Iudge them by their profession and leave their Consciences to God Thirdly I pleaded that although those who cast the Popes pretended Soveraignty out of England had been Schismaticks as they were not yet we cannot be charged with Schisme so long as we seek carefully after truth and are ready implicity in the preparation of our minds to embrace it whensoever we find it Because he shall not Prevaricate with us I will reduce my Argument into Syllogisticall Forme Whosoever invented not their false Opinions themselves but learned them from their erring Parents are not to be reputed Hereticks much lesse Schismaticks if they defend theÌ„ not with pertinacious animosity but inquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and correct their errours when they find them But if we had any false opinions we invented them not our selves but learned them from our erring Parents Therefore we are not to be reputed Hereticks much lesse Schismaticks if we defend not our Opinions with pertinacious Animosity but inquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and Correct our Errours when we find theÌ„ The Major is St. Austins to a word and is yielded by Mr. SerjeaÌ„t to be true The Minor is evident to all the world and caÌ„not be denied Therefore the conclusioÌ„ is firme I doe not urge this as though I had the least suspition in the world that our Ancestours did erre but to shew that although they had erred yet we are not to be reputed Hereticks or Schismaticks whilest we doe our endeavours to find the truth and embrace it implicitly in the preparation of our minds Neither do I urge this to convince others who do not know our hearts and perhaps will not believe us when we tell them that we hold the truth implicity but for the satisfaction of our own Consciences We know whether we hold Opinions pertinaciously or not and whether we desire and endeavour to find out the truth or not and whether we are willing to embrace the truth whensoever God shal reveale it or not None know it but God and ourselves Mr. Serjeant cannot know it And therefore as his answer is improper and conâ—rary to the Rules of Logick to deny the Conclusion or Condition contained in the Conclusion So it is vain and presumptuous to Iudge of another mans Conscience which is known onely to God and himself I cited S. Austin to prove the Proposition which he yieldeth not the Assumtion which is too evident in it self to be denied much lesse to be a witnesse of our hearts which it was impossible for S. Austin to know Iudge Reader what Ardelioes and busy bodyes these are censuring and damning all Protestants to the Pit of Hell as Hereticks and Schismaticks and yet when they are pressed home are forced to confesse that if they doe endeavour to find out the truth which all good Christians doe then they are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks This may be a great Comfort and Satisfaction to all Consciencious Protestants who are dayly molested by these men and terrified with such Bugbeares as these But Mr. Serjeant hath devised a new Method to discover the hearts of Protestants by the Testimony of their eyes and the undeniable Veredict of their Reason onely by viewing my Answer to his first Section Risum tenealis amici To draw the Saw of Contention to and fro about Henry the eighth Warham Heath Tonstall Gardiner Bonner c whether they were Protestants or Papists is impertinent and frivolous Impertinent let them call them Protestants or Papists or neither or both it it all one to my Argument that it is a violent Presumption of their guilt and our Innocence that all their great Schollars who preached for them and writ for them and acted for them and suffered for them in all other differences should desert them in this And frivolous to contend about the word when we agree upon the thing The thing is without all Controversy or Dispute they held with the Protestants in the Article of the Supremacy and with the Papist in all other Articles what soever Now whether their Denomination shall be from the greater part as it is in all other cases mixe one drop of milk with twenty or fourty of water and we call it water not milke or from the Lesser part as Mr. Serjeant would have it I commit to the Readers Iudgement and desire him to determin it himself whatsoever way he determins it his Iudgement will be lesse Prejudiciall then to be molested with such wranglers Protestants may persecute Protestants but not as Protestants and Papists may persecute Papists as the Iansenists persecute the Iesuits but not as Papists even Ishmaels mocks are termed persecutions but they seldome make such bloudy lawes against those whom they acknowledge to be of their own Communions as the law of the six Articles was or persecute them with fire and faggot as Bonner did He urgeth that between every Species of Colour which we have names for there are hundreds of middle degrees for which we have no names Well argued against himself Wit whither wilt thou Then why doth he call them Protestants and give them a name There are indeed between every Species of Colours man middle degrees which have no distinâ— names but therefore we give theÌ„ the name of those Colours which they come neareâ— to either with a distinction if the diffeâ—rence be easily expressed as grassegreenâ— seagreen willowgreen c. or withouâ— any distinctioÌ„ the white of an Egge is not so white as snow yet both white If he would pursue his own instance this Controversy were ended He prateth of the subordinate Sects of Protestants and how changeable they are every day He loveth to have a Vagare out of his lists It is his Spirituall Mother the Church of England that gave him his Christian being which he hath undertaken to Combate let him adorn that Sparta as he is able and if he did it with more Modesty he were lesse to be blamed then he is If she had been but his old Friend yet Friendship ought to be unstitched by degrees not torn asunder suddainly But to cast durt in the Face of his own Mother is a shrewd sign of an ill nature As the Foole said to a Favorite If I fall I can rise againe but if thou fall thou wilst never rise againe so if we change there is no great danger in it because we keep our selves firmly to our old Essentialls that is the Apostles Creed but their Change is dangerous who change their Creed and presume to adde new Essentials to the old He beareth such a perfect hatred against Reformation because it is destructive to his Foundation of immediate Tradition that he maketh No Papist and a Reformer to be the Character of a Protestant Popes and Cardinalls Emperours and Kingdomes Churches and Councells have all acknowledged both the Lawfulnesse and necessity of Reformation What doth he thinke of the Councell of Trent or hath
otherside that Church which shall not oâ—twardly acquiesce after a legall Determination and cease to disturb Christian Vnity though her Iudgement may be sound yet her Practise is Schismaticall This is the very case betwixt the Churches of Rome and England Shee obtrudeth Doubtfull Opinions as Necessary Articles of faith and her own Errours as necessary conditions of Communion Which Mr. Serjeant everywhere misseth and misteth with his Praevarications I cannot more fitly resemble his Discourse then to a Winter Torrent Which aboundeth with Water when there is no need of it but in Summer when it Should be useful it is dried up So he is full of proofes which he miscalleth Demonstrations where there is no controversy between us and where the water sticks in deed he is as mute as a fish He taketh great paines te prove that the Catholick Church is infallible in such things as are necessary to Salvation Whom doth he strike He beateth but the aire Wee say the same But wee deny that his Church of Rome is this Catholick Church and that the Differences between us are in such things as are necessary to Salvation Here where he should Demonstrate if he could he favours him self He proveth that it is unreasonable to deny that or doubt of it which is received by the universall Tradition of the whole Christian World What is he seeking Surely he doth not seek the Question here in Earnest but as he who sought for an Hare under the Leads because he must seek her as well where she was not as where she was We confesse that writing addeth no new Authority to Tradition Divine Writings and Divine Tradition Apostolicall Writings and Apostolical traditions if they be both alike certain have the same authority And what greater certainty can be imagined then the Vniversall Attestation of the Catholick Symbolicall Church of Christ. But the right Controversy lyeth on the other hand Wee deny that the Tradition whereupon they ground their Opinions wherein wee and They dissent is universall either in regard of time or place He endeavoureth with Tooth and Nayle to establish the Roman Papacy Iure divino but for the extent of Papall power he leaveth it free to Princes commonwealths Churches Universities and particular Doctors to Dispute it and bound it and to be Judges of their own Privileges Yet the maine controversy I might say the onely necessary controversy between them and us is about the extent of Papall power as shall be seen in due place If the Pope would content himself with his exordium Vnitatis which was all that his primitive praedecessors had and is as much as a great part of his own Sons will allow him at this day wee are not so hard hearted and uncharitable for such an innocent Title or Office to disturb the peace of the Church Nor doe envy him such a preheminence among Patriarchs as S. Pieter had by the confession of his own party amoÌ„g the Apostles But this will not be accepted either he will have all or none patronages tenths first fruits investitures appeales legantine courts and in one word an absolute Soveraignty or nothing It is nothing unlesse he may bind all other Bishops to maintein his usurped Roialtâ—es under the pretensed name of Regalia Sancti Petri by an Oath contradictory to our old Oath of allegiance althoâ—gh all these encroachmeÌ„ts are directly destructive to the ancient lawes and liberties both of the British and English Churches So we have onely cast of his boundlesse TiraÌ„ny It is he and his Court who have deserted and disclaymed his own just regulated authority as appeareth by the right stating of the question But M. Serjeant lapwing like makes the most pewing and crying when he is furthest from his nest What he is I neither know nor much regard I conclude he is but a young divine because he himself stileth his Treatise the Prentisage of his Endeavours in controversy Pag 2. And is it not a great boldnesse for a single apprentice if he doe not shoot other mens bolts after he hath bestowed a little Rhetoricall Varnish upon them to take up the Bucklers against two old Doctors at once and with so much youthfull presumption of victory that his Titles sound nothing but disarming and dispatching and knocking down as if Caesars Motto I came I see I overcame were his Birthright He that is such a conquerour in his apprentisage what victoryes may not he promise himself wheÌ„ he is grown to be an experienced Master in his profession But let him take heed that his over daring doe not bring him in the conclusion to catch a Tartar that is in plaine English to lose himself The cause which he oppugneth is built upoÌ„ a rock though the wind bluster aÌ„d the waues beat yet it cannot fall I heare moreover by those who seem to know him that he was sometimes a Novice of our English Church who deserted his Mother before he knew her If it be so to doe he oweth a double account for Schism and one which he wil not claw of so easily And if no man had informed me I should have suspected so much of my self Wee find Strangers civill and courteons to us every where in our Exile except they be set on by some of our own but sundry of those who have run over from us proved violent and bitter Adversaries without any provocation as Mr. Serjeant for example I cannot include all in the same Guilt Whether it proceed from the Consciousnesse of their owne guilt in deserting us at this time especially or the Contentment to gaine Companions or fellow Proselites or they find it necessary to procure themselves to be trusted or it be injoyned to them by their Superiours as a Pollicy to make the Breach irreparable Or what else is the true reason I doe not determine But this wee all know that Fowlers doe not use to pursue those Birds with Clamour whith they have a desire to catch His manner of writing is petulant railing and full of Praevarication as if he had the gift to turn al he touched into Absurdities Calumnâ—es and Contradictions Sometimes in a good mode he acknowledgeth my poore labours to be a pattern of wit and industry and that there is much commendable in them At other times in his passion he maketh them to be absurd non sensicall ridiculous and every where contradictory to them selves and mee to be Worse then a Madman or born foole Good words If better were within better would come out Sometime he confesseth mee to be candid and downright and to speake plaine at other times he accuseth me for a falsifier and a Cheater without ingenuity A signe that he uttereth whatsoever commeth upon his tongues end without regard to truth or falshood If he can blow both hot and cold with the same Breath there is no great regard to be had of him The Spartans brought their Children to love Sobriety by shewing them the detestable Enormityes which their Servants committed being Drunken
be Christs own Ordinance If it be recorded in Scripture it is either in Nicodemus his Gospell or in the Popes Decretall Epistles Certainly in the Genuine Scriptures there is no manner of mention of any such thing Heare the ingenuons Confession of a more learned Adversary Neque Scriptura neque Traditio habet sedem Apostolicam it a fixam esse Romae ut inde auferri non possit there is neither Scripture nor Trrdition to prove that the See of St. Peter is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be taken from it But if the Bishop of Rome did in herit the Privileges of St. Peter By Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture then there were Scripture to prove that it cannot be taken away from Rome Christs own Ordination must not be violated Behold both his grounds Scripture and Tradition swept away at once It will not serve his turne at all to say that I take him in a Reduplicative sense as if he spake of the Bishops of Rome as of Rome Either Christ ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in his privileges And then the Bishop of Rome doth succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome Or Christ hath not ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his privileges And then the Bishop of Rome is not St. Peter Successour by Christs own Ordination He may be his Successour upon another account but by Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture he cannot be if Christ himself have not ordained in holy Scripture that he should be He addeth that I picked these Words out of a Paragraph a leafe after Why is he not bound to speake truth in one Paragraph as well as in another Or will he oblige one who combatteth with him to watch where his Buckler is ready and be sure to hit that These things are as cleare as the light and yet he vapours about my frivolous and impertinent answers and wonders how any man can have the patience to read such a Trisler Let the Reader judge which Scale hath more weight in it How should the Bishop of Romes Succession to S. Peter be Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture When both his fellowes and he himself doe ground the Bishop of Romes right to succeed St. Peter upon the fact of St. Peter Namely his dying Bishop of Rome Bellarmine distinguisheth between the Bishop of Romes succession of St. Peter and the reason of his succession The succession saith he is from the institution of Christ by divine right and commanded by Christ but the reason of this succession is from the fact of S. Peter not from the institution of Christ. Which two are irreconciliable For if Christ commanded that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter as he saith Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri sedem quae autem jubet Deus mutari ab hominibus non possunt Then not the fact of St. Peter but the mandate of Christ is the reason of the succession There was no need that St. Peter should doe any thing to perfect the commandement of Christ and on the otherside if the fact of St. Peter be the true reason of the Bishop of Romes succession theÌ„ it is evident that Christ did not command it Let it be supposed to avoid impertinent disputes that Christ did create a chiefe Pastor of his church as an office of perpetuall necessity without declaring his pleasure who shall be his successour but leaving the choise either to the chief Pastor or to the church without peradventure in such a case the Office is from Christ and the perpetuity is from Christ but the right of the Successour is from them who make the application whether if be the Cheif Pastor or the Church The Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter is not recorded in Scripture The fact of S. Peter is not recorded in Scripture No such ordination of Christ is recorded in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should be S. Peters Successour And therefore it is impossible that the Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Peter should be Christs own ordination recorded in Scripture Then what is this Mandate of Christ and where conteined The Mandate is an old legend conteined in Marcellinus Leo Athanasius Ambrose and Gregory some of which point at it others relate it some define it as a matter of faith That S. Peter a little before his Passion being ready to depart out of Rome did meete Christ in the gate who told him that he came to Rome to be Crucified againe Thereby intimating that St. Peter must suffer martyrdome there Here is no mandate of Christ to S. Peter to fixe his See at Rome much lesse that he should place it there for ever never to be removed True saith Bellarmine but yet non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus it a figeret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet It is not improbable that the lord did command plainly that Peter should fixe his See at Rome that the Roman Bishop should succeed him absolutely Alas this is but a poore ground to build a mans faith upon that it is not improbable And therefore the said Author proceedeth Tameâ—si forte c. Although peradventure it be not of divine right that the Romaen Bishop because he is the Roman Bishop doth succeed S. Peter in the prefecture of the Church And though it were supposed a point of faith That the Bishop of Rome were S. Peters Successour Yet it cannot be a point of faith that Pope Vrban or Pope Clement are S. Peters Successours and true Bishops of Rome because there can be no more then morall Certeinty for it Who can assure us of their right Baptisms and right Ordinations according to the common Roman grounds How can wee be sure of their Canonicall Election that two third parts of the Cardinalls did concurre or that the Election by Cardinalls now and by the Emperours and by the People formerly were all Authentick formes though I doubt not but any of these might serve to obteine an humane right But especially what can secure us from the â—aint of Simoniacall Pravity which they who knew the Intrigues of States doe tell us hath born too great Vogue in the Conclave of late dayes And if it cannot be a point of Faith to believe the present Pope is St. Peters Successour for these reasons neither can it be a point of Faith that any of them all hath been his Successour for the same reasons I doe not urge these things to encourage any man to withdraw Obedience from a lawfull Superiour either upon improbable or probable suppositions but to shew their temerarious presumption who doe soe easily chaÌ„ge humane right into Divine right and make many things to be necessary points of Faith for which there never was revelation or more then Morall Certainty Sest I. Cap. II. The next
of Henry the eighth They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary and never were restored by any succeding Prince If there were any thing blame worthy in them let it dye with them I confesse I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another nor the swearing before hand to Statutes made or to be made But De mortuis nil nisi bonum Secondly I answer according to the equity aâ— my second ground that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over reached themselves and the truth in some expressions yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the Line and Level of Apostolicall Tradition Thirdly and principally I answer That our Ancesters meant the very same thing that we doe Our onely difference is in the use of the Words Spirituall Authority or Iurisdiction Which we understand properly of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall which extendeth no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spirituall Authority or Iurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court which in truth is partly Spirituall partly Politicall The interiour habit which enableth an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to Excommunicate or Absolve or degrade is meerly Spirituall but the Exteriour Coaction is Originally Politicall So our Ancestors cast out Externall Ecclesiasticall Coactive Iurisdiction The same doe wee They did not take away froÌ„ the Pope the power of the Keyes or IurisdictioÌ„ purely Spirituall No more doe wee To cleare the whole businesse We must know that in Bishops there is a threefold power The first of Order The second of Interiour jurisdiction The third of Exteriour jurisdictioÌ„ The first is referred to the Consecrating and Administring of the Sacraments The second to the Regiment of Christians in the interiour Court of Conscience The third to the Regiment of Christian people in the Exteriour Court of the Church Concerning the two former I know no Controversy between the Church of Rome and us but one Whether the Bishop of Rome alone doe derive his Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ and all other Bishops do derive theirs mediatly by him Yet I confesse this Controversy is but with a part of the Church of Rome For many of them are of our mind that all Bishops hold their Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ as well as the Pope And if it were otherwise it were the grossest absurdity in the world For thousands of Bishops in Christendome doe not at all derive their holy Orders from S. Peter or any other Roman Bishop either mediatly or immediatly especially in Asia and Africa but froÌ„ the other Apostles Must all these poore Bishops waÌ„t the Key of Iurisdiction and be but half Bishops to humour the Court of Rome For they never had ordination or Delegation or Commission from Rome either mediatly or immediatly yet the ChristiaÌ„ World hath evermore received them for true complete Bishops But we have a Controversy with some others who acknowledge no power of Governing in a Bishop but meerly directive neither more nor lesse then a Phisitian hath over his Patient To advise him to abstain from some meats because they are hurtfull to him which advise the Patient may either obey or reject without sinne But all the Schooles have tyed two Keys to the Churches Girdle the Key of Order and the Key of Iurisdiction and I doe not mean to rob my Mother of one of her Keys What will ye shall I come unto you with a Rod A rod is more then chiding The principall Branch of this Rod is Excommunication a Punishment more to be feared in the Iudgement of the Fathers then all earthly Paines The Spirituall Sword Like the cutting of a member in the Body naturall Or the out lawing of a Subject in the body Politicall It is a Question in the Schooles whether the Pastors Sentence in binding and loosing be onely Declarative or also â—perative As if such glorious promises and so great solemnity where with this power was given did imply a naked declaration Keys are not given to signify the doore is open or shut but to opeÌ„ or shut it indeed For my part I have alwayes esteemed this QuestioÌ„ to be a meer Logomachy or Contention about words They who make the Sentence onely declarative in respect of man doe acknowledge it to be operative in respect of God And they who make it to be Operative make it to be Operative by the power of God not of maÌ„ Whether the effect be attributed to the principall cause or to the Instrument being rightly understood it is both wayes true But this will not excuse our Innovators who have robbed the Church of one of her Keys the Key of Spirituall jurisdiction They are so Iealous of the honour of God that they destroy the beauty of the world and jumpe over the backes of all second causes and so they would make the holy Sacraments to be bare Sigus As it was said of old the sword of the Lord and of Gideon so we may say now the Key of Christ and his Pastor St. Paul taxeth the Corinthians for saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas I am of Christ What saith he is Christ divided Is Christ divided from his Ministers As it is an Errour on the one hand to depend so much upon Paul and Apollo and Cephas or any of them as not to depend principally upon Christ so it is an Errour on the other hand so depend so upoÌ„ Christ as to neglect Paul Apollo and Cephas In summe Christ made his Apostles not onely Lawiers to give Advise but Iudges to give Sentence He gave them not onely a Command but a Commission As my Father sent me so send I you That is I doe constitute you my Deputies and Surrogates with as ample power and commission as my Father gave me Bind Loose Remitt Retein whatsoever you doe on earth Clave non errante as long as your Key erreth not I confirm in heaven This is the Difference between the binding and loosing of Christ and the binding and loosing of his Ministers His power is Originall Primitive Soveraign Imperiall Their power is derivative Subordinate Delegate Ministeriall His Sentence is absolute ad Sentenâ—iandum simplicitâ—er Their Sentence is Conditionall ad Sententiandum si His Key never erreth Their Key may erre and many times doth erre To conclude the Apostles had a legislative power It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater Burthen then these Necessary things The Observation of Sunday was an Apostolicall precept so is the Order of Deacons They had a Iudiciary power and their Tribunalls Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three witnesses They had a dispensative power To whom I forgave any thing for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ But all this is onely in the interiour Court of Conscience The third power of Bishops is the power of exteriour IurisdictioÌ„ in the
as inferiour truths to those who are under their Iurisdiction nor the obliging of their Subjects not to oppose their Determinations for peace and tranquilities sake but the adding of new Articles or Essentialls to the Creed with the same Obligation that the old Apostolicall Articles had to be believed under pain of Damnation Either all these 12 new Articles which were added to the Creed by Pius the Fourth were implicitly or virtually comprehended in the 12 old Articles of the Apostles and may be deduced from them by necessary Consequence the contrary where of is evident to all men or it is appareâ— that Pius the 4. hath corrupted the Creed and changed the Apostolicall Faith He might even as well let our 39. Articles alone for old acquaintance sake Dissuenda non dissecanda est amtcitia as to bring them upon the Stage and have nothing to say against them Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed some others of them are practicall truths which come not within the proper list of points or Articles to be believed lastly some of them are pious opinions or inferiour truths which are proposed by the Church of England to all her Sonnes as not to be opposed not as Essentialls of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians Necessitate medii under pain of damnation If he could charge us with this as we do them he said something The Nicene Constantinopolitan Ephesian Chalcedonian and Atbanasian Creeds are but Explications of the Creed of the Apostles and are still called the Apostles Creed He will not for shame say that Pius the fourths Creed is onely an Explication of the Apostles Creed which hath 12. new distinct Articles added at the Foot of the 12. old Articles of the Apostles I doe not say that there can be no new Heresy but what is against some point found in the Creed I know that as there are some Errours heretical in their own nature so there are other Errours which become hereticall meerly by the Obstinacy of them who hold them Yet if I had said so I had said no more then some Fathers say and sundry of their own Authors Neque ulla unquam exit it heresis quae non hoc Symbolo damnart poâ—uerit There was never any Heresy which might not be condemned by this Creed And so he may see clearly if he will that it was no incomparable straine of weaknesse nor self contradicting absurdity nor nonsense as he is pleased to Vapour to charge them with changing the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles by the Addition of new Essentialls of Faith I will conclude this point with the excellent Iudgement of Vincentius Lirinensis Peradventure some man will say shall there be no growth of the Religion of Christ in the Church Yes very much but so that it be a growth of Faith not a change Let it increase but onely in the same kind the same Articles the same sense the same Sentences Let the Religion of soules imitate the manner of bodies c. The members of infants are little young mens great yet they are the same Children have as many joints as men c. But if any thing be added to or taken from the number of the members the body must of necessiâ—y perish or become monstrous or be enfeebled so it is meet that Christian Religion doe follow these Lawes of Proficiency c. But now he brings a rapping Accusation against me charging me with four falsifications in one sentence and then concludes triumphantly Goe thy wayes brave Bishop If the next Synod of Protestants doe not Canonise thee for an Interpreter of Councells they are false to their best interests Who so bold as blind Bayard Here is a great deale more Cry then Wooll But let us examin these great falsifications my words were these The Question is onely who have changed that doctrin or this Disciplin we or they we by Substraction or they by Addition The Case is cleare The Apostles contracted this Doctrin into a Summary that is the Creed the Primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer Explication Then follow the words which he excepteth against The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession It is strange indeed to find four falsifications in two short lines but to find four falsifications where there is not one sillable cited is altogether impossible I relate as of my self what the Councell of Ephesus did I cite no Authority at all neither in the â—â—ext nor in the Margent nor put one word into a different Character His pen is so accustomed to overreach beyond all aime that he cannot help it A Scotch man would take the Liberty to tell him that he is very good Company The truth is I did forbear to cite it because I had cited it formerly in my answer to Monsieur Militier where he might have found it if he had pleased That it should be lawfull for no man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed then that which was defined by the Nicene Councell And that whosoever should dare to compose or offer any such to any persons willing to bâ— converâ—ed from Paganisme Iudaisme or Heresy if they should be Bishops or Clerkes should be deposed if Laymen Anathematised If he can find any Falsification in this let him not spare it but to find four falsifications where not one word was cited was impossible In a word to deale plainly with him his fâ—ur pretended Falsifications are a silly senslesse ridiculous Cavill To cleare this it is necessary to consider that this word Faith in holy Scripture Councells and Fathers is taken ordinarily for the Obâ—ect of Faith or for the summe of things to be believed that is the Creed and so it is taken in this very place of the Councell of Ephesus and cannot be taken otherwise for it is undeniable that that Faith which was defined published and composed by the Nicene Fathers was the Nicene Creed or the Creed of the Apostles explicated by the Nicene Fathers Secondly we must consider that the Catholick Church of Christ from the very Infancy of Christian Religion did never admit any person to Baptisme in an ordinary way but it required of them a free profession of the Creed or Symbolicall Faith either by themselves or by their sureties if they were Infants and so did baptise them in that Faith This was the practise of the Apostolicall Church this was that good profession which Timothy made before many witnesses This was the universall practise in the Primitive Church and continued ever since untill this day Abrenuncâ—as Abrenuncio Credis Credo Dost thou renounce the Devill and all his workes I do renounce them Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty c. All this I stedfastly believe Wilt thou be baptised in this Faith It is my desire This baptisticall profession which he ignorantly laugheth
advanceth the Papacy above the Representative Church is no worse then their Virtuall Church the Pope and the Court of Rome with all their adherents they who have the Keys in their hands such a party as he dare not say his soule is his own against them nor maintain the Contrary that a Generall Councell is above the Pope He urgeth that I ascribe no more to S. Peter and the Pope for their first Movership but onely Authority to sit first in Councell or some such things I ascribe unto the Pope all that power which is due unto him either by divine right or humane right at the Iudgement of the Church but I doe not hold it meet that he should be his own Carver And for S. Peter why doth he not leave his wording of it in Generalls and fall to work with Arguments in particular if he have any We offer him a faire tryall for it that S. Peter never enjoyed or exercised any greater or higher power in the church then every one of the Apostles had either extensively or intensively either in relation to the Christian world or the Apostolicall College except onely that Primordium Vnitatis or Primacy of Order which he scoffeth at every where Yet neither do we make his first Movership void of all Activity and influence as he accuseth us First we know he had Apostolicall power which was the highest spirituall power upon Earth As my Father sent me so send I you Secondly some power doth belong to a First Mover even by the Law of nature besides the First seate As to convocate the Members to preserve Order to propose such things as are to be discussed to receive the Votes to give the Sentence and to see it executed so far as he is trusted by the Body What the Church of England believeth of the Popes inheriting St. Peters Privileges and the exercise of that power before the Reformation and how the breach was made and when I have shewed abundantly already Wee have seen his rare skill in the discovery of a Falsification or a ContradictioÌ„ now let us see if his sent be as good to find out an Absurdity He maketh me argue thus The Pope did not exercise St. Peters power because he exercised St. Peters power and much more which is as much as to say totum est minus parte aud more does not contain lesse and then he Crowes out his Victory aloud a hopefull Disputant who châ—seth rather to run upon such Rocks c. What Rocks doth he mean I hope none of the Acroâ—eraunia those ridiculous things which he calls Rocks are soapy bubbles of his own Blowing This inference is none of mine but his own Is it not possible for this great pretender to sincerity to misse one Paragraph without Falsifications Give him leave to make Inferences and Periphrases which is as much as to say and Africa did never abound so much with Monsters as he will make the most rationall writing in this world abound with Absurdities I desire the Courteous Reader to view the place and either to pitty his Ignorance or detest his Impudence The words which I answered were these That the Bishops of Rome actually exercised St. Peters power in all those Countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very yeare when this unhappy Seperation began My answer was that this Assertion did come far short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more Power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever St Peter pretended to Here is no other inference but this The Pope exercised more power then ever St. Peter pretended to therefore this Assertion that he exercised St. Peters power came short of the truth which consequence is so evideâ—t that it can admit neirher denyall or doubting What hath this to do with his whole is lesse then the part or more does not contain the lesse But now suppose I had said as he maketh me to say on his own head that in this case the whole is lesse then the part or more does not contain the lesse what had he to carpe at Hath he never heard or read that in morality the half is more then the whole Hath he forgotten his Ethicks that he who swerveth from the Meane or strict measure of virtue whether it be in the excesse or in the defect is alike Culpable and commethshort of his Duty If the Pope as Successour to S. Peter did usurp more power then S. Peter had right to no man in his right wits can call it the actuall exercising of S. Peters power The second part of my answer was that as the Pope exercised more power then was due to him in some places where he could get leave so in other places no lesse then three parts of foure of the Christian World that is all the Eastern Southern and Northern Churches his Vniversall Monarchy which he claimed was Vniversally rejected For this I am first reviled Are moderate expressions of shamelesnesse sufficient to Character this man c. If better was within better would come out But Stultis the saurus iste est in linguasitus ut discant male loqui melioribus And then when he hath first censured me he attempteth to answer me as well as he is able that the Pope exercised his power over them by excommunicating them as Revolters As Revolters In good time They were Christians and had Governours of their own before either there was a Church of Rome or Bishop of Rome and never acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects untill this day nor regarded his Excommunicatious upon that score at all If they were Revolters the Apostolicall Age and all succeding Ages were joined in the Revolt These are his rigorous demonstrations to prove the Popes single Iurisdiction by divine right from his own impotent Actions If the Pope have a Supremacy of Power by divine right he hath it over the world but that we see evidently he never enjoyed from the beginning if he did did not enjoy it universally from the beginning then certainly it cannot be an Apostolicall Tradition I doe begin with the Eastern Church because their case is plainest as having Proto-patriarchs of their own and Apostolicall Churches of their own but when that is once acknowledged I shall be contented to joine issue with him in the West First for our Britannick Churches and next even for the Church of Rome it self that the Popes Vniversall Monarchy and plenitude of Soveraign power by divine right was neither delivered from Parents to Children by perpetuall Tradition as a Legacy of Christ and his Apostles nor received by the Sonnes of that Individuall Church as a matter of Faith but onely a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity which we do not oppose nor yet those accessions of humane power which Christian Emperours and Oecumenicall Councells have conferred upon that See provided they be not exacted as a divine right His First Movership and
it seemeth by what passed lately between us that he understandeth the Rules of Opposition or right Contradiction better then your self First the Emphasis lieth not in the word true but in the words say and censure Cannot a man believe or hold his own Religion to be true but he must necessarily say or ceÌ„sure another mans which he coÌ„ceiveth to be opposite to it to be false Truth and Falshood are Contradictory or of eternall Disjunction but there is a meane between believing or holding mine own Religion to be true and saying or censuring another mans which perhaps is opposite to be false both more prudentiall and more charitable that is silence to looke circumspectly to myself and leave other men to stand or fall to their own Maister S. Cyprian did believe or hold his own Opinion of Rebaptisation to be true yet did not censure the opposite to be false or remove any man from his Communion for it Rabshakeh was more censorious then Hezekiah and down right Atheists then conscionable Christians Secondly that which he calleth his Religion is no more in truth then his Opinion and different Opinions are stiled different Religions In opinions it is not necessary to hold with any party much lesse to censure other parties Sometimes seeming different Opinions are both true and all the Opposition is but a Contention about words and then mutuall censures are vaine sometimes they are both false and then there is more use of Mutuall Charity then mutual Censures and evermore whether true or false an Errour against Charity is much greater then a meer speculative errour in Iudgement Prejudice and selâ—love are like a coloured glasse which makes every thing we discern through it to be of the same colour and on the otherside rancour and animosity like the tongue infected with Choller maketh the sweetest meats to tast bitter In each respect censures are daÌ„gerous and his principle pernicious that He who doth not censure every Religion whieh he reputeth contrary to his own hath no Religion I set down some Principles whereof this is the first particular Churches may fall into Errours He answereth t is true if by Errours he means Opinions onely No I mean Fundamentall Errours also and not onely fall into some Fundamentall Errours but apostate from Christ and turn Turkes and change their Bible into the Alchorâ—a whereof we have visible experience in the world He answers that Principle is not so undeniable as I thinke in case that Particular Church adhere firmly to her rule of Faith Immediate Tradition Well but we see visibly with our eyes that many particular Churches have not adhered to any Tradition Vniversall or Particular Mediate or Immediate but have abandoned all Apostolicall Tradition then to what purpose serveth his Exception in case that Church adhere firmly to immediate Tradition when all the World seeth that they have not adhered firmly to Apostolicall Tradition His Preservative is much like that which an old Seaman gave a freshwater Passenger when he was to goe to Sea to put so many pibble stones into his mouth with assurance that he should not cast whilest he held them between his teeth What sort of Tradition ought to be reputed Apostolicall what not I have shewed formerly My second Principle was that all Errours are not Essentialls or Fundamentalls He demands what is this to his Proposiâ—â—oÌ„ which spake of Religion not of Opinions Very much because he maketh Opinions to be Essentialls of his Religion as wee see in the new Creed of Pius of fourth so do not we To the third Principle we agree thus farre that an Errour de side formaliter or in those things which are Essentialls of Faith doth destroy the being of a Church I adde that Errours in those things Quae sunt fidei materialiter that is in Inferiour Questions which happen in or about things believed or which are not in Essentialls howsoever they may be lately crowded into the Catalogue of Essentialls do not destroy the being of a Church My fourth Principle was that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from such Errours as are not in Essentialls He answereth Why so my Lord if those errours be not Essentiall they leave accordinâ— to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then you ought to breake Church Communion c. As if no Errours ought to be remedied but onely those which are absolutely exclusive from all hope of Salvation as if those Errours which are onely impeditive of Salvation ought not to be eschewed The least Errour maintained or committed against the dictate of Conscience is a sinne every good Christian ought to doe his uttermost endeavonr to free himself from sinne it is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it Yes saith he but not to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church or to endanger our soules where there is no necessity First they who free themselves from known Errours doe not thereby break Church Communion but they who make their Errours to be a Condition of their Communion Let him heare the Conclusion of the Bishop of Chalcedon In case a Particular Church do require profession of her Heresy as a Condition of Communicating with her Division from her in this case is no Schisme or sinne but virtue and necessary Where he speaketh onely of materiall Heresy It was they who made their Errours the Condition of their Communion and therefore the Schisme and sinlyeth at their doores Secondly Schisme doth not destroy the being of a Church for the Church continueth a Church still after the Schismaticks are gone out of it but it destroyeth the Schismaticks themselves Lastly to free ourselves froÌ„ known Errours when they are made Conditions of Communion is so far from being dangerous to salvation that as the Bishop confesseth truely it is virtue and necessary The second proofe of our Moderation was our Charity that we left them as one should leave his Fathers house whilest it is infected with some contagious Sicknesse with an hearty desire to return again so soone as it is cleansed This Charitable desire of ours I prooved by our daily prayers for theÌ„ in our Letany that God would bring them out of the way of Errour into the way of truth and particularly by our prayer on Good Fryday for them That God would have mercy upon all Hereticks and fetch them home to his Flock that they may be saved among the remnant of true Israelites and be made one fold under one Shepheard Iesus Christ our Lord. And this our Charity is the more conspicuous by this that in bulla caenae that is the next day before anniversarily they doe as solemnly curse and Anathematize us To this he answereth first that they doe more for us and hazard their lifes dayly to convert us They hazard their lifes to serve a forrein interest not to convert but
doe not mean that power purely Spirituall is to be won by the Sword but I believe that exemtion from Coactive power in the exteriour Court is to be won by the sword So the Scots eased the Archbishop of York of the trouble of a great part of his Province◠So just Conquerours may and doe often change the Externall Policy of the Church for the publick good He bids me shew that the English Bishops were impowered by the British Bishops or else let me confesse that they could inherit no Privileges from them I can shew him that I my self was impowered and did receive my Episcopall Ordination from the ancient Scotch Bishops by an uninterrupted Succession And many English Bishops have received their orders mediatly or immediatly from the British Bishops I said most truely that before he can allege the Authority of the Councell of Sardica for Appeales to Rome he must renounce the divine institution of the Papacy or at least the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to the Papacy because that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the Fathers and grounded it upon the Memory of St. Peter not the Institution of Christ. The reason of this Consequence is most evident For the Councell of Sardica would not nor could have submitted that which is the Popes right by Christs own Ordination to the good pleasure of the Fathers whether he should have it or not nor would have assigned their respect to the Memorie of Saint Peter for a ground of that for which they had the Commandement of Christ But the Councell of Sardica did submit the Popes right to receive Appeales to the good pleasure of the Fathers Placetne doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter Therefore they did not hold this right of the Pope to receive Appeales to be due to the Pope by Christs own Ordinance or Commandement This he is pleased to call a flat Falsification of the Councell there being not a word in it either concerning Papall power it self or its institution but concerning Appeales onely I am grown pretty well acquainted with his Falsifications Did I say there was any thing in the Councell concerning the Papacy or Institution of it If I did let him tell us where and when or els it is his own Falsification But by his own Confession there is something in the Councell concerning Appeales to the Pope and this is submitted by the Councell to the good pleasure of the Fathers and no higher ground assigned for it then the respect to the Memory of St. Peter yet this right of receiving Appeales is made by him and all his Partakers an Essentiall Branch of Papall power Therefore if he and his Partakers say true the Councell of Sardica did submit an Essentiall Branch of Papall Power or Papall power in part to the good pleasure of the Fathers which is as much as to say they held it not to be of divine Institution By this time I hope he understandeth my meaning better He presumeth that some British Bishops sate in Councell of Sardica it may be Athanasius intimateth as much He presumeth that they assented to the Sardican Canon about Appeales It may be or it may not be I should rather assent to their voting to acquit Athanasius who testifieth of them that they were right to the Nicene Faith But surely among all the Subscibers in the Sardican Councell there is not one British Bishop named And in the Synodall Letters of the Councell it self wherein they reckon all the Provinces Britain is not named But what is the right of receiving Appeales to an Vniversall Monarchy or the decree of a Councell to Christs own Ordination If we would be contented to abrogate our old Lawes and give the Bishop of Rome leave to execute that power which the Sardican Fathers did give him he would scorn it and much more their manner of giving it Si vobis placet if it please you or of it seem good to your Charity let us honour the Memory of St. Peter as both the Latin and the Greek Edition have it I said that the Councell of Sardica was no Generall Councell after the Eastern Bishops were departed not out of any ill will to Athanasius or favour to the Arrians as for Arrianisme the Sardican Fathers did no more then the Nicene had done before them but out of another Consideration because the presence of the five great Patriarchs with their respective Bishops or at least the greater part of them was ever more held necessary to the being of a Generall Councell as Bellarmine himself confesseth that the seventh Synod judged the Councell of Constantinople against Images to have been no General Councell because it had not Patriarchs enough If the Councell of Sardica had been a Generall Councell why doe St. Gregory the great Isiodore and Venerable Bede quite omit it out of the number of Generall Councells Why did St. Austin Alypius and the African Fathers sleight it And which is more then all this why doe the Eastern Church not reckon it among their seven Generall Councells nor the western Church among their eight first Generall Councells To Conclude why did the English Church leave the Sardican Councell out of the number of Generall Councells in the Synod of Hedtfelde in the yeare 680 and embrace onely these for Generall Councells untill that day The Councell of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus the Councell of Chalcedon and the second of Chalcedon Here he may see a plain reason why I say the Councell of Sardica was never incorporated into the English Lawes I would know whether he or I be of the old English Religion in this point The five First Generall Councells were incorporated into the Law of England but the Councell of Sardica was none of them Therefore no Generall Councell I have given him a further account concerning this Councell Sect. 1 c. 7. to which I refer him I said and I said most truely that the Canons of the Sardican Councell touching Appeales were never received in England nor incorporated into our English Lawes For proofe hereof I bring him an evident demonstration out of the Fundamentall Law of England as it is recorded in that famous Memoriall of Clarendon All Appeales in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and if the Archbishop failed to doe Iustice the last complaint must be to the King to give Order for redresse Our Ancestours had not so much respect for Pope Iulius nor thought appeales to Rome any honour to the Memory of St. Peter I said the Canon of the Councell of Sardica was cōtradicted after by the Great Councell of Chalcedon He rejuneth that I neither thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the Abrogation of the Sardican Canon is found worth mentioning Pardon me I said nothing of Abrogation but I did say it contradicted it and for proofe of the
truth of what I said take the very words of two Canons of that Councell But if a Clerk have a cause against his own Bishop or against another Bishop let him be Iudged by the Synod of the Province but if a Bishop or a Clerke have a Complaint against the Metropolitan of the same Province let him repaire either to the Primate of the Diocesse or the See of their royall City of Constantinople aend let him be judged there Wee see every Primate that is to say every Patriarch in generall in his own Diocesse or Patriarchate and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular out of his own Diocesse is equalled by the Councell of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth Canon that if there shall happen any Difference concerning the Possessions of the Churches it shall be lawfull to them who affirm themselves to be grieved to sue before the Holy Synod of the Province but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan let him be judged by the Primate of the Diocesse or by the holy See of Constantinople I have read those silly Evasions which your greatest Schollars are forced to make use of for answers to these downright Canons Sometimes by Primate of the Diocesse which signifieth all Patriarchs they understand and the Pope Do men use such improper expressions which no man can understand in penning of Lawes Is it not a great Condiscension for the Visible Monarch of all Christendome to stoupe to so meane a Title as the Primate of one single Diocesse But alas it will do him no good For if it were taken in this sense it were the most uniust Canon in the world to deprive all Patriarchs of their Patriarchall Iurisdiction except the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople The Councell which is so carefull to preserve the Bishop his right and the Metropolitan his right could not be so carelesse to destroy Patriarchall right or the Patriarchs themselves who were present at the making of this Canon so stupid to joine in it At other times they tell us that this is to be understood onely of the first Instance not of Appeales This is weaker and weaker What hath a Metropolitan to doe with private causes of the first instance out of his own Bishoprick What have the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople to doe to Iudge causes of the first Instance in other Patriarchates The case is cleare if any man be grieved by his Bishop he may appeale to his Metropolitan and a Synod and if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan he may appeale to his Patriarch And if this absurd sēse which they Imagin were true yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive Appeales from all parts of the world as well as the Bishop of Rome Let them winde and wrest and turn things as they can they shall never be able to reconcile the Papall Pretensions with the Councell of Chalcedon I have neither changed my mind nor my note concerning Eleutherius his Letter to King Lucius I did I doe esteem it to be of dubious Faith So much I intimated if it be not counterfeit So much he intimated as much as we have Records in our Histories Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over so often as we may take occasion Thus far then we are of accord but in the rest we differ wholy He is positive as much as we have Records the Popes Authority doth appeare I am as positive as much as we have Records the Kings Authority doth appeare For if those Records be true Eleutherius left the Legislative part to King Lucius and his Bishops This was enough to answer him He addeth though our Faith relieth on immediate Tradition for its certain Rule and not upon Fragments of old Authors that is in plain English upon his bare word without any Authority How should a man prove ancient Tradition but by Authors Yet after all this flourish he produceth us not one old Author but St. Prosper a stranger to our affaires and him to no purpose◠who saith onely what he heard in Italy That Pope Celestine sent St. German in his own stead to free the Britons from Pelaginisme and converted the Scots by Palladius If all this were as true as Gospell it signifieth just nothing I have shewed formerly that there is no Act of Iurisdiction in it but onely of the Key of Knowledge He rejoineth that he relied on these words vice sua in his own stead which sheweth that it belonged to his Office to doe it Why should it not The Key of Order belongeth to a Bishop as well as the Key of Iurisdiction And more especially to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as Pope Celestine was and in such a case as that was the Pelagian Controversy to testify the Apostolicall Tradition he was bound by his Office to doe it and he trusted S. German to doe it in his place All this is nothing to the purpose there is no Act of Iurisdiction in the Case but of Charity and Devotion Yet if it were not altogether impertinēt to the purpose we have in hand I should shew him that there is ten times better ground to believe that it was done by a French Synod then by Pope Celestine not out of an obscure Author but out of Authentick undoubted Histories as Constātius in the Life of S. German Venerable Bede Mathew Westminster and many others Is it not strange that they being so much provoked are not able to produce a proofe of one Papall Act of Iurisdiction done in Britain for the first six hundred years Here he catcheth hold at a saying of mine which he understandeth no more then the Man in the Moone that all other rights of Iurisdiction doe follow the right of Ordination which he taketh as though I meant to make Ordination it self to be an Act of Iurisdiction though I deny it and distinguish it from it To make the Reader to understand it we must distinguish between actuall Ordination and a right to ordaine Actuall Ordination where there was no precedent Obligation for that person to be ordeined by that Bishop doth imply no Iurisdiction at all but if there was a precedent right in the Ordeiner to ordein that man and a precedent Obligation in the person Ordeined to be ordeined by that Bishop then it doth imply all manner of Iurisdiction suitable to the Quality of the Ordeiner as if he were a Patriarch all Patriarchall Iurisdiction if he were a Metropolitan all Metropoliticall Iurisdiction if he were a Bishop all Episcopall Iurisdiction And the Inference holdeth likewise on the Contrary side that where there is no right precedent to Ordein nor Obligation to be ordeined there is no Iurisdiction followeth but I shewed out of our own Histories and out of the Roman Registers so far as they are set down by Platina that the Bishop of Rome had no right to ordein our British Primates but that they