with just right Other division then this which he himself hath allowed we believe our Ancestours intended none we hold none and so are accountable for none The main Question is whether the Britannick Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not I have demonstrated the contrary already that they were not and had alwaies their Ordinations at home But his Conclusion which he puts upon me that true complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government is a vain assertion of his own no CoÌ„clusion of mine He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit whether he that mainteineth the Negative or he that mainteineth the Affirmative ought to prove He saith according to his old Pueriles that a Negative may be proved in Logick No man doubteth of it or denieth it Quis eâ—im potest negare I said on the Contrary that in this case which commeth here in difference between us according to the strict rules of Law the burthen to proue resteth onely on his side who affirmeth As the Question is here between us whether we had other Remedies then to make such a Reformation as we did We say No. They say Yea. It is possible to â—rove there might be other Remedies â—ut it is impossible to prove there were no â—ther Remedies Galen or Hippocrates himâ—elf would not have undertaken such a Taske to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease then that which they used It is not for want of Logicall Forms that Negatives are not to be proved â—n matter of Fact but for want of sufficient Mediums He saith he is no Bowler and so â—nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowle It may be it is true but if I should put him to prove this Negative it is impossible But so farre as a Negative of that nature is capable of proofe I did prove it by our Addresses to Popes and Councells and long expectation in vain that we had no other Remedy then that which we used to thrust out their Vsurpations by the power of the sword which course he himself adviseth and we practised The division is not made by them who thrust out Vsurpations but by them who brought them in and defend them I said that not onely our Ancestors but all Catholick Countries did maintein their own privileges inviolated and make themselves the last Iudges of their Grievances from the Court of Rome Hence he concludeth with open Mouth therefore there were other Remedies there needed no Division Alas poore man how he troubleth himself about nothing They and we used the very same Remedies the same that he adviseth in this place The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made What then had not the King the Sword in his own hands Did it not lie in his power to right himself as he listed and to admit those pretended encroachments onely so far as he thought just and fitting Yes the King had the sword in his hands and did right him self and cast out those Papall Usurpatious so far as he found Iust and now when we have followed your own advise you call us Schismaticks and Dividers Sr. we are no Dividers but we have done our Duties and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Vsurpations as we have done you are the Schismaticks by your own Confession He pleadeth If Papall Authority be of Christs Institution then no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment Right But those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out are neyther of Christs Institution nor of Mans Institution but meer Vsurpations Neither doe we seek to abolish Papall Authority but to reform it from Accidentall Abuses and reduce it to its first Institution The best Institutions Divine or Humane may sometimes need such Reformation Here is nothing like proofe but his World of Witnesses and his Immemoriall Tradition presumed not proved To shew that no Nation suffred so much as England under the Tyranny of the Roman Court he saith I produce nothing but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope Well would he have a better witnesse against the Pope then the Pope him self Habemus confitentem reuÌ„ He was pleasant indeed but Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat VVhat hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing He asketh whether those Testimonies which I produce be Demonstrative or rigorous Evidences I thinke he would have me like the unskilfull Painter to write over the Heads of my Arguments This is a Demonstration It would become him better to refute them and shew that they are not Demonstrative then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions I shewed that England is not alone in the Seperation so long as all the Eastern Southern Northern and so great a part of the Western Church have seperated themselves from the Court of Rome and are seperated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we In answer to this he bids me shew that those I call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith c. This is first to hang men up and then to examine their cause first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke and embrace their upstart Vsurpations with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely before they gave such a temerarious sentence against the much greater part of Christendome in so weighty a cause But for their rule of Faith they have a more certain and Authentick Rule then he himself by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentick rule of Faith then Pius the fourths Creed and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground then particular supposititious Tradition which wanteth both Perpetuity and Vniversality I said that we desired to live in the peaceable Communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestours as far as the Roman Court will give us leave He answereth that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers c That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled had no mind to be hanged That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us but a request of an unreasonable favour from them to admit us into their Communion and would be most absurd in Government c. Whether they hold us for theirs or not is not much materiall if they did it were the better for themselves if they doe not it is not the worse for us so as Christ own us for his it skilleth not much whether they say come ye blessed or goe ye cursed whether we be the wheat or Chaffe their tongues must not winnow us Although he snuffe at
become indifferent unconcerning Opinions because they are Negative I wish no more disparagement to any man then to be the authour of such an absurd assertion Either they are Fundamentall Articles or unconcerning Opinions How should they cease to be Articles which never were Articles That there is one God and one Saviour Iesus Christ that the life of the Saints is everlasting and the Fire of the devills Everlasting are Articles of Faith but every thing which may be deduced from these is not a distinct Article of Faith To the latter part of my plea that we tooke nothing away but weeds he pleadeth first that it is but a self supposition or a begging of the Question By his leave I have demonstrated that all the Branches of Papall power which are in controversy between them and us are all grosse Vsurpations and weeds which did never sprout up in the Church of England untill after 1100 yeares no man can say without shame that such were planted by Christ or his Apostles Secondly he excepteth that to take away Errours is a requisite act af Iustice not a proofe of Moderation On the contrary therefore it is a proofe of Moderation because it is a requisite Act of Iustice all virtue consisteth in the meane or in a moderation It is not his particular pretended supposititious Tradition which doth secure us that Christ was and that the Holy Scripture is the Genuine word of God but the Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition of the Catholick Church of Christ. My last proofe of our Moderation was that we are ready in the preparation of our minds to believe and practice whatsoever the Catholick Church of this present Age doth believe and practice And this is an infallible preservative to keep a man within the Pale of the Church whosoever doth this Cordially cannot possibly be a formall Heretick or Schismatick because he is invincibly ignorant of his Heresy or Schisme No man can have iust cause to seperate his Communion a Communione orbis Terrarum from the Communion of the Christian world If he would have confuted this his way had been to have proposed something which the Christian World united doth believe or practise which wee are not ready to believe or Practice This he doth not so much as attempt to doe but barketh and raileth without rime or reason First he telleth us we say that there is no Vniversall Church Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy wherein we pray dayly that God will inspire the Vniversall Church with the Spirit of Truth Vnity and Concord He telleth us that they doe not doubt but we have renounced our Creed Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy wherein we make profession dayly of the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds He telleth us that we have renounced our reason If he had said onely that we had lost our reason it is more then any man in his right wits would say but to say we have renounced our reason is incredible The reason of all this is because we give no certein Rule to know a true Church from an Hereticall He supposeth that no Hereticall Church is a true Church The Bishop of Chalcedon may instruct him better that an Hereticall Church is a true Church whilest it erreth invincibly He saith that he hath lived in Circumstances to be as well acquainted with our Doctrin as most men are Yet he professeth that if his life were at stake be could not Determine absolutely upon our Constant Grounds VVhether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the Vniversall Church or no. The nearer relation that he hath had to the Church of England the more shame for him to scoffe so often at the supposed Nakednesse of his Mother and to revile her so virulently without either ground or Provocation which gave him his Christian being He hath my Charitable Iudgement of Presbyterians in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle And for the other Sects it were much better to have a little patience and suffer them to dye of themselves then trouble the world so much about them they were produced in a Storme and will dye in a Calme He may be sure they will never molest him at any Councell either Generall or Occidentall It is honour enough for them to be named in earnest by a Polemick writer But what manner of Disputing is this to bring Questions in stead of Arguments As what new Form of Discipline the Protestants have introduced What are the certain Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell What is the Vniversall Church and of what particular Churches it doth consist What are the notes to know a true Church from an Hereticall We have introduced no new discipline but reteined the old Our Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell are the same they were not altogether so rigorously exacted in case of invincible necessity We are readier to give an account of ourselves then to censure others either to intrude ourselves into the Office of God to distinguish perfectly formall Schismaticks from materiall Or into the Office of the Catholick Church to determine precisely who ought to be excluded from her Communion who not We exclude all those whom undoubted Generall Councells have excluded the rest we leave to God and to the determination of a free Councell as Generall as may be But because I would not leave him unsatisfied in any thing I am contented to admit their own Definition of the Vniversall Church That is the Company of Christians knit together by the profession of the same faith and the Communion of the same Sacraments under the Government of lawfull Pastours Taking away that purple patch which they have added at the latter end of it for their own Interest And especially of the Roman Bishop as the onely Vicar of Christ upon Earth And if they had stinted at a Primacy of Order or beginning of unity I should not have excepted against it He objecteth that Protestants have no grounds to distinguish true believers from false That were strange indeed whilest we have the same Scriptures interpreted by the same perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church according to the same Analogy of Faith wherein we give this honour to the Fathers not to be Authours but witnesses of Tradition whatsoever grounds they have to distinguish true believers from false we have the same But because I made the Apostles Creed to be the rule of Faith he objecteth First then the Puritans who deny the Article of Christs descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the Vniversall Church If they be so what is that to the Church of England if they be turned out yet let them be heard first They plead that the manner of Christs descent is not particularly determined but let it be determined or not they ought to be turned out of the Vniversall Church by a Generall Councell and it may be they will submit to the Authority of a Generall
or humane Law and refuse to contend with us when we prove them to be Vsurpations to what end doth he interest himself and break other mens heads with the clattering noise of his Sabots SECT X. An Answer to their Objections THeir first Objection was that we had seperated ourselves from the Communion of the Catholick Church I answered that we hold Communion with thrice so many Catholick Christians as they doe that is the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians besides Protestants He interpreteth these Christians with whom we hold Communion to be numâ—erlesse Multitudes of Manichees Gâ—osticks Carpocratians Arrians Nestorians Eutichians c. Adding that he protesteth most faithfully he doth not think that I have any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Reader learn how to value his faithfull Protestations hereafter I shew that we all detest those damned Heresies and complaine of his Partiality and want of Ingenuity to abuse the Reader with such lying suggestions which he himself knoweth to be most false and challenge him to shew that any of us are guilty of any of these Heresies now see what he produceth to free himself from such an horrid Calumny First he saith that the Bishops taxe is evidently this to shew some solid reasons why he admits some of these and rejects others This is not the purging of his old Calumny but the twisting of a new Calumny to it Labhominate and Anathematise them all and he will have a reasoÌ„ of me why I admit some of them and reject others Well done brave disputant Secondly he urgeth Suppose he could not charge the Church of England or any of these otâ—er Churches with any of these Heresies are there no other Hereâ—sies in the world but thesâ— old ones Or is it impossible that a new Heresy should arise There are other Heresies in the world and it is possible that a new Heresy my arise but what doth that concern the Church of England unlesse he thinke that there is no Heresy in the world nor is possible to be but the Church of England must be guilty if it Worser and Worser He proceedeth that he accused not the Church of England or the Bishop for holding those materiall points but that having no determinate certein Rule of Faith they had no grounds to reject any from their Communion who hold some common points of Christianity with them It is well habemus câ—nfiâ—entem reum Mr. Serjeant retracts his Charge The Church of England and the Bishop are once declared innocent of those old Heresies which he made a Muster of to no purpose To let him see that I say nothing new and how he thrasheth his own Friends blind fold Peter Lombard Thomas a Iesu Cardinall Tolet and many others do make the Question about the procession of the Holy Ghost to be Verball onely without Reality and that the Grecian expressions of Spiritus Filii The Spirit of the Sonne and per Filium by the Sonne doe signify as much as our Filioque and from the Son And of the Nestorians Onuphrius giveth this Iudgement These Nestorians doe seem to me to have reteined the name of Nestorius the Heretick rather then his errours for I find nothing in them that savoureth of that Sect. And for the supposed Eutychians Thomas a Iesu giveth us ample Testimony That the suspicion did grow upon a double mistake They were suspected of Eutychianisme because they reteined not the Councell of Chalcedon and they received not the Councell of Chalcedon because they suspected it of Nestorianisme but yet they accurse Eutyches for an Heretick and so did the Councell of Chalcedon Anathematise Nestorius The same is asserted by Brerewood out of the Confessions of the Iacobites Nestorians Armenians Cophites and Abyssines To his Objection I answer First that though we had no such certein Rule of Faith yet it was not presently necessary that we must tumble headlong into such abhominable errours as many of these Hereticks held which the Discreeter Heathen did detest Secondly we have a certain Rule of Faith the Apostles Creed dilated in the Scriptures or the Scriptures contracted into the Apostles Creed and for that ugly Fardle of Heresies which he mentioneth we can shew that they are all diametrally opposite to the Apostles Creed as it is explained in the foure first Generall Councells Reader have a care to presere Epicteâ—us his Iewell Remember to distrust such faithfull or rather feigned Protestations He argueth All those Hereticks had the Same Rule or Grounds of their Faith that Protestants have namely the Holy Scripture therefore they are all of the Protestant Communion In good time All those Hereticks had the same Rule or grounds of their Faith that Roman Catholicks have namely the Holy Scriptures therefore they are of the Roman Catholick Communion If he except that the bare Letter of the Scriptures is not the Ground or Rule of Faith to Roman Catholicks but the Scripture interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and Tradition of the Church the Church of England saith the very same for it self So if this be the source of all errour to abandon the Tradition of the Church we are far enough from the source of all errour This is the onely difference in this particular betweene me and Mr. Serjeant what he attributeth to the Tradition of immediate Forefathers I ascribe to the perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition of the Catholick Church Who would believe that this man himself had deserted the Tradition of his Immediate Forefathers That which he addeth the Traditioâ— of Immediate Forefathers is the onely Ground of Faiths certainty and the Denying of it more Pestilentiall then the Denying of the Godhead of Christ or the asserting the worst of those errours which any of those old Hereticks held as there are two Gods a Good God and an Evill God is most false and Dangerous to tumble into a certain Crime for feare of an uncertein What he addeth concerning Sects new sprung up in England and Luther and Carolostadius concerneth not us nor the present Controversy I said that some few Eastern Christians were called Nestorians and some others by reasoÌ„ of some unusuall expressioÌ„s suspected of Eâ—tichianisme but most wrongfully and in our Name and in the name of all those Churches which hold Communion with us I accursed all the Errours of those Hereticks Notwithstanding all this he saith that nothing is more right then to call them so that what I say here is contrary to the publick and best intelligence we have from those remote Countries that I have a mind to cling in very Brotherly aud very lovingly with the Nestorians aud Eutychians though I say I will not that I stroake those errours which I accurse with a gentle hand stiling them but unusuall expressions First for so much as concerneth my self I have renounced those errours I have accursed them if yet he will not crâ—dit me there is nothing left for me to doe but to appeale to God
be Christs own Ordinance If it be recorded in Scripture it is either in Nicodemus his Gospell or in the Popes Decretall Epistles Certainly in the Genuine Scriptures there is no manner of mention of any such thing Heare the ingenuons Confession of a more learned Adversary Neque Scriptura neque Traditio habet sedem Apostolicam it a fixam esse Romae ut inde auferri non possit there is neither Scripture nor Trrdition to prove that the See of St. Peter is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be taken from it But if the Bishop of Rome did in herit the Privileges of St. Peter By Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture then there were Scripture to prove that it cannot be taken away from Rome Christs own Ordination must not be violated Behold both his grounds Scripture and Tradition swept away at once It will not serve his turne at all to say that I take him in a Reduplicative sense as if he spake of the Bishops of Rome as of Rome Either Christ ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in his privileges And then the Bishop of Rome doth succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome Or Christ hath not ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his privileges And then the Bishop of Rome is not St. Peter Successour by Christs own Ordination He may be his Successour upon another account but by Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture he cannot be if Christ himself have not ordained in holy Scripture that he should be He addeth that I picked these Words out of a Paragraph a leafe after Why is he not bound to speake truth in one Paragraph as well as in another Or will he oblige one who combatteth with him to watch where his Buckler is ready and be sure to hit that These things are as cleare as the light and yet he vapours about my frivolous and impertinent answers and wonders how any man can have the patience to read such a Trisler Let the Reader judge which Scale hath more weight in it How should the Bishop of Romes Succession to S. Peter be Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture When both his fellowes and he himself doe ground the Bishop of Romes right to succeed St. Peter upon the fact of St. Peter Namely his dying Bishop of Rome Bellarmine distinguisheth between the Bishop of Romes succession of St. Peter and the reason of his succession The succession saith he is from the institution of Christ by divine right and commanded by Christ but the reason of this succession is from the fact of S. Peter not from the institution of Christ. Which two are irreconciliable For if Christ commanded that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter as he saith Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem quae autem jubet Deus mutari ab hominibus non possunt Then not the fact of St. Peter but the mandate of Christ is the reason of the succession There was no need that St. Peter should doe any thing to perfect the commandement of Christ and on the otherside if the fact of St. Peter be the true reason of the Bishop of Romes succession theÌ„ it is evident that Christ did not command it Let it be supposed to avoid impertinent disputes that Christ did create a chiefe Pastor of his church as an office of perpetuall necessity without declaring his pleasure who shall be his successour but leaving the choise either to the chief Pastor or to the church without peradventure in such a case the Office is from Christ and the perpetuity is from Christ but the right of the Successour is from them who make the application whether if be the Cheif Pastor or the Church The Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter is not recorded in Scripture The fact of S. Peter is not recorded in Scripture No such ordination of Christ is recorded in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should be S. Peters Successour And therefore it is impossible that the Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter should be Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture Then what is this Mandate of Christ and where conteined The Mandate is an old legend conteined in Marcellinus Leo Athanasius Ambrose and Gregory some of which point at it others relate it some define it as a matter of faith That S. Peter a little before his Passion being ready to depart out of Rome did meete Christ in the gate who told him that he came to Rome to be Crucified againe Thereby intimating that St. Peter must suffer martyrdome there Here is no mandate of Christ to S. Peter to fixe his See at Rome much lesse that he should place it there for ever never to be removed True saith Bellarmine but yet non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus it a figeret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet It is not improbable that the lord did command plainly that Peter should fixe his See at Rome that the Roman Bishop should succeed him absolutely Alas this is but a poore ground to build a mans faith upon that it is not improbable And therefore the said Author proceedeth Tameâ—si forte c. Although peradventure it be not of divine right that the Romaen Bishop because he is the Roman Bishop doth succeed S. Peter in the prefecture of the Church And though it were supposed a point of faith That the Bishop of Rome were S. Peters Successour Yet it cannot be a point of faith that Pope Vrban or Pope Clement are S. Peters Successours and true Bishops of Rome because there can be no more then morall Certeinty for it Who can assure us of their right Baptisms and right Ordinations according to the common Roman grounds How can wee be sure of their Canonicall Election that two third parts of the Cardinalls did concurre or that the Election by Cardinalls now and by the Emperours and by the People formerly were all Authentick formes though I doubt not but any of these might serve to obteine an humane right But especially what can secure us from the â—aint of Simoniacall Pravity which they who knew the Intrigues of States doe tell us hath born too great Vogue in the Conclave of late dayes And if it cannot be a point of Faith to believe the present Pope is St. Peters Successour for these reasons neither can it be a point of Faith that any of them all hath been his Successour for the same reasons I doe not urge these things to encourage any man to withdraw Obedience from a lawfull Superiour either upon improbable or probable suppositions but to shew their temerarious presumption who doe soe easily chaÌ„ge humane right into Divine right and make many things to be necessary points of Faith for which there never was revelation or more then Morall Certainty Sest I. Cap. II. The next
notoriously as the Vniversality of the Roman Church the doctrins of Purgatory of Indulgences of Worshiping of Images and the rest of their new Essentialls of faith Extra quas nemo salvus esse potest saith Pope Pius Without the beliefe of which no man can be saved Then no man was saved for a thousand yeares after Christ. If there be the least Print of a Contradiction here it is not in my discourse but between their own Principles and their Practice He taunteth me sufficiently for making the Apostles Creed a summary of all things necessary to be believed by all Christians calling it the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head and would gladly perswade us that it was onely an Act of Prudence to keep out heterogeneous persons in that present age which was to be inlarged as often as new Heresies did arise I pitty the young man who is no better acquainted with that Value which both the ancient Fathers and his own Doctors set upon the Creed Whilest he thinketh to confute me he is ignoraÌ„tly condemning all them He condemneth the Fathers who made it to be the one onely immoveable and irreformable Rule of Faith The summe of the whole Catholick Faith The Key of the Christian Faith The Rule or Square of the Apostolicall Sermons after the Composition of it Wherein the Apostles of the Lord have collected into one breviary all the points of the Catholick Faith which are diffused throughout the Scriptures He condemneth his own Authors who acknowledge it to be a short comprehension or summary of all things to be believed Bellarmine saith it containeth the summe of the Gospell And more plainly there is exâ—ant that most ancient Symboll which is called the Creed of the Apostles because the Apostles composed it to this end that it might be agreed among all men what was the summe of the whole Christian Faith Whereof he produceth Witnesses St. Ambrose St. Hierom St. Austin Maximus Adding that in the Creed although briefly is conteined in a Summary the whole object of Faith According to that of St. Austin the Creed is a simple short full Comprehension of our Faith that the simplicity may provide for the Rudenesse of the Hearers the shortnesse for their memory and the fulnesse for their Doctrine And elswhere he telleth us that all Catholicks doe confesse that it is the unwritten word of God So there is more in the Creed then a meer Shiboleth to distinguish an Ephraimite from a Gileadite It is fundamentum firmum unicum not onely a firm but an onely Foundation He asketh me whether ever Protestant did hold there is nothing of Faith but the 12 Articles in that Creed I doe not know how I come to be obliged to answer him to so many impertinent Questions but for once I will not refuse him Protestants doe know as well as himself that there are many things of faith which are necessary to be believed by some men at some times as that St. Paul had a Cloak but there is no Article or Point absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed which is not comprehended within the 12 Articles of the Creed And here he serveth us up again his twice sodden Coleworts that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments the Scriptures are not comprehended in the 12. Articles I have but newly answered the very same Objection and here Meander-like with a suddain turning he brings it in again but I will not wrong the Reader so much as to follow him in his Battologies Onely if he think the Creed was imperfect untill the word Filioque was added he is much mistaken But saith he by the same Logick we may accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Councell for pressing the word Consubstantiall Pardon us good Sr there is no Analogy between the Consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father and your upstart Doctrins of Indulgences and Image Worship Indeed the word Consubstantiall was not in the Creed before the Nicene Councell but the thing was and was deduced from the Creed When the Apostles delivered the Creed to the Church they did it by Orall Tradition and this is that famous Tradition much mentioned in the Fathers which you doe altogether misapply to the justifying of your new patches aÌ„d when they delivered the Creed they delivered likewise the sense of the Creed by the same Tradition and it was the most proper worke in the world for those first Oecumenicall Councells to search out and Determin by Tradition the right sense of the Articles where in they were delivered by the Apostles But for us now after fifteen or sixteen hundred yeares to inquire not onely into new senses of the old Articles altogether unknown to the Ancients but to find out new Articles which have no relation to the old Articles and all this by Tradition is ridiculous For whatsoever Tradition we have we have from former Ages successively and therefore if they had no Tradition for such an Article or such a sense wee can have none But such are all the twelve new Articles added to the Creed by Pius the fourth not onely new senses of old Articles which had been too much but new Articles newly coined which have no relation to the old Articles at all Something 's are de Symbolo conteined in the Creed somethings are contra Symbolum against the Creed and somethings praeter Symbolum besides the Creed First for those things which are conteined in the Creed either in the Letter or in the sense or may be deduced by good consequence from the Creed as the Deity of Christ his two Natures the procession of the Holy Ghost the Addition of these is properly no addition but onely an Explication Yet such an Explication none under a Generall Councell can impose upon the Church Secondly such things as are contrary to the Creed are not onely unlawfull to be added to the Creed but they are Hereticall in themselves Thirdly for those things which are neither of the Creed nor conteined in the Creed either explicitly nor can be deduced by good Consequence from the Creed and yet they are not contrary to the Creed but Opinions or inferiour truths which may be believed or disbelieved without any great danger of Heresy of this nature are chose 12. points or Articles which Pius the fourth added to the Creed To make these part of the Creed and to oblige all Christians to believe them under pain of Damnation as Pius the 4 â—h doth without which there is no Salvation is to change the Symbolicall Apostolicall Faith and to adde to the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles Faith doth consist in indivisibili and the Essentiall parts of it cannot be contracted or inlarged This is that which we Charge the Romanists withall and which I see not how they will be able to shake of Not the Explication of the old Articles of Faith nor the prescribing of inferiour truths
passe muster for once Here is a Contradiction deserves a Bell and a Bable Catholick Countries did maintein their Privileges inviolate by such means at one time not at another in one place not in another in one degree not in another in one respect not in another The last mock Contradiction is that I say The Lawes which denied the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient Remedies against the abuses of that Authority Which had quite taken them away This is not finding of Contradictions but making of them Give him leave to use this id est that is and he will make a hundred Contradictions in every page of the Bible as here actually in force that is which actually left the Pope no Authority or which had quite taken his Authority away If this id est that is be mine then he may object the Contradiction to me if it be not then he may keep the Contradiction to himself such as it is He knoweth and all the world know that a law is said to be actually in force whilest it is unrepealed in this sense I did and all men but himself doe use that expression And here he committeth a third grosse fault against the Rule of Opposition which ought to be ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Respect The Law taketh away abuses as a Rule but the Magistrate by due execution as an Artificer The Law is sufficient when it is sufficiently penned and promulged but the effect followeth the due execution The not observing of this obvious and easy truth hath made us all this stirre about Imaginary Contradictions as I have shewed in my answer to his last â—â—ragraph which alone is a sufficieâ—â— answer to all these pretended Contradictions but whether it will be so actually in force to procure his assent is more then I know if it do not it detracteth nothing frem the sufficiency of the answer Goe Mr. Serjeant goe bring us lesse wind and more weight Saepius in libro memor atur Perseus uno Quam levis in totâ Tharsus Amazonide In the last Paragraph is nothing but a Calumny against Henry the eight which he is not able to prove and if he were it neither concerneth us nor the Question SECT VII That the King and Church of England proceeded with due Moderation THis Section doth not much concern either us or the merit of the cause A Reformation might be just and necessary although the Reformers did exceed the bounds of due Moderation neither are we answerable for their excesses further then we ourselves doe maintein them I passe by his pleasant Topick unsaluted as being impertinent and having nothing in it deserving the least stay of a serious Reader I reckoned this as the first Branch of our moderation that we deny not to other Churhes the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor seperate from Churches but from Accidentall Errours For all his scoffing if their Church would use the like moderation it would save the world a great deale of needlesse debate Against that which I say he objecteth thus Now the matter of Fact hath evidenced undeniably that they the Protestants seperated from those points which were the Principles of Vnity both in Faith and Government He hath brought his matter of Fact and his Principles of Vnity so often upon the Stage already and they have been so often clearly answered that I will not insist upon such a threedbare subject or trouble the Reader with an irksome repetition We have seen how far his Principles of Vnity or his Fundamentall of Fundamentalls is true and ought to be admitted and in a right sense we adhere much more firmly unto them then the Church of Rome it self He procedeth that the Church of England defines that our Church the Church of Rome erreth in matter of Faith Artic. 19. The words of the Article are Non solum quoad agenda Ceremoniarum ritus verum etiam in iis quae credenda sunt that is Not onely in Practicall Observations and Ceremoniall rites but also in those things which are to be believed that is to use Cardinall Cajetans distinction Not in those things which are de fide formaliter in necessary Fundamentall Articles for we acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essentialls of Faith but in those things which are fidei materialiter in inferiour Questions which happen in things to be believed that is to say Opinions wherein himself acknowledgeth that a particular Church may erre That this is the right sense of the Article appeareth hence that the Article doth contradistinguish Credenda or things to be believed not to Opinions but to agenda things to be practised He urgeth that we have declared four points of their faith to be vain Fictions contradictory to Gods word Artic. 22. That is to say their Doctrin of Purgatory Indulgences their Adoration of Images and Relicks Invocation of Saints Right four points of their new Faith enjoined by Pius the fourth but no Article of the old Apostolicall Faith and at the best onely Opinions Yet neither doth he cite our Article right which doth not define them to be contrary to Scripture but onely besides the Scripture or not well grounded upon any Texts of Scripture He addeth the like Character is given of another point Art 28. That is Transubstantiation Our highest Act of Devotion Art 31. is stiled a blasphemous fiction and pernicious imposture that is the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse Concerning Transubstantiation what is our Opinion I referre him to my answer to Militier in the very beginning of it And concerning their Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse to the same answer pag. 152. Edit 2. The true state of the Controversy was not so clearly understood at first on either side as it is now He cannot goe one step further then we doe in that cause without tumbling into direct Blasphemy It followeth And Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publickly should be held as Heathens and Publicans Well here is no distinction between Roman Catholicks and Protestants And Franciscus a Sancta Clara in his Paraphrasticall ExpositioÌ„ of the English Articles giveth this Iudgement of this Article This Article is Catholick and agreeable as well to holy Scripture as to antiquity Then why doth he snarle at this Article which he cannot except against Because he conceiveth that the Article meaneth Catholicks or at least doth include them Iudge Reader what a spirit of Contradiction dâ—th possesse this man who when he is not able to pick any quarrell at the words of the Article calumniateth the meaning upon his own groundlesse suspicion But nothing was more common in the mouths of our Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the VVhore of Babilon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous and to make up the Measure of his Forefathers sinnes the Bishop calles here the two Principles of