may truely believe and yet not know so assuredly that he doth believe and that he shall persevere in his beliefe as to be able to inferre the conclusion Speciall Faith is a rare jewel not to be acquired but by long experience by being deeply radicated in holynesse and by the extraordinary grace of God So far he errs from truth when he saith That justification by speciall Faith is prora puppis the Life and Soul and dâ—fâ—nition of a Protestant But supposing it were true what a strange arguing were this All Protestants believe justification by speciall Faith but the Church of Rome condemneth speciall Faith Therefore the Protestant and the Roman Church are not both true Churches As if it were impossible for one true Church to condemn the opinions of another But we shall meet with this subject of speciall Faith again And for his power to offer Sacrifice Protestants have as much power as Romanists The holy Eucharist is a commemoration a representation an application of the all-sufficient propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse. If his Sacrifice of the Masse have any other propitiatory power or virtue in it then to commemorate represent applie the merit of the Sacrifice of the Crosse let him speak plainly what it is Bellarmine knew no more of this Sacrifice then we Sacrificium crucis c. The Sacrifice of the Crosse remitteth all sinnes past present and to come seeing it acquired a most sufficient price for the sinnes of the whole World And therefore that Sacrifice being finished and Sinnes being remitted there remains not any oblation for sinne like to that that is for acquiring a price or value for the remission of sinnes To what use then serves the Sacrifice of the Masse Hear him out Adhuc sunt c. There are yet and will be unto the end of the World those to whom this price of deliverance is to be applyed If this be all as clearly it is to apply that price of deliverance which Christ paid for us then what noise have they raised in the World to no purpose Then our Sacrifice is as good as theirs Of our not communicating with them in Sacraments he hath received an account formerly And of our Ministers wanting power to offer Sacrifice he shall receive a just account in due place I said that a man might render himself guilty of hereticall pravity four waies first by disbelieving any fundamentall Article of Faith or necessary part of saving Truth For though fundamentals only be simply necessary to be known of all Christians yet there are many other truths revealed by God which being known are as necessary to be believed as the fundamentals themselves And to discredit any one of these lesser truths after it is known that God hath revealed it is as much as to deny the truth of God or to deny all the fundamenmentals put together Against this he urgeth that Heresie is incurred by disbelieving any point of Faith whatsoever if it be sufficiently proposed Right if it be so proposed that a man knows it to be a revealed truth or might know it if he did not obstinately shut his eies against evident light But the Church of Rome is no such sufficient or infallible proposer that every man is bound to receive its determinations as Oracles But R C. leaves these words out of my discourse or necessary part of saving truth that is necessary to some persons in some places at sometimes to whom they are sufficiently revealed Is this fair dealing Secondly I said that Heresie was incurred by believing superstitious errours or additions which doe virtually and by evident consequence overthrow a fundamentall truth This is denied by R. C. because Faith is an assent to divine Revelations upon the authority of the revealer and therefore is neither gotten nor lost nor Heresie incurred by consequence Doth he not know that whosoever believeth a revealed truth doth of necessity believe all the evident consequences of it As he that believes that Christ is God doth of necessity believe that he is eternall And if he maintain that erat quando non erat There was a time when he was not he doth implicitly deny his Deâ—ty and incur the crime of Heresie Hath he forgotten what their own Doctors doe teach that a conclusion of Faith may be grounded upon one proposition inevident that is revealed and another proposition evident that is not revealed but evident in it self The hypostaticall union of the two natures divine and humane in Christ is a fundamentall truth that the blessed Virgin is the mother of God that Christ had both a divine and humane will are evident consequences of this truth not expresly revealed Yet for denying the former Nestorius for denying the later the Manothelites were condemned as hereticks Thirdly Heresie may be incurred by obstinate persisting in lesser errours after a man is convicted in his conscience that they are errours either out of animosity because he scornes to yeeld or out of covetous ambitous or other sinister ends And lastly Heresie is incurred by a froward and peevish opposition to the Decrees of a generall Councel to the disturbing of the peace and tranquility of the Church Against these two last waies of incurring Heresie R. C. saith nothing directly but upon the by he taxeth me of two errours First that I say No Councel can make that a point of Faith which was not ever such We agree in this That no Councel can make that a fundamentall which was not a fundamentall nor make that a revealed truth which was not a revealed truth I acknoledge further that a generall Councel may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds produced by the Councel or the authority of the Councel which is and alwaies ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians doe convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Councels definition In doubtful questions if there be no miscarriage no packing of Votes no fraud used in the Councel like that in the Councel of Ariminum for receiving Christ and rejecting homo-ousios and if the determination be not contrary to the tradition of the Church who would not rather suspect his own judgement then a general Councels I confesse yet further that when a generall Councel hath determined any controversie no man may oppose its determination but every one is bound to acquiesce and possesse his Soul in patience though he be not convicted in his conscience of the truth of their sentence And if any man out of pevishnesse or stubbornnesse shall oppose their definition to the disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the Church he deserves to be punished as an Heretick Then wherein lies the difference First in R. C. his misreciting my words according to his ordinary custome I said only this that a Councel could not
case they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome as whether the Pope have invaded their priviledges or usurped more Authority then is due unto him or in contemning his censures which the Councell of Towers doth expresly allow them to doe and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not Yeeld thus much and the question is at an end That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties and of papall oppressions and usurpations and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit That Papall Authority is instituted immediately by God but not Regall Cujus contrarium verum est He was once or seemed to be of another minde For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they Kings receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters Saint Paul saâ—th expresly speaking of civill Powers The Powers that be are ordeined of God and whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God and reign by God then they are instituted by God Therefore they are justly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things He who said by me Kings reign never said by me Popes reign Kings may inherit by the Law of man or be elected by the Suffrages of men But the Regall Office and Regall Power is immediately from God No man can give that which he himself hath not The People have not power of Life and Death That must come from God By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their power to make one Father of a Country to whom doth he owe his power but to God from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ his Patriarchall power from the Church and Monarchicall power from himself After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers the subjection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mauritius the Emperor though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors and the translation of primacies by our Kings And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation first the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England Secondly their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures Thirdly because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall discipline Fourthly sundry other inconveniences to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome to have approved the Popes rebellion against generall Councels and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations Lastly the priviledge of the Britannick Churches the Popes disclaiming all his Patriarchall authority and their challenging of all this by Divâ—ne right which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome Lastly I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done All this he passeth by in silence as if it did not concern the cause at all Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope the Papacy and the Roman Church which hath been so often confuted already and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes As if all these things which are mentioned here and set down at large in the vindication were but some infirmitives or some petty faults of some few Popes I have shewed him clearly that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes but the faults of the Papacy it self And as for forsaking the Church of Rome he doth us wrong I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place that we have not forsaken it but only left their Communion in some points wherein they had left their Ancestors we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church a Mother to the Saxon Church but as a Lady or Mistrisse to no Church Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation to shew that they were insufficient The new Creed of Pius the 4 th and the withholding the Cup from the Laity Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds bâ—sides these Yet I confesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest First saith he The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation because the separation was made before the Creed He saith true if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed that did offend us But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary conditions of their Communion So as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the 4 th dealt in grosse his predecessors by retaile They fashioned the severall rods and he bound them up into a bundle He saith That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick persons as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed proposed by them to Ministers Pius the 4 th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks Seculars and Regulars to swear to his new Creed but he imposed it upon all Christians as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest they are the very words of the Bull as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved This is a greater Obligation then an Oath and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolicall Creed We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths extra quam non est salus without which there is no Salvation nor injoin Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as theologicall
Common Prayer from the beginning as an appendix to it Upon this pretended omission Bishop Bonner excepts against Bishop Horne's Ordination nor against the validitie of it what have Parliaments to doe with the essentials of Ordination but against the legality of it as to the Realm of England by reason of the former pretended omission So to take away scruple the Parliament enacted that it should be deemed good in the eye of our English Law The Parliament knew well that they had no power to make that Ordination valid in it self which was invalid in it self nor to make that invalid which was valid This had been to alter the essentials of Ordination But they had power for more abundant caution which never doth hurt to take away that scruple which was occasioned by a Statute of Queen Mary which in truth was sufficiently removed before What is this now to our Registers whether they be authentick or not No we beg no help from any civil Acts or Sanctions to maintain our Ordinations either for matter or form But we are ready to justifie them by those very rules which he saith the Councel of Trent offered to the Protestants namely Scripture Tradition Councels Fathers and especially the practice of the catholick Church But he saith we are not ordered to offer true substantial sacrifice Not expresly indeed No more were they themselves for eight hundred years after Christ and God knows how much longer No more are the Greek Church or any other Christian Church in the World except the Roman at this day Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly ordeined and admit them to exercise all offices of their Priestly Function in Rome it self which was alleged by me in the vindication and is passed over in silence by R. C. in this survey The Greeks have no more mention of a Sacrifice in their Ordination then we The grace of God promotes such a venerable Deacon to be a Presbyter yet the Church of Rome approveth their Ordination and all their other Rites so they will but only submit to the Popes spiritual Monarchy as we have seen in the case of the Patriarch of Muzall and the Russians subject to the Crown of Polonia and the like favour was offered to Queen Elizabeth upon the same condition It is not so long since Pope Gregory erected a Greek College at Rome to breed up the youth of that Nation where they have liberty of all the Greekish Rites only acknowledging the Supremacy of the Pope But though we have not express words for offering of Sacrifice nor the tradition of the Patine and the Chalice no more had their own Ancestors for a thousand yeers yet we have these words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins thou doest remit they are remitted c. Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the Word and Sacraments then which the Scriptures and Fathers did never know more which their own Doctors have justified as comprehending all essentials which being jointly considered doe include all power necessarie for the exercise of the Pastoral Office We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving a commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross a representative Sacrifice or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eies of his heavenly Father an impetrative Sacrifice or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of reall Prayer and lastly an applicative Sacrifice or an application of his merits unto our soules Let him that dare goe one step further then we doe and say that it is a suppletorie Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever Yet in his margent he hath placed a cloud of our Doctors Whitakers Morton Chillingworth Potter Fulke Reinolds Latimer without citing a syllable of what they say saving only Latimer and Reynolds that the name of Priest importeth Sacrifice or hath relation to Sacrifice In good time to doe him a courtesie we will suppose that all the rest say as much Such Sacrifice such Priest Let the Reader learn not to fear dumb shews There is nothing which any of these say which will either advantage his cause or prejudice ours Here he professeth to omit the survey of my last chapter yet because he toucheth some things in it upon the by I am obliged to attend his motion First I wonder why he should term us fugitives If we be fugitives what is he himself No we are Exules excluded out of our Countrie not profugi fugitives of our own accord from our Countrie And we hope that he who goeth on his way weeping and beareth forth good seed shall return with joy and bring his sheaves with him If not God will provide a resting place for us either under heaven or in heaven We praise thee O God we acknowledg thee to be the Lord. In the conclusion of my Treatise I proposed three ready meanes for the uniting of all Christian Churches which seemed to me very reasonable One of them was That whereas some Sects have contracted the Christian Faith over much by reviving some Heresies condemned by the primitive Church and on the other side the Church of Rome had enlarged the Christian Faith over much by making or declaring new Articles of Faith in this last age of the World the Creed or Belief of the Church containing all points of Faith necessary to be known of all Christians should be reduced to what it was in the time of the first four generall Councells I might adde and many ages after No man dare say that the Faith of the primitive Fathers was imperfect or insufficient Against this he maketh three objections first That there are no such fundamentall points of faith as Protestants imagine sufficient to salvation though other points of faith sufficiently proposed be not beleeved This objection is compounded of truth and falsehood That there are such fundamentals he himself confesseth elsewhere which are necessary not only necessiate paecepti but necessitate medii And if he did not confess it the authority of the Apostle would evince it That the belief of these alone is sufficient for the salvation of them to whom no more is revealed he dare not denie And that the beleef of these is sufficient to them who doe not beleeve other truths which are reveled unto them no Protestants did ever imagine Observe how cunningly he confounds the state of the question The question is not what is necessarie for a man to beleeve for himself This is as different as the degrees of mens knowledg but what may lawfully be imposed upon all men or what may be exacted upon other men to whom it is not revealed or to whom we doe not know whether it be revealed or not Then if he would have objected any thing materiall to the purpose he should have said That the beleef of
is a Murtherer What will it avail a man to be a Catholick in the eie of the World and a Schismatick in the eie of God to be a Member of the visible Church and to be cast into utter darkness He is not a Iew who is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh But he is a Iew who is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the heart So he is not a Catholick who is one outwardly but he who is a Catholick inwardly whose praise is not of men but of God Then I set down wherein the externall Communion of Catholicks doth consist in the same Creeds or Confessions of faith in the participation of the same Sacraments in the same Liturgies or divine Offices in the use of the same publick Rites and Ceremonies in the communicatory Letters and admission of the same Dâ—scipline These observations about the parts of the Catholick Communion are so innocent so indifferent and so unsubserviant to either party that I hoped they might pass without any censure But behold there is not one of them can escape an exception To the first part of Catholick communion in the same Creeds he takes two exceptions first That communion in faith is pretended a sufficient excuse from true Schism Fear it not no man dreameth that communion with the Church in her Creed doth acquit from Schism but not communicating with the Church in her Creed doth make both Schism and Heresie The having of faith doth not supplie the want of Charity but the want of one necessary requisite renders the having of another insufficient Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis malum ex quolibet defectu His second Exception is That true saving faith requireth not only a communion in the Creed but in all Gods words cleerly revealed to him and sufficiently proposed I answer What is necessary for this man at this time in this place is one thing what is necessary for all Christians at all times in all places is another thing Though all revealed truths be alike necessary to be beleeved when they are known yet all revealed truths are not alike necessary to be known And they who know them not are not obliged to communicate in the beleefe of them untill they know them So to beleeve them when they are revealed to us is a necessary duty of all Christians And yet the explicite beliefe of them is no necessary part of Christian communion He that holds fast the old Creed of the Church hath all things that are absolutely necessary in point of Faith Perhaps he thinks that the determination of the Roman Church is a sufficient proposall we know no such thing Let him first win the privilige and then enjoy it To the second and third parts of Catholick Communion he objects That it is not sufficient to participate in Catholick Sacraments unless it be done with Catholicks This is true How can they be parts of Catholick Communion if no Catholicks doe participate of them But here are two advertisements necessary the one that Sacraments purely administred and Sacraments corruptly administred so long as the abuses doe not destroy the essence are the same Sacraments As Baptisme administred in pure water and Baptisme administred with salt and spittle also is the same Baptisme The other that it is not any Church of one denomination whatsoever either Roman or other that either is the Catholick Church or is to judge under Christ who are true Catholicks There are many more Catholicks without the Roman Communion than within it Our Separatists in England having first laid their own drowsie conceits for infallable grounds that their Discipline is the Scepter of Christ that they alone are Zion and all other societies Babilon then they apply all the power and priviledges and prerogatives of the Church unto themselves So the Church of Rome having flattered it self into an opinion that she alone is the Catholick Church and all other Churches divided from her hereticall or schismaticall Conventicles though they be three or four times larger than her self presently laies hold on the keies of the Church opens and shuts le ts in and thrusts out makes Catholicks and unmakes Catholicks at her pleasure He tels us That the Communion of the Church doth not necessarily imply the same Rites and Ceremonies I know it right well The Queens Daughter was arraied in a Garment wrought about with divers colours No men have been so much too blame as the Church of Rome in obtruding indifferent Rites as necessary duties upon other Churches But yet the more harmony and uniformity that there is in Rites the greater is the Communion The Church is compared to an Army with banners What a disorderly Army would it be if every Souldier was left free to wear his own colours and to give his own words I know the Communion of the Church did not consist in communicatory Letters but they were both expressions and excellent helpes and adjuments of unity and antidotes against Schism What he saith now the third time of our communicating with Schismaticks hath been answered already Wherefore saith he since I. D. hath failed so many waies in defining Schism let us define it better And then he brings in his definition triumphantly True Schism is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church that is in some essentiall of Christian Religion Where lies the difference I call it a separation and he calles it a division I say culpable and he saith voluntary omnis culpa est voluntaria My expressions are more significant and emphaticall All the difference lies in these words in some substantiall part of the true Church Which for the form of expression is improper to make essentiall properties to be substantiall parts and for the matter is most untrue for there have been are and may be many Schismes which doe not concern any essentialls of Christian Religion I would borrow one word more with him why he calles it rather a division of the true Church than a division from the true Church I know some Roman Catholicks have doubted and suspended their judgements whether Schismaticks be still Members of the Catholick Church others have determined that they are And we are of the same minde that in part they doe remain still coupled and mortised to the Church that is in those things wherein they have made no separation ex ea parte in texturae compage detinentur in caetera scissi sunt And that in this respect the Catholick Church by their baptism doth beget Sonnes and Daughters to God And we think we have St. Austin for us in this also Vna est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur quicquid suum habet in Communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis per hoc quod suum in iis habet ipsa utique generat non illae This perhaps is contrary to R. C. his opinions howsoever we thank him for
produce no Schism whilest one Church did not condemn another and all did submit themselves to the determination of a generall Councell as the highest Judge of controversies upon Earth The reason of their agreement was plainly this because all Churches received the primitive Creed and no Church exacted more in point of Faith then the primitive Creed It would better become the Church of Rome to repent of their rash temerarious censure in excluding above three parts of the Christian World from the communion of Saints out of passion and self interest because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Bishop no more then their predecessors did before them from the beginning If these dispersed and despised multitudes of Christians would but submit to the Roman yoke their religion would be found orthodox enough and they would no longer be held a masse of Monsters and a Hydra of many Heads but passe muster for good Catholicks Take an instance or two Of all these multitudes of Christians the Assyrians or the Nestorians have not the best repute Yet when Elias a pety Patriarch of Muzall submitted to the Bishop of Rome and sent the confession of his Faith it was found to be Orthodox Of later daies about the yeer 1595. when part of the Russians subject to the Crown of Poland submitted themselves to the Papacy because they could not have free accesse to the Patriarch of Constantinople in their submission they articled for the free exercise of the Greek Religion To come neerer home This is certain that Pius the 4 th sent Vincentio with Letters of Credence to Queen Elizabeth with secret instructions for he intreated her in his Letter to give the same credit to his Agent which she would doe to himselfe If these instructions were not written we need not wonder Such instructions are not to be seen publickly unlesse they take effect But some of our Authours of great note in these daies write positively others probably upon common report that he offered the Popes confirmation of the English Liturgy and the free use of the Sacrament in both kindes c. so she would join with the Romish Church and acknowledge the primacy of the Chair of Rome It is interest not Religion that makes Catholicks and Hereticks or Schismaticks with the Court of Rome Lastly all these famous Churches or the most of them which he calls multitudes of Christians have a perfect concord both among themselves with the primitive Church in all essentials How should it be otherwise whilest they hold the same Creed without addition or subtraction They agree in most lesser truths They hold their old Liturgies and forms of administration of the Sacraments with lesse variation then the Church of Rome If there be some differences among them the Romanists have as great among themselves One of these Churches alone the Church of Constantinople hath as many dependents and adherents as all the Churches of the Roman communion put together And I believe a greater harmony within it self in Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Whereas he chargeth me that I professe to communicate with the Catholick Church only in fundamentals not in any other thing he wrongs me much but himself more For I professe my self ready to adhere to the united communion of the true Catholick Church in all things whether they be fundamentals or no fundamentals whether they be credenda or agenda things to be believed or to be practised He saith the Church of Rome is not homogenall with the Protestant Church This is true qua tales as they are Roman and Protestant The Roman Church is not a Protestant Church nor the Protestant Church a Roman Church Yet both the one and the other may be homogeneous Members of the Catholick Church Their difference in essentials is but imaginary Yet he goes about to prove it by three arguments First An Indolatrous Church differs essentially from a true Church But he saith I charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the adoration of the Sacrament Judge Reader if this be not like the envious man in the Fable who was contented to have one of his own Eies put out that his fellow might lose both his Eies He had rather his own Church should be questioned of Idolatry then that the Protestant Church should be a coheire with her of Salvation Because the Eare is not the Eie is it therefore not of the Body In the places alleged by him I doe not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry In the one place I speak of the adoration of the Sacrament as an abuse but not one word of Idolatry In the other place I speak of the peril of Idolatry but not a word of the adoration of the Sacrament If he cite his Authors after this manner he may prove what he list Again The Sacrament is to be adored said the Councel of Trent That is formally the body and blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament that is the species of Bread and Wine say others That we deny and esteem it to be Idolatrous Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry for the error of a party Lastly I answer that a true Church out of invincible ignorance may fall into material Idolatry He himself confesseth that it may fall in materiall Heresie and Schism And Schism with him is worse then Idolatry Though the Church of Rome doe give divine worshâ—p to the Creature or at least a party among them yet I am so charitable as to hope that they intend it to the Creator From the adoration of Sacrament he passeth to justification by speciall Faith only and from thence to the propitiatory Sacrifice in the Masse As if two Churches could not differ about any questions nay not in the forms of expression but presently the one of them must cease to be a true Church I dare say that when I have declared my Faith in these two particulars he dare not step one step beyond me Or if he doe he steps into a manifest errour I doe acknowledge tâ—ne inherent righteousnesse in this life though imperfect by which a Christian is rendred truly just as Gold is true Gold though it be mixed with some drosse But if justification be opposed to condemnation and signify a legall acquittall from guilt formerly contracted as It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth Then it is the free Grace of God that justifieth us for the merits of Christ by the new evangelicall Covenant of believing But where doth the Church of England teach that man is justified by speciall Faith Now here He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that is a part of the Catholick Faith But I believe and am Baptized that is justifying Faith Therefore I shall be saved that is speciall Faith There may be Catholick Faith without justifying Faith and justifying Faith without speciall Faith because a man
against him the Pope who was his Lord. But now supposing all R. C. his suggestions had been true That Cranmer and Crumwell had been Protestants at that time and had been in as much grace and had had the like opportunity of addresse to the King as they had afterwards that Cranmer had perswaded the King as a Divine and Crumwell as a Polititian to separate from the Court of Rome And that Barnes had preached against the Popes Supremacy Yet this is farre from the authoritative separation of the whole Church and Kingdome from the Court of Rome Morall perswasions may incline but cannot necessitate the will Therefore not confiding to these broken Reeds at length he admits that Roman Catholicks were the Authors of the saparation Be it so that Roman Catholicks were the authors of the division that is worse for Protestants because then Protestants continue a wicked Schism wicked begun against conscience against known truth and consequently a sin against the holy Ghost And to make his assertion good he produceth the authority of Optatus It appeareth evidently that you are the heirs of Schismaticks He who reads this would believe that Optatus spake positively of Protestants when he speaks only of Donatists cum haec itâ— gesta esse manifestissime constet vos haeredes esse traditorum Schismaticorum evidenter appareat Seeing it is most evident that these things did fall out thus that is that Majorinus whose Chair Parmenianus did now possesse did divide himself from the communion of Caecilianus and set up a Chair against a Chair in the same Church or a new Chair quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat and seeing Majorianus was a traditor and a Schismatick it appears evidently that Parmenian was the heire of a Schismatick Now what doth this concern us The Donatists set up a new Chair against an old Chair in the same Church we have done no such thing God make us able to keep up tha old Secondly the Donatists separated themselves from all other Churches we separate our selves from no Churches neither from the Chair of Caecilian nor of Peter nor of Cyprian But if we would know not only who are the heirs of the Donatists but who are their heirs in their Schism we may finde them easily It is the Roman Catholicks themselves first in their uncharitablenesse in breaking the bond of brotherly unity The Catholicks owned the Donatists for their brethren but the Donatists refused to own the Catholicks for their brethren quamvie illi non negent omnibus not um sit c. Although they deny it not and it is known to all men that they hate us and accurse us and will not be called our brethren yet c. without doubt they are our brethren And a little after And because they will not have the Episcopall College common with us let them not be our fellow Collegians if they will not yet as I said before they are our brethren This is just the case between them and us we offer them the right hand of brotherhood as the Catholicks did to the Donatists but they refuse it as the Donatists did to the Catholicks Secondly the Donatists separated the whole Catholick Church from their communion and substituted themselves being but a small part of the Christian World in the place of the Catholick Church Just as the Romanists doe at this day Optatus speaks home unto them both the old and new Donatists Se pro voluntate vestra inangustum coarctatis Ecclesiam c. If ye for your pleasure doe thrust the Church into a streit if ye substract all Nations where is that which the Son of God hath merited where is that which the Father hath given him I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession Why doe you infringe this promise Or imprison this universall Kingdome c. Suffer the Son to possesse his Fathers gift Suffer the Father to fulfill his promise Why doe you set bounds and limits And still ye endeavour to perswade men that the Church is only with you Let the Reader judge who are the right heirs of the Donatists The rest of his discourse is a groundlesse asking of the question First those Roman Catholicks did make no separation from the Roman Church but from the Roman Court. Secondly they separated from the Roman Court only in its innovations without criminous Schism Thirdly we cannot we dare not be so uncharitable as to judge that the whole Kingdome and all the Pastors of the Church did sinne against their conscience but we believe firmly that it was the clear light and evidence of truth that made them so unanimous in their separation Fourthly though they had sinned against the known truth not being done of malice it was not the sinne against the holy Ghost St. Peter did not sinne against the holy Ghost when he denied Christ. Fiftly though they had sinned against conscience in separating yet the fault being not in the thing done but in the conscience of the doer we being better informed may with a good conscience hold what they with a bad conscience did take away Lastly though they had sinned not only in separating against conscience but also in the very act of separation Yet we who found the separation made to our hands who never did any act either to oblige us to Rome or to disoblige us from Rome holding what we received from our Ancestors and endeavoring to finde out the truth and ready to receive it whensoever God shall reveal it unto us are not censurable as Schismaticks as I proved out of Saint Austine though R. C. be pleased to take no notice of it Here he makes a short double and will needs have Henry the eight to have been a substantiall Protestant If he was a Protestant doubtlesse he was a substantiall Protestant But why a Protestant Doctor Barnes and many more who were burned by him for Protestants would hardly have believed it But he saith Henry the eight was an Antipapist and that is sufficient to make a Protestant If that be sufficient to make a Protestant it is well otherwise one of his friends tels us We had a King who by his Lawes abolished the authority of the Pope although in all other things he would follow the Faith of his Ancestors Lately he tould us that the essence and life and soul and definition of a Protestant was to hold justification by Faith alone then Henry the eight was no Protestant for he did not hold justification by Faith alone Now he makes the essence of a Protestant to be impugning the Popes Supremacy I had not thought essences or definitions had been so mutable but for my part I am glad of the change If all Antipapists be Protestants then all the Grecian Armenian Abyssen Russian Christians are Protestants then we shall not want Protestants to bear us company in
the same with theirs we are no Schismaticks because we doe not censure them uncharitably If we say they be not the same we are still no Schismaticks because we had then by their own confession just reason to separate from them But to come up closer to his argugument Religion is a virtue which consisteth between two eâ—treams Heresie in the defect and Superstition in the excess Though their Church Religion and holy Orders be the same with ours and free from all hereticall defects yet they may â—e and are subject to superstitious excesses Their Church hath sundâ—y blemishes Their Religion is mixed with errors And gross abuses have crept into their holy Orders From these superstitious errors and abuses we were obliged to separate our selves wherein they had first separated themselves from their Predecessors So if there be Schism in the case it was Schism in them to make the first separation and Virtue and Pietie in us to make the second I said most truly that our positive Articles are those generall truths about which there is no controversie Our negation is only of humane controveâ—ted additions Against this he excepts sundry wayes First Because our principall positive Article is that of justification by speciall Faith which as he saith is most of all in controversie Aquinas makes a great difference between opinari and credere between a scholasticall opinion and a necessary Article of Faith Sometimes the understanding doth fluctuate indifferently between the two parts of the contradiction and this is properly doubting Sometimes it inclineth more to the one part then to the other yet not without some fear or suspicion of the truth of the other part This is properly opinion Sometimes the understanding is determined so as to adhere perfectly to the one part And this determination proceeds either from the intelligible object mediately or immediately and this makes knowledge Or from the will upon consideration of the authority and truth of the revealer and this makes faith Justification by speciall faith was never accounted an Article of the English belief either by the English Church or by any genuine Son of the English Church If he trust not me let him read over our Articles and reading satisfie himself I confess some particular persons in England did sometimes broach such a private Opinion but our most learned and judicious Professors did dislike it altogether at that time as I have heard from some of themselves But shortly after it was in a manner generally rejected as Franciscus a Sancta Clara ingeniously confesseth jam hic novus error vix natus apud nostrates sepultus est and now this new error being scarcely born among our Country-men was buried And more plainly elsewhere quibus omnibus bene pensatis saenè nulla bodie reperietur differentia in confessione Anglica sanctissima definitione Tridentina all which things being duely weighed truly there will be found noe difference at this day in the English confession and the sacred definition of the Tridentine Councell meaning about this Subject of justification But saith he if they be not points of our Faith what doe they in our confessions of Faith I answer they are inserted into our confessions not as supplements of our Creed or new Articles but as explanations of old Articles and refutations of their supposititious Principles Contraries being placed together by one another doe make one another more apparent He proceedeth Have not Protestants a positive faith of their negative Articles as wâ—ll as of their positive Articles Commandements may be either affirmative or negative and the negative Commandements binde more firmely then the affirmative because the affirmative binde alwaies but not to the actuall exercise of obedience at all times semper but not ad semper But negative Commandements binde both semper and ad semper both alwaies and to all times But we finde no negatives in the rule of Faith For the rule of Faith consists of such supernaturall truths as are necessary to be known of every Christian not only necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded us to beleeve them but also necessitate medii because without the knowledge of them in some tollerable degree according to the measure of our capacities we cannot in an ordinary way attain to salvation How can a negative be a means Non entis nulla est efficacia In the Apostles Creed from the beginning to the end we finde not the least negative Particle And if one or two negatives were added in the subsequent ages as that begotten not made in the Nicene Creed they were added not as new Articles but as explanations of the old to meet with some emergent errors or difficulties just as our negatives were Yea though perhaps some of our negatives were revealed truths and consequently were as necessary to be beleeved when they are known as affirmatives yet they doe not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion as make up the rule of Faith I suppose yet further that though some of our negatives can be deduced from the positive fundamentall Articles of the Creed some evidently some probably as the necessity of the consequence is more or less manifest For it is with consequences as it was with Philo's row of iron Rings the first that touched the Load-stone did hang more firmely the rest which were more remote still more loosly I say in such a case that no man was bound to receive them either as Articles or as Consequences but only he that hath the light to see them nor he further then the evidence doth invite him And howsover they are no new Articles but Corollaries or deductions from the old So grossly is he mistaken on all sides when he saith that Protestants he should say the English Church if he would speak to the purpose have a positive beleefe that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. Which were to contradict the words of Christ this is my body He knowes better that Protestants doe not deny the thing but their bold determination of the manner by transubstantiation themselveâ— confessing that the manner is incomprehensible by humane reason Neither doe Protestants place it among the Articles of the Faith but the opinions of the Schools He acknowledgeth That if I had a true preparation of minde to beleeve whatsoever the true reall Catholick Church universally beleeveth and practiseth the matter were ended But he addeth that by the Catholick Church I mean an imaginary Church or multitude of whatsoever Christians Catholicks Hereticks Schismaticks wâ—â— agree in fundamentall points but disagree in other points of Faith and wholy in communion of Sacraments and ministery of them I accept this offer and I tie him to his word If he stand to this ground there are no more controversies between him and me for the future but this one what is the true Catholick Church whether the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents or the Church of the whole
all fundamentals is not sufficient to salvation unless other points of Faith be imposed or obtruded upon all men whether they be revealed or not revealed to them And this had been directly contrary to the plain Decree of the general Councel of Ephesus That no new Creeds nor new points of faith should be imposed upon Christians more then the Creed then received His second objection is this though there were such fundamentals yet seeing Protestant confess they know not which they are one cannot know by them who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church I doe not blame either Protestants or others especially private and particular persons if they be very tender in setting down precisely what points of faith are absolutely necessary to salvation the rather because it is a curious needless and unprofitable salvation Since the blesed Apostles have been so provident for the Church as to deposite and commit to the custody thereof the Creed as a perfect Rule and Canon of Faith which comprehendeth all doctrinall points which are absolutely necessary for all Christians to salvation it were great folly and ingratitude in us to wrangle about circumstances or about some substantiall points of lesser concernment whether they be so necessary as others This is sufficient to let us know who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church in point of faith even all those Churches which hold the Apostles Creed as it is expounded in the four first generall Councels His third and last objection followeth All points of faith sufficiently proposed are essentiall and fundamentall nor can any such point be disbeleeved without infidelity and giving the lie to God as Protestants sometimes confess If by sufficient proposall he understand the proposall of the Church of Rome I deny both parts of his assertion Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome which are neither fundamentall truths nor inferior truths but errors which may be disbeleeved without either infidelity or sin Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent then they satisfie one another what this infallible proponent is If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent or be not assured who this infallible proponent is the proposition may be disbeleeved without giving God the lie But if by sufficient proposall he understand Gods actuall revelation of the truth and the conviction of the conscience then this third objection is like the first partly true and party false The later part of it is true that whatsoever is convinced that God hath revealed any thing and doth not beleeve it giveth God the lie and this the Protestants doe alwaies affirm But the former part of it is still false All truths that are revealed are not therefore presently fundamentalls or essentialls of faith no more then it is a fundamentall point of faith that Saint Paul had a Cloak That which was once an essentiall part of the Christian faith is alwaies an essentiall part of the Christian faith that which was once no essentiall is never an essentiall How is that an essentiall part of saving faith whithout which Christians may ordinarily be saved But many inferior truths are revealed to particular persons without the actuall knowledge whereof many others have been saved and they themselves might have been saved though those truths had never been proposed or revealed to them Those things which may adesse or abesse be present or absent known or not known beleeved or not beleeved without the destruction of saving faith are no essentialls of saving faith In a word some things are necessary to be beleeved when they are known only because they are revealed otherwise conducing little or it may be nothing to salvation Some other things are necessary to be beleeved not only because they are revealed but because beleef of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation These are those are not essentialls or fundamentalls of saving faith Another means of reunion proposed by me in the vindication was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of soveregin Jurisdiction jure divino to his exordium unitatis and to have his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sense of the Councels of Constance and Basile Against this he pleadeth first That ancient Popes practised or challenged Episcopall or pastorall Authority over all Christians jure divino in greater Ecclesiasticall causes And for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine To which I answer first that the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches had ever great Authority among all Christians and great influence upon the Church as honorable Arbitrators and faithfull Depositaries of the Genuine Apostolicall tradition but none of them ever exercised sovereign Jurisdict ion over over all Christians Secondly I answer that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes upon which their claim of universall Sovereignty jure divino is principally grounded are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits Thirdly I answer that ancient Popes in their genuine Writings doe not claim nor did practise monarchicall Power over the catholick Church much less did they claim it jure divino but what Powet they held they held by prescription and by the Canons of the Fathers who granted sundry priviledges to the Church of Rome in honor to the memory of St. Peter and the Imperiall City of Rome And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their Authority from the Councell of Nice though without ground which they would never have done if they had held it jure divino And for answer to Bellarmine whom he only mentioneth in generall I referre him to Doctor Field In the next place he citeth Saint Heirome that Christ made one Head among the twelve to avoid Schism And how much more necessary faith R. C. is such a Head in the universall Church It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierosme But thou saiest the Church is founded upon St. Peter The same is done in another place upon all the Apostles they all receive the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all I have shewed him formerly in answer to this place that in a body endowed with power as the Church is an Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against Schism His how much more should be how much less a single person is more capable of the government of a small society then of the whole world After this he citeth Melanchon As there are some Bishops who govern diverse Churches the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops and this Canonicall policy I think no-wise man doth disallow I cannot in present procure that century of Theologicall Epistles but I have perused Melancthons Epistles published by Casper Pucerus wherein I finde no such Epistle I examine not whether this Epistle by him cited be genuine or
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
Latins Hereticks and Schismaticks and principally upon this ground of the Popes claim of a spiritual Monarchy And that Gerson apprehended their words in this sense it may appear by the context His position is this that men ought not generally to be bound by the positive determinations of Popes to hold and beleeve one and the same forme of government in things that do not immediately concerne the truth of our Faith and the Gospel From thence he proceedeth to set down some different Customes of the Greek Latine Churches both which he doth justifie citing S. Austin to proove that in all such things the custome of the country is to be observed And among the rest of the differences this was one that the Greek Church paid not such Subsidies and Duties as the Gallicane Church did It seemeth that the Pope would have exacted them and that thereupon the Grecians did separate from him using this free expression potentiam tuam recognoscimus avaritiam tuam implere non possumus vivite per vos We know thy might we are not able to satisfie thy covetousness live by your selves And from thence the aforesaid author draweth this conclusion that per hanc consider ationem bene captam c. upon this consideration they might proceed to the reformation of the French Church and the liberties thereof notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make There is not one word or syllable herein that maketh against me but there is both the practise of the Greek Church the opinions of Gerson for the justification of our Reformation and Seperation from the Court of Rome FINIS Sect. 1. Three Essentials of a true Church Great difference between a true Church and a perfect Church Actuall want of essentials not conclusive to God Ch 8. Sect. 3. Particular Rites Formes Opinions no Essentials Schism is not always about esentials Schism is not a greater sin than Idolatry 1. Cor. 10.10.21 Aust. l. 1. de bapt c. 8. Opt l. 1. Aust. Ep. 48. ibidem 1 Tivi 2.17 There may be just cause of separation no just cause of Schâ—sm C. 2. S 6 Particular Churches may give just cause of separation C. 2 Sect. 4. Pref p. 20. Rom. 3.8 Inf. unmask ch 7. sect 112 p. 534. Lib. 2. cont ep Parmen e. 11. Sect. 2. Proâ—â—stans have forsaken no ancient Churches in Sacraments 1. Cor. 19 Math. 26.27 Sect. 3. The true cause of the separation of some Protestants Psal. 19. Essences of things are indivisible destroied by addition as well as subtraction How the Church of Rome is and is not a true Church 1 Cor. 13.12 Iohn 4.22 Eph. 5.26 We have not left the Roman Church in essentialls Con. eph p. 2. Act 6 c 7. Aust ep 118. Nor differ in substance from the Roman Church Aust y. 1. de hapt c. 8. It is not lawfull or prudent to leave the English Church and adhere to the Roman for fear of Schism The present Church of Rome departed out of the ancient Church of Rome Sect. 4. 1 Cor. 13.9 12. Iam. 2.1 To communicate with Schismaticks is not alwaies Schism Sozâ—m l 4 â— 19 The Church of England doth not communicate with Schismaticks 1 Cor. 1.2 11. c. 15 12. Rev 2.14 15.20 Sect. 1. Objections against the Church of England in point of Schisme are colourable not forcible Authors ought to be cited fully and faithfully Protestants conâ—esse no separation from the universall Church I hil c. 3 p. 132. c. 1 s. 1. Nor from the Roman but only in her errors 1. Pâ—t 4. 8. Phil 3 15. Sect. 5. Not the separation but the cause makes the Schism It is necessary to Salvation to forsake known errours C. 9. Sect. 5 Our reformation no separation 2 Gal 9. Aâ—t 30. Lawfull to communicate with the Eastern Churches Calv. epâ—st 141. Ratio ordinis discipline Fratrum Bohemo rum ibid. Calvin no enemy to Episcopacy Epist. ad Mart. Schaling Epl. ad Reg. Polo mae Calv. ep Impres Gen. an 1570. pag. 340. Ep. ad R. Polon 4 Inst. c. 18. sect 18. Doctor Potter cleared Ch. 9. Sect. 5. Ibid Sect. 2. p. 49. â—el l 2. de Eccl Mâ—l c 6. Aust de Veâ— Reâ— c. 6. Ibid. And Master Chillingwoâ—â—h p 245. p. 312. p. 191. 6.5 p. 273. Teâ—t L. 4 Cont. Don c. 23. c. 5. P. 302. As great differences among the Romanists as between them and the Eastern Churches or us C. 1. S. 13. Sect. 2. c. 2. s. 3. Whâ—thâ—r all those be Schismaticks who want Bishops The Romanists no fit persons to object Schism to Protestants c 2. s 6. 5. c. 2. s. 8. The Church of England had better grounds than personall faults of Popes Inf. c. 7 s Sect. 1. P. 8. P. 12. P. 16. All Schisme is not in essentials Bar. Annal an 878. Antimachâ—aveil in â—â—ist ad Lect. Errours in faith obtruded justifie a separation Sect. 2. Meâ—â—rall Schâ—sm 1 Iohn 3. 15. Rom 2 29. Sect. 3. Communion in all points of faith not necessary alwayes Sacraments purely and corruptly administred the same Sacraments Sect. 4. Schismaticks in part doe stâ—ll remain in the Catholick Church Aâ—â—t l. 1. dâ— bapt cont Donâ—istas Idemo 10 Aug. ep 48. R. C. his confession Sect. 5. The Britannick Churches never judged Schismaticks Sect. 6. What is the true Catholick Church Inâ—erest makes Catholickâ— with the Court of Rome Thâ—m a Iesu. cited by Doctor Field l. 3 c. 1. 〈◊〉 ibid. Babing upon Numbers c 7. Cam Annal Elis. An. 1560. Sect. 7. The Church of Rome is materially Idolatrous 1 Cor. 12.16 Bell l. 4. â—e Sac. Euch. c. 29 Speciall Faith is no Article of our Creed Rom. 8 33 Mark 16.16 Papists can pretend to no other Sacrifice then Protestants Bell l 1. de Mâ—sâ— c. 25. Sect. 8. 4 Waies to incurre hereticall pravity Bell. de Eccles. milit l. 3. c. 15. The Power of general Councâ—ls The Popes câ—nfirmation addes noâ—hing to general Councels Platina Acquiescence to the decrees of a generall Councell is necessary 1 Cor 9. Bell de Ro. pont c. 4. c. 2. Sect. 9. Mixt ordination The English Church lawfully established Not lawfully suppressed The English Church nor deaâ— But under persecution Sect. 10. â— 4. cont Cresion c. 61. Sect. 1. Protestants not Authors of the Schism Hiâ—t Conc. Trid an 1538. Sect. 2. The Parliament not compelled Camd. An. Eliz. anno 1559. Bishop Gardiner Speed in Hen. 8. c. 21 n. 1 c 5. De vera obâ—dientia in fine Archbishop Cranmer Speed Baker c. in Henr. 8. Image of both Churches second edition pag. 413. Sand de Schism pag 115. Sacrificio missae intersuit quotidie dum regnabat Henricus Crumwell Barnes Speed l. 9. c. 21. L 1. Cont. Parm. Papists are the right Heirs of the Donâ—rists not Protestants Opt. l 1. Cont. Par. inâ—initio Opt. l. 2. Cont. Parm. in initio Psal. 2. Roman Catholâ—cks sinnâ—d not against conscience in their sâ—paration Henry the eight no Protestant â—ul
Ecclesiasticall causes Hist conc Trid. An. 1544 An. 1545. An. 1548. The Oath of Supremacy justified Sand. de Schism p 59. De Schis Ang p. 57. Hail an 22. H. 8. Pol de Conc Resp. ad qu 74. 75. 1 Pet. 2.13 Aâ—t â—ccl Angl. Art 37. Memor de Samag Catholicâ— cap. 10. A Sancta Clara. Expos. Parapb in Art 37 Ibidem Sect. 2. No contradiction in my words Sect. 3. Constantine Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. Theodorit l. 1. c. 11. Euseb. de vita Constant l. 1. c. 35. Idem l 3. c. 23 Euseb. hist. l. 10. c. 5. Aust. epist. 162. Euseb hist. l. 10. c. 6. Socrat. l. 1. c. 22. Sozom l. 2. c. 27. Euseb. de vit Const. l. 1. c. 37. Theodor. l. 1. c. 19 Valentinian Theodosius Socrat l 7. c. 22. Evagr. l. 9. c. 12. Valentinian the elder Sozo l. 6 c. 7. Idem l. 6. c. 6. Theod. l 4 c 7 8. cod Thâ—od l 4. c. 5. In praemio l. 5. Basilius An. 869. Charles the great Albert Crantz metr l. 1. c. 7. Vindicat. c. 7. pag. 167. Epist. ad Ioan. 2. in Cedice Iustinian Sup. c. 4. sect 1. L 2. Cont. Petili c. 51. Sup c. 2. s. 4 infid unmasked c. 7 s. 112. p. 534. Indulgences The excommunication of Henry the eighth Sect. 2. Bâ—â— Pii 4. The Church of Rome no foundation of Christians Rev. 21.24 l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. 1 Pet 5.1 Sect. 3. The Church of Rome obtrudeth new Articles of Faith and excommunicateth for not receiving them An. 1564. An. 1569. The Papacy a cause of separation Bull. Pauli 4. The Pope excommunicates the Eastern Churches No Recusants in England or few in the beginning of Q Elizabeths reign The disclosing of the great Bull. Camd Elizab an 1â—70 Image of both Chuâ—ches edit an 1653 p. 442. Camd. Elizab. an 1559. More Protestants suffer now then Roman Catholicks at the Reformation Acworth Cont. Sander l. 2. p. 197. Sect. 4 Vind. c 6. s. A generall Councell complete without the Pope Greg l. 1. epist. 24 Bron. Annot in Conc. 5. The Decree of the Councel of Constance for its superiority above the Pope lawfail Sect. 1. Some Rom. Cath. formal Schismaticks The present Roman Church dâ—parted out of the ancient Roman Church And which is worse out of the Catholick Church Lib 2. Gent. Pet. c. 38. The Romanists true Donatists Ibid. Sect. 1. 2. The Roman Church not the Catholick Church L. de unit c. 6. If denyall of the Popes Supremacy maketh Protestants the World is full of Protestanns Our separation not in essentialls The Eastern Churches true parts of the catholick Church Sect. 3. The Councell of Trent not general Nor free Nor lawfull Hist Conc. Tâ—id l. 2. an 1545. The Protestants not condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople but the Romanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Knolles Turk bist in the life of Am. â— p. 1503. Ib p. 1500. Sect. 4. Why R C. not willing to argue of the Popes Patriarchall Power Answ. to the pres S. c. 1. s. 1. 1 Pet. 3.20 The Church of Rome St. Petes. Boat not Noahs Arke Our charity freeth us from Schism Sect. 6. Cal. Inst. l. 4 c. 1. c. Sect. 5. Sup. c. 1. sect 1. Sect. 6. Our Ordination justified Greg. Resp. ad Int. 8. August Continuation of the Tuck Histin the life of Amurath 4. No diffrence about sacrifice if rightly understood Sect. 7. There are fundamentalls Hebr. 5.12 and c. 6.1 c. How much is necessary to be beleeved to salvation ordinarily All revealed truths not essâ—ntialls Ancient Popes challenged not sovereignty jure divino Of the Church l. 5. a c. 31. ad c. 36. L. 2 Cont. Iovin Sup. c. 5. sect 1. Cent. Epist. Theol. ep 74. A moderate Papacy might prove usefull but dangerous Mont. Orig. Eccles. part post p. 185. The Conclusion Epist. 161. Vind. ch 4. pag. 86. â—â— H 8. c. â—2 16 R. 2. c. 5. Malm. l. 1. de Gâ—st pont Aug. Reg. Honed in h. â— 20. H. 3. c. 9. Stat. Clarendo Stat. CarLile Art Cleri 25 Ed. 3. 37 Ed. 3. ch â— â—6 Rich. 2. c. â— Placit an 1. H. 7. Placit an 32. 34. Edv 1. Ch. 7. p. 196. Ch. â— L. 2. de Roâ— Pont. c. 3â— Act. 16. Britt histâ— L. 11. c. 3. Pag. 106 Dialog de Eccles. Mcne distinct 3. Nilus de primatis 1. Cor. 3.12 C. 3. Sect. 4. Sop. cap. 3. Sect. 4. Eph. 4.4 Eph. 5. â— Bernard de consider l. 4. De concil l. 2 c. 17. De concil l. 2. c. 13. De Roma Pont. l. 4. c. 22. 24 Judg. 6. Bellarmâ—ce concil l. 1. c. 17. Pag. 24â— Vind. pag 101. Gers. p. 4. Serm. de pace unit Cyril considerat â—â—