CHAP. 1. A Replie to the first Chapter of the Survey.

HOw this Chapter comes to be called a Survey of the first Chap­ter of my vindication, Sect. 1. I doe not understand, unless it be by an antiphrasis the contrary way, because he doth not survey it. If it had not been for the title, and one passage therein, I should not have known whither to have referred it. In the first place he taxeth me for an omis­sion, [Page 42] that I tell not Why the objection of Schisme seemeth more forcible against the English Church then the objection of Heresie. And to supply my supposed defect he is fa­vorably pleased to set it down himself. The true reason whereof (saith he) is because He­resy is a matter of doctrine, which is not so evi­dent as the matter of Schisme, which is a visi­ble matter of fact, namely a visible separa­tion in communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God. I confess I did not think of producing reasons before the question was stated; but if he will needs have it to be thus, before we inquire why it is so, we ought first to inquire whether it be so; Objecti­ons a­gainst the Church of England in point of Schisme are colou­rable, not forci­ble. for my part I doe not beleeve that either their objections in point of Heresy or in point of Schisme, are so forcible against the Church of England. So he would have me to give a reason of a non entity, which hath neither reason nor being. All that I said was this, that there is nothing more colourably obje­cted to the Church of England, at first sight, to Strangers unacquainted with our affaires, or to such Natives as have looked but super­ficially upon the case, then Schisme. Here are three restrictions, Colourabley, at first sight, to Strangers. Colourably, that is, not forcibly, nor yet so much as truly. He who doubteth of it, may doe well to trie if he can warme his hands at a Glowe-worm. At first sight, that is, not by force, but rather by deception of the sight. So fresh water Seamen [Page 43] at first sight think the shore leaves them, terrae (que) urbes (que) recedunt; but straightwaies they finde their error, that it is they who leave the shore. To Strangers, &c. that is, to unskillfull Judges. A true diamond and a counterfeit doe seem both alike to an unex­perienced person. Strangers did beleeve ea­sily the Athenian fables of Bulls and Mino­taures in Creete. But the Crecians knew better that they were but fictitious devises. The seeming strength lyeth not in the obje­ctions themselves, but in the incapacity of the Judges.

But to his reason, the more things are re­mote from the matter and devested of all circumstances of time and place and persons, the more demonstrable they are; that is the reason why Mathematicians doe boast that their Principles are so evident, that they doe not perswade but compell men to beleeve. Yet in the matter of fact, and in the appli­cation of these evident rules, where every particular circumstance doth require a new consideration, how easily doe they erre? in so much as let twenty Geometricians mea­sure over the same plot of ground, hardly two of them shall agree exactly. So it see­meth that an error in point of doctrine may be more easily and more evidently convin­ced, than an error in matter of fact. He saith the separation is visible. True; but whether the separation be criminous, whe­ther party made the first separation, whe­ther [Page 44] there was just cause of separation, whether side gave the cause, whether the Keies did erre in separating, whether there was not a former separation of the one par­ty from the pure primitive Church, which produced the second separation, whether they who separated themselves or others without just cause, doe erre invincibly, or not, whether they be ready to submit them­selves to the sentence of the Catholick Church, is not so easy to be discerned. How many separations have sprung about electi­ons, or jurisdiction, or precedency, all which Rites are most intricate, and yet the know­ledge of the Schisme depends altogether up­on them. This Surveier himself confesseth, That a Church may be really hereticall or schismaticall, and yet morally a true Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of her Here­sy or Schisme, in which case it is no Schisme, but a necessary duty to separate from her. In this very case proposed by himself, I desire to know how it is so easie by the only view of the separation, to judge or conclude of the Schisme.

But the true ground why Schisme is more probably objected to the Church of England than Heresie, is a false but prejudicate o­pinion, That the Bishop of Rome is the right Patriarch of Britain, That we deserted him, and that the differences between us are a­bout Patriarchall Rites; all which with sun­dry other such like mistaken grounds, are e­vidently [Page 45] cleared to be otherwise in the vindi­cation. This is all that concernes my first Chapter. The rest is voluntary.

The next thing observable in his Survey is, that Protestants confesse that they have sepa­rated themselves not only from the Roman Church, but also from all other Christian Churches in the communion of the Sacraments and publick worship of God: And that no cause but necessity of salvation can justifie such a separation from the crime of Schisme. And it must needs seem hard to prove that it was ne­cessary for the salvation of Protestants, to make such a separation from all Churches in the World: As if there had been no Christian Church, in whose communion in Sacraments they could finde salvation, whence it will fol­low, that at that time there was no true Church of God upon earth. For proof of the first point, That Protestants have separated from all Christian Churches, he produceth Cal­vin, Chillingworth, and a treatise of his own.

It were to be wished that Professors of Theology would not cite their testimonies upon trust, where the Authours themselves may easily be had, Authors ought to be cited fully and faithfully. (only impossibility is stronger than necessity, as the spartan Boy once answered the old Senator after the La­conicall manner,) and that they would cite their Authors fully and faithfully, not by halves, without adding to or new molding their authorities according to their own fan­cies [Page 46] or interest. It may seem ludicrous, but it was a sad truth of a noble English Gentle­man, sent Ambassador into forrein parts, and with him an honorable Espy under the notion of a Companion, by whom he was accused at his return to have spoken such and such things, at such and such times. The Gentleman pleaded ingenuously for himself, that it might be he had spoken some of those things, or it might be all those things, but never any one of them in that order, nor in that sense. I have, said he, several Suits of apparel, of purple cloth, of green Velvet, of white and black Sattin. If one should put my two purple Sleeves to my green velvet Dublet, and make my Hose the one of white Sattin, the other of black, and then swear that it was my apparrell; they who did not know me, might judge me a strange man. To disorder authority, to contract or en­large them, to misapply them besides the scope, contrary to the sense of the Author, is not more discommendable than common. I have seen large volumes containing some hundreds of controversies (as was preten­ded) between Protestants and Papists: And among them all not above five or six that I could owne; as if they desired that the whole woven Coat of Christ should be torn more insunder than it is, or that they might have the honor to conquer so many fictious Monsters of their own making. I have seen authorities mangled and mi [...]applied, just [Page 47] like the Ambassadors clothes, so as the right Authors would hardly have been able to know them. So much prejudice and partia­lity, and an habit of alteration, is able to doe like a tongue infected with Choler, which makes the sweetest meates to taste bitter, or like coloured glass, which makes every object we see through it to appear of the same co­lour.

Wherefore I doe intreat R. C. to save himself and me and the Reader so much la­bor and trouble for the future, by forbearing to charge the private errors or opinions of particular persons (it skilleth not much whe­ther) upon the Church of England, the most of which were meer strangers to our affaires, and many of them died before con­troversies were rightly stated or truly under­stood, for none of which the Church of Eng­land is any way obliged to be responsable. And likewise by forbearing to make so ma­ny empty references, to what he beleeves or pretends to have proved in some of his other books. See the Author of the Protestant Re­ligion: See the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals: See the sufficient proposer of faith: See the Protestants plain confession: See the Flowers of the English Church: See the Epistle to King James: See the pruden­tial Ballance: See the collation of Scripture. To what end can this serve, but either to divert us from the question we have in hand? or to amuse the Reader and put him into a [Page 48] beliefe of some great atchievements which he hath made elsewhere, or to excuse his present defects, upon pretense of large sup­plies and recruits which he hath ready in another place, but where the Reader can­not come to see them? And what if the Reader have them not to see, as it is my condition in present? What am I or he the worse? If he see no more in some of them, then I have seen heretofore, he will see a great many of mistated and mistaken questions, a great many of Logomachies or contentions about words, a great many of private errours produced as common principles of Protestants, a great many of authours cited contrary to their genuine sense and meaning, and very little that is materiall towards the discussion of this or any other question.

Prote­stants con­ [...]esse no se­paration from the universall Church. Chil c. 3 p. 132.Just as Master Chillingworth is cited here to prove, That Protestants have separated themselves in communion of Sacraments, and publick service of God, not only from the Roman Church, but also from all other Chri­stian Churches in the World, which is not only contrary to his sense, but also contrary to his very words in the place alleged. It is not all one (saith he) though you perpetually confound them, to forsake the errour of the Church, and to forsake the Church, or to for­sake the Church in her errours, and simply to forsake the Church, &c. The former then was done by Protestants, the later was not [Page 49] done. Nay not only not from the Catholick Church, but not so much as from the Roman, did they separate per omnia, but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious. Not only from the Roman Church, but from also all other Christian Churches in the world, c. 1 s. 1. saith R.C. Not only not from the Catholick Church, but not so much as from the Roman Church, saith Mr. Chilling­worth. In communion of Sacraments and publick worship of God, saith R. C. Only in those practises which they conceived super­stitious or impious, saith Mr. Chilling­worth.

But because there is no question wherein they studdy more to blunder and trouble the water, and to involve themselves in dark Clouds of obscure generalities; I will doe my endeavour to distinguish that which is deceitfull and confused, and represent the naked truth to the eies of the Reader. Nor from the Ro­man, but only in her errors. First I acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a true Christian Church in that sense that I have declared, that is metaphysically, be­cause it still reteins all the essentialls of a true Church. To have separated from it in any of these, had been either formall Heresie, or formall Schisme, or both. But we have re­teined all these as much as themselves, and much more purely than themselves: For it may seem doubtfull whether some of their superstitious additions, doe not virtually overthrow some of the fundamentalls of [Page 50] Religion. But with us there is no such dan­ger.

Secondly, I acknowledge that, besides the Essentials of Christian Religion, the Church of Rome reteins many other truths of an inferior nature, in Doctrine, in Disci­pline, in Sacraments, and many lawfull and laudable Practises and Observations. To have separated from these, had been at least materiall Schisme, unless the Church of Rome should obtrude them upon other Churches as necessary and fundamentall Articles of Christian Religion, and so pre­sume to change the ancient Creed, which was deposited with the Church by the Apo­stles, as the common Badge and Cognisance of all Christians for all suceeding Gene­rations.

Thirdly, It is agreed that one may not, one must not separate himself from the com­munion of a true Christian Church, for the vices or faults of particular Persons in point of manners. We may not leave the Lords Field because there are Tares, nor his Floare because there is Chaff, nor his House because there are Vessels of dishonor, nor his Col­lege because there was a Iudas.

Fourthly, Some errors and abuses are not simply sinfull in themselves, but to those that did first introduce them, to those who maintain and practise them for ambitious or avaritious ends they are sinfull. These are pressures and grievances to the Christian [Page 51] Flock, rather than sins. They suffer under the burthen of them, but they are innocent from the guilt of them. And so reum facit Superiorem iniquitas imperandi, innocentem subditum ordo serviendi. A Superior may sin in his commands, and yet his Subject be in­nocent in his obedience. These are no just cause of separation to a private Christian, Charity covers a multitude of sinnes. 1. P [...]t 4. 8. But they are just cause of Reformation to a na­tionall Church or a Synod.

Fiftly, There are some errors in disputable points, and some abuses are meer excesses without guilt, rather blemishes than sinnes: And for these alone no man ought to sepa­rate himself from a Christian Society; or abandon a true Church for triviall dissen­tions. Our duty in such a case is to pray and perswade, without troubling the peace of the Church, and to leave the rest to God. Let us therefore as many as be perfect, Phil 3 15. be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Lastly, We affirm that in the superstru­ctions of Christian Religion, the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence, and sin­full innovations, in point of Doctrine, and Discipline, and administration of the Sacra­ments, and Feasts, and Fasts, &c. This we are ready to maintain. Neither doth she on­ly profess and practise these errors and a­buses, [Page 52] which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation; but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential Truths and necessary Ar­ticles. She injoins sundry of them as a con­dition of her Communion. She commands all Christians to beleeve and practise them under pain of damnation; and whosoever refuseth, she casteth them out of her society. Such is their new Creed in point of Faith, directly contrary to the Canon of the ge­nerall Councel of Ephesus. Such is the Popes Supremacy of power in point of Dis­cipline, expressly contrary to the determi­nations of the Councells of Constance and Basile. Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine, the detention of the Cup from the People, their unknown lang­guage, &c. in the administration of the Sacraments, and in the publick service of God. From these sinfull duties thus injoi­ned as necessary, all men ought to separate. Lawfull authority of man may oblige one to suffer, but no authority of man can war­rant or oblige one to doe sinfull duties. Such a cause justifies a separation, untill the abuse be reformed for which the separation was made. And being thus separated from sinfull Innovations, it may be lawfull or convenient to reform lesser errors, which were not of such dangerous consequence, nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves.

[Page 53]But here I must advertise the Reader of a double manner of expression, used by Eng­lish Protestants concerning this separation. They agree that the Roman Church retei­neth the Essentials of a true Church. They agree that she hath introduced errors and a­buses into Christian Religion. They agree that she obtrudes sinfull Innovations as necessary conditions of her Communion. They agree that the separation is only from these errors and abuses, and are ready to return to a Communion, when these errors and abuses are removed. So in effect they say the ve­ry same thing, neither more nor less. But because these errors and abuses are inherent in their Confessions. Liturgy, and forms of administration of holy Sacraments; therefore some say that they are separated from the externall communion of the Roman Church. And because these errors and abuses are but adventicious & accidently inherent, and may be, and ought to be removed; therefore o­thers say that their separation is not from the Communion of the Roman Church, as it was, and may be, and ought to be, but on­ly from the errors and abuses. The one speaks simply and absolutely from the errors and abuses: The others speak respectively, and secundum quid, from the externall com­munion of the Roman Church, that is, so far as it is corrupted by these errors and abuses, and not further, and so in sense they say the very same thing.

[Page 54]And therefore it is meer sophistry and a groundlesse cavill to argue from their se­paration from errours, to their separation from truths, and from their separation in abuses, to their separation in the Sacraments themselves. Suppose one who is appointed to minister diet to another, will give him nothing but poisonous meats, And he knowing it, will not receive it; tell me who is the refuser, he that will not eate poison, or he that will not give him healthfull food? The Roman Catholicks doe professe them­selves to be as loyall to their Soveraign, as any of his best Subjects. And that they are as ready as any others to give assurance of it by oath. Yet they say there are some clauses inserted in the form prescribed, which they may not, they dare not take. If any man should accuse them hereupon, to have deserted the communion of the English Monarchy in point of loyalty, they would be angry, and they had good reason for it. Upon the same equity let them for­beare to accuse us of leaving the communi­on of their Church in Sacraments, when we only left their abuses. Distinguish be­tween old institutions and new errours, and the case is cleer.

Sect. 5. Not the separat­ion, but the cause makes the Schism.Likewise supposing, but not granting, that we were not chased away by the censures of the Court of Rome, but had out of con­science separated our selves from their er­rours in such manner as I have declared, yet [Page 55] the crime or guilt of the Schism sticks close to them. A conscientious Christian is as much chased away by imposing upon him the performance of sinfull duties, as by the thunderbolt of excommunication. Schism is a voluntary separation, but our separa­tion was no more voluntary on our parts, then the three children were willing to be cast into the fiery furnace, that is, they did chuse rather to die Innocents then to live Nocents, to suffer burning rather then to commit Idolatry. To be separated, might be our consequent will, because we could not help it. But it was farr enough from our antecedent will, or that we did desire it. If we should see one pushed and thrust out of an house with Swords and Whips and Clubs, would any man in his right wits, call this man a Fugitive and a Runaway, or accuse him to have forsaken the House? Sin is a more dangerous Edge-tool then a Sword, and the wrath of God heavier then the weight of Clubs, and the secret lashes of a guilty Conscience sharper then Whips. If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinfull duties and offending God, and wounding our own Consciences, whilest we staied among them, then we did not leave them, but they did drive us from them. Ioseph came into his Masters house to doe his duty, his Mistrisse tempts him to Sinne. Ioseph flies away. What? From his duty? No. But from the offence of God, and she that [Page 56] thought to hold him, was the person that did drive him away.

It is ne­cessary to Salvation to forsake known errours.He urgeth that nothing but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation (as he hath fancied to himself) from the crime of Schism. Let it be so [...] He might have spared his Authours in the margent to prove it. His defect lies on the other side. Doth not he think it necessary to Salvation for every man so farre as he can to escheu deadly sinne? Or thinks he that a man may live securely in known errours, con­trary to the dictate of his Conscience, with­out any prejudice to Salvation? This was our condition. But yet there was Salva­tion to be had in the Church of Rome. So it was not necessary to Salvation to make such a separation. A strange consequence, just like this other, God hath mercy in store for sinners, therefore it is not necessary to Salvation to forsake sinne. Gods extra­ordinary mercy is one thing; our duty ano­ther. Because his compassion is great, to­wards his poor Creatures that offend out of invincible ignorance, is it therefore not necessary to Salvation for those who are convinced of their errours, to follow the commandement of God, and the light of their own Conscience? This is so evident that it admits no doubt.

He adds, That we separated our selves not only from the Roman Church, but from all Christian Churches in the World, as if there [Page 57] had been no Christian Church in the World, in whose communion we could finde Salvation, whence it will follow that at that time in their conceits, there was no true Church upon Earth. This he inculcates over and over in severall places, according to his manner. And in his ninth Chapter and fifth Section, C. 9. Sect. 5 he triumpheth in it, where he endeavours to prove out of Calvine, and Chillingworth, and Doctor Potter, that Protestants sepa­rated themselves from the whole World. That is, as he expresseth himself in other places, from all Christian Churches. And particularly, from the Roman, Grecian, Ar­menian, and Aethiopian Church, and all other ancient Churches, whatsoever. If it be so, then he may truely call us Penitus toto divi­sos orbe Britannos. Of the Roman Church in particular, and how that possibility of Salvation in any Church, is not in true rea­son impeditive of its just reformation, we have already spoken sufficiently. It remaineth to give an answer concerning our separation from these Eastern Churches. Our refor­mation no separation Our particular reformation cannot be said to be any separa­tion from them. For they doe neither pre­tend to be the Catholick or universall Church, as the Roman doth, nor challenge any jurisdiction over the Britannick Churches, as the Court of Rome doth, nei­ther doe we deny them the right of Christi­an Churches, or the right hand of fellow­ship. In coordinate Churches, 2 Gal 9. whereof one is [Page 58] not subordinate to another, some Churches reforming themselves, and not censuring or condemning others which are unreform­ed, whilest they preserve their duty entire to the Oecumenicall Church, and its repre­sentative a generall Councell, doe not sepa­rate from other Churches, but from their own errours. In a large garden suppose there should be many quarters, some weed­ed, some unweeded, there is indeed a separa­tion of the Plants from the Weeds in the same quarters, but no separation of one quarter from another. Or if a man shall purge out of himself corrupted humours, he doth not thereby separate himself from other persons, whose bodies are unpurged. It is true, that such weeding and purging doth produce a distinction, between the quarters weeded, and the quarters unweed­ed, and between Bodies purged and Bodies unpurged. But either they stand in no such need of weeding or purging, or it is their own fault who doe not weed or purge when they have occasion. If they will needs misconstrue our lawfull reformation, to be an unlawfull and uncharitable separa­tion, how can we help it? We have separated from no Eastern, Southern, Northern, or Western Church. Our Article tells them the same, A [...]t 30. either let them produce some Act of ours, which makes or implies such a separation, or let them hold their peace for ever.

[Page 59]But all this noise proceeds from hence, that R. C. conceives that we will no more join with those Eastern Churches, or any of them, in their Creeds, in their Liturgies or publick forms of serving God, nor com­municate with them in their Sacraments, then we doe with the Church of Rome. If we communicate not with the Roman Church in some things, it is not our faults. It is not their serving of God, Lawfull to communi­cate with the Ea­stern Churches. nor their Sacraments that we dislike, but their dis­service of God, and corrupting of the holy Sacraments. But for these Grecian, Russi­an, Armenian, and Abissine Churches, I finde grosse superstitions objected to some of them, but not proved. I finde some inusitate expressions about some myste­ries which are scarcely intelligible or expli­cable, as the procession of the holy Ghost, and the Union of the two natures in Christ, which are not frequently used among us, but I beleive their sense to be the same with ours. The Grecians doe acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son. And all the other Churches are ready to accurse the errours both of Nestorius and E [...]ty­ches.

But that which satisfies me is this, that they exact of no man, nor obtrude upon him any other Creed, or new Articles of Faith then the Apostolicall, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, with the explications, of the generall Councels of Ephesiu, Con­stantinople, [Page 60] and Chalcedon, all which we readily admit, and use daily in our Liturgy. If the Church of Rome would rest where they doe, we might well have disputable questions between us, but no breach of unity in point of Faith. Likewise in point of discipline, all these Churches ascribe no more to the Pope then a primacy of Order, no supremacy of Power or universal Juris­diction. They make a generall Councel, with or without the Popes suffrage, to be the highest Ecclesiasticall tribunall. Let the Romanists rest where they doe rest, and all our controversies concerning Ecclesiasticall discipline will fall to the ground. Thirdly, they have their Liturgy in a language under­stood, they administer the Sacrament in both kinds to all Christians. They doe not themselves adore, much lesse compell o­thers to adore the species of Bread and Wine. Howsoever they have a kind of ele­vation. They have no new matter and form, no tradition of the paten and chalice in Presbyterian ordination, but only impo­sition of hands. They know no new Sacri­fice, but the commemoration, representation, and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse. Just as we believe. Let the Romanists but imitate their moderation, and we shall strait come to joyn in Communion, in Sa­craments, and Sacramentals also. Yet these are the three essentials of Christian Religion, Faith, Sacraments, and Discipline. So little [Page 61] ground had R. C. to tell us, that we had separated our selves from all Christian Churches in the World.

But Calvin saith, Calv. ep [...]st. 141. we have been forced to make a separation from all the world. Admit he did say so, What will he conclude from hence that the Church of England did the same? This consequence will never be made good without a transubstantiation of Mr. Calvin into the English Church. He himself knoweth better that we honor Calvin for his excellent parts, but we doe not pinn our Religion either in Doctrine, or Discipline, or Liturgy to Calvins sleeve. Whether Calvin said so or not, for my part I cannot think otherwise but that he did so in point of Discipline, untill some body will be favo­rably pleased to shew me one formed natio­nall, or provinciall Church throughout the world, before Geneva, that wanted B [...]shops, or one lay Elder that exercised Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in Christendome. I confess the Fratres Bohemi had not the name of Bi­shops, but they wanted not the order of Bi­shops under the name of Seniores or Elders, who had both Episcopall Ordination (after their Presbyterian) & Episcopal Jurisdiction, and Episcopall Succession from the Bishops of the Waldenses, who had continued in the Church under other names, time immemoti­all, and gave them charge at their Refor­mation (long before Luthers time) to pre­serve that Order. All which themselves have [Page 62] published to the World in private. Ratio or­dinis & discipline Fratrum Bohemo rum. I conf [...]ss likewise that they had their lay Elders under the name of Presbyteri, from whence Mr. Calvin borrowed his. But theirs in Bohemia pretended not to be Ecclesiasticall Commis­sioners, nor did, nor durst ever presume to meddle with the power of the keies, or exer­cise any Jurisdiction in the Church. They were only inferior Officers, neither more nor less than our Church-Wardens and Sydemen in England. ibid. This was far enough from ruling Elders. Howsoever what doth this concern the Church of England, which never made, nor maintained, nor approved any such separation?

Calvin no enemy to Episcopa­cy.No more did Calvin himselfe out of judg­ment, but out of necessity to complie with the present estate of Geneva, after the ex­pulsion of their Bishop. As might be made appeare, if it were needfull, by his publick profession of their readines to receive such Bishops as the primitive Bishops were, or o­therwise that they were to be reputed nullo non anathemate digni. Epist. ad Mart. Schaling. By his subscription to the Augustane confession, which is for Epicopacy, cui pridem volens ac libens sub­scripsi. Epl. ad Reg. Polo mae. By his confession to the King of Polonia. The ancient Church instituted Pa­triarchater, and assigned primacie to single Provinces, that Bishops might be better knit together in the bond of unity. By his descrip­tion of the charge of a Bishop that should joyn himself to the reformed Church, to doe [Page 63] his indeavour, Calv. ep. Impres. Gen. an. 1570. pag. 340. that all the Churches within his Bishoprick be purged from Errors and Ido­latry, to goe before the Curates (or Pastors) of his Diocess by his example, and to induce them to admit the Reformation. And lastly by his letters to Arch-bishop Cranmer, the Bishop of London, and a Bishop of Polo­nia.

I have searched the hundred one and fortieth Epistle, and for fear of failing, the hundred and one and fortieth page also in my edition, but I doe neither finde any such confession, nor remember any such, nor finde any thing like it in the place cited, except peradventure he mean this, that Calvine, justifying Episcopacy and con­demning the Papacy, Ep. ad. R. Polon. hath these words, It is one thing to receive moderate honour, such as man is capable of, and another thing to rule the whole World, that is, as the Pope would doe. Calvine speakes of the Popes ambitious, affectation of an universall Em­pire, not of his just right or possession. I hope he doth not presently separate from all Christian Churches, who separates from the Pope, because the Pope pretends an universall Jurisdiction. Thus it is, when men make their own collections to be other mens confessions. But supposing that Cal­vine had said any such thing, it must be un­derstood Synechdochically of the Western Churches, the whole, for a part, as they say at Paris, le Mond de Paris, the World of Paris. [Page 64] or as a Father said, The World mourned and wondred to see it self turned Arrian. 4 Inst. c. 18. sect. 18. But Calvine said further, That the Idolatrous Masse had possessed all Kings and People from the first to the last. This confirms the former exposition, all Kings and People, that is in these Occidentall parts of Chri­stendome. Certainly Calvine did not dream of the Duke of Muscovia, or Prester Iohn, much lesse of the great Turke, or Sophy of Persia, within whose territories most of these Churches are. They have Masses in­deed, but no adoration of the Elements, and consequently no Idolatrous Masses, which Calvine disliked.

Perhaps he will speed better with Doctor Potters testimony. To let R. C. see plainly what credit is to be given to such citations, Doctor Potter cleared. I will reduce his argument out of Doctor Potter to a syllogism. All separation from the universall Church is schismaticall, but Protestants confess that their separation is from the universall Church. His proposition is proved out of Doctor Potter Sect. 3. p. 74. Ch. 9. Sect. 5. This is true. Doctor Potters words are these, There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himself. His assump­tion is proved out of Doctor Potter Sect. 2. p. 48. Some separation (voluntary) from all vi­sible Churches doth not exclude from Heaven. If Protestants lie open to the lash, Ibid: and have no better memories, it is an easie matter to [Page 65] confute them out of their own confessions, or rather let the Reader judge what credit is to be given to such citations. Doctor Potters words are these, If separation, such as hath been said, from all visible Churches, doe not exclude from Heaven. Sect. 2. p. 49. First, R. C. omits these words such as hath been said, which words quite destroy his proof. The separation whereof he speaks there, is only externall, not internall, from all particular visible Churches, not from the universall Church. His words are these, A man may be a true visible Member of the holy Catho­lick Church who is not actually (otherwise then in vow) a Member of any true visible Church. The instances or cases which he produceth are two, the one of a man un­justly excommunicated clave-errante, who is not in the actuall externall communion of any Particular Church, yet if he commu­nicate in desire, [...]el l 2. de Eccl M [...]l c 6. Aust de Ve [...]. Re [...]. c. 6. sufficit ei ad salutem, it is sufficient to save him, which he proves out of Bellarmine and St. Austine and others. Neither will R.C. himself deny it. The other instance is of Tertullian, who in his later daies did fall off from the Catholicks, out of an indiscrete piety, why may we not hope that God pardoned the errours of his honest zeal? And herein also he hath the consent, and concurrence of R. C. himself. That they who erre invincibly, and hold the truth implicitely doe want neither Church, nor Faith, nor Salvation. What doe these cases [Page 66] concern the present controversie? Not at all.

And as R. C. subtracts, so he adds the word voluntary upon his own head, which is not in Doctor Potter. He who is excom­municated unjustly, is not excommunicated with his good will. Tertullian did not wil­fully run into errour. Ignorance destroyes liberty in many cases, as well as force. Doctor Potter speaks only of such who are in vote, in their desires, or willingly within the communion of the Church, and declares the contrary expresly, Ibid. that voluntary and ungrounded separation from the Catholick Communion is without doubt a damnable Schism.

Lastly, Doctor Potter speaks not of the ordinary way of Salvation, but of Gods extraordinary mercy, Why may we not hope that God pardoned the errours of his honest zeale? Cannot God pardon formall, much more materiall Schism, and convert a Schis­matick at the last gasp, if it please him? The primitive Church refused to receive some sorts of offenders to their actuall commu­nion, and yet left them to the mercy of God for their Salvation.

And Ma­ster Chil­lingwo [...]hBut his chiefest testimonies, are taken out of Master Chillingworth c. 5. p. 273. That Protestants did forsake the externall commu­nion of the visible Church. And p. 274. Master Knott objecting, that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted, Lu­ther [Page 67] forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church, could not but for­sake the externall communion of the Ca­tholick Church. Master Chillingworth an­swers, Let this be granted. And p. 291. It is not improbable that it may be lawfull and noble for one man to oppose (in Faith) the World. I answer first, that by externall communion, Master Chillingworth meant nothing but errours in the externall commu­nion, and by the visible Church a consider­able part of the visible Church. Hear him­self, p 245. Indeed that Luther and his followers, left off the practice of those corruptions, where­in the whole visible Church did communicate formerly, (which I meant, when I acknow­ledged above that they forsooke the externall communion of the visible Church) or that they left that part of the visible Church in her corruption, which would not be reformed. These things if you desire, I shall be willing to grant; and that by a Synechdoche of the whole for the part, he might be said to forsake the visible Church, that is, a part of it, and the greater part. But that properly speaking, he forsooke the whole visible Church, I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this. And he gives this reason, because a great part of the Church joyned with Luther. He might have added a stronger reason as I think, that Luthers first quarrell with the Pope was about Indulgences, and the Su­premacy, &c. wherein Luther did not de­sert, [Page 68] but joyn in communion with the much greater part of the visible Church. If af­terwards Luther fell upon other questions, not so agreeable to the Eastern Church, yet they were no Articles of the Creed, nor necessary points of Christian Religion. The same interpretation he gives elswhere, The first reformers as well as the Donatists, p. 312. &c. opposed the commands of the visible Church, that is, of a great part of it.

Secondly I answer, that what is said of the universall corruption of the visible Church, is not delivered positively, but doubtfully, and upon supposition, not grounded upon any matter of fact, p. 191. It is not improbable, and if we were put to our oaths, we should surely testifie no such thing for you, which words doe follow immediately in the place formerly cited. And in another place, neither to suppose a visible Church, before Luther which did not erre, is to con­tradict this ground of Doctor Potters, that the Church may erre, unlesse you will have us believe that may be and must be is all one, and that all which may be true, is true. Nei­ther Doctor Potter nor Master Chillingworth did ever maintain a separation from the whole Christian World in any one thing, 6.5 p. 273. but from some Churches in one thing, from some in another, not necessary to Salvation, wherein they dissented one from another. That which is one and the same in all places, Te [...]t. is no errour, but delivered by Christ and his A­postles. [Page 69] Saint Austine gives not much more latitude, That which the whole Church holds, and was not instituted by Counsels, but al­waies reteined, is rightly esteemed to have been delivered by apostolicall authority. L. 4 Cont. Don c. 23. c. 5. P. 302. Let Master Chillingworth be his own interpreter, It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole World, another to separate from all the Communions in the World, one thing to divide from them who are united among themselves, another to divide from them, who are divided among themseves. The Donatists separated from the whole Christian World u­nited, but Luther and his followers did not so. In all this, here is not a word against the Church of England, nor any thing materiall against any particular Protestant. A per­fect harmony and unanimity were to be wished in the universall Church, but scarce­ly to be hoped for (until this mortall hath put on immortality) in all disputable que­stions. As great differences among the Romanists as between them and the Ea­stern Churches, or us. The Romanists have no such per­fect unity in their own Church, perhaps as many reall differences, as there are between us and the Grecians, or between us and themselves, but only they are pleased to nickname the one Heresies, and to honour the other with the title of Scholasticall que­stions. C. 1. S. 13. Our communicating with Schisma­ticks hath been already answered.

In the latter part of this Chapter, Sect. 2. he charg­eth me with four faults at a time, able to break a back of Steel, first, That I indeavour to clear [Page 70] the English Protestant Church from Schism, but not other Protestant Churches. I doe not understand exactly the history of their reformation, nor the Lawes and Priviledges of forrein particular Churches, qui pauca considerat facile pronuntiat, he that consi­dereth few circumstances giveth the sentence easily, but seldome justly. He addeth, That either it argues little charity in me, or little skill to defend them. And elsewhere he in­stanceth in the Scotish and French Hugue­nots, c. 2. s. 3. and laieth down the reason of my si­lence, because I condemn them as Schismaticks, for wanting that Episcopacy, which I require as essentially necessary to a Catholick Church. In the mean time let him remember what it is to raise discord and make variance, Prov. 6.16. If the want of Episcopacy were my only reason, why doe I not defend the Bo­hemian Brethren, the Danish, Swedish, and some German Protestants, all which have Bi­shops? But because he presseth me so much, I will give him a further account of my self in this particular then I intended, or am obliged.

Wh [...]th [...]r all those be Schis­maticks who want Bishops.I confesse I doe not approve tumultua­ry reformations made by a giddy ignorant multitude according to the dictates of a seditious Oratour. But withall I must tell him that God would not permit evill, but that he knows how to extract good out of evill. And that he often useth ill agents to doe his own works. Yea even to reform his Church. Iehu was none of [Page 71] the best men, yet God used him to purge his Church, and to take away the Priests of Baal. The treason of Iudas became sub­servient to the secret councels of God, for the redemption of the World by the Crosse and Passion of Christ. I doe also acknow­ledge that Episcopacy was comprehended in the Apostolick office tanquam trigonus in tetragono, and that the distinction was made by the Apostles with the approbation of Christ. That the Angels of the seven Churches in the Revelation, were seven Bi­shops; that it is the most silly rediculous thing in the World to calumni [...]e that for a papall innovation, which was established in the Church before there was a Pope at Rome; which hath been received and approved in all ages since the very Cradle of Christianity, by all sorts of Christians, Europeans, Afri­cans, Asiaticks, Indians, many of which ne­ver had any intercourse with Rome, nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome. If semper ubique & ab omnibus be not a suffi­cient plea, I know not what is.

But because I esteem them Churches not completely formed, doe I therefore exclude them from all hope of salvation? or esteem them aliens and strangers from the Com­mon-wealth of Israel? or account them formall Schismaticks? No such thing. First, I know there are many learned Persons a­mong them, who doe passionately affect Epis­copacie; some of which have acknowledged [Page 72] to my self, that their Church would never be rightly setled untill it was new moulded. Baptisme is a Sacrament, the door of Chri­stianity, a matriculation into the Church of Christ: Yet the very desire of it in case of necessity, is sufficient to excuse from the want of actuall Baptisme. And is not the desire of Episcopacy sufficient to excuse from the actuall want of Episcopacy in like case of necessity? Or should I censure these as Schismaticks?

Secondly, There are others who though they doe not long so much for Episcopacy, yet they approve it, and want it only out of invincible necessity. In some places the So­veraign Prince is of another Communion; the Episcopall Chaires are filled with Ro­mish Bishops. If they should petition for Bishops of their own, it would not be gran­ted. In other places the Magistrats have ta­ken away Bishops, whether out of pollicy, because they thought that Regiment not so proper for their Republicks, or because they were ashamed to take away the Revenues, and preserve the Order, or out of a blinde Zeal, they have given an account to God: they owe none to me. Should I condemn all these as Schismaticks for want of Episco­pacy, who want it out of invincible neces­sity?

Thirdly, There are others who have nei­ther the same desires, nor the same esteem of Episcopacy, but condemn it as an Antichri­stian [Page 73] Innovation, and a Ragge of Popery. I conceive this to be most grosse Schism ma­terially. It is ten times more schismaticall to desert; nay to take away (so much as lies in them) the whole order of Bishops, than to substract obedience from one lawfull Bishop. All that can be said to mittigate this fault is, that they doe it ignorantly, as they have been mistaught and misinformed. And I hope that many of them are free from obstinacy, and hold the truth impli­citely in the preparation of their minds, be­ing ready to receive it, when God shall re­veal it to them. How far this may excuse (not the crime but) their persons from for­mall Schisme, either a toto or a tanto, I de­termine not, but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master.

But though these Protestants were wor­thy of this contumely, The Ro­manists no fit persons to object Schism to Prote­stants. yet surely the Ro­manists are no fit persons to object it, whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Refor­mation of the western Church. Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopall Juris­diction, and the power of ordeining and confirming; but the Court of Rome, by their commissions and delegations, for avaritious ends? And could they think that the world would beleeve, that necessity is not as strong and effectuall a dispensation as their merci­cinary Buls? It is not at all materiall, whe­ther Episcopacy and Priesthood be two di­stinct O [...]ders, or distinct degrees of the same [Page 74] Order, the one subordinate to the other; whether Episcopal ordination doe intro­duce a new Character or extend the old. For it is generally confessed by both parties, Protestants and Roman Catholicks, that the same power and authority is necessary to the extensio [...] of a Character, or grace given by ordination, which is required to the insti­tution of a Sacrament, that is not humane, but divine. These avaritious practises of that Court, (though it be not commonly observed) were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiasticall Discipline, which doe now so much disturb the peace of the Church.

The second fault which he imputeth to me is, That I endeavor to clear the English Church from Schisme only in relation to the Church of Rome, not to all other Chur­ches. It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this. For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches, c 2. s 6. but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads, or so many Packs of Hereticks and Schismaticks. making the Roman Church and the Catho­lick Church to be Convertibles. Secondly, it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt, to make a defence before we were accused. None of those Churches, nor any body else that ever I heard of, hath accused us for de­serting them, before R. C. and he hath re­ceived [Page 75] his answer. 5. c. 2. s. 8. If it had been needfull, the Church of Rome had saved us that la­bour by excommunicating them, before hand. I only wish more intelligence between us and them.

My third fault is, The Church of England had better grounds than per­sonall faults of Popes. That I endeavour prin­cipally to justifie our separation from the Ro­man Church, for the personall faults of Popes. And my fourth fault is, That I justifie our separation from the Court of Rome for their evill manners. That this is not lawfull to doe, he proves by sundry authorities and argu­ments, I think the rather because no man de­nyes it, or doubts of it, or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we doe deny it. If he had pleased, he might have contracted these two faults into one. The Pope and his Court make but one consistory, and perso­nall faults, and evill manners are the same thing. It had been needfull to have joyned them together, to give them a little more weight: for being twisted they weigh not half a graine. First, I deny that we hold per­sonal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation. Secondly, that separation which was made, was made by themselves, not by us. Thirdly, I deny that the Pope, or Court of Rome ever had right to any Juris­diction over us: And if they ever had any pretence of right, we had other manner of grounds for separation than evill manners. As new Articles of faith, obtruding of ido­latrous, superstitions, and sinfull duties, gross [Page 76] usurpation of the rights of the soveraign Prince, and all orders and degrees of Sub­jects, the overthrow or endangering of the publick peace and tranquillity of the King­dome, unlawfull oaths contrary to our alle­giance to our King, contrary to that duty which all Christians doe owe to generall Councells, and lastly, the Popes quitting of his Patriarchall power. Yet by his leave, ty­ranny, and oppression, and rapine are somewhat more than personall faults, and may be just grounds to Princes and Com­mon-wealths to substract obedience, untill there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses. Some personall faults, as Simony aud Schism, may give just occasion to Christians to sepa­rate from pretended Popes. But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope, not his Episcopall Office, which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles, nor his Patriarchall Office, which was instituted by the Church, but his pretended Monarchicall Office, whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunall of the Church; that is, a generall Councell, where­of more shall be said in due place. Inf. c. 7 s These faults give just cause to a generall Councell to separate the Popes themselves, and to take away their domineering Courts; or to a soveraign Prince with a N [...]tio­nall Councell, to shake off their tyrannicall Yoke.

CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Que­stion.

IN stating the Question I observed this Method; Sect. 1. first to shew what Ecclesia­sticall Separations were not Schismati­call. As first, those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat, without attempting to make any parties, as those between St. Paul and Barnabas, St. Hierome and Ruffinus, St. Chrysostome and E­piphanius. Secondly, premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained; if they forbear to censure one another, and be ready to submit to the determination of a generall Councell, are not schismaticall; as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptization, Thirdly, where just cause of separation is given, for there the Separaters are inno­cent, and they who give the cause, are Schis­maticks. Fourthly, separation, from an erro­neous Church, or Pastor in their errors. Of all these, and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all, but passeth silently by them, without either granting, denying, or distin­guishing.

The first Exception that he takes, is a­gainst [Page 78] my two supposed definitions of Schisme; P. 8. the former is, Schisme is a crimi­nous scissure, rent, or division in the Church, an ecclesiasticall sedition, like to a mutiny in an Army, or a faction in a Sate. The second, meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion. P. 12. And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own. P. 16. True Schisme is a voluntary divi­sion in some substantiall part of the true Church. Really, I doe not wonder if my definitions be not complete. I doe not take my self to have so happy a vein, that all that I utter should be a definition. I did not hold it needfull, nor had any purpose to define Schisme, but only to explane it, which my very words might have taught him. Schisme signifies a criminous scissure, not is, but signi­fies. And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition, like a mu­tiny in an Army, or faction in a State. Simili­tudes are apt to illustrate, but not to define. The definition and the thing defined are ever the same. Those things which are like one another, are never the same. But let us view his grand exceptions to my supposed defini­tions.

All Schisme is not in es­sentials.My first great fault is, That I doe not ex­press it thus in some substantiall part or parts of the Church. For all Schisme is in essentials, otherwise division in ecclesiasticall Ceremo­nies, or scholasticall Opinions should be Schism. Here is nothing new but his reason, to which [Page 79] I answer, that all differences in Rites and Ceremonies are not schismaticall; but if unlawfull or sinfull Rites be obtruded by a­ny Church, as a condition of their Commu­nion, and a separation ensue thereupon; the Obtruders of sinfull Rites, and they who break the unity of the Church, for difference in indifferent Rites, are guilty of Schism. So likewise scholasticall Opinions are free, and may be defended both waies scholastically; but if they be obtruded Magisterialy upon Christians as necessary Articles of faith, they render the Obtruders truly schismaticall. This is the case of the Church of Rome in both these particular instances: and there­fore it is not true, that all Schism is a division in the essentialls of Religion, or its substan­tiall parts. When Pope Victor excommuni­cated the Eastern Churches about the obser­vation of Easter, the difference was but a­bout a Rite, aut Ritus potius tempore (saith a Roman Catholick) or rather the time of a Rite. Yet it occasioned a Schisme, for ei­ther Victors Key did erre, and then he was the Schismatick, or it did not erre, and then they were the Schismaticks. What the opini­on of Ireneus and the Fathers of that age was, Eusebius tells us, that their letters were extant, wherein they chid Victor sharply a­bout it. There was much and long conten­tion between the Sees of Rome and Constan­stinople, concerning the Ecclesiasticall Juris­diction of Bulgaria, a meere humane Rite, [Page 80] nothing to the substance of the Church. Bar. An­nal. an. 878. And Iohn the 8 ^th excommunicated Ignatius the Patriarch about it. Here was a Schisme, but no essentiall of Religion concerned. How many gross Schismes have been in the Church of Rome, meerly about the due ele­ction of their Popes, a matter of humane right, which was sometimes in the Empe­rors, sometimes in the People, sometimes in the whole Roman Clergy, and now in the Colledge of Cardinals: Essentialls of Religion use not to be so mutable.

Nay, I beleeve that if we search narrowly into the first source and originall of all the famous Schismes that have been in the Church, as Novatianisme, and Donatisme, &c. we shall finde that it was about the Canons of the Church, no substantialls of Religion. Novatians first separation from Cornelius, was upon pretense that he himself was more duely elected Bishop of Rome, not about any essentiall of Religion. The first originall of the Schism of the Donatists, was because the Catholick Church would not excommunicate them who were accused to have been traditores. On the other side, Felicissimus raised a Schism in the Church of Carthage, and set up Altar against Altar, be­cause the lapsi or those who had fallen in time of persecution might not presently be restored, upon the mediation of the Con­fessors, or as they then stiled them, Martyrs. What Schismes have been raised in the [Page 81] Church of England about round or square, white or black, about a Cup, or a Surpless, or the signe of the Cross, or kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament, or the use of the Ring in marriage? What bitter contentions have been among the Francis­cans in former times about their habits, what colour they should be, white, or black, or gray; and what fashion, long or short, to make them more conformable to the rule of St. Francis? with what violence have these petty quarrells been prosecuted, in so much as two succeeding Popes, upon two solemn hearings durst not determine them. And nothing was wanting to a complete Schism but a sentence. Antima­ch [...]aveil in [...]ist ad Lect.

He might have spared his second proofs of his three substantiall parts he meaneth es­sentiall properties of the Church, untill it had been once denyed. Yet I cannot but ob­serve how he makes Heresie now worse than Schism, because Heresie denyeth the truth of God, which simple Schism doth not, whereas for­merly he made Schisme worse than Idolatry.

The second fault which he imputeth to me is, That I confound meer Schism with Schism mixed with Heresie, and bring in mat­ters of faith to justifie our division from the Roman Church. This second fault is like the former, both begotten in his own brain. Let him read my supposed definition over and o­ver again, and he shall not finde the least trace of any such confusion in it. To bring in [Page 82] their errours in matters of faith, Errours in faith ob­truded, justifie a separa­tion. to justi­fie us, not only from Heresie, but from meer Schism, is very proper. He himself hath already confessed it: I hope he will stand to his word, for it is too evident a truth to be denyed; that supposing they hold errours in matters of faith, and make these their errours a condition of their Commu­nion; it is not only lawfull, but necessary, and a virtue to separate from them. Their very errours in matters of faith, and their im­posing them upon us as necessary Articles, doth justifie a separation from them, and ac­quit us before God and man from all crimi­nous Schism, whether meer or mixed. The sinne of Korah, Dathan, and Abiran was not meer Schism, but ambition, treason, and re­bellion. Korah would have had the High­priesthood from Aaron, and Dathan and Abiran would have been soveraign Princes in the place of Moses, by right of the Primo­geniture of Ruben.

So he proceeds to my other definition. Meer Shcism is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion, to which he saith I add in the next page with­out sufficient ground, and should have added also in Sacraments or lawfull ministry, and lastly have shewed what is a sufficent ground. But he mistakes throughout: for first to have added without sufficient grounds, had been a needless tautology, which is not toler­able in a definition. To say that it is cul­pable, [Page 83] implies that it wants sufficient grounds. For if it had sufficient grounds, it were not culpable. Secondly, to have added in Sacraments or lawfull Ministry, had been to spoil the definition, or description rather, and to make it not convertible with the thing defined or described. I have shewed that there are many meer Schismes, that are neither in Sacraments nor lawfull Ministry. Lastly, I have shewed what are sufficient grounds, and that the Church of Rome gave sufficient cause of separation, if he please to take it into consideration. Sect. 2. Me [...]rall Sch [...]sm.

He saith, internall communion is not neces­sary to make a man a Member of a visible Church, or to make him a Catholick; neither is it put into the definition of the Church. Let it be so. I am far from supposing that none but Saints are within the communion of a true visible Church: But I am sure it is a good caution both for them and us. There is a mentall Schisme as well as a mentall Murther. 1 Iohn 3. 15. Whosoever hateth his Brother is a Murtherer. What will it avail a man to be a Catholick in the eie of the World, and a Schismatick in the eie of God? to be a Member of the visible Church, Rom 2 29. and to be cast into utter darkness? He is not a Iew who is one outwardly, neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Iew who is one inwardly, and Circumcision is that of the heart. (So he is not a Ca­tholick who is one outwardly, but [Page 84] he who is a Catholick inwardly) whose praise is not of men but of God.

Sect. 3.Then I set down wherein the externall Communion of Catholicks doth consist, in the same Creeds or Confessions of faith, in the participation of the same Sacraments, in the same Liturgies or divine Offices, in the use of the same publick Rites and Ceremo­nies, in the communicatory Letters, and ad­mission of the same D [...]scipline. These obser­vations about the parts of the Catholick Communion, are so innocent, so indifferent, and so unsubserviant to either party, that I hoped they might pass without any censure. But behold there is not one of them can e­scape an exception. To the first part of Ca­tholick communion in the same Creeds, he takes two exceptions; first, That commu­nion in faith is pretended a sufficient excuse from true Schism. Fear it not; no man dreameth that communion with the Church in her Creed doth acquit from Schism; but not communicating with the Church in her Creed, doth make both Schism and Heresie. The having of faith doth not supplie the want of Charity; but the want of one necessary requisite, renders the having of another insufficient. Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis, Commu­nion in all points of faith not neces­sary al­wayes. malum ex quolibet defectu.

His second Exception is, That true saving faith requireth not only a communion in the Creed, but in all Gods words cleerly revealed to him, and sufficiently proposed. I answer. [Page 85] What is necessary for this man, at this time, in this place, is one thing; what is necessary for all Christians, at all times, in all places, is another thing. Though all revealed truths be alike necessary to be beleeved, when they are known, yet all revealed truths are not alike necessary to be known. And they who know them not, are not obliged to commu­nicate in the beleefe of them, untill they know them. So to beleeve them when they are revealed to us, is a necessary duty of all Christians: And yet the explicite beliefe of them is no necessary part of Christian com­munion. He that holds fast the old Creed of the Church, hath all things that are absolute­ly necessary in point of Faith. Perhaps he thinks that the determination of the Roman Church is a sufficient proposall: we know no such thing. Let him first win the privilige and then enjoy it.

To the second and third parts of Catho­lick Communion he objects, That it is not sufficient to participate in Catholick Sacra­ments, unless it be done with Catholicks. This is true. How can they be parts of Ca­tholick Communion, Sacra­ments purely and cor­ruptly ad­ministred the same Sacra­ments. if no Catholicks doe participate of them? But here are two ad­vertisements necessary: the one, that Sacra­ments purely administred, and Sacraments corruptly administred, so long as the abuses doe not destroy the essence, are the same Sa­craments. As Baptisme administred in pure water, and Baptisme administred with salt [Page 86] and spittle, also is the same Baptisme. The other, that it is not any Church of one deno­mination whatsoever, either Roman or o­ther, that either is the Catholick Church, or is to judge under Christ who are true Catholicks. There are many more Catholicks without the Roman Communion, than within it. Our Separatists in England having first laid their own drowsie conceits for infallable grounds, that their Discipline is the Scepter of Christ, that they alone are Zion, and all other societies Babilon; then they apply all the power, and priviledges, and prerogatives of the Church unto them­selves. So the Church of Rome having flat­tered it self into an opinion, that she alone is the Catholick Church, and all other Chur­ches divided from her, hereticall or schisma­ticall Conventicles, though they be three or four times larger than her self; presently laies hold on the keies of the Church, opens and shuts, lets in and thrusts out, makes Catholicks and unmakes Catholicks at her pleasure.

He tels us That the Communion of the Church doth not necessarily imply the same Rites and Ceremonies. I know it right well. The Queens Daughter was arraied in a Gar­ment wrought about with divers colours. No men have been so much too blame as the Church of Rome, in obtruding indifferent Rites as necessary duties upon other Chur­ches. But yet the more harmony and uni­formity [Page 87] that there is in Rites, the greater is the Communion. The Church is compared to an Army with banners. What a disorder­ly Army would it be, if every Souldier was left free to wear his own colours, and to give his own words?

I know the Communion of the Church did not consist in communicatory Letters, but they were both expressions, and excel­lent helpes and adjuments of unity, and an­tidotes against Schism. What he saith now the third time of our communicating with Schismaticks, hath been answered al­ready.

Wherefore (saith he) since I. D. hath failed so many waies in defining Schism, Sect. 4. let us define it better. And then he brings in his definition triumphantly; True Schism is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church, that is, in some essentiall of Chri­stian Religion. Where lies the difference? I call it a separation, and he calles it a divi­sion; I say culpable, and he saith voluntary; omnis culpa est voluntaria. My expressions are more significant and emphaticall. All the difference lies in these words, in some substantiall part of the true Church. Which for the form of expression is improper, to make essentiall properties to be substantiall parts; and for the matter is most untrue: for there have been, are, and may be many Schismes, which doe not concern any essen­tialls of Christian Religion. I would borrow [Page 88] one word more with him, why he calles it rather a division of the true Church, Schisma­ticks in part doe st [...]ll re­main in the Catholick Church. than a division from the true Church. I know some Roman Catholicks have doubted and sus­pended their judgements, whether Schisma­ticks be still Members of the Catholick Church, others have determined that they are: And we are of the same minde, that in part they doe remain still coupled and mor­tised to the Church, that is in those things wherein they have made no separation, ex ea parte in texturae compage detinentur, in caetera scissi sunt. A [...] [...]t. l. 1. d [...] bapt. cont Do­n [...]istas. And that in this respect, the Ca­tholick Church by their baptism doth beget Sonnes and Daughters to God. And we think we have St. Austin for us in this also. Vna est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nomina­tur, & quicquid suum habet in Communioni­bus diversorum a sua unitate separatis, Idemo. 10 per hoc quod suum in iis habet, ipsa utique gene­rat, non illae. This perhaps is contrary to R. C. his opinions, howsoever we thank him for it: But we doe not think Schismaticks to be equally in the Church with Ca­tholicks, nor to be capable of salvation, without repentance particular or gene­rall.

He saith, That universall Schism or a di­vision from the whole Church is alwaies wicked, because the universall Church, can give no just cause of division from her. And he proves it out of St. Austin, Aug. ep. 48. His words are these, s [...] possunt, quod fieri non potest, aliqui [Page 89] habere justam causam, qua communionem suam separent a communione orbis terrarum. If any could have a just cause to separate their commuion from the whole communion of the whole World, which cannot be. Let him alwaies bring such proofs which con­cern not us, but make directly against him­self. It is they who have separated them­selves from the communion of the whole World, Grecian, Russian, Armenian, A­bissine, Protestant, by their censures. We have made no absolute separation even from the Roman Church it self. I say more, that all Schism whether universall or par­ticular is wicked. But still he confounds Schism, which is alwaies unlawfull, with separation which is many times lawfull, (I take the word according to its use, not ac­cording to its derivation.) Hear R.C. R. C. his confes­sion. his in­genuous confession in this place, which over­throwes and casts flat to the ground, all that he hath endeavoured to build in this Survey. Neither indeed, can there by any substantiall division from any particular Church, unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall. I say really, because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall, and yet morally a true par­ticular Church, because she is invincibly ig­norant of Heresie or Schism, and so may re­quire profession of her Heresie, as a condition of communicating with her, in which case divi­sion from her is no Schism or sin, but virtue and necessary. Applie but this to the Ro­man [Page 90] and English Churches, and the con­troversy is ended. The Roman Church is such a particular Church as he hath here de­scribed. The English Church hath been se­parated, (but we will suppose that it had seperated it self) from the Roman. In this case, by his own confession the Schism lies at the dore of the Roman Church, from which the separation was made, if they se­parated first, from the pure primitive Church which was before them, not locally, but morally. Yet saith he, this erroneous Church is still morally a true particular Church; ei­ther this Church hath not all the essentials of a Christian Church, and then how doth it still continue a true Church? Or it hath all the essentials, and then a true Church in substance may give just ground to separate from her in materiall Heresie and Schism. I will be as free with him concerning the universall Church. If any man or Society of Christians separate themselves from the united communion of the whole Catholick Church, dispersed throughout the World, I cannot excuse him from Schism. For whether the Catholick Church of this pre­sent age may erre or not, this is certain she cannot erre universally in any thing that is necessary to Salvation, nor with obsti­nacy. And other inferiour errours (if there be any such) are not of weight enough to yeeld sufficient ground of separation, from the communion of the Catholick Church [Page 91] united. But for the divided parts of the Catholick Church, a man may differ from all of them in inferiour points, some in one thing, some in another, wherein they differ one from another, and separate from some of them in their errors without criminous Schism; And yet maintain a perfect union with the Catholick Church united.

I must not here forget to put R. C. in minde, of sundry propositions laid down by me in this place, tending much to the clearing of this present controversy, all which he passeth by untouched: as this, That externall communion may sometimes be lawfully suspended, or withdrawn. That there is not the like necessity of communi­cating in all externals. That Catholick com­munion implies not unity in all opinions. That inferiours in some cases may lawfully substract communion from their Superiours, and in speciall the Bishop of Rome, that in tract of time, abuses will creep into Chri­stian Churches, and ought to be reformed.

Only whereas I said in the vindication, Sect. 5. that the ancient Britannick Churches were never judged, (that is censured by a judge­ment of Jurisdiction to be Schismaticks) for their different observation of Easter, (he saith) they were judged Schismaticks, both by Catholicks of that time, and since, and Protestants, and that he hath proved it in one of his Treatises. I never see his trea­tise, but I know his manner of proof well [Page 92] enough. The Bri­tannick Churches never judged Schisma­ticks. I say it over again, that I doe not believe that they were ever judged Schismaticks for it, either by the Church, or by a Councel, or by any lawfull or sup­posed Superiour, which shews plainly that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. For it is not credible that he should excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops for that observation, and suffer his own Subjects to differ from him under his Nose, which is the only reason why I urged it. And I expect the proof of the contrary at the Greeks Calends. My as­sertion is negative, that they were not sen­tenced as Schismaticks, this is affirmative, that they were censured. The burthen of the proof lies upon him. Let him shew who judged them, when and where, or that they were censured at all.

I shewed cleerly in the vindication, Sect. 6. out of the Colloquy between the Catholicks, and Donatists at Carthage, that the Catho­lick Church is no Church of one denominati­on, but the whole Christian World. True saith he, What is the true Catholick Church. Neither the Church of the City of Rome, nor of Africk, is the Catholick Church, but the whol Church of Christ. By the Church of Rome I understand not either the Church of the City of Rome, or the Diocesse of Rome, or the Patriarchate of Rome, but all Churches of the Roman communion, which altogether doe not make the fourth part of the Chri­stian World, yea saith he, but the whole [Page 93] Church is not such a multitude, or multitudes of Christians, who agreed only in Fundamen­tals, but disagree in other points of Faith, and differ wholy in Communion of Sacraments. All these great multitudes of Christians, he feareth not to call a masse of Monsters, and an Hydra of many Heads, because they are not wholly one in profession of Faith, Communion of Sacraments, and lawfull Mi­nistery, as that Catholick primitive Church was. I wonder he should forget their own distinction of the virtual representative, and essentiall Church, that is, these multi­tudes of dispersed Christians. I hope there be others that will not sleight them so much. I confesse that primitive Catholick Church had an exact communion in all essentials, or fundamentals, and in many o­ther things. But that they had differences also of lesser moment in points of Doctrine and Discipline, and forms of Administration of the holy Sacraments, and Liturgies, no man can doubt that hath his eies in his head. Yet these lesser inconsiderable dif­ferences could produce no Schism, whilest one Church did not condemn another, and all did submit themselves to the determi­nation of a generall Councell, as the high­est Judge of controversies upon Earth. The reason of their agreement was plainly this, because all Churches received the primitive Creed, and no Church exacted more in point of Faith then the primitive Creed. [Page 94] It would better become the Church of Rome, to repent of their rash temerarious censure, in excluding above three parts of the Christian World from the communion of Saints, out of passion and self interest, because they will not acknowledge the su­premacy of the Roman Bishop, no more then their predecessors did before them, In [...]erest makes Catho­lick [...] with the Court of Rome. from the beginning. If these dispersed and despised multitudes of Christians, would but submit to the Roman yoke, their reli­gion would be found orthodox enough, and they would no longer be held a masse of Monsters and a Hydra of many Heads, but passe muster for good Catholicks. Th [...]m. a Iesu. cited by Doctor Field l. 3 c. 1. Take an instance or two. Of all these multitudes of Christians, the Assyrians or the Nesto­rians have not the best repute. Yet when Elias a pety Patriarch of Muzall, submit­ted to the Bishop of Rome, and sent the confession of his Faith, it was found to be Orthodox. Of later daies about the yeer 1595. when part of the Russians sub­ject to the Crown of Poland, submitted themselves to the Papacy, because they could not have free accesse to the Patri­arch of Constantinople, in their submission they articled for the free exercise of the Greek Religion. [...] ibid. To come neerer home This is certain that Pius the 4 ^th sent Vin­centio with Letters of Cre­dence to Queen Elizabeth, with secret in­structions, for he intreated her in his Letter [Page 95] to give the same credit to his Agent, which she would doe to himselfe. If these instructi­ons were not written we need not wonder. Such instructions are not to be seen pub­lickly unlesse they take effect. Babing. upon Numbers c 7. But some of our Authours of great note, in these daies write positively, others probably upon com­mon report, that he offered the Popes con­firmation of the English Liturgy, Cam Annal Elis. An. 1560. and the free use of the Sacrament in both kindes, &c. so she would join with the Romish Church, and acknowledge the primacy of the Chair of Rome. It is interest, not Re­ligion, that makes Catholicks, and Here­ticks, or Schismaticks with the Court of Rome. Lastly, all these famous Churches or the most of them, which he calls (mul­titudes of Christians) have a perfect con­cord both among themselves, & with the pri­mitive Church in all essentials. How should it be otherwise, whilest they hold the same Creed without addition or subtraction? They agree in most lesser truths. They hold their old Liturgies and forms of admini­stration of the Sacraments, with lesse varia­tion then the Church of Rome. If there be some differences among them, the Roma­nists have as great among themselves. One of these Churches alone, the Church of Con­stantinople hath as many dependents and adherents, as all the Churches of the Ro­man communion put together. And I be­lieve a greater harmony within it self, in [Page 96] Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline. Whereas he chargeth me, that I professe to communicate with the Catholick Church only in fundamentals, not in any other thing, he wrongs me much, but himself more. For I professe my self ready to adhere to the u­nited communion of the true Catholick Church in all things, whether they be fun­damentals or no fundamentals, whether they be credenda or agenda, things to be believed or to be practised.

Sect. 7.He saith, the Church of Rome is not homo­genall with the Protestant Church. This is true, qua tales as they are Roman and Pro­testant. The Roman Church is not a Pro­testant Church, nor the Protestant Church a Roman Church. Yet both the one and the other may be homogeneous Members of the Catholick Church. Their difference in es­sentials is but imaginary. Yet he goes a­bout to prove it by three arguments. First, An Indolatrous Church differs essentially from a true Church. But he saith, I charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the adora­tion of the Sacrament. The Church of Rome is materially Idolatrous Judge, Reader if this be not like the envious man in the Fable, who was contented to have one of his own Eies put out, that his fellow might lose both his Eies. He had rather his own Church should be questioned of Idolatry, then that the Protestant Church should be a coheire with her of Salvation. Because the Eare is not the Eie, 1 Cor. 12.16. is it therefore not of the Body? In [Page 97] the places alleged by him, I doe not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry. In the one place I speak of the adoration of the Sacrament as an abuse, but not one word of Idolatry. In the other place, I speak of the peril of Idolatry, but not a word of the adoration of the Sacrament. If he cite his Authors after this manner, he may prove what he list. Again, The Sacrament is to be adored, Bell l. 4. [...]e Sac. Euch. c. 29 said the Councel of Trent, That is, formally the body and blood of Christ, say some of your Authors, we say the same. The Sa­crament, that is, the species of Bread and Wine, say others. That we deny, and e­steem it to be Idolatrous. Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry, for the error of a party? Lastly I answer, that a true Church out of invincible ignorance may fall into material Idolatry; He him­self confesseth that it may fall in materiall Heresie and Schism; And Schism with him is worse then Idolatry. Though the Church of Rome doe give divine worsh [...]p to the Creature, (or at least a party among them) yet I am so charitable as to hope, that they intend it to the Creator.

From the adoration of Sacrament, he passeth to justification by speciall Faith only, and from thence to the propitiatory Sacrifice in the Masse. As if two Churches could not differ about any questions, nay not in the forms of expression, but presently the one of them must cease to be a true Church. [Page 98] I dare say, Speciall Faith is no Article of our Creed that when I have declared my Faith in these two particulars, he dare not step one step beyond me. Or if he doe, he steps into a manifest errour. I doe acknow­ledge t [...]ne inherent righteousnesse in this life, though imperfect, by which a Christian is rendred truly just, as Gold is true Gold, though it be mixed with some drosse. But if justification be opposed to condemnation, and signify a legall acquittall from guilt for­merly contracted, Rom. 8 33 as It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Then it is the free Grace of God that justifieth us for the merits of Christ, by the new evangelicall Co­venant of believing. But where doth the Church of England teach, that man is justi­fied by speciall Faith? Mark 16.16. Now here. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, that is a part of the Catholick Faith. But I be­lieve and am Baptized, that is justifying Faith. Therefore I shall be saved, that is spe­ciall Faith. There may be Catholick Faith, without justifying Faith, and justifying Faith, without speciall Faith, because a man may truely believe, and yet not know so assuredly that he doth believe▪ and that he shall persevere in his beliefe, as to be able to inferre the conclusion. Speciall Faith is a rare jewel, not to be acquired but by long experience, by being deeply radicated in holynesse, and by the extraordinary grace of God. So far he errs from truth, when he saith, That justification by speciall Faith is [Page 99] prora & puppis, the Life and Soul and d [...]f [...] ­nition of a Protestant. But supposing it were true, what a strange arguing were this? All Protestants believe justification by speciall Faith, but the Church of Rome condemn­eth speciall Faith. Therefore the Protestant and the Roman Church are not both true Churches. As if it were impossible for one true Church, to condemn the opinions of another. But we shall meet with this sub­ject of speciall Faith again.

And for his power to offer Sacrifice, Papists can pre­tend to no other Sa­crifice then Pro­testants. Pro­testants have as much power as Romanists. The holy Eucharist is a commemoration, a representation, an application of the all-suf­ficient propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse. If his Sacrifice of the Masse have any other propitiatory power or virtue in it, then to commemorate, represent, & applie the merit of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, let him speak plainly what it is. Bellarmine knew no more of this Sacrifice then we. Sacrificium crucis, &c. The Sacrifice of the Crosse, re­mitteth all sinnes past, present, and to come, see­ing it acquired a most sufficient price for the sinnes of the whole World. Bell▪ l 1. de M [...]s [...] ▪ c. 25. And therefore that Sacrifice being finished, and Sinnes being re­mitted, there remains not any oblation for sinne like to that, that is, for acquiring a price or value for the remission of sinnes. To what use then serves the Sacrifice of the Masse? Hear him out. Adhuc sunt, &c. There are yet, and will be unto the end of the World, those to [Page 100] whom this price of deliverance is to be applyed. If this be all, as clearly it is, to apply that price of deliverance, which Christ paid for us, then what noise have they raised in the World to no purpose? Then our Sacrifice is as good as theirs. Of our not commu­nicating with them in Sacraments, he hath received an account formerly; And of our Ministers wanting power to offer Sacri­fice, he shall receive a just account in due place.

Sect. 8. 4 Waies to incurre hereticall pravity.I said, that a man might render himself guilty of hereticall pravity four waies; first, by disbelieving any fundamentall Ar­ticle of Faith, or necessary part of saving Truth. For though fundamentals only be simply necessary to be known of all Christi­ans, yet there are many other truths revealed by God, which being known, are as necessary to be believed as the fundamentals them­selves. And to discredit any one of these lesser truths, after it is known that God hath revealed it, is as much as to deny the truth of God, or to deny all the fundamen­mentals put together. Against this he ur­geth, that Heresie is incurred by disbelieving any point of Faith whatsoever, if it be suffici­ently proposed. Right, if it be so proposed that a man knows it to be a revealed truth, or might know it, if he did not obstinately shut his eies against evident light. But the Church of Rome is no such sufficient or infallible proposer, that every man is bound to re­ceive [Page 101] its determinations as Oracles. But R C. leaves these words out of my discourse, [ or necessary part of saving truth,] that is necessary to some persons, in some places, at sometimes, to whom they are sufficient­ly revealed. Is this fair dealing?

Secondly, I said that Heresie was incur­red, by believing superstitious errours or additions, which doe virtually and by evi­dent consequence, overthrow a fundamen­tall truth. This is denied by R. C. because Faith is an assent to divine Revelations upon the authority of the revealer, and therefore is neither gotten nor lost, nor Heresie incurred by consequence. Doth he not know that whosoever believeth a revealed truth, doth of necessity believe all the evident conse­quences of it? As he that believes that Christ is God, doth of necessity believe that he is eternall. And if he maintain that erat quando non erat, There was a time when he was not, he doth implicitly deny his De [...]ty, and incur the crime of Heresie. Hath he forgotten what their own Doctors doe teach, Bell. de Eccles. milit. l. 3. c. 15. that a conclusion of Faith may be grounded upon one proposition inevident (that is revealed) and another proposition evident, (that is not revealed) but evident in it self? The hypostaticall union of the two natures divine and humane in Christ, is a fundamentall truth, that the blessed Virgin is the mother of God, that Christ had both a divine and humane will, are evident con­sequences [Page 102] of this truth, not expresly re­vealed. Yet for denying the former Nesto­rius, for denying the later, the Manothelites were condemned as hereticks.

Thirdly, Heresie may be incurred by ob­stinate persisting in lesser errours, after a man is convicted in his conscience, that they are errours, either out of animosity, be­cause he scornes to yeeld, or out of cove­tous, ambitous, or other sinister ends. And lastly, Heresie is incurred by a froward and peevish opposition, to the Decrees of a ge­nerall Councel, to the disturbing of the peace and tranquility of the Church. A­gainst these two last waies of incurring He­resie, R. C. saith nothing directly, but up­on the by, he taxeth me of two errours. First, The Pow­er of gene­ral Counc [...]ls. that I say, No Councel can make that a point of Faith, which was not ever such. We agree in this, That no Councel can make that a fundamentall, which was not a fundamentall, nor make that a revealed truth, which was not a revealed truth. I acknoledge further that a generall Coun­cel, may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed, by a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary to be believed, that is whensoever the rea­sons and grounds produced by the Coun­cel, or the authority of the Councel, (which is and alwaies ought to be very great, with all sober, discreet Christians,) doe convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the [Page 103] Councels definition. In doubtful questi­ons, if there be no miscarriage, no pack­ing of Votes, no fraud used in the Councel, like that in the Councel of Ariminum for receiving Christ and rejecting homo-ousios, and if the determination be not contrary to the tradition of the Church, who would not rather suspect his own judgement, then a general Councels? I confesse yet further, that when a generall Councel hath deter­mined any controversie, no man may op­pose its determination, but every one is bound to acquiesce, and possesse his Soul in patience, though he be not convicted in his conscience of the truth of their sentence. And if any man out of pevishnesse, or stub­bornnesse shall oppose their definition, to the disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the Church, he deserves to be punished as an Heretick.

Then wherein lies the difference? First, in R. C. his misreciting my words accord­ing to his ordinary custome. I said only this, that a Councel could not make that proposition hereticall in it self, which was not ever hereticall, nor increase the neces­sary Articles of the Christian Faith, either in number or substance. What I said is un­deniable true. [First, in it self] That is in its own nature, without any reference to the authority of a Councel. And [ necessary Articles of the Christian Faith] that is, ab­solutely and simply necessary for all Chri­stians. [Page 104] If the proposition were hereticall in it self, then they that held it before the Councel were Hereticks, as well as they who hold it after the Councel. And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith, without the actuall belief, whereof Christi­ans could never be saved.

The Popes c [...]nfirma­tion addes no [...]hing to general Councels.This is sufficient to answer his objection. But for the Readers satisfaction I adde moreover, that the Romanists believe a ge­nerall Councel, not only to be fallible with­out the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope, (whose priviledge and preroga­tive the most of them doe make the fole ground of the Churches infallibility,) but al­so without his concurrenee to have often erred actually. But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope, they make the determination of a generall Councel to be infallible. On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope, but the con­trary. After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave, spoiled him of his pontificall Attire, cut off his two Fingers, and cast his body into Ty­bur, Platina. it became an usuall thing with the fol­lowing Popes, either to enfringe or abro­gate the acts of their predecessors. Neither was this act of Stephen an errour meerly in matter of fact, but principally in matter of Faith, that the Episcopall character is deleble. We know no such confirmation ne [...]dfull, nor of any more force then the [Page 105] single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apo­stolicall Church. And therefore we give the same priviledges to a Councell unconfirmed (which they acknowledge to be fallible) and to a Councell confirmed by the Pope. We have no assurance that all generall Councells were, and ever shall be so pru­dently mesnaged, and their proceedings all­waies so orderly and upright, that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient convi­ction of all Christians, which they are bound to beleeve under pain of damnation. If R C. be not of my mind, others of his own Church have been, and are at this day. When I for­bear to cite, because I presume it will not be denyed. In summe I know no such virtuall Church as they fancy. Antiquity never knew it. I owe obedience (at least of acquies­cence) to the representative Church; and I resolve for ever to adhere (to the best of my understanding) to the united Commu­nion of the whole essentiall Church, which I beleeve to be so far infallable, as is neces­sary for atteining that end, for which Christ bestowed this priviledge, that is, salva­tion.

Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice, or subterfuge to decline the autho­rity of generall Councells. I know none we need to fear. And I doe freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly generall, which he shall produce in this question. As for occidentall Councels, [Page 106] they are farre from being generall.

Acquie­scence to the decrees of a gene­rall Coun­cell is ne­cessary.My other supposed error is that I say, That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a generall Councell, yet he ought to be silent and pos­sess his soul in patience. That is, untill God give another opportunity, and another Councell sit, wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary. This (he saith) is to binde men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in mat­ter of Religion, and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth; and brings them within the compass of Saint Pauls Woe; 1 Cor 9. woe be unto me if I evangelise not. Excellent Do­ctrine, and may well serve for a part of the Rebells Catechism. Because my Superior is not infallible, if I cannot assent unto him, must I needs oppose him publickly, or other­wise be guilty of Hypocrisie and Dissimu­lation? If he shall think fit in discretion, to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions, am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth? If he shall by his authority suspend a parti­cular Pastor, from the exercise of his pasto­rall Office, must he needs preach in defiance of him, or else be guilty of St. Pauls Woe, Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gos­pell? I desire him to consult with Bellar­mine. All Catholicks doe agree that if the Pope alone, or the Pope with a particular Councell, doe determine any controversie in Re­ligion; [Page 107] whether he can erre, Bell de Ro. pont. c. 4. c. 2. or whether he can not erre, he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians. May not I observe that duty to a generall Councell, which all Roman Ca­tholicks doe pay to the Pope? or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedi­ence? Certainly these things were not well weighed.

Where I say that by the Church of Eng­land in this question, Sect. 9. I understand that Church which was derived by lineall suc­cession, from Brittish, English, & Scotish Bi­shops, Mixt ordi­nation. by mixt ordination, as it was legal­ly established in the daies of Edward the sixth, and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, and King Charles; and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution, to let us see what an habit of alteration is; he excepts against every word of this. First, against the lineall succession, because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone. This is an argu­ment from the Staffe to the Corner. I speak of a succession of holy Orders, and he of a succession of Opinions. And when the mat­ters come to be searched to the bottom, he will be found at a default here also. Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we doe.

In the next place, he excepts against mixt Ordination, as partly Papisticall, partly Pro­testanticall. He erres the whole Heavens breadth from my meaning. Before Austin [Page 108] preached to the Saxons, there were in Britain ancient British Bishops, and ancient Scotish Bishops, who had their severall lines of succession, to which Austin added Eng­lish Bishops, and so made a third succession. These three were distinct at first, but after­wards in tract of time, they came to be mix­ed and united into one succession. So as e­very English Bishop now derives his succes­sion from British, Scotish, and English Bi­shops. This is the great Bug-bear of mixt Ordination.

The Eng­lish Church lawfully establi­shed.He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child. He mistakes. Kings are never Children nor Minors whilest they have good Tutors, and good Councellers. was he more a Child than King Iehoash; and yet the Church was reformed during his mi­nority. This was no Childish Act, thanks to Iehoiada, a good Uncle and Prote­ctor.

He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edwards daies, which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops, whereof divers were cast in Prison, for not assenting to the erecting of it? And I aske how it was not legally e­stablished, which was established by sove­raign authority, according to the direction of the Convocation, with the confirmation of the Parliament? What other legall esta­blishment can there be in England? By the Lawes of England, a Bishop had but his [Page 109] single vote either in Parliament or Convo­cation. Some Bishops were imprisoned in­deed, but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops, whether for not assen­ting, or for other reasons, will require further proof than his bare assertion. This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Pa­pacy, in the reign of Henry the eighth.

He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament, Not law­fully sup­pressed. under King Charles. Why should I add a no­torious untruth, as contrary to my consci­ence as to my affections? I might have said oppressed, I could not say suppressed. The externall splendor was abated, when the Baronies of the Bishops, and their votes in Parliament were taken away, but the Or­der was not extinguished. So far from it, that King Charles himself suffered as a Mar­tyr for the English Church. If his meaning be, that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royall, he cannot be so great a stranger in England, as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity.

Yet he is pleased to stile it a dead Church, The Eng­lish Church nor dea [...], and me the Advocate of a dead Church; even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves, or as the Sun is set when it is behinde a Cloud, or as the Gold is de­stroyed when it is melting in the Furnace. When I see a seed cast into the ground, I [Page 110] doe not aske where is the greeness of the leaves? where is the beauty of the flowers? where is the sweetnes of the fruit? but I ex­pect all these in their due season: Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe. The rain is fallen, the wind hath blown, and the floods have beaton upon their Church, but it is not fallen, for it is founded upon a Rock. The light is under a Bushell, but it is not extinguished. And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candle­stick, yet the Church of England is not dead, whilest the Catholick Church sur­vives.

But under persecu­tion.Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution: And though some of the Church doe suffer, yet it is not for Religion, but matters of State. What can a man expect in knotty questions from them, who are so much transported with prejudice, as to de­ny those things which are obvious to every eie. If it be but some that have suffered, it is such a some as their Church could never shew, wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed, may read the Marty­rology of London, or the List of the Univer­sities, and from that paw, guess at the pro­portion of the Lion. But perhaps all this was for matters of State. No, our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State, nor our Ecclesiasticall Revenues ex­posed to sale for matters of State. The re­fusall of a schismaticall Covenant is no mat­ter [Page 111] of State. How many of the orthodox Clergy, without pretence of any other de­linquency have been beggered? how many necessitated to turn Mechanicks or day-La­borers? how many starved? how many have had their hearts broken? how many have been imprisoned? how many banished from their native Soil, and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World? No man is so blinde as he that will not see.

His tenth Section is a summary or repeti­tion of what he hath already said, Sect. 10. wherein I finde nothing of weight that is new, but onely one authority out of St. Austin, That Catholicks are every where, and Hereticks e­very where, but Catholicks are the same eve­ry where, and Hereticks different every where. If by Catholicks he understand Ro­man Catholicks, they are not every where, not in Russia, nor in Aethiopia; and excep­ting some hand-fulls, for the most part up­on toleration, not in any of the Eastern Churches. The words of Saint Austin are these. Vbicunque sunt isti, illic Catholica, [...] 4. cont. Cresion. c. 61. sicut in Africa ubi & vos; non autem ubi­cunque Catholica est, aut vos istis, aut Here­sis quaelibet earum. Wheresoever they are, there is the Catholick Church; as in Africa where you are; but wheresoever the Catholick Church is, you are not, nor any of those Here­sies. St. Austins scope is to shew that the Catholick Church is more diffused, or ra­ther [Page 112] universall than any Sect, or all Sects put together. If you please, let this be the Touchstone between you and us: But you will say that you are united every where, and we are different every where. Nothing less. You are united in one pretended head, which some of you acknowledge more, some less. We are united in the same Creed, the same Sacraments, and for the most part the same discipline. Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place? of the Novatians, Arrians, Patripassians, Valentinians Patri­cians, Apellites, Marcionites, Ophites; all which condemned all others but themselves, and thereby did separate themselves Schis­matically from the Catholick Church, as it is to be feared that you doe. Our case is quite contrary: we reform our selves, but con­demn no others.

CHAP. 3. Whether Protestants were Authors of the separation from Rome.

Sect. 1. Prote­stants not Authors of the Schism.WE are now come from stating the Question to proofs, where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the province which he hath undertaken. To shew that Protestants were [Page 113] not the Authors of the Separation from Rome, but Roman Catholicks, I produced first the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point, that the Bi­shop of Rome had no greater Jurisdiction, within England conferred upon him by God in the Scripture, than any other forrein Bishop. Secondly, the decrees of two of our nationall Synods. Thirdly, six or seven Statutes or Acts of Parliament. Fourthly, the attestation of the prime Roman Catho­lick Bishops and Clergy, in their printed Books, in their Epistles, in their Sermons, in their Speeches, in their Institution. Fift­ly, the unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome of England testified by Bishop Gardiner, and of the Kingdome of Ireland proved out of the Councell Book. Lastly, the Popes own Book, wherein he interdi­cted and excommunicated the whole Church of England, before the reformation made by Protestants: So as apparently we were chased away from them. Heare the judge­ment of a Stranger. This year the Pope brake the wise patience, or rather dissimulation, which for four years together he had used to­wards England: Hi [...]t▪ Conc. Trid an. 1538. And sent against the King a terrible thundring Bull, such as never was used by his Predecessors, nor imitated by his Successors. It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is. What doth he answer to all this? Not one word. And so I take my first ground pro confesse, [Page 114] That Protestants were not Authors of the separation of the English Church from Rome.

Sect. 2.Yet something he saith upon the by, which is to be examined first, That they who made the King head of the Church, were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion, that they were not then of the Roman Religion, but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly, what­soever they were inwardly. What a change is here? Even now when they opposed the Re­formation, they were the best Bishops: and now when they oppose the Popes Supre­macy, they are Schismaticks and Hereticks. Let them be what they were, or whatsoever he would have them to be, certainly they were no Protestants. And if they were not Roman Catholicks, they were of no Chri­stian Communion. They professed to live Roman Catholicks; and they died Roman Catholicks. The six bloody Articles con­trived by them, and executed by them in the reign of King Henry, and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary, doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants, and that they were Zelots of the Roman Re­ligion.

But (saith he) the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope. If it be so, then whereas the Christian Re­ligion hath twelve Articles, the Roman Re­ligion hath but one Article, and that none [Page 115] of the twelve, namely, the supremacy of the Pope. But this needs makes no difference be­tween us: For they denyed not the Popes Primacy, that is, of order, but his Suprema­cy of power. Neither is his Supremacy ei­ther the essence. or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef, but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have de­nyed it of old, as the Councells of Constance and Basile, and many doe deny it, and more doubt of it at this day. But let that be as it will. In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists, and the denomination is from the greater part. Certainly they were no Protestants, which is enough for my purpose.

He tels us from Bishop Gardiner, The Par­liament not com­pelled. that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrai­ned to abolish the Primacy (he means Supre­macy) of the Bishop of Rome. A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament, and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced, without any noise against their conscience, to forswear themselves, to deny the essence of their faith, and (to use his own words) to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks. How many of them lost their lives first? Not one, not one changed his Soil, not one suffered imprisonment about it. For howsoever the matter hath been mis­construed by some of our Historiographe [...]s, Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned, before this Act of the Supre­macy [Page 116] was made, for denying the Kings Ma­riage, and opposing a former Act of Par­liament, touching the succession of his Chil­dren to the Crown. Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher, and p. 81. concerning Sir. Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori ap­prehensionem constituta erat, The Law (of Su­premacy) was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore. Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word, or a footstep, except the fear of a Premunire. And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls? Or that two successive Synods, and both our Universities, ( nemine dissentiente) should be so easily constrained? But who constrai­ned the most learned of the Bishop [...], and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome, to tell the King that it was his right, to publish Catechisms, or Institutions, and other Books; and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere, for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy? These Acts were uncon­strained. Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth, given in their life time, to their faces, before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World, when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it, if he could. When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops, she returned [Page 117] this answer, That they did now obstinately re­ject that Doctrine, which most part of them­selves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, Camd. An. Eliz. anno. 1559. had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Wri­tings taught unto others, when they themselves were not private Persons, but publick Magi­strates. The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer. First, of their own accord; Secondly, not only under Henry the eighth, but Edward the sixth; Thirdly, when they themselves were publick Magistrates; Fourthly, with heart and hand, not only in their Sermons, but also in their printed Writings. Against Subscrip­tions and printed. Writings there can be no defence: But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry? upon Bishop Gardiners? In good time, he produ­ceth a Witness in his own cause. He had an hard heart of his own, if he would not have favored himself, and helped to conceal his own shame, after King Henry was dead. Mortui non mordent. Bishop Gardiner. Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedien­tia, to justifie the Kings Supremacy? Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us, That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us, that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in Eng­land hath ought to doe with Rome? Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing [Page 118] the oath of Supremacy, and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry? was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy, Speed in Hen. 8. c. 21 n. 1 c 5. who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Prote­stants, and was able by his power with the King, to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Trea­son. To conclude, if any thing did constrain him, it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester; or which I doe the rather be­leeve out of charity, the very power of con­science. So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia, where he proposeth this objection against him­self, De vera o­b [...]dientia, in fine. that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope. To which he an­swers, That what was holily sworn is more ho­lily omitted, then to make an oath the bond of iniquity. He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide, as to his second Wife, but after the return of his first Wife (that is the Truth) to which he was espoused in his Baptisme, being convicted with undenyable evidence; he was necessi­tated out of conscience, to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Su­premacy, and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth, and after her to his Prince, the su­preme head of the English Church upon earth

His next attempt is to prove that the Pro­testants [Page 119] were the Authors of the separation from Rome. And he names three, Cranmer, Crumwell, and Barnes. He might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army, (and perhaps not one of them at the fight) were the Au­thors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae. It was the Universities that approved the sepa­ration unanimously. It was the Synods that directed the separation. It was the King that established the separation. It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation. How could two or three Privados without Negromancy, have such an efficatious influ­ence upon the Universities and Synods, and Parliaments, and the King himself. Yet they might have an hand in it, no, nor so much as a little finger. As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel, had in raising of the dust. The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome: what had these three been able to doe among them, supposing they had been then Prote­stants and of the House? Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vi­negar, or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony.

But let us see what it is, Archbi­shop Cran­mer. which he objects against Cranmer and the rest, That Cran­mer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised, that the King should seek no more to the Court [Page 120] of Rome, And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome, he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad. There was no hurt in all this. There could be no suspicion, that the most learned in all the Universities of Eu­rope should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court. But upon this (saith he) it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities. And so he concludes triumphantly, Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope. I answer, That this secession was no secessi­on of the Church of England, nor this dis­putation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church, but only concerning a par­ticular processe, there depending, between King Hen [...]y and Queen Katherine, about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation, which Cran­mer maintained to be determinable by Di­vine law, not by Canon law. The truth is this. Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry, and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any de­signe at Waltham, where discourse being offered concerning this processe, Cranmer freely declared his judgement, that the mar­riage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God, and that the Pope could not dispense with it. And that it was more expedient and more pro­per [Page 121] to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe, then by the dilatory proceeding of the Ro­man Court. This was related to the King. The King sent for Cranmer. He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope. And to demonstrate both that this was no separa­tion from Rome, Speed, Baker, &c. in Henr. 8. and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time, it is acknow­ledged by all our Historiographers that af­ter this, Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome, and re­turned home in the Popes good Grace, not without a mark of his favour, being made his penitentiary. Likewise, saith another, Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Can­terbury was his (the Earl of Hartfords) right hand, Image of both Churches, second edition pag. 413. and chief assistant in the work▪ although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion, yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles. That is as much as to say, no friend no favourer of Protestants. So this victorious argument failes on both sides. Sand de Schism. pag 115. Sacrificio missae in­tersuit quotidie dum reg­nabat Henricus. Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer, That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion, that is to say, in that processe. That by his counsell, destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome, that is, occa­sionally and by the just disposition of Al­mighty God. That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell, that is, in that particular case, [Page 122] that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God. And lastly, That the Pa­pall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers, did easily fall down. I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited. Howsoever it may be true di­stinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis. They could not be spoken of the first separation, when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor, but of the following times. King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power, and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations, and care to see the Lawes executed.

Crumwell.Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony, That it was generally conceived, and truly (as never thought,) That the poli­tick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England, and the suppression of Religious Houses, were principally devised by Crum­well. First, this is but an argument from vulgar opinion. Secondly, when Archbi­shop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy, and the Title of Head of the English Church, Crumwell was no Protestant, he had lately been Car­dinall Wolsies Soliciter, and was then Ma­ster of the Jewel House, of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Pro­testants. And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary, and that he died [Page 123] in the Catholick Faith. Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an. 32. H. 8. fol. 242.

But for the suppression of Religious Houses, it is not improbable. He might well have learned that way under Cardi­nall Wolsy, when he procured the suppres­sion of fourty Monasteries of good note, for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fin­gers, to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver.

Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man, Barnes. he was neither Courtier nor Councelor, nor Convocation man, nor Parliament man. All the grace which ever he received from King Henry, was an honourable death for his Religion. He said, That he and such other wretches as he, had made the King a whole King, by their Sermons. If they did so, it was well done. The meaning of a whole King, is an Head of the Church, saith R. C. It may be so, but the consequence is naught. Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King, not feudatory to the Pope, which he that is, is but half a King. Not only of old, but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions, as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland, wherein he de­clareth that he had deprived King Henry of [Page 124] his Kingdome, as an Heretick, a Schisma­tick, Speed l. 9. c. 21. an Adulterer, a Murtherer, a Sacrile­gious person, and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis, for that he had risen a­gainst him (the Pope) who was his Lord.

But now supposing all R. C. his suggesti­ons had been true, That Cranmer and Crum­well had been Protestants at that time; and had been in as much grace; and had had the like opportunity of addresse to the King, as they had afterwards; that Cranmer had perswaded the King as a Divine, and Crum­well as a Polititian, to separate from the Court of Rome: And that Barnes had preached against the Popes Supremacy. Yet this is farre from the authoritative separa­tion of the whole Church, and Kingdome from the Court of Rome. Morall perswa­sions may incline, but cannot necessitate the will.

Therefore not confiding to these broken Reeds at length he admits that Roman Ca­tholicks were the Authors of the saparation, Be it so that Roman Catholicks were the au­thors of the division, that is worse for Prote­stants, because then Protestants continue a wicked Schism, wicked begun, against consci­ence, against known truth, and consequently a sin against the holy Ghost. And to make his assertion good, he produceth the authority of Optatus, L 1. Cont. Parm. It appeareth evidently that you are the heirs of Schismaticks. He who reads this would believe, that Optatus spake po­sitively [Page 125] of Protestants, when he speaks only of Donatists, Papists are the right Heirs of the Do­n [...]rists, not Prote­stants. cum haec it [...] gesta esse mani­festissime constet, & vos haeredes esse tradi­torum & Schismaticorum evidenter appareat. Seeing it is most evident that these things did fall out thus, that is, that Majorinus (whose Chair Parmenianus did now possesse) did divide himself from the communion of Cae­cilianus, and set up a Chair against a Chair in the same Church, or a new Chair, quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat, and seeing Majorianus was a traditor and a Schis­matick, it appears evidently that Parmenian was the heire of a Schismatick. Now what doth this concern us? The Donatists set up a new Chair against an old Chair in the same Church, we have done no such thing. God make us able to keep up tha old. Se­condly, the Donatists separated themselves from all other Churches, we separate our selves from no Churches, neither from the Chair of Caecilian, nor of Peter, nor of Cy­prian. But if we would know, not only who are the heirs of the Donatists, but who are their heirs in their Schism, we may finde them easily. It is the Roman Catholicks themselves, first, in their uncharitablenesse, in breaking the bond of brotherly unity. The Catholicks owned the Donatists for their brethren, but the Donatists refused to own the Catholicks for their brethren, quamvie & illi non negent & omnibus not um sit, &c. Although they deny it not, and it is [Page 126] known to all men, Opt. l 1. Cont. Par. in [...]initio. that they hate us, and accurse us, and will not be called our brethren, yet &c. without doubt they are our brethren. And a little after, And because they will not have the Episcopall College common with us, let them not be our fellow Collegians if they will not, yet, as I said before, they are our bre­thren. This is just the case between them and us, we offer them the right hand of brotherhood, as the Catholicks did to the Donatists, but they refuse it, as the Dona­tists did to the Catholicks. Secondly, the Donatists separated the whole Catholick Church from their communion, and sub­stituted themselves, being but a small part of the Christian World in the place of the Catholick Church. Just as the Romanists doe at this day. Optatus speaks home unto them both, the old and new Donatists. Se pro voluntate vestra inangustum coarctatis Ecclesiam, Opt. l. 2. Cont. Parm. in initio. &c. If ye for your pleasure doe thrust the Church into a streit, if ye substract all Nations, where is that which the Son of God hath merited, where is that which the Father hath given him? Psal. 2. I will give thee the Hea­then for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession. Why doe you infringe this promise? Or imprison this universall Kingdome, &c. Suffer the Son to possesse his Fathers gift. Suffer the Father to fulfill his promise. Why doe you set bounds and limits? And still ye endeavour to per­swade men that the Church is only with you. [Page 127] Let the Reader judge who are the right heirs of the Donatists.

The rest of his discourse is a groundlesse asking of the question. Roman Catho­l [...]cks sin­n [...]d not against conscience in their s [...] ­paration First, those Roman Catholicks did make no separation from the Roman Church, but from the Roman Court. Secondly, they separated from the Roman Court only in its innovations with­out criminous Schism. Thirdly, we can­not, we dare not be so uncharitable as to judge that the whole Kingdome, and all the Pastors of the Church, did sinne against their conscience, but we believe firmly that it was the clear light and evidence of truth, that made them so unanimous in their se­paration. Fourthly, though they had sinned against the known truth, not being done of malice, it was not the sinne against the holy Ghost. St. Peter did not sinne against the holy Ghost when he denied Christ. Fift­ly, though they had sinned against consci­ence in separating, yet the fault being not in the thing done, but in the conscience of the doer, we being better informed may with a good conscience hold, what they with a bad conscience did take away. Lastly, though they had sinned, not only in sepa­rating against conscience, but also in the very act of separation. Yet we who found the separation made to our hands, who never did any act either to oblige us to Rome, or to disoblige us from Rome, holding what we received from our Ancestors, and en­deavoring [Page 128] to finde out the truth, and rea­dy to receive it whensoever God shall re­veal it unto us, are not censurable as Schis­maticks, as I proved out of Saint Austine, though R. C. be pleased to take no notice of it.

Henry the eight no ProtestantHere he makes a short double and will needs have Henry the eight to have been a substantiall Protestant. If he was a Prote­stant, doubtlesse he was a substantiall Pro­testant, But why a Protestant? Doctor Barnes and many more who were burned by him for Protestants, would hardly have believed it. But he saith, Henry the eight was an Antipapist, and that is sufficient to make a Protestant. If that be sufficient to make a Protestant it is well, otherwise one of his friends tels us, [...]ul. Alan. Apol. c. 4. p. 59. We had a King who by his Lawes abolished the authority of the Pope, although in all other things he would follow the Faith of his Ancestors. Lately he tould us, that the essence and life and soul and defi­nition of a Protestant, was to hold justifi­cation by Faith alone, then Henry the eight was no Protestant, for he did not hold justi­fication by Faith alone. Now he makes the essence of a Protestant, to be impugning the Popes Supremacy. I had not thought es­sences or definitions had been so mutable: but for my part I am glad of the change. If all Antipapists be Protestants, then all the Grecian, Armenian, Abyssen, Russian Christians are Protestants, then we shall [Page 129] not want Protestants to bear us company in the Church of Rome it self, so long as there are any followers of the Councells of Con­stance and Basill.

But some Protestants have confessed, Sond de Schism p 103 b. Denique nulla in re a side Catholica discessit nisi libidi­nis & lu­xu [...]i [...] cau­sa. That he was a Member of the Catholick Church. Why not? There are many Members of the Catholick Church besides Protestants. Others call him a true Defender of the true Faith, a Denfender of the Gospell, an Embra­cer of the pure Gospell of Christ, rejecting de­vises of men contrary thereunto. All this may be true, and yet they neither say nor intend this absolutely, but comparatively; not universally but respictvely to some par­ticular controverted points, and principally this of the Supremacy.

I charged some for making the cruelty of the Protestants, Sect. 4. and the rigour of their Laws the motives of their falling away from the English Church. A full ju­stification of our pe­nall Laws. And shewed that more Protestants suffered not only death, but extreme torments in death for Religion, in the short reign of Queen Mary, then Roman Catholicks in all the much longer reigns of all the Protestant Princes since the Reformation. And that the Kingdome of France and the Common-wealth of Venice had made the like Lawes to ours. What­soever I say in our defense he takes no no­tice of, but declaimes against the injustice of our Laws and Judges, not without a specious shew of reason. Wherefore, be­cause [Page 130] it intrencheth upon the honour of our Church and Nation, I will take the libertie to search this sore to the bot­tome.

I confesse that no man or Society of men can be justly punished (notwithstanding the brutish opinions of some persons) because they are noxious, unless they be noxious in the eye of the Law. No not by a legislative authority. Where a man cannot give sen­tence innocently, he cannot vote innocently. The reason is plain, Where there is no Law, there is no transgression; and where there is no transgression, there is no guilt, nor just punishment.

Secondly, I confesse that a Law made like a Casting-net, to throw over mens lives, is [...], L 3. a most lawless Law. In the twelve Tables which Livy calls the foun­tains of publick and private right; which alone said Tully, L. 1. de Orator. do excell all the Libraries of all the Philosophers in the World, it is thus enacted, according to the excellent concise simplicity of their stile, Leg. 12. tal. Privilegia ne inroganto. Let no private Laws be made to any mans hurt or prejudice. Likewise it was the Law of Solon, That no Law should be made of particular men, Aen Gaz. in Theo. ph [...]asium. [...], unless it were imposed upon all the Athenians indifferently (said Demosthenes.) For the same reason, Cont Ari­st [...]c [...]aetem & Timo­cratem. when the Thebans had a minde to banish Heracli­tus, they durst not name him, but pointed [Page 131] him out in generall, If there was any man in the Citie that never laught, and hated all Mankinde, let him depart before Sun-set. Thinking vainly to hide the nakedness of their Law with a few figg-leaves of generall expressions. So universally was this received throughout the World, that Laws should not be made for the ruine of particular Sub­jects.

Thirdly, We must Take notice that many things are lawfull in publick Justice, that is, in Warre, or Legislation, or the like, which are not lawfull in particular Justice between Subject and Subject. As it is lawfull to pull down any Citizens house, to save the whole Citie from fire. It is lawfull to make use of any mans land, to make a bank to save the whole Country from inundation; in which cases nevertheless the publick is obli­ged to repaire the Subjects damage. Sup­pose the greater part of a Citie should force the honester part to submit to their pleasure, and contribute to their rebellious courses, or force them to it, the party forced is inno­cent. Yet in the recoverie of the Towne, the honestest Citizens are as subject to be slain, their houses to be burned, their goods to be plundered, as the most disloyall: And justly. For it being lawfull to reduce the Citie to obedience by warre, this justifies all necessa­rie means of reduction. And the honest party who suffer without fault, cannot blame the Magistrates for their sufferings, nor the [Page 132] Souldiers who doe their commands, but their fellow Citizens. But when this neces­sity is over, and the Citie is reduced, and distinction can be made, particular Ju­stice must take place again, and then none ought to suffer but Delinquents, according to the degree of their Delin­quency.

Fourthly, To proceed one step neerer to the case in question. The same necessity doth justifie those Lawes which are enacted for the common safety and tranquillity of the whole body politick, under whatsoever penalties they a [...]e pleased to impose, as ba­nishment, confiscation of goods, imprison­ment, or death it self, so they be proporti­oned to the exigence of the dangers greater or lesser, though these Lawes prove burthen­some to particular Citizens, or restrain Sub­jects from the exercise of those things which o [...]herwise were benefi [...]iall, lawfull, and lau­dable to them in particular. Suppose a Ge­nerall should make an Edict, That no Soul­dier, u [...]der pain of death, should leave the C [...]mp: Yet one goes to visit his Father be­ing sick, and suff [...]rs for it. This is not for doing his filial duty, but for violating of his Generalls Edict. In Ireland it was forbid­den by Statute, under pain of most severe punishment, to use the words Crumabo and Butlerabo, because they were badgets of Fa­ction, and incentives to Sedition. The Phi­listims did not suffer a Smith in Israel, least [Page 133] the Hebrews should make themselves Swords and Spears. The King of Spain, weighing the danger that might arise from the numerous multitudes of Moors within his Dominions, sent them all packing away by an Edict. The Athenians thought it no injustice to banish their chiefest and most loyall Citizens, if they f [...]ared a tyranny▪ or necessity of State did require it. All Nati­ons have their Imbargues, and prohibited goods, and forbid all Commerce and Con­versation with those that are in open hostility against them. If a ship arrive from any places infected with some contagious disease, they keep the pas [...]ngers from mixing with their Subjects, untill they have given suffici­ent proof that they are [...]ound. If they find cause to banish a citizen, either for a pre­fixed terme, or for ever, under pain of death, or forfeiture of all their goods, if there be a necessity in it to secure the Common­wealth, they may doe it. And if the persons to banished will return on their own heads, upon pretence that they love their Country so well that they can [...]ot live out of it; or if any of them being a Clergy man should pre­tend that he returns out of conscience to doe the offices of his Function among his Countrymen, it is not the Law, but they who pull the penalty of the Law upon them­selves. In summe, it is cleer that whensoever a Prince or a Republick, out of just necessi­ty, and for the preservation of the Common­wealth, [Page 134] sh [...]ll restrain their subjects from anything that threatens the same with im­minent dangers, upon whatsoever penalty it be, so it be proportionable to the danger, it is just. And if the Subject will not obey, his blood is upon his own head. The only question is, whether there was at that time not only a pretended, but a reall necessity to make those Laws, which they call sanguinary or bloody, for the preservation of the Com­mon wealth. This is the case between the Romanists and us, upon these two hinges this controversy is moved.

Then to leave the Thesis, and come unto the Hypothesis, and to shew that at that time there was a reall necessity for the ma­king of those Laws. First, let it be observed, that after the secession of the English Church from the Court of Rome, the suc­ceeding Popes have for the most part looked upon England with a very ill eye. Sand de Schis. l. 1. Witness that terrible and unparalleled excommuni­cation and interdiction of England, a de­privation of Henry the eighth, formerly men­tioned, published at Dunkirk, because they durst bring it no neerer. Witness the Bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth, against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents, Camd An­nal. Eliz. l. 2. p. 7. absolving all her Subjects from their oaths of Allegiance, without so much as an admonition preceeding. Wit­ness the Popes negotiations with the English, Spanish, French, and Portugheses, to have [Page 135] Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther, and the frame of the Government altered, published at Rome by Hieronimo Catena Se­cretary to Cardinall Alexandrino, in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth, Witness the Logantine authority given to Sanders, and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests, to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his Rebellion: Id. l. 2. p. 98. And the Phaenix plume sent to Terowen, to incourage him likewise in his Rebellion, Id l 4. p. 145 & p. 150. and a plenary Indulgence for him and all his adherents and assistants, from Clement the eighth. Lastly, witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King Iames from the inheritance of the Crown of England, p 164. unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman catholick In­terest.

This is not all. In the second place the Popes, to have the greater influence upon England, did themselves found or conserve severall Colleges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome, at Rhemes, at Doway; where the English youth were trained up more for the advantage of the Pope, than of their Prince and native Countrie. What those Principles were which were then infused in­to them, I have neither means at present, nor in truth desire to inquire, because I hope that at this day they are disclaimed by all or the most learned and moderate persons of those Societies: Only for the justifica­tion [Page 136] of my native Countrie, give me leave to set downe some of them in the words of the former learned Historiographer. Suspicions also were daily raised by the great number of Priests creeping more and more into England, C [...]md An­nal l 3 p. 11 who privily felt mens mindes, spread abroad That Princes excommunicate were to be de­posed: and whispered in corners, That such Princes as professed not the Roman Religion, had forfeited their Title and Regall Authority: That those men which had entered into holy Orders, were, by a certain ecclesiasticall free­dome, exempted from all Iurisdiction of Prin­ces, and not bound by their Laws, nor ought to reverence their Majesty. And that the Bi­shop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole World, yea even in temporall matters. And that the Magistrates of England were no lawfull Magistrates; and therefore not to be accounted for Magistrates. Yea, that all things whatsoever done by the Queens authority from the time that the Bull declaratory of Pius quintus was published, were by the Laws of God and Man altogether void, and to be esteemed nothing. And some of them dissembled not that they were returned into England with no other intent, then, by re­conciling in confession, to absolve every one in particular from all oathes of allegiance and obe­dience to the Queen. Judg how such Emissa­ties deserved to be welcomed into a King­dome. More might be added, but this it self is enough or too much.

[Page 137]Lastly, View all the Treasons and Rebel­lions that were in Queen Elizabeth's time, and see from what source they did spring. Parsons proposed to Papists the deposing of the Queen, so far forth that some of them thought to have delivered him into the Ma­gistrates hands. And wrote a Book under the name of Doleman, to intitle the Infanta of Spain to the Crown of England. Of San­ders I have spoken formerly. Only let me add this, That when he was found dead, they found in his pouch Orations and Epistles to confirme the Rebells, with promise of assi­stance from the Bishop of Rome and others. Parre confessed, That that which finally set­led him in his treasonable purpose, Ibid. l. 3. p. 44. l. 3. p. 74. to kill the Queen, was the reading of Allens Book, that Princes excommunicated for Heresie were to be deprived of life. Ballard was himself a Priest of the Seminarie of Rhemes. See his conspiracy. I pass by the commoti­ons raised in Scotland by Bruce, Creiton, and Haies. Camd. An. l. 3. p. 132 Squire accused Walpoole for put­ting him upon it to poyson the Queen. I speake not of the confession of Iohn Nicho­las, nor the testimonie of Eliot mentioned in their own Apology, because they are not of undoubted faith. Apol. Marc. p. 329. This is most certain, That when Campian was interrogated be­fore his death, whether Queen Elizabeth were a lawfull and rightfull Queen, he refu­sed to answer: And being asked, If the Pope should send forces against the Queen, whe­ther [Page 138] he would take part with the Queen or the Pope, he openly professed and testified under his hand, that he would stand for the Pope. Camd. An. l 3. p. 11. The same Author addeth, That his fellows being examined in like manner, ei­ther refused to answer, or gave such ambigu­ous and prevaricatory answers, that some in­genuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some treachery.

Lay all these together, their disloyall an­swers, their seditious tenets, so many trea­cherous attempts, so many open Rebellions, so many depositions and deprivations and exclusions, so many Books brim-full of pro­digious treason. At such a time when the seditious opinions of that party were in their Zenith; when seditious persons crowded over daily in such numbers; when the Heir apparent of the Crown of England was a Roman Catholick. And let any reasonable man judge, whether the Kingdome of Eng­land had not just cause of feare; whe­ther they were not necessitated to provide nequid detrimenti caperet Respublica, that the Commonwealth should sustain no loss; whe­ther our Statesmen who did then sit at the sterne, were not obliged to their Prince and to their Countrie, to provide by all means possible for the security of their Prince and tranquility of their Countrie, which could not be done at that time, without the exclusion of such Bigots and Bowtifeus from among them, nor they be possibly [Page 139] excluded but by such severe Lawes.

These are the very reasons given in the Edict it self, Apr. 1. & El. 23. ex Apol. Mart. That it did plainly appear to her Majesty and her Councell, by many examina­tions, by their own Letters and confessions, and by the actuall conspiracies of the like persons sent into Ireland by the Pope, that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesties Do­minions, was to prepare the Subjects to assist forrein invaders, to excite the People to Re­bellion, and to deprive her Majesty of her Crown and dignity, and life it self.

Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some. Though many of them who were bred in those Seminaries were Pensioners of the Pope, the King of Spain, or the Duke of Guise, all which at that time were in open hostility with the Crown of England. (Is it not lawfull to forbid Subjects to be bred in an enemies Countrie, or to turn their Pen­sioners? or if they doe goe out of themselves, to exclude them from their native Soyle?) Yet in other places, and it may be in those Colleges also, many others preserved their principles of loyalty. At the same time Do­ctor Bishopp, one of the Roman communion, writ a Book to prove that the constitution obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran Councell, upon which the Popes authority of deposing Princes and ab­solving Subjects from their allegiance is founded, was not decreed by the Fathers, nor ever admitted in England, but was a private [Page 140] Decree of Pope Innocent the third. If all his Fellowes had held the same moderation, there had been no need of such Lawes. But it is a remediless misery of Societies, that when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and the Innocent, publick Justice (which seeks to prevent the common dan­ger) looks upon the whole Society with one eie. And if any innocent persons suffer, they must not blame the Law, but their own Fellowes, who gave just oc­casion for the making of such severe Lawes.

So we see how many things here were of their own election. First they were warned by an Edict not to study in those Seminaries, which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in publick hostility with the Crown of England. Nevertheless they would not doe it. They were commannded to return home by a prefixed time. They would not doe it. This alone had been suf­ficient to punish them as Traitors by the an­cient lawes of the Land. Yet further they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England, nor to exercise their priestly Functions there. Yet they did it. And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Councel, Edm. Camp. epist. ad Conc. R. Aug. That he was come over, and would not desist untill he had either turned them to be Roman Catholicks, or died upon their Lances.

To conclude if we view the particular [Page 141] Lawes, we shall finde that they looked more upon the Court of Rome then the Church of Rome. The Act and Oath of Supremacy were framed in the daies of Henry the eighth by Roman Catholicks themselves. The first penall Lawes of this nature that I finde made by Queen Elizabeth, were in the sixth year of her reign, against those who should main­tain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing, or refuse the Oath of [...]upre­may twice. The second in the fourteenth year of her reign, against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an Heretick, Schismatick, or Infidell. And likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome, to reconcile any of the Queens Sub­jects, or Indulgences, or Agnus Dei, or the like. Yet was this never put in execution for six years, untill the execution of it was ex­torted. All this either concerned the Court of Rome, or such Acts as were not necessary to a Roman Catholick for the injoyment of his conscience. A man might beleeve freely what his conscience dictated to him, or pra­ctise his own religion, so he prated not too much, nor medled with others. Afterwards in the twenty third year of her reign, issued out the Proclamation against the English Seminaries, wherein her Subjects were bred Pensioners to the enemies of her Crown. The last Lawes of this kinde were made in the twenty fourth year of her [...]eign, against those who should diswade English Sub­jects [Page 142] from their obedience to their Prince, or from the Religion established, or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome.

In all these Lawes, though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions, and trea­sons, and deprivations, and extremest neces­sity, there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen Maryes Priest, or any that were ordained within the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving, so they were not over busie, and medled with others. These might have sufficed or officiating to Roman Catholicks if the Pope had pleased: But he preferred his own ends before their safty, Non his juvenius orta parentibus in­fecit aequor sanguine. These were not prin­cipled for his purpose, nor of that temper that his affaires required. And therefore he erected new Seminaries, and placed new Readers according to his own minde. And in conclusion forced the Queen to use neces­sary remedies so save her selfe and the King­dome. These things being premised, it will not be difficult to answer to all which R. C. saith.

First, he saith that in all the pretended cases of treason, there is no election but of mat­ters of Religion, and that they suffer meerly for matters of Religion, without any shew of true Treason. I confess that Treason is com­plicated with Religion in it. But I deny that they suffer meerly for Religion, any [Page 143] more then he that poisoned an Emperour or a Prior in the Sacrament, could have been said to suffer for administring the Sacrament, and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament; or then he, who out of blinde obedience to his Superior kills a man, can be said to suffer death for his conscience; or he who being infected with the Plague, and seeking to infect others; if he be shot dead in the attempt, can be said to suffer for his sickness. In so many designs to take away the Queens life, in so many rebellions, in so many seditious tenets, in so many traitorous books, and lastly in adhering unto, and tur­ning Pensioner to a publick professed Ene­my of their Prince and native Country, can he see no treason? nothing but matters of Religion? If he cannot, or will not; yet they who were more nearly concer­ned in it, had reason to look better about them.

He asks how I can tearm that politicall Su­premacy, which is Supremacy in all causes, to wit, Ecclesiasticall or Religious? I answer, very well; As the King is the Keeper of both Tables, to see that every one of his Subjects doe his duty in his place, whether Clergy-man or Lay-man, and to infl [...]ct po­liticall punishment upon them who are de­linquent. And where he saith that Queen Elizabeth challenged more, he doth her wrong. She Challenged no more. And more­over in her first Parliament tooke order to [Page 144] have the head of the English Church left out of her Title.

He demands further, whether Nero by the same right might not have condemned St. Peter and St. Paul of Treason, for coming to Rome with forbidden Orders, and seeking to seduce his Subjects from the Religion estabi­shed. No, for no Orders were forbidden in Rome by law, true or false: Neither did those blessed Apostles seduce Subjects when they converted them from vanities to serve the living God. Let him shew that Saint Peter by his declaratory Bull did deprive Nero of his Empire, and absolve his Subjects from their allegiance, or had his Emissaries to incite them to rebellion, or sent hollowed banners, and Phenix plumes, and plenarie in­dulgences, to those who were in Arms against him, or plotted how to take away his life, or that Christians in those dayes did publish any such seditions books, or broach Opinions so pernicious to all civil government. And then his question will deserve a further an­swer. Untill then it may suffice to tell him the case is not the same. Still he confounds politicall Supremacy with ecclesiasticall, and the accidentall abuses of holy Orders, with holy Orders themselves.

Upon this mistake, he urgeth an Enthy­meme against us, Popish Priesthood and Pro­testant Ministry are the same in substance: Therefore if the one be treasonable, the other is treasonable also. His consequence is just [Page 145] such another as this; Thomas and Nicholas are both the same creatures in substance, that is, men; therefore if Thomas be a Trai­tor, Nicholas is another. How often must he be told, that their Treason did not lie in the substance of their holy Orders, but in the abuses, and in the treasonable crimes of the persons constituted in holy Orders, in their disobedience to the Lawes in being Pensioners to publick enemies of the King­dome, &c.

But he presseth this Argument yet further. If Popish Priests can be lawfully forbidden by Protestants to return into England, contrary to the Lawes under pain of Treason, then Protestant Ministers may be also forbidden by Puritans and Independents to return into England, contrary to their Lawes, upon pain of Treason.

This is that which many of them desire. They doubt not at long running to deal well enough with the rest, but the English Pro­testants are a beam in their eie. To his Ar­gument I answer by denying his conse­quence, which halts downright upon all fower. First, Let him shew that those whom he tearms Puritans and Independents have the same just power. Secondly, That there is such a Law in force. Thirdly, That there [Page 146] are as just grounds now for such a Law as there were then, That the Protestant Clergy on this side the Seas are so formidable, either for their number, or for their dependency upon the Pope or forrein Princes. Let him shew that they left the Kingdome contrary to Law, and have been bred here in such Se­minaries contrary to Law, and are so prin­cipled with seditious opinions, which threa­ten such imminent a [...]d unavoydable dan­ger and ruin to the Kingdome. If he fail in any one of these, as he will doe in every one of them, his consequence falls flat to to the ground.

In the close of this Chapter, he produceth two testimonies beyond exception, to prove that Popish Priests in England died for Reli­gion. The one of King Iames in his Apo­logy for the Oath of Allegiance. pag. 127. I doe con­stantly maintain that which I have said in my Apology, that no man either in my time or in the late Queens, ever died here for his conscience, Priests, and Popish Church-men only excepted, that receive Orders beyond Seas. The other of Queen Elizabeth, that she did think that most of the poor Priests, Camb. Annal Eliz an. 1581. whom she executed were not guilty of Trea­son, and yet she executed them for Treason. What sa [...]sfaction he will make to the Ghosts of these two great Princes I know not. This is apparent, that he hath done them both extr [...]am wrong. First, to King Iames by coupling together two divided [Page 147] and disjointed sentences, and likewise by cutting off his sentence in the middest. For evident proof whereof, I will here lay down the sentence word for word, as they are in the French edition, for I have neither the Latine nor the English by me. I maintain constantly and it is most true which I said in my Apology, that never, neither in the time of the late Queen, nor in my time, any man whatsoever hath been executed simply for Religion. Here is a full truth without any exception in the World. Then followes immediately, For let a man be as much a Papist as he will, let him publish it abroad with as much constancy and zeal as he plea­seth, his life never was, nor is in danger for it: Provided that he attempt not some fact, ex­presly contrary to the Lawes, nor have an hand in some dangerous and unlawfull en­terprise. Then followes the exception, Priests and Popish Church-men excepted which receive their Orders beyond the Seas. Which exception is not referred to the for­mer clause, never hath been executed simply for Religion, but to the later clause, his life never was nor is in danger for it. Their lives were in danger indeed, being forfeited to the Law, but they were never executed, by the grace and favour of the Prince. The words following, which he hath altogether clip­ped off, doe make the fraud most apparent: who (which Priests) for many and many treasons and attempts which they have kind­led [Page 148] and devised against this estate, being once departed out of the Kingdome, are prohibited to return, render pain of being reputed, at­tainted and convicted of the crime of treason. And neverthelesse if there were not some o­ther crime besides th [...]ir simple return into England, never any of them were executed. We see plainly that these penall Lawes were not made in Order to Religion, but out of necessary reason of Estate to prevent treason. Nor was any man executed for disobedi­ence to those penall Lawes, unlesse it was complicated with some other crime.

To come to Queen Elizabeth, If that which he saith here be true, then that flower of Queens was a tyrant worse then Nero, to thirst not only after humane blood, but after innocent blood, yea after the blood of those who were designed to the service of God. Shall we never have one testimony ingenuously cited? Reader, I beseech thee, take the pains to p [...]ruse the place, and thou shalt finde that nothing was more mercifull then that Royall Queen, and no­thing more cruell then the Pope and their Superiors, who sacrificed those poor Priests to the ambition of the Roman Court, ha­ving first blindfolded them with their vow of obedience, and exposed them to slaugh­ter, as the Turks doe their common Soul­diers, only to fill up Ditches with their Car­kasses, over which themselves may mount the Walls.

[Page 149]First, Camb. Annal. Eliz an. 1581. the Author alledged, doth testifie, That the Queen never thought mens consci­ences were to be forced, no sign of purposed cruelty, quae (que), dolet quoties cogitur esse ferox. Secondly, that she complained many times that she was driven of necessity to take these courses, unlesse she would see the destruction of her self and her Subjects, under colour of con­science and the Catholick Religion. Tell me, who are the supream Judges of the publick dangers and necessities of England? Is not the Prince? At least with his Councel and the representative body of the whole Ki [...]g­dome. When all these unanimously have declared that there is a necessity, and have prescribed the best means that possibly they could devise to prevent the danger, shall a forrein Prelate, and he not only interessed, but the very source of all the danger, have power to contradict it, and to send his su­spected Emissaries more frequently then ever into the Kingdome? A Pit is digged, true, but the Authors of these seditious opinions and practises, are they who digged it. The Queen did what she could to cover it, by her Proclamations and Acts of Parliament, to premonish every one of the danger. If the Pope and their Superiors would be so cruell to thrust out their Emissaries upon de­sperate attempts, upon their vow of blinde obedience, and a promise of Celestiall re­wards, their blood is upon their heads. The Queen said further, That for the most part [Page 150] of these silly Priests, she did not believe them to be guilty of practising the destruction of their Country, but their Superiors were they, whom she held to be the instruments of this foul crime, for as much as they who were sent, committed the full and free disposition of themselves to their Superiors. So first, R. C. inserts these words into the Queens speech [ whom she executed] she executed none, she condemned none. Those who were executed in her long reign of above fourty four yeers were not so many. This expression would have fitted the short reign of Queen Mary much better. Secondly, he adds these words, [ were guilty of treason] whereas the Queen said no such thing, but [were guilty of practising the destruction of their Country.] Can none have an hand in the destruction of their Country, but only they who are practisers and plotters and contrivers of it? Are none guilty of trea­son, but only they who practised the destru­ction of their Country? There are Instru­ments in treason as well as Engeniers, who are not privy to the intrigues of the con­spiracy. And yet suffer justly for acting their parts in it. Yea without practising or acting, the very concealment of treason alone, is sufficient by the Law of England, and by the Law of Nations, to condemn a person for not discovering it. Lastly, he leaves out these words which are a clear ex­position of the whole sentence. But their [Page 151] Superiors were they whom she held to be the Instruments of this foul crime, for as much as the Emissaries did commit the whole dispo­sure of themselves to their Superiors. So she makes the Superiors and some others, who we [...]e most busie, most subtil, and most affected among them, to be the contrivers and grand traitors. But for the most part of the silly Priests, she took them to be but executers of the designes of their Superiors, to sh [...]ot those Bolts which they had made, and to pull the Chesnuts out of the fire with their naked fingers for their Superiors to eat. What dealing may others expect from them in citations, who are not afraid to cast undeserved durt upon Majesty, and preva­ricate with their naturall P [...]incesse, under the gratious protection of whose just go­vernment they first beheld the light It may serve as one instance of his undue citing te­stimonies, and authorities, that whereas I say, that dangerous and bloody positions and practises, produce severe Lawes. And that I wish all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes, with the memory of them buried in perpetuall oblivion, he inferreth that I seem to confesse, that the Lawes made against Catholicks, were cruell and un [...]ust. He did well to say [ it seemeth] for I nei­ther say the one nor the other, though my wishes be the same they were. On the con­trary I justifie them upon this undeniable ground, that no Kingdome is destiture of [Page 152] necessary remedies for its own conservation. That which I said, I spake indifferently both of their Lawes and ours. That Law which was justly enacted, may be over-rigorously executed, when that necessity which was the only ground of the Law is abated. I wish the necessity had not been then so great as to require Lawes written in blood, and that a lesser coercion would have suf­ficed then for a remedy. The necessity be­ing abated I wish the rigor may be likewise abated. To divide their Lawes and our Lawes, or the necessity and the remedy is a fallacy and contrary to what I said, when I wished all seditious opinions and over­rigorous Statutes were buried in oblivi­on.

He addeth, That perhaps mine own perse­cution hath taught me this lenity. At last he confesseth that we suffer persecution, which even now he denied. The Earl of Strafford then Lieutenant of Ireland, did commit much to my hands the politicall re­giment of that Church, for the space of eight yeers. In all that time let him name one Roman Catholick, that suffered either death or imprisonment, or so much as a pe­cuniary mulct of twelve pence for his Re­ligion upon any penall Statute. If he can­not, as I am sure he cannot, then it is not my present persecution that taught me that lenity. I remember not one Roman Catholick that suffered in all that time, [Page 153] but only the titular Archbishop of Cashells, who was indeed imprisoned for three or four daies, not only upon suspi­cion, but upon information out of Spain, that he was a pensioner of the Catho­lick Kings, and being found to be no such dangerous person upon my representation was dismissed.

Let no man hence imagine that we neg­lected our duties. We did our work by more noble and more successefull means then penall Lawes, by building of Churches and mansion Houses for Ministers, by in­troducing a learned Clergy, by injoyning them residence, by affording them counte­nance and protection and means of ho­spitality, by planting and ordering Schools for the education of youth, and by look­ing carefully, to the education and marri­ages of the Kings Wards. To look to the Ecclesiasticall Regiment was the care of particular Bishops. To look to the pub­lick safety of the Kingdome, and to free it from sedition masked under the Visard of Religion, was the care of the Soveraign Magistrate.

CHAP. 4.

Sect. 1.IN the fourth Chapter of the vindica­tion I set forth the dignitie of Apostoli­call Churches, The Kings of England alwaies politicall Heads of the Eng­lish Church. & he great influence they had upon their neighbour Churches, yet without any legall juris [...]iction over them, especially the Roman Church in the West. I shewed how they endeavored to convert this honorable Presidency into Mo­narchicall power; But that the power which they endeavored to usurpe, was in it self un­capable of prescription. And if it had been capable, yet they had no prescription for it. That the British, Saxon, Danish, and Nor­man Kings, successively were the onely Pa­trons and Protectors of the Church within their Dominions, and disposed of all things concerning the externall regiment thereof, by the advise of their Prelats, called ecclesi­asticall Synods, made ecclesiasticall Laws, punished ecclesiasticall persons, prohibited ecclesiasticall Judges, received Appeales from ecclesiasticall Courts, rejected the ec­clesiasticall Laws of the Popes at their plea­sures, gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws, as they thought good, in order to their own Dominions; [Page 155] made ecclesiasticall Corporations, appropri­ated ecclesiasticall Benefices, translated epis­copall Sees, forbid Appeals to Rome, reje­cted the Popes Bulls, protested against his Legats, questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench, condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court, enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy, prescribed the endowment of Vi­cars, set down the wages of Priests, and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Ro­man Court. And all this was shewed evi­dently, not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors, but out of the Cu­stomes and Common Law of the Realm, out of the Reports of our Judges and great­est Lawyers, out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor, the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile, the Articles of the Clergy, the Sta­tutes of Provisors, and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome. It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are: To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word. So as once more I take it for granted, that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome, but what his most re­nowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him.

All that he saith, with any shew of opposi­tion to this, is first, That whatsoever Kings [Page 156] doe is not lawfull, Whereas I spake not of any single Kings, but of the whole succession of British E [...]glish, Danish, and Norman Kings, nor of Kings alone, but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole King­dome, Clergy and Laity, whi [...]h proves irre­fragably, that what they did, was the Cu­stome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome. And that there is no Pre­scription, nor can be, against it. That they did it de facto, is enough to make good my assertion, that Henry the eight did no new thing, but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him.

Secondly, he saith, That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes, and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced, Not only acts of Papall Pow­er, but the Power it self con­trary to our Laws. doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power, but against the power it self, against the Popes power to make Laws, to send Le­gats, or Bulls, or Excommunications with­out license, the power to receive Appeals, the power to make ecclesiasticall Co [...]porati­ons, the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices, &c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England, who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there, nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there, without license? Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus, or this or that Legate, but against all Legates that [Page 157] come without license; nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone, but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome, without license. Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum, In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license. Lastly, our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge, The Patronage of the Church, the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws, the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods, the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church, by the advise of his Clergy and Councell, within his own Do­minions. In vain doth he distinguish be­tween the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self, seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power, but deny the power it self.

He saith, If I would indeed prove that Hen­ry the eight did but vindicate his ancient li­berty, I should prove that English Kings be­fore him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ, by which headship, as it was expressed in King Edwards time, all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown. To prove that Henry the eighth did but vin­dicate his ancient Liberty, it is not necessary [Page 158] that I should justifie all the extravagant ex­pressions, or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers. Our Kings neither doe challenge, nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes, nor any part of the power of the Keyes, either to their own use, or to derive it to others. Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths, or great Princes their Flatterers, who are ready to blow the coals of ambition, and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes, such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes. It is not much to be won­dred at, if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject, having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them. Bishop Bonner, being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh, did so boldly and high­ly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls, that they thought of burning him, or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead, if he had not pro­vided for his own safety by flight. Acworth contra Monarch. Sanderi, l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me, if any such thing had beene, to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is Gods. It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church, as I have shewed throughout all the parts & branches thereof, if he could see wood for trees. These very [Page 159] flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter, and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication, doe make up that politique headship, that is, a power paramount, to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings, and that all things be acted by fit Agents, which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end, that is, the safety and tranquility of the Com­monwealth. This is that title which Ed­ward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest, namely, The Vicar of God to go­vern the Church within his own Dominions, which is neither more nor lesse then the po­liticall head of the Church. In a great Fa­mily there are severall offices, as a Divine, a Physitian, a Schoolmaster, and every one of these is supreme in his own way; yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all, to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family. Our Parliament Rolles, our ecclesiasticall Registers, the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove, that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs. I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King, as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops, in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the vio­lence of Popes; but for many of the rest, and especially for that which did virtually include them all, that is, the Leg [...]slative pow­er [Page 160] in ecclesiasticall causes, wherein the whole body of the Kingdome did claim a neerer interest, in respect of that receptive Power which they have ever injoyed, to admit or not admit such new Laws whereby they were to be governed, it had been folly and madness in the Popes to have attempted up­on it.

One doubt still remains, How ecclesiasti­call Jurisdiction could be said to be derived from the Crown. (For they might be apt enough in those dayes to use such improper expressions. Jurisdicti­on is from Ordinati­on, but Princes apply the matter.) First, with the Romanists themselves I distinguish between habituall and actuall Jurisdiction. Habituall Juris­diction is derived only by ordination. Actu­all Jurisdiction, is a right to exercise that habit, arising from the lawfull application of the matter or subject. In this later the Lay Patron, and much more the Soveraign Prince, have their respective Interests and concurrence. Diocesses and Parishes were not of divine but humane institution. And the same persons were born Subjects before they were made Christians. The ordinary gives a School master a license or habituall power to teach, but it is the Parents of the Children who apply or substract the matter, and furnish him with Scholars, or afford him a fit subject whereupon to exercise this habi­tuall power.

Secondly, we must also distinguish between the interior and exterior Court, between the [Page 161] Court of Conscience and the Court of the Church. For in both these Courts the pow­er of the Keies hath place, but not in both after the same manner. That power which is exercised in the Court of Conscience, for binding and loosing of sinnes, is soly from Ordination. Jurisdi­diction en­larged and fortified with coer­cive power by Princes But that power which is exer­cised in the Court of the Church, is partly from the Soveraign Magistrate, especially in England where Ecclesiasticall Jurisdi­ction is enlarged and fortified with a co­ercive power, and the bounds thereof have been much dilated by the favour and piety of Christian Princes, by whom many causes have been made of Ecclesiasticall cognisance which formerly were not, & from whom the coercive or compulsory power of summo­ning the Kings Subjects by processes and ci­tations was derived. It is not then the power of the Keies, or any part or branch thereof in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction, even in the exterior Court of the Church which is derived from the Crown: But it is coercive and compulsory and corobora­tory power, it is the application of the mat­ter, it is the regulating of the exercise of actuall Ecclesiasticall Jurisdicton in the Court of the Church, to prevent the oppres­sions of their Subjects, and to provide for the tranquillity of the Common-wealth, which belongs to Sovereign Princes.

As to his corollary that never any King of England before Henry the eighth, did chal­lenge [Page 162] an exemption from all Iurisdiction under Christ, Henry the eighth not exempt from the power of the Keyes. it is as gross a mistake as all the rest. For neither did Henry the eighth challenge any such exemption in the Court of Consci­ence. Among the six bloody Articles esta­blished by himself, that of auricular confes­sion was one. Nor in the Court of the Church, seeing the direct contrary is express­ly provided for in the Statute it self. An. 25. H. 8. C. xxi. The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, and his Successors shall have power and au­thority from time to time, by their discretions to give, grant, and dispose, by an instrument under the Seal of the said Archbishop, unto your Majesty and to your Heirs and Succes­sors, Kings of this Realm; as well all manner of such Licences, Dispensations, Compositions, Faculties, Grants, Rescripts, Delegacies, In­struments, and all other Writings, for causes not being contrary or repugnant to holy Scrip­tures and Lawes of God, as heretofore hat [...] been used and accustomed to be had and obtai­ned by your Highnes, or any of your most noble Progenitors, or any of yours or their Subjects at the See of Rome. So vain a suggestion it is, That King Henry the eighth did free him­self not only from Papall Authority, but also and as well from Episcopall, Archiepiscopall, and all Spirituall Authority either abroad or in England.

Sect. 2.And his Argument which he presseth so seriously to prove it is as vain, That the Head of a Company is under none of that Com­pany. [Page 163] The Pope himself is under his Confessor, who hath power to binde him or loose him in the Court of Conscience. The Master of a Family is under his own Chaplain for the regiment of his Soul, and under his Physitian for the government of his Body. What should hinder it, that a Po­liticall Head may not be under an Ecclesi­asticall Pastor. The Kings of England are not only under the forrein Jurisdiction of a generall Councell, but also under their Ec­clesiasticall Pastors though their own Sub­jects. Only they are exempted from all coer­cive and compulsory power.

Let us trie whether he be more fortunate in opposing, then he hath been in answering. The Kings of England (saith he) permitted Appeales to Rome in ecclesiasticall causes, as is evident in St. Wilfrides case, Saint Wilfrid. who was ne­ver reproved nor disliked for appealing twice to Rome: not so, but the clear contrary ap­peareth evidently in Saint Wilfrides case. Though he was an Archbishop, and if an Ap­peal had been proper in any case, it had been in that case. Spel. conc An. 705. This pretended Appeal was not only much disliked but rejected, by two Kings successively, by the other Archbishop, and by the body of the English Clergy, as appeareth by the event. For Wilfride had no benefit of the Popes sentences, but was for­ced after all his strugling, to quit the two Monasteries which were in question, whether he would or not, and to sit down with his [Page 164] Archbishoprick, which he might allwnies have held peaceably if he would. This agrees with his supposed Vision in France, that at his return into his Country, he should re­ceive the greatest part of his possessions that had been taken from him, Bed. l. 5. Ecc. hist c. 20. that is, praesula­tum Ecclesiae suae, his Archbishoprick, but not his two Monasteries. But this is much more plain by the very words of King Al­fride, cited by me in the Vindication, to which R. C. hath offered no answer, That he hono­red the Popes Nuncios for their grave lives and honorable lookes. Here is not a word of their credentiall Letters: O how would a Nuncio storm at this, and take it as an af­front! The King told them further, That he could not give any assent to their legation. So that which R. C. calles permitting, was in truth downright dissenting and rejecting. The reason followes, because it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of the English, should be resto­red upon the Popes Letter. Is not this disli­king? What could the King say more inci­villity, then to tell the Popes Nuncios that their Masters demands were unreasonable; or what could be more to the purpose, and to the utter ruin of R. C. his cause, then that the Decrees of the pope were impugned, not once but twice, not by a few factious persons, but by two or three Kings successively, and by Theodore the Archbishop of Canter­bury, a Roman, with the flower of the [Page 165] Clergy, and the whole Councel of the Eng­lish.

He proceedeth, St. Austin and his [...] Fellowes. Bed. l. 2. c 4. they never disliked that Pro­fession of Saint Austins Fellowes, that the See Apostolick had sent them to preach in Britan­ny, as she is accustomed to doe in all the World. First, why should they dislike it? they had no reason for it. No good Christian can dis­like the Husbandmans sowing of Wheat, but every good Christian doth dislike the en­vious mans supersemination, or sowing of Tares above the Wheat: Or if there had been reason, how could they dislike that which in probability they did not know. The Letter, out of which these words are ci­ted, was not written to the English Kings, but to the Scotish Bishops, by Laurentius, Successor to Austin, in the See of Canter­bury, and Melitus of London, and Iustus of Rotchester, which three were all the Bi­sh [...]ps of the Roman Communion, that were at that day in Britain.

But if perchance he imagine that the Popes sending Preachers into Britain, doth either argue an ancient or acquire a subsequent Jurisdiction over Britain, he erres doubly; first they did nothing without the Kings li­cence for matter of fact, they produced no Papall mandates, which had been in vain to a Pagan King. At their first arrivall the King commanded them to abide in the Isle of Thanet untill his further pleasure was known. They did so. Afterwards they were [Page 166] called in by his command; Bed. l. 1. e. 25. he gave them an express licence to preach to his Subjects, and after his own conversion majorem praedicandi licentiam, a further and larger licence. So the conversion of Kent was by the Popes endeavoures, and the Kings authority. Se­condly, for matter of right, Conversion gives no just title to Jurisdiction. See Speed l. 6 c. 9. 11.22. How ma­ny Countries have been converted to the Christian Faith by the Britans and English, over which they never pretended any autho­rity.

It followeth, they never disliked That Saint Gregory should subject all the Priests of Bri­tain under Saint Austin, and give him power to erect two Archiepiscopall Sees, and twelve Episcopall Sees under each of them. Fed. l. 1. c. 29. Whom could Ethelbert, being himself a Novice in Christianity, better trust with the disposing of Ecclesiasticall Affaires in his Kingdome, then those who had been his Converters? But either Saint Gregory in his projects, or rather Austin in his informations, did mightily over-shoot themselves; for the twentieth part of Britain was not in Ethelberts power: And all the other Saxon Kings were Pagans at that time. We have seen that after the death of Austin and Gregory, there were still but one Archbishop, and two Bishops of the Roman Commu­nion throughout the Britannick Islands. The British and Scotish Bishops were many, but they renounced all Communion with Rome. [Page 169] The British Bishops professed plainly to Austin himself in their Synod, that they would not acknowledge him for their Arch­bishop. Bed. l. 2. c. 2. And the Scotish Bishops did so much abhorre from the Communion of the Bi­shops of the Roman Communion, that (as themselves complained) Dagamus one of the Scotish Bishops refused to eat with them, or to lodge with them in the same Inne: Bed l. 2. c. 4. And yet he tells us in great earnest that they never disliked it.

He addeth, St. Melit. they never disliked that Saint Melit should bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod, to be observed of the Church of Eng­land. It may be so. But whether it was so or not, whether they liked them or disliked them, whether they received them or reje­cted them, L. 2. c. 4. Venerable Bede who is his Author speaketh not a word. This is not proving, but presuming. And why might they not re­ceive them if they found them to be equall and beneficiall, non propter authoritatem Legislatoris, sed propter aequitatem Legis, not for the authority of the Roman Synod, but for the equity of their Decrees? And what were their Decrees? Ibidem. Ordinationes de vita & quiete Monachorum, Orders for the good conversation and quiet of Monks. A matter of no great impor­tance, but great or small, the Decrees of the Roman Synod were of no force in England, unless they were received by the King and Kingdome; and if they were received by [Page 168] the King and Kingdome, then they were na­turalised and made the Lawes of England, not of Pope Boniface an usurping and (if we may trust Saint Gregory his Predecessors) an Antichristian Prelate.

Bed l. 3. c 29. An A [...]ch b [...]shop sent from Rome. They willingly admitted a Bishop of Canter­bury sent to them and chosen by the Pope. Why should they not admit him? seeing it was their own desire and request to the Bishop of Rome, in respect of the great scarcity of Scholars then in England, to send them one, as appeareth by the very letter of Vitalianus, hominem denique docibilem & in omnibus ornatum Antistitem, secundum ve­strorum scriptorum tenorem, minime valui­mus nunc reperire. L. 4 c. 1. We could not finde for the present such a complete Prelate as your letters require; and by the reception of the King, qu [...]d cum Nuncii certò narrassent Regi Egberto adesse Episcopum quem petierant a Romano Antistite, when King Egbert had certain notice that the Bishop (Theodore) was come, whom they had desired of the Roman Prelate. So he was not obtruded upon them against their wills, which was the case of pa­tronage between us and them.

Bed l. 3. c 25. St. Peter Po [...]ter of Heaven. They acknowledged that Saint Peter was the speciall Porter of Heaven, whom they would obey in all things. I understand not why he urgeth this, except it be to expose the simplicity of those times to dirision. The case was this, there was a disputation be­tween Coleman and Wilfrid about the ob­servation [Page 169] of Easter. Coleman pleaded a tra­dition from Saint Iohn, upon whose bo­som Christ leaned, delivered to them by Columba their first Converter; Wilfrid pleaded a different tradition from St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the Keies of the King­dome of Heaven. The King demanded whe­ther that which was said of Saint Peter was true. They acknowledged it was. And whe­ther any thing of like nature was said to Saint Columb. They said no. Thereupon the King concluded, Hic est Ostiarius ille cui ego contradicere nolo, &c. ne forte me adveni­ente ad fores Regni Coelorum, non sit quire­seret, averso illo qui Claves tenere probatur, This is the Porter whom I will not contradict, least peradventure when I come to the gates of Heaven, there be none to open unto me, ha­ving made him averse to me, who is proved to keepe the Keies. No man can be so simple as to beleeve that there are Gates, and Keies, and Porters in Heaven. It were but a poor office for Saint Peter to sit Porter at the Gate, whilest the rest were feasting within at the Supper of the Lamb. The Keies were given to Saint Iohn as much as to Saint Peter.

They publickly engraved in the front of their Churches, Camd. Brit. p. 165. St Peter Superior to Saint. Paul. that Saint Peter was higher in de­gree then Saint Paul. Let them place St. Peter as high as they please, so they place him not so high as Christ, nor make him Superior to the whole conjoint college of Apostles. The [Page 170] truth is this. King Ina builded a magnifi­cent Temple at Glastenbury to the honor of Christ and memory of St. Peter and St. Paul; and upon the same caused some verses to be engraven, wherein St. Peter and St. Paul were compared together Do­ctior hic monitis, celsior ille gradu, or St. Paul was more learned, but St. Peter higher in de­gree; St. Paul opened the hearts, St. Peter the eares; St. Paul opened heaven by his Doctrine, St. Peter by his Keyes; St. Paul was the way, St. Peter the gate; St. Peter was the rock, St. Paul the Architect. The­ologicall truths ought not to be founded upon Poeticall licence. He knows right well that their own Doctors doe make St. Paul equall in all things to St. Peter, except in primacy of order. We acknowledge that St. Peter was the beginning of unity; why then might he not have the first place, ac­cording to his primacy of Order? But the question between them and us is of another nature, concerning a supremacy of Power. When St. Peters Nets were full, he did but beckon and his fellows came to partake: But the Court of Rome use him more hardly. For whatsoever was ever said or done to his honour or advantage, rests not upon his person, who was still no more but a fel­low of the Apostolicall college, but de­volves wholly upon his Successors, to make them Monarchs of the Church and Masters of all Christians.

[Page 171]They suffered their Bishops to teach, L. 2. Flor. c. 11. St. Peter a Monarch. That St. Peter had a Monarchy; Was, next after Christ, the foundation of the Church; And that neither true Faith nor good Life would save out of the unity of the Roman Church. As if our Ancestors had ever understood the Roman Church in that sense which they doe now, for the universall Church, or heard of their new coyned distinction of a mediate and immediate foundation; as if Saint Pe­ter was laid immediatly upon Christ, and all the rest of the Apostles upon Saint Peter: or as if the Court of Rome were Saint Peters sole Heir. If their Bishops had taught any such Doctrine in the Councells of Constance and Basile, they would have gone near to have been censured for Hereticks, unless they had explained themselves better then he doth. Though it is true, that after the Popes by violence and subtlety had gained so much upon the World, as to be able to im­pose new upstart Oaths, first upon Arch­bishops, and then upon Bishops, inconsistent with their Oaths of Allegiance, and had fal­sified the very forms of their own Oaths from regulas sanctorum Patrum, the rules of the holy Fathers, to regalia sancti Petri, the Royalties of Saint Peter; then they had the Bishops bound hand and foot to their de­votion. But who were these Bishops? What were their names? What were their words? Who were the Kings that suffered them? Nay he telleth us not, but leaveth us [Page 172] in the dark, first to divine what was his dream, and then to shew him the interpre­tation of it: Only he referreth us to a trea­tise of his own, called the flowers of the Eng­lish Church, which I never see nor heard of but from himself. If there be any thing that is pertinent and deserveth an answer, had it not been as easie to have cited his Authors, as himself, in the margent? When his latent testimonies come to be viewed and exami­ned, it will be found that his Monarchy is nothing but a primacy or principality of Or­der; his foundation a respective, not an abso­lute foundation; and his Roman Church the Catholick Church: Or else it will ap­pear, that instead of gathering flowers, he hath been weeding the Doctors of the Church.

Bed. l. 4 c. 18. They admitted Legates of the Pope, whom he sent to examine the faith of the English Church. The intended Pope was Pope Aga­tho: John the precentor. The pretended Legate was Iohn the precentor, whom the Pope sent into Eng­land at such time as the Heresie of Eutyches was frequent in the orientall parts, ut cujus esset fidei Anglorum Ecclesia diligenter edi­sceret, that he should learn out diligently what was the faith of the English Church. He saith not to examine juridically, but to learn out diligently. This Iohn his supposed Le­gate, had no more power then an ordinary Messenger. Well, a Synod was called: by whom? by the supposed Legate? No, but [Page 173] by the English. Who presided in it? the pretended Legate? No, but Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is not the least footstep of any forrein Jurisdiction or Authority in the whole business.

They caused divers Bishopricks to be ere­cted at the commandement of the Pope. Malm. l 2 [...] Reg. c 9. Bishop­rick [...] er [...] ­cted in England by the Pope▪ an­swered. If it had been proper for the Pope, or if he had had power to have erected them himself, why did he put it upon others? To com­mand them to erect new Bishopricks had been a power paramount indeed, This was more then to execute the Canons. The history is recited not in the ninth chapter, but in the fifth chapter of the second Book of William of Malmesburie, de Gestis Regum Anglorum, not as his own relation, but transcribed out of a nameless Writer, verbis eisdem quibus inveni scripta interseram. In the dayes of Edward the elder, the Region of the West­Saxons had wanted Bishops (upon what ground doth not appear) per septem annos plenos, seven whole years. And it may be that some of the Bishopricks had been lon­ger vacant, perhaps ingrossed by the Bishops of Winchester and Shireborne, which two I finde to have been alwaies of great note in the Court of the West-Saxon Kings. The ground of my conjecture is the words of the Author, Quod olim duo habuerunt in quinque diviserunt, What two for [...]ome space of time had possessed, they divided into five. Formosus the then Pope resented this; R. C. [Page 174] remembers what tragicall stirres he made at Rome; but as to this particular a better man might have done a worse deed. He sent his Letters into England, misit in Angliam Epistolas, and it seemeth that they were very high, quid a Papa Formoso praeceptum sit, but praeceptum signifies a lesson or instructi­on as well as a commandement. And again, dabat excommunicationem & maledictionem Regi Edwardo & omnibus Subjectis ejus, he bestowed an excommunication and a curse upon King Edward and all his Subjects. Why what had the poor Subjects offended? or King Edward for any thing that appeareth? This was sharp work indeed, the first sum­mons an excommunication with a curse: A man of Formosus his temper, who was in­deed a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, though he violated his oath to obtain it; and who supposed himself to be not only the Patriarch of Britaine, but a Master (of misrule) in the Church, might adventure farre: But to doe him right, I doe not be­leeve that this was any formall sentence; that had been too palpably unjust before a citation, I remember not that any other Author mentions it, which they would have done, if it had been a solemn interdict, in those dayes. And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle. Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope, but not a word of any absolution, which had been more to his purpose, if this had been an [Page 175] excommunication. It could be nothing but a threatning, That unless this abuse were re­formed he would hold no communion with them: As Victor a much better Pope, and in much better times dealt with the Asia­ticks, over whom he had no Jurisdiction. There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of com­munion; as also between imposing eccle­siasticall punishment, and only representing what is incurred by the Canons.

Where observe with me two things, First, R. C. his great mistake, that here was a com­mand to erect new Bishopricks, to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not, and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority, whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees. The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus, of re­newing, not erecting Bishopricks; and per sep­tem annos destituta Episcopis, they had want­ed Bishops for seven years. Lastly, the names of the Sees supplyed, which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conver­sion of the West-Saxons, doe evince this. Wil Mal­mes l. 1. Reg. c. 6. Winchester, Schireborne or Salessb [...]ry, Wells, Credinton now Exceter, and the Bishoprick of Cornwall, called anciently St. Germans. Secondly, observe that whatsoever was done in this business, was done by the Kings Au­thority, congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum, King Edward assembled a Synod, saith the same Author in the place cited: And he [Page 176] calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Re­gis, the Kings Decree. This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship, in convocating Synods, and confirming Synods, then all his conjectures and surmises to the con­trary.

L. 2 [...] Flo [...]. c. 11. They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Off [...], and admitted the erection of a new Archbisho­prick in England. Why should they not ad­mit Legates? What are Legates but Mes­senges and Ambassadors? The office of an Ambassador is sacred, though from the Great Turk. But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts, and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome. King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions; and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian, had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome, by royall Autho­rity. On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury. This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction. England alwaies ad­mitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King, Edgar a­pud Eal­red in ora­ti. ad E­piscopos withred a pud Speim. Conc p. 192 but not otherwise. Here again he cites no Authority but his own.

They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men, and not to Kings. No man doubts of it in their sense, [Page 177] but they who leave nothing certain in the World. Here is nothing but a heape of con­fused generalities. In some cases the punish­ment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings, Clergy­men not exempted from secu­la [...] Judges. but Archbishops, that is, cases of Ec­clesiasticall cognisance, tryable by the Can­non Law, in the first instance. In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops, but to Kings to be their Judges, as in cases of civill cog­nisance, or upon the last appeale: Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person, but by fit Deputies or Delegates. Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts, Plat. in politico. knowing, commanding, and ex­ecuting: The first belongs to the King and his Councell, The second to the King in h [...]s person, The third to the King by his Depu­ties. So the King governs in the Church, but not as a Church-man; in the Army, but not as a Souldier; In the City, but not as a Merchant; in the Country, but not as an Husbandman. Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall cau­ses in their own persons, but by meete sele­cted Delegates. Persons of great maturity of judgement, of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws, of approved integrity: And lastly such (at least some of the number) as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes, and to act by excom­munication or absolution, according to the exigence of the cause; and who more pro­per to be such Delegates in questions of mo­ment [Page 178] then Archbishops and Bishops? This is so evident in our Laws and Histories, that it is not only lost labour, but shame to op­pose it. King Edgars words in the place al­leged were these. Meae solicitudinis est, &c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches, &c. and to take order for their peace and quiet, the examina­tion of whose manners belongs to you, whether they live continently, and behave themselves honestly to them that are without, whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices, dili­gent to instruct the People, sober in their con­versations, modest in their habits, discreet in their judgments. No man doubts of this. But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty. See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy, contempta sunt verba, Ib [...]dem. veniendum est ad verbera, &c. words are dispised, it must come to blows, Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edel­wald Bishop of Winchester, and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester, I commit that busines to you, that persons of bad con­versation may be cast out of the Churches, and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure, and my royall Authority. So Ed­gar did not forget his politicall head­ship.

What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde, where he himself fate as a civill president, and where the De­crees of the Councell issud in his name and [Page 179] by his Authority, firmiter decernimus, &c. His words are these, It belongs to him (the King) to make Earls, Dukes, Noble men, Princes, Presidents, and secular Iudges, but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches, to choose Bishops, Ab­bats, and other Prelates, &c. If King Wi­thred had said, It belongs to the Pope to go­vern the Churches, it had made for his pur­pose indeed; But saying as he doth, it be­longs to the Metropolitan, it cuts the throat of his cause, and shews clearly what we say, that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior. As for the bounds between the King and the Arch­bishop, we know them well enough: he needed not trouble his head about it.

They suffered their Subjects to professe, that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est; [...] Ser. 25 in 14 c [...] quicquid ipsa statuerit, susci­pio; & quod damnaverit, damno: He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome; what she determines, I re­ceive; what she condemns, I condemn. Sup­posing these to be the very words of Ealred, Rome hath no cer­tain [...]y of i [...]tallibili­ti [...]. though I have no reason to trust his citati­ons further then I see them, and supposing them to have been spoken in R. C. his sense; yet Ealred was but one Doctor, whose au­thority is not fit to counterbalance the pub­lick Laws and Customes and Records [...]f a whole Kingdome. Neither doth it appear [...]hat they who sate at the sterne in those dayes [Page 180] did either suffer it, or so much as know of it. Books were not published then so soon as they were written, but lay most commonly dormient many years or perhaps many ages before they see the Sun. But Ealred his sense was not the same, it could not be the same with R. C. his. No man in those dayes did take the Church of Rome for the Roman Ca­tholick or Universall Church, but for the Diocess of Rome, which their best protectors doe make to be no otherwise infallible then upon supposition of the inseparability of the Papacy from it, which Bellarmine himself confesseth to be but a probable opinion, Ne­que Scriptura neque traditio habet, sedem Apo­stolicam ita fixaem esse Romae, Bell. de Ro. Pont. l. 4. [...]. 4. ut inde auferré non possit, There is neither Scripture nor Tra­dition to prove that the Apostolick See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed from it. Therefore these words of Ealred cannot be applyed to this present question, because the subject of the question is changed. And if they be understood simply and absolutely of an universall communion with the Church of Rome both present and future, they are unfound in the judgment of Bellarraine him­self. It remains therefore that they are ei­ther to be understood of communicating in essentials; and so we communicate with the Church of Rome at this day. Or that by the Church of Rome Ealred did understand the Church of Rome of that age, whereas all those exceptions which we have against them [Page 181] for our not communicating with them actu­ally in all things, are either sprung up since Ealreds time or at least, since that time, made or declared necessarie conditions of their communion. Lastly, I desire the Rea­der to take notice, that these words of Eal­red doe contain nothing against the politicall Supremacy of Kings, nor against the liber­ties of the English Church, nor for the Ju­risdiction of the Court of Rome over Eng­land, and so might have been passed by as im­pertinent.

They endited their Letters to the Pope in these words, Aclred de vita & Mirac. Edw. Conf. superseri­ptions to Popes. Summo & universali Ecclesiae Pastori Nicholao, Edwardus Dei gratia An­gliae Rex debitam subjectionem & omnimo­dum servitium. It seemeth that the Copies differ, some have not Pastori but Patri, nor universali but universalis Ecclesiae, and no more but obedientiam for omnimodum servi­tium. But let him read it as he list, it sig­nifies nothing. There cannot be imagined a weaker or a poorer argument then that which is drawn from the superscription or subscription of a Letter. He that enrolls every man in the catalogue of his friends and servants, who subscribe themselves his loving or obliged friends, or his faithfull and obedient servants, will finde his friends and servants sooner at a feast then at a fray. Titles are given in Letters more out of custome and formality then out of judgment and truth. The Pope will not stick to endite his Letter [Page 182] To the King of the Romans, and yet suffer him to have nothing to doe in Rome. Every one who endited their Letters to the high and mighty Lords the States Generall, did not presently beleeve that was their just Ti­tle before the King of Spains resignation. Titles are given sometimes out of curtesie, sometimes out of necessity, because men will not lose their business for want of a complement. He that will write to the great Duke of Muscovia must stile him Emperour of Russia. How many have lost their Let­ters and their labours for want of a mon Fre­re or mon Confine, my Brother or my Cou­sin.

It were best for him to quit his argument from superscriptions, otherwise he will be shewed Popes calling Princes their Lords, and themselves their Subjects and Servants, yea Princes most glorious and most excellent Lords, and themselves Servants of Servants, that is, Servants in the snperlative degree. They will finde Cyprian to his brother Corne­lius health, and Justinian to John the most holy Archbishop of the City of Rome, & Patriarch. Did St. Cyprian beleeve Cornelius to be his Master and stile him Brother, or owe obe­dience and service and send but health? Had is been comely to stile an ecclesiasticall Mo­narch plaine Archbishop and Patriarch, and for the Christian World to set down only the Citie of Rome?

But what doth he take hold on in this su­perscription [Page 183] to their advantage? Is it the word summo? That cannot be, it is con­fessed generally that the Bishop of Rome had priority of order among the Patriarchs. Or is it the word universali? Neither can that be, all the Patriarchs were stiled oecu­menicall or universall, not in respect of an universall power, but their universall care, 2 Cor. 11. 28. as Saint Paul saith, The care of all the Churches did lie upon him, and their presi­dence in generall Councels. It cannot be the word Pastori, all Bishops were anciently called Pastors. Where then lies the strength of this Argument? In the words due sub­jection? No. There is subjection to good advise, as well as to just commands. The principall Patriarchs bore the greatest sway in a generall Councell, in that respect there was subjection due unto them. The last words all forts of service, are not in some Copies, and if they were, verborum ut num­morum, as they are commonly used, as well from Superiors to their Inferiors, as from Inferiors to their Superiors, they signifie no­thing.

I wonder he was not afraid to cite this superscription, considering the clause in Pope Nicholas his letter to King Edward, Aclred ibidem. Vobis veroì & posteris vestris Regibus committimus Advocationem & tuitionem ejusdem loci, & omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, ut vice nostrâ, cum consilio Episcoporum & Abba­tum, constituas ubique quae justa sunt. King [Page 184] Edward by the fundamentall Law of the Land, was the Vicar of God to govern the Church of God within his dominions. But if he had not, here is a better title from the See of Rome it self, then that whereby the King of Spain holds all the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Sicily to him and his heirs at this day.

Walsing, A [...]. 133 How the Pope pre­sideth a­bove all Creatures. They professed that it was Heresie to deny that the Pope omni praesidet creaturae, is a­bove every creature. That is no more then to say, that the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter is principium unitatis the beginning of unity, or hath a principality of order (not of power) above all Christi­ans. It will be hard for him to gain any thing at the hands of that wife and victo­rious Prince Edward the third, who dispo­sed of Ecclesiastical dignities, received ho­mage and fealty from his Prelats, who writ that so much admired Letter to the Pope for the liberties of the English Church, cui pro tunc Papa aut Cardinales rationabi­liter respondere nesciebant, W [...]lsi [...]g. [...], An 1343. to which the Pope and Cardinals did not know at that time how to give a reasonable answer. Wherein he pleads, that his Ancestors had granted free elections, ad rogatum & instantiam dictae sedis upon the earnest entreaty of the See of Rome, which now they endeavoured to usurpe and seize upon, who made himself in Parliament the Judge of all the grievances, which the Kingdome sustained from the [Page 185] Pope, who made expresse Lawes against the oppressions of the Roman Court, decla­ring publickly, 25 E. 3. That it was his duty and that he was bound by his oath to make remedies a­gainst them. This was more then twenty such complements as this, which is most true in a right sense. That it was but a comple­ment appeareth evidently by this. The que­stion was about Edward the thirds right to the Crown of France, and his confede­ration with Lewis of Bavaria, these were no Ecclesiasticall matters, the King sent his Ambassadors to the Pope, to treat with him about his right to the Crown of France. But notwithstanding his supereminent judg­ment, he gave them in charge to treat with the Pope, not as a Iudge, Wals. An. 1343. but as a private person, and a common friend not in form nor in figure of judgement. He attributeth no more to the Pope, then to another man, ac­cording to the reasons which he shall pro­duce. His own words are these, parati sem­per nedum a vestro sancto cunctis presidente judicio, imo a quolibet alio de veritate con­trarii (si quis eam noverit) humiliter infor­mari, & qui sponte rationi subjicimur aliam datam nobis intelligi veritatem cum plena & humili gratitudine complectemur. Being rea­dy alwaies humbly to be informed of the truth of the contrary, if any man know it, not only from your holy judgement being placed in dig­nity before all, or as it is in another place before every Creature) but from any other. [Page 186] And we who are subject to reason of our own accord, will embrace the truth with humility and thankfulnesse, when it is made known unto us. This was Edward the thirds resolution to submit to reason, and the evidence of the truth, from whomsoever it proceeded. Yet though the case was meerly Civil, and not at all of Ecclesiasticall cognizance, and though Edward the third did not, would not trust the Pope with it as a Judge, but as an indifferent Friend, yet he gives him good words, That his judgement was placed in dignity above all Creatures, which to deny was to allow of Heresie.

Why doe we hear words, when we see Deeds. The former Popes had excommu­nicated Lewis of Bavaria, and all who should acknowledge him to be Emperor. Neverthelesse Edward the third contracted a firm league with him, Wals. ibidem. and moreover be­came his Lieutenant in the Empire. Pope Benedict takes notice of it, writes to King Edward about it, intimates the decrees of his predecessors against Lewis of Bavaria and his adherents, signifying that the Empe­ror was deprived, and could not make a Lieutenant. The King gives fair words in generall, but notwithstanding all that the Pope could doe to the contrary proceeds, renews his league with the Emperor, and his Commission for the Lieutenancy, and tru­sted more to his own judgement then co the supereminent judgement of the Pope.

[Page 187]So he draws to a conclusion of this Chap­ter, and though he have proved nothing in the world, yet he askes, What greater power did ever Pope challenge then here is professed? Even all the power that is in controversie between us and them. He challenged the politicall headship of the English Church, under pretence of an Ecclesiasticall Monar­chy. He challenged a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes. He challenged a Di­spensative power above the Lawes, against the Lawes of the Church, whensoever, wheresoever, over whomsoever. He chal­lenged liberty to send Legates, and hold legantine Courts in England without li­cence. He challenged the right of receiv­ing the last Appeals of the Kings Subjects. He challenged the Patronage of the English Church, and investitures of Bishops, with power to impose a new Oath upon them, contrary to their Oath of Allegiance. He challenged the first Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiasticall livings, and a power to im­pose upon them what pensions or other bur­thens he pleased. He challenged the Goods of Clergy-men dying intestate, &c. All which are expresly contrary to the fun­damentall Lawes and Customes of Eng­land.

He confesseth, That it is Lawfull to resist the Pope, invading either the Bodies or the Souls of men, or troubling the Common­wealth, or indeavoring to destroy the Church. [Page 188] I aske no more, Yea forsooth, saith he, if I may be judge, what doth invade the Soul? No I confesse I am no fit Judge. No more is he. The main question is who shall be Judge, what are the Liberties and Immu­nities of a nationall Church, and what are the grievances which they sustain from the Court of Rome. Is it equall that the Court of Rome themselves should be the Judges? Who are the persons that doe the wrong. Nothing can be more absurd. In vain is any mans sentence expected against himself. The most proper and the highest judicature up­on Earth in this case, is a generall Councell, as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishops and their pretended Patriarch. And untill that remedy can be had, it is lawfull and behooveth every Kingdome or nationall Church, who know best their own rights, and have the most feeling where their Shoe wrings them, to be their own Judges, I mean only by a judgment of discretion, to preserve their own rights inviolated, and their persons free from wrong, sub modera­mine inculpatae tutelae. And especially Sove­reign Princes, are bound both by their Office and by their Oaths to provide for the secu­rity and indemnity of their Subjects, as all Roman Catholicks Princes doe when they have occasion.

And here he fals the third time upon his former Theme, that in things instituted by God, the abuse doth not take away the use. [Page 189] Which we doe willingly acknowledge and; say with Saint Austine, Neque enim si pec­cavit Cecilianus, ideo haereditatem suam per­didit Christus, Aust. Ep. 50. & sceleratae impudentiae est propter crimina hominis quae orbi terrarum non possis ostendere, communionem orbis ter­rarum velle damnare. Neither if Cecilian offended, did Christ therefore lose his inheri­tance. And it is wicked impudence for the crimes of a man, which thou canst not shew to the World, to be willing to condemn the communion of the World. But neither was that authority of the Bishop of Rome, which we have rejected either of Divine or Apo­stolicall institution. Nor have we rejected it for the personall faults of some Popes, but because it was faulty in it self. Nor have we separated our selves, from the con­joyned communion of the Christian World in any thing. I wish the Romanists were no more guilty thereof then we.

Of King Henries exemption of himself from all spirituall jurisdiction we have spoken formerly in this very Chapter. Sect. 2.

CAAP. 5.

THe scope of my fifth Chapter, was to shew that the Britannick Churches were free from all for­rein jurisdiction for the first six hundred yeers, and so ought to continue. For the clearing of which point, I shewed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles. And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle, but in the Apostolicall college. I shewed that in the age of the Apostles, and the age next suc­ceeding the highest Order in the Church, un­der the Apostles, were nationall Protarchs or Patriarchs. And by what means, and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarchs came to be exalted above the rest, and to obscure their fellowes. But each of these within their own Patriarchates, Patriarchs ind [...]p [...]n­dent upon a single Superior. did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior. As might be made clear by many instances, when Atha­nasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope Iulius for their restitution, Socrat. l. 2. [...].11. (I meddle not with the merits of the cause) the Bi­shops of the East took the reprehension of Iulius as a contumely, they called a Coun­cell [Page 191] at Antioch, they accused Iulius sharply, and shewed that he had nothing to doe to contradict them, more then they did con­tradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church. Neither did the great Proto­patriarchs challeng this independency only, but other lesser Patriarchs also, as Saint Cy­prian. When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in Africk, addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome, let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it, Cypr. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3. What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops? Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickednesse, or if it displease them and they fall from it, they know whether to return: for whereas it is decreed by us all, and it is equall and just, that every ones cause should be heard there where the crime was committed, and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor, which he is to govern, and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down, nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitfull rashnesse. But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes, unlesse the authority of the African Bishops, who have sentenced them already, seem to a few desperate cast awaies to be inferior, &c. To say, with Bellarmine, that Saint Cyprian [Page 192] speaks only of the first instance, is to con­tradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith ex­pressely that the cause had been sentenced already in Africk.

Then I shewed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus. The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syl­logisme. Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court, from the beginning, untill the generall Councell of Ephesus, and after, untill the six hundreth year of Christ, ought to continue free and exempted for ever, notwithstanding the sub­sequent usurpation of any forrein Prelate or Patriarch. This was clearly and irrefraga­bly proved out of the words of the Councel it self. Conc. [...]h [...]sia. part 1. act. 7. And if the Bishop of Rome did in­trude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper, and can never prescribe to a legall possession, according to the famous rule of the Law; Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto.

B [...]itain enjoyed the Cypri­an p [...]ivi­ledge.But the Britannick Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning, untill the generall Councell of Ephesus, and after, untill the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their si­lence, upon whom the proofe in law doth rest, being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Bri­tain, or any of the Britannick Islands, for the [Page 193] first six hundred yeares, and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. Math Pa­ris in H 3. an. 1238. years. When the Popes Legate would have entred into Scotland to visite the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him to doe so, alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such, neither would he suffer it; and therefore willed him at his own perill to forbear. Secondly by priority of foundation, the Britannick Church being the elder Sister and ancienter then the Ro­man, and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning; that was, before there was a Roman Church. Thirdly, it was proved by the right of ordi­nation and election of all our Primats: For all other right of Jurisdiction doth fol­low or pursue the right of Ordination. But it is most evident that all our British Pri­mates, or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods, and or­dained by their own Suffragans at home, as Dubricius, St. David, Samson, &c. not on­ly in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius, and King Arthur, but even untill the time of Henry the first, after the eleven hundreth year of Christ, as Giraldus Cambrensis wit­nesseth. Semper tamen, &c. Itine [...]az. Ca [...]b. l 2. c 1. Yet alwayes un­till the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England, Henry the first, the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. Davids: And he likewise was consecra­ted [Page 194] by other Bishop [...] as his Suffragans, with­out professing any manner of subjection to any other Church. But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus, the reverend and learned Abbat and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor, and from the so­lemn Sentence or Decree of two British Sy­nods in the point, recorded by all our Histo­riographers, who write the Acts of those times.

I confess he n [...]bles here and there at some odde ends of this discourse, but taketh no [...]ner of notice of the main grounds, espe­cially the two British Synods which are ex­press in the point, and the Answer of Dion [...]thus, that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope, or to receive Austin for their Archbishop, That as for that man whom they called the Pope they o [...]g [...]t [...] no obedience, but the obedience of love, that they were immediately under God, subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon: But let us take a view of his excepti­ons.

Bellar­mine ma [...]s the Apostles all equal in power.First, he saith That Bellarmine hath not these words That Christ in saying these words, As my Father sent use so send I you, did en­due his Apostles with all fullness of power, that mortall men were capable of. Neither did I cite his words but his sense, as he might see by the Character; but that Bellarmine said as much or more then this, I will now make it good. Let him speak for himself. There­fore [Page 195] that the Apostles received the [...]r Iurisdi­ction immediately from Christ, I. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 23. first, the words of our Lord doe testifie, John 20. As my Fa­ther sent me so send I you, which place the Fa­thers Crysostome and Theophylact doe so ex­pound, that they say plainly that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of Christ: Yea that they received the very office and au­thority of Christ. He addeth out of St. Cyrill, That by these words the Apostles were created Apostles and Doctors of the whole World; and that we might understand that all Ecclesia­sticall power is conteined in Apostolicall autho­rity, therefore Christ added, as my Father sent me, siquidem Pater misit Filium summa pote­state praeditum: Further he proveth out of Saint Cyprian, That whatsoever power Christ did promise or give to St. Peter, when he said, to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, and feed my Sheep, he did give parem potestatem an equall power to the rest of the Apostles in these words. And afterwards he calleth it Iurisdictionem plenissimam, a most full Iurisdiction. Lay all this together, that by these words he made them the Vicars of Christ, and conferred upon them the ve­ry office and authority of Christ, made them Apostles and Doctors of the whole World, gave them all Ecclesiasticall Power, an equall Power to Saint Peters, and lastly a most full Jurisdiction; and compare them with that which I said, that by these words Christ gave them all the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall [Page 196] Power that mortall men were capable of. And if he say not more then I did, I am sure he saith no less. Is mortall man capable of more then the Vicariate of the Sonne of God, yea of his office and authority? Can any thing be more high then that which is highest, more full then that which is fullest, or more universall then that which compre­hends all Ecclesiasticall Power within it? It had been sufficient to my purpose if he had said no more, but only that it was equall to Saint Peters. If it were needfull, I might cite other places out of Bellarmine to make my words good. L. 4 de Ro. pont. c. 16. Therefore the Lord left un­to his Apostles (by these words) his own place, and would that they should enjoy his authority in governing the Kingdome.

L 1. de Ro Pont. c. 12.But Bellarmine telleth us, That this is meant not in respect of themselves, but in re­spect of all other men. I know Bellarmine saith so; not in this place but elsewhere. But first he saith it upon his own head, without any authority. None of the Fathers ever taught that Saint Peter had a supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apo­stles. All that they say is, that he was the be­ginning of unity, and the Head of the Apo­stolicall College; that is, in order and emi­nence, Princeps Apostolorum, as Virgill is called the Prince of Poets, or Saint Paul the Head of Nations, or Saint Iames the B [...]shop of Bishops.

Secondly, this answer is altogether imper­tinent. [Page 197] The question is not between us, what the Apostles were in respect of their perso­nall actions among themselves one towards another, though even this were absurd e­nough to say that Saint Peter had Power to suspend his fellow Apostles, either in their offices or in their Persons: But the question between us is, what the Apostles were in re­spect of the government of the Christian World, wherein by this distinction he gran­teth them all to be equall.

Thirdly, by his leave he contradicts him­self; for if Saint Peter had any Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, and they had none mutually over him; then it was not par Potestas, an equall Power, for par in parem non habet Potestatem. If his Power was fuller then theirs, then theirs was not plenissima Potestas: If his Power was higher then theirs, then theirs was not sum­ma Potestas: If there was some ecclesiasti­call Power which they had not, then all ec­clesiasticall Power was not comprehended in Apostolicall Authority, then the Power of opening and shutting is larger then the Power of binding and loosing; and to feed Christ's Sheep, is more then to be sent as his Father sent him; all which is contrary both to the truth, and to what himself hath taught us.

Lastly, if Saint Peter had not only a pri­macy of Order, but also a Supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles; then his Successors Linus, and [Page 198] Cletus, and Clemens were Superiors to Saint Iohn, and he was their Subject, and lived under their Jurisdiction, which no rea­sonable Christian will easily beleeve; Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, Cypr. de unit Ec­clesiae. pari consortio praediti & honoris et Pote­statis; sed exordium ab unitate profeciscitur, & primatus Petro datur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur. If they were equall in honor and power, then the primacy must be of Order. That these words [ to thee will I give the Keyes] and [ feed my Sheep] doe include Power and Authority I grant, but that they include a supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles; or that they include more Power then these other words [ as my Father sent me, so send I you] I doe altogether deny.

I acknowledge the words of Saint Hierosme, That one was chosen, that an Head being constituted the occasion of Schisme might be taken away. Cont. Iovin l. 1. c. 14. How Pe­ter head of the rest. But this Head was on­ly an Head of order: And truly what Saint Hierosme saith in this place seemeth to me to have reference to the persons of the Apostles, and by Schism to be understood Contention & Altercation among the Apo­stles themselves, which of them should be the greatest, as Mark 9.34. To this I am in­duced to incline; first, by the word occasio he saith not as elsewhere for a remedy of Schism, but to take away occasion of Schism or Con­tention. Secondly, by the words following in St. Hierosme, Magister bonus qui occasionē jur gij [Page 199] debuerat auferre Discipulis, to take away oc­casion of chiding from his Disciples; and in Adolescentem quem dile [...]erat sa [...] [...] videretur invidia; because Peter was the el­dest and Iohn the youngest, our Saviour would not seem to give cause of envy against him whom he loved, To take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples, and not to give cause of envy against his beloved Disciple, doe seem properly to respect the Apostoli­call College. But let this be as it will, I urge no man to quit his own sense.

He presseth his former Argument yet fur­ther, A superio­rity of Or­der is sufficient to prevent Schisme. That a superiority of Order is not sufficient to take away Schisme, without a superiority of Power and Authority. I answer that in all Societies an Head of Order is necessary to prevent and remedy Schisme, that there may be one to convocate the Society, to propose Doubts, to receive Votes, to pronounce Sentence. And if there be a judiciary Power and Authority in the body of the Society, it is a sufficient remedy against Schisme. As in a College Schism is as well prevented by pla­cing the Power joyntly in the Provost and Fellowes, as by giving the Provost a monar­chicall Power over the Fellowes. And in the Catholick Church by placing the supre­macy of ecclesiasticall Power in a Councell, or by placing it in a single person. And thus the sovereign Power over the universall Church was ever in an oecumenicall Coun­cel, untill of later daies, that the Popes [Page 200] hving gotten into their hands the bestowing of the most and best ecclesiasticall Pre­ferments in Europe, did finde out their own advantage in that behalfe above a generall Councell, which hath neither Dignities nor Benefices to bestowe. When, or where, or by whom, the primacy of Order was con­ferred upon Saint Peter, it concernes R. C. to enquire more then me?

The rest Pastors as well as Peter.They have yet another evasion, that the highest ecclesiasticall Power was given not only to Saint Peter, but to all the rest of the Apostles; but to Saint Peter as an or­dinary Pastor to descend from him to his Successors, because they were appointed heads of the universall Church, which they could not govern without universall Power; and to the rest of the Apostles as Delegates or Com­missioners only for tearm of their lives, not to descend to their Successors. This distin­ction I called a drowsie dream, hatched late­ly without either reason or authority divine or humane. Against this he takes exception. And I am ready to maintain my assertion. That if he can produce but one Text of holy Scripture expounded in this sense by any one ancient Interpreter, or but one Sentence of any one Councel, or single Father, for a thousand years after Christ, who taught any such Doctrine, or made any such distinction as this is, directly without far fetched con­sequences, and I w [...]ll retract: but I am confident he cannot produce one Author or [Page 201] Authority in the point. All his reason is, because Saint Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the Church, and the rest of the Apostles but Delegates, which is a meer begging of the question. Neither was Saint Peter sole Pastor of the Church, nor his universal Au­thority necessary to a true Pastor, neither were the Apostles meer Delegates, for then they could have had no Successors, which yet he acknowledgeth that they had. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. l. 1. c. 9. Some­times Bellarmine will admit no proper Suc­cessors of the Apostles, no, not of St. Peter, as an Apostle. At other times he makes the Pope an Apostolicall Bishop, his See to be an Apostolicall See, and his Office to be an Apostleship. It is strange the Spirit of God should be so silent in a piece of Doctrine which they assert to be necessary, and that the blessed Apostles, and the Nicene Fa­thers, and holy Athanasius should be so for­getfull, as not to insert it into their Creeds. But that the whole Church should be igno­rant of such a mystery for fifteen hundred years, is not credible.

I passe by their comparison of a Bishop who is Pastor and ordinary of his Diocesse, whose Office descends to his Successors, and a Frier licenced by the Pope to Preach throughout the same Diocesse, whose Office determineth with his Life. So what they can not prove they endeavour to illustrate. Before they told us that the Apostles were the Vicars of Christ, are they now become [Page 202] the Vicars of Saint Peter, and his Coadju­tors? Before they taught us that the Apo­stolicall power was summa & plenissima po­testas, a most high, a most full power, and comprehended all Ecclesiasticall power, and is it now changed to a licence to Preach? No, the Apostles had more then licences to Preach, even as ample power to govern, as Saint Peter himself. The Pope having insti­tuted one man into a Bishoprick, can­not during his incumbency give the joint government of his Church to another. This were to revoke his former grant.

Sect. 2. Univer­sality an incommu­nicable qualifica­tion of the Apostles. 9I confesse, that which R. C. saith, is in part a truth, That the rest of the Apostles did not leave an universall and Apostolicall autho­rity and jurisdiction to their successors. But it is not the whole truth, for no more did Saint Peter himself. The Apostles had diverse things peculiar to their persons, and proper for the first planters of the Gospel. Which were not communicated to any of their successors. As universality of juris­diction, for which their successors have assig­nation to particular charges. Immediate or extraordinary vocation, for which their Successors have episcopall Ordination. The gift of strange Tongues and infallibility of Judgment, for which we have Christian Schools and Universities. The grace of doing miracles and giving the holy Ghost, by Imposition of Hands. If the Bishops of Rome will take upon them to be Saint [Page 203] Peters Heirs ex asse, and pretend that their Office is an Apostleship, and that they them­selves are truely Apostolici, excluding all o­thers from that priviledge, let us see them doe some Miracles, or speak strange Lan­guages, which were Apostolicall qualifica­tions. If they cannot, certainly they are not Saint Peters Heirs ex asse, and though their See be Apostolicall, yet their Office is no Apostleship. Nor may they challenge more then they shew good evidence for, or then the Church is pleased to conferre upon them. The Bishops of Rome pretend to none of these Priviledges, but only this of universall jurisdiction, for though they chal­lenge besides this an infallibility of judg­ment, yet it is not an Apostolicall infallibi­lity, because they challenge no infallibility by immediate revelation from God, but from the diligent use of the means, neither doe they challenge an infallibility in their Sermons and writings as the Apostles did, but only in the conclusions of matters of Faith. And why doe they pretend to this Apostolicall qualification more then any of the rest? Either because that if they should pretend to any of the rest, the deceit would presently be discovered, for all men know that they can work no Miracles, nor speak strange Languages, nor have their calling immediately from Heaven, but are elected by their Conclave of Cardinals, many times not without good tugging for it. Or else [Page 204] because this claim of universall power and authority doth bring more moliture to their mill, and more advantage to the Court of Rome.

This is certain, that when the Pope is first elected Bishop, it may be of some other See, before he be elected Pope, he is ordained after the ordinary form of all other Bishops, he receives no other, no larger character, no more authority and power, either of order or of jurisdiction, then other ordi­nary Bishops doe. Well after this he is e­lected Pope, but he is ordeined no more. Then seeing the power of the Keies and all habituall jurisdiction is derived by Ordina­tion, and every Bishop receiveth as much habituall jurisdiction at his Ordination as the Pope himself, tell me first, how the Pope comes to be the root of all Spirituall juris­diction? Which though it be not the gene­rall Tenet of the Roman Church, as R. C. saith truely, yet it is the common Doctrin of the Roman Court. c. 8. s. 2. Secondly, tell me, how comes this dilatation of his power, and this Apostolicall Universality? Since all men doe confesse that the same power and autho­rity is necessary to the extension of a cha­racter or Grace given by Ordination, which is required to the institution of a Sacrament, that is, not Humane but Divine. But the election of the Cardinals is a meer Humane policy, without all manner of Sacramentall virtue, and therefore can neither render his [Page 205] Judgment infallible, nor his Jurisdiction u­niversal. What can the new election doe? Only apply the new matter, that is, make him Bishop of that See whereunto he is elected. They who elect him are the Bishops of the Roman Province, and the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Rome. Fit per­sons indeed, to chuse a Bishop of Rome, but no fit persons to chuse an universall Bishop for the whole Church. It were too much honor for one Nation to have the perpetu­all Regiment of Christs Church throughout all ages. And whom doe the Conclave chuse? An universall Pastor? No, but ex­pressely a Bishop of Rome.

They have a third novelty as ill as either of these which I touched even now, that the Regiment of the Church being monar­chicall, as in a Kingdome, all Civill authori­ty is derived from the King, so in the Church all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope. Bel l. 4. de Ro. Pont c [...]4. If all Ecclesi­asticall jurisdiction be derived from the Pope, as all Civil Authority is from the King, then as Civill Magistrates doe exer­cise their Civil authority in the name of the King; All Epis­copall ju­risdiction is not de­rived from the Pope. so Bishops ought to exercise their Spirituall jurisdiction in the name of the Pope. But this they doe not, this they ne­ver did.

Again if Spirituall jurisdiction be derived to Bishops from the Pope, by what way, by what means, by what channell doth it de­scend? [Page 206] Either it must be by Commission, or by Ordination. But it is not by Commissi­on. No Bishops did ever need or expect any Commission from Rome, for the exer­cise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within his Diocesse. Neither is it by Ordination, they are very few indeed, that receive Ordinati­on from the Pope. How many thousand Bi­shops have been and are still in the World, that never received any Ordination from any Pope, either mediately or immediately? But derive the line of their Succession from the other Apostles? If Ecclesiasticall juris­diction be conveied by Ordination, then it is a part of the character or Grace con­ferred, which is Divine and Sacramentall. I hope the Pope will be wiser then to chal­lenge to himself the conferring of Sacramen­tall Grace.

Sect. 3. The Chair of St. Pe­ter not fixed to Rome by Divine right.I made a question how the Bishop of Rome came to be Saint Peters Heir ex asse, to the exclusion of his eldest Brother the B [...]shop of Antioch, where Saint Peter was first Bi­shop, where Christians had their first deno­mination. I had reason, for I never read that the Church was governed by the Law of Gavellkind, that the youngest must inhe­rite. I said moreover that they produced nothing that I had seen but a blinde Legend out of a counterfeit Hegesippus. I spake not this to the disparagement of that venerable Saint, but to discredit that supposititious treatise. He saith, If I had read Bellarmine, I [Page 207] should have found the same testified by Saint Marcellus the Pope, l. 2. de Pont. Ro. c. 12. by Saint Ambrose, and Sain [...] Athanasius. I have read Bellarmine, and I finde no such thing testified by Mar­cellus, more then this, That Peter came to Rome by the commandement of the Lord. Nor by Athanasius more then this, That when Peter heard that he must undergoe Mar­tyrdome at Rome, he did not lay aside his voy­age, but came to Rome with joy. What con­clusion can any man make from these pre­misses? Saint Ambrose indeed saith more, but as little to his purpose, That Saint Peter being about to goe without the Walls in the night did see Christ meet him in the gate, and enter into the City, to whom Peter said, Lord whether goest thou? Christ answered, I come to Rome to be crucified again. And that Pe­ter understood that the answer of Christ had relation to his own Martyrdome. I have like­wise read what Bellarmine citeth out of Saint Gregory elsewhere, that Christ said to Saint Peter, Bel. de Pont. Ro. l. [...] c. 23. I come to Rome to be crucified again. For he who had been crucified long be­fore in his own person, said that he was to be erucified again in the person of Saint Peter. Though these things be altogether imperti­nent, yet I rehearse them the more willingly, to let the Reader see upon what silly grounds they build conclusions of great weight. We receive the Fathers as compe­tent Witnesses of the faith, and practise, and tradition of the Church in their respective a­ges, [Page 208] we attribute much to their expositions of the holy Text: but in those things which they had upon the credit of a supposititious Author, the conclusion alwaies followes the weaker part. How common a thing hath it been for credulous piety to beleeve, and to record rumors and uncertain relations? If they see no hurt in them, and if they tended to piety. But in a case of this moment to give an infallible Judge to the Church, and a spirituall Prince to the Christian World, to whom all are bound to submit under pain of damnation, we ought to have had better Authority then such a blinde History. Yet this is all the plea they have in the World for the divine right of their succession. How came Saint Ambro [...]e or Saint Gregory to know a matter of fact, done some centuries of years before they were born? They had it not by Revelation, nor other Authority for it then this of a counterfeit Hegesippus, in the judgement both of Baronius and Bellarmine, except only the borrowed name, not much ancienter then them­selves.

Supposing that Saint Peter had had such a spirituall monarchy as they fancy, and suppo­sing that this Apocryphall Relation was as true as the Gospell, yet it makes nothing in the World for the Popes succession to Saint Peter therein, but rather the contrary. That Saint Peter sub finem vitae, just upon the point of his death was leaving of Rome, [Page 209] sheweth probably that he had no intention to die there, or to fix his See there. That Christ did premonish him of his Martyr­dome in Rome, and that he as [...]ented to it with joy, hath nothing in it to prove, or so much as to insinuate either the Act of Christ or the Act of St. Peter, to invest the Bishop of Rome with the Sovereignty of Ecclesiasti­call Power. Had they urged this history only to shew how Christ fore-armes his Servants against impendent dangers, or how he reputes their sufferings for his sake to be his own, it had been to the purpose: But they might even as well prove the Popes Supremacie out of our Saviours words in the Gospell to Saint Peter, Io 21.18. When thou art old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall girde thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not: For our Saviour did signifie by these words by what death St. Peter should glorifie God. These words have authority, th [...]gh they be nothing to the purpose, but those they cite have neither authority nor any thing that comes neer the pur­pose.

They see this well enough themselves, what a weake unjoynted and unnecessary consequence this is, wherefore they suppose that Christ said something to Saint Peter which is not recorded, to command him to fixe his Chair at Rome, Bel de R [...]. Po [...] 2. c. 12. Non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse, ut Sedem suam Petrus ita figeret Romae, ut Romanus [Page 210] Episcopus absolute ei succederet, Because some Fathers say that Peter did suffer Mar­tyrdome at Rome by the commandement, or at least according to the premonition of Christ, it is not improbable that the Lord did likewise openly command him that he should so fix his Chair, or See, at Rome, that the Ro­man Bishop should absolutely succeed him. Judge Reader freely, if thou didest ever meet with a poorer foundation of a divine right, because it seemeth not improbable alltogether to a professed sworn Vassall and partial Ad­vocate, well fed by the party.

IbidemIt is no marvell if they build but faintly upon such a groundless presumption, licet fortè non sit de jure divino, although perad­venture it is not by divine right. He might [...]ell have omitted his peradventure.

Wherefore doubting that this suppositi­on will not hold water, he addeth, That though it were not true, it would not prove that the Pope is not Successor to Saint Peter ex asse, but only that he is not so jure divino.

It is an old artifice of the Romanists, when any Papall priviledge is controverted, to question whether the Pope hold it by di­vine right or humane right, when in truth he holds it by neither, so diverting them from searching into the right question, whether he have any right at all, taking that for granted which is denyed.

Nor by hu­mane rightBut for humane right they think they have it cocksure, The reason is manifest, because [Page 211] S. Peter himself left the Bishoprick of Antioch, but continued Bishop of Rome untill his death. This will afford them no more helpe then the other. When the Apostles did descend and deign to take upon them the charge of a particular Church, as the Church of Rome or Antioch; they did not take it by instituti­on as we doe. They had a generall institu­tion from Christ for all the Churches of the World. When they did leave the charge of a particular Church to another, they did not quit it by a formall resignation, as we doe. This had beene to limit their Apostolicall Power, which Christ had not limited. But all they did was to depute a Bishop to the actu­all cure of Soules during their absence, re­teining still an habituall cure to themselves. And if they returned to the same Citie after such a deputation, they were as much Bishops as formerly. Thus a Bishop of a Diocess so disposeth the actuall cure of Soules of a par­ticular Parish to a Rector, that he himself remains the principall Rector when he is present. Saint Peter left Rome as much as he left Antioch, and dyed Bishop of Antioch as much as he dyed Bishop of Rome. He left Antioch and went to Rome, and returned to Antioch again, and governed that Church as formerly he had done. He left Rome after he first sate as Bishop there, and went to An­tioch, and returned to Rome again, and still continued the principall Rector of that Church. Linus & Clemens or the one of them [Page 212] were as much the Bishop or Bishops of Rome during the life of St. Peter and St. Paul, as Evodius and Ignatius or the one of them were the Bishop or Bishops of Antioch. Sup­pose a Rector having two Benefices dies up­on the one of them, yet he dies the Rector of the other as much as that. I confesse an Apostle was not capable of pluralities, be­cause his Commission was illimited, other­wise then as a B [...]shop is Rector of all the Churches within his Diocess. And though he can die but in one Parish, yet he dies go­vernor of all the rest as much as that. If we may believe their History, St. Peter at his death was leaving Rome, in probability to weather out that storme (which did hang then over his head) in Antioch, as he had done in a former persecution. If this pur­pose had taken effect, then by their Doctrine St. Peter had left the Bishoprick of Rome, and dyed Bishop of Antioch. Thus much for mat­ter of fact.

Secondly, For matter of right, I doe ab­solutely denie that Saint Peters death at Rome doth entitle the Bishop of Rome as his Successor to all or any of those priviledges and prerogatives which he held in another capacitie, and not as he was Bishop of Rome. Suppose a Bishop of Canterbury dies Chan­cellor of England, another Bishop dies Chancellor of the University of Cambridge or Oxford; must their respective Successors therefore of necessity be Chancellors of [Page 213] England or of that University? No, the right of donation devolves either to the Pa­tron or to the Society. So supposing, but not granting, that one who was by speciall priviledge the Rector of the Catholick Church died Bishop of Rome, it belongs ei­ther to Christ or his Vicegerent or Vicege­rents, invested with Imperiall power, to name, or to the Church it self to choose a Successor. If they could shew out of Scrip­ture that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in a spirituall Mo­narchy, it would strike the question dead: Or that St. Peter did designe the Bishop of Rome to be his Successor in his Apostolicall power: Or lastly that the Catholick Church did ever elect the Roman Bishops to be their ecclesiasticall Sovereigns, it were something. But they doe not so much as pretend to any such thing. The truth is this, that after the death of St. Peter that preheminence (I doe not say Sovereingty) which he had by the connivence or custome of the Church, de­volved to his Successors in his Chaire, the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (for I look upon Saint Marke as St. Peters Disciple) and Antioch, among whom the Bishop of Rome had priority of Order, not of Power; to which very primacy of Order great privi­ledges were due. Yet not so but that the Church did afterwards add two new Proto­patriarchs to them, of Constantinople and Hierusalem, and equalled the Patriarch of [Page 214] Constantinople in all priviledges to the Pa­triarch of Rome: which they would never have done, nor have proposed the honor which they gave to Rome with a placet? Doth it please you that we honor the memory of St. Peter? If they had beleeved that Saint Peters death at Rome had already setled a spirituall Monarchy of that See, which had been altogether as ridiculous, as if the Spea­ker of the House of Commons should have moved the House in favour of the King, Doth it please you that we honour the King with a judiciary power throughout his own Kingdome?

Sect. 4.Hitherto R. C. hath not said much to the purpose, now he falls on a point that is ma­teriall indeed (as to this ground) if he be able to make it good, That the Bishops of Rome exercised ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction over the Britannick Churches before the gene­rall Councell of Ephesus, or at least before the six hundreth year of Christ. First he com­plaineth that few or no Records of British mat­ters for the first six hundred years doe remain. If so few doe remain that he is not able to produce so much as one instance, his cause is desperate. Howsoever he proveth his inten­tion out of Gildas, who confesseth that he composed his History, Gild. in Prol. non tam ex scriptis Patriae, &c not so much from British Writings or Monuments (which had beene either burn­ed by their enemies with fire, or carried beyond Sea by their banished Citizens) as from trans­marine [Page 215] relations. Though it were supposed that all the British Records were utterly perished, this is no answer at all to my de­mand, so long as all the Roman Registers are extant: Yea so extant that Platina the Popes Librarie keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the pri­mitive Bishops of Rome, and the persons or­dained. It was of these Registers that I spake, [ let them produce their Registers.] Let them shew what British Bishops they have ordained, or what British Appeals they have received for the first six hundred years: Though he be pleased to omit it, I shewed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordain­ed, three by Saint Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clement, six by Anacletus, five by Evaristus, five by Alexander, and four by Sixtus, &c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province, none to spare for Bri­tain.

He saith Saint Peter came into Britain, converted many, made Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. That Saint Elutherius sent hither his Legates Fugatius and Damianus, who baptized the King, Queen, and most of his People. That St. Victor sent Legates into Scotland, (it seemeth they had no names) who baptized the King, Queen, and his No­bility. That Saint Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts. That Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland, where as yet was no [Page 216] Bishop. And Saint Patrick into Ireland, and Saint Germane and Lupus into Britain, to confute the Pelagian Heresie. And in the year 596 St. Gregory sent over St. Austin and his Companions, to convert the Saxons, and gave him power over all the Bishops in Britain, and gave him power to erect two Archiepilcopall Sees, and twenty four Epis­copall: And moreover that Dubritius, Primate of Britannie, was Legate to the See Apostolick. And lastly, That Saint Samson had a Pall from Rome. I confesse here are store of instances for Preaching, and Bapti­zing, and ordeining, and Converting: but if every word he saith was true, it is not at all materiall to the question. Our question is concerning exterior Jurisdiction in foro Ec­clesiae. But the Acts mentioned by him are all Acts of the Key of Order, not of the Key of Jurisdiction. If he doe thus mistake one Key for another, he will never be able to open the right dore. He accustometh himself to call every ordinarie Messenger a Legate. But let him shew me that they ever exercised Legantine authority in Britain. That he doth not, because he cannot. The Britannick and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to forrein Nations, to convert them, to baptize them, to ordain them Pastors; yet without challenging any Jurisdiction over them.

Now to his particular instances. We [Page 217] should be glad that he could prove St. Peter was the first converter of Britain, Whether St. Peter converted Britain. and take it as an honor to the Britannick Church: But Metaphrastes is too young a witness, his authority over small, and his person too great a stranger to our affaires: If it could be made appear out of Eusebius it would finde more credit with us. If St. Peter did ever tread upon British ground, in probabi­lity it was before he came first to Rome, which will not be so pleasing to the Roma­nists. For being banished by Claudius, Onuph. he went to Hierusalem, and so to Antioch, and there governed that Church the second time. Whether St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. Iames, or Simon Zelotes, or Aristobulus, or Ioseph of Arimathea, was the first converter of Bri­tain, it makes nothing to the point of Juris­diction, or our subjection to the Bishop of Rome. But for Ioseph of Arimathea we have the concurrent testimonies of our own Writers and others, the tradition of the Eng­lish Church, the reverent respect borne to Glastenbury, the place where he lived and died, the ancient characters of that Church, wherein it is stiled, the beginning of Religion in this Island, the buriall place of the Saints, builded by the Disciples of the Lord. The very name of the Chappell called St. Io­sephs, the Armes of King Arthur upon the walls, and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the second, doe all proclaime this truth aloud.

[Page 218] Of Eleu­therius his sending into Eng­and,His second instance hath more certainty in it, That Pope Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus, two learned Divines, into Britain, to baptize King Lucius. But it is as true that Lucius was converted before, either in whole or in part, and sent two emi­nent Divines of his own Subjects Eluanus Avalonus, Eluan of Glastenbury, the Semina­rie of Christian Religion in Britain, and Medvinus of Belga, that is, of Wells, a place neer adjoyning to Glastenbury, to Rome, to intreat this favour from Pope Eleutherius. So whatsoever was done in this case, as it was no act of Jurisdiction, so it was not done by Eleutherius by his own authority, but by licence and upon request of King Lu­cius. And not to diminish the deserts of Fugatius and Damianus who in all proba­bility were strangers and understood not the Language, certainly Eluan and Medwin and many more British Natives had much more opportunity to contribute to the conversion of their native Countrie then forreiners, who were necessitated to speak by an Inter­preter, at least to the vulgar Britans.

And Vi­ctors into ScotlandConcerning Pope Victors sending of Le­gates into Scotland to baptize the King, Queen, and Nobles, when he tells us who was the King, who were the Legates, and who is his Author, he may expect a particu­lar answer. But if there be nothing in it but baptizing, he may as well save his labour, un­less he think that baptizing is an act of Juris­diction, [Page 219] which his own Schooles make not to be so much as an act of the Key of Order. Ireland was the ancient Scotland. The Irish Scots were converted by St. Patrick, the British Scots by St. Columba.

Next for Saint Ninian, Ninian. he was a Britan, not a Roman, Neither doth venerable Bede say that he was taught the Christian Faith at Rome simply, but that he was taught it there regularly, that is, in respect of the observati­on of Easter, the administration of Baptism, and sundry other Rites, wherein the British Church differed from the Roman. Nor yet doth Bede say that he was sent from Rome to convert the Picts: His words are these, The Southern Picts (as men say) long before this had left the errour of their Idolatry, Bed l. 3 [...] c. 4. and received the true Faith by the preaching of Ni­nias a Bishop, a most reverend and holy man of the British Nation, who was taught the Faith and mysteries of truth regularly at Rome. Capgrave findes as much credit with us as he brings authority. And in this case saith nothing at all to the purpose, because nothing of Jurisdiction.

From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick. Palladius and S. Pa­trick. Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland: And not forgetfull of Ireland, sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto, we finde nothing but Preaching, and Converting and Christening, not one syllable of any Jurisdiction. Will the British [Page 220] Records afford us so many instances of this kinde, and not so much as one of any legisla­tive or judiciary act? Then certainly there were none in those dayes. Whether Palla­dius was sent to the British or Irish Scots, is disputable: But this is certain, that whi­thersoever he was sent, he was rejected, and shortly after died. In whose place succeed­ed St. Patrick. Bed in vi­ [...]a St. Patri [...]. l. 1. Therefore his Disciples hear­ing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon, &c. came to St. Patrick and declared it, who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator, straightway took ship, &c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator, nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion.

Germanus and LupusHe saith, The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagi­an Heresie: and both Britans, Scots, Picts, and Irish, willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes, nor denyed that they had any autho­ritie over them. I am wearie of so many im­pertinencies. Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church, but of their charity and devotion, which we wish their Successors would imitate. Prosp. in Chron. I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus. If it were so, it concernes not this cause. Constant de vita Germ. l. 1. But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod, to assist the Britans their neighbours against the [Page 221] Pelagians. And it is most probable; for they were both French Bishops, St. German of Anxewe, Bed l 1. c. 17. Lupus of Troyes. Baronius la­bours to reconcile these two different relati­ons thus, It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod, Baron. an. 429. or it may be that Caele­stine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased. Admit either of these suppositions was true, it will bring no ad­vantage to his cause, but much disadvantage. If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain, and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch, it is not credible that the Britan­nick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours, and not at all to their Superior. He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes. He is still dreaming of Legates: if they were Legates, they were the Synods Le­gates, not the Popes. As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church, which they sent to help them, were Legates; Constant l. c. 19. eodem tempore ex Britanniâ dire­cta Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit, &c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops, what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance. Had they not reason to wellcome them whom them­selves had invited, who were come only upon their occasion? Or what occasion had they to deny their authority, who neither did usurpe [Page 222] any authority, nor pretend to any authority? They came to dispute, Idem, c. 23 not to judge. Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex. I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes, Apostolical Bi­shops, not from their mission, but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments, erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria & au­thoritas, &c.

Austine.That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons, is most true; that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them, is most untrue. Touching the precise time of his coming, Historiographers doe not agree exactly. All accord that it was a­bout the six hundreth year of Christ, a little more or less. Before this time, Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was. After this time we con­fess that the Bishops of Rome, by the con­sent or connivence of the Saxon Kings, as they came to be converted by degrees, did pretend to some formalities of right or au­thority over the English Church, at first in matters of no great consequence, as bestow­ing the Pall or the like. But without the consent, or against the good pleasure of the King, they had no more power at all.

Dubritius.Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius, primate of Britain, was Legate of the See Apo­stolick. I should sooner have beleeved it if [Page 223] he had proved it out of Gildas, who lived in or about the age of Dubritius, then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth, who li­ved so many hundred years after his death, whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables. It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him, then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age. Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur, and re­signed his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia, now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur, not of the Pope. King Arthur began his reign, as it is commonly computed, about the year 516. perhaps something sooner, or la­ter, according to different accounts. But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus, from whence we demonstrate our exemption. And so it can neither advantage his cause, nor prejudice ours. We are told of store of Roman Legats, & yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction, pretended to be done by any of them. Certainly either they were no Papall Legates, or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers, and pretended not to any legantine Court, or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes.

St. Samson (saith he) had a Pall from Rome, St. Samson wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the [Page 224] Saxon Kings, after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether, and my words also: I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ, but the abuse of it, that is, the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches. Vind. p. 150. When they would not suffer an Archbishop, duely ellected and invested, to exercise his function, untill he had bought a Pall from Rome. I know the contrary, that they were in use formerly. But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour, conferred by Christian Empe­rours upon the Church, namely, Constantine and Valentinian, as is most probable, or as­sumed by Patriarches, is a disputable point. This is certain, other Patriarches and Arch­bishops under them had their Palls in the primative times, which they received not from Rome. This Samson was Archbishop of Wales, and had his Pall; But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome: It may be that they had it from their first conversion, or rather that the British Primates them­selves assumed it, in imitation of forrein Pa­triarchs, as they might well doe. This Pall he carried with him into lesser Britain, in the time of an Epidemicall sickness, and such ex­treme mortallity, Pol. Virg. l 13 hist. Angl. ut mortui aegros, aegri in­tegros tum metu tum tabe infecerint, so that the dead did infect the sick, the sick infect the sound both with fear and contagion. That the same Bishop never returned to his See again [Page 225] appears to me more then probable by this, that his Successors for many ages reteined their metropoliticall dignity, but ever after wanted the use of their Pall. Certainly he who was so carefull of his Pall when he for­sooke his See, would have been more care­full to have brought it back with him, when he returned to his See. What time this Samson lived and when that contagious sickness ra­ged so cruelly, is more doubtfull; whether it was in the reign of Maglocunus the fifth, or in the reign of Cadwallader the ninth in succession after King Arthur, or long after both these. Giraldus Cambrensis makes him to be the five and twentieth Archbishop af­ter St. David, Iti [...]. Camb l. 1. c. 1. sederunt a tempore David suc­cessivis temporum Curriculis Archiepiscopi ibidem viginti quinque, &c. the last of which was this Samson. And then followes, Tem­pore Samsonis hujus pallium in hunc modum est translatum, &c. In the time of this Samson the Pall was transported after this manner: The pestilence increasing throughout Wales during his incumbencie, whereof the people di­ed by heapes, &c. R [...]g. [...]ved. An. anno. 1 [...]99. The same is testified by Roger Hoveden in the life of King Iohn, that this Samson, whom he makes the four and twentieth Archbishop after St. David, fly­ing from an infectious yellow jaundice, did transport with himself into Little Britain the Pall of St. David, &c. So R. C. had need to retract his rash censure of me, that I said untruly, That the Pall was first introduced in [Page 226] the reigns of the Saxon Kings, for neither did I say so, neither doth he prove that it was not so. A few of these histories would quickly spoil the Popes market for his Palls: The Menevoan Archbishops had but one Pall, that was Saint Davids Pall, for him and all his Successors, whereas the Pope compells every succeeding Archbishop to buy a new Pall.

King Iames doth not at all speak of the Bishop of Romes right, King Iames. but how far himself would condiscend for peace sake; which words being expresly used by the King in the place alleged, are guilefully omitted by R. C. Much less doth he speak of any supremacy of power, or submission to the Popes Jurisdiction in any of the ca­ses controverted betweene us and them. Our differences are not about any bran­ches of Patriarchall Power. If they like King Iames his proposition, why doe they not accept it? If they like it not why doe they urge it? Matrix Ecclesia. A Church may be, and is usually called a mother Church in two senses, either because it is the Church of a Metropolis or Mother-City: and so no man can deny but the Church of Rome, a­mong many others, is a prime Mother-Church: Or else, because it hath converted other Churches to the Christian Faith. And so also we acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a Mother-Church to sundry of our Saxon Churches, and a Sister to the [Page 227] British Church, but a Mistris to no Church.

I shewed clearly that that Power which the Bishops of Rome doe challenge aud usurp at this day, is incompatible and inconsistent with true Patriarchall Power, & that thereby they themselves have implicitly quitted and disclaimed that true Power which was con­ferred upon them by the Catholick Church. So by seeking to turn spirituall Monarchs, they had lost their just Title of Patriarchs. But withall that Britain was never rightly a part of their Patriarchate. To this he answers nothing, but objects, That this is to depose all the Popes since Boniface the third, for more then a thousand year, and say, that they have all lost their Patriarchate. And cries out, O intolerable presumption. Thus he confoundeth Papall and Patriarchall Power, making things inconsistent to be one and the same thing. If they have lost their Patriarchall Power it is their own fault who quitted it; it is his fault who doth no better defend it. With as much reason he might plead, that he who saith that a Rector of a Church by accepting of a new incompatible Benefice, had quitted his old, doth deprive him of his former Benefice. Or that he who saith the King of Spain hath quitted his Title to the united Provinces, doth thereby depose him from his Monarchy. O intollerable mi­stake!

I said not ignorantly, Sect. 5. but most truly, that [Page 228] the British (I will adde also the Scotish Church) for many hundred years sided with the Eastern Church in the observation of Easter. He saith, That they did not side en­tirely with them. Neither did I say they did. They observed Easter alwaies upon Sunday, which Polycrates and those Asiaticks that joined with him did not. And so they had nothing common with the Jews, those par­ricides, as Constantine the great calls them, who murthered Christ, and herein they did joyn with the Roman Church, but it is as evident that they did not observe it upon the same Sundy with the Church of Rome. This is clear by those two British Synods menti­oned by venerable Bede. This being one of Austins propositions to them, that they should conform themselves to the Roman Church in the observation of Easter, Bed. l. 2. c. 2. and after solemn discussion altogether rejected by them. That in this they sided with the Eastern Church, appeareth as evidently by the publick conferrence between Colman and Wilfrid about this very businesse, where­in Coleman did expressely and professedly maintain the tradition from Saint Iohn, [...]ed. l. 3. c. 25. be­fore the tradition from Saint Peter.

Lastly, to say that this manner of observing Easter was but risen in Scotland a little before the yeer 638, upon the authority of Pope Iohn, is ridiculous. For it is most evident that it was as ancient as their Christianity,) con­trary to reason, for the Britans and Scots [Page 229] had no commerce with the Orientall Christi­ans in those daies, and contrary to authority, for Colman in that disputation did derive it from Saint Iohn the Apostle.

CHAP. 6. Sovereign Princes in some cases have power to change the externall Regi­ment of the Church.

IF the Reader doth not finde so much in this Replie as he desires and expects, let him blame R. C. who, according to his custome, omitteth all the chiefest grounds, and the whole contexture of my discourse, only snatching here and there at a word or a peice of a sentence. I shall deal more fairly with him. In the first place I complain that besides the omitting of those main principles whereupon my discourse in this Chapter is grounded, which are received by both parties,) he doth me wrong in sta­ting of the question. For whereas I set down four conditions or limitations neces­sary in every reformation, first, that it be made advisedly upon well grounded experi­ence, Secondly, Vind. p. 115, 116. that it be done in a Natio­nall Synod, Thirdly, that it be only in mat­ters of humane right, Fourthly, that no­thing [Page 230] be changed, but that which is become hurtfull or impeditive of a greater good, he leaves out three of these restrictions alto­gether, and only mentions one, that it be in matters of humane institution, as if the rest were of no consideration. He cannot chuse but know that by the Doctrine of their own Schools, if a man doe vow any thing to God, which afterwards is found to be hurtfull and impeditive of a greater good, maketh his vow null and voyd, Aqui. [...] [...] 2.2. quaest. 88. Art. 2. & 10. and disobligeth him from performance of it. If it be true in a vow to God, it is more true in a pro­mise made to man, and he needeth no di­spensation to retract it.

A King hath all power needfull for the preserva­tion of his KingdomeBut let us follow his steps. First, where­as I alledge their own Authors to prove that to whom a Kingdome is granted all necessa­ry power is granted, without which a King­dome cannot be governed, he distinguisheth between the necessity of the Kingdome, and the benefit of the Kingdome, a King hath po­wer to doe whatsoever is necessary for the go­vernment of his Kingdome, but not whatsoever is for the benefit of his Kingdome. To this I answer first, That he confounds Power, and the exercise of Power, or the necessity of the one with the necessity of the other. Power is the necessary qualification of a King. But the act or exercise of that power may be free, and sufficiently grounded not only upon the necessity, but upon the be­nefit of the Kingdome. A Legislative po­wer [Page 231] is necessary to a King, but this doth not imply that he cannot make a Law except only in cases of absolute necessity. Power to administer an Oath, or to commit a Ma­lefactor is a necessary qualification of a Judg, yet he may administer an Oath upon discretion, or commit a man npon suspi­cion. If a King or a Judg invested with such a power should misapply it, or erre in the exercise of it, he owes an account to God and the Prince from whom he re­ceived the power, but the Subject is bound at least to passive obedience. Now let him see his own mistake. The question between us is whether a power to reform abuses and inconveniences be necessary to a King, to which all his Subjects owe at least passive obedience. He answers, concerning the ex­ercise of this power, in what cases a King may lawfully use it, but if the King mistake the case, yet the Subject owes passive obe­dience.

Secondly, A respe­ctive ne­cessity is a suffi­cient ground of a Refor­mation. I answer that there is a double necessity, first, a simple or absolute necessi­ty, Secondly, a respective necessity secun­dum quid, which we may call a necessity of convenience, which is a true necessity, and a sufficient ground of a Christian Law, that is, rather to make such a Law, then to sustein such indignities, or to run such ex­treme hazards, or lose such great advanta­ages, As it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us, Act. 15.28. to lay upon you no greater burthen then [Page 232] these necessary things. And of four things these were three, to abstain from meats of­fered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled. None of which things were necessary in themselves, either neces­sitate medii, or necessitate precepts. But they were necessary to avoyd scandall, and to gain advantage upon the Jews, and to re­tein them in a good opinion of Christian Religion. Saint Iames used the same argu­ment to Saint Paul, Act. 21 20 Thou seest Brother how many thousands of Iews there are which be­leeve, and they are all zealous of the Law, &c. If the advantage be but small, it is not worth abrogating a Law or changing a received custome, but if it be great, Senec. Malo semel ex­cusare quare secerim, quam semper quare non secerim. It is better to make one just apology why a man doth abrogate such a prejudicall custome, then to be making dayly excuses why he doth not abrogate it. Vivere, non est vita, sed valere. To live is not to draw out a lingering breath, but to injoy health. So the health and conveni­ence, and good constitution of a Kingdome, is more to be regarded, then the bare mise­rable being of it.

Thirdly, I answer that our Reformation in England was not only beneficiall and ad­vantagious to the Kingdome, Our Re­formation was neces­sary. but necessary, to avoid intolerable extortions, and grosse unjust and generall usurpations of all mens rights. They found plainly that this for­rein [Page 233] Jurisdiction did interfere with the So­vereign power. The Oaths which Bishops were forced to take to the Pope were exa­mined in Parliament, Hall. 24. Hen. 8. sol. 205. and found to be plain­ly contradictory to their Oathes of Allegi­ance, and repugnant to that duty which they did owe to generall Councels. They found that they were dayly exposed to pe­rill of Idolatry, and in danger dayly to have new Articles of Faith obtruded upon them, they see that the Pope had implicitly quit­ted their Patriarchall right, and challenged a Sovereignty over the Church by Divine right. Lastly, they see that this forrein Ju­risdiction was become not only uselesse, but destructive to those ends for which Patriar­chall authority was first instituted.

As the Hangings are fitted to the House, The Regi­ment of the Church conformed to that of the Com­mon­wealth. so was the externall Regiment of the Church, fitted and adopted to the then State of the Empire, when these Ecclesiasti­call dignities were first erected, for the ease and benefit of the Subject, to the end that no man should be necessitated to seek further for Ecclesiasticall Justice, then he did for Civil, nor to travell without the bounds of his own Province for a finall sentence. Therefore wheresoever there was a Civil Metropolis, there was placed an Ecclesiasti­call Metropolitan also. And where there was a Secular Protarch, there was consti­tuted an Ecclesiasticall Patriarch, to avoid the confusion and clashing of Jurisdictions. [Page 234] This is plain out of the Decree of the Coun­cell of Chalcedon, that whereas some ambi­tious persons, contrary to the Laws Eccle­siasticall, had multiplied Metropoliticall Sees, making two in one Province, where there was but one mother City or one Civil Metropolis, the Councell defined that no man should attempt any such thing for the future, conc. chalc. c. 11. vel 12. But those Cities which had been a­dorned with the name of Metropolis by the Edicts of Kings, should only injoy that pri­viledge. And more plainly by that of Ana­cletus, cited by Gratian, if we may credit him, Provinces were divided long before the comming of Christ, Dist. 99. for the most part. And afterwards that division was renued by the Apostles and Saint Clement our predecessor, so that in the chief Cities of all Provinces, where long since were primates of the Secular Law, and the highest judiciary Power, &c. There the Divine and Ecclesiasticall Lawes commanded Patriarchs or Primates to be placed and to be, which two, though they be different in names, yet retein the same sense. This was well so long as the Empire conti­nued in the same State, and the Provinces kept their ancient bounds. But now when the State of the Empire is altogether chan­ged, the Provinces confounded and the Do­minions divided among lesser Kings, who are sometimes in hostility one with another, and the Subjects of one Prince, cannot free­ly nor securely repair for Justice into the [Page 235] Dominions of a forrein Prince, without prejudice to themselves, and danger to their native Country. It is very meet that the Subjects of every Soveraign Prince should have finall Justice within the Dominions of their own Soveraign, as well in Ecclesi­asticall causes as Politicall. And this is a­greeable with the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England, which neither per­mit a Subject in such cases to goe out of the Kingdome, nor any forrein Commissioner to enter into the Kingdome, without the Kings license. Upon this ground the Bi­shops of Scotland were freed from their obedience to the Primate of York, and the Bishops of Muscovia from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

But (saith he) That which is for the bene­fit of the Kingdome, In gain or losse all circum­stances to be consi­dered. may be contrary to the good of the Church, and should we prefer a Kingdome before the Church, the Body be­fore the Soul, Earth before Heaven? I an­swer that gain and losse, advantage and dis­advantage ought not to be weighed or e­steemed from the consideration of one or two circumstances or emergents. All char­ges damages and reprises must first be cast up and deducted, before one can give a right estimate of benefit or losse. If a Mer­chant doe reckon only the price which his commodity cost him beyond Sea, without accounting Customes Freight and other charges; he will soon perish his Pack. If [Page 236] the benefit be only temporall and the losse Spirituall, as to gain Gold and lose Faith, which is more precious then Gold that perish­eth, 1 Pet. 1.7. it is no benefit but losse, What should it advantage a man to gain the whole World and lose his own Soul? The English Church and the English Kingdome are one and the same Society of men, differing not really but ra­tionally one from another, in respect of some distinct relations. As the Vine and the Elm, that susteins it, they florish toge­ther and decay together. Bonum ex singu­lis circumstantiis, that which is truely good for the Kingdome of England, cannot be ill for the Church of England, and that which is truely good for the English Church cannot be ill for the English King­dome. We may in reason distinguish be­tween Alexanders friend who studies to please him, and the Kings friend who gives him good advise. The one is a friend to his person, the other to his office. But in truth whilest Alexander is King and the person and office are united, he that is a true friend to Alexander is no enemy to the King, and he who is a true friend to the King is no foe to Alexander. Indeed if by the Church he understand the Court of Rome, then that which was good for the Kingdome of Eng­land was prejudiciall to the Church in point of temporall profit. But seeing as he con­fesseth, The Soul is to be preferred before the Body, it turns to their greater advantage [Page 237] by lessening the account of their extorti­ons.

He addeth, Our Re­formation not con­trary to the De­crees of generall Councels. That a Kingdome is but a part of the Church, and it is not in the power of any part, only for its particular profit, to alter what is instituted by the universall Church, for her universall good, no more then it is in the power of a part of the Kingdome, as one Shire or Province, to alter for its private in­ [...]erest what hath been decreed by Parliament for the good of the Kingdome. His instance of a Shire or a Province is altogether imper­tinent, for no particular Shire or Province in England hath Legislative authority at all as the Kingdome hath. But particular Cor­porations being invested with power from the Crown to make Ordinances for the more commodious government of them­selves, may make and doe make ordinarily by Lawes and Ordinances, not contra against the Acts of Parliament, but praeter besides the Acts of Parliament. And let him goe but a little out of the Kingdome of Eng­land, as suppose into the Isle of Man, or into Ireland, though they be branches of the Eng­lish Empire, yet he shall finde that they have distinct Parliaments, which with the concurrence of the King, have ever hereto­fore enjoyed a power to make Lawes for themselves contrary to the Lawes of the English Parliament. But we are so far from seeking to abrogate or to alter any institu­tion of the universall Church or its repre­sentative, [Page 238] a generall Councell, in this case, that on the contrary we crave the benefit of their Decrees, and submit all our differences to their decision. No generall Councell did ever give to the See of Rome Jurisdiction over Britain. And though they had, yet the state of things being quite changed, it were no disobedience to vary from them in cir­cumstances, whilest we persist in their grounds.

To make my word good I will suppose the case to have been quite otherwise then it was, That Protestants had made the separa­tion, That they had had no ancient Laws for presidents, That the Britannick Churches had not enjoyed the Cyprian priviledge for the first six hundred years: Yea I will sup­pose for the present, That our Primates were no Primates or Patriarchs, And that the Bri­tannick Churches had been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by generall Councells: Yet all this supposed upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire, and the great varia­tion of affairs since that time, it had been ve­ry lawfull for the King and Church of Eng­land to substract their obedience from the Bishops of Rome (though they had not quit­ted their Patriarchate) and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves. Provided that what I write only upon sup­position, he doe not hereafter allege as spo­ken by way of concession.

We have seen formerly in this chapter that [Page 239] the establishment of Primates or Patriarchs and Metropolitans in such and such Sees, was meerly to comply and conforme themselves to the Edicts and civill constitutions of So­vereign Princes, for the ease and advantage of Christians, and to avoid confusion and clashing of Jurisdiction That where there was a civill Exarch and Protarch established by the Emperour, there should be an eccle­siasticall Primate or Patriarch: And where a Citie was honoured with the name and pri­viledge of a Metropolis or mother Citie, there should be a Metropolitan Bishop. The practise of Bishops could not multiply these dignities, but the Edicts of Emperors could. And this was in a time when the Emperors were Pagans and Infidells.

Afterwards when the Emperours were become Christians, if they newly founded or newly dignified an Imperiall Citie or a Metropolis, they gave the Bishop thereof a proportionable ecclesiasticall preheminence at their good pleasure. Either with a Coun­cell, as the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon with the consent and confirmati­on of Theodosius and Martian Emperours) did advance the Bishop of Constantinople from being a mean Suffragan under the Me­tropolitan of Heraclea, to be equall in dig­nitie, power and all sorts of priviledges to the Bishop of Rome. And this very ground is assigned by the Fathers, because that Citie (Constantinople) was become the seat of the [Page 240] Empire. So great a desire had the Fathers to conform the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to the Politicall. Or without a Councell, as Iustinian the Emperour by his sole Legisla­tive Power erected the Patriarchate of Iusti­niana prima, and endowed it with a new Pro­vince substracted from other Bishops, freeing it from all Appeals. The like prerogatives he gave to the Bishop of Carthage, notwith­standing the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome. Novell. 11 & 131. And this was not done in a corner, but inserted into the publick Laws of the Empire, for all the world to take notice of it. So unquestionable was the power of Sove­reign Princes in things concerning the Order and externall Regiment of the Church in those dayes, that neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any other Patriarch or Bishop did ever complain against it. Shall the presence of an Exarch or Lieutenant be able to dignifie the Citie or place of his residence with Pa­triarchall Rites, and shall not the presence and authority of the Sovereign himself be much more able to doe it? Is so much re­spect due to the Servants, and is not more due to the Master?

That the British and the English Kings had the same Imperiall Authority to alter Patriarchates within their own Dominions, to exempt their Subjects from the Jurisdicti­on of one Primate, p. 127. and transferre them to another, I shewed in the vindication by the examples of King Arthur, who translated the [Page 241] Primacy from Caer-Leon to St. Davids above eleven hundred years since, And Hen­ry the first who subjected St. Davids to Can­terbury above five hundred years since, for the benefit of his Subjects. Neither did any man then complain that they usurped more Power then of right did belong unto them.

This is not to alter the Institutions of the universall Church or of generall Councells (supposing they had made any such particular establishment) but on the contrarie to tread in their stepps, But in pur suance of them. and to pursue their grounds, and to doe that (with all due submission to their authority) which they would have done themselves in this present exigence of Affairs. Make all things the same they were, and we are the same. To persist in an old observation when the grounds of it are quite cha [...]ged, and the end for which the observation was made, calleth upon us for an alteration, is not obedience but obstinacie. Generall Councells did never so fixe Patriarchall Power to particular Churches, as that their establishment should be like a Law of the Medes and Persians, never to be altered up­on any change of the Christian world what­soever. But to be changed by themselves (as we see they did establish first three Protopa­triarchates, then four, then five.) Or when generall Councells cannot be had (which is the miserable condition of these times) by such as have the Supreme Authority Civill and Ecclesiasticall in those places where the [Page 242] change is to be made. Suppose a Patriar­chall See should be utterly ruined and de­stroyed by warre or other accidents, as some have been; or should change the Bible into the Alchoran, and turn Turks as others have done; suppose a succession of Patriarchs should quit or resigne their Patriarchall power explicitly or implicitly, or forfeit it by disufe or abuse, Or should obtrude here­ticall errors and Idolatrous practises upon the Churches under their Jurisdiction, so as to leave no hope of remedy from their Suc­cessors, O [...] should goe about to enforce them by new Laws and Oaths to maintain their usurpations over generall Councells, to which all Christians are more obliged then to any Patriarch: Lastly, suppose a Patriar­chall Citie shall lie in the Dominions of one Prince, and the Province in the Dominions of another, who are in continuall warre and hostility the one with the other, so as the Subjects can neither have licence nor security to make use of their Patriarch, ought notthe respective Provinces in all these cases to pro­vide for themselves? Put the case that a King going to warre in the holy Land should commit the Regencie to his Councell, and they constitute a Governor of a principall Citie, who failes in his trust, and makes the Citizens swear allegiance to himself, and to maintain him against the Councell; all men will judge that the Citizens should doe well, if he were incorrigible, to turne him out of [Page 243] their Gates. Christ was this King, who ascending into the holy of holies, left the Re­giment of his Church with the Apostolicall College and their Successors, a generall Councell. They made the Bishop of Rome a principall Governor, and he rebells against them. There needs no further application.

Now to close up this point, the end is more excellent then the means. The end of the primitive Fathers in establishing the exter­nall Regiment of the Church in a conformi­ty to the civill Government was salus Populi Christiani, the ease and advantage of Chri­stians, the avoyding of confusion, and the clashing of Jurisdictions. We pursue the same ends with them, we approve of their means in particular, as most excellent for those times, and in generall for all times, that is, the conforming of the one Regiment to the other. But God alone is without any shadow of turning by change. It is not in our power to prevent the conversion of sublu­narie things. Empires and Cities have their diseases and their deaths as well as men. One is, another was, a third shall be. Mother Ci­ties become Villages, and poor Villages be­come Mother Cities. The places of the re­sidence of the greatest Kings and Emperors are turned to desarts for Owles to screech in and Satyrs to dance in. Then as a good Pilate must move his rudder according to the variable face of the heavens. So if we will pur­sue the prudent grounds of the primitive Fa­thers, [Page 244] we must change our externall Regi­ment according to the change of the Empire. This is better then by adhering too strictly to the private interest of particular places, to destroy that publick end for which externall Regiment at first was so established. I con­fesse that this is most proper for a generall Councell to redress. Every thing is best loosed by the same authority by which it was bound. But in case of necessity, where there can be no recourse to a generall Councell, every Sovereign Prince within his own Do­minions, with the advise and concurrence of his Clergy, and due submission to a future oecumenicall Councell, is obliged to pro­vide remedies for growing inconveniences, and to take order that externall Discipline be so administred, as may most conduce to the glorie of God, and the benefit of his Christian Subjects.

I made three conditions of a lawfull re­formation, just grounds, due moderation, and sufficient authority. King Hen­ries Di­vorce law­full, but no ground of the Re­formation. He faith, Henry the eight had none of these: First, no just ground, because his ground was, that the Pope would not give him leave to forsake his lawfull wife and take another. Perhaps the Popes in ju­stice might, by Gods just disposition, be an occasion, but it was no ground of the Refor­mation: And if it had, yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all. There is a great difference between bonum and bene, between a good action and [Page 245] an action well done: An action may be good and lawfull in it self, and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister, and his manner of proceeding indirect, as we see in Iehu's reformation. This concerned King Henries person, but it concerns not us at all. King Henrie protested that it was his con­science, Hall in Hen. 8. an. 20. sol. 180. b. & an 21 f. 182. they will not beleeve him. Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it, she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began, The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Ox­ford, & Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cam­bridge, All the Cardinals of Rome opposed the Di­spensation to see the cause debated. Besides our own Universities, the Universities of Paris, Orleans, Angew, Burges, Bononia, Padua, Tholouse, and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age, did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Mar­riage, which he calleth lawfull. Hall. An. 1. H. 8. The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce: The Bishops of York, Duresme, Chester, were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen: The Bishops of Canterbury, London, Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, did give sentence against the Mar­riage: Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope. The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks. And if wise men were not mistaken, that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey, to breake the league with the Emperour, and to make way for a new [Page 246] Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson, Acworth, emt. Sand 1 2. c 13. & 14 Hall. An. 19. H 8. f [...]l. 161. Sand de Schism p. 11. & 12. sister to the King of France, and a stricter league with that Crown. But God did take the wife in their own crastiness. Yea even Cle­ment the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid, if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires. I will conclude this point with two testimonies, the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, Steph. Wint. de vera O­bedientia apnd Gild. t. 1. p. 721. Quid aliud debuit aut potuit, &c. What else ought the King or could the King doe, then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church, to be loosed from an unlawfull con­tract, and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed, and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold, to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage? In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient, to which all ought to submit without delay, yet his Ma­jestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities. The second is the testimonie of two Arch­bishops, two Dukes, three Marquesses, thir­teen Earls, five Bishops, six and twenty Ba­rons, two and twenty Abbats, with many Knights and Doctors, in their Letter to the Pope, Causae ipsius justitia, &c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men, & deter­mined by the suffrages of most famous Uni­versities, [Page 247] being pronounced and defined by Eng­lish, Ld. Cherb. in Hen 8. An 1530. p. 303. Sufficere sant, alio­qui debu­isset causae ipsius, &c. French, Italians, as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning, &c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage, yet it is but one Doctors opinion. And if it had been lawfull, the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry.

Secondly, he faith he wanted due modera­tion, because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings. The Parli­ament not forced. I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced, by their Letter to the Pope, by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse, by their per­swasions to the King, by their pointed looks; to which I may add their Declaration, called the Bishops Book, Idem p. 334. signed by two Archbi­shops and nineteen Bishops. Nor doe I re­member to have read of any of note that op­posed it but two, who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time. Sir Tho­mas More, yet when King Henry writ against Luther, he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much, left he diminished his own. And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church [ quantum per Christi legem licet.] Anno. 1530. But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation, I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself, who was the Tyrant that did compell him. Quin potius orbirationem nedde [...]e volui, &c. I desired ra­ther [Page 248] to give an account to the World what changed my opinion, De vera Obedien tia. Ib [...]dem. p. 719. and compelled me to dis­sent from my former words and deeds. That compelled me (to speak it in good time) which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit, the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey. Behold the Tyrant, not Henry the eight, but the force of truth, which compel­led the Parliament. Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise. But I forti­fied my self so that (as if I required the judg­ment of all my senses) I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth, nor take it to be sufficiently proved, unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose, and see it with mine eyes, and felt it with my hands. Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case. Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience, and then he was not com­pelled; or else he dissembled, and then his second testimonie is of no value. It is not my judgment, but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus, semper presumitur falsus.

To the third condition he faith only, that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme, first, because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole. I have shewed the contrarie, that our Refor­mation was not made in opposition, but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells, neither did our Reformers meddle without [Page 249] their own spheres. And secondly, because the Papacy is of divine right. Yet before, he told us that it was doubtfull, and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Re­giment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution. But I have learned better, that the proof rests upon his side, both because he maintains an affirmative, and because we are in possession. It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience, that the universall Regency of the Pope is of hu­mane right, who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right.

His next exception is, that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters, because some Princes have done so. If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall, he is much mistaken. I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single Prince or Princes, but a whole succession of Kings, with their convo­cations, and Parliaments, proceeding accor­ding to the fundamentall Laws of the King­dome. So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah.

But he faith, King Hen­ry did not act against conscience that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own con­science, as appeareth by his frequent and ear­nest desires to be reunited to the Pope. It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience. God alone knows the secret turnings and wind­ings [Page 250] of the heart of man. Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome, yet cha­rity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde, then that he violated his conscience. Neither will this uncharitable censure, if it were true, advan­tage his cause the black of a bean. His con­science might make the reformation sinfull in him, but not unlawfull in it self. The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self, depends not upon the consci­ence of the doer, but the merit of the thing done. His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders. c 3. s. 5. The former a great Coun­sellor of King Henry, a contriver of the oath, a propugner of the Kings Supremacy, both in print and in his Sermons, and a persecutor of them who opposed it. For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience, comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost. He had reason to say he was constrained, both to hide his own shame, and to flatter the Pope (after his revolt) whom he had so much op­posed, especially in the dayes of Queen Ma­rie: Otherwise he had missed the Chancel­lership of England, and it may be had suffer­ed as a Schismatick. Yet let us hear what he faith, that King Henry had a purpose to re­signe the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North: And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it. All this might have been, and yet no intention of reconciliation. Great [Page 251] Princes many times look one way and row another. And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion, or prevent a forrein warre, will make no scruple to use it. But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it. This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation, that if he did not hear them, Ld. Cherb. H. 8. an. 1530. p. 305. certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam, ut aliunde no­bis remedia conquiramus, they would certain­ly interpret it, that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves, to seeke their reme­dy from elsewhere. This was a faire intima­tion, and they were as good as their words. This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia, downright for the Kings Supre­macie against the Pope. Lastly, this is who published to the world, that all sorts of Peo­ple with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England, hath ought to doe with Rome. It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point, and the King alone goe against his conscience.

His later witness, Nicholas Sanders, is just such another, whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry. He feineth that when his death did draw nigh, he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way, how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick. Te­stimony [Page 252] he produceth none, but his own Authority. They who will not beleeve it may chuse. But that which followeth, spoi­leth the credit of his relation, That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him, answered that the King was wiser then all men, that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration, Consilio divino. and had nothing now to fear. That a King should be laying snares to catch his B [...]shops appre­pinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near, Sand. de S [...]hism. p. 102. and that a Bi­shop should flatter a dying man so abhomi­nably against his conscience, (as he makes this to be) is not credible.

But there is a third Author alleged by o­thers who deserved more credit, Lord Cherb fol. 398. That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome, which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made. But here is a double mistake, first, in the time, this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made, currente Rota. Some intimations had been given of what was intended, but the Bell was not then rung out. Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement, in order of time. Secondly, in the Subject; this trea­ty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church, but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine. The words are these, That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence, untill he (the King) had indif­ferent [Page 253] Judges who might hear the business, he would also supersede of what he was delibe­rated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See. The Bishop of Paris procu­red this proposition from the King, and de­livered it at Rome. It was not accepted. The Kings answer came not within the time limi­ted. Thereupon the Pope published his Sen­tence, and the Separation followed. So this was about the change of a Wife, not of Religion, before either King Henrys sub­straction of obedience, or the Popes fulmi­nation.

In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy, acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to sub­stract obedience from the Pope, but in no case from the Papacy, which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution, whereas Protestants (saith he) for the faults of some Popes, have separated themselves both from Pope, Papacy, and Roman Church. And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme, That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution. If he had been pleased to observe it, I took a­way this distinction before it was made, P 128. shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty; but faulty prin­ciples in Doctrine or Discipline, doe warrant a more permanent separation, even untill they be reformed.

[Page 254] Our sepa­ration from the Papacy was not for the faults of Popes but of the Pa­pacy it selfI doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope, Papacy, and Church of Rome, but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another. As the Pope may have his proper faults, so may the Pa­pacy, so may the Church of Rome. We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Ro­man Church. In all other things we main­tain communion with her. We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See, if he would content himself therewith. But the chief grounds of our separation are those which are inherent in the Papacy it self, qua talis, as it is now defended, as they seek to obtrude it upon us; the lawless exorbitant oppression of the Roman Court; the sovereignty of the Pope above general Councels; his le­gislative and judiciary Power in all Christian Kingdomes, against the will of the right owners; his pretended right to convocate Synods, and confirm Synods, and dissolve Synods. and hold legantine Courts, and ob­trude new points of Faith as necessary Ar­ticles, and receive the last appeals, and dis­pose of all ecclesiasticall Dignities and Bene­fices at his pleasure, and impose Tenths and first-Fruits and Subsidies and Pensions, to in­vest Bishops, and sell Pardons, and Indulgen­ces, [Page 255] and Palls. These and the like are not the Faults of Innocent the tenth, or Vrban the eighth, or Sextus, or Pius, or Alexander, or Clement, or any p [...]rticular Pope. But they are the Faults of the P [...]pacy it self, wo­ven into the body of it, and without the ac­knowledgement of which, they will suffer us to hold no communion with the Papacy. I doe not say that they are insep [...]rable, for the time hath been when the Papacy was with­out those Blemishes; but that it is folly at this time to hope from them for the anceient liberty of the Church, as the Country-man expected that the river should be r [...]n out, and become drie,

We expected remedy, and hoped for re­formation from the time of Henry the first, in whose reign their encroachments did be­gin to grow signall and notorious, untill the daies of Henry the eighth, throughout the reigns of seventeen succeeding Kings, and found not the least ease from them, but what we carved out our selves. No Law of God or man doth require that we should wait eternally. The Lord of the Vineyard thought three years enough to expect fruit of the fruitless Figtree, and when it impro­ved [Page 256] not in the fourth year, the Sentence is­sued against it, Luk. 13.7. cut it down, why cumbreth it the ground.

whether Popes have done more good or hurt to England not mate­riall.He urgeth that if some Popes have wrong­ed England temporally, far more Popes have benifited it much more both temporrally and spiritually; Sufficit unus huic operi: This were more comely in our mouths then in theirs. Some man would goe make an esti­mate of Papall Importations, as Parchment, and Lead, and Wax, and Crosses, Agnus dei's, and Reliques. And their Exportations, Gold, Silver, Jewels, and whatsoever the land afforded either for nec [...]ssity or delight. But I will spare his modesty, and suppose more then ever he will be able to prove. An­cient virtues or benefits do not justifie an old institution, when it is grown useless and sub­ject to desperate abuses. The brasen Serpent was instituted by God himself; it was a sin­gular type of Christ; it saved the temporall lives of the Israelites, and pointed them out the right way to eternall life. Yet when it was become useless and abused over much, Hezekiah is commended for breaking it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. and calling it Nehushtan, an useless piece of common brass, that had quite lost its ancient virtue. The Order of the Tem­plers was instituted about the year 1120. Scarcely any Order can shew such an hope­full beginning at their first institution, or such an huge progress towards grearness in so short a revolution of time. He who shall [Page 257] read these extraordinary praises which are given them by St. Bernard, (who is thought to have been the Author of their rule) will take them rather to have been a Society of Angels then of mortall men. Yet in the daies of Clement the fifth, they were gene­rally suppressed throughout the whole world as it were in an instant, not for com­mon faults, but horrid crimes, and prodi­gious vilanies, by the joint consent of the occidentall Church and sovereign Princes. I inquire not whether their accusation was just or not; but from hence I doe collect, that in the judgement of this occidentall world, a good institution may be deservedly abrogated for subsequent abuses. As we had not the same latitude of power, which they who censured them h [...]d; so we did not act without our own Sphear, or the Bounds of the English Dominions.

In the vindication I urged three points, Sect. 2. wherein the Romans doe agree with us. First, that sovereign Princes not only may, but in justice are obliged to repress the ty­rany of ecclesiasticall Judges, and protect their Subjects from their violence, and free them from their oppressed Yoke. To this he answereth nothing. Secondly, that Princes may be inabled either by grant or by prescrip­tion (I added by their sovereign authority over the whole Body politick) to exercise all externall ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction by themselves or by fit Delegates, and to [Page 258] make ecclesiasticall Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church, to which their Subjects owe obedience. This alone were sufficient to free us from Schism. But to all this likewise he saith not one word good or bad. Thirdly, that it is lawfull in severall cases to substract obedience from the Pope. And among other proofs I cited the Coun­cell of Towers. To this only he answers, Conc. Tu­ror. R [...]sp. ad Art. 3. 48. That they acknowledged it lawfull to withdraw obe­dience from this or that Pope, in this or that case, but not from Papall Authority it self. Whereas I shewed him in the vindication, that the same equitie which doth allow sub­straction of obedience from this or that Pope for personall faults, It was law­full to withdraw obedience from Pa­p [...]ll Au­thority corrupted. as Schisme or Si­mony, doth likewise allow substraction of obedience from him and his Successors for faulty Principles, as obtruding new Creeds, pressing of unlawfull Oathes, palpable usur­pation of undoubted Rites, even untill they be reformed. Papall Authority without the Pope, is but an imaginary idea; whoso­ever substracts obedience from the true Pope, substracts obedience from the Papall Authority. Perhaps indeed not simply or absolutely, but respectively, as he saith in this or that case. But what if the Pope will not suffer them to pay their obedience in part, so far as it is due, but have it entire according to his own demands, or none at all. Then it is not they who separate them­selves from Papall Authority, but it is Papall [Page 259] Authority which separates them from it. Ei­ther he understands Papall Authority such as it ought to be de jure; and then we have substracted no obedience from it, for we ought it none, and are not unwilling for peace sake to pay it more respect then we doe owe. Or else by Papall Authority he un­derstands a spirituall Monarchy, such as it is now, with superiority above generall Councells, and infallibility of Judgement and legislative Authority, and patronage of all ecclesiasticall Preferments, &c. And then the universall Church did never acknowledge any such Papall Authority. And then to withdraw our obedience from it, is not to substract obedience from a lawfull, but from an unlawfull and tyrannicall Power. Princes the last Judges of the inju­ries done to their Subj [...]cts by Popes. When sovereign Princes doe withdraw obedience from this or that Pope, in this or that case, they make themselves Judges of the diffe­rence between them and the Court of Rome, as whether the Pope have invaded their pri­viledges, or usurped more Authority then is due unto him, or in contemning his censures (which the Councell of Towers doth expres­ly allow them to doe) and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not. Yeeld thus much, and the question is at an end, That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties, and of papall oppressions and usurpations, and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures.

[Page 260]There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit, That Pa­pall Authority is instituted immediately by God, but not Regall. Cujus contrarium verum est. He was once, or seemed to be of ano­ther minde. Bish. Epist. ad Reg. Iocob. p. 11. For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they (Kings) re­ceive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters. Saint Paul sa [...]th expresly, speaking of civill Powers: Rom. 13.1, & 2. The Powers that be, are ordeined of God: and whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said▪ Prov. [...].15. By me Kings reign, and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God, Kingly Authority from God, not Papal. and reign by God, then they are instituted by God. Therefore they are just­ly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things. He who said, by me Kings reign, never said by me Popes reign. Kings may inherit by the Law of man, or be e­lected by the Suffrages of men. But the Regall Office, and Regall Power is imme­diately from God. No man can give that which he himself hath not. The People have not power of Life and Death. That must come from God. By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes, and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their po­wer to make one Father of a Country, to whom doth he owe his power but to God, from whom Fathers of Families had their [Page 261] power by the Law of nature? As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ, his Patriarchall power from the Church, and Monarchicall power from him­self.

After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations, Sect. 3. as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers, the sub­jection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall, which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mau­ritius the Emperor, The grounds of our s [...]pa­ration. though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God, the ere­ction of new Patriarchates by Emperors, and the translation of primacies by our Kings. And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation: first, the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England: Secondly, their unjust usur­pations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men, and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures. Thirdly, because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasti­call discipline. Fourthly, sundry other in­conveniences, to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith, to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry, to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome, to have approved [Page 262] the Popes rebellion against generall Coun­cels, and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations. Lastly, the priviledge of the Britannick Churches, the Popes disclaiming all his Pa­triarchall authority, and their challenging of all this by Div [...]ne right, which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome. Lastly, I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time, had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in pru­dence they ought to have done. All this he passeth by in silence, as if it did not con­cern the cause at all. Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope, the Papacy, and the Roman Church, which hath been so often confuted already, and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes. As if all these things which are mentioned here, and set down at large in the vindication, were but some infirmitives, or some petty faults of some few Popes. I have shewed him clearly, that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes, but the faults of the Papacy it self. And as for forsaking the Church of Rome, he doth us wrong. I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place, An. 30. that we have not forsaken it, but only left their Communion in some points, wherein they had left their Ance­stors, we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church, a Mother [Page 263] to the Saxon Church, but as a Lady or Mi­strisse to no Church.

Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation, Sect. 4. to shew that they were insufficient, The new Creed of Pius the 4 ^th, and the withholding the Cup from the Laity. Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction. He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds b [...]sides these. Yet I con­fesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence, The Popes new Arti­cles of Faith a just cause of separa­tion. and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest. First (saith he) The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation, because the sepa­ration was made before the Creed. He saith true, if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed, that did offend us. But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 ^th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed, were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith, and required as necessary con­ditions of their Communion. So as we must either receive these, or utterly lose them. This is the only difference▪ that Pius the 4 ^th dealt in grosse, his predecessors by retaile. They fashioned the severall rods, and he bound them up into a bundle. He saith, That the new Creed is nothing but cer­tain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick per­sons, [Page 264] as the 39 Articles were in the Prote­stants new Creed▪ proposed by them to Mini­sters. Pius the 4 ^th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks, Seculars, and Regulars, to swear to his new Creed, but he imposed it upon all Christians, as veram fidem Catho­licam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, (they are the very words of the Bull,) as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved. This is a greater Obligation then an Oath, and as much as the Apostles did impose for the recepti­on of the Apostolicall Creed. We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths, extra quam non est salus, without which there is no Salvation, nor injoin Ec­clesiastick persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theologicall truths, for the preservation of unity among us, and the extirpation of some growing er­rors.

The de­ [...]ining of the Cup in the Sa­crament a just cause of separati­on.Secondly, He adds that the deteyning of the Cup, could be no sufficient grounds of separation, because Protestants doe confesse, That it is an indifferent matter of it self, and no just cause to seperate Communion. Doth the Church of England confesse it to be an indifferent matter? No, nor any Prote­stant Church. All their publick confessions doe testifie the contrary. Nay more, I doe not believe that any one Protestant in his right wits did ever confesse any such thing. But this it is to nible at Authors, and to [Page 265] stretch and tenter their words by conse­quences quite beyond their sense. It may be that Luther at some time said some such thing, but it was before he was a formed Protestant, whilest he was half sleeping half waking. Bellarmine stiles it in initio Aposta­siae. But after his eies were well opened, he never confessed any such thing, but the just contrary. Suppose that Brentius saith, that abstemious persons, such whose nature doth abhorre wine, may receive under one kinde; what a pittifull argument is this drawn from a particular rare case of in­vincible necessity, to the common and ordi­nary use of the Sacrament? The Elephant was exempted from doing obeisance to the Lion, because he had no knees. But it is the height of injustice to withhold his right from one man, because another cannot make use of it. Suppose that Melancthon de­clare his own particular opinion, that those Countries where Wine is not to be had should doe well to make use of honied water in the Sacrament. What doth this signifie as to the cause he hath in hand, whether they use some other liquor in the place of Wine, or use no liquor at all? In­vincible necessity doth not only excuse from one kinde but from both kindes. And where the Sacrament cannot be had as it ought, the desire to have it sufficeth before God. We read of some Christians in India where they had no Wine, that they took [Page 266] drie Raisons and steeped them in water a whole night, Odoardus Barlosa forma Celebrandi &c. and used that liquor which they squeesed out of them in the place of Wine for the Sacrament. It would trou­ble one as much in many parts of the World to finde right Bread, as Wine. That nourish­ment which Indians eat in the place of Bread, being made of the roots of Plants, doth differ more from our Bread made of Wheat, then Cyder or Perry or honnied water doe differ from the juice of the Grape, which are such many times, as are able to deceive a good tast. If Wine were as rare and precious in the World as right Balm, which they make to be the matter of a Sacrament, there were more to be said in it. They themselves doe teach that it is abso­lutely necessary, that the Sacrament be con­secrated in Wine, and that it be consumed by the Priest. They who can procure Wine for the Priest, may procure it for the People also, if they will. The truth is, all these are but made Dragons. No man ever was so ab­stemious but that he might taste so much Wine tempered with water, as they use it, as might serve for the Sacrament, where the least imaginable particle conveieth Christ to the receiver, as well as the whole Chalice full. Neither is there any Christian Coun­try in the World, Papists right, Heirs of the Dona­tists. where they may not have Wine enough for this use, if they please.

So notwithstanding any thing he saith, to the contrary their dayly obtruding new Ar­ticles [Page 267] of Faith, and their deteining the Cup in the Sacrament were just grounds of sepa­ration, but not our only grounds. We had twenty other grounds besides them. And therefore he had little reason to say, That at least the first Protestants were Schismaticks, and in this respect to urge the authority of Optatus against us, Optat. l. 2. to prove us to be the Heirs of Schismaticks. Optatus in the place by him cited, speaks against the traditors, with whom we have nothing common, and the Dona­tists their own Ancestors, not ours, whose case is thus described there by Optatus, cu­jus in Cathedra tenet, quae ante ipsum Ma­jorinum originem non habebat, whose Chair thou possessest, which had no originall before Majorinus, a schismaticall Donatist. This is not our case. We have set up no new Chairs nor new Altars, nor new Successi­ons, but continued those which were from the beginning. There is a vast difference be­tween the erecting of a Chair against a Chair, or an Altar against an Altar, which we have not done, and the repairing of a Church or an Altar wherein it was decayed, which we were obliged to doe.

In the next place he endeavoreth to prove by the generall Doctrine of Protestants, Whether Prote­stants and Papists differ in Essentials. that they differ from Papists in fundamentall points necessarie to salvation. If they doe, it is the worse for the Romanists. In the mean time the charitie of Protestants is not to be bla­med. We hope better of them. And for [Page 268] any thing he saith to the contrarie we be­leeve that they doe not differ from us in fun­damentalls. But let us see what it is that the Protestants say. Some say that Popish errors are damnable. Let it be admitted many errors are damnable which are not in funda­mentalls. Errors which are damnable in themselves, are often pardoned by the mer­cie of God, who looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices. Others say, that Popish and Protestant opinions are diametrally opposite. That is certain, they are not all lo­gomachies. But can there be no diametrall opposition except it be in fundamentalls? There are an hundred diametrall oppositi­ons in opinion among the Romanists them­selves, yet he will not confess that they differ in fundamentalls. Lastly, others say that the Religion of Protestants, and the Religion of the Church of Rome, are not all one for sub­stance. I answer first, that the word sub­stance is taken sometimes strictly, for the essentialls of any thing, which cannot be se­parated without the destruction of the sub­ject. Thus a man is said to be the same man in substance, while his soul and body are uni­ted, though he have lost a legg or an arme, or be reduced to skin and bone. And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Church and Religion are the same in substance. At other times the word substance is taken more larg­ly for all reall parts, although they be sepa­rated without the destruction, and sometimes [Page 269] with the advantage of the subject. And so all the members, yea even the flesh and blood and other humors are of the substance of a man. Psal. 139.16. So we read, Thine eyes did see my substance being yet unperfect, and in thy books were all my members written. And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Religion are not the same in substance. Secondly, the word substantialls may either signifie old substantialls, beleeved and practised by all Churches in all ages, at all times, which are contained in the Apostles Creed. And thus our Religion and the Roman Religion are the same in substance. Or new substantialls lately coyned and obtruded upon the Chrurch; as those Articles which are com­prehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth: And in this sense our Religion and theirs are not the same in substance. The former sub­stantialls were made by God, the later sub­stantialls devised by man.

I pleaded that when all things were sear­ched to the bottome, Sect. 5. Roman Catholicks doe acknowledge the same possibility of Salva­tion to Protestants, Papists ac­knowledge possibility of our salvation as much as we of theirs. which Protestants doe afford to Roman Catholicks: And for proof thereof I produced two testimonies of his own. To this he answers first, that Protestants doe allow saving faith and salva­tion to the Roman Church and to formall Pa­pists. But Roman Catholicks doe denie saving faith and salvation to the Protestant Church and to formall Prrtestants, and grant it only to [Page 270] such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errours, who are not formall Protestants, but rather Protestantibus credentes, persons deceived by giving too much trust to Prote­stants. We say the very same, that we allow not saving faith or salvation to the Popish Church, as it is corrupted, but as it reteins with Protestants, the same common princi­ples of saving truth, and is still jointed in part to the Catholick Church. Nor to for­mall Papists, but to such as erre invincibly, and are prepared in their mindes to receive the truth when God shall reveal it. Such are not formall Papists, but Papist is cre­dentes, such as give too much trust to Papists.

His second answer is a second errour, grounded only upon those imaginarie ideas which he hath framed to himself in his own head, of the opinions of particular Prote­stants, and laboured much to little purpose, to prove by conjecturall consequences, which hang together like a roap of sand, That Pro­testants affirm that such as erre in fundamen­tall Articles, and such as erre sinfully in not fundamentalls may be saved. Neither the Church of England, against which he ought to bend his forces in this question, nor any genuine sonne of the Church of England ▪ nor any other Protestant Church ever said, that Papists might be saved, though they held not the fundamentalls of saving truth, or though they held lesser errors pertinaciously [Page 271] without repentance. If any particular Pro­testants were ever so mad to maintain any such thing in an ordinarie way, for we speak not now of the extraordinarie dispensations of Gods grace, in case of invincible necessity, we disclaime them in it. Let him not spare them. But I beleeve that when all is done, about which he makes such a stirre, it will prove but Moonshine in the water.

To what I said, Sect. 6. that our separation is from their errours, not from their Church, he an­swereth, Our sepa­ration on­ly from errors. that it shews my ignorance what their Church is, For their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors; and therefore they who separate from them, separate from their Church. In my life I never heard a weaker plea: But I desire no other advantage then what the cause it self affords. Doth he him­self beleeve in earnest, that any errors are essentialls of a Church? Or would he per­swade us that weeds are essentials of a Gar­den; or ulcers and wenns and such su­perfluous excrescences essentials of an hu­mane body? Or doe weeds become no weeds, aud errors no errors, because they are called pretended weeds or pretended errors, or because they are affirmed to be essentials? This is enough to justifie my distinction. So it was not my ignorance but their obstinacy thus to incorporate their errors into their Creeds, and matriculate their abuses among their sacred Rites. In vain doe they worship [Page 272] me (saith God) teaching for Doctrines the commandements of men. Math. 15.9 Suppose an Arrian or a Pelagian should charge him to be a Schismatick or an Apostate, because he de­serted their communion: To which he should answer, that his separation was from their Arrian or Pelagian errours, not from their Church as it was a Christian Church, and that he held all other common principles of Christianity with them. And suppose the Arrian or Pelagian should plead as he doth, that their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors, or that their pretended er­rors are essentials of their Church and of their Religion. This might well aggravate their own faults, but not infringe the truth of his answer. Errors continue errors though they they be called essentials. There was a time before Arrianism did infest the Church, and there succeeded a time when it was cast out of the Church. Their old essentials which were made essentials by Christ, we doe readily receive: Their new essentials, which were lately devised by themselves, we doe as utterly reject; and so much the ra­ther, because they have made them essentials. Their Church flourished long without these errors; and we hope the time will come when it shall be purged from these er­rors. We arro­gate to our selves no new Church, &c.

In setting forth the modderation of our English Reformers, I shewed that we doe not arrogate to our selves either a new [Page 273] Church, or a new Religion, or new holy or­ders. Upon this he falls heavily two waies. First he saith, it is false, as he hath shewed by innumerable testimonies of Protestants. That which I say is not the falser because he calls it so, nor that which he saith the truer be­cause I forbear. For what I said I produ­ced the authority of our Church, he letteth that alone, and sticketh the falshood upon my sleeve. It seemeth that he is not willing to engage against the Church of England: For sti [...]l he declineth it, and changeth the subject of the question from the English Church to a confused companie of particular Authors of different opinions, of dubious credit, of little knowledge in our Eng [...]ish affairs, tentered and wrested from their ge­nuine sense. Scis tu simulare Cupressum, quid hoc? It was not the drift or scope of my undertaking to answer old volumes of im­pertinencies. If he have any testimonies that are materiall, in the name of God let him bring them into the lists, that the Reader may see what they say, and be able to com­pare the evidence with the answer, and not imagine more then is true. Let him remem­ber that I premonish him, Whether our Reli­gion be the same with theirs or not, we are no Schisma­ticks. that all his innu­merable testimonies will advantage him no­thing.

Secondly, he would perswade us, that if it were so that our Church, Religion, and holy Orders, were the same with theirs, then what need had we to goe out of theirs for salvation? [Page 274] then we are convinced of Schism. Alas poor men! what will become of us? Hold what we will, say what we can, still we are Schis­maticks with them. If we say our Church, Religion, and holy Orders are the same with theirs, then we are Schismaticks for deserting them. If we say they are not the same, then we are Schismaticks for censuring and con­demning them. But we appeale from the sentence of our Adve [...]sarie, to the sentence of that great Judge who judgeth righteous judgment. We are either Wheat or Chaff, but neither their tongues nor their pennes must winnow us. If we say our Church, Religion, and holy Orders be the same with theirs, we are no Schismaticks, because we doe not censure them uncharitably. If we say they be not the same, we are still no Schis­maticks, because we had then, by their own confession, just reason to separate from them. But to come up closer to his argu­gument: Religion is a virtue, which consi­steth between two e [...]treams, Heresie in the defect, and Superstition in the excess. Though their Church, Religion, and holy Orders be the same with ours, and free from all hereticall defects, yet they may [...]e and are subject to superstitious excesses. Their Church hath sund [...]y blemishes: Their Reli­gion is mixed with errors: And gross abu­ses have crept into their holy Orders. From these superstitious errors and abuses we were obliged to separate our selves, wherein they [Page 275] had first separated themselves from their Predecessors. So if there be Schism in the case, it was Schism in them to make the first separation, and Virtue and Pietie in us to make the second. I said most truly that our positive Articles are those generall truths about which there is no controversie. Our negation is only of humane controve [...]ted additions. Against this he excepts sundry wayes, Quaest 14. de side A [...]t. 1. First, Because our principall positive Article is that of justification by speciall Faith, which (as he saith) is most of all in controversie. Aquinas makes a great difference between opinari and credere, between a scholasticall opinion and a necessary Article of Faith. Sometimes the understanding doth fluctu­ate indifferently between the two parts of the contradiction: and this is properly doubting. Sometimes it inclineth more to the one part then to the other, yet not with­out some fear or suspicion of the truth of the other part: This is properly opinion. Sometimes the understanding is determined so as to adhere perfectly to the one part: And this determination proceeds either from the intelligible object, mediately or imme­diately; and this makes knowledge: Or from the will upon consideration of the au­thority and truth of the revealer; and this makes faith. Justificati­on by spe­ciall fa [...]h no A [...]icle of our Church. Justification by speciall faith was never accounted an Article of the Eng­lish belief, either by the English Church, or by any genuine Son of the English Church. [Page 276] If he trust not me, let him read over our Ar­ticles, and reading satisfie himself. I confess some particular persons in England did sometimes broach such a private Opinion, but our most learned and judicious Profes­sors did dislike it altogether at that time, as I have heard from some of themselves. But shortly after it was in a manner generally rejected, as Franciscus a Sancta Clara inge­niously confesseth & jam hic novus error vix natus apud nostrates sepultus est, Probl. 22. and now this new error being scarcely born among our Country-men was buried. And more plainly elsewhere; Probl. 26. quibus omnibus bene pensatis, sae­nè nulla bodie reperietur differentia in confes­sione Anglica, & sanctissima definitione Tri­dentina, all which things being duely weighed, truly there will be found noe difference at this day, in the English confession, and the sacred definition of the Tridentine Councell, meaning about this Subject of justification.

But saith he, if they be not points of our Faith, what doe they in our confessions of Faith? I answer they are inserted into our confes­sions, not as supplements of our Creed, or new Articles, but as explanations of old Ar­ticles, and refutations of their supposititious Principles. Contraries being placed toge­ther by one another, doe make one another more apparent.

Our nega­tives no Articles of Faith.He proceedeth. Have not Protestants a positive faith of their negative Articles? as w [...]ll as of their positive Articles. Comman­dements [Page 277] may be either affirmative or nega­tive; and the negative Commandements binde more firmely then the affirmative, be­cause the affirmative binde alwaies, but not to the actuall exercise of obedience at all times, semper, but not ad semper. But nega­tive Commandements binde both semper and ad semper, both alwaies, and to all times. But we finde no negatives in the rule of Faith: For the rule of Faith consists of such supernaturall truths, as are necessary to be known of every Christian, not only necessi­tate praecepti, because God hath comman­ded us to beleeve them, but also necessitate medii, because without the knowledge of them in some tollerable degree, according to the measure of our capacities, we cannot in an ordinary way attain to salvation. How can a negative be a means. Non entis nulla est efficacia. In the Apostles Creed, from the be­ginning to the end, we finde not the least ne­gative Particle: And if one or two nega­tives were added in the subsequent ages, as that, begotten not made, in the Nicene Creed; they were added not as new Articles, but as explanations of the old, to meet with some emergent errors, or difficulties, just as our negatives were.

Yea though perhaps some of our negatives were revealed truths, and consequently were as necessary to be beleeved when they are known as affirmatives; yet they doe not therefore become such necessary truths or [Page 278] Articles of Religion, as make up the rule of Faith. I suppose yet further, that though some of our negatives can be deduced from the positive fundamentall Articles of the Creed, some evidently some probably, as the necessity of the consequence is more or less manifest: For it is with consequences as it was with Philo's row of iron Rings; the first that touched the Load-stone did hang more firmely; the rest which were more re­mote still more loosly. I say in such a case that no man was bound to receive them, ei­ther as Articles, or as Consequences, but on­ly he that hath the light to see them, nor he further then the evidence doth invite him. And howsover they are no new Articles, but Corollaries or deductions from the old. So grossly is he mistaken on all sides, when he saith that Protestants (he should say the English Church if he would speak to the purpose,) have a positive beleefe, that the Sa­crament is not the body of Christ. Which were to contradict the words of Christ, this is my body. He knowes better, that Protestants doe not deny the thing, but their bold de­termination of the manner by transubstan­tiation; themselve [...]; confessing that the man­ner is incomprehensible by humane reason. Neither doe Protestants place it among the Articles of the Faith, but the opinions of the Schools.

Sect. 7.He acknowledgeth, That if I had a true pre­paration of minde to beleeve whatsoever the [Page 279] true reall Catholick Church universally be­leeveth and practiseth, An impli­cite sub­mission to the Catho­lick Church sufficient to salvation. the matter were ended. But he addeth that by the Catholick Church, I mean an imaginary Church, or multitude of whatsoever Christians, Catholicks, Hereticks, Schismaticks, w [...] agree in fundamentall points, but disagree in other points of Faith, and wholy in communion of Sacraments, and ministery of them. I accept this offer, and I tie him to his word. If he stand to this ground, there are no more controversies be­tween him and me for the future but this one, what is the true Catholick Church, whether the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependents, or the Church of the whole World, [...] Roman, Grecian, Armenian, Aby­ssene, Russian, Protestant, which after all their brags of amplitude and universality, is three times greater then themselves. I de­sire no fairer issue between him and me. I doe from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church, diffused over the World, doth beleeve and practise. And if I should erre in my judgement what the Catholick Church is, as I am confident that he and his fellowes doe erre, though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement, I doe furthermore pro [...]ess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church, whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me. This is sufficient to pre­serve me from being a Schismatick: This is sufficient for the salvation of a Christian.

[Page 280]He telleth us indeed sometimes that the Roman Church is the true Catholick Church, and is diffused all over the World. Let him take Roman in the largest sense he can; yet still it is but a particular Church of one denomination, not Catholick or Uni­versall. Whom have they of their Commu­nion in the large Abystene Empire, consisting of seventeen Kingdomes? Not one. Whom have they of their Communion in the Rus­sian Empire neerer home? Scarcely one. Whom have they of their Communion in all the Eastern Churches? perhaps two or three hand-fulls, in comparison of those in­numerable multitudes of Christians, who are subject to the other Patriarchs. Papists a­gree not what is their infal­l [...]ble pro­ponent. Before they were so forward and positive in voting for themselves, that they are the Catholick Church, that they are the infallible Judge, it had been meet that they had first agreed among themselves what this Catholick Church is, to which every Christian is bound to submit, whether it be the virtuall Church, that is the Pope, or the Pope jointly with his Conclave of Cardinalls, or the Pope with a provinciall Councell, or the Pope with a generall Councell, that is the representative Church, or a generall Councell without the Pope, or lastly the essentiall Church dispersed over the face of the World; for into so many opinions they are divi­ded.

He addeth that these great multitudes of [Page 281] Christians, whereof we speak, are not united among themselves, but divided in points of Faith, in communion of Sacraments, and the ministery of them ▪ Aust. epist. 48. The name of Catho­lick from universall Commu­nion, not right be­leefe. Let Saint Austine answer him, Acutum autem aliquid videris dicere, cum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis Communione interpretaris, sed ex observati­one Praeceptorum omnium divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum. Thou seemest to thy self to speak very wittily, when thou doest not interpret the Catholick Church by the Communion of the whole World, but by the Catholick Faith, and the right observation of all the Sacraments, and true Discipline, that is, in their sense, submission to the Roman Court. This last badge, which Saint Austin did not know, is the only defect of those multitudes of Christians, that they will not acknowledge the monarchicall Power of the Roman Bishop. As we have seen by experi­ence, that when some few of these Eastern or Northern Christians have reconciled themselves to the See of Rome, and acknow­ledged the Papacy, they were streight adjud­ged Orthodox and sound Christians, in all other things. And the latter of these did provide expresly for themselves at the time of their submission, c. 2 sect. 6. that they would retein their Greekish Religion and Rites. He him­self in this very place confesseth them to agree in fundamentall points, that is, to be free from fundamentall errors. And for other lesser Controversies, they have not half so [Page 282] many among them, as the Romanists among themselves.

As to his marginall note out of Turtullian, That Heretici pacem cum omnibus miscent, Hereticks mingle themselves with all Sects, making it a Symtome of Heresie, to be over easie in admitting others to their Commu­nion. More dan­gerous to exclude then to in­clude others in our Com­munion. I doe confess it is a fault indeed. But first what doth this concern the Church of England? Secondly, the greater fault lies on the other hand, to be over severe, and o­ver vigorous and censorious in casting out, or holding others from their Communion, and more dangerous to the Church of Christ. In this kinde offended the Donatists, the Novatians, the Luciferians of old: And the Romanists at this day. This hath more of the Patriarchall Garbe in it, stand from me for I am holier then thou.

CHAP. 7. That all Princes and Republiks of the Roman Communion, doe in effect the same things which King Henry did.

WE are come now unto his seventh Chapter, The poli­tick Su­premacy of Princes in Eccle­siasticall causes. wherein I am much be­holden to him for easing me of the labour of replying. For whereas I proved my intention at large by the Acts, Laws, and Decrees of the Emperors, with their Councels, and Synods, and Electorall College, by the Laws of France, the Liber­ties of the Gallicane Church, the Acts of their Parliaments, and Declarations of their Universities, by the practice of the King of Spain, his Councels, his Parliaments, in Sicily, in Castile, in Brabant and Flanders, by the sobbes of Portugall, and their blea­tings, and the Judgment of the University of Lisbone, by the Laws and Proclamations and other Acts of the Republick of Venice, throughout 68 pages. He vouchsafeth not to take notice of any one particular of all this, except only some few heads, of what I urged concerning the Emperors, which he [Page 284] reciteth in lesse then one page, and never attempts to answer one syllable of them in particular. Yet are these so diametrally op­posite to the pretended rights of the Pope, his Legislative power, his convocating of Sy­nods, his confirming Synods, his sending out Bulls, his receiving Appeals, his Patronage of Churches, his Pardons and Dispensations, his Exemption from all humane judgment, his sending of Legates, his Tenths and first Fruits, his Superiority above generall Coun­cels, his Excommunications, and in a word his whole Spirituall Sovereignty, that no­thing can be more opposite. In these presi­dents we did clearly see that essentiall power and right of Sovereignty, which I plead for in this Book, to make Ecclesiasticall Laws for the externall regiment of the Church, to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments, to reform Ecclesiasticall errors and abuses, to be the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances, to restrain Ecclesiasticall ty­ranny, and to see that all Ecclesiasticall per­sons within their Dominions doe their du­ties. And if these instances were not enough, many more might be produced of the best Christian Princes. Paul the third writ to Charles the fifth, Hist conc. Trid. An. 1544 That the Decrees of Spira were dangerous to his Soul, commands him to put away all disputes of Religion from the Imperiall Diet, and referre them to the Pope, to order nothing concerning Ecclesiasticall goods, to revoke the grants made unto the Re­bells [Page 285] against the See of Rome. Otherwise he should be forced to use greater severity against him then he would. An. 1545. Yet Cardinall de Monte was more angry then his Master, saying, That he would put his Holinesse in minde, ra­ther to abandon the See, and restore the Keies to Saint Peter, then suffer the Secular power to arrogate Authority to determine causes of Religion. The Emperor did not trouble him­self much at it. But the Pope having created three Spanish Cardinals he forbad them to accept the armes, or use the name or habit. And not long after published a Reforma­tion of the Clergy, An. 1548. conteining twenty three points, First, of Ordination and Election of Ministers, Secondly of the Office of Ec­clesiasticall Orders, Thirdly of the Office of Deans and Canons, Fourthly of Canonicall hours, Fifthly of Monasteries, Sixtly of Schools and Universities, Seventhly of Ho­spitals, Eighthly of the Office of a Preacher, Ninthly of the Administration of the Sacra­ments, Tenthly of the Administration of Baptism, Eleventhly of the Administration of Confirmation, Twelfthly of Ceremo­nies, Thirteenthly of the Masse, Fourteenth [...]y of the Administration of Penitence, Fif­teenthly of the Administration of extreme Unction, Sixteenthly of the Administration of Matrimomy, Seventeenthly of Ecclesiasti­call Ceremonies, Eighteenthly of the Disci­pline of the Clergy and People, Nineteenthly of plurality of Benefices, Twentithly of the [Page 286] Discipline of the People, One and twentith­ly of Visitations, Two and twentithly of Councels, Three and twentithly of Excom­munication. Charles the fifth and the German Dyet did assume to themselves a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes. None of our Princes was ever more devoted to Rome then Queen Mary, yet when Paul the 4 ^th revoked Cardinall Poolos Legantine power in England, and designed one Petus a Franciscan to come Legate in his place, She shut all the Ports of England against all messengers from Rome, and commanded all the Briefs (and Bulls) to be taken from the bearers and delivered unto her. So well was she satisfied that no Roman Legate hath any thing to doe in England, without the Princes licence. But I have brought instan­ces enough, untill he be pleased to take no­tice of them.

To all which he returns no answer, but these generall words. Seeing L. D. hath alleged diverse facts of Catholick Princes in disobeying Papall Authority, and thence in­ferreth that they did as much as King Henry, who not only disobeyed, but denied Papall Au­thority, let us allege both more ancient and greater Emperors who have professed that they had no Authority in Ecclesiasticall causes, and avowed Papall Authority. After this rate he may survey the whole World in a few minutes. Let the Reader judge whether I have not just cause to call upon him for [Page 287] an answer. Are they only diverse facts of Catholick Princes? By his leave they are both facts, and decrees and constitutions, and Laws and Canons, of the most famous Emperors and Princes of Christendome, with their Dyets and Parliaments and Sy­nods, and Councels, and Universities. Or doth it seem to him that they only disobeyed Papall Authority? When he reads them o­ver more attentively, he will finde that they have not only disobeyed Papall Authority, but denied it, as he saith Henry the 8 ^th did, in all the principall parts and branches of it, which are in controversie between them and us. Nay they have not only denied to the Pope that which he cals Papall Authority, to Convocate Synods, to confirm Synods, to make Ecclesiasticall Laws, to dispose of Ec­clesiasticall preferments, to receive the last Appeals in Ecclesiasticall causes, but they have exercised it themselves: They have di­sposed of the Papacy, they have deposed the Popes, they have shut out his Legates, they have Appealed from his sentences, they have not suffered their Subjects to goe upon his Summons, they have caused his Decrees to be torn in pieces most disgracefully, and made Edicts and Statutes, and pragmaticall san­ctions against his usurpations, they have re­gulated the Clergy, and reformed the Churches within their Dominions. And when they thought fit during their pleasures they have stopped all entercouse with Rome. [Page 288] The Kings of Spain suffer no more Appeals from Sicily to the Court of Rome, then our Princes from England, and exercise all man­ner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdction by Delegates, which certainly neither they, nor other Princes would doe, if they did at all believe, that the Papacy was an universall Spirituall Monarchy, instituted by Christ.

But it seemeth that he delighteth more in the use of his sword then of his buckler, and in stead of repelling my arguments, he busieth himself in making new knots for me to un­tie. He knows well that this is no logicall proceeding. And I might justly serve him with the same sauce. But I seek only the clear discovery of truth: and will pursue his steppes throughout his oppositions. The Oath of Supre­macy ju­stified. The first thing that he objecteth to me is the oath of Supremacy made by King Henry and his Church, in which oath (saith he) are sworn five things: First, that the King of England is not only Governor, but only and supreme Governor. Secondly, not only in some, but in all ecclesiasticall things and causes. Thirdly, as well in all ecclesiasticall causes as temporall. Fourthly, that no forrein Prelate hath any spirituall Iurisdiction in England. Fifthly, all forrein Iurisdiction is renounced. This he is pleased to call the first new Creed of the Eng­lish Protestant Church, by which it is become both hereticall and schismaticall. Before I give a distinct answer to this objection, it will be needfull in the first place to put [Page 289] him in minde of some things which I have formerly demonstrated to him touching this particular, which he hath been pleased to pass by in silence. First, Sand. de Schism. p 59. De Schis. Ang p. 57. Hail an. 22. H. 8. who it was that first presented this Title to King Henry, Arch­bishop Warrham (whom Sanders calleth an excellent man) and a Popish Convocation? Secondly, who confirmed this. Title unto him? Four and twenty Bishops, and nine and twenty Abbats in Parliament, none dis­senting. There was not one Protestant a­mong them all. Thirdly, who were the flat­terers of King Henry, that preached up his Supremacy, and printed books in defence of this Supremacy, and set forth Catachism [...]s to instruct the Subjects and teach them what the Supremacy was; who contrived and penned this very Oath, and were the first that took it themselves, and incited all others to take it, even Bishop Gardiner, Tonstall, Heath, Bonner, Stokesley, Thurelby, &c. all R. C. his Friends, the greatest Opposers of the reformation, and the roughest Perse­cuters of Protestants. Lastly, consider what I cited out of Cardinall Poole, Pol de Conc Resp. ad qu 74. & 75. That God the Father hath assigned this Office to Christian Emperors, that they should act the part of Christ the Son of God, And again, the Pope as a Priestly Head doth execute the Office of Christ the true Head, but we may also truly say that the Emperour doth execute the Office of Christ as a Kingly Head.

[Page 290]These things being premised to dull the edge of his argument, now I proceed to a direct answer: and first I charge him with chopping and changing the words of the Oath. The words of the Oath are these, That the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor in this Realm: But in paraphrasing upon them, and pressing them, he renders them thus, not only Governor, but only and supreme Governor. There is a vast difference between these two, to say the King is the only supreme Governor of the Realm of England, which signifies no more but this, that there is no other supreme Governor of the Realm but he, which is most true: and to say that he is the only and supreme Gover­nor, which implies that there is no other Governor but he, which is most false: There are both spirituall and civill Governors in England besides him. To say the Pope is the only supreme Bishop in his own Patriar­chate, is most true, but to say that he is the only and supreme Bishop in his Patriarchate, is most false: this were to degrade all his Suffragans, and allow no Bishop in his Pro­vince but himself.

Secondly, I answer that there is no Supre­macy ascribed to the King in this Oath, but meerly politicall, which is essentially annexed to the Imperiall Crown of every sovereign Prince. The Oath saith, that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of his Highness Realms and Dominions. What [Page 291] doth Saint Peter himself say less to his own Successors as well as others? 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme. How often doth Saint Gregory acknowledge the Emperor to be his supreme Governor, or sovereign Lord? and profess obedience and Subjection unto him, and execute his commands in ecclesiasticall things? That Common-wealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of Jurisdictions, where there are two Supremes, like a Serpent with two heads at either end one.

The Oath addeth in all spirituall or eccle­siasticall things or causes. This is true with some limitations; as first either by himself or by fit Substitutes, who are ecclesiasticall Persons. For our Kings cannot excommu­nicate or absolve in their own persons. Se­condly, it is to be understood of those causes which are handled in foro contentioso, in the exterior Court, not in the inner Court of Conscience. Thirdly, either in the first or in the second instance, by receiving the ap­peales and redressing the wrongs of his in­jured Subjects. Some things are so purely spirituall that Kings have nothing to doe in them in their own persons, as the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sa­craments, and the binding and loosing of Sinners. Yet the persons to whom the dis­charge of these Duties doth belong, and the persons towards whom these Duties ought [Page 292] to be discharged being their Subjects, they have a Power paramount to see that each of them doe their duties in their severall sta­tions. The causes indeed are ecclesiasticall, but the power of governing is politicall. This is the true sense of the Oath, neither more nor less, as appeareth plainly by our thirty seventh Article. A [...]t. [...]ccl. Angl., Art. 37. Where we attribute to our Princes the chief government, by which Titles we understand the mindes of some slan­derous Folkes to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments, but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwaies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God him­self: this is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiasticall or temporall, and restrein with the civill Sword the stubborn or evill doers. Here is no power asserted, no punishment to be inflicted by the King in his own person, but only politicall. I con­fess persons deputed and delegated by the King, doe often excommunicate and ab­solve, and act by the power of the Keyes, but this is by the vertue of their own habit of Jurisdiction. All which the King contri­butes by his Commission, is a liberty and power to act in this particular case, & an ap­plication of the matter, which a Lay Patron, or a Master of a Family, Memor. de Samag. Catholic [...]. cap. 10. or a subordinate Magistrate may doe, much more a sovereign Prince. This power many Roman Catholick [Page 293] Doctors doe justifie. The King of Spain cites above twenty of them. Let the Princes of this World know that they owe an account to God of the Church, which they have received from him into their protection, for whether peace and right ecclesiasticall Discipline be increased, or decayed by Christian Princes, God will require an account from them, who hath trusted his Church unto their Power. All this Power the King of Spain exerciseth in Sicily, in all ecclesiasticall causes, over all ecclesiasticall persons, as well in the first in­stance as the second. This Power a Lay-Chanceller exerciseth in the Court Christian, This Power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her Nuns. Whilest all the Mariners are busied in their severall em­ployments, the sovereign Magistrate sits at the Stern to command all, and order all for the promotion of the great Architectonicall end, that is the safty and welfare of the Common-wealth.

It followes in the O [...]th [ as well as tem­porall] that is, as truly and as justly, but not as fully, nor as absolutely. [ And that no for­rein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iuris­diction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spiri­tuall within this Realm. That is to say, nei­ther the Pope nor his Court. For a generall Councel which is no standing Court, but an aggregate body, composed partly of our selves, is neither included here nor intended. If this be the new Creed of the English Prote­stant [Page 294] Church, as he calls it in scorn, it was the old Creed of the Britannick Church, as I have proved evidently in the vindication. If this profession of Royall Supremacy in our sense doe make men Hereticks and Schis­maticks, we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman Doctors along with us. And for Sovereign Princes we shall leave them few, except some necessitous person, who could not subsist otherwise then by the fa­vourable influence of the Roman Court. A Sancta Clara. Expos. Pa­rapb in Art. 37 Very many Doctors doe hold that for the com­mon good of the Republick, Princes have Iuris­diction in many causes otherwise Subject to the Ecclesiasticall Court, not only by the po­sitive Law of God, but by the Law of Nature. And many more give them a power indi­rectly in causes Ecclesiasticall over Eccle­siasticall persons, so far as is necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Tranqui­lity of the Commonwealth, nec putem ul­lum Doctorem Catholicum refragari, Ibidem. saith the same Author in the place cited, Neither doe I think that any Catholick Doctor will be against it.

Now I have said my minde concerning the Oath of Allegiance, who they were that first contrived it, and in what sense we doe main­tain it, I hope agreably to the sense of the Christian World, except such as are prepos­sessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome. As our Kings out of Reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of Supreme heads [Page 295] of the English Church, so though it bee not meet for me to prevent their maturer deter­minations, I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of Subjects, who may erre out of invincible ignorance, they would be pleased to lay by the oath also. God looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices, why should not man doe the same? It seemeth to be hard measure to destroy men for meer speculative opinions, which it may be are not in their own power, so long as there is neither bla­sphemy nor sedition in the case. It is often easier to secure a mans actions, then to cure the errors of his judgment.

In the next place he chargeth me with contradicting of my self, Sect. 2. because I say, the Emperors and other Princes of the Roman com­munion have done the same things in effect, No con­tradiction in my words. with the King of England; and in another place I confess, that the Kings of England have abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but the Emperors have not. This, he faith, is to give myself the lie. Certainly he was in some heat or passion when this word of disgrace dropped from his penne, as com­monly disputers are, when they finde that they have gotten the wrong end of the staff. If he had advisedly read over my assertion it is this, that either they have done the same thing in effect, or at least have pleaded for it. If either part of the disjunction be true, my assertion is a truth, and no contradiction, [Page 296] much less a lie, which implyeth that it is both against truth and against conscience. Now I have shewed clearly in the vindication, that they have not only pleaded it, but sworn it, that they would maintain the Rites, Liber­ties, and Customes of the Empire inviolated, against the Pope and the Court of Rome. And that they have protested that they would not have his Holiness to be ignorant that they neither could nor would indure his intollerable pressures any longer, but would vindicate themselves.

Further, to doe the same thing in effect, doth not signifie to doe the same individuall action, nor alwaies the same specificall acti­on, but only that which argueth the same power, or implyeth the same consequences. If an ordinary doe suspend a Clerke from his Benefice, or degrade him from his holy Or­ders, so long as the question is only whether he be under Jurisdiction of the ordinary, it is all one in effect, whilest the one proveth the intention as well as the other. If a theefe st [...]ale a shilling or a pound, it is not the same thing in effect, because the Theef pretendeth no right to what he taketh; But if a Magi­strate impose a tribute of a shilling or a pound, where the question is only whether he have power to impose tribute or not, it is all one in effect; for his title is as just to the one as to the other, and as he imposeth a shilling to day, so he may, if he have occasion, impose a pound to morrow. The whole [Page 297] and all the parts are the same in effect: The Emperors have done all the particular Acts which the Kings of England have done con­cerning Patronage, Investitures, Legislation, Reformation, Legates, Appeals, Tenths, first Fruits, &c. And moreover have depo­sed Popes, which the Kings of England ne­ver attempted to doe, though they have not made one generall Act of abolition. Why is not this the same in effect? He that satis­fieth a debt in Pistols and he who satisfieth it in cracked Groats, doe both the same thing in effect. To conclude, they who assume the right to be the last Judges of their own Li­berties and Priviledges, in all differences be­tween them and the Court of Rome, doe the same thing in effect, whether the respective Priviledges of the one or the other be more or less; But the Emperors and the Kings of England did assume to themselves the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Priviledges, in all differences between them and the Court of Rome. And there­fore though the one might take or mistake himself to be within the old Roman Patri­archate, which the other was not, or what­soever other differences there might be in the extent of their Liberties, or in their claims, yet they did the same thing in effect. The only difference between the Emperors and Henry the eight is this, that they denyed the Papacy in parcells, and he denyed it in gross; They denyed his Sovereign Legislative power [Page 298] they denyed his Patronage of Churches, they denyed his Investitures of Bishops, they de­nyed his Superiority above generall Coun­cells, they denyed his Tenths, and first Fruits, and Pardons, and Indulgences, and Dispen­sations. So they pulled away his stolen feathers one by one, and Henry the eighth uncased him all at once, but except some Pa­triarchall Rites, (which Britain never ac­knowledged, which are no parts of the Pa­pacy,) they left him as naked the one as the other. This I might well call the same thing in effect.

Sect. 3.Now are we come to take a view of his witnesses, to try if he be more fortunate in offending then he is in defending. Constan­tine. But tru­ly they are such, that their very names and their well known acts do sufficiently con­fute all his evidence. Ruffin. l. 1. c. 2. The first is Constantine the great, who professed openly that he could not judg of Bishops. No such thing. He said only, that they could not be judged of all men. When all men have imperial power his argu­ment will have more force in it, but nothing to his purpose. The only question between us is about the Papacy, and his proof makes only for the priviledges of Episcopacy. What­soever Constantine did at this time was a meer prudentiall act. He had convocated the Bishops together against Arrius; and instead of endeavoring to suppress the com­mon enemie, they fell into quarrels and mu­tuall complaints one against another, about [Page 299] businesses of no moment. Constantine see­ing, quod per hujusmodi jurgia causa summi negocii frustraretur, that the main business against Arrius was hindred by these unrea­sonable brawlings, and ne innotesceret ulli hominum, &c. to prevent scandall, that the faults and contentions of Priests might not appear to the world, he suppressed them, and referred them to the judgment of God. This was a more prudent course, and more conducible at that time to the advantage of Christian Religion, then to have examined every scandalous accusation of one against another. Theodorit. l. 1. c. 11. Yet even in this there appeareth sufficient proof of Constantines judiciary power over the Bishops. First, they did all offer their mutuall accusations one of ano­ther to him, as to their proper Judge: Se­condly, he commanded them all to put their accusations in writing, and to deliver them to his hands: Thirdly, he bound them all up in a bundell and sealed them: Fourthly, he made them friends, and then burned them in their presence, and imposed upon them a perpetuall amnesty or law of forgetfullness. All these were judiciary Acts. It is true Constantine honored Bishops very much; he made them his companions in his voyages, his fellow commoners at his table; he cast his Cloak over their faults. But this was not for want of judiciary power over them, Euseb. de vita Con­stant. l. 1. c. 35. but because they were consecrated to God, and he beleeved that in thus doing God would be­come [Page 300] propitious to him. But at other times, the case is as clear as the Sun, Idem, l 3. c. 23 He prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches. He referred the cause of Caecilianus (an Ecclesiasticall cause) to Miltiades Bishop of Rome, and Marcus, and Rhetecius, and Maternus, and Marinus, as his Delegates or Commissioners, Euseb. hist. l. 10. c. 5. Aust. epist. 162. visum est mihi, it hath seemed good to me, &c. He accepted Appeals from the judgment of the Bishops: He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul, Euseb hist. l. 10. c. 6. and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects, as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to doe ju­stice upon Ecclesiasticall Delinquents. He sent for the Bishops assembled by his com­mandement at a Councell first at Tyrus, then at Hierusalem, that they should repaire with speed to Constantinople, Socrat. l. 1. c. 22. evestigio ad ca­stra nostra maturetis, to give an account to him of their actions, and to shew how sin­cerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments. Sozom l. 2. c. 27. In a word, he medled so much in Ecclesiasticall affaires, that he made him­self as a common Bishop constituted by God. Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 1. c. 37. I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians, If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanitie, we rejoyce; but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests Theodor. l. 1. c. 19( Eusebius and other Bishops) he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the [Page 301] Minister of God. And accordingly they were spoyled of their dignities, and cast out of the Cities.

His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius, Valenti­nian. but which Valentinian, which Theodosius, where this Epistle is to be found, he is silent, and leaveth us, if it were worth the labour, to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay. But the truth is, there is no­thing in it which concerneth this question, nothing which we deny. The words, as they be alleged by him, are these: All anti­quity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome. Our question is concerning the Politicall Principality of Kings and Emperours, and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood. Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood, so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power. We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them. And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power: Or at least such a Supremacy of single, so­vereign, monarchichall Power, as they re­quire, about which our controversie now is. A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coyfe and Bench, and in some circumstantiall respects a kinde of eminency or principality of Power, but no single supremacy, so as to be able to crosse their votes with a non ob­stante. [Page 302] Such a supremacy of sovereing, sin­gle, universall power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know, either at Rome or elsewhere. The Bishops of Rome were so farre from having power over gene­rall Councells, that they had no single pow­er over their fellow Patriarchs. So farre from having power over Emperours, that they have been delegated by Emperours as their Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall cau­ses, have been convened before Emperors, and deposed by Emperors. Primitive Bi­shops use to stile Popes their brethren, their collegues, their fellows, but never Ecclesiasti­call Princes. If he mean the second Valenti­nian, his authority weighs nothing; he was a young Novice mis-led by his Arrian Mother, a wilfull ill-advised woman. If he mean another Valentinian, I shall shew him that he exercised this politicall Supremacy in Ec­clesiasticall affaies, it may be to the question­ing of his Prince of Priests.

TheodosiusHis third witness is Theodosius the youn­ger, in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus, his words are these: It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiasti­call matters. Yet he did meddle with Eccle­sticall matters. Socrat l 7. c. 22. This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures, as if himself had been a Bishop. This is that Theodosius which made this fol­lowing Law, Evagr. l. 9. c. 12. We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius, or obey his wicked [Page 303] Doctrine, if they be Bishops, be cast out of the holy Churches; but if Lay men, anathemati­zed. This is that Theodosius that convoca­ted the generall Councell of Ephesus by his Authority Royall, and sent Candidianus thi­ther to be his Deputy, among other things set diligenter inspiceret, &c. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops, so see that no dissensions did arise among them, to disturbe the consultations of Synods; and to represse them likewise, otherwise he might as well have staid at home. Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged, Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus, sed eae lege, &c. We command Candidianus to goe to this holy Synod, but upon this condition, that he should have nothing to doe with questions and contro­versies which concern Doctrines of faith, for it is unlawfull for one not registred in the catalogue of Bishops, to thrust himself into ecclesiasticall affairs and consultations. This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperour to dispute in the Councell about Theologicall questions, which it is probable he did not understanding, nor to overawe the Bishops or controlle their votes. We are of the same minde with Theodosius, and say as much as he, that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theologi­call questions: And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Domini­ons [Page 304] yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads, but upon mature advise of free Synods of Ecclesiasticall per­sons, who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs. All men know that Candi­dianus could have no decisive voice in a ge­nerall Councell. So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keyes of the Church, either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order. We confesse that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops, yet the last Appeal may be to the King. We say there are many things which Kings cannot doe in their own persons, and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royall authority.

Valenti­nian the elder.His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder: It is not lawfull for me who am of the People, to search curiously such matters; Sozo. l. 6 c. 7. let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please. The case was this, Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire. Idem l. 6. c. 6. Valens was an Arrian, Valentinian an orthodox Christian; yet so as he trou­bled not those who were of a contrary Opi­nion. He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome, the ortho­dox Bishops about the Hellespont, and in Bythinia, sent their Depuities unto him, to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Councell, for the establishment of the right Faith, wherein they acknowled­ged him the politicall Head of the Church. [Page 305] It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, in so sublime a question, concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, in this exigence of affairs, being in his voyage, in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor, who was an Arrian, and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, whose Subjects these Bishops were, as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompany­ing of his Brother some part of his way; what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given, then that he did give? Though we give to So­vereign Princes within their own Domini­ons a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes, yet not without good advise, espe­cially in such high points of Faith as that was, and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods, and Bi­shops? The same method is observed by us at this day. The Synod contrives fit Arti­cles and Canons, and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes. But did Va­lentinian nothing himself in such cases, but leave all to Priests? No. He himself con­firmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, quam etiam nostra celsitudo pas­sim praedicari mandavit, Theod. l 4, c 7, & 8. Which our High­nesse hath commanded to be Preached every where. This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the [Page 306] covetousnesse of the Clergy, which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of, not against the Emperors who made the Law, but against the Clergy who deserved it. cod. In the Code we finde Ecclesi­asticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian, as that to Florianus, That a Bishop rebapti­zing one who had been formerly Baptized, out of ignorance of the Law, should be deprived of his Bishoprick. It was this very Valenti­nian of whom Theodorit, speaketh, that in Occidentem profectus, &c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes, and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety. He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian, to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine, and after some de­bates they did chuse Saint Ambrose. Some may say if it was his right, why did he not chuse him himself? I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one, as knowing his right, and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time, jubet Ambrosium extemplo & initiari mysteriis, & Episcopum ordinari, The Emperor com­manded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries, Th [...]od l 4. c. 5. and to be ordeined Bishop. Neither was this the case of Constantine, In praemio l. 5. or Theodosius, or Valentinian alone, So­crates writes more generally, That from Constantines time when the Emperors be­came Christians, Ecclesiasticall affaires [Page 307] seemed to depend upon their beck.

His fifth witnesse is Basilius. Basilius. Basilius Em­peror in the seventh Synod, speaketh thus to the Laity. He is mistaken, Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod, but Constantine and Irene, but it is true that in the time of the 8 ^th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity. The case is this, one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their un­seasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the O­rientall Church into great dangers, where­upon Basilius then Emperor useth these words, An. 869. Nullo modo nobis licet, &c. It is no way lawfull for us (Laymen) to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes, nor at all to resist the whole Church, and oppose an universall Sy­nod. For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests. Basilius was in the right. It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as B [...]shops doe, that is to say, to have decisive Voices, or to meddle above their capacities, much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels, or to vie reason for reason with them. The Bishops form of subscription was this, Ego B. definiens subscrips [...], I B. have sub­scribed to this as my definition. The Laymans form was this, Ego L. consentiens subscrips [...], I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it. There is a great difference be­tween [Page 308] defining, and consenting. But as Kings are never minors, because they are presumed to h [...]ve a wise Councel, so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay­men, who have a learned Councel of Eccle­siasticall persons to direct them. All this while he troubles himself to no purpose a­bout the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part, which only is in question between us. Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land, and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments.

Charles the greatHis sixth witnesse is Charles the great, Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wili­ha [...]e by command of the high Bishop and uni­versall Pope Adrian, Albert Crantz. metr. l. 1. c. 7. &c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spiri­tuall matters. It is a great degree of con­fidence to dare to cite Charles the great, to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires, To cite him who convocated Councels yeer­ly by his own Authority, Vindicat. c. 7. pag. 167. and reformed the Church. Who sate himself in Synods, not only as a hearer but as a Judg, that is, with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel, Auditor & Arbiter adfui, and made Eccle­siasticall Decrees in his own name, discer­nimus & Deo donante decrevimus. Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves, [Page 309] who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme, which was then a place but newly conquered by himself, and newly converted, but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire, not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self. To whom this very Pope Adrian, whom he citeth, with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne, release, and acquit for ever all their claim, right, and interest in the election of succeeding Popes. The case cited was this. Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith. Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts, and desired much their conversion, finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno consti [...]uit Episcopatu, He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him. And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme. The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day. Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure, Episcopalem constituimus Cathe­dram, and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit, extat privilegium eidem Eccle­siae a memorato Rege Collatum. He endowed the Churches, and commanded the inhabi­tants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them, hoc nostro Majesta [...]is precepto. That was not by the Authority of Pope Adrian. All the poor pretence which he catcheth [Page 310] from hence, is, that Charles the great said that summi Pontificis & universalis Episcopi Adriani praecepto, by the precept of the chief and universall Bishop Adrian he had be­stowed this Bishoprick upon Wilehade. Yet all men know, that praeceptum signifies a les­son, or instruction, or advise, as well as a command. At the most it was but a com­plement, or command of curtesie, or a ghostly advise, honored with that name, which is familiarly done. True Patrons doe dispose their Churches themselves, not give mandates to others to dispose them for them. It were ridiculous to imagine that Charles the great was the Patron of the Bishoprick of Rome it self, (as without doubt he was,) and that he was not the Pa­tron of the Church of Breme which he had newly conquered, or that Adrian who re­signed Rome should continue Patron of Breme.

Epist. ad Ioan. 2. in CediceHis seventh witnesse is Iustinian to Pope Iohn the second, We suffer not any thing which belongs to the state of Churches not to be known to your Holynesse, who is the Head of all holy Churches. I wish he had been pleased to set down the title of the Letter, Iustinian Victor Justi­nianus, pius, faelix, inclytus, triumphator, sem­p [...]r Augustus, Joanni Sanctissimo Archiepis­copo almae Vrbis Romae, & Patriarchae, Where Archbishop and Patriarch are his highest titles, there is no Monarchy intend­ed. The words are rightly cited, saving that [Page 311] he omitteth a clause in the middle, [ although that which is changed be manifest and un­doubted,] and a dangerous reason at the end [ for in all things as it is said we hasten to aug­ment the honor and authority of your See.] If the Papacy had been a Spirituall Monar­chy instituted by Christ, it did not lie in Iustinians power to augment it. But it is plain the honor and authority of the Ro­man See proceeded from the bounty of Chri­stian Emperors, and the Decrees of the Fa­thers. Neither is there any thing in the words above mentioned worthy of a reply. Suppose Iustinian made known his own Ecclesiasticall Ordinances to the Pope, to the end that he might obey them and exe­cute them. This is no great matter. So doth a Sovereign Prince to every Governor of an inferior Corporation. Lawes are no Lawes untill they be promulged. If the Pope had made the Lawes, and made them known to the Emperor it had been more to his purpose. But all the strength of his ar­gument lies in these words who is Head of all holy Churches. And yet he cannot chuse but know, that Iustinian doth mean and must of necessity mean an Head of Order, and cannot possibly mean an Head of Power and Jurisdiction, having himself exalted se­verall other Churches as Iustiniana and Car­thage to an equall degree of Power and Pri­vileges with Rome it self. A man may see to what streits he is driven, when he is forced [Page 312] to produce such witnesses as Charles the great and Iustinian, I say Iustinian who ba­nished Pope Silverius, who created Iustini­ana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his Emperiall Power, who made so many Lawes concerning Ecclesiasticall persons, and Benefices, and holy Orders, and Appeals, and the Patronage of Churches, concerning Religion, the Creed, Sacraments, Heresie, Schism, Sanctuaries, Simony, and all matters of Ecclesiasticall cognisance, that if all o­ther presidents ancient and modern were lost, Iustinians alone, who was the Father of the Imperiall Law, were sufficient to evince the politicall Supremacy of Sovereign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions.

His three last witnesses, are King Edgar, King Withred, and Edward the third. But these three have been produced by him be­fore in this very treatise and there fully an­swered, Sup. c. 4. sect. 1. and seeing no new weight is added in this place to his former discourse, I will not weary the Reader or my self with un­necessary repetitions.

CHAP. 8. That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schism.

WE are come now to my sixth and last ground that the guilt of the Schism rests upon the Pope and the Court of Rome. The first thing which I meet with is his marginall note out of Saint Austin, L 2. Cont. Petili. c. 51. Cathedra quid tibi fecit Ec­clesiae Romanae? What hurt hath the See of Rome done thee? But first, Petilians case to whom those words were spoken, is not our case. He called all the Catholick Sees thoughout the World, Chairs of Pestilence, so doe not we. Neither doth Saint Austin attribute any thing singular to the See of Rome in this place, more then to the See of Hierusalem, or any other Catholick See. Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris, Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, & in qua hodie Anastatius sedet, vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit, & in qua hodie Joannes sedet? Quibus nos in Catholica unitate connectimur, & a quibus vos nefario furore separastis. It is not we that have furiously separated our selves from [Page 334] either of these Sees. But it is the Court of Rome which hath made the separation both from Hierusalem, and from us.

In the next place he inquireth what I in­tend by this present Schism, whether the Schism of Protestants in generall, or of English Pro­testants in particular? and whether by causu­ally I understand a sufficient cause that fre­eth from sinne? Doubtless I must understand a sufficient cause that freeth the innocent party from sinne, or understand nothing: For an unsufficient cause is no cause: But his induction is imperfect. I doe neither un­derstand the Schism of the Protestant Church in generall, nor the Schism of the English Church in particular, but directly the Schism of the Roman Church, which did first give just cause of separation, not only to Pro­testant Churches, but to all the Eastern Churches; and then did make the separa­tion by their unjust and uncharitable cen­snres. But he saith there can be no just cause of Schisms. The greater is their fault who are the true Schismaticks; first, by giving just cause of separation from their errors, and then making the separation by their cen­sures. It is true, there can be no just cause of criminous Schism, because there can be no just cause of sinne: It is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it. But there may be both just cause of separation, and just se­paration without any crime or sinne, yea vertuous and necessary, as is confessed by [Page 315] themselves. Sup c. 2. s. 4 infid. unmasked c. 7 s. 112. p. 534. In all such cases the sinne of criminous Schism lies at their dores, who introduced the errors, and thereby first se­parated themselves from the uncorrupted Church which was before them.

Before he come to answer my arguments he proposeth an objection of his own, that neither the Church, nor Court of Rome did give any sufficient cause of separation either to Luther or to Henry the eighth. In pro­secution whereof he supposeth that Luther had no cause of separation but the abuse of some Preachers of indulgences, Indulgen­ces. whom the Pope of that time rebuked severely. Nor Henry the eighth but the excommunication of Clement the seventh. That of Luther is al­together without the compass of the que­stion between him and me, which concer­neth only the Church of England. I shall only make bold to tell him that whensoever it comes to be examined, it will be found that Luther had many other causes of what he did, then the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences. If he will not give me credit, let him cousult the hundred grievances of the German Nation. That the Pope rebu­ked those Preachers of Indulgences severely, is more then I have read: only this I have read, that Carolus Militius did so chide Tecelius the Popes Pardoner about it, that shortly after he died of grief. The ex­communi­cation of Henry the eighth.

Concerning Henry the eighth, the excom­munication of Clement the seventh was so [Page 316] far from being a totall adequate cause of his separation, that it was no more but a single occasion. The originall priviledges of the British Churches, the ancient liberties and immunities of the English Church, daily in­vaded by the Court of Rome, the usurpati­on of the just Rites and Flowers of his own Crown, the otherwise remediles oppression of his Subj [...]ts, and the examples of his no­ble Predecessors were the chief grounds of his proceedings against the Court of Rome.

He asketh, could not Henry the eighth have been saved though he was excommunicate? yes, why not? Justice looseth unjust bonds. But I see that this question is grounded upon a double dangerous error. First, that all reformation of our selves is a sinfull sepa­ration from other Churches. Whereas he himself confesseth that it is sometimes ver­tuous and necessary. Nay every reforma­tion of our selves is so far from being a sin­full separation from others, that it is no se­paration at all, except it be joyned with cen­suring and condemning of others.

The second error intimated in this que­stion is this, that so long as there is possibi­lity of salvation in any Church, it is not law­full or at least not necessary to separate from the abuses and corruptions thereof. A Church may continue a true particular Church and bring forth Children to God, and yet out of invincible ignorance maintain [Page 317] materiall Heresie, and require the profession of that Heresie as a condition of communi­cating with her, in which case it is lawfull, nay necessary after conviction to separate from her errors. Those errors and corrup­tions are pardonable by the goodness of God to them who erre out of invincible igno­rance, which are not pardonable in like man­ner to them who sinne contrary to the light of their own conscience.

He addeth, that this excommunication was not the fault of the Roman Church, which nei­ther caused it nor approved it. Yea saith he, di­vers of them disliked it both then and since, not as unjust but as imprudent, and some have declared themselves positively that a Prince and a multitude are not to be excommunica­ted. It were to be wished for the good of both parties, that all men were so moderate. To his argument I give two answers: First, as the Church of Rome did not approve the excommunication of Henry the eighth; So neither did Henry the eighth separate him­self from the Cchurch of Rome, but only from the Pope and Court of Rome. Second­ly, what are we the better that some in the Roman Church are moderate, so long as they have no power to help us, or hinder the acts of the Roman Court. They teach that a Prince or a multitude are not to be ex­communicated. But in the mean time the Court of Rome doth excommunicate both Princes and multitudes, and whole King­domes, [Page 318] and give them away to strangers. Whereof there are few Kingdomes or Re­publicks in Europe that have not been sensi­ble more or less: and particularly England hath felt by wofull experience in sundry ages. Clement the seventh excommunicated King Henry, but Paul the third both excommuni­cated and interdicted him and the whole Kingdome; and this was the first separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, and the originall of the Schism, wherin the Church of England was meerly passive. So the Court of Rome was the first cause of the Schism.

Sect. 2.We are come now to my first argument to prove the Court of Rome to be causually schismaticall: My proposition is this: what­soever doth leave its proper place in the bo­dy, either naturall or politicall or ecclesia­sticall, to usurp the Office of the Head, or to usurpe an higher place in the body then belongs unto it, is the cause of disorder, di­sturbance, confusion, and Schism among the Members: my assumption is this; but the vertuall Church of Rome, that is, the Pope wi [...]h his Court, being but a coordinate Mem­ber of the Catholick Church, doth seek to usurpe the Office of the Head; being but a Branch, doth ch [...]llenge to himself the place of the Root; being but a Stone in the building, will needles be an absolute Foundation, for all persons, places, and times; being but an eminent Servant in the [Page 319] Familie, takes upon him to be the Ma­ster.

To the proposition he taketh no excepti­on: And to the assumption he confesseth that the Church of Rome, in right of the Pope, doth seek to be Mistriss of all other Churches, and an externall subordinate foun­dation of all Christians in all times and pla­ces, which is no more then is conteined in the new Creed of Pius the fourth, B [...] Pii 4. I acknow­ledg the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistriss of all Churches, And I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. But all this he justifieth to be due to the Pope, and included in the Supremacy of his Pastorall Office: But he saith, that it is not the Doctrine of the universal Roman Church, that the Pope is the root of all spiritual Iurisdiction. Though it be not the Doctrine of the whole Roman Church, yet it is the Doctrine of their prin­cipall Writers at this day. The Church of Rome no foundation of Christi­ans. It is that which the Popes and their Courtiers doe challenge, and we have seldome seen them fail, first or last, to get that setled which they desired. The Pope hath more Benefices to bestow then a Councell. If the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians, then Linus and Cletus and Clemens were the foundati­ons of St. Iohn, Rev. 21.24 who was one of the twelve foundations laid immediately by Christ How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians, when they doe not agree [Page 320] among themselves that the Chair of St. Peter is annexed to the See of Rome by divine right? How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians at all times, when there was a time that there were Chri­stians and no Bishop or Church at Rome? when it happens many times, as in this pre­sent vacancy, that there is no Bishop at Rome? St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch be­fore he was Bishop of Rome, then there was a time when Antioch was the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches, and not Rome. St. Peter might have continued Bi­shop of Antioch untill his death, and then Antioch had still been the Mistriss and foun­dation of all other Churches. He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome, and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistriss. All this is confessed by Bellarmine. l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith, of so great contingency, that were not of perpetu­all necessity? How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all pla­ces, when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the dayes of the Apo­stles, who never had any thing to doe with Rome, nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome? If the Pope be the Master of all Christians, he is but a young Master; for we finde no such expression in all the primitive times. Why were the ancient Bishops so grosly over-seen to stile him their Brother, [Page 321] their Collegue, their Fellow, who was their Master. It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions, as a Gene­rall calls all his Army fellow Souldiers; but it was never heard that a private Colonell or Captain did call his Generall fellow Soul­dier, or a Servant call his Master fellow Ser­vant, or an ordinary Clerk call his B [...]shop his Brother. 1 Pet 5.1. St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder, not a Master. If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches, he would have given them their due title, and the whole Scrip­ture had not been so silent in so necessarie a point.

But he saith, the Popes Supremacy is nei­ther against the two Creeds, nor the fi [...]st four generall Councells, intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation, and conse­quently is no sufficient cause of separation. I answer first, that it is against the four first generall Councels, if this were a proper place for the discussion of it. I answer se­condly, that though it were not opposite to the Creed, or the first four generall Coun­cells, yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed, being, as it is, by them obtruded up­on all Christians as an Article of faith, or a necessarie part of saving truth, extra quam non est salus, without which there is no sal­vation, it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is [Page 322] so obtruded. Of this more in the next argu­ment.

Sect. 3.My second argument may be thus redu­ced, That Court which obtruded newly coyned Articles of faith, The Church of Rome ob­trudeth new Arti­cles of Faith, and excommu­nicateth for not re­ceiving them. such as the Do­ctrin of the seven Sacraments, Transubstan­tiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, Indulgences, and especially the Popes Supremacy, upon the Christian world, as absolutely necessary to salvation, and necessarie conditions of Ca­tholick communion, and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them, is fearfully schismaticall; But the Court of Rome doth all this. That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church, wherein they are neither ex­plicitely nor virtually comprehended. That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome, An. 1564. appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth, wherein they are added to the old Creed, ut unius & ejusdem fidei professio uni­formiter ab omnibus exhibeatur, that the pro­fession of one and the same faith may be decla­red uniformly by all, and one certain form thereof be made known to all. And lastly, That the Court of Rome hath solemnly ex­communicated with the greater excommu­nication, and anathematized, and excluded (so farre as lieth in their power) from the communion of Christ, all the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssen, and reformed [Page 323] Churches, being three times more in number then themselves, for not receiving these new Articles, or some of them, and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth, An. 1569. called Bulla caenae, because it is read in die caenae Domini, or upon Thursday before Easter.

In way of answer to this, he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt? I reply first, that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this, & so it had not been causa procreans, a productive cause of the separation, yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism. Secondly, the revolt, or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church, but by the Pope and Court of Rome, who excommunicated him and his Kingdome for not enduring their en­croachments and usurpations. He and his Kingdome were passive in it, only the Court of Rome was doubly active, first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Prede­cessors, and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion. But in the separation of England from the oppessi­ons of the Court of Rome, I confesse that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active. And this very ground to avoid the [Page 324] tyranny, The Papa­cy a cause of separa­tion. and ambition, and avarice of the Ro­man Court was the chief impulsive cause, both to the English and Eastern Christians. For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed, yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessarie point of Faith. If Henry the eight had any other private sinistre grounds known only to himself, they doe not render the Reformation one jod the worse in it self, but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly, which concerneth him, not us.

Secondly, he answereth, that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be un­der the Pope as Vicar of Christ, yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii, so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it. If all this were true, yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to sub­mit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, by vir­tue of the commandement of God. But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull, and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto, doe make it to be necessary necessitate medii, so as none can be saved who doe not actually be­leeve it. And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Councells of Con­stance and Basile, out of the Popes own Court, which was then the only Noahs Arke. The words of their Oath are these, Hanc ve­ram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo sal­vus [Page 325] esse potest, &c. This true catholick faith without which no man can be saved, which I profess freely, and hold truly in present, I doe promise, Bull. Pau­li 4. vow, and swear by the help of God to retein and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly, to my last gasp; and will take care (so farre as in me lyeth) to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge. If it were not necessary necessi­tate medii, some might be saved without it, namely all those who are invicibly ignorant of it. But they swear expresly that no man can be saved without it: And so make it to be an essentiall Article of the catholick Faith.

Thirdly, The Pope excommu­nicates the Eastern Churches. he answereth, that the Roman Church (he should say the Roman Court) doth not excommunicate all the Christians of Africk, Asia, Greece, and Russia, but only such as do erre vincibly or sinfully, such as are formall or obstinate Hereticks or Schismaticks. There are innumerable in those Churches who are but credentes Hereticis & Schismaticis, because the Catholick Faith was never suffi­ciently preached to them. And these the Pope doth not excommunicate. I wish he did not: But his own Bull speaks the contrary, that he excommunicates them all solemnly, anniversarily, with the greater excommuni­cation. The Bull makes no such distinction between Hereticks or Schismaticks, and those who give credit to Hereticks or Schis­maticks. The Bull hath no such exception [Page 326] of those who erre out of invicible igno­rance. If the Grecians be not all excommu­nicated, then by the same reason the Prote­stants are not all excommunicated, there is no difference. Yet he seemeth to extenuate their fault, because the Faith was never suffi­ciently preached to them, whereas in truth they hold the Popes declaration to be a suffi­cient proposall. I doe not say that the effi­cacie of this rash censure doth extend either to them all, or to any of them all. But they owe no thanks to the Court of Rome for sparing them, but to Christ for annulling their sentence. So much as lyeth in them they exclude them all from the communion of Christians and all hope of salvation. How cometh it to pass that he who pleaded but even now, that a multitude ought not to be excommunicated on a sodain, is contented to give way to the solemn annuall excom­munication of such innumerable multi­tudes of Christians? to whom himself confesseth that the catholick Faith (he mean­eththeir newly coyned Articles) was never sufficiently preached.

Fourthly, he answereth, that the Pope doth not exclude them by his excommunication, but only declares that they are excluded by their own Heresie or S [...]hism. It is a great que­stion in the Schools, whether any sentence of binding and loosing be more then decla­ratorie. But this is certain, that as to this case now in question between him and me [Page 327] it is all one whether the sentence of the Pope doe cut them off from the communion of the Catholick Church, or only declare them to be cut off. For still the same rupture or schismaticall separation of one part of the catholick Church from another, doth follow thereupon. If the Pope doe justly exclude them, or declare them to be excluded, the Schism lyeth at their own dores. If the Pope doe either unjustly exclude them, or declare them to be excluded, the Schism lieth at his dore. I know Ecclesiasticall Canons doe sometimes inflict penalties upon Delinquents ipso facto, or by the sentence of he Law: Sometimes they doe moreover require the sentence of the Judge. The sentence of the Law takes place sooner then the sentence of the Judge: But the Delinquent stands not legally convicted, untill a juridicall decla­ration. And in all such cases the Law must be confessed, the fact notorious. But in this case of the Eastern Churches, there is no Law, there is no Canon that inflicteth any penalty of Heresy or Schism upon them, their Delinquency is not notorious, or ra­ther it is evident that they are no Delin­quents. They have no competent Judge ex­cept a general Councel, whereof they make the greatest part themselves. Finally, the proceeding against them was illegall, teme­rarious, and coram non Iudice.

I said that for divers years in the begin­ning of Queen Elizabeths reign, there were [Page 328] no Recusants known in England, No Recu­sants in England, or few, in the begin­ning of Q Eliza­beths reign untill Pa­pists were prohibited by a Bull to joyn with us in our publick form of serving God. This (he saith) is most false. If it be so, I am more sorrie: It was before my time. But I have no reason to beleeve it to be false. If I had the use of such Books as I desire, I should shew great Authors for it. And as it is I shall pro­duce some not to be contemned, who say not much less. First, I cite a Treatise print­ed at London by Iohn Day, about the time when Pius the fifths Bull was published against Queen Elizabeth, The dis­closing of the great Bull. called the disclo­sing of the great Bull that roared at my Lord Bishops gate, with a declaratorie addition to the same. In hope of the successe of this Bull a number of Papists that sometimes did com­municate with us, or at the least came ordina­rily to our publick prayers, have of late for­borne. With which Author Mr. Camden agreeth, Camd Elizab an. 1 [...]70. who saith that the more modest Pa­pists did foresee an heap of miseries hanging over their heads by the means of this Bull, who formerly could exercise their own Religion se­curely enough within their own private houses, or else without any scruple of Conscience were content to goe to Church to hear the English service. The reason of this indifferencie and complyanee is set down by one of their own Authors, Image of both Chu [...] ches edit. an. 1653 p. 442. because the Queen, to remove, as much as might be, all scruples out of the Peo­ples heads, and to make them think that the same Service and Religion continued still, &c. [Page 329] provided that in the Common Prayer Book there should be some part of the old frame still upheld, &c. by which dextrous mannagement of affairs the common People were in­stantly lulled a sleep, and complyed to every thing.

Concerning that catalogue which he cites out of Mr. Camden, Camd. Elizab. an. 1559. of so many Papists that were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths time, it makes nothing at all a­gainst that which I said. More Pro­testants suffer now then Ro­man Ca­tholicks at the Refor­mation. They were not de­prived for being Recusants, or refusing to hear the English Service, but for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacie, as the same Author saith. Neither is that account Mr. Camdens account, but the account of the Roman Catholicks themselves. His words are these, The number if these, according to their own account, throughout the whole King­dome. Which account Mr. Camden doth in part correct and contradict. For he tel­leth there of three popish Bishops that changed their Religion of their own ac­cords, the Bishops of Chester, Worcester, and St. Asaph. But suppose this account were true, what great matter was it for an hun­dred and ninety at the most, of all ranks and conditions, high or low, to suffer deprivati­on for their Religion throughout the whole Kingdome of England, wherein, without his Abbats and his Abbesses, which he rec­kons among the rest to make up the number, there are above nine thousand Parish Chur­ches, [Page 330] besides all Dignitaries and Prebenda­ries of Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches, and Masters and Fellows of Colledges. It was a very small inconsiderable proportion. He will not vouchsafe our present sufferings the name of persecution; yet there is nei­ther the Citie of London, nor either of our Universities, wherein more of us have not suffered for our Consciences, then of Papists in those dayes throughout the whole King­dome of England. In the Citie of London alone we finde an hundred and twenty Pa­stors of Parish Churches, whereof fourty were Doctors in Theologie, turned out of their Benefices and homes, plundred, impri­soned, and many of them dead under the burthen of their grievous pressures, besides all the numerous Dignitaries, Prebends, and inferior Clergy men belonging to the Ca­thedrall Church of St. Paul, and the Colle­giate Church of St. Peter, and their respe­ctive Quires. I could say more touching your Romish Confessors at that time, That they refused the Oath of Supremacy more out of compact then Conscience, hoping by their unanimity, and for fear of wanting means of ordination, to necessitate the State to continue them all. But when they see how miserably they were deceived, and their Churches filled with such as were returned from banishment, of whom they dreamed not, conjurationis eos poenituit, they repented of their foolish plot. And when it was too [Page 331] late, Acworth Cont. San­der l. 2. p. 197. multi ad Iudices recurrunt contumaci­am agnoscunt, ac petunt sibi contra pontificem jurare licere, many of them run to the Iud­ges, confessed their obstinacy, and desired leave to take the Oath, as they had done in King Henries dayes. But let the faith of this rest upon the Author.

To my third Argument he giveth no an­swer in his Survey, Sect. 4 but what was taken away in the vindication before it was made. The sum of my Argument was this: That Court which rebelleth against the highest tribunall of the Church, & assumeth a sovereign Power over it to it self, is schismaticall; but the Court of Rome rebelleth against the supreme Tribunall or Judicatory of the Militant Church, that is, the Representative Church, or a general Councel. The Reader will excuse me if I doe sometimes complicate two or three medios terminos together for brevity sake.

His first exception is, That whereas I should prove that the Papacy is the cause of Schism: I doe seek to prove that the Papacy is Schism. To say the Papacy is Schism is non sense. I hope I may have leave to write common sense. But I did say, and I doe say that the Court of Rome is in Schism, or Schis­maticall. To say it is in Schism, and to say it is the cause of Schism, is the same thing; for it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schism. They who give just cause of separation are Schismaticall, [Page 332] and they who take it are innocent.

Secondly, he demandeth, how the Papacy, as it is now maintained by many, could be a sufficient ground of separation to the Prote­stants, especially of separation from the whole Roman Church? I answer very well, because it was then and two or three ages before that, maintained in the same manner, or ra­ther an higher degree, by the Court of Rome and some others of the Roman Church, though not so many as at this day. Our se­paration from the Court of Rome is totall and absolute, because we know no legall Subjection which we owe to the Court of Rome. But I know no such absolute sepa­ration on our parts from the Church of Rome, but only a difference from them in their erroneous Opinions, and a forbearance to practise some other things, which are made by them conditions of their externall Communion, wherein we cannot joyn with them with a good conscience. The making of their errors to be essentialls and necessary conditions of Catholick Communion, makes the breach appear greater then it is. That this is clearly the sense of our Church I have shewed out of the thirtieth Ca­non. Vind. c 6. s.

So he comes to his main answer, That to rebell against a complete generall Councell, A generall Councell complete without the Pope. joyned with the Pope as Head thereof, is gross Schism: But not to resist an incomplete ge­nerall Councell without the Pope. This an­swer [Page 333] is sufficiently confuted in the vindica­tion; first, by the authority of Saint Gregory, who makes it to be schismaticall in the Pope to challenge such an universall headship of Power. Secondly, by the Popes own Laws, and by their professions of obedience to the Canons. Thirdly, by the Appeales made by Princes, and Prelates, and Universities from the Popes to generall Councells. And last­ly, by the express Decrees of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the point. To which I adde, that those very Decrees of generall Councells which have been not on­ly not ratified but opposed by the Popes, have nevertheless been evermore received and obeyed as Lawes in the Catholick Church, for the authority of the Councell. As the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon for equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome, was protested a­gainst by the Popes Legates in the name and on the behalf of their Master, and yet was ever held and practised as an authentick Rule by the Catholick Church, and reve­renced by Saint Gregory as a part of the Gos­pell. Iustinian the Emperor called the fifth generall Councell, at which Vigilius the then Pope refused to be present, or to give any consent unto it, for which his frowardness he was banished by the Emperor. This in R. C. his judgement was an incomplete ge­nerall Councell: Yet in all succeeding ages and by the Popes themselves, Greg l. 1. epist. 24 it was honored [Page 334] and esteemed as a true general Councell. Bron. An­not. in Conc. 5. I confess a generall Councell was not held complete in the primitive times, when such an assembly might be had, without the pre­sence of the five Protopatriarchs by them­selves or their Deputies. But to think that any one of these, either the Roman Patriarch or any other had an Headship of Power o­ver the Councell, or a negative voice against the Councell, is a most groundless fancy, whereof we finde not the least footstep in all antiquity. And therefore R. C. might well have forborn his comparison of King and Parliament as altogether impertinent. The King was confessedly an Head of Power over the Parliament, so was not the Pope over a generall Councell. The King had e­vermore a negative voice in Parliament, so had the Pope never in a generall Councell. When the Parliament had made up their Billes they preferred them alwaies to the King by way of petition, but the Bishops in a generall Councell by way of definition. Ego A. definiens subscripsi. In a generall Councell the President (who is no more then a Prolocutor or Speaker in Parliament) makes his last address to the body of the Councell in this sort, placet? aut non placet? doth it please you, or not? But in Parlia­ment after the Members have voted content, or not content, the last address must be to the King; and he is free to say the King will have it, or the King will advise. If a gene­rall [Page 335] Councell have not the Rites and Privi­ledges of a generall Councell, unless the Pope be present as the Head thereof, and concurre with it, to what purpose were those questions so canvased in the Western Church, whether a generall Councell be above the Pope? and whether a generall Councell can depose the Pope? Doth any man think that our Ancestors were so simple as to question whether the Body be above the Head? or to hope that the Pope would concurre willing­ly to his own deposition? This we know for certain, that the Councell of Constance with­out the presence or concurrence of the Pope, did Decree themselves to be a lawfull com­plete generall Councell, superior to the Pope, and that he was subject to their cen­sures. And deposed three Popes at a time. And their acts were confirmed in the Coun­cell of Basile.

To this Decree of the Councell of Con­stance he giveth two answers: The De­cree of the Councel of Con­stance for its superi­ority above the Pope law­fail. First, That it is probable that the Councell meant only of doubtfull Popes. But I did take away this an­swer in the vindication two waies. First, be­cause it is contrary to the text. The words of the Councell are these [ the Pope] that is, a Pope truely elected and lawfully admitted: It is uncertain whether a doubtfull Pope be Pope or no [ is subject to a generall Councel] that is, a generall Councel without the pre­sence or concurrence of the Pope, such as the Councel of Constance was, [ As well in [Page 336] matter of faith as of manners.] This is more then doubtfull titles, [ so as he may not on­ly be corrected, but if he be incorrigible be de­posed.] So a Councell may correct the Pope, and if they please continue him, or if they finde him incorrigible depose him. Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles, but for faults in faith or manners. Neither can they be said to be deposed, who are on­ly declared to have been usurpers. Secondly, I confuted this answer by the execution of the Decree. The Councell did not only declare who was the right Pope, which is a judiciary act, and may be done by an Inferi­or towards his Superior, but they turned out three Popes together, whereof one without controversie was the right Pope. And so made right to be no right for the publick good of the Church, which is a badge of so­vereign and legislative Authority.

His second answer, is, That this Decree was not conciliarly made, and consequently not confirmed by Martine the fifth. This an­swer was likewise taken away in the vindi­cation. First, because the Popes confirma­tion is but a novelty, never practised in the ancient Church, and signifieth nothing. The Pope and his Legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their Legates did. And that was all. Secondly, because Pope Mar­tines title to the Papacy did depend meerly upon the Authority of the Decree. If this [Page 337] Decree were not a lawfull Decree of a law­full generall Councell, and such a Coun­cell as had power to depose the former Pope, then Pope Martine was no Pope, but an usurper, and then his confirmation signifi­ed nothing also in that respect. Last I shewed that it was conciliarly made. And what the word conciliarly there signifieth out of the Acts of the Councell. And that passage was not intended for a confirma­tion, but an occasionall Speech after the end of the Councell, after the Fathers were dismissed, in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope, by the Am­bassadors of Polonia and Lituania, about a seditious Book, which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations, but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the publick Acts of the Session, the Pope answered, that he ap­proved what had been conciliarly done. To all this he answereth nothing, but that the word [conciliariter or conciliarly] signifieth rather the manner of a Councel, then of a Councell. Let it be so. Is not the decreeing of any thing publickly in the Session the manner of the Councels Acting? The Duputies of the Nations were like a Committee of Parlia­ment, who have no power to Decree, though they be a Committe of the whole House, but only to prepare things for the House. Now suppose the King at the close of the Parlia­ment, being requested to confirm some [Page 338] Acts of a Committe, should use the very same expression which Martine the fifth did, That he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that Parliament, Parliamentariter or Parliamen­tarily. Doth not this evidently confirm all the Acts and conclusions of the Parliament? Or what can this in reason exclude but only the Acts of the Committees. To say as R. C. saith, That he confirmeth only those Acts which were done with due liberation, is as much as to say, that he confirmeth just nothing at all. How shall it be known, or who shall be Judg, what was done with due deliberation, and what was not? Nei­ther doth it weigh any thing at all to say (as he doth) that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations, with­out adding conciliariter, for first, it is a rule in Law that abundans non vitiat, A word or two too much doe no hurt. Secondly, the Deputies of the Nations did sit and Act by the Authority of the Councell, and consequently their Acts were mediatly and in some sort the Acts of the Councel. Last­ly, whether the Decree of the Councel were confirmed or not, to me seemeth all one. The end of Convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those re­spective Churches from which they are sent, and to witnesse the received belief. We see by their Votes what was the received opinion of the Occidentall Church. And we see o­therwise [Page 339] suffi [...]ently what was the received opinion of the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches. So as the Roman Court will not be able to finde one natio­nall Church of that age throughout the World, to maintain their exorbitant claimes.

To my fourth argument drawn from the Popes challenge of all Episcopall Jurisdicti­on, and consequently the breaking of all the lines of Apostolicall Succession except his own, and to my two additionall arguments concerning the infallibility of the Popes judgment and his power over Princes, he answereth nothing, but that they are not de­fined by the Roman Church, and therefore can­not be a cause of departing from her commu­nion. Neither have I indevoured to charge the crime of Schism upon the Roman Church in generall, but upon the Roman Court, and the violent propugners thereof, whose Tenets these are. I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendor of an Apostolicall Church, and the principall Protropatriarchate, and its beginning of unity.

Notwithstanding the weaknesse of his answers, yet he laies down this for a con­clusion, That whatsoever I now pretend, our separation was schismatically begun. And thence inferres upon a ground brought by me, Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tract is temporis non convalescit, That it is schisma­ticall still. First, I denie his ground, the [Page 340] separation was not made by us, but by them. what we did was not schismaticall but just and necessary. Secondly, his inference is grossely mistaken, and the rule which I brought altogether misapplyed. That which was invalid from the beginning, cannot be­come valid prescription or tract of time, but it may become valid by subsequent Acts of Parties interessed. And that which was uncharitably begun and schismatically, may be charitably, piously, and necessarily con­tinued, as by many reasons and instances may be made appear, but that it is besides our question.

CHAP. 9. A defence of our Answers to the objecti­ons of the Romanists.

Sect. 1.IN the first place he observeth a diffe­rence between Protestants and Ro­man Catholicks, Some Rom. Cath. for­mal Schis­maticks. That Protestants doe not charge Roman Catholicks with for­mall Schism, but only with causall Schism, whereas Roman Catholicks doe charge Prote­stants with formall Schism. To which I give three answers. First, if Protestants doe not charge them with formall Schism, their cha­rity is the greater, and the Roman Catho­licks are the more obliged to them. Cer­tainly [Page 341] we have better grounds to charge them with formall Schism then they have to charge us. But indeed Protestants doe charge the Roman Court, and all Roman Catholicks who maintain it, and adhere un­to it out of ambitious, avaritious, or other sinister ends, and not out of simplicity of heart and invincible or at least probable ig­norance, with formall Schism.

Secondly, causall Schism may be, and in this case of the Romanists is as well formall, nay sometimes more formall then actuall Schism, or to speak more properly then actu­all separation. Whosoever give just cause of separation to others, contrary to the light of their knowledge, out of unchari­table or other sinister ends, are causall and formall Schismaticks. Whereas they who seperate actually and locally upon just cause, are no criminous Schismaticks at all, and they who separate actually without just cause, may doe it out of invincible ignorance, and consequently they are not formall but only materiall Schismaticks.

Thirdly, when the case comes to be ex­actly weighed, it is here just as it is in the case of possibility of Salvation, that is to say, the very same. Protestants doe not charge all Roman Catholicks with formall Schism, but only such as break the bond of unity sinfully, whether it be by separating themselves, or others, unduely from the Ca­tholick Communion, or giving just cause of [Page 342] separation to others. Nor doth R. C. him­self charge all Protestants with formall Schism. For he confesseth that all those Protestants who erre invincibly doe want neither Church nor Salvation. Formall Schis­maticks, whilest they continue formall Schis­maticks, want both Church and Salvation; therefore whosoever want neither Church nor Salvation are no formall Schisma­ticks.

The reason of his former assertion is this, because Protestants can name no Church out of whose communion the present Church of Rome departed. His reason shewes that he confounds materiall and formall Schism, with causall and actuall Schism. Whereas actuall Schism may sometimes be only ma­teriall, and causall Schism may also some­times be formall. To his reason I give two clear answers. The pre­sent Ro­man Church d [...]parted out of the ancient Roman Church; First, Protestants can name a particular Church out of whose Commu­nion the present Roman Church departed, even the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome which was before it, by introducing errors, abuses, and corruptions into it. There is a morall departure out of a Church as well as a locall, and acknowledged by themselves to be culpable and criminous Schism. Secondly, That Church which de­parts out of the Communion of the Catho­lick or universall Church, is more schisma­ticall then that which departs only out of the Communion of a particular Church, [Page 343] both because our Obligation is greater to the Catholick Church then to any particular Church, And, which is worse, out of the Ca­tholick Church. and because the Catholick or uni­versall Church doth comprehend all parti­cular Churches of one denomination in it. When the Court of Rome by their censures did separate three or four parts of the Chri­stian World, who were as Catholick or more Catholick then themselves, then they departed out of the Communion of the Ca­tholick Church, as the Donatists did of old. There is but this difference between the Do­natists and them, that the Donatists did it only by their uncharitable opinions, and verball censures, but the Court of Rome did it moreover by a solemn Juridicall De­cree, which is much the greater degree of Schism.

He telleth us, That it is vain to liken them to the Donatists, because the Donatists said that the Catholick Church of that time, was but a part of the Church, (as Protestants say now of the Roman,) for which Saint Austine laughed at them. Lib 2. Gent. Pet. c. 38. The truth is, the Donatists said, that they being but a small part of the catholick Church, (if any part,) were the true catholick Church, The Ro­manists true Do­natists. and that the true ca­tholick Church was no catholick Church, nor any part of it, which is expresly contrary to what he saith here. Just as the Romanists say now, that they themselves being with all their dependents not a fourth part of the Christian World, are the catholick [Page 344] Church, and that the Patriarchate of Con­staentinople which is as large as theirs, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which inclu­ding the seventeen Kingdomes of Prester Iohn, all Christians, and dependents upon that Patriarchate, is likewise as large, and the Patriarchates of Antioch and Hierusa­lem, and all the lesser Patriarchates in the East, and the whole Empire of Russia, and all the Protestants in Europe, are no parts of the catholick Church. Is not this to make the part to be the whole, and the whole to be nothing beyond that part, as the Do­natists did. Ovum ovo non similius. And therefore Saint Austine might well laugh at them or rather pitty them as indeed he did, for speaking such evident absurdities. Si mihi diceres quod Ego sim Petilianus, non invenirem quomodo te refellerem, nisi aut jocantem riderem, aut insanientem dolerem. Sed quia jocari te non Credo, vides quid re­stet. Ibid. If thou shouldest tell me that I am Pe­tilian, (or any such thing that is evidently fals,) I should not know how to confute thee, unlesse I should either laugh at thy folly, or pity thy frenzie. But because I believe not that thou jeastest, thou seest what remaineth. When they tell us in such earnest, that the Roman Church is the catholick Church, they might even as well tell us that Petilian was Saint Austine.

Sect. 1. & 2.Their first objection is, that we have sepa­rated our selves from the Communion of [Page 345] the Catholick Church; to which I gave this answer, that we had not separated our selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church, for we are ready to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church doth unanimously beleeve and practise. No, nor yet from the Roman Church in the es­sentialls of Christian Religion, or any of them, but only in their errors and innova­tions; and that it was the Court of Rome that made the separtion. To this answer he takes great exception, but as it seemeth to me in a most confused manner. For method sake I will reduce all which he saith to four heads. First, that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church. Secondly, That we have separated our selves from it in essentialls. Thirdly, That all the other Patriarchates (except the Roman) are no parts of the Catho­lick Church. Fourthly, That we hold no Com­munion with them. To all these I have an­swered formerly in this Treatise, and there­fore now I shall touch them more light­ly.

That the Roman Church is the Catholick Church he proveth thus, The Ro­man Church not the Catholick Church. because it is a compa­ny of Christians, instituted by Christ, spread over the World, and intirely united in the pro­fession of faith, and communion of his Sacra­ments under his Officers. And therefore he bids us out of St. Austin, L. de unit. c. 6. either give or take, either receive their Church, or shew one of our own as good. This Argument is ground­ed [Page 346] upon a wrong supposition, that the Ca­tholick Church is a Church of one denoni­nation, as Roman, or Grecian, &c. which we doe altogether deny as implying an evi­dent contradiction. Secondly, we deny that the Roman Church, including the Papacy, in respect of which it challengeth this uni­versality, and to be the Foundation of Chri­stian Religion, and the Mistris of all other Churches, is instituted by Christ, or by his Church; this is their own usurpation. Third­ly, we deny that the Roman Church is spread over the World. Divide Christen­dome into five parts, and in four of them they have very little or nothing to doe. Per­haps they have here a Monastery, or there a finall handfull of Proselytes. But what are five or six persons to so many millions of Christian soules, that they should be Catho­licks, and not all the others? This was not the meaning of Saint Austin in the place al­leged. Date ni hi hanc Ecclesiam si apud vos est, ostendite vos ommunicare omnibus Gen­tibus, quas jam videmus in hoc semine bene­dici. Date hanc, aut furore deposito accipite, non a me, sed ab illo ipso in quo benedicuntur omnes Gentes. Give me this Church if it be with you: Shew that you communicate with­all Nations which we see to be blessed in this seed. It is not a few particular persons, nor some hand-fulls of Proselites, but multitudes of Christian Nations that make the catholick Church. The Romanists are so farre from [Page 347] communicating with all these Nations, that they excommunicate the far greater part of them. Fourthly, we deny that such an exact entire union in all points and opinions which are not essentialls of Christian Religion, is necessary to the being of the catholick Church, or that the Romanists have a grea­ter unity among themselves or with others, then sundry of those Churches which they have excommunicated. Fiftly, I deny that the Officers of the Conrt of Rome or any of them ( qua tales) are either the Officers of Christ or of his Church. And lastly, if all this were true, well might it prove the Church of Rome a catholick Church, that is, a part of the catholick Church, but not the catholick or universall Church. Still there would want universality. To be spread through the Christian World is one thing, and to be the common faith of the Christian World another thing.

Secondly, If de­nyall of the Popes Suprema­cy maketh Prote­stants, the World is full of Prote­stanns. he proveth that they did not exclude us, but that we did separate our selves, because England denyed the Popes so­vereignty by divine right, before the Pope ex­communicated them. And so though it was not perfectly Protestant, yet it was substantially Protestant. I take him at his word. Then all the Eastern, Northern, and Ethiopick Chri­stians are substantially Protestants as well as we: for they all deny the Popes sovereign­ty either by divine or humane right. Then all the world were substantially Protestants [Page 348] in the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile, except the Court of Rome, that is, the Pope and his Officers. Then we want not bretheren that are substantially Prote­stants as well as we, in the bosome of the Roman Church at this day. To seek to ob­trude this spirituall Monarchy upon us was causall Schism, to excommunicate us for de­nying it was actuall Schism.

Our sepa­ration not in essenti­alls.To prove that we have departed from them in essentialls, he only saith, that we have left them simply, absolutely, nay wholy in the communion of Sacraments, and publick worship of God, and the entire profession of faith, which are essentialls to a Church. How often hath this been answered already? That every Opinion which a particular Church doth profess to be essentiall, is either an essentiall or a truth, or that every abuse crept into the administration of the Sacra­ments, is of the essence of the Sacraments, is that to which we can never give as [...]ent. Let them keep themselves to the ancient Creed of the Church, as they are comman­ded by the Councell of Ephesus, and we shall quickly join with them in profession of faith. Let them use the ancient formes of admini­stration of the Sacraments, which the primi­tive Roman Church did use, and we shall not forbear their communion in Sacraments. Did the ancient Roman Church want any essentialls: Or are the primitive Roman and the present Roman Church divided in essen­tials. [Page 349] If they differ in essentialls then we ought not to joyn in Communion with the present Church of Rome. If they differ not in essentialls, no more doe we.

Thirdly, he proveth that the other Patri­archates are not the Catholick Church, not true parts thereof, because they are divided in profession of faith, in communion of Sa­craments, and in Church Officers. Yea (saith he) it were dotage to think that the Ca­tholick Church can consist of hereticall and schismaticall Churches, as I cannot deny but they are, except I will deny the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England to which I have sworn. I answer that those Churches which he is pleased to undervalue so much, doe agree better both among themselves and with other Churches, then the Roman Church it self, The Ea­stern Churches true parts of the ca­tholick Church. both in professi­on of Faith, for they and we doe generally acknowledge the same ancient Creeds, and no other; and in inferior questions, being free from the intricate and perplexed diffi­culties of the Roman Schools. In point of Discipline they have no complaint against them, saving that they & we doe unanimously refuse to acknowledge the spiritual Monar­chie of the Roman Bishop. And concerning the administration of the Sacraments I know no objection of any great moment which they produce against them. How should they, when the Pope allowed the Russians the exercise of the Greek Religion? It is [Page 350] true, that they use many Rites which we for­bear; But difference in Rites is no breach of communion, nor needeth to be, for any thing that I know, if distance of place and difference of Language were not a greater impediment to our actuall communion, so long as the Sacraments are not mutilated, nor sinfull duties injoined, nor an unknown tongue purposely used. How are they then schismaticall Churches? only because they deny the Popes Supremacie. Or how are they hereticall Churches? Some of them are called Nestorians, but most injuriously, who have nothing of Nestorius but the name. Others have been suspected of Eutychianism, and yet in truth orthodox enough. They doe not add the word [ filioque, and from the son] to the Creed, and yet they acknowledge that the holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, which is the very same thing in sense. It is no new thing for great quarrels to arise from meer mistakes. He would perswade the World that there is something in our Eng­lish Articles which reflects sadly upon the Greek Church, to declare them guilty of Heresie or Schism. Either he is deceived himself, or he would deceive others. There is no such thing, nor the least insinuation against them, either directly or by conse­quence. But he is fallible, and may erre in this as well as he doth in saying that I have been sworn to them: we doe use to subscribe unto them indeed, not as Articles of Faith, [Page 351] but as Theologicall verities, for the preser­vation of unity among our selves; but never any Son of the Church of England was ob­liged to swear unto them, or punished for dissenting from them in his judg­ment, so he did not publish it by word or writing.

Secondly they charge us with schismaticall disobedience to the determinations of the generall Councell of Trent. Sect. 3. To which I an­swered that that Councell was neither gene­ral, The Coun­cell of Trent not general. nor free, nor lawfull. First, not gene­ral, because there was not one Bishop pre­sent out of all the other Patriarchates, and but a part of the occidentall Church: Se­condly, of those who were present, two parts were Italians, and many of them the Popes Pensioners: Thirdly, at the definition of some of the weightiest controversies there were not so many Bishops as the King of England could have called together in a moneth within his own Realms: Fourthly, it was not generally received by the Roma­nists. To this he answers that there were some Grecian Bishops there. Perhaps one or two titular Bishops without Bishopricks, not impowred by commission, nor sent with instructions from any Patriarch: These were no Grecian Bishops. He addeth that it is not necessarie to summon hereticall or schisma­ticall Bishops. Yes the rather before they be lawfully condemned, as these never were. Besides this is begging of the question. When [Page 352] or where were they convicted of Heresie or Schism? This is but the opinion of the lesser and unsounder part of the Church, against the greater and sounder part. Upon this ground the Donatists might have called a Councel in Africk, and nicknamed it a ge­neral Councel. He saith, it is obeyed by all Catholicks for matters of faith, though not for matters of fact. He meaneth by all Roman Catholicks. But if it were the supreme Tri­bunall of the militant Church, it ought to be obeyed for matters of fact also, so farre as they are Ecclesiastical. Break ice in one place and it will crack in more. He saith, Pius the fourth sent most loving letters to Queen Elizabeth, but his messenger was not admitted into England. As we have in horror the trea­cherous and tyrannicall proceedings of Paul the third and Pius the fifth against our Prin­ces and Realms: So we acknowledge, with gratitude, the civilities of Pius the fourth. Certainly he took the more prudent way for a Christian Prelate.

Nor free:Secondly, The Councell of Trent was not free, First, because the place afforded no se­curity to Protestants. Secondly, the accuser was the Judge. Thirdly, any one who spake a free word, was either silenced or thrust out of the Councel. Fourthly, the Protestants who came on purpose to dispute, were not admitted. Fifthly, the Legates gave auricu­lar votes, and some of the Councel did not stick to confess that it was guided by the ho­ly [Page 353] Ghost sent from Rome in a male. Sixthly, new Bishopricks were created during the Session, to make the Papalins able to over­vote the Tramontains. To all these exceptions he answereth, That if the Pope had been their Judge, it had been no more unjust then for a King to judge his own notorious Rebells; but the Pope, out of his abundant favour, made the Councel their Iudge, which he needed not, their Heresies having been formerly lawfully condemned. He supposeth, without any proof, that the Pope is an absolute Monarch of the Church, which all the Christian World ex­cept themselves doth denie. He should re­member that these are their own objections, and that he is now to prove, not to dictate. Whether the Pope did judge the Protestants by himself, or by a Councel consisting for the most part of his own Clients and Crea­tures, who knew no motion but by his influ­ence, is all one in effect. He knew that he had made his game sure enough under-hand, whilest the Italian Episcopalls were so nu­merous and partial: If the Pope did rather choose to referre the Protestants to the Councel, it was not out of favour to them, as a more equall and indifferent way, but to take the envie off from himself. If Christian Princes desire to have a free Councel, they must reduce it to the form of the Councel of Constance, and revive the Deputies of the Nations. Whereas he saith, that the Prote­stants were formerly lawfully condemned, ei­ther [Page 354] they were strange phantasms of Prote­stants, or it was a strange propheticall De­cree. Lastly, he demands how I can say that it was not a free Councel, where two or three safe conducts were granted, where the Coun­cel bound it self to determine the controversie by holy Scripture, Apostolicall tradition, ap­proved Councels, consent of the catholick Church, and authority of holy Fathers? Yes I can say well enough for all this, that the Councell was not free, fistula dulce canit volucrem dum decipit auceps, the pipe playes sweetly whilest the Fowler is about his prey. No man, s [...]ith Tully, proclaimeth in the Market that he hath rotten wares to sell. When men intend most to play tricks, they doe often strip up their sleeves, to make a shew of upright dealing. Scriptures, Tra­dition, Councels, Fathers, Churches, are ex­cellent rules beyond exception, yet an inex­pert or partiall Artist may make a crooked line with them. Any one of these proofs would satisfie us abundantly, but this was a meer empty flourish. The Protestants had safe conduct granted, but yet those that re­paired to the Councel were not admitted to dispute.

Nor law­full.Thirdly, As the Councel of Trent was not a general, nor a free Councel, so neither was it a lawfull Councel, First, because it was not in Germany: A guilty person is to be judged in his own Province. Secondly, be­cause the Pope alone by himself or his Mini­sters [Page 355] acted all the four parts of accuser, wit­ness, guilty person, and Judge. Thirdly, be­cause the Protestants were condemned be­fore they were heard. To this he answereth first, That Trent is in Germany: wherein he is much mistaken, for proof whereof [...] pro­duce first the publick protestation of the Germane Protestants, That to promise a Councel in Germanie, and to choose Trent, was to mock the World, That Trent cannot be said to be in Germany, but only because the Bishop is a Prince of the Empire, Hist Conc. T [...]id. l. 2. an. 1545. otherwise that for security it is as well and as much in Italy and in the Popes power as Rome it self. To which the Pope himself giveth testimonie in his answer to the Cardinall, Bishop, and Lord of Trent, when he desired maintenance for a Garrison from the Pope to secure the Councel, That there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent, and ingageth himself to secure it. The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany ▪ the redress which they sough was in Germa­ny. Germany, not Italy had been the proper place for the Councel.

R. C. proceedeth, the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope. It may be so, but not in a legall or judiciary way. He confesseth, That in doubtfull cases there ought to be four distinct persons, the accuser, the witness, the person accused, and the Iudge, but not in no­torious rebellion, in which case there needs nei­ther witness nor accuser. And doth not this [Page 356] merit the reputation of a doubtfull case, wherein so great a part of the occidental Church are ingaged? who are ready to prove evidently that he who is their accuser, and usurps the office of their Judge, is the notorious Rebell himself. I confess that in some cases the notority of the fact may sup­ply the defect of witnesses; but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the Law to be Rebellion, or Heresie, or the like. The Popes Rebellion hath been already con­de [...]ed in the Councel of Constance, and his heretical maintaining of it in the Councel of Basile; But the Protestants renouncing of his usurped authority, hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other.

The Pro­testants not con­demned by the Patri­arch of Constanti­nople, but the Roma­nists.Yet he saith, The Protestants were con­demned not only by the Councel of Trent, but by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom they appealed. One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise, would beleeve that the Protestants in general had appealed from the Councel of Trent, and were juridically condemned by the Patriarch of Constanti­nople. Who gave the Appellants procurati­on to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general? Who gave the Patriarch of Con­stantinople power to receive the Appeal? Where is the condemnation? Is the English Church included therein? No such thing. The case was this. One or two forrein particular Protestants made a representation to the Pa­triarch [Page 357] of Constantinople, of some contro­versies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them: And he delivered his opi­nion, it should seem, as R. C. conceiveth, more to the advantage of the Romanists th [...]n of the Protestants. This he calleth an Ap­peal and a condemnation. I crave pardon of the Reader if I doe not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Pa­triarchs answer: It is thirty years since I see it: Neither doe I know how to procure it. Thus farre I will charge my memorie, that the questions were ill chosen and worse sta­ted, and the Patriarchs answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome then of the Church of England. The right stating of the question is all in all. When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way, they will make them more apposite, & more to the purpose.

But since he hath appealed to the Patri­arch of Constantinople, to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him goe, I mean Cyrillus, since the time of Hieremy, whom that learn­ed Gentleman Sir Thomas Roe, then Ambas­sador for our late King at Constantinople, had better informed of the true state and be­lief of the English Church. He published a Treatise of his own much about the year 1630, which he called [...], or a confession of the Christian Faith, so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England, that it might seem ra­ther [Page 358] to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury then by the Patriarch of Constan­tinople. I will cull out a few flowers and make a posie for him, to let him see whether the Patriarchs of Constantinople doe condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome. In the second Chapter he declareth, That the authority of the Scripture is above the authority of the Church, [...], &c. for it is not equall (or alike) to be taught of the holy Ghost and to be taught of man. [...] In his tenth Chap. he declareth, That [...], mortall men can by no means be the head of the Church, and that our Lord Iesus Christ alone is the head of it. In the thirteenth Chap­ter he asserteth justification by Faith alone, just according to the Doctrine of the Church of England. In the fifteenth Chapter he ac­knowledgeth but two Sacraments. In the seventeenth Chapter he professeth a true reall presence of Christ the Lord in the Eu­charist, just as we doe; and rejecteth the n [...]w devise of transubstantiation. In the eighteenth Chapter he disclaimeth purgato­rie, &c. All this he declar [...]th to be the Faith which Christ taught, the Apostles preached, and the orthodox Church ever held, and un­dertaketh to make it good to the World. And after, in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him, he excludeth the Apocryphall Books out of the Canon of holy Scripture, and condemneth the wor­ship of Images. In a word, he is wholy ours. [Page 359] And to declare to the World that he was so, Knolles Turk. bist. in the life of Am. [...]. p. 1503. he resolved to dedicate his confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England.

When this Treatise was first published, it is no marvel if the Court of Rome and the congregation for propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it, and use their uttermost indevor to ruine him. But he ju­stified it before the Ambassadors of Roman Catholick Princes then remaining at Constan­tinople, and came off fairly in despite of all those who did calumniate him, and cast false aspersions upon him. Besides his own auto­graph, and the testimonies of the Ambassa­dors then present, if there had been nothing else to justifie this truth, the instructions gi­ven by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope, Ib p. 1500. alone had been suf­ficient proof, and the plots which they con­trived against him, either to have him taken away by death or deposition: For at the same time they decryed the Treatise here as supposititious, and accused him there as criminous, for being the Author of it. But God delivered him out of their hands.

He pleadeth moreover, That the Bishops assembled in Trent were not the Popes Mini­sters. Yet he knoweth right well that they had all taken an Oath of obedience to the Pope, for maintenance of the Papacy. Were these equall Judges? I confess there were many noble souls amongst them who did li­mit [Page 360] their Oath according to the Canons of the Church. But they could doe nothing, be­ing over-voted by the Popes Clients and Pensioners.

He asketh who were the accusers, witnesses, and Iudges of the Pope in the Parliament 1534, but King Henry himself and his Mini­sters? I answer that they were not King Henries Ministers, but the Trustees of the Kingdome; they were not sworn to main­tain King Henrie's usurpations; they acted not by a judiciary, but by a legislative power; neither did they make any new Law, but on­ly declare the ancient Law of the Land. Otherwise they medled not with the person of the Pope or his Office. If Luther pro­ceeded not in form of Law against the Pope, it is no marveil. I remember no process in Law that was between them. He challenged only verbum informans, not virgam refor­mantem. Doe you think that if he or any other had cited the Pope to have appeared in Germanie or England, he would have obeyed the Summons? They might as well have called again yesterday. Howsoever Lu­ther's acts concern not us.

Sect. 4. Why R C. not wil­ling to ar­gue of the Popes Pa­triarchall Power.Their third objection is, that we have quitted our lawfull Patriarch, which argu­ment he saith he will omit, because we have spoken enough of that before. Either I am mi­staken, or this is a fallacie of no cause for a cause. The true cause why he omitteth it being not because we have spoken enough [Page 361] of it, (for he hath continually declined it) but rather because he seeth that it is incom­patible with that sovereignty and universali­ty of Power which the Roman Bishops doe challenge at this day. Let them lose the sub­stance, whilest they catch at the shadow.

But in the place of this he proposeth ano­ther objection which he calleth their most forcible argument against us. which in brief is this. No Church is to be left in which sal­vation is to be had, but we confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance, the true Church, &c. I cannot but observe what difference there is in the judgements of men, for of all their objections I take this to be the weakest. And so would he also if he would cease to confound the Catholick Church, with a Catholick Church, that is, the universall Church with a particular Church, and distinguish the essentialls of a Church, from the corruptions of a Church, and make a difference between a just refor­mation of our selves, and a causless separa­tion from others. But be the argument what it will, forcible or weak, it hath been answered abundantly in this Treatise over and over again. Answ. to the pres. S. c. 1. s. 1. And therefore though he pleased (I use his own expressions) to say it often, to repeat it often, to inculcate it: Yet I dare not abuse the patience of the Reader with so many needless tautologies.

He taxeth me for not answering some te­stimonies which he hath collected in a book [Page 362] of his, called the Protestants plain Confes­sion, which he saith I have read, and there­fore I ought not to have dissembled them, but perhaps I thought them too hard to be answe­red. I confess I have read some of his books formerly, but I deny that I have one of them in-present. If I had, doth he think it reaso­nable or indeed possible that in one Chapter I should take notice of all that hath been written upon this Subject. I confess I have answered many impertinences in this Trea­tise, but a man would not willingly go so far out of his way to seek an impertinence. When I did read some of his Treatises, I pi­tied the mispending of so much time, in wee­ding and wresting of Authors, of severall re­formations, who writ in the beginning of the Controversie between sleeping and waking. Sometimes he condemneth us of Schism for communicating with them; some other times he citeth them as our Classicall Au­thors, and at other times from the different Opinions of the Sons of the same Church, he impugneth the conclusion wherein they doe all accord. As if I should argue this: If the bread be transubstantiated into the bo­dy of Christ, it is either by production or a [...]duction, but such and such Roman catho­lick Authors doe deny that it is by produ­duction, and such and such other Roman catholick Authors doe deny that it is by ad­duction, therefore by the plain confession of Roman Catholicks there is no transubstan­tiation. [Page 363] If I had omitted any testimonies of weight cited by him in this Treatise, as he hath done the most of all my grounds, then with better reason he might have called it dissem­bling.

He seemeth to me to take this course, on­ly to make his credulous Reader beleeve that there is more in his books then there is. It is the Church of England which he hath undertaken to combate. Let him not leave his chosen Province to seek out petty adver­saries among strangers, and think to wound the Church of England through their sides. He needeth not to be so much abroad, whi­lest he may have enough to doe at home.

He urgeth that there is no salvation out of the Church, no more then there was out of the Arke of Noah, howsoever or for whatsoever one went out. 1 Pet. 3.20. The Church of Rome St. Petes. Boat, not Noahs Arke. That Noahs Arke was a figure of baptisme, St. Peter doth assure us: and it may also very fitly represent the Church, but that is the catholick or universall Church, and then we yeeld the conclusion, that there is no salvation out of the Church. But par­ticular Churches are like severall Chambers, or Partitions within the Arke of Noah. A man might goe out of one of them , untill it was cleansed, into another without any dan­ger. The Church of Rome is not Noahs Arke but St Peters Boat. The rest of the Apostles had their Boats as well as Saint Peter. He beateth but the aire in citing Saint Austin and Saint Hierome against us, who have nei­ther [Page 364] left the Church, nor the Communion of the Church.

He maketh our Church to be in worse condition then the Church of the Donatists, because Protestants grant that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essence of a true Church, but the Donatists did deny that the catholick Church of their time was a true Church Doth he not see that he argueth al­together against himself? The Schism of the Donatists consisted therein, that they did uncharitably censure the catholick Church to have lost the essence of the Church; Our cha­rity freeth us from Schism. this was indeed to goe schismatically out of the Communion of the Church: and on the o­ther side this is our safety and security, that we are so far from censuring the catholick Church, that we doe not censure the Ro­man Church, which is but a particular Church, to be no Church, or to have lost its Communion with Christ, nor have sepa­rated from it in any essentiall of Christian Religion, but only in corruptions and inno­vations. Our Charity freeth us from Schism. The uncharitableness of the Donatists ren­dred them Schismaticks. It may be a good lesson for the Romanists who tread too much in the steppes of the Donatists.

Sect. 6.What Calvine saith, That God accounteth him a forsaker of his Religion who obstinately separateth himself from any Christian So­ciety which keepeth the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments. Cal. Inst. l. 4 c. 1. &c. Or that there may [Page 365] some vice creep into the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, which ought not to alienate us from the communion of a true Church, Or lastly, that we must pardon errors in those things which may be unknown without viola­ [...]ing the summe of Religion, or without losse of Salvation, or we shall have no Church at all, doth not concern us, who doe not dream of an Anabaptisticall perfection, and upon this very ground doe admit them to be a true Church, though imperfect, who have not separated our selves, but been chased away, who have only forsaken errors, not Churches, much lesse obstinately, and least of all in essentials, who would gladly be contented to winke at small faults, so they would not obtrude sinfull duties up­on us as a condition of their communion.

The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margent, whose scope is far enough from going about to perswade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome, for which they are cited by him. Rather on the contrary, if they or any of them have been over rigo­rous towards the Church of Rome, and al­low it not the essence of a Church, what doth that concern the Church of England? Will he blame us for being more moderate? Trust me, these Authors were far from ex­tenuating the errors of Popery.

He telleth us. That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists, If ours [Page 366] be Religion yours is separation. They may rehearse the same words indeed, but nei­ther is Saint Austins case, their case, nor the Donatists case our case. Sometimes they crie down our Religion as a negative Reli­gion, as faulty in the defect. And now they accuse us of superstition in the excesse. We approve no Church, with which they com­municate, and we doe not.

Doctor Field saith, that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church, they need not use any other Argument. It is most cer­tain, we all say the same. But still he con­foundeth the Church, that is the universall Church, with a Church, that is a particular Church, and a metaphysically true Church, with a morally true Church. Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense?

Sect. 5.In this Section there is nothing but crambe bis cocta, a repetition of what he hath for­merly said over and over, of Protestants se­parating themselves from the whole Christi­an World in communion of Sacraments. Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvine, Sup. c. 1. sect. 1. Doctor Potter, and Master Chil­lingworth, which have already been fully an­swered.

Sect. 6.He saith, I indeavour to prove the lawfull Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Eliza­beths time by the testimony of publick Regi­sters, and confession of Father Oldcorne. He knoweth better if he please, that the first [Page 367] Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Eli­zabeths time, but in Edward the sixths time. If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it. The Ecclesiasticall Registers doe make their Or­dination so plain, Our Or­dination justified. that no man who will but open his eies can be in doubt of it. He con­fesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Re­gisters were authenticall. So must every one say or think that seeth them, and every one is free to see them that will. But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner, and judged others by himself. Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholick opi­nions. Why did he change in this more then in any of the rest? Because there is no de­fence against a Flaile, no resisting evident de­monstration, which doth not perswade but compell men to believe.

But wherefore were not these Registers shewed before King James his time? They were alwaies shewed to every man that de­sired to see them. Registers are publick Re­cords, the sight whereof can be refused to no man. The Officers hand is known, the Office is secured from all supposititious writings, both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register, and by the testi­mony of all others, who view the Records from time to time. He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not shewed? Which is first publickly promulged, and after that [Page 368] affixed to the gates of the City, and of the Common-Hall, and all other publick places. If he could have excepted against the per­sons, either consecraters or consecrated, as that there were not such persons, or not so qualified, or not present at that time, he had had some reason for himself. But Episco­pall Ordination in England was too solemn and too publick an Act to be counterfeited. And moreover the Proceedings were pub­lished in print, to the view of the World, whilest there were very many living, who were eie witnesses of the Ordination.

And yet by his favour, if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there, as there were, it might have made the Ordination illegall, but not invalid, for which I will give him a president and a witnesse beyond exception. The president is Austine the first converter of the English, the witnesse Saint Gregory. Greg. Resp. ad Int. 8. August. Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia, &c. And truely in the English Church, wherein there is no other Bishop but thy self, thou canst not ordein a Bishop otherwise then alone, &c. But when by the grace of God, Bishops are ordeined throughout all places, Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops.

He asketh why Bishop Jewell or Bishop Horne did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops? I might even as well ask him when he citeth an [Page 369] authority out of Saint Austin, why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject, did not cite it? and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit. An argu­ment from authority negatively is worth nothing. Perhaps, for I can but guesse un­till he cite the places, Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners, but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordi­nation. Perhaps judging them to be Here­ticks, they thought they had lost their cha­racter, which yet he himself will acknow­ledg to be indeleble: Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants, and they gave a general answer. Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records: or lastly perhaps, or indeed without perhaps, they insisted upon the illegality of their or­dination, in respect of the Laws of England, not upon the invalidity of it, as shall clearly appear in my next answer. In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers.

Why were they not shewed (saith he) when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the barre? What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight yeers after? Now let him take one answer for all. There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer, and the Book of Ordi­nation, as an appendix to it, to be used throughout England, in the reign of Edward [Page 370] the sixth. This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary, and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth, as to the Book of Com­mon Prayer, intending, but not expresly mentioning the Book of Ordination, which was an appendix to it. So it was restored again, either expresly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer, as containing the publick Prayers of the Church for that oc­casion; or at least implicitly, as being print­ed in the Book of Common Prayer from the beginning, as an appendix to it. Upon this pretended omission Bishop Bonner excepts against Bishop Horne's Ordination, nor against the validitie of it, what have Parlia­ments to doe with the essentials of Ordina­tion? but against the legality of it as to the Realm of England, by reason of the former pretended omission. So to take away scru­ple, the Parliament enacted that it should be deemed good in the eye of our English Law. The Parliament knew well that they had no power to make that Ordination valid in it self which was invalid in it self, nor to make that invalid which was valid. This had been to alter the essentials of Ordination. But they had power, for more abundant caution, which never doth hurt, to take away that scruple which was occasioned by a Statute of Queen Mary, which in truth was sufficiently removed before. What is this now to our Registers, whether they be authentick or not? No, we beg no help from any civil [Page 371] Acts or Sanctions to maintain our Ordina­tions, either for matter, or form. But we are ready to justifie them by those very rules which he saith the Councel of Trent offered to the Protestants, namely Scripture, Tradi­tion, Councels, Fathers, and especially the practice of the catholick Church.

But he saith, we are not ordered to offer true substantial sacrifice, Not expresly indeed. No more were they themselves for eight hun­dred years after Christ, and God knows how much longer. No more are the Greek Church, or any other Christian Church in the World (except the Roman) at this day. Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly or­deined, and admit them to exercise all offi­ces of their Priestly Function in Rome it self, which was alleged by me in the vindication, and is passed over in silence by R. C. in this survey. The Greeks have no more mention of a Sacrifice in their Ordination then we. The grace of God promotes such a venerable Deacon to be a Presbyter, yet the Church of Rome approveth their Ordination and all their other Rites, so they will but only sub­mit to the Popes spiritual Monarchy, as we have seen in the case of the Patriarch of Mu­zall, and the Russians subject to the Crown of Polonia; and the like favour was offered to Queen Elizabeth, upon the same condi­tion. It is not so long since Pope Gregory erected a Greek College at Rome, to breed up the youth of that Nation where they have li­berty [Page 372] of all the Greekish Rites, Continua­tion of the Tuck Hist­in the life of Amu­rath 4. only acknow­ledging the Supremacy of the Pope.

But though we have not express words for offering of Sacrifice, nor the tradition of the Patine and the Chalice (no more had their own Ancestors for a thousand yeers) yet we have these words, No diff­rence about sa­crifice if rightly un­derstood. Receive the holy Ghost: whose sins thou doest remit, they are re­mitted, &c. Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the Word and Sacraments, then which the Scriptures and Fathers did never know more, which their own Doctors have justi­fied as comprehending all essentials, which being jointly considered, doe include all pow­er necessarie for the exercise of the Pastoral Office. We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving; a com­memorative Sacrifice, or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross; a representative Sacri­fice, or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eies of his heavenly Father; an impetrative Sacrifice, or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion, by way of reall Prayer; and lastly an applicative Sacrifice, or an application of his merits unto our soules. Let him that dare goe one step further then we doe, and say that it is a sup­pletorie Sacrifice, to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever.

Yet in his margent he hath placed a cloud of our Doctors, Whitakers, Morton, Chil­lingworth, [Page 373] Potter, Fulke, Reinolds, Latimer, without citing a syllable of what they say, saving only Latimer and Reynolds, that the name of Priest importeth Sacrifice or hath re­lation to Sacrifice. In good time; to doe him a courtesie we will suppose that all the rest say as much. Such Sacrifice such Priest. Let the Reader learn not to fear dumb shews. There is nothing which any of these say which will either advantage his cause or pre­judice ours.

Here he professeth to omit the survey of my last chapter, Sect. 7. yet because he toucheth some things in it upon the by, I am obliged to at­tend his motion. First, I wonder why he should term us fugitives. If we be fugitives what is he himself? No, we are Exules, ex­cluded out of our Countrie, not profugi, fugitives of our own accord from our Countrie. And we hope that he who goeth on his way weeping, and beareth forth good seed, shall return with joy and bring his sheaves with him. If not, God will provide a resting place for us, either under heaven or in hea­ven. We praise thee O God, we acknowledg thee to be the Lord.

In the conclusion of my Treatise I pro­posed three ready meanes for the uniting of all Christian Churches, which seemed to me very reasonable. One of them was, That whereas some Sects have contracted the Christian Faith over much, by reviving some Heresies condemned by the primitive [Page 374] Church, and on the other side, the Church of Rome had enlarged the Christian Faith o­ver much, by making or declaring new Ar­ticles of Faith in this last age of the World, the Creed or Belief of the Church contai­ning all points of Faith necessary to be known of all Christians, should be reduced to what it was in the time of the first four generall Councells (I might adde) and ma­ny ages after. No man dare say that the Faith of the primitive Fathers was imperfect or insufficient. Against this he maketh three objections; There are fundamen­talls. first, That there are no such fun­damentall points of faith as Protestants ima­gine, sufficient to salvation, though other points of faith sufficiently proposed be not beleeved. This objection is compounded of truth and falsehood. That there are such fundamentals he himself confesseth elsewhere, which are necessary not only necessiate paecepti, but necessitate medii: Hebr. 5.12 and c. 6.1 &c. And if he did not confess it, the authority of the Apostle would evince it, That the belief of these alone is sufficient for the salvation of them to whom no more is revealed, he dare not denie: And that the beleef of these is sufficient to them who doe not beleeve other truths which are re­veled unto them, no Protestants did ever imagine. Observe how cunningly he con­founds the state of the question. The que­stion is not, what is necessarie for a man to beleeve for himself: This is as different as the degrees of mens knowledg, but what [Page 375] may lawfully be imposed upon all men, or what may be exacted upon other men to whom it is not revealed, or to whom we doe not know whether it be revealed or not. Then if he would have objected any thing materiall to the purpose, he should have said, That the beleef of all fundamentals is not sufficient to salvation, unless other points of Faith be imposed or obtruded upon all men, whether they be revealed or not revealed to them. And this had been directly contra­ry to the plain Decree of the general Coun­cel of Ephesus, That no new Creeds nor new points of faith should be imposed upon Chri­stians, more then the Creed then received.

His second objection is this, though there were such fundamentals, yet seeing Prote­stant confess they know not which they are, one cannot know by them who hold so much as is ne­cessary to a true Church. I doe not blame either Protestants or others, especially pri­vate and particular persons; How much is neces­sary to be beleeved to salva­tion ordinari­ly. if they be very tender in setting down precisely what points of faith are absolutely necessary to salvation, the rather because it is a curious, needless, and unprofitable salvation. Since the blesed Apostles have been so provident for the Church, as to deposite and commit to the custody thereof the Creed, as a perfect Rule and Canon of Faith, which comprehendeth all doctrinall points which are absolutely ne­cessary for all Christians to salvation, it were great folly and ingratitude in us to wrangle [Page 376] about circumstances, or about some substan­tiall points of lesser concernment, whether they be so necessary as others. This is suffi­cient to let us know, who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church, in point of faith, even all those Churches which hold the A­postles Creed, as it is expounded in the four first generall Councels.

His third and last objection followeth: All revea­led truths not ess [...]n­tialls. All points of faith sufficiently proposed are es­sentiall and fundamentall, nor can any such point be disbeleeved without infidelity, and giving the lie to God, as Protestants sometimes confess. If by sufficient proposall he under­stand the proposall of the Church of Rome, I deny both parts of his assertion: Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome which are neither fundamentall truths, nor inferior truths, but errors which may be disbeleeved without either infidelity or sin. Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent, then they sa­tisfie one another what this infallible propo­nent is. If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent, or be not as­sured who this infallible proponent is, the proposition may be disbeleeved without gi­ving God the lie. But if by sufficient propo­sall he understand Gods actuall revelation of the truth, and the conviction of the con­science, then this third objection is like the first, partly true, and party false. The later part of it is true, that whatsoever is convin­ced [Page 377] that God hath revealed any thing, and doth not beleeve it, giveth God the lie; and this the Protestants doe alwaies affirm. But the former part of it is still false. All truths that are revealed are not therefore presently fundamentalls or essentialls of faith, no more then it is a fundamentall point of faith that Saint Paul had a Cloak. That which was once an essentiall part of the Christian faith, is alwaies an essentiall part of the Christian faith, that which was once no essentiall is never an essentiall. How is that an essentiall part of saving faith, whithout which Christians may ordinarily be saved? But many inferior truths are revealed to par­ticular persons, without the actuall know­ledge whereof many others have been saved, and they themselves might have been saved, though those truths had never been proposed or revealed to them. Those things which may adesse or abesse, be present or absent, known or not known, beleeved or not beleeved, without the destruction of saving faith, are no essentialls of saving faith. In a word, some things are necessary to be beleeved when they are known, only because they are revealed, otherwise conducing little, or it may be nothing, to salvation. Some other things are necessary to be beleeved, not only because they are revealed, but because beleef of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation. These are, those are not, essentialls or fundamentalls of saving faith.

[Page 378]Another means of reunion proposed by me in the vindication, was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of soveregin Jurisdiction jure divino, Ancient Popes challen­ged not sovereign­ty jure di­vino. to his ex­ordium unitatis, and to have his Court regu­lated by the Canons of the Fathers, which was the sense of the Councels of Constance and Basile. Against this he pleadeth first, That ancient Popes practised or challenged Episco­pall or pastorall Authority over all Christians, jure divino, in greater Ecclesiasticall causes. And for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine. To which I answer first, that the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches had e­ver great Authority among all Christians, and great influence upon the Church, as ho­norable Arbitrators, and faithfull Deposi­taries of the Genuine Apostolicall tradition; but none of them ever exercised sovereign Jurisdict ion over over all Christians. Se­condly, I answer that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes, upon which their claim of universall Sovereignty jure divino is prin­cipally grounded, are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits. Thirdly, I answer that ancient Popes in their genuine Writings doe not claim, nor did practise monarchicall Power over the catholick Church, much less did they claim it jure divino, but what Powet they held they held by prescription, and by the Canons of the Fathers, who gran­ted sundry priviledges to the Church of Rome, in honor to the memory of St. Peter, [Page 379] and the Imperiall City of Rome. And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their Authority from the Councell of Nice, though without ground, which they would never have done, if they had held it jure di­vino. Of the Church l. 5. a c. 31. ad c. 36. And for answer to Bellarmine, whom he only mentioneth in generall, I referre him to Doctor Field.

In the next place he citeth Saint Heirome that Christ made one Head among the twelve to avoid Schism. L. 2: Cont. Iovin. And how much more neces­sary (faith R. C.) is such a Head in the uni­versall Church? It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierosme; But thou saiest the Church is founded upon St. Peter. The same is done in another place upon all the Apostles; they all receive the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is e­stablished equally upon them all. I have shew­ed him formerly in answer to this place, that in a body endowed with power, as the Church is, an Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against Schism. Sup. c. 5. sect. 1. His [ how much more] should be how much less: a single person is more capable of the govern­ment of a small society then of the whole world.

After this, he citeth Melanchon, Cent. Epist. Theol. ep 74. As there are some Bishops who govern diverse Churches, the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops, and this Canonicall policy I think no-wise man doth disallow. I cannot in present procure [Page 380] that century of Theologicall Epistles, but I have perused Melancthons Epistles published by Casper Pucerus, wherein I finde no such Epistle. I examine not whether this Epistle by him cited, be genuine or counterfeit, and if genuine; whether Melancthons words be rightly rehearsed, and if rightly rehearsed, at what time it was written, whether before he was a formed Protestant or after. It appea­reth plainly in the words here cited, that Melancthon was willing to acknowledge the Papacy only as a Canonicall pollicy. And so we doe not condemn it, whilest it is boun­ded by the Canons of the Fathers But then where is their jus divinum or the institution of Christ? Where is their absolute or uni­versall Sovereignty of Power and Jurisdi­ction? In all probability if these be the words of Melancthon, his meaning was con­fined to the Roman Patriarchate, which was all the Church that he was much acquainted with. And that either these are none of his words, or that they were written before he was a formed Protestant, or that he intended only the Roman Patriarchate, is most evident from his later and undoubted writings, wherein he doth utterly and constantly con­demn the Papall universall Monarchy of the Roman Bishop. A mode­rate Pa­pacy might prove use­full, but dange­rous.

And lastly, what Melancthon faith, is only in point of prudence or discretion, [ he thinks no wise man ought to dislike it.] We are not so stupid as not to see but that some [Page 381] good use might be made of an exordium uni­tatis Ecclesiasticae, especially at this time when the Civill Power is so much divided and distracted. But the quere is even in point of prudence, whether more good or hurt might proceed from it. We have been taught by experience to fear three dangers, First, when we give an Inch, they are apt to take an Ell, Tyrants are not often born with their teeth, as Richard the the third was, but grow up to their excesse in processe of time. Secondly, when we give a free Alms, (as Peterpence were of old) they streight-way interpret it to be a tribute and duty. Third­ly, what we give by humane right, they chal­lenge by Divine Right to the See of Rome. And so will not leave us free to move our rudder according to the variable face of the Heavens, and the vicissitude of humane af­fairs.

These are all the testimonies which he citeth, but he presenteth unto us another dumb shew of English Authors in the mar­gent, Whitakers, Laude, Potter, Chilling­worth, Mountague, besides some forreiners. But if the Reader doe put himself to the trouble to search the severall places, notwith­standing these titles or superscriptions, he will finde the boxes all empty, without one word to the purpose, as if they had been ci­ted by chance, and not by choise. And if he should take in all the other writings of these severall Authors, they would not advantage [Page 382] his cause at all. Bishop Mountague is e­steemed one of the most indulgent to him a­mong them, (though in truth one of his sad­dest Adversaries,) yet I am confident he dare not stand to his verdict. Mont. Orig. Eccles. part. post. p. 185. Habeat potestatem ordinis, directionis, consiliis, consultationis, conclusionis, executionis, dellegatam. Subsit autem illa potestas Ecclesia, auferibilis sit per Ecclesiam, cum non sit in Divinis Scripturis instituta, non Petro personaliter addicta. Let the Bishop of Rome have delegated unto him, (that is by the Church) a power of Order, Direction, Counsail, Consultation, Conclusion (or pronouncing sentence,) and putting in exe­cution. But let that power be subject to the Church; let it be in the Churches power to take it away, seeing it is not instituted in the holy Scriptures, nor tied personally unto Peter.

The Con­clusion.To conclude, the same advise which he giveth unto me, I return unto himself. At­tendite ad Petram unde excisi estis, Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn. Look unto the Church of Hierusalem, and remember. That the Law came out of Sion, and the Word of the Lord out of Hierusalem. Look unto the Church of Antioch, where the Disciples were first called Christians. Look unto the other Eastern Churches in whose Regions the Son of Righteousnesse did shine, when the day of Christianity did but begin to dawn in your Caosts. Look to the primitive Church of Rome it self, Whose Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World, and needed not [Page 383] the supplementall Articles of Pius the 4 ^th. Lastly, look unto the true catholick oecu­menicall Church, whose Priveleges you have usurped, and seek not to exclude so many millions of Christians from the hope of Sal­vation and the benefit of Christs Passion, In whom all the Nations of the World were to be blessed. This indeed is the only secure way both to Unity, and Salvation, to keep that entire form of Doctrine without addition or diminution, which was sufficient to save the holy Apostles, which was by them contra­cted into a Summary, and deposited with the Churches to be the true badge and cog­nisance of all Christians in all succeeding ages, more then which the primitive Fathers, or rather the representative Church of Christ, did forbid to be exacted of any per­son that was converted from Jewism or Pa­ganism, to Christianity. And as many as walk according to this rule (of Faith,) Peace be upon them and Mercy, and upon the Israell of God.