thing which offereth it self to our Consideration is his Minor Proposition Whether the church of England did breake these Bonds of Vnity c But I hold it more Methodicall to examine first the Proofes of his Major That these were the right Bonds of Vnity and so dispatch that part out of my hands All which was agreed upon unanimouslly between the Church of Rome and its dependents and the Church of England and delivred from hand to hand in them all by the Orall and immediate Tradition of a World of Fathers to a world of Children successively as a rule of Faith or Difcipline received from Christ and his Apostles which so vast a Multitude of Eye witnesses did see visibly practised from Age to Age is undoubtedly true and such a rule is infallible and impossibe to be Crooked But these two Rules are such Rules And so he concludeth that they are incapable of Vsurpations and as easy to teach faith as Children learn their A B C. I have given his Argument as much force and edge as I could possibly but all this Wind shakes no Corn. His other two Rules were not so much to be blamed as this Rule of Rules Orall and immediate Tradition Of such Orall and immediate Tradition it was that our Saviour told the Sribes and Pharisees That they made the Commandements of God of none effect by their Tradition And St. Peter told the dispersed Iewes that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ from their vain Conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers These were such Traditions as The Iewes pretended they had receiued from Moses and the Prophets as the Romanists pretend now to have received their Traditions from Christ and his Apostles Otherwise wee doe not onely admit Orall Traditions in generall as an excellent Introduction to the Doctrin of saving truth and a singular help to expound the holy Scriptures but also particular unwritten Traditions derived from the Apostles and delivered unto us by the manifest Testimony of the Primitive Church being agreeable to the holy Scriptures The Apostles did speak by inspiration as well as write and their Tradition whether by word or writing indifferently was the word of God into which faith was resolved The Traditions of the Catholick Church of this present or another age have this Privilege to be free from all Errours that are absolutely Destructive to Salvation but this they have not from the nature of Tradition which is subject to Errour to Corruption to Change to Contradiction Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo but from the speciall Providence and protection of Christ who hath promised to be with his Church untill the end of the World In summe I deny both his Propositions First his Major Immediate Tradition from Parents to Children is not a certain and infallible Rule of Truth and Faith Traditions are often doubtfull doe often change with the times and sometimes contradict one another As we see in the Different Traditions of the Eastern and Western Churches about the observation of Easter And the Councells of Nice and Frankford about Images c. Neither points of Faith nor Papall rights are so visible as he imagineth Credulity and Ignorance and Prejudice and Passion and Interest doe all act their parts Upon his Grounds there can be no Ecclesiasticall Usurpations yet Experience teacheth us that there have been such Vsurpations in all Ages If he had reason to renounce the immediate Tradition of his Father and Grandfather and great Grandfather Then others may have the like and better reasons Let him believe the Suns dancing upon Easter morn and the Swanssinging and the Pellicans digging of her Breast with her Bill and all the Storyes of King Arthur and Robin Hood for it may be he hath received all these from his Elders by immediate Tradition He him self Confesseth that the possession of goverument must be such a possession as may be presumable to haue come from Christ not of such an one as every one knowes when it began P. 49. To what purpose is it to pretend tradition for all those branches of Papall power which are in controversy betweene them and us seeing all of them had their first originall eleven hundred yeares after Christ Secondly this is not all he ascribeth moreover too much to the immediate Tradition of the present Church but much more then too much to the immediate Tradition of his elders to make it absolutely infallible cui non potest subesse falsum and to resolve Faith into it The last resolution of Faith must be into that which is formally the word of God The voice of the present Church may be materially the word of God in regard of the matter and thing testified but it cannot be formally the word of God in respect of the Witnesses and manner of testifying But immediate Tradition is often a Seminary of Errours Thirdly he makes the Orall and immediate Tradition of Fathers to their Childâ—ren to be a more ready and safe Rule of Faith then the holy Scriptures which are the Canon of Faith and so ready that it is as easy as for Boyes to learn their A B C. aud so safe that it is impossible to be made crooked Lastly he Confoundeth the Tradition of the Roman Church with the Tradition of the Catholick Church yet the one is but particular the other Universall Tradition Saint Augustine setteth us downe a certeine rule how to know a true genuine Apostolicall tradition Quod univers a tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper Retentum est nonnifi authoriate Apostolica traditum verissiÌ„ me creditur Whatfoever the whole Church doth hold which was not instituted by councells but allwayes received is most rightly beleeued to have bene delivered by Apostolicall authority These three markes conjoinctly do most firmly prove an Apostolicall Tradition I do not denie but that there have bene Apostolicall Traditions which have wanted some of these Markes but they were neither necessary to salvation nor can be proved at this day after sixteene hundred yeares to have bene Apostolicall Traditions Whatsoever wanteth either universality or perpetuiâ—y is not absolutely uecessary Neither can the reception of one Apostolicall Church proue a tradition to be Apostolicall if other Apostolicall Churches do reject it and contradict it To conclude we give all due respect to Tradition but not so much to Orall Tradition as to Written Tradition as beingmore certain lesse subject to mistakes and more easily freed from mistakes Liter a scriptamanet A serious person if he be but to deliver a long message of importance from one to another will be carefull either to receive it in writing or put it in writing Nor so much to particular immediate Tradition as we do to Vniversall and perpetuall tradition He overshooteth himself beyond all aime in affirming of immediate and Particular Tradition that where it hath place it is impossible for usurpations or abuses to enter or find admittance He might as
erroneous tenets as necessary points of faith and Schismaticall Practises meerly by the authority and to uphold the interest and ambitions or aâ—aricious courses of the Roman Court. My second ground is this God almighty dothâ— not approve of that unequall proverb The Fathers have eaten sowre Grapes and the Childrens teeth are set on edge Posterity is not guilty of their Ancestours transgressions further then they doe either imitate them or maintain them Suppose these calumnies had been truths which some have belched forth against our Reformers that they had Sacrilegious or other sinister ends it signifieth nothing to us so long as wee neither justify them nor imitate them Iehues heart was not over upright and yet God himself approved his Reformation Suppose any of our Reformers have run into any excesses or extremes either in their expressions or perhaps in their actions it is a difficult thing in great changes to observe a just meane it may be out of humane frailty as Lycurgus out of hatred to drunkennesâ—e cut down all the Vines about Sparia or it may be out of Policy as men use to bend a crooked Rod as much the contrary way to make it streight or as expert Masters in Musick doe sometimes draw up their Scholars a note too high to bring them to a just tone What is that to us so long as we practise the meane and maintain the mean and guide our selves by the certain line and Levell of Apostolicall and primitive Tradition Charity commands us to thinke well of our Predecessors and Theology to look well to our selves Thirdly that difference which divines doe make between affirmative and negative precepts that affirmative bind alwayes but not to all times semper but not ad semper A man is bound alwayes to pray but is not hound to the actuall exercise of praier at all timts but neganegative precepts bind both semper and ad semper The same I say of affirmative aud negative presidents affirmative presidents prove alwayes that such a fact was done and it may be that it was justly done at that time in that case but they prove not a right ad semper to doe it at all times The reason is evident Particular Acts may be done by Connivence or by speciall License but a Generall Prohibition implyeth a perpetual right As for instance I produce Negative Presidents both Generall Lawes against all appeales to Rome that no man may appeale to the Pope without the Kings License and Particular Prohibitions out of the Kings Courts by form of ordinary Iustice against such and such Appeales or such and such Sentences upon Appeales This argueth a perpetuall Right to forbid Appeales whensoever it is Iudged expedient On the otherside he preduceth Presidents of Particular Appeales to Rome which he may doe of later Dayes but for the First eleven hundred years it was not so This Proveth onely the Kings License or Connivence in such cases it doth not prove a perpetuall Right because two perpetuall Rights contradictory one to another can not be My fourth and last ground is that neither King Henry the eighth nor any of our Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the Keys or any part thereof either the Key Order or the Key of Iurisdiction I mean jurisdictioÌ„ purelâ— spiritual which hath place onely in the Inner court of conscience and over such persons as submit willingâ—y Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume unto them selves either the Key of order or the key of jurisdiction purely Spirituall All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the externall Regiment of the Church by Coactive power to be excercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had ot could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose subjects they were And there fore when wee meet with these words or the like that no forrein Prelate shall exercise any manner of power Iurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or Privilege Ecclesiasâ—icall or Spirituall within this Realme It is not to be understood of internall or purely Spiritual power in the court of conscience or the power of the Keys Wee see the Contrary practised every day but of external and coactive power in Ecclesiasticall causes in foro contenâ—ioso And that it is and ought to be so understood I prove clearly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and a Canon of the English Church First the Proviso is conteined in the Act for the Exoneration of the Kings Subjects from all Exactions and Impositions paid to the See of Rome Provided alwayes this Act nor any thing therein conteined shall be here after interpreâ—ed or expounded that your Grace your nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and Vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture and the Word of God necessary for your and their Salvations but onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice aud for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Vnity and Tranquility from ravine and Spoile insueing much the old ancient Customes of this Realme in that behalfe They profesâ—e their Ordinance is meerly Politicall What hath a Politicall Ordinance to doe with power purely Spirituall They seek onely to preserve the kingdome from ravine and Spoile Power purely spirituall can commit no Ravin or Spoile â—heâ— follow ancient Customes of the Realm There was no ancient Custome of the Realm for abolition or translation of power purely spirituall They professe all Conformity to Holy Scriptures but the power of the keys was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successors not to Soveraign Princes If any thing had been conteined in this Law for the Abolition or Translation of power meerly and purely Spirituall it had been retracted by this Proviso at the same time it was enacted The Canon is the 37. Canon where we give the Kings Majesty the Supreme Government Wee doe not give our Kings either the Administration of Gods word or Sacraments which the Injunctions published lately by Queen Elisabeth doe most evidently declare but onely that Prerogative which wee see to have been alwayes attributed to all Godly Princes by him self in holy Scripture That is to preserve or contein all Estates and Orders committed to their trust by God whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Civill in their Dutyes and restrein contumacious Offenders with the Civill Sword You see the Power is Politicall the Sword is Politicall all is Politicall Our Kings leave the power of the keys and Iurisdiction purely Spirituall to those to whom Christ hath lest it Sect. I. Cap. IV. And now having dispatched the Circumstances out of my way and laid down some Necessary grounds I come directly to the Substance of his Assumption and
Court of the Church whereby men are compelled against their wills by Exteriour Meanes This the Apostles had not froÌ„ Christ nor their Successours froÌ„ them Neither did Christ ever assume any such power to him self in the world My Kingdome is not of this world And Man who made me a Iudge or divider over you Yet the greatest Controversies at this day in the Ecclesiasticall Court are about Possessions as Glebes Tithes Oblations Portions Legacies Administrations c. And if it were not for these the rest would not be so much valued in Criminibus non in Possessionibus potestas vestra quontam propter illa non propter has accepistis Claves regni Caelorum Saith St. Bernard well to the Pope Your power is in Crimes not in possessions for those and not for these you received the Keys of the kingdome of Heaven But suppose the Controversy to be about a Crime Yet who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison or punish them for not appearing without his leave All that power which Ecclesiasticall Iudges have of Externall Coaction they owe it wholy either to the Submission of the parties where the Magistrate is not Christian as the Iewes at this day doe undergoe such Penitentiall Acts as are enjoined them by their Superiours because the Reverence of them who obey doth supply the defects of their power who Command Or where the Magistrate is Christian they owe it to his Gracious Concessions Of which if any Man doubt and desire to see how this Coactive power how these externall Privileges did first come to be enjoyed by Ecclesiasticall persons Let him read over the first booke of the Code and the Authenticks or Novels of Iustinian And for our English Church in Particular let him consult with our best Historiographers Eadmerus was one whom they need not suspect of partiality as being Pope Vrbanes own Creature and by his speciall appointment placed over Anselm at his own intreaty as a Superviser to exercise his Obedience Whose injunctions had so much power over him that if he placed him in his Bed he would not onely not rise without his Command but not so much as turn him self from one side to another Vt cum Cubili locasset non solum sine praecepto ejus non surgereâ— sed nec latus inverteret What Marvell is it if the ancient Liberties of the English Church went first to wrack in Anselms Dayes about the Yeare of our Lord 1000 for he died Anno 1109 who being a Stranger Primate had so totally surrendered up his own reason to the Popes Creature Yet this Eadmerus saith of Lanfranke His wisdome recovered other Customes which the Kings of England by their Munificence had granted to the Church of Canterbury in ancient times and established them for ever by their sacred Decrees that it might be most free in all things All externall exemption and Coaction is Politicall and proceedeth originally from the Soveraign Prince This is that which S. Paul teacheth us The weapons of our warfare are not Carnall The weapons of the Church are Spirituall not worldly not externall But Citations and Compulsories and Significavits and Writs ad excommunicatum capiendum which are not written by the Bishops own hand yet at his beck and Apparitors and Iaolers c Are Weapons of this world and tend to externall Coaction For all which the Church is beholden to the Civill power to whom alone externall Coaction doth properly and originally belong This is that which St. Chrysostome observed in his comparison between a Bishop and a Shepheard It is not lawfull to cure men with so great Authority as the Shepheard cureth his Sheep For it is free for the Shepheard to bind his sheep to drive them from their meat to burn them to cut them But in the case of the Bishop the Faculty of curing consisteth not in him who administreth the Phisick but in him that is sick c. St. Chrysost. speaketh of power purely Spirituall which extendeth it self no further theÌ„ the Court of conscieÌ„ce where no man can be cured against his will But Soveraign Princes have found it expedieÌ„t for the good both of the Church and of the Commonwealth to strengthen the Bishops haÌ„ds by imparting some of their Politicall authority to him from whose gracious indulgence all that externall coactive power which Bishops have doth proceed Now to apply this to our purpose Wheresoever our Lawes doe deny all Spirituall Iurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sense that wee call the exteriour Court of the Churâ—h the Spirituall Court They doe not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the Keys or of any Spirituall power that was bequeathed unto him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy Yea even in relation to England it self Our Parliaments never did pretend to any power to change or Abridge divine right Thus much our very Proviso in the body of our Law doth testify that it was no part of our meaning to vary from the Articles of the Catholick Faith in any thing Nor to vary from the Church of Christ in any other thing declared by the holy Scripture and the word of God necessary to salvation If wee have taken away any thing that is of divine right it was retracted before it was done Then followeth the true Scope of our Reformation Onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in peace unity and tranquillity from ravine and spoile insuing much the ancient Customes of this Realm in that behalf That wich professed it self a Politick Ordinance doth not meddle with Spirituall Jurisdiction If it had medled with Spirituall Iurisdiction at all it had not insued the ancient Customes of the Realm of England In summe that externall Papall power which we rejected and cast out and which onely we cast out is the same which the English Bishops advised Aâ—selm to renounce when it was attempted to be obtruded upon the Kingdome But know that all the Kingdome complaineth against thee that thou endeavourest to take away from our Common Maister the Flowers of his Imperiall Crown Whosoever takes away the Customes which pertein to his royall dignity doth take away his Crown and Government together for we prove that one cannot be decently had without the other But we beseech the consider and cast away thy Obedience to that Vrban who cannot help the if the King be offended nor hurt thee if the King be pacified Shake of the yoke of Subjection and freely as it becomes an Arch-bishop of Canterbury in all thy Actions expect the Kings pleasure and Commands What soever power our Lawes did divest the Pope of they invested the King with it but they never invested the King with any Spirituall power or Iurisdiction witnesse the Injunctions of Queen Elisabeth witnesse the publick Articles of
Councell then there will need no turning out Secondly he objecteth So a man may reject all Government of the Church the Procession of the Holy ghost all the Sacraments all the Scriptures and yet continue a Member of Gods Church Why so When I said the Creed was a â—ufficient Rule of Faith or Credendorum of things to be believed I neither said nor meant that it was regula agendorum a Rule of such things as are to be practised such as the Acts of discipline and of the Sacraments are The Creed conteined enough for Salvation touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost before the words Filioque were added to it and there is great cause to doubt that the Contentions of the Eastern and Western Churches about this Subject are but a meer Logomachy or strife about words The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith but one and the same Rule dilated in the Scripture contracted in the Creed the end of the Creed being to contein all Fundamentall points of Faith or a summary of all things necessary to Salvation to be believed Necessitate medii But in what particulaâ— writings all these fundamentall points are conteined is no particular fundamentall Article it self nor conteined in the Creed nor could be conteined in it since it is apparent out of Scripture it self that the Creed was made and deposited with the Church as a Rule of Faith before the Canon of the new Testament was fully perfected Arrians and Socinians may perhaps wrest the words of the Apostles Creed to their Hereticall Sense but not as it is explained by the first foure Generall Councells which all Orthodox Christians doe admit He saith they and we differ about the sense of two Articles of the Creed that is the descent of Christ into Hell and the Catholick Church but setteth not down wherein we differ He hath reason to understand our Differences having been of both Churches but I for my part do rather believe that he understandeth neither part right Howsoever it be the Different Sense of an Article doth make an Heretick after it is defined by the Vniversall Church not before He saith he hath already shewed in the foregoing Section that the Protestant Grounds have left no Order and Subordination of Vniversall Government in Gods Church But he hath neither shewn it in the foregoing Section nor any where else nor is able to shew it We have the same subordination that the Primitive Church of Inferiour Clergy men to Bishops of Bishops to Archbishops of Archbishops to Patriarchs and of Patriarchs to a Generall Councell or as Generall as may be Let him shew any one linke of this Subordination that we have weakened I said we acknowledge not a Virtuall Church or one man as infallible as the Vniversall Church He rejoineth Nor they neither I wish it were so Generally but the Pope and Court of Rome who have the power of the Keys in their hands whoÌ„ onely we accuse in this behalf do maintain the Contrary that a Generall Councell without the Pope may erre that the Pope with any Councell Generall or particular cannot erre that the infallibility of the Church is radicated in the Pope by virtue of Christs prayer for S. Peter that his faith should not faile not in a company of Counsailers nor in a Councell of Bishops that the Pope cannot define temerariously in matters of Faith or good manners which concern the whole Church What a Generall Councell is and what the Vniversall Church is and who ought to be excluded from the one or the other as Hereticks I have shewed already namely all those and onely those who doe either renounce their Creed the badge of their Christianity the same Faith whereinto they were baptised or who differing about the sense of any Article thereof have already been excluded as Hereticks by the sentence of an undoubted Generall Councell Howsoever he sleighteth the Controversies which they have among themselves concerning the last resolution of Faith as if they were of no moment yet they are not of so little concernment to be so sleighted What availeth it to say they have the Church for an infallible Iudge whilest they are not certain or do not know what the Church is or who this infallible Iudge is May not a Man say unto them as Elijah said unto the Israelites Why halt ye between two Opinions Or rather why halt yet betwixt five or six Opinions If the Pope alone be infallible Iudge follow him If a Generall Councell alone be this infallible Iudge follow it If the Essentiall Church be the infallible Iudge Adhere to it If the Pope and a Generall Councell oâ— the Pope and a particular Councell or the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinalls be this infallible Iudge follow them He telleth us that their Vniversall Church is as Visible as the sun at Noone day to wit those Countryes in Communion with the See of Rome Without doubt they are Visible enough but it is as Visible that they are not the Vniversall Church What shall become of all the rest of the Christian world They are the elder Christians and more numerous fower for one both Patriarchs and people It is against reason that one single Protopatriarch should cast out fower out of the Church and be both party and Iudge in his own Cause But here it ends not If the Pope will have his Visible Church to be one Homogeneous body he must cast out a great many more yet and it is to be suspected this very Dispatcher himself among the rest for all his shewes They flatter the Pope with Generall Terms of Head and Chief Governour and First Mover which signify nothing but in reality they would have the Pope to be no more then the Duke of Venice is in the Venetian Common wealth that is lesse then any single Senatour Or that which a Generall Maister is in a Religious Order Above all Priours and Provincialls but subject to a Congregation Generall Wherein doe these men differ from us Sect. 8. That all Princes â—nd Republiques of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same thing whicâ— Henry the eighth did when they have Occasion or at least doe plead for it This was the Title and this was my scope of my Fifth ground which I made good by the Lawes and decrees of the Emperours with their Councells and Synods and Electorall College by the Lawes of France the Liberties of the Gallican Church the Acts of their Parliaments and declarations of their Vniversities By the practise of the King of Spain his Councells his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders By the sighs of Portugall and their bleaâ—ings and the Iudgement of the Vniversity of Lisbone By the Lawes and Proclamations of the Republick of Venice This I made good in every particular branch of Papall power which we have cast out of England the Patronage of the English Church The right to call and confirm Synods to conferre Bishopricks to
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
phantastick Persons who have been great pretenders to demonstration but always succeslesse and for the most part ridiculous They are so conceitedly curious about the premisses that commonly they quite mistake their conclusion Causes encombred with Circumstances and those left to the election of free agents are not very capable of demonstration The Case in difference between us is this as it is stated by me Whether the Church of England have withdrawn themselves from Obedience to the Vicar of Christ and seperated from the Communion of the Catholick Church And upon those Termes it is undertaken by him in the words immediatly following And that this Crime is justly charged upon his Church not onely with Colour but with undeniable Evidence of fact will appeare by the position of the Case and the nature of his exceptions We have the State of the Controversy agreed upon between us Now let us see how he goeth about to prove his intention What Church soever did upon probable reasons without any neeessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches is guilty of Schisme But the Church of England in Henry the eightâ—s dayes did upon probable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches therefore the church of England is guilty of Schisme I doe readily assent to his Major proposition and am ready to grant him more if he had pleased to insert it That that Church is Schismaticall which doth breake the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in his Gospell whatsoever their reasons be whether convincing or probable and whosoever doe either consent to them or dissent from them But I deny his Minor which he endeavoureth to prove thus Whatsoever Church did renounce or reject these two following Rules or Principles first that The doctrines which had been inherited from their Forefathers as the Legacyes of Christ and his Apostles were solely to be acknowledged for Obligatory and nothing in them to be changed Secondly that Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this World and to whom all others in difficulties concerning Matters belonging to Universall faith or Government should have recoâ—rse and that the Bishops of Rome as Successors from St. Peter inherited from him this privilege in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles That Church did breake the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in his Gospell and agreed upon between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and the rest of her communion But the Church of England did all this in Henry the eyghts dayes that very yeare where in this unhappy Separation began upon meerly probable no convincing grounds Therefore c. To his former Proposition I made this exception That he would obtrude upon us she Church of Rome and its dependents for the Catholick Church Uppon this he flyeth out as it is his Custome into an invective discourse telling me I looke a squint at his position of the case He will not find it so in the conclusion And that I strive Hocus-pocus like to divert my Spectators eyes With a great deale more of such like froath where in there is not a syllable to the purpose except this that he did not mention the word Catholick in that place The greater was his fault It is a foule Solecisme in Logick not to conclude contradictorily I did mention the Catholick Church in the State of the Question Whether the church of England had separated it self from the communion of the Catholick Church And he had undertaken in the words immediatly following to charge that very Schisme upon us with undeniable Evidence And in his very first Essay shuffles out the Catholick Church and in the place thereof thrusts in the Church of Rome with all the rest of her communion He might have known that wee doe not looke upon the Church of Rome with all the rest of her Communion as the Catholick Church Nor as above a fifth part of the present Catholick Church And that wee doe not ascribe any such in fallibility in necessary truths to the Roman Church with all her dependants as wee doe to the true Catholick Church Nor esteem it alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the modern Roman Church Namely in those points wherein shee had first seperated both from the primitive Roman Church and from the present Catholick Church But wee confesse it to be alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the Communion of the Catholick Church united Thus much he ought to take notice of and when he hath oecasion hereafter to write upon this Subject not to take it for granted as they use to doe that the Catholick Church and the Roman Church are convertible Termes or tell us a Tale of a Tub what their Tenet is that these Churches which continue in Communnion with the Roman are the onely true Churches We regard not their Schismaticall and uncharitable Tenets now no more then we regarded the same tenets of the donatists of old They must produce better authority then their Owne and more substantiall proofes then he hath any in his Budget to make us believe that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church It is charity to acknowledge it to be a Catholick church inclusively but the greatest uncharitablenesse in the world to make it the Catholick church exclusively that is to seperate from Christ and from hope of Salvation as much as in them lieth all Christians who are not of their own communion Howsoever it is well that they who used to vaunt that the Enemy trembled at the name of the Catholick church are now come about themselves to make the Catholick Church to be an appendix to the Roman Take notice Reader that this is the first time that Mr. Serjeant turns his back to the question but it will not be the last My next taâ—ke is to examine his two Rules or Bonds of Unity And first concerning his Rule of faith I doe not onely approve it but thanck him for it and when I have a purpose to confute the 12 new Articles of Pius the fourth I will not desire a better medium then it And I doe Cordially subscribe to his Censure that the Transgressors there of are indeed those who are truly guilty of that horrid Schisme which is now in the Christian world To his second Rule or principle for Government that Christ made Sâ— Peter First or Chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the church after he departed out of this world to whom all others should have recourse in greater Difficulties If he had not been a meer Novice and altogether ignoranâ— of the Tenets of our English Church he might have known that wee have no controversy
fourth Custome was this that when an Arch Bishoprick Bishoprick Abbacy or Priory did fall void the Election was to be made by such of the Principall Dignitaryes or Members of that respective Church which was to be filled as the king should call together for that purpose with the kinges consent in the kings own Chappell And there the person elected was to doe his Homage and Fealty to the King as to his Liege Lord The Pope had no part to Act neither to collate nor consent nor confirm nor Institute nor induct nor ordeine The Second Law is the Statute of Carlile made in the time of Edward the First The summe of it is this That the king is the Founder of all Bishopricks and ought to have the Custody of them in the Vacancyes and the right of Patronage to present to them And that the Bishop of Rome usurping the Right of Patronage giveth them to aliens That this tendeth to the annullation of the State of holy Church to the Disinheriting of Kings and the Destruction of the Realm And they ordained in full Parliament that this is an Oppression that is as much as an entroachment or Vsurpation and should not be suffered The third law was made in the 15th yeare of Edward the third called the Statute of Provisors wherein they affirm that Elections were First granted by the Kings Progenitors upon a certain form or Condition to demand Licenfe of the King to chuse and after the Election to have his Royall Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to resort to his First nature And there fore conclude that in case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch Bishoprick c. Our Soveraign Lord the King and his Heirs shall have and enjoy the Collations for the same time to the said Arch Bishopricks Bishopricks and other dignityes Elective which be of his Aavowre such as his Progenitors had before the free Election was granted They tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Land is such that the King is bound to make remedyes and Lawes against such mischiefes And they acknowledge that he is Advowée Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benifices which are of the Advowry of holy Church That is as much as Soveraign Patron of the Church Where no Election can be made without the Kings Congé d' Estire or leave antecedent nor stand good without his subsequent consent it is all one as if the Crown did Collate I come next to the second Branch of the First Question about the Patronage of the Church Who hath power to Convocate and Dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and whether the Crown or the Pope have usurped one upon another in this particular I cannot tell whether Henry the eighth or Paul the third did mistake more about that Aiery title of the head of the english church Henry the eight supposing that the right to convocate and dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and to receive Tenths and First fruits did esseÌ„tially follow this Title And Paul the third declaringe it to be Hereticall and Schismaticall To be head of the English Church is neither more nor lesse then our Lawes and Histories ancient and Modern doe every where ascribe to our English Kings To be Governers of Christians To be the Advocates of the Church To be Patrons and Advowées Paramont of all Churches To be Defenders of the Faâ—h there Professed And to use the Words of the Convocation it self Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectores singulares Vnicos Supremos Dominos The same body may have severall heads of severall kinds upon Earth as Politicall and Ecclesiasticall and then that which takes care of the Archirectonicall end to see that every member doe his Duty is alwayes Supreme That is the Politicall head This truth Cardinall Poole did see clearly enough and reconcile the seeming difference by distinguishing between a Regall head and a Sacerdotall head This truth the French Divines see wel enough and doubt not to call their King the Terrene head of the Church of his Realme without attributing to him any Sacerdotall right Wee had our Sacerdotall heads too in EnglaÌ„d without seeking for theÌ„ so far as Rome As the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reigns of our English Monarchs who of old was Nullius unquam Legati ditioni subjectus Never subject to the Iurisdiction of any Legate When the Pope sent over Guy Archbishop of Vienna into England as his Legate throughout Britaigne for the Apostolicall See It was received with wonder and Admiration of all men Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Episcopum Cantuariae All men did know that it was never heard in Britagne that any Man whatsoever had Apostolicall power over them but onely the Archbishop of Canterbury And accordingly the new Legate did speed so it followeth Wherefore as he came so he returned received as Legate by no man nor having exercised any part of his Legantine power This was the ground of that Letter of the English Bishops to the Pope That the Church of Canterbury might not be deprived of its dignity in his times and that he would neither Diminish it him self nor suffer it to be diminished As appeareth by the Popes acknowledgment in his answer But to come up close to the Difference The Question is not whether â—he Bishop of Rome have Authority to call Synods He is a Bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Prince in his own Dominions As a Bishop he may Convocate his Diocesse As a Metropolitan his Province As a Patriarch his Patriarchate under the pain of Ecclesiasticall Censure more or lesse compulsory according to that Degree of Coactive power which hath been indulged to him in these Distinct Capacities by former Soveraigns And as a Prince he may convocate his Subjects under Politicall paines The more these two powers are united and complicated the more terrible is the Censure And therefore our kings would have their Bishops denounce spirituall paines also against the Violaters of their great Charters Spirituall paiues are more heauy then Politicall but Politicall most commonly are more speedy then Spirituall And more certain Spirituall paines doe not follow an erring Key but Politicall doe Neither will I dispute at praesent whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or Beginning of Unity may lawfully call an Oecumenicall or Occidentall Councell by power purely Spirituall which consists rather in Advise then in Mandates properly so called or in Mandates of Courtesy not Coactive in the Exteriour Court of the Church considering the Division and Subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present Distractions of Christendome it seemeth not altogether in convenient Wee see the Primitive Fathers did Assemble Synods and â—ake Canons before there were any christian Emperours but that was by aurhority meerly spirituall they
is the Keeper of both the Tables and wee say that for the first Table the Bishops ought to be his Interpreters Thirdly as wee question not the Popes legislative or coactive power over his own subjects so we submit to the judgemeÌ„t of the Catholick church whether he ought to have a primacy of order as the successour of S. Peter and as a consequent thereof a right if he would content himself with it to summoÌ„ Councells when and where there are no Christian Soveraignes to doe it and to joyne with other Bishops in making spirituall Lawes or Canons such as the Apostles made and such as the primitive Bishops made before there were christiaÌ„ Emperours But then those Canons are the Lawes of the Church not of the Pope As those Canons in the Acts of the Apostles were the Lawes of the Apostolicall College The Apostles and Elders and Brethren not the Lawes of S. Peter Then their Lawes have no Coactive Obligation to compell Christians in the outward Court of the Church against their Wills or further then they are pleased to submit theÌ„selves All exteriour coactive power is from the Soveraigne Prince and therefore when and where Emperours and Kings are Christians to them it properly belongeth to summon Councells and to confirm their Canons thereby making them become lawes Because Soveraign Princes onely have power to License and Command their Subjects to Assemble to assign fit places for their Assembling to protect them in their Assemblyes and to give a Coactive power to their Lawes without which they may doe their best to drive away Wolves and to oppose Heriticks but it must be with such Armes as Christ had furnished them withall that is persuasions Prayers Teares and at the most seperating them from the Communion of the faithfull and leaving them to the Iudgement of Christ. The Controversy is then about new upstart Papall Lawes either made at Rome such are the decretalls of Gregory the ninth Boniface the eighth Clement the fifth and succeeding Popes Or made in England by Papall Legates as Otho and Othobone Whether the Pope or his Legates have power to make any such Lawes to bind English Subjects and compell them to obey them against their Wills the King of England contradicting it The first time that ever any Canon of the Bishop of Rome or any legislative Legate of his was attempted to be obtruded upon the King or Church of England was eleven hundred yeares after Christ. The first Law was the Law against taking Investitures to Bishopricks from a Lay hand And the first Legate that ever presided in an English Synod was Iohannes Cremensis of both which I have spoken formerly Observe Reader and be astonished if thou hast so much faith to believe it That the Pope should pretend to a legislative power over British and English Subjects by divine right and yet never offer to put it in execution for above eleven hundred yeares It remaineth now to prove evidently that Henry the eighth by his Statute made for that purpose did not take away from the Bishop of Rome any Privilege which he and his Predecessors had held by Inheritance from St. Peter and been peaceably possessed of for fifteen hundred yeares But on the contrary that eleven hundred yeares after St. Peter was dead the Bishops of Rome did first invade the right of the Crown of England to make Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church which the Predecessors of Henry the eighth had enjoyed peaceably untill the dayes of William Rufus nemine contradicente And that the Kings Lawes were evermore acknowledged to be true Lawes and obligatory to the English Subjects but that the Popes decrees were never esteemed to be binding Lawes in England except they were incorporated in to our Lawes by the King and Church or Kingdome of England Whence it followeth by irrefragable consequence that Henry the eighth was not the Schismatick in this particular but the Pope and those that maintain him or adhere to him in his Vsurpations First for the Kings right to make Lawes not onely concerning the outward RegimeÌ„t of the Church but even coÌ„cerning the Keys of Order and jurisdiction so far as to oblige them who are trusted with that power by the Church to doe their dutyes it is so evident to every one who hath but cast his Eyes upon our English Lawes that to bestow labour on proving it were to bring Owles to Athens Their Lawes are extant made in all Ages concerning faith and good Manners Heresy Holy Orders the Word the Sacraments Bishops Priests Monkes the Privileges and Revenues of Holy Church Marriages Divorces Simony The Pope his SenteÌ„ces his oppressions and usurpations Prohibitions Appeales from Eeclesiasticall judges and generally all things which are of Ecclesiasticall Cognifance and this in those times which are acknowledged by the Romanists themselves to have been Catholick More then this they inhibited the Popes own Legate to attempt to decree any thing contrary to the Kings Crown and dignity And if they approved the decrees of the Popes Legates they confirmed them by their Royall Authority and so incorporated them into the Body of the English Lawes Secondly that the Popes decrees never had the force of Lawes in England without the Confirmation of the King Witnesse the decrees of the Councell of Lateran as they are commonly called but it is as cleare as the day to any one who readeth the eleveÌ„th the six and fortieth and the one and sixtieth Chapters that they were not made by the Councell of Lateran but some time after perhaps not by InnoceÌ„t the third but by some succeeding Pope For the author of them doth distinguish himself expresly from the Councell of Lateran It was well provided in the Councell of Lateran c. But because that statute is not observed in many Churches we confirming the foresaid statute doe adde c. Again It is known to have been prohibited in the councel of Lateran c. But we inhibiting the same moro strongly c. How soever they were the Popes decrees but never were received as Lawes in England as wee see evidently by the third Chapter That the Goods of Clergimen being convicted of Heresy be forfeited to the Church That all Officiers Secular and Ecclesiasticall should take an Oath at their Admission into their Office to their power to purge their Territories from Heresy That if a Temporall Lord did neglect being admonished by the Church to purge his Lands from Heresy he should be excommunicated And if he contemned to satisfy within a yeare the Pope should absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance And by the three and fortieth Chapter That no Ecâ—â—â—siasticall person be compelled to swear allegiance to a Lay man And by the six and fortieth Chapter that Ecclesiasticall persons be free from taxes Wee never had any such Lawes all Goods forfeited in that kind were ever confiscated to the King We never had any such Oaths Every one is to answer for himself We know
their fore fathers to be the infallible voice of the Church At other times he maketh the extent of Papall power to be a matter of Indifferency wherein every Church is free to hold their own Opinions In his Rule of Discipline he maketh St. Peter onely to be the Head the Chiefe the Prince of the Apostles the First mover in the Church all which in a right sense we approve or do not oppose Why doth he not acknowledge him to be a visible Monarch an absolute Soveraign invested with a plenitude of power Soveraign Legislative Iudiciary Dispensative All the rest of the Apostles were First Movers in the Church even as well as St. Peter except onely his Primacy of order which we allow When your men come to aâ—swer this they feign the Apostles were all equall in relatioÌ„ to ChristiaÌ„ people but not in relatioÌ„ to one another Yes even in Relation to themselves and one another as hath beeÌ„ expresly declared long since in the First Generall Councell of Ephesus not now to be contradicted by them Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Peter and Iohn were of equall Dignity one towards another A Primacy of Order may confist with an Equality of Dignity but a Supremacy of power taketh away all Parity Par in parem non habet potestatem He is blind who doth no see in the History of the Acts of the Apostles that the supremacy or Soveraignty of power did not rest in the person of any one single Apostle but in the Apostolicall College These indefinite Generalities he stileth Determinate points It may be Determinate for the generall truth but Indeterminate for the particular manner about which all the Controversy is Yet he who never wanteth Demonstrative Arguments to prove what he listeth will make it evident out of the very word Reformation which we own and extoll that we have broken the Rule of Unity in Discipline If he doe he hath good luck for by the same reason he may prove that all the Councells of the Christian world both Generall and Provinciall have broken the Bond of Vnity by owning and extolling the very word Reformation both name and thing As for the points of our Reformation I doe not referre him to Platonicall Ideas to be found in the Concave of the Moone but to our Lawes and Statutes made by all the Orders of our Kingdome Church and Commonwealth not as they are wrested by the tongnes and pens of our Adversaries Malice may be a good informer but a bad judge but as they are expounded by the Genuine and Orthodox Sons of the English Church by our Princes by our Synods by our subsequent Parliaments by our Theologians by our most Iudicious Lawiers in their Injunctions in their Acts in their Canons in their writings which he may meete with if he have such a mind in earnest without any great search in every Library or Stationers shop Sect I. Cap. XI We doe not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither doe we looke upon them as Essentialls of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and of his Apostles but in a meane as pious Opinions fitted for the Preservation of Vnity neither doe we oblige any man to believe them but onely not to contradict them Yet neither is the Bishop got into a wood nor leaveth his Reader in another further from knowing what these Doctrines of saving Faith are then he was at first It is Mr. Serjeants Eyesight that failes him through too much light which maketh him mistake his ancient Creed for a wood and the Articles for trees persons who are gogle eied seldome see well wherein all things necessary to be believed are comprehended And although he inquire Where are the processions of the Divine Persons the Sacraments Baptism of Children the Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as Scripture to be be found in the creed The Bishop is so far from being gravelled with sâ—ch doughty Questions that he pitieth his simplicity aÌ„d returneth him for answer that if he be not mopâ—eyed he may find the Procession of the Divine Persons in his Creed that the Sacraments and Discipline of the Church are not to be reckoned amoÌ„g the Credenda or things to be believed but among the Agenda or things to be acted and the Holy Scripture is not a particular Doctrin or point of Faith but the Rule wherein and whereby all Fundamentall Doctrins or points of Faith are comprehended and tried So still his truth remaineth unshaken that the Creed is a Summary of all particular points of saving faith which are necessary to be believed He proceedeth that the Protestants have introduced into the Church since the Reformation no particular Form of Government in stead of that they renounced A grievous accusation We had no need to introduce new formes having preserved the old They who do onely weed a Garden have no need to set new Plants We have the Primitive Discipline of the Church and neither want Spirituall nor Ecclesiasticall nor Politicall Government If you have any thing to say against it cough out and spare not And although we want such a free and generall Communion with the Christian World as we could wish and such as Bishops had one with another by their formed Letters Yet we have it in our desires and that we have it not actually it is principally your faults who make your Vsurpations to be Conditions of your Communion And so I leave him declaiming against Libraries of Bookes filled with dead words and thousands of Volumes scarcely to be examined in a mans whole life time and quibling about Forefathers and inheriting and Reformation and Manasseh Ben Israel and repeating the same things over and over againe as if no man did understand him who did not heare him say over the same things an hundred times He Chargeth me that having granted that They and we do both maintain his Rule of Vnity yet I do immediatly disgrace it by adding that the Question is only who have changed that Doctrin or this Discipline we or they We by substraction or they by Addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is no Rule at all When he and his Merry Stationer were set upon the Pin of making Contradictions doubtlesse this was dubbed a famous Contradiction or an absurdity at least As if a man might not hold one thing in his Iudgement and pursue another in his Practice professe one thing in words and perform another in deeds Video melior a proboque Deterior a sequor Medea see that which was right and approved it but swerved altogether from it in her Practise They professe saith St. Paul that they know God but in workes they deny him The Church of Rome professeth in words to adde nothing to the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in their deeds they doe adde and adde
notoriously as the Vniversality of the Roman Church the doctrins of Purgatory of Indulgences of Worshiping of Images and the rest of their new Essentialls of faith Extra quas nemo salvus esse potest saith Pope Pius Without the beliefe of which no man can be saved Then no man was saved for a thousand yeares after Christ. If there be the least Print of a Contradiction here it is not in my discourse but between their own Principles and their Practice He taunteth me sufficiently for making the Apostles Creed a summary of all things necessary to be believed by all Christians calling it the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head and would gladly perswade us that it was onely an Act of Prudence to keep out heterogeneous persons in that present age which was to be inlarged as often as new Heresies did arise I pitty the young man who is no better acquainted with that Value which both the ancient Fathers and his own Doctors set upon the Creed Whilest he thinketh to confute me he is ignoraÌ„tly condemning all them He condemneth the Fathers who made it to be the one onely immoveable and irreformable Rule of Faith The summe of the whole Catholick Faith The Key of the Christian Faith The Rule or Square of the Apostolicall Sermons after the Composition of it Wherein the Apostles of the Lord have collected into one breviary all the points of the Catholick Faith which are diffused throughout the Scriptures He condemneth his own Authors who acknowledge it to be a short comprehension or summary of all things to be believed Bellarmine saith it containeth the summe of the Gospell And more plainly there is exâ—ant that most ancient Symboll which is called the Creed of the Apostles because the Apostles composed it to this end that it might be agreed among all men what was the summe of the whole Christian Faith Whereof he produceth Witnesses St. Ambrose St. Hierom St. Austin Maximus Adding that in the Creed although briefly is conteined in a Summary the whole object of Faith According to that of St. Austin the Creed is a simple short full Comprehension of our Faith that the simplicity may provide for the Rudenesse of the Hearers the shortnesse for their memory and the fulnesse for their Doctrine And elswhere he telleth us that all Catholicks doe confesse that it is the unwritten word of God So there is more in the Creed then a meer Shiboleth to distinguish an Ephraimite from a Gileadite It is fundamentum firmum unicum not onely a firm but an onely Foundation He asketh me whether ever Protestant did hold there is nothing of Faith but the 12 Articles in that Creed I doe not know how I come to be obliged to answer him to so many impertinent Questions but for once I will not refuse him Protestants doe know as well as himself that there are many things of faith which are necessary to be believed by some men at some times as that St. Paul had a Cloak but there is no Article or Point absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed which is not comprehended within the 12 Articles of the Creed And here he serveth us up again his twice sodden Coleworts that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments the Scriptures are not comprehended in the 12. Articles I have but newly answered the very same Objection and here Meander-like with a suddain turning he brings it in again but I will not wrong the Reader so much as to follow him in his Battologies Onely if he think the Creed was imperfect untill the word Filioque was added he is much mistaken But saith he by the same Logick we may accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Councell for pressing the word Consubstantiall Pardon us good Sr there is no Analogy between the Consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father and your upstart Doctrins of Indulgences and Image Worship Indeed the word Consubstantiall was not in the Creed before the Nicene Councell but the thing was and was deduced from the Creed When the Apostles delivered the Creed to the Church they did it by Orall Tradition and this is that famous Tradition much mentioned in the Fathers which you doe altogether misapply to the justifying of your new patches aÌ„d when they delivered the Creed they delivered likewise the sense of the Creed by the same Tradition and it was the most proper worke in the world for those first Oecumenicall Councells to search out and Determin by Tradition the right sense of the Articles where in they were delivered by the Apostles But for us now after fifteen or sixteen hundred yeares to inquire not onely into new senses of the old Articles altogether unknown to the Ancients but to find out new Articles which have no relation to the old Articles and all this by Tradition is ridiculous For whatsoever Tradition we have we have from former Ages successively and therefore if they had no Tradition for such an Article or such a sense wee can have none But such are all the twelve new Articles added to the Creed by Pius the fourth not onely new senses of old Articles which had been too much but new Articles newly coined which have no relation to the old Articles at all Something 's are de Symbolo conteined in the Creed somethings are contra Symbolum against the Creed and somethings praeter Symbolum besides the Creed First for those things which are conteined in the Creed either in the Letter or in the sense or may be deduced by good consequence from the Creed as the Deity of Christ his two Natures the procession of the Holy Ghost the Addition of these is properly no addition but onely an Explication Yet such an Explication none under a Generall Councell can impose upon the Church Secondly such things as are contrary to the Creed are not onely unlawfull to be added to the Creed but they are Hereticall in themselves Thirdly for those things which are neither of the Creed nor conteined in the Creed either explicitly nor can be deduced by good Consequence from the Creed and yet they are not contrary to the Creed but Opinions or inferiour truths which may be believed or disbelieved without any great danger of Heresy of this nature are chose 12. points or Articles which Pius the fourth added to the Creed To make these part of the Creed and to oblige all Christians to believe them under pain of Damnation as Pius the 4 â—h doth without which there is no Salvation is to change the Symbolicall Apostolicall Faith and to adde to the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles Faith doth consist in indivisibili and the Essentiall parts of it cannot be contracted or inlarged This is that which we Charge the Romanists withall and which I see not how they will be able to shake of Not the Explication of the old Articles of Faith nor the prescribing of inferiour truths
of Faith He knoweth better by this time what I understand by points of Faith publickly professed even the Articles of the Creed which every Christian that ever was from Christs time untill this day professed at his Baptisme All the Christian world have ever been baptised into the Faith of the old Creed never any man yet was baptised into the Faith of their new Creed If these new Articles be as necessary to be known and publickly professed for the common salvation as the Old they doe them wrong to baptise them but into one half of the Christian Faith He troubleth himself needlesly with Iealousy and suspicion least under the notions of Faith universally professed and the Christian world united I should seeke a shelter or Patrociny for Arrians or Socinians or any other mushrome Sect as if the Deity of Christ were not delivered by Vniversall Tradition or not held by the Christian world united because of thei◠Opposition I doe not looke upon any such Sects which did or do oppose the Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition of the Catholick Church before their dayes as living and lasting Streames but as suddain and violent Torrents neither do I regard their Opposition to the Catholick Church any more then of a Company of Phrenetick persons whilest I see plainly a parte ante that there was a time when the wheat did grow without those Tares and a parte post that their Errours were condemned by the Catholick Church This exception of his hath great force against his immediate Tradition should the Children of Arrians or Socinians persist in their Arrian or Socinian Principles because they were delivered to them as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles by their erring Parents But against my Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition they have no force at all Neither do I looke upon their petty interruption as an empeachment to the Succession from the Apostles no more then I esteem a great mountain to be an Empeachment to the roundnesse of the Earth Neither was it the Church of Greece and all the other Eastern Southern and Northern Churches which receded from this Vniversall Tradition in the case in Difference between us concerning the disciplin of the Church but the Church of Rome which receded from them Non tellus Cymbam tellurem Cymba reliquit He knoweth little in Antiquity who doth not know that the Creed was a Tradition both materially as a thing delivered by the Apostles and Formally as being delivered by Orall Tradition But he who shall say as he doth that all the points controverted between us and them were delivered as derived from the Apostles in a Practise as dayly Visible as is the Apostles Creed by our Forefathers as invoking Saints for their intercession the the lawfulnesse of Images praying for the dead Adoration of the Sacrament and in particular the Subjection to the Pope as Supreme head to use his own phrase is a frontlesse man His very mumbling of them and chopping of them by halves as if he durst not utter them right out is a sufficient Evidence of the Contrary We doe not charge them onely with invoking Saints for their intercession or to speake more properly with the invoking God to heare the intercession of his Saints but with more insolent formes of ultimate prayers to the Creatures to protect them at the houre of death to deliver them from the Devill to conferre spirituall Graces upon them and to admitt them into heaven precibus meritisque not onely by their prayers but likewise by their merits As improper and Addresse as if one should fall down on his Knees before a Courtier and beseech him to give him a Pardon or to knight him meaning onely that he should mediate for him to the King We do not question the lawfulnesse of their having of Images but worshipping of them and worshipping of them with the same worship which is due to the Prototype We condemne not all praying for the dead not for their resurrection and the consummation of their happinesse but their prayers for their deliverance out of Purgatory We our selves adore Christ in the Sacrament but we dare not adore the Species of bread and wine And although we know no divine right for it yet if he would be contented with it for peace sake we could afford the Bishop of Rome a Primacy of Order by humane Right which is all that antiquity did know And if any of our Ancestours in any of these particulars did swerve from the Vniversall Perpetuall Tradition of the Church we had much better warrant to return to the Apostolicall line and Levell then he himself had to desert those principles temerariously which his immediate Forefathers taught him as delivered by the Apostles and derived from them His next exception is a meere Logomachy that I call two of his Assertions Inferences What doth this concern either the person or the Cause Either this is to contend about the shadow of an Asse or I know not what is Let thē be premisses or Conclusions which he will they may be so disposed to make them either if they be neither what do they here if they be conclusions they are inferences He calleth the former Conclusion their chiefe Objection who ever heard of an Objection without an Inference And the second is so far from being no Inference that it comprehendeth four Inferences one from the first Principle another from the second Principle and the third from both Principles That Churches in Communion with the Roman have the onely right Doctrine in virtue of the First Principle and the onely right Government in virtue of the second Principle and Vnity necessary to Salvation in virtue of both Principles And the last conclusion is the Generall Inference from all these And by consequence we hold them onely to make the entire Catholick Church I said truely that we hold both their Rules of Vnity I adde that we hold them both in the right sense that is in the proper literall sense of the words but what their sense of them is concerneth them not us If by the Popes Supremacy he understand a single Soveraignty or Supremacy of power by virtue of Christs own Ordinance we hold it not indeed neither did the Catholick Church of Christ ever hold it So likewise if by Tradition of our Ancestours he understand Vniversall and Perpetuall Tradition or as it were Vniversall and perpetuall we joine hands with him but if by Tradition he understand the particular and Immediate Tradition of his Father or ten thousand Fathers or the greater part of the Fathers of one Province or one Patriarchate in one Age excluding three parts of the Catholick Church of this Age and not regarding former Ages between this Age and the Apostles we renounce his Rule in this Sense as a Bond of Errour not of Vnity And yet in generall according to the Literall sense of the words we embrace it as it is proposed by him self that The Doctrins inherited from our Fore
he peradventure never read it But what doth he thinke of the Councells of Constance and Basile who professe themselves every where to be qualified to reform the Church tam in Capite quam in membris as well in the head as in the members They escape fairly if he doe not censure them as Protestants for they were great Reformers and they were no great Papists placing the Soveraign power under Christ in the Church and not in the first Mover I might well call the Reformation in Henry the eights time their Reformation the Papists Reformation rather then ours if the Reformers were more Papists then Protestants as it most evident I pressed him that if the Renunciation of the Bishop of Romes absolute vniversall Monarchy by Christs own Ordination be the essence of a Protestant then the Primitive Church were all Protestants He answereth it is flatsy false I am contented to be silent for the present but when time serveth it may be made appeare to be flatly true and that all that the Primitive Fathers did attribute to the Bishop of Rome was no more them a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity and that an absolute Monarchy by Christ Ordination is absolutely repugnant to the Primitive Discipline I proceeded then all the Graecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants this day He answereth that it it is partly true and partly false and serveth onely to prove that the Protestants have fellow Schismaticks And why partly true and partly false when all the world seeth that all these Churches doe disown and disclaime the Popes Monarchy This is just the old condemned Tenet of the Schismaticall Donatists who did most uncharitably limit the Catholick Church to their own Party excluding all others from hope of Salvation as the Romanists doe now The best is we must stand or fall to our owne Master But by this means they have lost one of the notes of their Church that is multitude for they exclude three or four times more Christians out of the Communion of the Catholick Church then they admit into it I proceeded yet higher then we want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self His answer is that to speake moderately it is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility for whosoever renounceth the Substance of the Popes Authority and his being head of the Church becomes totally disunited from the Church Good words His groundworke is to weake to support the weight of such an heavy accusation A Primacy of Order implyeth an headship as well as Supremacy of power neither is it destitute of all power It hath some power essentially annexed to it to congregate sub paena purè spirituali to propose to give sentence according to the votes of the College It may have an accessary power to execute the Canons according to the Constitutions of Councells and Imperiall Sanctions and Confirmations But all this commeth far short of that headship which he asserteth a Soveraign Monarchicall Headship of absolute power above the whole Church by Christs Ordination This is that Headship which he mainteineth against me every where This is that Headship which the Primitive Church never acknowledged This is that Headship which the Grecians Russians Armenians Abyssines and the Church of England renounce at this day This is that Headship which many of his own Communion who live in the bosome of the Roman Church do not believe as the Councells of Constance and Basile and Pisa the Schoole of Sorbon and very many others every where who do all reject it some more some lesse The maine difference and almost the whole difference between him and me is concerning Coactive power in the Exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes against their wills this is so far from being vniversaly believed throughout all places of the Roman Communion that it is practically received in few or no places further then it seemeth expedient to Soveraign Princes If the Pope himself did believe that he had such an absolute Soveraignty of Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination to him and his Successors How could he alienate it from his Successors almost wholy to the Princes of Sicily and to their Heirs for ever within that Kingdome Or how could the Princes retein it If the King and Kingdome of France did believe that the Pope had such an absolute Monarchicall power in the Exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination how could the King of France forbid the Popes Legates without his License or restrain their Legantine Commissions by his Parliaments or sweare them to act nothing contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church and to cease to execute their Commissions whēsoever the King and Kingdome should prohibit them or reject Papall decrees further then they are received in that Kingdome Or if the Councell of Brabant did believe it how could they forbid the Subjects to repaire to Rome out of their own Country upon the Popes Summons All men know that there is no Privilege or Prescription against Christs own Ordination Qui pauca considerat facile pronunciat This is ever the end of his Contradictions Lastly he Chargeth me for omitting to answer to his reason that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantisme Truly I neither did nor do hold it worth answering Cannot he distinguish between the whole Essence of any thing and one Essentiall He might as well affirm that he who believeth but one Article of his Creed is a Christian. This requireth no great skill to explicate it but I have remitted this Controversy to the Reader as fittest for his determination Sect. III. That Henry the 8. made no new Law But onely vindicated the ancient Liberties of England CHristian Reader thou hast seen hitherto how Mr. Serjeant hath failed altogether to make good his pretensions and in stead of those great mountains of Absurdities and falsifications and Contradictions which he promised hath produced nothing worthy of so weighty a cause or an ingenious Schollar but his own wilfull ridiculous mistakes We are now come to his third Section wherein thou maiest see this young Phaeton mounted in his Triumphant Chariot driving the poore Bishop as a Captive before him now expect to see him tumbling down headlōg with a fall answerable to his height of pride and insolence He professeth himself willing to stand to the Award of the most partiall Protestant living who hath so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Suns shining at noone day or that the same thing cannot both be and not be at once If after this lowd confident bragge he be not able to make any thing good that is of weight against me he hath forfeited either his Iudgement or his ingenuity and deserveth not to be a writer of Controversies I need no partiall Iudges but appeale to the indifferent Reader of what communion soever he be he needeth but to compare my Vndication his Answer my Reply his Rejoinder and my
were ordeined at home and therefore the Bishop of Rome could have no jurisdiction over them I said no more of Phocas but this that the Popes preteÌ„ses were more from Phocas then St. Peter He referreth me to his answer to Doctor Hammond And I refer him to Doctor Hammond for a reply as Impertinent to my present businesse When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad Meditation upon this Subject I confesse ingenuously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Popes Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had been a cause of my trouble proved a meanes of my â—inall Satisfaction For seing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spirituall Monarch The reasons of my Resolution I have set down and received no answer Yet it shall not seem irksome to me to repeat them as desiring nothing but the discovery of the truth First I argue thus The Soveraign Government and the Subordinate Government of the same person in the same Society or body Politick or Ecclesiastick is inconsistent But the Popes pretended Monarchy or Supremacy of power over the whole Church and his Patriarchall Dignity in the same Church are a Soveraign and Subordinate Government of the same person in the same body Ecclesiastick The reason of the Major is because Soveraign power is single of one person or Society but this subordinate power is conjoint of fellow Patriarchs Soveraign Power is Vniversall but this subordinate power is particular And therefore as a Quadrangle cannot be a Triangle nor a King a Sherif of a Shire or a President of a Province within his own Kingdome so neither can the same person be an Vniversall Monarch and a particular Patriarch Secondly the Spirituall Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is pretended to be by divine right his Patriarchall power is confessedly by humane right but a Spirituall Soveraignty by divine right and an inferiour dignity by humane right are inconsistent As it is absurd to say that God should make a man a Prince and after the people make him a Peer or God should give him a Greater Dignity and afterwards the people coÌ„ferre a lesse upon him Thirdly a Soveraignty above the CanoÌ„s besides the Canons against the Canons to make them to abrogate them to suspend them with a Non obstante to dispense with them at pleasure where the Canon gives no dispensative power and a Subjection to the Canons to be able to do nothing against them are inconsistent But suâ—h a Soveraign Power is above the Canons and such a Patriarchall power is subject to the Canons Therefore they are inconsistent All the answer he offereth to these two Instances the one that Bishop Vsher was at once Bishop of Armagh and as such the Bishop of Derries superiour I answer first he mistaketh much The Primacy of Ireland and the Archbishoprick of Armagh are not two diâ—â—inct dignities but one and the self same dignitie but the Monarchicall power of the Pope by divine right and his Patriarchall power by Humane right are two distinct dignities Secondly the Primate of Ireland is not indowed with Monarchicall power but all the difficulty here lieth in the Conjunction of Monarchicall power and Subordinate power His other Instance must a person leave of to be Master of his own Family because he is made King and his Authority extendeth over all England I answer first his Argument is a transition into another kind or an excursion from one kind of power to another from Politicall power in the Commonwealth to an Oeconomicall power in the Family Secondly it is one thing to make an inferiour person a King and another thing to make a King a Constable or to make Soveraignty and Subordination consist together When a King doth discharge the place of a Generall of an Army he acquireth no new dignity or power or place no man calleth him my lord Generall but he doth it as a King by his Kingly power to which no higher or larger power can be added but the Bishop of Rome did not doth not exercise Patriarchall power by virtue of his Monarchy by divine Ordination but by humane right first by Custome or prescription and then by authority of the Councell of Nice All the world seeth and acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome hath more power in his Bishoprick then he hath out of it in the rest of his Province aÌ„d more power in his Province then he hath out of it in his Patriarchate and more power in his own Patriarchate then he hath in anothers Patriarchate but if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination he should have the same power every where if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination then all Patriarchall power should flow from him as from the Originall Fountain of all Ecclesiaasticall honour But the Contrary is most apparent that all the Patriarchs even the Roman himself did owe their Patriarchall power to the Customes of the Church and Canons of the Fathers These are the reasons why I conceive Monarchicall Power and Patriarchall power to be inconsistent in one and the same persoÌ„ But the Pope was coÌ„fessedly a Patriarch therefore no Monarch The next thing which commeth to be observed is his ExceptioÌ„s to Dionothus the learned Abbat of Bangor his aÌ„swer to Austin professing Canonicall Obedience to the Archbishop of CaerleoÌ„ in his own name aÌ„d the name of the British Church and disclaiming all ObedieÌ„ce except of Brotherly love to the Bishop of Rome His first exception was the naming of the Bishop of Rome Pope without any Addition of Name or place contrary to the use of those times For aÌ„swer I committed him and his Friend Bellarmine together WheÌ„ the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome onely is to be understood as appeareth out of the Councell of Chalcedon the most blessed and Apostolicall man the Pope doth command us this without adding Leo or Rome or the City of Rome or any other thing He sleighteth Bellarmine and rebuketh me for folly to think that Catholick writers cannot disagree and answereth the Councell that thought the word Pope be alone without Addition Yet which is equivalent the Comitant Circumstances sufficiently indigitate the person For the words were spokeÌ„ by Boniface the Popes Vicegerent As if there were not the same indigitating CircuÌ„stances here as well as there the words being spoken by Austin the Popes Legate and Vicar as well as Boniface in the name of Pope Gregory to the Britons which were answered here by Dinoth His second exception to Dinoths Testimony is that there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes the See being removed from Caerleon to Menevia or S. Davids fifty yeares before this That it was removed before this I acknowledge but how long before this is uncertain Some Authors make S. Gregory and S. David to have died
passe muster for once Here is a Contradiction deserves a Bell and a Bable Catholick Countries did maintein their Privileges inviolate by such means at one time not at another in one place not in another in one degree not in another in one respect not in another The last mock Contradiction is that I say The Lawes which denied the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient Remedies against the abuses of that Authority Which had quite taken them away This is not finding of Contradictions but making of them Give him leave to use this id est that is and he will make a hundred Contradictions in every page of the Bible as here actually in force that is which actually left the Pope no Authority or which had quite taken his Authority away If this id est that is be mine then he may object the Contradiction to me if it be not then he may keep the Contradiction to himself such as it is He knoweth and all the world know that a law is said to be actually in force whilest it is unrepealed in this sense I did and all men but himself doe use that expression And here he committeth a third grosse fault against the Rule of Opposition which ought to be ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Respect The Law taketh away abuses as a Rule but the Magistrate by due execution as an Artificer The Law is sufficient when it is sufficiently penned and promulged but the effect followeth the due execution The not observing of this obvious and easy truth hath made us all this stirre about Imaginary Contradictions as I have shewed in my answer to his last â—â—ragraph which alone is a sufficieâ—â— answer to all these pretended Contradictions but whether it will be so actually in force to procure his assent is more then I know if it do not it detracteth nothing frem the sufficiency of the answer Goe Mr. Serjeant goe bring us lesse wind and more weight Saepius in libro memor atur Perseus uno Quam levis in totâ Tharsus Amazonide In the last Paragraph is nothing but a Calumny against Henry the eight which he is not able to prove and if he were it neither concerneth us nor the Question SECT VII That the King and Church of England proceeded with due Moderation THis Section doth not much concern either us or the merit of the cause A Reformation might be just and necessary although the Reformers did exceed the bounds of due Moderation neither are we answerable for their excesses further then we ourselves doe maintein them I passe by his pleasant Topick unsaluted as being impertinent and having nothing in it deserving the least stay of a serious Reader I reckoned this as the first Branch of our moderation that we deny not to other Churhes the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation nor seperate from Churches but from Accidentall Errours For all his scoffing if their Church would use the like moderation it would save the world a great deale of needlesse debate Against that which I say he objecteth thus Now the matter of Fact hath evidenced undeniably that they the Protestants seperated from those points which were the Principles of Vnity both in Faith and Government He hath brought his matter of Fact and his Principles of Vnity so often upon the Stage already and they have been so often clearly answered that I will not insist upon such a threedbare subject or trouble the Reader with an irksome repetition We have seen how far his Principles of Vnity or his Fundamentall of Fundamentalls is true and ought to be admitted and in a right sense we adhere much more firmly unto them then the Church of Rome it self He procedeth that the Church of England defines that our Church the Church of Rome erreth in matter of Faith Artic. 19. The words of the Article are Non solum quoad agenda Ceremoniarum ritus verum etiam in iis quae credenda sunt that is Not onely in Practicall Observations and Ceremoniall rites but also in those things which are to be believed that is to use Cardinall Cajetans distinction Not in those things which are de fide formaliter in necessary Fundamentall Articles for we acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essentialls of Faith but in those things which are fidei materialiter in inferiour Questions which happen in things to be believed that is to say Opinions wherein himself acknowledgeth that a particular Church may erre That this is the right sense of the Article appeareth hence that the Article doth contradistinguish Credenda or things to be believed not to Opinions but to agenda things to be practised He urgeth that we have declared four points of their faith to be vain Fictions contradictory to Gods word Artic. 22. That is to say their Doctrin of Purgatory Indulgences their Adoration of Images and Relicks Invocation of Saints Right four points of their new Faith enjoined by Pius the fourth but no Article of the old Apostolicall Faith and at the best onely Opinions Yet neither doth he cite our Article right which doth not define them to be contrary to Scripture but onely besides the Scripture or not well grounded upon any Texts of Scripture He addeth the like Character is given of another point Art 28. That is Transubstantiation Our highest Act of Devotion Art 31. is stiled a blasphemous fiction and pernicious imposture that is the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse Concerning Transubstantiation what is our Opinion I referre him to my answer to Militier in the very beginning of it And concerning their Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse to the same answer pag. 152. Edit 2. The true state of the Controversy was not so clearly understood at first on either side as it is now He cannot goe one step further then we doe in that cause without tumbling into direct Blasphemy It followeth And Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publickly should be held as Heathens and Publicans Well here is no distinction between Roman Catholicks and Protestants And Franciscus a Sancta Clara in his Paraphrasticall ExpositioÌ„ of the English Articles giveth this Iudgement of this Article This Article is Catholick and agreeable as well to holy Scripture as to antiquity Then why doth he snarle at this Article which he cannot except against Because he conceiveth that the Article meaneth Catholicks or at least doth include them Iudge Reader what a spirit of Contradiction dâ—th possesse this man who when he is not able to pick any quarrell at the words of the Article calumniateth the meaning upon his own groundlesse suspicion But nothing was more common in the mouths of our Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the VVhore of Babilon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous and to make up the Measure of his Forefathers sinnes the Bishop calles here the two Principles of
to pervert as many as they can not to sow good seed in the Lords Field but to superseminare or sow Tares above the wheat We should thank them more to stay at home then to compasse Sea and Land to gaine Proselites as the Pharisees did and made them twofold more the Children of Hell then themselves He saith that this is the solemne Custome of their Church every Good Friday Let it be so but they have not the same incentive and provocation which we have we do not curse and Anathematise theÌ„ the day before as they doe us This Advantage we have over them that we render blessing for cursing which they doe not He addeth that they cannot be understood under the notion of Hereticks first because we acknowledge theirs to be a true Church and therefore not hereticall Secondly they are of Christs Flock already and therefore not reductble to his Flock To the First â— answer that a particular Church which is onely materially Hereticall not formally doth still continue a true Church of Christ. The Bishop of Chalcedon understood these things much better then himself this is confessed by him in the place formerly alleged A particular Church may be really Hereticall or Schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her Heresy or Schisme We agree with him wholy in the sense onely we differ in the expression What he calleth really Hereticall we stile materially Hereticall and what he calleth morally a true Church we use to stile Metaphysically a true Church that is by truth of Entity not of Morality Secondly I answer that the Flock of Christ is taken variously sometimes more largely sometimes more strictly more largely for all those that are In domo by outward profession more strictly for those who are Ex domo so in the Church that they are also of the Church by inward Sanctification And our Collect hath reference to this later acception of this word Flock So Fetch them home blessed Lord to thy Floek that they may be saved He taketh it ill that our Church hath chaÌ„ged these words in the Missall recall them to our Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick Church into this dwindling puling puritanicall expression of one Floek and one Fold under one Shepheard Whether it be because he hath a Pick against Scripture phrases as sounding too preacherlike or rather because our Church did presume to name the right Shepheard Iesus Christ and not leave it to their Glosses to entitle the Pope to that Office But certainly the Authority of the Catholick Church is not formidable at all to any Genuine Sonnes of the Church of England I doe readily acknowledge that it is the duty of each Orthodox Church to Excommunicate Formall Hereticks and them who swerve from the Apostles Creed as the rule of Faith but this doth not oblige the Church of England to Excommunicate all materiall Hereticks who follow the dictate of their conscience in inferiour Questions which are not Essentialls of Faith and do hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds Neither do I ever know that the Church of England did ever excommunicate Papists in grosse qua tales but onely some particular Papists who were either convicted of other Crimes or found Guilty of Contumacy It were to be wished that the Court of Rome would use the same Moderation and remember how Ireneus reproved Pope Victor that he had not done rightly to cut of from the Vnity of the Mysticall body of Christ so many and so great Churehes of God This is that great nonsense which this egregious Prevaricatour hath found in our Collect that the English Church cannot reconcile her doctrine and her practise together Let him not trouble his head with that but rather how to recoucile himself with his own Church He will have prayers to be onely words no works but his Church maketh Prayer Fasting and Almes to be three satisfactory works My third proofe of our Moderation was that we doe not challenge a new Church a new Religion or new holy Orders but derive our Church our Religion our Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession we obtrude no Innovations upon others All this is quite omitted by this great pretender to Sincerity and yet he knoweth or may know that there have been pretended Reformers who have committed all these excesses But he catcheth hold of two words of my defence that we have added no thing I wish they could say as much nor taken away any thing but Errours To the former part he excepteth that he who positively denies ever addes the contrary to what he takes away He that makes it an Article there is no Purgatory no Masse no prayers to Saincts hath as many Articles as he who holds the Contrary I have taken away this answer before and Demonstrated that no negative can be a Fundamentall Article or necessary Medium of Salvation because it hath no Entity That there are an hundred greater disputes and Contradictions among them selves in Theologicall Questions or in these things quae sunt fideâ— materialiter then those three are between us and them Yet they dare not say that either the Affirmatives or Negatives are Articles of Faith The ChristiaÌ„ Church for fifteen hundred yeares knew never more then 12. old Articles of Faith untill Pius the 4th added twelve new Articles And now this young Pythagoras will make us more then 1200. Articles affirmative Articles and Negative Articles Fundamentall Articles and Superstructive Articles Every Theologicall truth shall either be a Fundamentall Article or an indifferent and unconcerning Opinion He saith our 22. Article defineth the Negative to Purgatory yet I like an ill tutored Child tell my old Crasy Mother the Church of England that she lies I hope by this time the Reader knoweth sufficiently that his penne is no slander If the Church of England did ever ill it was when she begot him Neither doe I tell the Church of England she lies nor dissent in the least from the Definition of the Church of England neither doth the Church of England define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medâ—i or necessitate praecepti which is much lesse but onely bindeth her sonnes for peace sake not to oppose them But he himself can hardly be excused from lying where he telleth us the good simple Ministers did sweare to maintein them Perhaps he was one of the simple Ministers did he ever sweare to maintein them did he ever know any man who did sweare to maintein them For him to urge such falshoods after they have been so often detected is double Effronterie Periisse puto â—ui pudor periit He inferreth further By the Bishops Logick these propositions that there are not two Gods that the devills shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damned that there is no Salvation but through Christ must cease to be Articles of Faith and
receive Tenths and First fruits and Oaths of Fidelity and concerning the Supreme Legislative Dispensative and Iudiciary power in all things perteining to the Externall Regimeut of the Church To all this neither the Bishop of Chalcedon nor Mr. Serjeant either in his former Answer or in this rejoinder although provoked have offered one word of Answer This Plea doth utterly destroy their pretense of Divine right and of uninterrupted Tradition for all these Branches of Papall power Can any man be so stupid as to Imagin that to be of divine right which was first tacked into the Church with so much Opposition after eleven hundred yeares or that to be grounded upon perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition which hath been opposed in all Ages since it was devised in all places by all sorts of persons Kings and their Parliaments and Councells Synods and Vniversities Divines and Lawiers What shamefull Tergiversation is this which no ingenious Adversary could be guilty of but out of invincible necessity Thus he served me where I produced all our old English Lawes Thus he served me where I produced their own Authours to testify the intolerable extortions and Vsurpatiōs of the Romā Court Thus he serveth me here and in place of so many lawes and Proclamations and Placaets and Synodall Acts and Iudgements of Vniversities he shuffleth in so many of his fiddle-faddle Contradictions which are not all worth a deafe Nut. If it were not that I have proceeded so far already and Toto devorato Bove turpe est in Cauda deficere I would not Vouchsafe to answer them but with Contempt Thus he begins Nine or ten self Contradictions in one Section He speaketh modestly if there be one there are nine hundred This word in effect saith he deserves a Comment It hath a Comment wherein his feigned Contradictions were satisfyed before they were hatched by him the more uningenuous person he to take no notice of it He may find it in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon cap. 7. s. 2. pa. 243. Other Princes of the Roman Communion have made lawes as well as we to renounce and abrogate all those branches of Papall Authority which we cast out that is onely Papall Vsurpations but neither they nor we ever defined against Essentiall right We deny not to the Pope a Superiority of Order above the Archbishop of Canterbury but we deny him a Superiority of power in the Exteriour Court that is we deny him the supreme Iudiciary Power so did they King Henry the eighth abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperours did not so If they did not so yet if they pleaded for it or justified it it is as much as I said And if they did it by parcells as I have shewed they did though they did it not in grosse it is the same thing in effect Our Ancestours threatned the Pope to make a wall of Separation between him and them not by making a new Law for it was the Common Law of England but by declaring the Law by executing the Law And though they had threatned him to make one generall Law against all his Vsurpations in grosse yet formerly having made single Lawes against the same in particular it was but the same in effect This sucking Contradiction hath been answered sufficiently in the last Section He saith our Controversy is not about the extent of Papall Power but about the right it self The just Contrary is true Our Controversy is onely about the extent of Papall Power or about those particular Branches of Papall power which we have cast out He loves to hover in Generalls but we shall bring him willingly or against his will to descend to particulars He taketh notice here of my complaining that they answer not particulars and I assure the Reader that if their cause would have born it they would have answered them Observe but how tame he is upon this Provocation that useth to be so fierce without any Provocation All the Answer it doth extort from him is Was ever man so ignorant of the common Lawes of Disputing Needs any more answer to be given to particulars which one yields to then to say he grants them If he be over much acquainted with the Lawes of disputing Reddat mihi Minam Diogenes Let him who tanght me Logick give me my Money again But it is well we have his Concedo omnia c We grant all his particular Instances of these Contests between Kings and Popes Yet not so very well neither for what he granteth with one hand he taketh away with the other Not entring into that dispute how farre they were done Iustly how farre unjustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self is acknowledged on both Sides It is little to their purpose indeed but it is much to ours Is the Papall Power acknowledged where the Popes Soveraign Power his Legisllative power his Iudiciary Power his dispensative power are all opposed Much good may his dry Papacy as he pleaseth to call it sometimes do him In every one of these Instances besides meer matter of Fact there is an Inference to matter of right The Common Lawes of Disputing require that he should have answered that as well as granted the other If his Dispatches be such as this he may dispatch more answers in a day then St. Austin could have made Oppositions in a yeare When I said what is the Ground of his Exception Nothing but a Contradiction he urgeth that I make account a Contradiction is a matter of nothing No but I meant that his vain Objecting of Imaginary Contradictions is a matter of nothing Twenty of them will not amount to one Fleabiting and I shewed him that this ridiculous Contradiction which he bringeth here is such an one The pretended Contradiction is this that their Doctrin concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes and prejudices their Crownes and yet that they hold and doe the same in effect against the Pope that Protestants doe A doughty Contradiction both parts are as true as can be referendo singula singulis referring what I said to the right Subject as I applied it The Doctrin of the Pope and Court of Rome is injurious to Princes of whom I speake expresly and no others and yet soveraign Princes and their Councells have held and done the same things against the Pope in effect that Protestants doe Iust such another Contradiction as this The Guelphes are for the Pope against the Emperour yet the Gibellines are for the Emperour against the Pope and both Factions Roman Catholicks Thus he changeth Subjects and Predicates and times and respects and all Rules to make a Contradiction But his defence is more ridiculous then his pretended Contradiction That the substance of the Popes Authority is the point which belongs to me to impugn So the Contradiction lieth not in what I did say but what I should have said or rather what he would have had me to have said
that Authority which he doth challenge and not wave the extent as a thing Indifferent If he challenge it out of Prudentiall Reasons it ought to be considered whether the Hopes or the Hazards the Advantages or Disadvantages the ConvenieÌ„ces or Inconveniences of such a Form of Government particularly circumstantiated doe over ballance the one or the other And the surest tryall of this is by experience It will trouble him to find so many Advantages which the Church and Kingdome of England have received from Papall Iurisdiction I speak not of the Key of Order as may overweigh all those Disadvantages which they have susteined by the Extortions and Vsurpations and Malignant Influence of the Papacy If he attribute no more power to the Pope then all Roman Catholicks universally do approve which is the onely Rule that he giveth us to know what is the Substance of Papall Authority he need not be so impetuous this Question is near an end He askes whether wee and the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians be under the Government of Patriarchs or any other Common Government I answer wee and they are under the same Common Government which the Primitive Church was under from the Dayes of the Apostles long before there were any Generall Councells that was the Government of Bishops under Primates or Patriarchs For as I have said formerly a Protarch and a Patriarch in the Language of the Primitive Church are both one We have as much Opportunity to Convocate Synods as they had then before there were Christian Emperours and more yet by such Councells as they could Congregate though they were not Generall they governed the Church If there be not that free Communication of one Church with another that was then either by reason of the great distance or our mutuall misunderstanding one of another for want of the old Canonicall Epistles or Literae Formatae the more is the Pity We are sorry for it and ready to contribute our uttermost endeavours to the Remedy of it With these western Churches which have shaken of the Roman Yâ—ke we have much more Communion by Synods by Letters by Publishing our Confessions aÌ„d we might justly hope for a much nearer union yet both in doctrine and Discipline if God would be graciously pleased to restore an happy Peace That we have it not already in so large a measure as we might is their onely Faults who would not give way to an Vniform Reformation Sometimes they accuse us for having too much Communion with them at other times they will not grant us to have any at all Concerning the rest of the Western Churches which submit to the Papacy we have the same Rules both of Doctrine and Discipline which they had We have the same that they have saving their Additionall Errours We have broken no Bonds of Unity either in Faith or Discipline we have renounced no just Authority either Divine or Humane we adhere to the Apostles Creed as the ancient and true Rule of Faith into which alone all ChristiaÌ„s that ever were have been baptised and we renounce the upstart additionall Articles of Pius the fourth We are willing for peace sake to give the Pope the same Primacy of Order which St. Peter had above his Fellow Apostles but the Supremacy of power was not in St. Peter but in the Apostolicall College neither is now in the Bishop of Rome but in a Councell of Bishops He saith we maintein a larger Brotherhood then they but never goe about to shew any visible Tye of Government We shew them the same Badge or Cognisance of our Christianity that is the same Creed and the same Discipline or Government that is the same Colours derived down from the Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession The same Doctrine and the same Discipline is Tye enough To take an exact View it is necessary the Organ should be perfect the Medium fit and the Distance convenient if any one of these were Defective in Mr. Rosses View he might well mistake but I may not doe him that wrong to trust your Testimony without citing his words He urgeth If Christ have left any Vnity of Government in his Church and Commanded it to be kept and we have taken a Course to leave no such Vnity then we have rebelled against Christ and his Church and falsly pretend to have him our Spirituall head I admit this now let him Assume But you Protestants have taken a Course to leave no Vnity of Government in the Church which Christ left and Commanded to be kept I deny his Assumtion altogether and he saith not one word to prove it This is his Enthymematicall manner of Arguing He procedeth That to have a Generall Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Head is to confesse that there is no Ordinary Vnity of Government in Gods Church but extraordinary onely when a Councell sits I deny this Proposition altogether and the reason is Evident because besides a Generall Councell which sitteth but rarely neither is it needfull that it should sit often Nisi dignus Vindice nodus inciderit there are particular Councells which in lesser Exigents serve the turn as well as Generall There are Patriarchs and Bishops which are Ordinary and perpetuall In an Aristocracy it is not necessary that the Governours should be evermore actually Assembled In the first three hundred yeares there were no Generall Councells held there was lesse hope of ever holding them then then now yet there was an Ordinary Vnity of Government in Gods Châ—rch in those dayes for which they were not indebted at all to any visible Monarch Bâ—t when a Generall Councell doth sit the Supreme Ecclesiasticall power rests in it He wonders why I should make the King onely a Politicall Head Contrary to our Common Assertion It seemeth that though he hath been bred among us yet he hath not been much versed in our Authors No man that ever understood himself made him otherwise Yet this Politicall Head hath a great Influence upon Ecclesiasticall Causes and persons in the Externall Regiment of the Church He demandeth is there any Orderly Common Tye of Government obliging this Head to Correspond with the other head If not where is the Vnity I answer yes the direction of his Spirituall Guides that is his Bishops and Synods If this Method be so great a Rarity with him it is his own fault He had said more properly to Correspond with the other Heads then Head He saith It is false to say that they have sometimes two or three heads since there can be but one true or rightly chosen Pope True but the Election may be uncertain that no man living can know the true Pope so whether there be three Popes or one Pope and two pretenders yet if the right Pope cannot be made appeare it is all one relatively to the Church If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battell He telleth us further that when the See of Rome is vacant the Headship is
in the Chiefe Clergy whom they call Cardinalls as secure a Course as mans wit can invent As Chiefe as their Cardinalls are the much greatest part of them were but Ordinary Parish Priests and Deacons of old The Cardinalls indeed have to doe with the Church of Rome in the Vacancy but what pretense have they from St. Peter What have they to doe with the Vniversall Monarchy of the Church Before he told us that theiâ— Headship was Christs own Ordination now he telleth us that this Headship is sometimes in the College of Cardinalls and that it is as secure a Course as mans wit can invent What a Contradiction would he make of this He demandeth doth the Harmony of Confessions shew that we have one Common certain Rule of Faith or any particular sort of Government obliging us to an Vnity under the Notion of Governed I doe shew him one Common certain Rule of Faith even the Apostles Creed and a particular sort of Government even the same was used in the Primitive Times What am I the better he will take no notice of them because I will not fixe upon that Rule of Faith and that Form of Government which he Fancieth Yet I am for Tradition as well as he but it is Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition such a Tradition is the Creed and in deed is that very Tradition which is so renowned in the Ancients He chargeth me with saying That Hereticks can have no Baptisme Let him either make his accusation good or suffer as a Falsifier All that I say is Turkes Iewes Hereticks and Christians have not the same Baptisme The reason is plaine because Turkes and Iewes have no Baptisme at all Secondly we ought to distinguish between the Baptisme of Hereticks and Hereticall Baptisme if the Baptisme it self be good the Administration of it by Hereticks doth not invalidate it at all but if the Heretick baptise after an Hereticall Forme as without due Matter or not in the Name of the Trinity such Baptisme is Hereticall and naught But all this is needlesse to understand the right scope of my words I said that a Body cousisting of Iewes Turkes Hereticks and Christians had not the same Baptisme I did not say that every one of these wanted true Baptisme He might as well charge me with saying that Christians can have no true Baptisme I have manifested elswhere that the Creed is a List of all Fundamentalls and in the same Section and Chapter the Reader shall find that the Bishop is not a Falsifier bu Mr. Serjeant is both an egregious Calumniator and Falsifier of the Councell of Ephesus I toâ—ke the word Paganisme in the ancient Primitive sense for Infidelity as it is contradistinguished to Christianity The true reason of that Appellation was because Country Villages did continue long in their Infidelity after Cities were converted to Christianity So the Turkes are the onely Pagans which we have now in this part of the World What a piece of Goteham Wisdome is this to quarrell about names when we agree upon the things Turkes and Pagans in my sense were the same thing both Infidells But he instructs the Learned Bishop that the Turkes acknowledge a God So did the Pagans also if Lactantius say true Non ego illum Lapidem colo quem video sed servio eiquem non video He addeth that I affirme the Councell of Ephesus held in the yeare 430 Ordered something concerning Turkes which sprang not up till the yeare 630 and calleth this good sport If there be any sport it is to see his Childish Vanity If I listed to play with words I could tell him that the Mahumetans sprung up about the yeare 630 the Turkes many Ages after But the answer is plaine and easy the Councell of Ephesus did give Orders for all Ages ensuing concerning Infidells but Turkes are Infidells and so it gave Order concerning Turkes Socinians and Arrians may admit the Apostles Creed interpreted their own way but they ought to admit it as it is interpreted by the Frst foure Generall Councells that they doe not and so they believe not all Fundamentalls as they should doe What he Objecteth further that Puritans hold not the Article of Christs descent into Hell and the Roman Catholicks and Protestants differ about the sense of two other Articles hath been answered formerly The Puritans will tell him that the manner of Christs descent hath not bene determined hitherto And I doubt much he understandeth not the Romish and English Tenets so well as he should SECT IX That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schisme My first Charge was this That Member of any Society which leaveth its proper place to assume an higher place in the Body is Schismaticall But the Pope and his Party do not content themselves that the Church of Rome should be the Sister of other Patriarchall Churches and the Mother of many Churches unlesse she be Lady and Mistrisse of all Churches or that the Pope should be the Brother of Other Bishops or a fellow of other Bishops as he was stiled of old unlesse he may be the Lord and Maister of all Bishops That the former is his proper place I clearly proved by Letters not of himself to other Bishops that might be Condiscension as for a Generall to call his Officers Fellow souldiers but of other Bishops to him no under Officer durst presume to call his Generall fellow souldier That he assumeth the other place to himself is proved out of the new Creed of Pius the fourth I acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches and I promise and sweare true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. And in the Oath of Allegiance which all Bishops sweare to the Pope IAB Bishop c. will be Faith full to St. Peter and to the holy Apostolicall Church of Rome and to our Lord Pope Alexander c. There is a great distance between the old Brother Bishop and fellow Bishop and this Oath of Allegiance to the Pope as to their LiegeLord First he Chargeth me that I doe flatly falsify his words which doe never deny her to be a mother but a Sister onely Either I falsified his words or he falsified mine My words were these First they make the Church of Rome to be not onely the Sister of all other Patriarchall Churches and the Mother of many Churches but to be the Lady and Mistresse of all Churches The two Former Branches of Sister and Mother are both acknowledged the last onely of Lady and Mistresse is denyed He falsifieth my words in his answer thus because she takes upon her to be Mistresse where she is but Sister to other Churches You see the word Mother is left out and because I bring it in againe as I ought to make the Argument as it was before his Curtaling of it I am become the Falsifier with him and he who is the Falsifier in earnest is innocent I
cited the words of St. Bernard to prove that the Pope was not Lord or Maister of other Bishops and the Roman Church a Mother of other Churches not a Lady or Mistresse He distinguisheth between Dominam and Magistram an Imperious proud Lady Mistrisse and a Schoole-Mistresse or Teacheresse Adding that they use the word Magistram in the latter sense So they say no more then we we do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Teacheresse and the Pope a Teacher as it is an Apostolicall Church and he an Apostolicall Bishop but all the Question is of the other word Dominum which the Pope taketh to him self as well as Magistrum as we have seen in the Oath of Allegiance which he makes all Bishops to sweare Neither doth St. Bernard oppose proud Imperious Dominion to Gentle Dominion but he contradistinguisheth Dominion to no Dominion and thy self not a Lord of other Bishops but one of them Not a Lord of other Bishops saith St. Bernard A Lord of other Bishops saith the Oath of Fidelity I will be faithfull to our Lord Pope Alexander He urgeth that the Bishop hath brought a Testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too St. Bernard asserted the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches so did the Bishop but not to be the Mother of all other Churches no more did the Bishop particularly not of the Church of Britain which was ancienter then the Church of Rome and so could not be her daughter Let them prove their right that they are our Mother and we are ready to doe our filiall Duty saving alwayes that Higher duty which we owe to our Mother Paramount the Vniversall Church But neither can they prove their right that they are our Mother neither is that Subjection which they Demand the Subjection due to a particular Mother but to an Vniversall Lord. But Schisme involves in its Notion disobedieÌ„ce c. And so the Bishop concludes the Mother Schismaticall because she is disobedient to her Daughter His first errour is to make the Church of Rome to be our Mother The second to thinke that a Mother may challenge what Obedience she listeth of her Daughter The third that Schisme consisteth altogether in the Disobedience of Subjects Causall Schisme may and doth Ordinarily consist in the unlawfuli Injunctions of Superiours My second reason to convince them as guilty of Schisme was the new Creed set out by Pius the fourth This he calleth a Calumny He cannot speake lower then Calumnies Absurdities Contradictions Falsifications c. A high Calumny to slander them with a matter of truth It is such a Calumny as they will never be able to shake of He referreth the Reader to what he hath said in the first Section and I to my Answer there He saith it is known that each point in that profession of Faith that is the twelve new Articles was held of Faith by the former Church How held of Faith as an Essentiall of Faith And this known to whom to the man in the Moone But here is the maddest Contradiction that ever was and might well have become his Merry Stationer It is a Contradiction to pretend that he Pius the 4. made a new Creed till it be shewn that any of these points was not formerly of Faith and be proved satisfactorily that the Apostles Creed conteined all necessary points of Faith A Contradiction I see many men talke of Robin Hood who never shot in his Bowe talke of Contradictions who know not what they are Observe the equity of these men They Visibly insert 12 new Articles into the Creed and then would put us to prove that they were not of Faith before and that all necessary points of Faith are contained in the Apostles Creed He is resolved to keep two strings to his Bowe and knoweth not which of them to trust to Heare you Sr. If they be Articles of Faith now as you have made them then they were alwayes Articles of Faith and all those were damned which did not believe them but that you dare not say My third Charge of Schisme was because they mainteine the Pope in his Rebellion against Generall Councells Here he distinguisheth between a Schooleman and a Controvertist to no manner of purpose for it is altogether impertinent There is no man who inveigheth so much against wording aÌ„d Quibling as himself and yet the world hath not a greater Worder or Quibler then he is Wherefore to prevent the Readers trouble and mine own and his shifting and flinching and to tye him within his Compasse perforce I made bold to reduce my Argument to a Syllogisticall Forme They who subject a Generall Councell which is the Highest Tribunall of Christians to the Pope are guilty of Schisme But the Pope and Court of Rome with all their mainteiners that is much the Greater part of of their writers doe subject a Generall Councell to the Pope Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome with all their Mainteiners that is the much greater part of their Writers are Guilty of Schisme Here he should have answered Punctually to the Proposition or Assumtion either by denying granting or distinguishing but for all his calling for a Rigorous Demonstrative way he liketh it not because he cannot make such impertinent extravagant excursions as he useth to doe which are the onely help he hath at a dead lift All the Answer he giveth is this He the Bishop is accused of a Contradiction and Nonsense and to cleare himself he telles us he will now lay aside the one part of the Contradiction and endeavour to make good sense of the other To what Proposition to what â—erme doth he apply this answer I see no Contradiction I see no Nonsense in my discourse nor any body living but himself I said no such thing as he pretendeth What doth the man meane by these waves of brainlesse butterd fish by these heterogeneous incoherent Fopperies and Chimaeraes which have no existence but in his own pate If he meane to answer let him doe it clearly like a Schollar since I have found this way to tye him to his matter and restraine his torrent of words I shall put it in practice oftner Yet if I meet with any such thing as is substantiall among his vapouring expressions which hath but the least resemblance of an answer though it be not reduced into Forme I will gleane it out and examine the weight of it Such is this which followeth Was it for this Opinion of the Pope above the Councell c. How were they guilty of Schisme for this unlesse they had denyed you Communion for holding the Contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Foole not your Readers my Lord It was not for this Tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Popes Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all Gods Church held
the searcher of all hearts that what I say is true and his accusations are groundlesse Calumnies But as to the merit of the cause he addeth that these unusuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures Thus he saith but what Authours what Authority doth he produce that any of these Churches are guilty of any such expressions None at all because for all his good intelligence he hath none to produce nor ever will be able to produce any and so his good intelligence must end in smoke and stinke as his most faithfull protestation did before I will conclude this point to his shame with the Doctrin of the English Church Art 2. That the two Natures Divine and Humane are perfectly and inseperably conjoined in the Vnity of the person of Christ. Doth this agree with his counterfeit expressions Christ hath two distinct persons no distnct natures When I used this expression the best is we are either wheat or chaffe of the Lords Floore but their tongues must not winnow us these words the best is had no such immediate Relation unto the words immediatly following we are either wheat or Chaffe but to the last words their tongues must not winnow us making this the complete sense we are either wheat or chaffe but the best is whether we be wheat or chaffe their tongues must not winnow us What poore boyish pickquering is this In my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon occasionally I shewed the Agreement of the Greek Churches with the Church of England in the greatest Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome out of Cyrill late Patriarch of Constantinople which he taketh no notice of but in requitall urgeth a passage out of Mr. Rosse in his booke called a View of all Religions It is an unequall match between Mr. Rosse a private Stranger and the Patriarch of Constantinople in a cause concerning his own Church I meddle not with Mr. Rosse but leave him to abound in his own sense I know not whether he be truly cited or not but with Mr. Serjeant I shall be bold to tell him that if he speaketh seriously and bona fide he is mistaken wholy Neither doe the Greekes place much of their Devotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and painted Images Heare Cyrill the Patriarch we give leave to him that will to have the Images of Christ and of the Saints but we disallow the Adoration and worship of them as prohibited by the Holy Ghost in Holy Scripture And another They give great honour to the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ but they neither adore her nor implore her aide And for the Intercession prayers help and Merits of the Saints taking the word Merit in the sense of the Primitive Church that is not for Desert but for Acquisition I know no Difference about them among those men who understand themselves but onely about the last words which they invocate in their Temples rather then Churches A Comprecation both the GreciaÌ„s and we do allow an ultimate invocatioÌ„ both the Grecians and we detest so do the Church of Rome in their Doctrine but they vary from it in their practise It followeth They place IustificatioÌ„ not in Faith but in workes Most Falsly Heare Hieremy the Patriarch We must doe good workes but not confide in them And Cyrill his Successour VVe believe that man is justified by Faith not VVorkes Before we can determine for whom those Eastern Southern and Northern Christians are in the Question concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse it is necessary to know what the right state of this Controversy is I have challenged them to goe one step further into it then I do and they dare not or rather they cannot without Blasphemy The next instance concerning Purgatory is so grosse and notorions a mistake that it were a great shame to confute it They believe that the soules of the Dead are bettered by the prayers of the living Which way are they bettered That the soules of damned are released or eased thereby the Modern Greeks deny and so do we That there are any soules in Purgatory to be helped they deny and so do we That they may be helped to the Consummation of their Blessednesse and to a speedier Vnion with their Bodies by the resurrection thereof they do not deny no more do we We pray dayly Thy Kingdome come and Come Lord Iesus come quickly and that we with this our Brother and all other departed in the Faith may have our perfect Consummation and blesse both in body and Soule They hate Ecclesiasticall Tiranny and lying supposititious Traditions so do we but if they be for the Authority of the Church and for genuine Apostolicall Traditions Gods blessing on their hearts so are we Lastly the Grecians know no feast of Corpus Christi nor carry the Sacrament up and down nor elevate it to be adored They adore Christ in the use of the Sacrament so do we They do not adore the Sacrament no more do we Yet from hence he inferreth that there is not a point of Faith wherein they dissent from the Church of Rome except that one of the Popes Supremacy It is well they will acknowledge that Yet the Grecians agree with us and differ from them in his two Rules or Bonds of Vnity In the Rule of discipline the Grecians and we have the same Government of Bishops under Patriarchs and Primates Secondly in the Rule of Faith the Grecians and we have both the same Canonicall bookes of Scripture both reject their Apocryphall Additions from the Genuine Canon They and we have both the same Apostolicall Creed both reject the new Additions of Pius the fourth In summe they and wee doe both deny their Transubstantiation their Purgatory their Iustification by workes in sensu forensi their doctrine of Merits and Supererogation their Septenary number of the Sacraments their Image worship their Pardons their private Masses their half-Communion And to be briefe the Grecians doe renounce and reject all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out of the Church of England As the Popes Soveraignty over the Catholick Church by divine Right as Nilus saith It is intollerable that the Roman Bishop will not be subject to the Canons of the Fathers since he had his Dignity from the Fathers Secondly his Legislative power as Peter Stewart Vice-chanceller of Ingolstad witnesseth that the Grecians object it as an errour to the Latines that they make the Popes Commandements to be their Canons and Lawes Thirdly his Iudiciary power equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome or rather preferring him Lastly his dispensative power accusing his Pardons and Dispensations as things that open a gaâ—e to all Kind of Villany I am glad that Nilus is in his good grace to be stiled by him one of the gravest Bishops and Authors of that party for one moderate expression wherein he saith no more then we say