A Replication TO THE BISHOP of CHALCEDON HIS Survey of the Vindication OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND FROM Criminous Schism Clearing the English Laws from the aspertion of Cruelty With an Appendix in answer to the exceptions of S. W. By the right Reverend JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. and Lord Bishop of Derry LONDON Printed by K. H. for Iohn Crook at the signe of the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1656. To the Christian Reader CHristian Reader of what Communion soever thou beest so thou beest within the Communion of the oecumenicall Church either in act or in desire I offer this second Treatise of Schism to thy serious view and unpartiall Iudgment The former was a Vindication of the Church of England this later is a Vindication of my self or rather both are Vindications of both In vindicating the Church then I did vindicate my self And in vindicating my self now I doe vindicate the Church What I have performed I doe not say I dare not judg the most moderate men are scarcely competent judges of their own works No man can justly blame me for honouring my spiritual Mother the Church of England in whose wombe I was conceived at whose brests I was nourished and in whose bosome I hope to die Bees by the instict of nature doe love their hives and Birds their nests But God is my witness that according to my uttermost talent and poor understanding I have endeavored to set down the naked truth impartially without either favor or prejudice the two capital enemies of right judgment The one of which like a fals mirror doth represent things fairer and straighter then they are the other like the tongue infected with choler makes the sweetest meats to taste bitter My desire hath been to have truth for my chiefest friend and no enemy but error If I have had any byasse it hath been desire of peace which our common Saviour left as a Legacy to his Church that I might live to see the re-union of Christendome for which I shall alwaies bow the knees of my heart to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. It is not impossible but that this desire of unity may have produced some unwilling error of love but certainly I am most free from the willfull love of error In questions of an inferior natu re Christ regards a charitaable intention much more then a right opinion Howsoever it be I submit my self and my poor indeavors first to the judgment of the Catholick oecumenicall essentiall Church which if some of late daies have indeavored to hisse out of the Schools as a fancy I cannot help it From the beginning it was not so And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorace which for my part I have no reason in the World to suspect yet it is not impossible when the Romanists themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what â—his catholick Church or what their infallible Iudg is I doe implicitly and in the preparation of my minde submit my self to the true catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the Pillar of Truth And seeing my adherence is firmer to the infallible rule of Faith that is the holy Scriptures interpreted by the catholick Church then to mine own private judgment or opinions although I should unwittingly fall into an error yet this cordiall submission is an implicite retractation thereof and I am confident will be so accepted by t he Father of merâ—â—â—s both from me 〈…〉 and sincerely 〈…〉 â—th Likew◠〈…〉 reprâ—sentative 〈…〉 generall Councell or so generall as can be procured and untill then to the Church of England wherein I was baptized or to a nationall English Synod To the determination of all which and each of them respectively according to the distinct degrees of their authority I yeeld a conformity and compliance or at the least and to the lowest of them an acquiescence Finally I crave this favor from the courteous Reader that because the Surveier hath overseen almost all the principall proofs of the cause in question which I conceive not to be so clearly and candidly done he will take the pains to peruse the Vindication it self And then in the name of God let him follow the dictate of right reason For as that scale must needs settle down whereinto most weight is put so the minds cannot chuse but yeeld to the weight of perspicuous demonstration An Answer to R. C. the Bishop of Chalcedons preface I Examine not the impediments of R. C. his undertaking this survey Only I cannot but observe his complaint of extreme want of necessary Books having all his own notes by him and such store of excellent Libraries in Paris at his command then which no City in the World affords more few so good certainly the main disadvantage in this behalf lies on my side Neither will I meddle with his motives to undertake it I have known him long to have been a Person of great eminence among our English Roman Catholicks and doe esteem his undertaking to be an honour to the Treatise Bos lassus fortiùs pedem figit said a great Father The weary Oxe treadeth deeper Yet there is one thing which I cannot reconcile namely a fear least if the answer were longer deferred the poison of the said Treatise might spread further and become more incurable Yet with the same breath he tels us that I bring nothing new worth answering And in his answer to the first Chapter that no other English Minister for ought he knows hath hitherto dared to defend the Church of England from Schisme in any especiall Treatise Yes diverse he may be pleased to inform himself better at his leisure What is the Treatise so dangerous and infectious Is the way so unbeaten And yet nothing in it but what is triviall Nothing new that deserves an answer I hope to let him see the contrary He who disparageth the work which he intends to confute woundeth his own credit through his adversaries sides But it seemeth that by surveying over hastily he did quite oversee all our principall evidence and the chiefest firmaments of our cause I am sure he hath quite omitted them I shall make bold now then to put him in mind of it Hence he proceedeth to five observable points which he esteemeth so highly that he beleeveth they alone may serve for a full refutation of my Book Then he must have very favourable Judges His first point to be noted is this that Schisme is a substantiall division or a division in some substantiall part of the Church And that the substantiall parts of the Church are these three Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and Lawfull Ministery I confesse I am not acquainted with this language to make Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and lawfull Ministery which are no substances to be substantiall parts of any thing either Physicall or Metaphysicall He defineth the Church to be a Society can these be
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
substantiall parts of a Society as much as rationability being but a faculty or specificall quality is a substantiall part of a man because it is a part of his definition or his essentiall difference But I suppose that by substantiall parts he means essentialls as we use to say the same Church in substance or the same religion in substance that is in essence And if so then he might have spared the labour of proving it and pressing it over and over For we maintain that an entire profession of saving truth a right use of the Word and Sacraments and an union under lawfull Pastors being taken joyntly doe distinguish the Church essentially from all other Societies in the World We have been told heretofore of other notes of the Church which did not please us so well as Antiquity and Universality and Splendour c. which may be present or absent with the Church or without the Church As if a man should describe money by the weight and colour and sound or describe a King by his Crown and Scepter or describe a man as Plato did to be a living creature with two leggs without feathers which Diogenes easily confuted by putting a naked Cock into his School saying behold Plato's man Such separable communicable accidents are not notes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and at all times but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accidentally and at sometimes whereas these three doe belong unto the Catholick Church and to all true particular Churches inseparably incommunicably and reciprocally and are proper to the Church quarto modo to every true Church only to a true Church and alwaies to a true Church Yet I foretell him that this liberall concession will not promote his cause one hairs breadth As will appear in the sequell of this discourse But yet this essentiality must not be pressed too farre for fear least we draw out blood in the place of milk I like Stapletons distinction well of the nature and essence of a Church from the integrity and perfection thereof These three essentials doe constitute both the one and the other both the essence and the perfection of a Church Being perfect they consummate the integrity of a Church being imperfect they doe yet contribute a being to a Church It doth not follow that because Faith is essentiall therefore every point of true Faith is essentiall or because discipline is essentiall therefore every part of right discipline is essentiall or because the Sacraments are essentiall therefore every lawfull rite is essentiall Many things may be lawfull many things may be laudable yea many things may be necessary necessitate praecepti commanded by God of divine institution that are not essentiall nor necessary necessitate medii The want of them may be a great defect it may be a great sinne and yet if it proceed from invincible necessity or invincible ignorance it doth not absolutely exclude from Heaven The essences of things are unalterable and therefore the lowest degree of saving Faith of Ecclesiasticall discipline of Sacramentall Communion that ever was in the Catholick Church is sufficient to preserve the true being of a Church A reasonable Soul and an humane Body are the essentiall parts of a man Yet this body may be greater or lesser weaker or stronger yea it may lose a legg or an arm which before they were lost were subordinate parts of an essentiall part and yet continue a true humane body though imperfect and maimed without destroying the essence of that individuall man Sensibility and a locomotive faculty are essentiall to every living creature Yet some living creatures doe want one sense some another as sight or hearing Some flie some runne some swimme some creep some scarcely creep And yet still the essence is preserved Naturalists doe write of the Serpent that if there be but two inches of the body left with the head the Serpent will live a true Serpent but much maimed and very imperfect Much lesse may we conclude from hence that the want of true essentialls in cases of invincible necessity doth utterly exclude from Heaven or hinder the extraordinary influence of divine Grace No more then the actuall want of circumcision in the Wildernesse did prejudice the Jews God acts with means without means against means And where the ordinary means are desired and cannot be had he supplies that defect by extraordinary Grace So he fed the Israelites in a barren Wildernesse where they could neither sow nor plant with Manna from Heaven True Faith is an essentiall yet Infants want actuall Faith Baptism the laver of regeneration is an essentiall yet there may be the baptism of the Spirit or the baptism of Blood where there is not the Baptism of water He that desires Baptism and cannot have it doth not therefore want it So likewise Ecclesiasticall discipline is an essentiall of a true Church yet R. C. himself will not conclude from thence that actuall subordination to every link in the chain of the hierarchy is so essentially necessary that without it there can be no salvation Thus he saith We professe that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ. But we say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it unlesse it be sufficiently proposed to them What he confesseth we lay hold on that subjection to the Pope is not essentially necessary What he affirmeth further that it is preceptively necessary or commanded by Christ we doe altogether deny I urge this only for this purpose that though Ecclesiasticall discipline be an essentiall of the Church yet by his own confession every particular branch of it may not be essentiall though otherwise lawfull and necessary by the commandment of God But if by profession of faith he understand particular formes of confession often differing in points of an inferiour nature not comprehended either actually or virtually in the Apostles Creed or perhaps erroneous opinons If by communion in Sacraments he understand the necessary use of the same rites and the same forms of Administration whereof some may be lawfull but not necessary to be used others unlawfull and necessary to be refused Lastly if by lawfull ministery he understand those links of the Hierarchy which have either been lawfully established by the church as Patriarchall authority or unlawfully usurped as Monarchicall power we are so farre from thinking that these are essentiall to the Church that we beleeve that some of them are intollerable in the Church The other Branch of this first note that Schisme is a division in som substantiall parts of the Church of God is true but not in his sense All Schisme is either between Patriarchall Churches or Provinciall Churches or Diocesan Churches or some of these respectively or some of their respective parts But his sense is that all Schism is about the essence of Religion A strange paradox Many Schisms have arisen in the
did not know who were obstinate and who were not who erred for want of light and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences The like Spirit did possess Optatus who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists Brethren not by chance or inanimadvertence but upon premeditation he justifieth the title and professeth himself to be obliged to use it he would not have done so to Idolaters And a little before in the same Book he wonders why his Brother Parmenian being only a Schismatick would rank himself with Hereticks who were falsifiers of the Creed that is the old primitive Creed which the Councel of Trent it self placed in the front of their Acts as their North-star to direct them I wish they had steered their course according to their compass To cut off a lim from a man or a branch from a tree saith he is to destroy them most true But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body as in a gangreen The word of errour is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not cancer a crabfish because it is retrograde which was Anselmes mistake So when superfluous branches are lopped away it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better His second conclusion from hence is that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sinne And because there is no salvation out of the Church which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin to little purpose whilest no man doubts of it or denies it And hence he inferres this corollary that I say untruely that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church because there ean be no just cause of Schism My words were these that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church There is a great difference between these two But to dispell umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words We must distinguish between the Catholick oecumenicall Church and particular Churches how eminent soever As likewise between criminous Schism and lawfull separation First I did never say that the Catholick or universall Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it yea I ever said the contrary expresly And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian who never understood the Catholick Church in his sense His Catholick Church was but a particular Church with them And their Catholick Church is a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him But I did say and I doe say that any particular Church without exception whatsoever may give just cause of separation from it by heresy or Schism or abuse of their authority in obtruding errours And to save my self the labour of proving this by evidence of reason and by authentick testimonies I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey Neither can there be any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her In which case division from her is no schism or sinne but virtue and necessary And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church as he may leave his Fathers house when it is infected with some contagious sicknesse with a purpose to returne to it again when it is cleansed he answers that this may be true of a particular Church but cannot be true of the universall Church Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sinne Their damnation is just who say let us doe evil that good may come of it Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her the guilt of the Schisme lies not upon that Church which makes the separation but upon that Church from which the separation is made This is a truth undenyable and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practise liturgy and use of Sacraments may truely be said to have bene Hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the externall communion of the true uncorrupted Church We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgie and use of the Sacraments and which is more did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her And if so then by the judgement of her own Doctors the Schism is justly laid at her own door and it was no sinne in us but virtue and necessary to separate from her I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alledged as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8 and 1. Tim. 1.3 He speaks of bad manners and vitious humors and sinister affections especially in the preachers as envy contention contumacy incontinency This was his case then with the Donatists and is now the case of the Anabaptists That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18 He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiasticaâ—ll discipline He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause what doth this concern us who beleeve the same His second note is this that Protestants have forsaken the Pope the Papacy the universal Roman Church and all the ancient Christian Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian in their communion of Sacraments and to clear themselves from Schism must bring just cause of separation from every one of these I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy that is from his primacy of power from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right which two are already established from his superiority above general Councels and infallibility of judgment which are the most received Opinions
of them either by addition or by subtraction is not a reformation but a destruction of them And therefore it is a contradiction to say that a Church which hath the substance or the essence of a Church can give just cause to depart from her in her essentials and not only a contradiction but plain blasphemy to say that the true Church of Christ in essence his mysticall body his Kingdome can give just cause to forsake it in essentials The assumption is proved by him because we confesse that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance and yet have forsaken it in the essentials of a true Church namely the Sacraments and the publick worship of God His proposition admits little dispute I doe acknowledge that no Church true or fals no society of Men or Angâ—â—s good or bad can give just or sufficient cause to forsake the essentials of Christian Religion or any of them and that whosoever do so are either heriticks or schismaticks or both or which is worse then both down right Infidels and Apostates For in forsaking any essential of Christian Religion they forsake Christ and their hopes of Salvation in an ordinary way But here is one thing which it behoveth R. C. himself to take notice of That if the essences of all things be indivisible and are destroied as well by the addition as by the subtraction of any essential part how will the Roman Church or Court make answer to Christ for their addition of so many not explications of old Articles but new pretended necessary essentiall Arricles of Faith under pain of damnation which by his own rule is to destroy the Christian Faith who have coined new Sacraments and added new matter and form that is essentials to old Sacraments who have multiplied sacred Oâ—ders and added new lincks to the chain of the Hierarchy This will concern him and his Chuâ—ch more neerly then all his notes and points doe concern us Concerning his assumption two questions come to be debated first whether the Church of Rome be a true Church or not secondly whether we have departed from it in essentials Touching the former point a Church may be said to be a true Church two waies metaphysically and morally Every Church which hath the essentials of a Church how tainted or corrupted soever it be in other things is metaphysically a true Church for ens verum convertuntur So we say a theef is a true man that is a reasonable creature consistng of an humane body and reasonable soul. But speaking morally he is a faulty filching vitious person and so no true man So the Church of Rome is metaphysically a true Church that is to say hath all the essentials of a Christian Church but morally it is no true Church because erroneous contraries as truth and errour may be predicated of the same subject so it be not ad idem secundum idem codem tempore Truth in fundamentalls and errour in superstructures may consist together The foundation is right but they have builded much hay and stuble upon it And in respect of this foundation she may and doubtless doth bring forth many true Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdome of Heaven The Church of the Jews was most erroneous and corrupted in the dayes of our Saviour yet he doubted not so say Salvation is of the Iews I know it is said that Christ hath given himself for his Church to sanctifie it and cleanse it and present it to himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle But that is to be understood inchoactively in this life the perfection and consummation thereof is to be expected in the life to come To the second question whether the Church of England in the Reformation have forsaken the essentials of the Roman Church I answer negatively we have not If weeds be of the essence of a Garden or rupt Humors or Botches or Wennes and Excrescences be of the essence of man If Errors and Innovations and Superstitions and sperfluous Rites and pecuniary Arts be of the essence of a Church then indeed we have forsaken the Roman Church in its essentials otherwise not We retein the same Creed to a word and in the same sense by which all the primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Councell they did forbid all persons under pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks and anathematisation to Laymen to compose or obtrude any other upon any Persons converted from Paganisme or Judaisme We retein the same Sacraments and Discipline which they reteined we derive our holy Orders by lineall succession from them we make their doctrine and their practise under the holy Scriptures and as best Expositors thereof a Standard and Seal of truth between the Romanists and us It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the modern Roman Church by substraction But they who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Romau Church by addition Can we not forsake their new Creed unless we forsake their old faith Can we not reduce the Liturgy into a known tongue but presently we forsake the publick worship of God Can we not take away their tradition of the Patine and Chalice and reform their new matter and form in Presbyterian ordination which antiquity did never know which no Church in the World besides themselves did ever use but presently we forsake holy Orders The truth is their errours are in the excesse and these excesses they themselves have determined to be essentials of true Religion And so upon pretence of interpreting they intrude into the Legislative office of Christ and being but a Patriarchall Church doe usurpe a power which the universal Church did never own that is to Constitute new essentials of Christian Religion Before the determination their excesses might have past for probable Opinions or indifferent Practises but after the determination of them as Articles of faith extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation they are the words of the Bull they became inexcusable errors So both the pretended contradiction the pretended blasphemy are vanished in an instant It is no contradiction to say that a true humane body in substance may require purgation nor blasphemy to say that a particular Church as the Church of Rome is may erre and which is more than we charge them withall may apostate from Christ. In the mean time we preserve all due respect to the universal Church and doubt not to say with St. Austin that to dispute against the sense thereof is most insolent madness His fifth point to be noted hath little new worth noting in it but tautologies and repetitions of the same things over and over Some Protestants saith he doe impudently deny that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church If this be impudence what is ingenuity If this be such a gross error for man to
upon uncertain suspicions No. In doubtfull cases it is alwaies presumed pro Rege lege for the King and for the Law Neither is it lawfull as a Father said some Virgins who cast themselves desperately into a River for fear of being defloured to commit a certain crime for fear of an uncertain Yea to rise yet one step higher though it were lawfull yet it were not prudence but folly for a man to thrust himself into more more apparent more real danger for fear of one lesser lesse apparent and remoter danger Or for fear of Charybdis to run headlong into Scylla He who forsakes the English Church for fear of Schism to joyn in a stricter communion with Rome plungeth himself in greater and more reall dangers both of Schism and Idolatry and Heresy A man may live in a schismaticall Church and yet be no Schismatick if he erre invincibly and be ready in the preparation of his mind to receive the truth whensoever God shall reveal it to him nor want R. C. himself being Judge either Faith or Church or Salvation And to his reason whereby he thinks to free the Church of Rome from Schism because they never went out of any Christian Society I answer two waies first It is more schismaticall to cast true Churches of Christ out of the communion of the Catholick Church either without the Keies or Clave errant with an erring Key then meerly and simply to goe out of a particular Church This the Romanists have done although they had not done the other But they have done the other also And therefore I add my second answer by naming that Christian Society out of which the present Church of Rome departed even the ancient primitive Roman Church not locally but morally which is worse by introducing corruptions in Faith Liturgy and use of the Sacraments whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the externall communion of the true primitive uncorrupted Church of Christ and became the cause of all following separation So both waies they are guilty of Schism and a much greater Schism then they object to us All that followes in his preface or the most part of it is but a reiteration of the same things without adding one more grain of reason to enforce it If I did consider that to divide any thing in any of its substantiall parts is not to reform but to destroy the essence thereof c. If I did consider that there are three substantiall parts of a true Church in substance c. If I did consider that any division of a true Church in any substantiall part thereof is impious because it is a destruction of Christs mysticall body c. If I did consider all these things c. I should clearly see that the English Protestant Church in dividing her self from the substance of the Roman Church in all her formall substantiall parts committed damnable sinne and that I in defending her therein commit damnable sinne I have seriously and impartially weighed and considered all that he saith I have given him a full account of it that we have neither separated our selves from the mysticall body of Christ nor from any essentiall or integrall part or member thereof I have shewed him the originall of his mistake in not distinguishing between sacred institutions and subsequent abuses between the genuine parts of the body and wenns or excrescences And in conclusion waving all our other advantages I doe not for the present finde on our parts the least shadow of criminous Schism He praies God to open my eies that I may see this truth I thank him for his charity in wishing no worse to me then to himself But errours goe commonly masked under the cloak of truth Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis umbra I pray God open both our eies and teach us to deny our selves that we may see his truth and preferre it before the study of advancing our own party For here the best of us known but in part and see as through a glasse darkly that we may not have the faith of Christ in respect of persons That which followes is new indeed To communicate with Schismaticks is to be guilty of Schism But the English Church joynes in communion of Sacraments and publick Praiers with Schismaticks namely Puritans and Independants This is inculcated over and over again in his book But because this is the first time that I meet with it and because I had rather be before hand with him then behind hand I will give it a full answer here And if I meet with any new weight added to it in any other place I shall endeavour to cleer that there without wearying the reader with tautologies and superfluous repetitions And first I deny his proposition To communicate with hereticks or Schismaticks in the same publick Assemblies and to be present with them at the same divine offices is not alwaies Heresy or Schism unlesse one communicate with them in their hereticall or schismaticall errours In the primitive Church at Antiâ—ch when Leontius was Bishop the Orthodox Christians and the Arrians repaired to the same Assemblies but they used different formes of doxologies the orthodox Christians saying Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Ghost And the Arrians saying Glory be to the Father by the Son in the Spirit At which time it was observed that no man could discerne what form the Bishop used because he would not alienate either party So they communicated with Arrians but not in Arrianism with hereticks but not in Heresy Take another instance the Catholicks and Novatians did communicate and meet together in the same Assemblies Illo autem tempore parum aberat quin Novatiani Catholici penitus conspirassent Nam eadeâ— de Deo sentientes communiter ab Arrianis agitati in similibus calamitatibus constituti se muâ—ua complecti benevolentia in unum convenire pariter orare caeperunt And further decreverunt deinceps inter se communicare At that time it wanted little that the Novatians and Catholicks did not altogether conspire in one for having both the same Faith concerning God suffering the same persecution from the Arrians and being both involved in the same calamities they began to love one another to assemble together and to pray together And they decreed from that time forward to communicate one with another The primitive Catholicks thought it no Schism to communicate with Novatians that is with Schismaticks so long as they did not communicate with them in their Novatianism that is in their Schism Have the English Protestants matriculated themselves into their congregational Assemblies Have they justified the unwarrantable intrusion of themselves into sacred Functions without a lawfull calling from Christ or his Church Or their dispensing the greatest mysteries of religion with unwashen or it may be with bloody hands As for communicating with them in a schismaticall Liturgy it is impossible they have
beliefe of some great atchievements which he hath made elsewhere or to excuse his present defects upon pretense of large supplies and recruits which he hath ready in another place but where the Reader cannot come to see them And what if the Reader have them not to see as it is my condition in present What am I or he the worse If he see no more in some of them then I have seen heretofore he will see a great many of mistated and mistaken questions a great many of Logomachies or contentions about words a great many of private errours produced as common principles of Protestants a great many of authours cited contrary to their genuine sense and meaning and very little that is materiall towards the discussion of this or any other question Just as Master Chillingworth is cited here to prove That Protestants have separated themselves in communion of Sacraments and publick service of God not only from the Roman Church but also from all other Christian Churches in the World which is not only contrary to his sense but also contrary to his very words in the place alleged It is not all one saith he though you perpetually confound them to forsake the errour of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her errours and simply to forsake the Church c. The former then was done by Protestants the later was not done Nay not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman did they separate per omnia but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious Not only from the Roman Church but from also all other Christian Churches in the world saith R.C. Not only not from the Catholick Church but not so much as from the Roman Church saith Mr. Chillingworth In communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God saith R. C. Only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious saith Mr. Chillingworth But because there is no question wherein they studdy more to blunder and trouble the water and to involve themselves in dark Clouds of obscure generalities I will doe my endeavour to distinguish that which is deceitfull and confused and represent the naked truth to the eies of the Reader First I acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a true Christian Church in that sense that I have declared that is metaphysically because it still reteins all the essentialls of a true Church To have separated from it in any of these had been either formall Heresie or formall Schisme or both But we have reteined all these as much as themselves and much more purely than themselves For it may seem doubtfull whether some of their superstitious additions doe not virtually overthrow some of the fundamentalls of Religion But with us there is no such danger Secondly I acknowledge that besides the Essentials of Christian Religion the Church of Rome reteins many other truths of an inferior nature in Doctrine in Discipline in Sacraments and many lawfull and laudable Practises and Observations To have separated from these had been at least materiall Schisme unless the Church of Rome should obtrude them upon other Churches as necessary and fundamentall Articles of Christian Religion and so presume to change the ancient Creed which was deposited with the Church by the Apostles as the common Badge and Cognisance of all Christians for all suceeding Generations Thirdly It is agreed that one may not one must not separate himself from the communion of a true Christian Church for the vices or faults of particular Persons in point of manners We may not leave the Lords Field because there are Tares nor his Floare because there is Chaff nor his House because there are Vessels of dishonor nor his College because there was a Iudas Fourthly Some errors and abuses are not simply sinfull in themselves but to those that did first introduce them to those who maintain and practise them for ambitious or avaritious ends they are sinfull These are pressures and grievances to the Christian Flock rather than sins They suffer under the burthen of them but they are innocent from the guilt of them And so reum facit Superiorem iniquitas imperandi innocentem subditum ordo serviendi A Superior may sin in his commands and yet his Subject be innocent in his obedience These are no just cause of separation to a private Christian Charity covers a multitude of sinnes But they are just cause of Reformation to a nationall Church or a Synod Fiftly There are some errors in disputable points and some abuses are meer excesses without guilt rather blemishes than sinnes And for these alone no man ought to separate himself from a Christian Society or abandon a true Church for triviall dissentions Our duty in such a case is to pray and perswade without troubling the peace of the Church and to leave the rest to God Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Lastly We affirm that in the superstructions of Christian Religion the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence and sinfull innovations in point of Doctrine and Discipline and administration of the Sacraments and Feasts and Fasts c. This we are ready to maintain Neither doth she only profess and practise these errors and abuses which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential Truths and necessary Articles She injoins sundry of them as a condition of her Communion She commands all Christians to beleeve and practise them under pain of damnation and whosoever refuseth she casteth them out of her society Such is their new Creed in point of Faith directly contrary to the Canon of the generall Councel of Ephesus Such is the Popes Supremacy of power in point of Discipline expressly contrary to the determinations of the Councells of Constance and Basile Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine the detention of the Cup from the People their unknown langguage c. in the administration of the Sacraments and in the publick service of God From these sinfull duties thus injoined as necessary all men ought to separate Lawfull authority of man may oblige one to suffer but no authority of man can warrant or oblige one to doe sinfull duties Such a cause justifies a separation untill the abuse be reformed for which the separation was made And being thus separated from sinfull Innovations it may be lawfull or convenient to reform lesser errors which were not of such dangerous consequence nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves But here I must advertise the Reader of a double manner of expression used by English Protestants concerning this separation They agree that the Roman Church reteineth the Essentials of a true Church They
agree that she hath introduced errors and abuses into Christian Religion They agree that she obtrudes sinfull Innovations as necessary conditions of her Communion They agree that the separation is only from these errors and abuses and are ready to return to a Communion when these errors and abuses are removed So in effect they say the very same thing neither more nor less But because these errors and abuses are inherent in their Confessions Liturgy and forms of administration of holy Sacraments therefore some say that they are separated from the externall communion of the Roman Church And because these errors and abuses are but adventicious accidently inherent and may be and ought to be removed therefore others say that their separation is not from the Communion of the Roman Church as it was and may be and ought to be but only from the errors and abuses The one speaks simply and absolutely from the errors and abuses The others speak respectively and secundum quid from the externall communion of the Roman Church that is so far as it is corrupted by these errors and abuses and not further and so in sense they say the very same thing And therefore it is meer sophistry and a groundlesse cavill to argue from their separation from errours to their separation from truths and from their separation in abuses to their separation in the Sacraments themselves Suppose one who is appointed to minister diet to another will give him nothing but poisonous meats And he knowing it will not receive it tell me who is the refuser he that will not eate poison or he that will not give him healthfull food The Roman Catholicks doe professe themselves to be as loyall to their Soveraign as any of his best Subjects And that they are as ready as any others to give assurance of it by oath Yet they say there are some clauses inserted in the form prescribed which they may not they dare not take If any man should accuse them hereupon to have deserted the communion of the English Monarchy in point of loyalty they would be angry and they had good reason for it Upon the same equity let them forbeare to accuse us of leaving the communion of their Church in Sacraments when we only left their abuses Distinguish between old institutions and new errours and the case is cleer Likewise supposing but not granting that we were not chased away by the censures of the Court of Rome but had out of conscience separated our selves from their errours in such manner as I have declared yet the crime or guilt of the Schism sticks close to them A conscientious Christian is as much chased away by imposing upon him the performance of sinfull duties as by the thunderbolt of excommunication Schism is a voluntary separation but our separation was no more voluntary on our parts then the three children were willing to be cast into the fiery furnace that is they did chuse rather to die Innocents then to live Nocents to suffer burning rather then to commit Idolatry To be separated might be our consequent will because we could not help it But it was farr enough from our antecedent will or that we did desire it If we should see one pushed and thrust out of an house with Swords and Whips and Clubs would any man in his right wits call this man a Fugitive and a Runaway or accuse him to have forsaken the House Sin is a more dangerous Edge-tool then a Sword and the wrath of God heavier then the weight of Clubs and the secret lashes of a guilty Conscience sharper then Whips If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinfull duties and offending God and wounding our own Consciences whilest we staied among them then we did not leave them but they did drive us from them Ioseph came into his Masters house to doe his duty his Mistrisse tempts him to Sinne. Ioseph flies away What From his duty No. But from the offence of God and she that thought to hold him was the person that did drive him away He urgeth that nothing but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation as he hath fancied to himself from the crime of Schism Let it be soâ—â— He might have spared his Authours in the margent to prove it His defect lies on the other side Doth not he think it necessary to Salvation for every man so farre as he can to escheu deadly sinne Or thinks he that a man may live securely in known errours contrary to the dictate of his Conscience without any prejudice to Salvation This was our condition But yet there was Salvation to be had in the Church of Rome So it was not necessary to Salvation to make such a separation A strange consequence just like this other God hath mercy in store for sinners therefore it is not necessary to Salvation to forsake sinne Gods extraordinary mercy is one thing our duty another Because his compassion is great towards his poor Creatures that offend out of invincible ignorance is it therefore not necessary to Salvation for those who are convinced of their errours to follow the commandement of God and the light of their own Conscience This is so evident that it admits no doubt He adds That we separated our selves not only from the Roman Church but from all Christian Churches in the World as if there had been no Christian Church in the World in whose communion we could finde Salvation whence it will follow that at that time in their conceits there was no true Church upon Earth This he inculcates over and over in severall places according to his manner And in his ninth Chapter and fifth Section he triumpheth in it where he endeavours to prove out of Calvine and Chillingworth and Doctor Potter that Protestants separated themselves from the whole World That is as he expresseth himself in other places from all Christian Churches And particularly from the Roman Grecian Armenian and Aethiopian Church and all other ancient Churches whatsoever If it be so then he may truely call us Penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos Of the Roman Church in particular and how that possibility of Salvation in any Church is not in true reason impeditive of its just reformation we have already spoken sufficiently It remaineth to give an answer concerning our separation from these Eastern Churches Our particular reformation cannot be said to be any separation from them For they doe neither pretend to be the Catholick or universall Church as the Roman doth nor challenge any jurisdiction over the Britannick Churches as the Court of Rome doth neither doe we deny them the right of Christian Churches or the right hand of fellowship In coordinate Churches whereof one is not subordinate to another some Churches reforming themselves and not censuring or condemning others which are unreformed whilest they preserve their duty entire to the Oecumenicall Church and its representative a generall Councell doe not
things which are like one another are never the same But let us view his grand exceptions to my supposed definitions My first great fault is That I doe not express it thus in some substantiall part or parts of the Church For all Schisme is in essentials otherwise division in ecclesiasticall Ceremonies or scholasticall Opinions should be Schism Here is nothing new but his reason to which I answer that all differences in Rites and Ceremonies are not schismaticall but if unlawfull or sinfull Rites be obtruded by any Church as a condition of their Communion and a separation ensue thereupon the Obtruders of sinfull Rites and they who break the unity of the Church for difference in indifferent Rites are guilty of Schism So likewise scholasticall Opinions are free and may be defended both waies scholastically but if they be obtruded Magisterialy upon Christians as necessary Articles of faith they render the Obtruders truly schismaticall This is the case of the Church of Rome in both these particular instances and therefore it is not true that all Schism is a division in the essentialls of Religion or its substantiall parts When Pope Victor excommunicated the Eastern Churches about the observation of Easter the difference was but about a Rite aut Ritus potius tempore saith a Roman Catholick or rather the time of a Rite Yet it occasioned a Schisme for either Victors Key did erre and then he was the Schismatick or it did not erre and then they were the Schismaticks What the opinion of Ireneus and the Fathers of that age was Eusebius tells us that their letters were extant wherein they chid Victor sharply about it There was much and long contention between the Sees of Rome and Constanstinople concerning the Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of Bulgaria a meere humane Rite nothing to the substance of the Church And Iohn the 8 th excommunicated Ignatius the Patriarch about it Here was a Schisme but no essentiall of Religion concerned How many gross Schismes have been in the Church of Rome meerly about the due election of their Popes a matter of humane right which was sometimes in the Emperors sometimes in the People sometimes in the whole Roman Clergy and now in the Colledge of Cardinals Essentialls of Religion use not to be so mutable Nay I beleeve that if we search narrowly into the first source and originall of all the famous Schismes that have been in the Church as Novatianisme and Donatisme c. we shall finde that it was about the Canons of the Church no substantialls of Religion Novatians first separation from Cornelius was upon pretense that he himself was more duely elected Bishop of Rome not about any essentiall of Religion The first originall of the Schism of the Donatists was because the Catholick Church would not excommunicate them who were accused to have been traditores On the other side Felicissimus raised a Schism in the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because the lapsi or those who had fallen in time of persecution might not presently be restored upon the mediation of the Confessors or as they then stiled them Martyrs What Schismes have been raised in the Church of England about round or square white or black about a Cup or a Surpless or the signe of the Cross or kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament or the use of the Ring in marriage What bitter contentions have been among the Franciscans in former times about their habits what colour they should be white or black or gray and what fashion long or short to make them more conformable to the rule of St. Francis with what violence have these petty quarrells been prosecuted in so much as two succeeding Popes upon two solemn hearings durst not determine them And nothing was wanting to a complete Schism but a sentence He might have spared his second proofs of his three substantiall parts he meaneth essentiall properties of the Church untill it had been once denyed Yet I cannot but observe how he makes Heresie now worse than Schism because Heresie denyeth the truth of God which simple Schism doth not whereas formerly he made Schisme worse than Idolatry The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I confound meer Schism with Schism mixed with Heresie and bring in matters of faith to justifie our division from the Roman Church This second fault is like the former both begotten in his own brain Let him read my supposed definition over and over again and he shall not finde the least trace of any such confusion in it To bring in their errours in matters of faith to justifie us not only from Heresie but from meer Schism is very proper He himself hath already confessed it I hope he will stand to his word for it is too evident a truth to be denyed that supposing they hold errours in matters of faith and make these their errours a condition of their Communion it is not only lawfull but necessary and a virtue to separate from them Their very errours in matters of faith and their imposing them upon us as necessary Articles doth justifie a separation from them and acquit us before God and man from all criminous Schism whether meer or mixed The sinne of Korah Dathan and Abiran was not meer Schism but ambition treason and rebellion Korah would have had the High-priesthood from Aaron and Dathan and Abiran would have been soveraign Princes in the place of Moses by right of the Primogeniture of Ruben So he proceeds to my other definition Meer Shcism is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion to which he saith I add in the next page without sufficient ground and should have added also in Sacraments or lawfull ministry and lastly have shewed what is a sufficent ground But he mistakes throughout for first to have added without sufficient grounds had been a needless tautology which is not tolerable in a definition To say that it is culpable implies that it wants sufficient grounds For if it had sufficient grounds it were not culpable Secondly to have added in Sacraments or lawfull Ministry had been to spoil the definition or description rather and to make it not convertible with the thing defined or described I have shewed that there are many meer Schismes that are neither in Sacraments nor lawfull Ministry Lastly I have shewed what are sufficient grounds and that the Church of Rome gave sufficient cause of separation if he please to take it into consideration He saith internall communion is not necessary to make a man a Member of a visible Church or to make him a Catholick neither is it put into the definition of the Church Let it be so I am far from supposing that none but Saints are within the communion of a true visible Church But I am sure it is a good caution both for them and us There is a mentall Schisme as well as a mentall Murther Whosoever hateth his Brother
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
Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
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
untill of later daies that the Popes hving gotten into their hands the bestowing of the most and best ecclesiasticall Preferments in Europe did finde out their own advantage in that behalfe above a generall Councell which hath neither Dignities nor Benefices to bestowe When or where or by whom the primacy of Order was conferred upon Saint Peter it concernes R. C. to enquire more then me They have yet another evasion that the highest ecclesiasticall Power was given not only to Saint Peter but to all the rest of the Apostles but to Saint Peter as an ordinary Pastor to descend from him to his Successors because they were appointed heads of the universall Church which they could not govern without universall Power and to the rest of the Apostles as Delegates or Commissioners only for tearm of their lives not to descend to their Successors This distinction I called a drowsie dream hatched lately without either reason or authority divine or humane Against this he takes exception And I am ready to maintain my assertion That if he can produce but one Text of holy Scripture expounded in this sense by any one ancient Interpreter or but one Sentence of any one Councel or single Father for a thousand years after Christ who taught any such Doctrine or made any such distinction as this is directly without far fetched consequences and I wâ—ll retract but I am confident he cannot produce one Author or Authority in the point All his reason is because Saint Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest of the Apostles but Delegates which is a meer begging of the question Neither was Saint Peter sole Pastor of the Church nor his universal Authority necessary to a true Pastor neither were the Apostles meer Delegates for then they could have had no Successors which yet he acknowledgeth that they had Sometimes Bellarmine will admit no proper Successors of the Apostles no not of St. Peter as an Apostle At other times he makes the Pope an Apostolicall Bishop his See to be an Apostolicall See and his Office to be an Apostleship It is strange the Spirit of God should be so silent in a piece of Doctrine which they assert to be necessary and that the blessed Apostles and the Nicene Fathers and holy Athanasius should be so forgetfull as not to insert it into their Creeds But that the whole Church should be ignorant of such a mystery for fifteen hundred years is not credible I passe by their comparison of a Bishop who is Pastor and ordinary of his Diocesse whose Office descends to his Successors and a Frier licenced by the Pope to Preach throughout the same Diocesse whose Office determineth with his Life So what they can not prove they endeavour to illustrate Before they told us that the Apostles were the Vicars of Christ are they now become the Vicars of Saint Peter and his Coadjutors Before they taught us that the Apostolicall power was summa plenissima potestas a most high a most full power and comprehended all Ecclesiasticall power and is it now changed to a licence to Preach No the Apostles had more then licences to Preach even as ample power to govern as Saint Peter himself The Pope having instituted one man into a Bishoprick cannot during his incumbency give the joint government of his Church to another This were to revoke his former grant I confesse that which R. C. saith is in part a truth That the rest of the Apostles did not leave an universall and Apostolicall authority and jurisdiction to their successors But it is not the whole truth for no more did Saint Peter himself The Apostles had diverse things peculiar to their persons and proper for the first planters of the Gospel Which were not communicated to any of their successors As universality of jurisdiction for which their successors have assignation to particular charges Immediate or extraordinary vocation for which their Successors have episcopall Ordination The gift of strange Tongues and infallibility of Judgment for which we have Christian Schools and Universities The grace of doing miracles and giving the holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands If the Bishops of Rome will take upon them to be Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and pretend that their Office is an Apostleship and that they themselves are truely Apostolici excluding all others from that priviledge let us see them doe some Miracles or speak strange Languages which were Apostolicall qualifications If they cannot certainly they are not Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and though their See be Apostolicall yet their Office is no Apostleship Nor may they challenge more then they shew good evidence for or then the Church is pleased to conferre upon them The Bishops of Rome pretend to none of these Priviledges but only this of universall jurisdiction for though they challenge besides this an infallibility of judgment yet it is not an Apostolicall infallibility because they challenge no infallibility by immediate revelation from God but from the diligent use of the means neither doe they challenge an infallibility in their Sermons and writings as the Apostles did but only in the conclusions of matters of Faith And why doe they pretend to this Apostolicall qualification more then any of the rest Either because that if they should pretend to any of the rest the deceit would presently be discovered for all men know that they can work no Miracles nor speak strange Languages nor have their calling immediately from Heaven but are elected by their Conclave of Cardinals many times not without good tugging for it Or else because this claim of universall power and authority doth bring more moliture to their mill and more advantage to the Court of Rome This is certain that when the Pope is first elected Bishop it may be of some other See before he be elected Pope he is ordained after the ordinary form of all other Bishops he receives no other no larger character no more authority and power either of order or of jurisdiction then other ordinary Bishops doe Well after this he is elected Pope but he is ordeined no more Then seeing the power of the Keies and all habituall jurisdiction is derived by Ordination and every Bishop receiveth as much habituall jurisdiction at his Ordination as the Pope himself tell me first how the Pope comes to be the root of all Spirituall jurisdiction Which though it be not the generall Tenet of the Roman Church as R. C. saith truely yet it is the common Doctrin of the Roman Court. Secondly tell me how comes this dilatation of his power and this Apostolicall Universality Since all men doe confesse that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a character or Grace given by Ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not Humane but Divine But the election of the Cardinals is a meer Humane policy without all manner of Sacramentall virtue and therefore can neither
jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus ita figeret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet Because some Fathers say that Peter did suffer Martyrdome at Rome by the commandement or at least according to the premonition of Christ it is not improbable that the Lord did likewise openly command him that he should so fix his Chair or See at Rome that the Roman Bishop should absolutely succeed him Judge Reader freely if thou didest ever meet with a poorer foundation of a divine right because it seemeth not improbable alltogether to a professed sworn Vassall and partial Advocate well fed by the party It is no marvell if they build but faintly upon such a groundless presumption licet fortè non sit de jure divino although peradventure it is not by divine right He might â—ell have omitted his peradventure Wherefore doubting that this supposition will not hold water he addeth That though it were not true it would not prove that the Pope is not Successor to Saint Peter ex asse but only that he is not so jure divino It is an old artifice of the Romanists when any Papall priviledge is controverted to question whether the Pope hold it by divine right or humane right when in truth he holds it by neither so diverting them from searching into the right question whether he have any right at all taking that for granted which is denyed But for humane right they think they have it cocksure The reason is manifest because S. Peter himself left the Bishoprick of Antioch but continued Bishop of Rome untill his death This will afford them no more helpe then the other When the Apostles did descend and deign to take upon them the charge of a particular Church as the Church of Rome or Antioch they did not take it by institution as we doe They had a generall institution from Christ for all the Churches of the World When they did leave the charge of a particular Church to another they did not quit it by a formall resignation as we doe This had beene to limit their Apostolicall Power which Christ had not limited But all they did was to depute a Bishop to the actuall cure of Soules during their absence reteining still an habituall cure to themselves And if they returned to the same Citie after such a deputation they were as much Bishops as formerly Thus a Bishop of a Diocess so disposeth the actuall cure of Soules of a particular Parish to a Rector that he himself remains the principall Rector when he is present Saint Peter left Rome as much as he left Antioch and dyed Bishop of Antioch as much as he dyed Bishop of Rome He left Antioch and went to Rome and returned to Antioch again and governed that Church as formerly he had done He left Rome after he first sate as Bishop there and went to Antioch and returned to Rome again and still continued the principall Rector of that Church Linus Clemens or the one of them were as much the Bishop or Bishops of Rome during the life of St. Peter and St. Paul as Evodius and Ignatius or the one of them were the Bishop or Bishops of Antioch Suppose a Rector having two Benefices dies upon the one of them yet he dies the Rector of the other as much as that I confesse an Apostle was not capable of pluralities because his Commission was illimited otherwise then as a Bâ—shop is Rector of all the Churches within his Diocess And though he can die but in one Parish yet he dies governor of all the rest as much as that If we may believe their History St. Peter at his death was leaving Rome in probability to weather out that storme which did hang then over his head in Antioch as he had done in a former persecution If this purpose had taken effect then by their Doctrine St. Peter had left the Bishoprick of Rome and dyed Bishop of Antioch Thus much for matter of fact Secondly For matter of right I doe absolutely denie that Saint Peters death at Rome doth entitle the Bishop of Rome as his Successor to all or any of those priviledges and prerogatives which he held in another capacitie and not as he was Bishop of Rome Suppose a Bishop of Canterbury dies Chancellor of England another Bishop dies Chancellor of the University of Cambridge or Oxford must their respective Successors therefore of necessity be Chancellors of England or of that University No the right of donation devolves either to the Patron or to the Society So supposing but not granting that one who was by speciall priviledge the Rector of the Catholick Church died Bishop of Rome it belongs either to Christ or his Vicegerent or Vicegerents invested with Imperiall power to name or to the Church it self to choose a Successor If they could shew out of Scripture that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in a spirituall Monarchy it would strike the question dead Or that St. Peter did designe the Bishop of Rome to be his Successor in his Apostolicall power Or lastly that the Catholick Church did ever elect the Roman Bishops to be their ecclesiasticall Sovereigns it were something But they doe not so much as pretend to any such thing The truth is this that after the death of St. Peter that preheminence I doe not say Sovereingty which he had by the connivence or custome of the Church devolved to his Successors in his Chaire the Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria for I look upon Saint Marke as St. Peters Disciple and Antioch among whom the Bishop of Rome had priority of Order not of Power to which very primacy of Order great priviledges were due Yet not so but that the Church did afterwards add two new Protopatriarchs to them of Constantinople and Hierusalem and equalled the Patriarch of Constantinople in all priviledges to the Patriarch of Rome which they would never have done nor have proposed the honor which they gave to Rome with a placet Doth it please you that we honor the memory of St. Peter If they had beleeved that Saint Peters death at Rome had already setled a spirituall Monarchy of that See which had been altogether as ridiculous as if the Speaker of the House of Commons should have moved the House in favour of the King Doth it please you that we honour the King with a judiciary power throughout his own Kingdome Hitherto R. C. hath not said much to the purpose now he falls on a point that is materiall indeed as to this ground if he be able to make it good That the Bishops of Rome exercised ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction over the Britannick Churches before the generall Councell of Ephesus or at least before the six hundreth year of Christ. First he complaineth that few or no Records of British matters for the first six hundred years doe remain If so few doe remain that he is not able to produce so much as one instance his
kept their ancient bounds But now when the State of the Empire is altogether changed the Provinces confounded and the Dominions divided among lesser Kings who are sometimes in hostility one with another and the Subjects of one Prince cannot freely nor securely repair for Justice into the Dominions of a forrein Prince without prejudice to themselves and danger to their native Country It is very meet that the Subjects of every Soveraign Prince should have finall Justice within the Dominions of their own Soveraign as well in Ecclesiasticall causes as Politicall And this is agreeable with the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England which neither permit a Subject in such cases to goe out of the Kingdome nor any forrein Commissioner to enter into the Kingdome without the Kings license Upon this ground the Bishops of Scotland were freed from their obedience to the Primate of York and the Bishops of Muscovia from the Patriarch of Constantinople But saith he That which is for the benefit of the Kingdome may be contrary to the good of the Church and should we prefer a Kingdome before the Church the Body before the Soul Earth before Heaven I answer that gain and losse advantage and disadvantage ought not to be weighed or esteemed from the consideration of one or two circumstances or emergents All charges damages and reprises must first be cast up and deducted before one can give a right estimate of benefit or losse If a Merchant doe reckon only the price which his commodity cost him beyond Sea without accounting Customes Freight and other charges he will soon perish his Pack If the benefit be only temporall and the losse Spirituall as to gain Gold and lose Faith which is more precious then Gold that perisheth it is no benefit but losse What should it advantage a man to gain the whole World and lose his own Soul The English Church and the English Kingdome are one and the same Society of men differing not really but rationally one from another in respect of some distinct relations As the Vine and the Elm that susteins it they florish together and decay together Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis that which is truely good for the Kingdome of England cannot be ill for the Church of England and that which is truely good for the English Church cannot be ill for the English Kingdome We may in reason distinguish between Alexanders friend who studies to please him and the Kings friend who gives him good advise The one is a friend to his person the other to his office But in truth whilest Alexander is King and the person and office are united he that is a true friend to Alexander is no enemy to the King and he who is a true friend to the King is no foe to Alexander Indeed if by the Church he understand the Court of Rome then that which was good for the Kingdome of England was prejudiciall to the Church in point of temporall profit But seeing as he confesseth The Soul is to be preferred before the Body it turns to their greater advantage by lessening the account of their extortions He addeth That a Kingdome is but a part of the Church and it is not in the power of any part only for its particular profit to alter what is instituted by the universall Church for her universall good no more then it is in the power of a part of the Kingdome as one Shire or Province to alter for its private inâ—erest what hath been decreed by Parliament for the good of the Kingdome His instance of a Shire or a Province is altogether impertinent for no particular Shire or Province in England hath Legislative authority at all as the Kingdome hath But particular Corporations being invested with power from the Crown to make Ordinances for the more commodious government of themselves may make and doe make ordinarily by Lawes and Ordinances not contra against the Acts of Parliament but praeter besides the Acts of Parliament And let him goe but a little out of the Kingdome of England as suppose into the Isle of Man or into Ireland though they be branches of the English Empire yet he shall finde that they have distinct Parliaments which with the concurrence of the King have ever heretofore enjoyed a power to make Lawes for themselves contrary to the Lawes of the English Parliament But we are so far from seeking to abrogate or to alter any institution of the universall Church or its representative a generall Councell in this case that on the contrary we crave the benefit of their Decrees and submit all our differences to their decision No generall Councell did ever give to the See of Rome Jurisdiction over Britain And though they had yet the state of things being quite changed it were no disobedience to vary from them in circumstances whilest we persist in their grounds To make my word good I will suppose the case to have been quite otherwise then it was That Protestants had made the separation That they had had no ancient Laws for presidents That the Britannick Churches had not enjoyed the Cyprian priviledge for the first six hundred years Yea I will suppose for the present That our Primates were no Primates or Patriarchs And that the Britannick Churches had been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by generall Councells Yet all this supposed upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire and the great variation of affairs since that time it had been very lawfull for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishops of Rome though they had not quitted their Patriarchate and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves Provided that what I write only upon supposition he doe not hereafter allege as spoken by way of concession We have seen formerly in this chapter that the establishment of Primates or Patriarchs and Metropolitans in such and such Sees was meerly to comply and conforme themselves to the Edicts and civill constitutions of Sovereign Princes for the ease and advantage of Christians and to avoid confusion and clashing of Jurisdiction That where there was a civill Exarch and Protarch established by the Emperour there should be an ecclesiasticall Primate or Patriarch And where a Citie was honoured with the name and priviledge of a Metropolis or mother Citie there should be a Metropolitan Bishop The practise of Bishops could not multiply these dignities but the Edicts of Emperors could And this was in a time when the Emperors were Pagans and Infidells Afterwards when the Emperours were become Christians if they newly founded or newly dignified an Imperiall Citie or a Metropolis they gave the Bishop thereof a proportionable ecclesiasticall preheminence at their good pleasure Either with a Councell as the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon with the consent and confirmation of Theodosius and Martian Emperours did advance the Bishop of Constantinople from being a mean Suffragan under the Metropolitan of
substantialls lately coyned and obtruded upon the Chrurch as those Articles which are comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth And in this sense our Religion and theirs are not the same in substance The former substantialls were made by God the later substantialls devised by man I pleaded that when all things were searched to the bottome Roman Catholicks doe acknowledge the same possibility of Salvation to Protestants which Protestants doe afford to Roman Catholicks And for proof thereof I produced two testimonies of his own To this he answers first that Protestants doe allow saving faith and salvation to the Roman Church and to formall Papists But Roman Catholicks doe denie saving faith and salvation to the Protestant Church and to formall Prrtestants and grant it only to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errours who are not formall Protestants but rather Protestantibus credentes persons deceived by giving too much trust to Protestants We say the very same that we allow not saving faith or salvation to the Popish Church as it is corrupted but as it reteins with Protestants the same common principles of saving truth and is still jointed in part to the Catholick Church Nor to formall Papists but to such as erre invincibly and are prepared in their mindes to receive the truth when God shall reveal it Such are not formall Papists but Papist is credentes such as give too much trust to Papists His second answer is a second errour grounded only upon those imaginarie ideas which he hath framed to himself in his own head of the opinions of particular Protestants and laboured much to little purpose to prove by conjecturall consequences which hang together like a roap of sand That Protestants affirm that such as erre in fundamentall Articles and such as erre sinfully in not fundamentalls may be saved Neither the Church of England against which he ought to bend his forces in this question nor any genuine sonne of the Church of England nor any other Protestant Church ever said that Papists might be saved though they held not the fundamentalls of saving truth or though they held lesser errors pertinaciously without repentance If any particular Protestants were ever so mad to maintain any such thing in an ordinarie way for we speak not now of the extraordinarie dispensations of Gods grace in case of invincible necessity we disclaime them in it Let him not spare them But I beleeve that when all is done about which he makes such a stirre it will prove but Moonshine in the water To what I said that our separation is from their errours not from their Church he answereth that it shews my ignorance what their Church is For their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors and therefore they who separate from them separate from their Church In my life I never heard a weaker plea But I desire no other advantage then what the cause it self affords Doth he himself beleeve in earnest that any errors are essentialls of a Church Or would he perswade us that weeds are essentials of a Garden or ulcers and wenns and such superfluous excrescences essentials of an humane body Or doe weeds become no weeds aud errors no errors because they are called pretended weeds or pretended errors or because they are affirmed to be essentials This is enough to justifie my distinction So it was not my ignorance but their obstinacy thus to incorporate their errors into their Creeds and matriculate their abuses among their sacred Rites In vain doe they worship me saith God teaching for Doctrines the commandements of men Suppose an Arrian or a Pelagian should charge him to be a Schismatick or an Apostate because he deserted their communion To which he should answer that his separation was from their Arrian or Pelagian errours not from their Church as it was a Christian Church and that he held all other common principles of Christianity with them And suppose the Arrian or Pelagian should plead as he doth that their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors or that their pretended errors are essentials of their Church and of their Religion This might well aggravate their own faults but not infringe the truth of his answer Errors continue errors though they they be called essentials There was a time before Arrianism did infest the Church and there succeeded a time when it was cast out of the Church Their old essentials which were made essentials by Christ we doe readily receive Their new essentials which were lately devised by themselves we doe as utterly reject and so much the rather because they have made them essentials Their Church flourished long without these errors and we hope the time will come when it shall be purged from these errors In setting forth the modderation of our English Reformers I shewed that we doe not arrogate to our selves either a new Church or a new Religion or new holy orders Upon this he falls heavily two waies First he saith it is false as he hath shewed by innumerable testimonies of Protestants That which I say is not the falser because he calls it so nor that which he saith the truer because I forbear For what I said I produced the authority of our Church he letteth that alone and sticketh the falshood upon my sleeve It seemeth that he is not willing to engage against the Church of England For stiâ—l he declineth it and changeth the subject of the question from the English Church to a confused companie of particular Authors of different opinions of dubious credit of little knowledge in our Engâ—ish affairs tentered and wrested from their genuine sense Scis tu simulare Cupressum quid hoc It was not the drift or scope of my undertaking to answer old volumes of impertinencies If he have any testimonies that are materiall in the name of God let him bring them into the lists that the Reader may see what they say and be able to compare the evidence with the answer and not imagine more then is true Let him remember that I premonish him that all his innumerable testimonies will advantage him nothing Secondly he would perswade us that if it were so that our Church Religion and holy Orders were the same with theirs then what need had we to goe out of theirs for salvation then we are convinced of Schism Alas poor men what will become of us Hold what we will say what we can still we are Schismaticks with them If we say our Church Religion and holy Orders are the same with theirs then we are Schismaticks for deserting them If we say they are not the same then we are Schismaticks for censuring and condemning them But we appeale from the sentence of our Adveâ—sarie to the sentence of that great Judge who judgeth righteous judgment We are either Wheat or Chaff but neither their tongues nor their pennes must winnow us If we say our Church Religion and holy Orders be
interessed And that which was uncharitably begun and schismatically may be charitably piously and necessarily continued as by many reasons and instances may be made appear but that it is besides our question CHAP. 9. A defence of our Answers to the objections of the Romanists IN the first place he observeth a difference between Protestants and Roman Catholicks That Protestants doe not charge Roman Catholicks with formall Schism but only with causall Schism whereas Roman Catholicks doe charge Protestants with formall Schism To which I give three answers First if Protestants doe not charge them with formall Schism their charity is the greater and the Roman Catholicks are the more obliged to them Certainly we have better grounds to charge them with formall Schism then they have to charge us But indeed Protestants doe charge the Roman Court and all Roman Catholicks who maintain it and adhere unto it out of ambitious avaritious or other sinister ends and not out of simplicity of heart and invincible or at least probable ignorance with formall Schism Secondly causall Schism may be and in this case of the Romanists is as well formall nay sometimes more formall then actuall Schism or to speak more properly then actuall separation Whosoever give just cause of separation to others contrary to the light of their knowledge out of uncharitable or other sinister ends are causall and formall Schismaticks Whereas they who seperate actually and locally upon just cause are no criminous Schismaticks at all and they who separate actually without just cause may doe it out of invincible ignorance and consequently they are not formall but only materiall Schismaticks Thirdly when the case comes to be exactly weighed it is here just as it is in the case of possibility of Salvation that is to say the very same Protestants doe not charge all Roman Catholicks with formall Schism but only such as break the bond of unity sinfully whether it be by separating themselves or others unduely from the Catholick Communion or giving just cause of separation to others Nor doth R. C. himself charge all Protestants with formall Schism For he confesseth that all those Protestants who erre invincibly doe want neither Church nor Salvation Formall Schismaticks whilest they continue formall Schismaticks want both Church and Salvation therefore whosoever want neither Church nor Salvation are no formall Schismaticks The reason of his former assertion is this because Protestants can name no Church out of whose communion the present Church of Rome departed His reason shewes that he confounds materiall and formall Schism with causall and actuall Schism Whereas actuall Schism may sometimes be only materiall and causall Schism may also sometimes be formall To his reason I give two clear answers First Protestants can name a particular Church out of whose Communion the present Roman Church departed even the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome which was before it by introducing errors abuses and corruptions into it There is a morall departure out of a Church as well as a locall and acknowledged by themselves to be culpable and criminous Schism Secondly That Church which departs out of the Communion of the Catholick or universall Church is more schismaticall then that which departs only out of the Communion of a particular Church both because our Obligation is greater to the Catholick Church then to any particular Church and because the Catholick or universall Church doth comprehend all particular Churches of one denomination in it When the Court of Rome by their censures did separate three or four parts of the Christian World who were as Catholick or more Catholick then themselves then they departed out of the Communion of the Catholick Church as the Donatists did of old There is but this difference between the Donatists and them that the Donatists did it only by their uncharitable opinions and verball censures but the Court of Rome did it moreover by a solemn Juridicall Decree which is much the greater degree of Schism He telleth us That it is vain to liken them to the Donatists because the Donatists said that the Catholick Church of that time was but a part of the Church as Protestants say now of the Roman for which Saint Austine laughed at them The truth is the Donatists said that they being but a small part of the catholick Church if any part were the true catholick Church and that the true catholick Church was no catholick Church nor any part of it which is expresly contrary to what he saith here Just as the Romanists say now that they themselves being with all their dependents not a fourth part of the Christian World are the catholick Church and that the Patriarchate of Constaentinople which is as large as theirs and the Patriarchate of Alexandria which including the seventeen Kingdomes of Prester Iohn all Christians and dependents upon that Patriarchate is likewise as large and the Patriarchates of Antioch and Hierusalem and all the lesser Patriarchates in the East and the whole Empire of Russia and all the Protestants in Europe are no parts of the catholick Church Is not this to make the part to be the whole and the whole to be nothing beyond that part as the Donatists did Ovum ovo non similius And therefore Saint Austine might well laugh at them or rather pitty them as indeed he did for speaking such evident absurdities Si mihi diceres quod Ego sim Petilianus non invenirem quomodo te refellerem nisi aut jocantem riderem aut insanientem dolerem Sed quia jocari te non Credo vides quid restet If thou shouldest tell me that I am Petilian or any such thing that is evidently fals I should not know how to confute thee unlesse I should either laugh at thy folly or pity thy frenzie But because I believe not that thou jeastest thou seest what remaineth When they tell us in such earnest that the Roman Church is the catholick Church they might even as well tell us that Petilian was Saint Austine Their first objection is that we have separated our selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church to which I gave this answer that we had not separated our selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church for we are ready to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church doth unanimously beleeve and practise No nor yet from the Roman Church in the essentialls of Christian Religion or any of them but only in their errors and innovations and that it was the Court of Rome that made the separtion To this answer he takes great exception but as it seemeth to me in a most confused manner For method sake I will reduce all which he saith to four heads First that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church Secondly That we have separated our selves from it in essentialls Thirdly That all the other Patriarchates except the Roman are no parts of the Catholick Church Fourthly That we hold no Communion with
them To all these I have answered formerly in this Treatise and therefore now I shall touch them more lightly That the Roman Church is the Catholick Church he proveth thus because it is a company of Christians instituted by Christ spread over the World and intirely united in the profession of faith and communion of his Sacraments under his Officers And therefore he bids us out of St. Austin either give or take either receive their Church or shew one of our own as good This Argument is grounded upon a wrong supposition that the Catholick Church is a Church of one denonination as Roman or Grecian c. which we doe altogether deny as implying an evident contradiction Secondly we deny that the Roman Church including the Papacy in respect of which it challengeth this universality and to be the Foundation of Christian Religion and the Mistris of all other Churches is instituted by Christ or by his Church this is their own usurpation Thirdly we deny that the Roman Church is spread over the World Divide Christendome into five parts and in four of them they have very little or nothing to doe Perhaps they have here a Monastery or there a finall handfull of Proselytes But what are five or six persons to so many millions of Christian soules that they should be Catholicks and not all the others This was not the meaning of Saint Austin in the place alleged Date ni hi hanc Ecclesiam si apud vos est ostendite vos ommunicare omnibus Gentibus quas jam videmus in hoc semine benedici Date hanc aut furore deposito accipite non a me sed ab illo ipso in quo benedicuntur omnes Gentes Give me this Church if it be with you Shew that you communicate withall Nations which we see to be blessed in this seed It is not a few particular persons nor some hand-fulls of Proselites but multitudes of Christian Nations that make the catholick Church The Romanists are so farre from communicating with all these Nations that they excommunicate the far greater part of them Fourthly we deny that such an exact entire union in all points and opinions which are not essentialls of Christian Religion is necessary to the being of the catholick Church or that the Romanists have a greater unity among themselves or with others then sundry of those Churches which they have excommunicated Fiftly I deny that the Officers of the Conrt of Rome or any of them qua tales are either the Officers of Christ or of his Church And lastly if all this were true well might it prove the Church of Rome a catholick Church that is a part of the catholick Church but not the catholick or universall Church Still there would want universality To be spread through the Christian World is one thing and to be the common faith of the Christian World another thing Secondly he proveth that they did not exclude us but that we did separate our selves because England denyed the Popes sovereignty by divine right before the Pope excommunicated them And so though it was not perfectly Protestant yet it was substantially Protestant I take him at his word Then all the Eastern Northern and Ethiopick Christians are substantially Protestants as well as we for they all deny the Popes sovereignty either by divine or humane right Then all the world were substantially Protestants in the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile except the Court of Rome that is the Pope and his Officers Then we want not bretheren that are substantially Protestants as well as we in the bosome of the Roman Church at this day To seek to obtrude this spirituall Monarchy upon us was causall Schism to excommunicate us for denying it was actuall Schism To prove that we have departed from them in essentialls he only saith that we have left them simply absolutely nay wholy in the communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God and the entire profession of faith which are essentialls to a Church How often hath this been answered already That every Opinion which a particular Church doth profess to be essentiall is either an essentiall or a truth or that every abuse crept into the administration of the Sacraments is of the essence of the Sacraments is that to which we can never give asâ—ent Let them keep themselves to the ancient Creed of the Church as they are commanded by the Councell of Ephesus and we shall quickly join with them in profession of faith Let them use the ancient formes of administration of the Sacraments which the primitive Roman Church did use and we shall not forbear their communion in Sacraments Did the ancient Roman Church want any essentialls Or are the primitive Roman and the present Roman Church divided in essentials If they differ in essentialls then we ought not to joyn in Communion with the present Church of Rome If they differ not in essentialls no more doe we Thirdly he proveth that the other Patriarchates are not the Catholick Church not true parts thereof because they are divided in profession of faith in communion of Sacraments and in Church Officers Yea saith he it were dotage to think that the Catholick Church can consist of hereticall and schismaticall Churches as I cannot deny but they are except I will deny the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England to which I have sworn I answer that those Churches which he is pleased to undervalue so much doe agree better both among themselves and with other Churches then the Roman Church it self both in profession of Faith for they and we doe generally acknowledge the same ancient Creeds and no other and in inferior questions being free from the intricate and perplexed difficulties of the Roman Schools In point of Discipline they have no complaint against them saving that they we doe unanimously refuse to acknowledge the spiritual Monarchie of the Roman Bishop And concerning the administration of the Sacraments I know no objection of any great moment which they produce against them How should they when the Pope allowed the Russians the exercise of the Greek Religion It is true that they use many Rites which we forbear But difference in Rites is no breach of communion nor needeth to be for any thing that I know if distance of place and difference of Language were not a greater impediment to our actuall communion so long as the Sacraments are not mutilated nor sinfull duties injoined nor an unknown tongue purposely used How are they then schismaticall Churches only because they deny the Popes Supremacie Or how are they hereticall Churches Some of them are called Nestorians but most injuriously who have nothing of Nestorius but the name Others have been suspected of Eutychianism and yet in truth orthodox enough They doe not add the word filioque and from the son to the Creed and yet they acknowledge that the holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son which is the
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
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
give him leave to thrust in his head he will never rest untill he have drawne in all his body after whilest there are no bonds to hold him but nationall lawes Lastly he pleads that the pretences on which the English Schism was originally made were farre different from those which I now take up to defend it What inward motives or impulsives our Reformers had to separate from the Court of Rome God knoweth not I that concerneth themselves not me But that there were sufficient grounds of separation I demonstrate that concerneth the cause that concerneth me Their inanimadvertence might make the separation lesse Justifiable to them but no lesse lawfull in it self or to us These causes are as just grounds to us now to continue the separation as they could have bin to them then if they had been observed to make the separation and most certainly they were then observed or the greatest part of them as the liberty of the English Church the weakness of the Popes pretences the extortions of the Court of Rome their gross usurpation of all mens rights and the inconsistency of such a forreigne discipline with the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction These things he ought to have answered in particular if he would have said any thing at all but it seemeth he chose rather to follow the counsell of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his accounts that he should study rather how to give no account Sect. 7. The next thing which I set forth was the due moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This he calleth a very pleasant Topick Quâ—cquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis The saddest Subjects were very pleasant Topicks to Democritus The first part of our moderation was this we deny not to other Churches the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errours and this I shewed to have been S. Cyprians moderation whereby he purged himselfe and his party from Schisme neminem judicantis c. judging no man removing no man from our Communion for difference in opinion This is saith he to declare men Idolaters and wicked and neverthelesse to communicate with them reconciling thus light to darkenesse and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same Society I spake of our forbearing to censure other Churches and he answers of communicating with them That is one aberration from the purpose But I may give him more advantage then that in this case It is one thing to communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks in their Idolatry Heresy or Schisme which is altogether unlawfull and it is another thing to communicate with them in pious offices and religious duties which may in some cases be very lawfull The orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the Hereticall Arreans And the primitive Catholicks with the Schismaticall novations in the same publick divine offices as I have formerly shewed in this treatise But they communicated with them in nothing that did favour the Heresie of the one or the Schisme of the other The Catholicks called the Donatists their brethren and professed that they were obliged to call them brethren as we read in Optatus But the Donatists would not vouchsafe to acknowledge the Catholicks for their brethren upon this refuters principles that a man cannot say his owne Religion is true but he must say the opposite is false nor hold his owne certain without censuring another mans Yet it was not the Catholicks but the Donatists that did mingle light and darkness together These following princlples are so evident and so undeniable that no man can question the truth of them without questioning his owne judgement That particular Churches may fall into errours 2. That all errors are not essentials or fundamentals 3. That those errours which are not in essentials do not destroy the true being of a Church 4. That neverthelesse every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from them To dote so upon the body as to cherish the Ulcers and out of hatred to the Ulcers to destroy the being of the body are both extreams That is so to dote upon the name of the Church as to cherish the errours of it or to hate the errours so much as to deny the being of the Church Preposterous zeal which is like Hell hot without light maketh errours to be essentials and different opinious different Religions because it will not distinguish between the good foundation which is Christ and the hay and stubble that is builded thereupon The second proofe of our moderation is our inward Charity we leave them unwillingly as a man would leave his fathers or his brothers house infected with the Plague desirous to returne so soone as it is cleansed His answer is that if we did manifest it by our externall works they might have occasion to believe it I did prove it by our externall works namely our daily prayers for them in our Letany and especially our solemn aniversary prayer for their conversion every good Friday though we are not ignorant how they do as solemnly anathematise us the day before The third proof of our moderation was this that we do not challenge a new Church a new Religion or new holy orders we obtrude no innovation upon others nor desire to have any obtruded upon our selves we pluck up the weeds but retaine all the plants of saving truth To this he objects two things First to take away goodnesse is the greatest evill and nothing is more mischievous then to abrogate good lawes and good practises This is not to fight with us but with his owne shadow I speake of taking away errours and he speaketh against taking away goodnesse I speak of plucking up weeds and he speaks against abrogating good lawes and practises yea of taking away the new Testament Where is the contradiction between us These are no weeds but good plants We retain whatsoever the primitive Fathers judged to be necessary or the Catholick Church of this present age doth unanimously retaine which is sufficient We retaine other opinions also and practises but not as necessary Articles or Essentials Let him not tell us of the Scots reformation who have no better an opinion of it then it deservs His second Ojection is that he who positively denies over addes the contrary to what he takes away he that makes it an article that there is no Purgatory no Masse no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary Therefore this kind of moderation is a pure folly It may be he thinketh so in earnest but we know the contrary We do not hold our negatives to be Articles of Faith How should a negative that is a non em be a fundamentall This is a true proposition ether there is a purgatory or there is not a purgatory But this other is a fals proposition either it is an Article
of Faith that there is a purgatory or it is an article of Faith that there is no purgatory Faith is a certain assent grounded upon the truth and authority of the revealer opinion is an uncertain inclining of the mind more to the one part of the contradiction then the other There are an hundred contradictions in Theologicall opinions between the Romanists themselves much grearer then some of these three controversies wherin he instanceth Yet they dare not say that either the affirmatives or negatives are articles of Faith In things not necessary a man may fluctuate safely between two opinions indifferently or incline to the one more then the other without certain adherence or adhere certainly without Faith We know no other necessary Articles of Faith but those which are comprehended in the Apostles creed The last proof of our moderation was our readinesse in the preparation of our minds to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present age doth universally believe and practise This he saith is the greatest mock foole proposition of all the rest Wherefore For two reasons First we say there is no universall Church Then we have not onely renounced our Creed that is the badge of our Christianity whereof this is an expresse Article but our reason also If there be many particular churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ himselfe is head and king His onely ground of this calumny is because we will not acknowledge the Roman Church that is a particular Church to be the universall Church The second reason is because we say if there be a Catholick Church it is indetermined that is no man knows which it is Then it is all one as if it were not Non existentis non apparentis eadem est ratio It is a brave thing to calumniate boldly that something may stick We know no virtuall Church indeed that is one person who hath in himself eminently and virtually as much certainty of truth and infallibility of judgement as the universall Church but we acknowledge the representative Church that is a generall councell and the essentiall Church that is the multitude or multitudes of believers either of all ages which make the Symbolicall Church or of this age which make the present Catholick Church but mala mens malus animus He knoweth right well that they themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what that Catholick Church is into the authority whereof they make the last resolution of their Faith So it is not true of us but of themselves it is true that their Catholick Church is indeterminate that is they know not certainly what it is Sect. 8. My fifth ground was that what the king and Church of England did in the separation of themselves from the Court of Rome is no more then all other Princes and Republicks of the Roman communion have done in effect or pleaded for that is made themselves the last Judges of their owne liberties and grievances For proof whereof I instanced in the Emperors the Kings of France and the liberties of the Sallicane Church the Kings of Spaine in their Kingdomes and Dominions of Sicily Castile Flanders the Kings of Portugall the Republick of Venice and in all these particular cases which were in difference between the Popes and us concerning the calling of Ecclesiasticall Synods making of Ecclesiasticall lawes disposing Benefices reforming the Churches within their owne dominions rejecting the Popes sentences buls Legates Nuncios shutting up their Courts forbidding appeals taking away their tenths first fruits pensions impositions c. To all which neither R. C. nor S. W. answers one word in particular Yet he paies me in generals Vir dolofus versatur in generalibus If his cause would have borne it we had had a more particular answer First he asketh what nonsense will not an ill cause bring a desperate man to Concedo omnia I grant all saving onely the application He must seek for the nonsense and the ill cause and the desperate man nearer home But what is the ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction first I would perswade the world that Papists are most injurious to Princes perjudicing their Crowne and subjecting their dominions to the will of the Pope and when I have scarce done saying so with a contrary blast I drive as far back again confessing all I said to be false and that the same Papists hold the Doctrine of the Protestants in effect If he will accuse other men of contradiction he must not overshoot himself so in his expressions but keep himself to the rules of opposition ad idem secundum idem eodem tempore Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect and do them right in another They may be disloyall at one time and loyall at another Here is no shadow of contradiction But his greatest fault is to change the subject of the proposition I did not plead either that Papists were injurious to Princes or that the same Papists did hold the very doctrine of the Protestants nor so much as mention Papists in generall either to justifie them or to accuse them But I said that the Pope and the Court of Rome had been injurious to Roman Catholick Princes and that Roman Catholick Princes with their party had done themselves right against Popes and their Court. Here is no contrary blast nor contradiction any more then it is a contradiction to say that the Gnelphes maintained the Popes cause against the Emperour and the Gibilines maintained the Emperours cause against the Pope because both factions were Roman Catholicks both Italians He urgeth that the Popes did not cast out of their Communion those Cotholick divines who opposed them which argueth that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publick tenet in their Church that binds any to these rigorous assertions which the protestants condemne I know it is not their religion Our Religion and theirs is the same I know it is not the generall tenet of their Church But it is the tenet of the Court of Rome and the governing party amongst them It is but a poor comfort to one that is oppressed by their Court to know that there are particular Doctors which hold that he is wronged But to his question Did the Pope never excommunicate those Doctors that opposed him Yes sundry times both Princes and Doctors and whole Nations Sometimes he spared them perhaps he did not take notice of them whilest they were living the Pope and his Court have somewhat else to do then to inquire after the tenets of private Doctors perhaps they lived about the time of the councels of Constance and Basile when it had been easier for the Pope to have cast himselfe out of his throne then them out of the Church or perhaps they lived in places without his reach he knows who it was that said my Lord the Emperour defend me with the sword and I will defend thee with my pen. What
Christian world much less do they arrogate to themselves alone the name of the true Church as the Romanists do but they content themselves to be part of the Catholick Church That they have any differences among them either in doctrine or discipline it is the fault of the Court of Rome which would not give way to an uniforme reformation of the Westerne Church But that their controversies are neither so many nor of any such moment as he imagineth the Harmony of Confessions published in print will demonstrate to all the world So far is he wide from the truth that they have no more unity then a body composed of Turks Jewes Hereticks and Christians who have neither the same body nor the same spirit nor the same hope of their calling nor the same Lord nor the same faith nor the same baptism nor the same God to their Father But he faith our faith consisteth in unknown Fundamentals which is a meer shâ—ft until we exhibite a list of such points We need not the Apostles have done it to our hands in the Creed and the Primitive Church hath ordained that no more should be exacted of any of Turks or Jewes in point of faith when they were converted from Paganisme or Jewisme to Christianity Sect. 9. In the eighth chapter I proved that the Pope and the Court of Rome were most guilty of the Schisme and shall not need to repeat or fortifie any thing that which he opposeth being of so little consequence To the first argument he denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a mother and not a Mistris to other Churches It is their saying it and our denying it saith he till they have proved what they affirme To gratifie him I will do it though it be needless Let him consult with St. Bernard in his fourth Book of consideration to his most loving friend Eugenius the Pope so he stiles him Amantissime Eugeni If they would listen to St. Bernards honest advice it would tend much to the peace of Christendome Si auderem dicere If I durst say it these are the pastures of devils rather then of sheep And Exi de Hur Caldeorum or Go out of this Hur of the Caldeans Rome It will not repent thee of thy banishment to have changed the City for the world But to satisfie his demand Thus that Father Consideres ante omnia sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam cui Deo auctore praees Ecclesiarum matrem esse non Dominam te vero non Dominum Episcoporum sed unum ex ipsis Above all things consider that the holy Roman Church over which thou art placed by God is a Mother of other Churches not a Lady or Mistris and thou thy self art not a Master of other Bishops but one of them Secondly He denieth that the Church of Rome obtrudeth any new Creeds whereas I accused not the Church of Rome for it but the Court of Rome for proof produced the Bull of Pius the fourth in the point as it is set down at the end of the Councel of Trent wherein he sets forth a new form of confession of faith containing many new Articles which he enjoyneth all the Clergy and all Religious persons to swear unto and that they will teach it to all others under their charge that there may be an uniforme confession of faith among Christians Extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation If he deny this authority he and I are nearer an union then the Court of Rome and he My third argument was because they maintaine the Pope in his rebellion against a general Councel To this argument he answers not a word so as I am confirmed more and more in my suspition that notwithstanding all his specious pretences for the Papacy he himself is one of those who prefer the Councel before the Pope and attribute to the Pope only an Exordium unitatis But he spareth me not upon the by telling the Reader that I lay the axe not to the roote of Schisme but to mine own legs bids me good night my wits are in the dark If it were so that I should steal a nap it is neither fellony nor treason Aliquando bonus dormit at Homerus But what is it that raiseth this great wind of words forsooth because I say that the Papacy qua talis as it is now maintained by many with Superiority above General Councels c. is the cause either procteant or conservant or both of all or the most part of the Schisms in Christendome To say as it is maintained by many doth imply that it is not so maintained by all and therefore not the Papacy qua talis for so Catholicks have not the least difference among them He might as well tell us that wherein they all agree they have no difference But do not some Roman Catholicks subject the Pope to a General Councel and other subject a General Councel to the Pope Do not the greater part of them both for number dignity and power who sit at the sterne who hold the bridle that he spoke of even now in their hands to govern the Church subject a General Councel to the Pope And then might not I say well the Papacy qua talis my conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in general but against the Pope and Court of Rome that they were guilty of Schism And now to let him see that I did not sleep I will reduce mine argument into forme without a qua talis They who subject a General Councel which is the highest Tribunal of Christians to the Pope are guilty of Schisme but the Pope and Court of Rome with all their maintainers that is the much greater part of their writers do subject a General Councel to the Pope therefore they are guilty of Schism Of the same nature is his exception to my fourth charge They who take away the line of Apostolical succession throughout the world except in the See of Rome who make all Episcopal Jurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome and to be founded in his Lawes to be imparted to other Bishops as the Popes Vicars and Coadjutors assumed by them into part of their charge are Schismaticks but the Pope and Court of Rome and their maintainers do thus To which his onely answer is that this is a more grosse and false imputation then any of the rest Because it is not their general tenet neither did I urge it against them all in general But because he takes no notice of these tenets but as private opinions If you will dispute against private opinions cite your Authors and argue against them not the Church Let him know that these are the most common most current opinions of their writers Of the former Bellarmine saith that it is almost de fide a point of faith He saith that the Councel of Florence seemed to have defined it though not so expresly and that the Councel of Lateran
hath defined it most expresly And the words of that Councel seem to import no less that it is most manifest that the Bishop of Rome hath authority over all Councels Tanquam super omnia Consilia authoritatem habentem And for the latter opinion Bellarmine declares it to be most true quae sententia est verissima cites great Authors for it and saith that it seemeth to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen That Bishops do derive all their Iurisdiction from the Pope as all the vertue of the members is derived from the head or as all the vertue of the branches springs from the root or as the water in the stream flowes from the fountain or as the light of the beams is from the Sun This is high enough Sect. 10. I answered that we hold communion with thrice so many Christians as they do He replyeth that if by Christians I mean those who lay claim to the name of Christ he neither denies my answer nor envies me my multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. without number do all usurpe the honour of this title adding that he doth most faithfully protest he doth not think I have any solid reason to refuse communion to the worst of them O God how is it possible that prejudice and partiality or an habit of alteration should make Christians and Pastours of Christs flock to swerve so far not only from truth and charity but from all candour and ingenuity Wherein can he or all the world charge the Church of England or the Church of Greece or indeed any of the Easterne Southerne or Northerne Christians with any of these Heresies It is true some few Easterne Christians in comparison of those innumerable multitudes are called Nestorians and some others by reason of some unusual expressions suspected of Eutychianisme but both most wrongfully Is this the requital that he makes to so many of these poor Christians for maintaining their Religion inviolated so many ages under Mahumetan Princes Yet Michael the Archangel when he disputed with the devil about the body of Moses durst not bring a â—ailing accusation against him but said the Lord rebuke thee The best is we are either wheat or chaff of the Lords ffoare but their tongues must not winnow us Manes a mad-man as his name signifies feigned himself to be Christ chose twelve Apostles and sent them abroad to preach his errours whose disciples were called Manichees they made two Gods one of good called light another of evil called darkness which evil God did make impure creatures of the more faeeulent parts of the matter he created the world he made the old testament Hereupon they held flesh and wine to be impure and marriage to be unlawful and used execrable purifications of the creatures They taught that the soul was the substance of God that war was unlawful that bruite beasts had as much reason as men that Christ was not true man nor came out of the wombe of the Virgin but was a phantasme that Iohn Baptist was damned for doubting of Christ that there was no last Judgement that sins were inevitable many of which errours they sucked from the Gnosticks and Carpocratians The Nestorians divided the person of Christ and the Eutychians confounded his natures what is this to us or any of those Churches which we defend we accurse all their errors If he be not more careful in making his charge he will soon forfeit the stock of his credit He ingageth himself that if I can shew him but one Church which never changed the Doctrine which their Fathers taught them as received from the Apostles which is not in communion with the Roman Church he will be of that ones communion I wish he may make good his word I shew him not only one but all the Easterne Southerne Northerne and I hope Westerne Churches who never changed their Creed which comprehends all these necessary points of saving truth which they received from their Ancestors by an uninterrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles As for Opinions or Truths of an inferiour nature there is no Church of them all that hath changed more from their Ancestours even in these very controversies that are between them and us then the Church of Rome For the clear proof whereof I refer him to Doctor Fields appendix to his third book of the Church the first part of his appendix to four books at the latter end of the first Chapter I pleaded that the Councell of Trent was not general I had reason The conditions of a generall councell recited by Bellarmine are that the summons be generall there none were summoned but onely out of the western Church That the four Protopatriarchs be present by themselves or their deputies there was not one of them present That some be present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces there were none out â—f three parts of foure of the Christian world He saith the other Patriarchs were Hereticks Though it were true yet until they were lawfully heard condemned in a general Councel or refused to come to their triall and were condemned for their obstinacy they ought to have been summoned yea of all others they especially ought to have been summoned But where were they heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Councel or person that had Jurisdiction over them Others of his fellows will be contented to accuse them of Schisme and not pronounce them condemned hereticks Guido the Carmelite is over partiall and tâ—merarious in accusing them without ground as some of his owne party do confesse and vindicate them And Alphonsus á castro taketh his information upon trust from him The plaine truth is their onely crime is that they will not submit to the Popes spirituall Monarchy and so were no fit company for an Italian Councell His demand Is not a Parliament the generall representative of the nation unlesse every Lord though a knowne and condemned Rebell be summoned or unlesse every member that hath a right to sit there be present is altogether impertinent Neither hath the Pope that power over a generall Councell that the king hath over the Parliament Neither are the Protopatriarchs knowne condemned Rebels Neither is this the case whether the necessary or neglective absence of some particular members but whether the absence of whole Provinces and the much greater part of the Provinces of Christendome for want of due summons do disable a Councell from being a generall representative of the whole Christian world And as it is impertinent so it makes altogether against himselfe Never was there a session of a nationall Parliament in England wherein so few members were present as were in the pretended generall Councell of Trent at the deciding of the most weighty controversy concerning the rule of Faith Never was there lawfull Parliament in England wherein there were more Knights and Burgesses out of one Province then out of all the rest of
be ashamed of what is evident truth We expected thanks for our moderation and behold reviling for our good will He might have been pleased to remember what himself hath cited so often out of my vindication That our Church since the Reformation is the same in substance that it was before If the same in substance then not substantially separated Our comfort is that Caleb and Ioshua alone were admitted ino the Land of promise because they had been Peace-makers in a seditious time and indeavoured not to enlarge but to make up the breach He addes that the chiefest Protestants doe confess that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church Who these chiefest Protestants are he tel's us not nor what they say but referrs us to another of his Treatises which I neither know here how to compass nor if I could deem it worth the labor When these principall Protestants come to be viewed throughly and seriously with indifferent eies it will appear that either by substantially they mean really that is to say that the differences between us are not meere logomachies or contentions about words and different formes of expression only but that there are some reall controversies between us both in credendis and agendis and more and more reall in agendis than in credendis Or secondly that by substance they understand not the old Essentials or Articles of Christian Religion wherein we both agree but the new Essentials or new Articles of Faith lately made by the Romanists and comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth about which we doe truly differ So we differ substantially in the language of the present Romanists But we differ not substantially in the sense of the primitive Fathers The generation of these new Articles is the corruption of the old Creed Or lastly if one or two Protestant Authours either bred up in hostility against new Rome as Hanniball was against old Rome or in the heat of contention or without due consideration or out of prejudice or passion or a distempered zeal have overshot themselves what is that to us Or what doth that concern the Church of England He saith St. Austine told the Donatists that though they were with him in many things yet if they were not with him in few things the many things wherein they were with him would not profit them But what were these few things wherein St. Austine required their communion Were they abuses or innovations or new Articles of Faith No no the truth is St. Austine professed to the Donatists that many things and great things would profit them nothing not only if a few things but if one thing were wanting videant quam multa quam magna nihil prosint si unum quidem defuâ—rit videant quid sit ipsum unum And let them see what this one thing is What was it Charity For the Donatists most uncharitably did limit the Catholick Church to their own party excluding all others from hope of salvation just as the Romanists doe now who are the right successours of the Donatists in those few things or rather in that one thing So often as he produceth St. Austine against the Donatists he brings a rod for himself Furthermore he proveth out of the Creed and the Fathers that the communion of the Church is necessary to salvation to what purpose I doe not understand unlesse it be to reprove the unchristian and uncharitable censures of the Roman Court. For neither is the Roman Church the Catholick Church nor a communion of Saints a communion in errours His sixth and last point which he proposeth to judicious Protestants is this that though it were not evident that the Protestant Church is Schismaticall but only doubtfull Yet it being evident that the Roman Church is not schismaticall because as Doctor Sutcliff confesseth they never went out of any known Christian Society nor can any Protestant prove that they did it is the most prudent way for a man to doe for his Soul as he would doe for his lands liberty honour or life that is to chuse the safest way namely to live and die free from schism in the communion of the Roman Church I answer first that he changeth the subject of the question My proposition was that the Church of England is free from schism he ever and anon enlargeth it to all Protestant Churches and what or how many Churches he intendeth under that name and notion I know not Not that I censure any forrein Churches with whose lawes and liberties I am not so well acquainted as with our own But because I conceive the case of the Church of England to be as cleer as the Sun at noon-day and am not willing for the present to have it perplexed with heterogeneous disputes So often as he stumbleth upon this mistake I must make bold to tell him that he concludes not the contradictory Secondly I answer that he disputes ex non concessis laying that for a foundation granted to him which is altogether denied him namely that it is a doubtfull case whether the Church of England be schismaticall or not Whereas no Church under Heaven is really more free from just suspicion of schism then the Church of England as not censuring nor excluding uncharitably from her communion any true Church which retains the essentials of Christian Religion Thirdly I answer that it is so far from being evident that the Roman Church is guiltlesse of schism that I wish it were not evident that the Roman Court is guilty of formall schism and all that adhere unto it and maintain its censures of materiall schism If it be schism to desert altogether the communion of any one true particular Church what is it not only to desert but cast out of the Church by the bann of excommunication so many Christian Churches over which they have no jurisdiction three times more numerous then themselves and notwithstanding some few perhaps improper expressions of some of them as good or better Christians and Catholicks as themselves who suffer daily and are ready to suffer to the last drop of their blood for the name of Christ. If contumacy against one lawfull single superiour be schismaticall what is rebellion against the soveraign Ecclesiasticall Tribunall that is a generall Councell But I am far from concluding all indistinctly I know there are many in that Church who continue firm in the doctrine of the Councels of Constance and Basile attributing no more to the Pope then his principium unitatis and subjecting both him and his Court to the jurisdiction of an Oecumenicall Councell Fourthly I answer that supposing but not granting that it was doubtfull whether the Church of England were schismaticall or not and supposing in like manner that it were evident that the Church of Rome was not schismaticall yet it was not lawfull for a son of the Church of England to quit his spirituall mother May a man renounce his due obedience to a lawfull Superiour
factious persons but by two or three Kings successively and by Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury a Roman with the flower of the Clergy and the whole Councel of the English He proceedeth they never disliked that Profession of Saint Austins Fellowes that the See Apostolick had sent them to preach in Britanny as she is accustomed to doe in all the World First why should they dislike it they had no reason for it No good Christian can dislike the Husbandmans sowing of Wheat but every good Christian doth dislike the envious mans supersemination or sowing of Tares above the Wheat Or if there had been reason how could they dislike that which in probability they did not know The Letter out of which these words are cited was not written to the English Kings but to the Scotish Bishops by Laurentius Successor to Austin in the See of Canterbury and Melitus of London and Iustus of Rotchester which three were all the Bishâ—ps of the Roman Communion that were at that day in Britain But if perchance he imagine that the Popes sending Preachers into Britain doth either argue an ancient or acquire a subsequent Jurisdiction over Britain he erres doubly first they did nothing without the Kings licence for matter of fact they produced no Papall mandates which had been in vain to a Pagan King At their first arrivall the King commanded them to abide in the Isle of Thanet untill his further pleasure was known They did so Afterwards they were called in by his command he gave them an express licence to preach to his Subjects and after his own conversion majorem praedicandi licentiam a further and larger licence So the conversion of Kent was by the Popes endeavoures and the Kings authority Secondly for matter of right Conversion gives no just title to Jurisdiction How many Countries have been converted to the Christian Faith by the Britans and English over which they never pretended any authority It followeth they never disliked That Saint Gregory should subject all the Priests of Britain under Saint Austin and give him power to erect two Archiepiscopall Sees and twelve Episcopall Sees under each of them Whom could Ethelbert being himself a Novice in Christianity better trust with the disposing of Ecclesiasticall Affaires in his Kingdome then those who had been his Converters But either Saint Gregory in his projects or rather Austin in his informations did mightily over-shoot themselves for the twentieth part of Britain was not in Ethelberts power And all the other Saxon Kings were Pagans at that time We have seen that after the death of Austin and Gregory there were still but one Archbishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion throughout the Britannick Islands The British and Scotish Bishops were many but they renounced all Communion with Rome The British Bishops professed plainly to Austin himself in their Synod that they would not acknowledge him for their Archbishop And the Scotish Bishops did so much abhorre from the Communion of the Bishops of the Roman Communion that as themselves complained Dagamus one of the Scotish Bishops refused to eat with them or to lodge with them in the same Inne And yet he tells us in great earnest that they never disliked it He addeth they never disliked that Saint Melit should bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod to be observed of the Church of England It may be so But whether it was so or not whether they liked them or disliked them whether they received them or rejected them Venerable Bede who is his Author speaketh not a word This is not proving but presuming And why might they not receive them if they found them to be equall and beneficiall non propter authoritatem Legislatoris sed propter aequitatem Legis not for the authority of the Roman Synod but for the equity of their Decrees And what were their Decrees Ordinationes de vita quiete Monachorum Orders for the good conversation and quiet of Monks A matter of no great importance but great or small the Decrees of the Roman Synod were of no force in England unless they were received by the King and Kingdome and if they were received by the King and Kingdome then they were naturalised and made the Lawes of England not of Pope Boniface an usurping and if we may trust Saint Gregory his Predecessors an Antichristian Prelate They willingly admitted a Bishop of Canterbury sent to them and chosen by the Pope Why should they not admit him seeing it was their own desire and request to the Bishop of Rome in respect of the great scarcity of Scholars then in England to send them one as appeareth by the very letter of Vitalianus hominem denique docibilem in omnibus ornatum Antistitem secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem minime valuimus nunc reperire We could not finde for the present such a complete Prelate as your letters require and by the reception of the King quâ—d cum Nuncii certò narrassent Regi Egberto adesse Episcopum quem petierant a Romano Antistite when King Egbert had certain notice that the Bishop Theodore was come whom they had desired of the Roman Prelate So he was not obtruded upon them against their wills which was the case of patronage between us and them They acknowledged that Saint Peter was the speciall Porter of Heaven whom they would obey in all things I understand not why he urgeth this except it be to expose the simplicity of those times to dirision The case was this there was a disputation between Coleman and Wilfrid about the observation of Easter Coleman pleaded a tradition from Saint Iohn upon whose bosom Christ leaned delivered to them by Columba their first Converter Wilfrid pleaded a different tradition from St. Peter to whom Christ gave the Keies of the Kingdome of Heaven The King demanded whether that which was said of Saint Peter was true They acknowledged it was And whether any thing of like nature was said to Saint Columb They said no. Thereupon the King concluded Hic est Ostiarius ille cui ego contradicere nolo c. ne forte me adveniente ad fores Regni Coelorum non sit quireseret averso illo qui Claves tenere probatur This is the Porter whom I will not contradict least peradventure when I come to the gates of Heaven there be none to open unto me having made him averse to me who is proved to keepe the Keies No man can be so simple as to beleeve that there are Gates and Keies and Porters in Heaven It were but a poor office for Saint Peter to sit Porter at the Gate whilest the rest were feasting within at the Supper of the Lamb. The Keies were given to Saint Iohn as much as to Saint Peter They publickly engraved in the front of their Churches that Saint Peter was higher in degree then Saint Paul Let them place St. Peter as high as they please
so they place him not so high as Christ nor make him Superior to the whole conjoint college of Apostles The truth is this King Ina builded a magnificent Temple at Glastenbury to the honor of Christ and memory of St. Peter and St. Paul and upon the same caused some verses to be engraven wherein St. Peter and St. Paul were compared together Doctior hic monitis celsior ille gradu or St. Paul was more learned but St. Peter higher in degree St. Paul opened the hearts St. Peter the eares St. Paul opened heaven by his Doctrine St. Peter by his Keyes St. Paul was the way St. Peter the gate St. Peter was the rock St. Paul the Architect Theologicall truths ought not to be founded upon Poeticall licence He knows right well that their own Doctors doe make St. Paul equall in all things to St. Peter except in primacy of order We acknowledge that St. Peter was the beginning of unity why then might he not have the first place according to his primacy of Order But the question between them and us is of another nature concerning a supremacy of Power When St. Peters Nets were full he did but beckon and his fellows came to partake But the Court of Rome use him more hardly For whatsoever was ever said or done to his honour or advantage rests not upon his person who was still no more but a fellow of the Apostolicall college but devolves wholly upon his Successors to make them Monarchs of the Church and Masters of all Christians They suffered their Bishops to teach That St. Peter had a Monarchy Was next after Christ the foundation of the Church And that neither true Faith nor good Life would save out of the unity of the Roman Church As if our Ancestors had ever understood the Roman Church in that sense which they doe now for the universall Church or heard of their new coyned distinction of a mediate and immediate foundation as if Saint Peter was laid immediatly upon Christ and all the rest of the Apostles upon Saint Peter or as if the Court of Rome were Saint Peters sole Heir If their Bishops had taught any such Doctrine in the Councells of Constance and Basile they would have gone near to have been censured for Hereticks unless they had explained themselves better then he doth Though it is true that after the Popes by violence and subtlety had gained so much upon the World as to be able to impose new upstart Oaths first upon Archbishops and then upon Bishops inconsistent with their Oaths of Allegiance and had falsified the very forms of their own Oaths from regulas sanctorum Patrum the rules of the holy Fathers to regalia sancti Petri the Royalties of Saint Peter then they had the Bishops bound hand and foot to their devotion But who were these Bishops What were their names What were their words Who were the Kings that suffered them Nay he telleth us not but leaveth us in the dark first to divine what was his dream and then to shew him the interpretation of it Only he referreth us to a treatise of his own called the flowers of the English Church which I never see nor heard of but from himself If there be any thing that is pertinent and deserveth an answer had it not been as easie to have cited his Authors as himself in the margent When his latent testimonies come to be viewed and examined it will be found that his Monarchy is nothing but a primacy or principality of Order his foundation a respective not an absolute foundation and his Roman Church the Catholick Church Or else it will appear that instead of gathering flowers he hath been weeding the Doctors of the Church They admitted Legates of the Pope whom he sent to examine the faith of the English Church The intended Pope was Pope Agatho The pretended Legate was Iohn the precentor whom the Pope sent into England at such time as the Heresie of Eutyches was frequent in the orientall parts ut cujus esset fidei Anglorum Ecclesia diligenter edisceret that he should learn out diligently what was the faith of the English Church He saith not to examine juridically but to learn out diligently This Iohn his supposed Legate had no more power then an ordinary Messenger Well a Synod was called by whom by the supposed Legate No but by the English Who presided in it the pretended Legate No but Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury There is not the least footstep of any forrein Jurisdiction or Authority in the whole business They caused divers Bishopricks to be erected at the commandement of the Pope If it had been proper for the Pope or if he had had power to have erected them himself why did he put it upon others To command them to erect new Bishopricks had been a power paramount indeed This was more then to execute the Canons The history is recited not in the ninth chapter but in the fifth chapter of the second Book of William of Malmesburie de Gestis Regum Anglorum not as his own relation but transcribed out of a nameless Writer verbis eisdem quibus inveni scripta interseram In the dayes of Edward the elder the Region of the West-Saxons had wanted Bishops upon what ground doth not appear per septem annos plenos seven whole years And it may be that some of the Bishopricks had been longer vacant perhaps ingrossed by the Bishops of Winchester and Shireborne which two I finde to have been alwaies of great note in the Court of the West-Saxon Kings The ground of my conjecture is the words of the Author Quod olim duo habuerunt in quinque diviserunt What two for â—ome space of time had possessed they divided into five Formosus the then Pope resented this R. C. remembers what tragicall stirres he made at Rome but as to this particular a better man might have done a worse deed He sent his Letters into England misit in Angliam Epistolas and it seemeth that they were very high quid a Papa Formoso praeceptum sit but praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction as well as a commandement And again dabat excommunicationem maledictionem Regi Edwardo omnibus Subjectis ejus he bestowed an excommunication and a curse upon King Edward and all his Subjects Why what had the poor Subjects offended or King Edward for any thing that appeareth This was sharp work indeed the first summons an excommunication with a curse A man of Formosus his temper who was indeed a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church though he violated his oath to obtain it and who supposed himself to be not only the Patriarch of Britaine but a Master of misrule in the Church might adventure farre But to doe him right I doe not beleeve that this was any formall sentence that had been too palpably unjust before a citation I remember not that any other Author mentions it which they would have done