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
make that proposition hereticall in it self which was not ever hereticall nor increase the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith either in number or substance What I said is undeniable true First in it self That is in its own nature without any reference to the authority of a Councel And necessary Articles of the Christian Faith that is absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians If the proposition were hereticall in it self then they that held it before the Councel were Hereticks as well as they who hold it after the Councel And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith without the actuall belief whereof Christians could never be saved This is sufficient to answer his objection But for the Readers satisfaction I adde moreover that the Romanists believe a generall Councel not only to be fallible without the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope whose priviledge and prerogative the most of them doe make the fole ground of the Churches infallibility but also without his concurrenee to have often erred actually But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope they make the determination of a generall Councel to be infallible On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope but the contrary After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave spoiled him of his pontificall Attire cut off his two Fingers and cast his body into Tybur it became an usuall thing with the following Popes either to enfringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors Neither was this act of Stephen an errour meerly in matter of fact but principally in matter of Faith that the Episcopall character is deleble We know no such confirmation neâ—dfull nor of any more force then the single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolicall Church And therefore we give the same priviledges to a Councell unconfirmed which they acknowledge to be fallible and to a Councell confirmed by the Pope We have no assurance that all generall Councells were and ever shall be so prudently mesnaged and their proceedings allwaies so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to beleeve under pain of damnation If R C. be not of my mind others of his own Church have been and are at this day When I forbear to cite because I presume it will not be denyed In summe I know no such virtuall Church as they fancy Antiquity never knew it I owe obedience at least of acquiescence to the representative Church and I resolve for ever to adhere to the best of my understanding to the united Communion of the whole essentiall Church which I beleeve to be so far infallable as is necessary for atteining that end for which Christ bestowed this priviledge that is salvation Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice or subterfuge to decline the authority of generall Councells I know none we need to fear And I doe freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly generall which he shall produce in this question As for occidentall Councels they are farre from being generall My other supposed error is that I say That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a generall Councell yet he ought to be silent and possess his soul in patience That is untill God give another opportunity and another Councell sit wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary This he saith is to binde men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in matter of Religion and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth and brings them within the compass of Saint Pauls Woe woe be unto me if I evangelise not Excellent Doctrine and may well serve for a part of the Rebells Catechism Because my Superior is not infallible if I cannot assent unto him must I needs oppose him publickly or otherwise be guilty of Hypocrisie and Dissimulation If he shall think fit in discretion to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth If he shall by his authority suspend a particular Pastor from the exercise of his pastorall Office must he needs preach in defiance of him or else be guilty of St. Pauls Woe Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gospell I desire him to consult with Bellarmine All Catholicks doe agree that if the Pope alone or the Pope with a particular Councell doe determine any controversie in Religion whether he can erre or whether he can not erre he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians May not I observe that duty to a generall Councell which all Roman Catholicks doe pay to the Pope or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience Certainly these things were not well weighed Where I say that by the Church of England in this question I understand that Church which was derived by lineall succession from Brittish English Scotish Bishops by mixt ordination as it was legally established in the daies of Edward the sixth and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution to let us see what an habit of alteration is he excepts against every word of this First against the lineall succession because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone This is an argument from the Staffe to the Corner I speak of a succession of holy Orders and he of a succession of Opinions And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom he will be found at a default here also Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we doe In the next place he excepts against mixt Ordination as partly Papisticall partly Protestanticall He erres the whole Heavens breadth from my meaning Before Austin preached to the Saxons there were in Britain ancient British Bishops and ancient Scotish Bishops who had their severall lines of succession to which Austin added English Bishops and so made a third succession These three were distinct at first but afterwards in tract of time they came to be mixed and united into one succession So as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British Scotish and English Bishops This is the great Bug-bear of mixt Ordination He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child He mistakes Kings are never Children nor Minors whilest they have good Tutors and good Councellers was he more a Child than King Iehoash and yet the Church was reformed during his minority This was no Childish Act thanks to Iehoiada a good Uncle and Protector He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edwards daies which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops whereof divers were cast in Prison for not
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
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