SCHISME GARDED, and beaten back upon the right owners.

Shewing that our great controversy about Papall power is not a quaestion of faith, but of interest and profit, not with the Church of Rome, but with the Court of Rome, wherein the true Controversy doth consist, who were the first inno­vators, when and where these Papall in­novations first began in England, with the opposition that was made against them.

By JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. Bishop of Derry.

Act. 25. 10. I stand at Caesars judgmēt seate where I ought to be judged.
Psalm. 19. 2. Dies diei eructat verbum, & nox nocti indicat scientiam.


To the CHRISTIAN READERS, especially the Roman-Catholicks of England.

CHristian Reader, the great Bustling in the Controversy concerning Papall power or the discipline of the Church, hath been either about the true sense of some Texts of holy Scripture, As thou art Peter, and upon this rocke will I build my Church, and to thee will I give the Keies of the Kingdome of heaven, and feed my sheepe: Or about some privileges conferred upon the Roman See by the Canons of the Fathers and the Edicts of Empe­rours, but praetended by the Roman Court and the mainteiners thereof to be held by divine right. I ēdevour in this Treatise to disabuse thee, and to shew that this challenge of divine right, is but a Blind or Diversion to withhold thee from finding out the true State of the Quaestion. So the Hare makes her doubles and her iumpes before she come to her Forme, to hinder Tracers from finding her out.

[Page]I demonstrate to thee, that the true contro­versy is not concerning St. Peter, we have no formed difference about St Peter, nor about any point of faith, but of interest and profit, nor with the Church of Rome, but with the Court of Rome, and wherein it doth consist, namely in these quaestions; VVho shall conferre English Bishoprickes, who shall convocate En­glish Synods, who shall receive tenths and first fruites and Oathes of Allegiance and Fidelity, VVhether the Pope can make binding Lawes in England without the consent of the King and Kingdome, or dispense with English Lawes at his owne pleasure, or call English Subjects to Rome without the Princes leave, or set up Le­gantine Courtes in England against their wills. And this I shew not out of the opinions of Par­ticular Authors, but out of the publick Lawes of the Kingdome.

I prove moreover out of our fundamentall Lawes and the writings of our best Historiogra­phers, that all these branches of Papall power were abuses and innovations and usurpations, first attempted to be introduced into England above eleven hundred yeares after Christ, with [Page] the names of the Innovators, and the praecise time when each innovation began, and the op­position that was made against it, by our Kings, by our Bishops▪ by our Peeres, by our Parliaments, with the groanes of the Kingdome under these Papall innovations and extortions.

Likewise in point of doctrine, thou hast been instructed that the Catholick faith doth com­prehend all those points which are controverted betvveene us and the Church of Rome, vvithout the expresse beliefe vvhereof no Christian can be saved: vvhereas in truth all these are but opinions, yet some more dangerous then others. If none of them had ever bene started in the vvorld, there is sufficient to salvation for points to be believed in the Apostles Creed. Into this Apostolicall faith professed in the Creed, and explicated by the foure first Generall Coun­cells, and onely into this faith, vve have all been baptised. Farre be it from us to imagine, that the Catholick Church hath evermore baptised, and doth still baptise but into one half of the Christian faith.

In summe doest thou desire to live in the Com­munion of the true Catholick Church? So do I. [Page] But as I dare not change the cognisance of my Christianity, that is my Creed, nor enlarge the Christian faith (I meane the essentialls of it) be­yond those bounds vvhich the Apostles have set: So I dare not (to serve the interest of the Roman Court,) limit the Catholick Church, vvhich Christ hath purchased vvith his blood, to a fourth or a fifth part of the Christian vvorld.

Thou art for tradition, So am I. But my tra­dition is not the tradition of one particular Church contradicted by the tradition of another Church, but the universall and perpetuall tra­dition of the Christian vvorld united. Such a tradition is a full proofe, vvhich is received semper ubique & ab omnibus; alvvaies, every vvhere, and by all Christians. Neither do I looke upon the oppositiō of an handfull of Heretickes, (they are no more being compared to the innu­merable multitudes of Christians,) in one or two ages, as inconsistent vvith universality, any more then the highest mountains are in­consistent vvith the roundnesse of the earth.

Thou desirest to beare the same respect to the Church of Rome that thy Ancestours did; So do I. [Page] But for that fullness of power, yea coactive power in the exteriour Court, over the subjects of other Princes, and against their vvills, devised by the Courte of Rome, not by the Church of Rome; it is that pernicious source from vvhence all these usurpations did spring. Our Ancestours from time to time made Lavves against it: and our reformation in pointe of discipline being rightly understood, vvas but a pursueing of their steppes. The true controuersy is, vvhether the Bishop of Rome ought by divine right to have the externall Regiment of the English Church, and coactive jurisdiction in English Courtes, over English Subjects, against the vvill of the King and the Lavves of the Kingdome.

SCHISME GARDED and beaten back upon the right owners. Or A cleare and CIVIL ANSWER, to the railing accusation of S. W. in his late Booke called. SCHISME DISPAT'CHED.

Whatsoever S. W. alias Mr. Serjeant doth intimate to the contrary, (for he dare not cough out,) it is a most undenia­ble truth, that no particular Church, (no not the Church of Rome it self) is exempted from a possibility of falling into errours in faith. When these errours are in Essentials of faith, which are necessary to salvation necessitate medii, they destroy the being of that Church which is guilty of them. But if these errours be in inferiour points, such as are neither absolutely necessary to Salva­tion to be known, nor to be believed be­fore they be known; such an Erroneous Church erring without obstinacy and hol­ding the truth implicitly in praeparatione ani­mi, may and doth still continue a true member of the Catholick Church, and other coordinate Churches may and ought to maintein Communion with it, not withstanding [Page 2] that they dissent in opinion. But if one Church before a lawfull determina­tion shall obtrude her own Errours or Opi­nions upon all other Churches as a necessary condition of her communion, or after De­termination shall obtrude doubtful opini­ons (whether they be Erroneous or not) as necessary Articles of Christian faith, and so not onely explain, but likewise enlarge the Ancient Creeds, she becommeth Schismati­call: As on the otherside, that Church which shall not o [...]twardly acquiesce after a legall Determination, and cease to disturb Christian Vnity, though her Iudgement may be sound, yet her Practise is Schismati­call.

This is the very case betwixt the Chur­ches of Rome and England, Shee obtrudeth Doubtfull Opinions as Necessary Articles of faith, and her own Errours as necessary conditions of Communion, Which Mr. Serjeant everywhere misseth and misteth with his Praevarications. I cannot more fit­ly resemble his Discourse then to a Winter Torrent, Which aboundeth with Water when there is no need of it, but in Summer when it Should be useful, it is dried up: So he is full of proofes (which he miscalleth Demonstrations) where there is no controver­sy between us, and where the water sticks in [Page 3] deed; he is as mute as a fish. He taketh great paines te prove that the Catholick Church is infallible in such things as are ne­cessary to Salvation. Whom doth he stri­ke? He beateth but the aire, Wee say the same: But wee deny that his Church of Ro­me is this Catholick Church, and that the Differences between us are in such things as are necessary to Salvation. Here where he should Demonstrate if he could, he fa­vours him self. He proveth that it is unreasonable to deny that or doubt of it which is received by the universall Tradition of the whole Christian World. What is he seeking? Surely he doth not seek the Question here in Earnest, but as he who sought for an Hare under the Leads; because he must seek her as well where she was not, as where she was. We confesse that writing addeth no new Authority to Tradition, Divi­ne Writings and Divine Tradition, Aposto­licall Writings and Apostolical traditions, if they be both alike certain, have the same au­thority: And what greater certainty can be imagined then the Vniversall Attestation of the Catholick Symbolicall Church of Christ. But the right Controversy lyeth on the other hand. Wee deny that the Tradition whe­reupon they ground their Opinions, whe­rein wee and They dissent, is universall, [Page 4] either in regard of time, or place.

He endeavoureth with Tooth and Nayle to establish the Roman Papacy Iure divino, but for the extent of Papall power he lea­veth it free to Princes, commonwealths, Churches, Universities, and particular Doctors to Dispute it and bound it, and to be Judges of their own Privileges. Yet the maine controversy, I might say the onely necessary controversy between them and us, is about the extent of Papall power, as shall be seen in due place. If the Pope would content himself with his exordium Vnitatis, which was all that his primitive praedeces­sors had, and is as much as a great part of his own Sons will allow him at this day; wee are not so hard hearted and unchari­table, for such an innocent Title or Office, to disturb the peace of the Church. Nor doe envy him such a preheminence among Patriarchs as S. Pieter had (by the confession of his own party) amōg the Apostles. But this will not be accepted, either he will have all or none, patronages, tenths, first fruits, in­vestitures, appeales, legantine courts, and in one word an absolute Soveraignty or no­thing. It is nothing unlesse he may bind all other Bishops to maintein his usurped Roialt [...]es, under the pretensed name of Regalia Sancti Petri, by an Oath contradictory to our old Oath of allegiance, altho [...]gh all these [Page 5] encroachmēts are directly destructive to the ancient lawes and liberties both of the Bri­tish and English Churches. So we have onely cast of his boundlesse Tirāny. It is he and his Court who have deserted and disclaymed his own just regulated authority, as appea­reth by the right stating of the question. But M. Serjeant lapwing like makes the most pewing and crying when he is furthest from his nest. What he is, I neither know nor much regard. I conclude he is but a young divine, because he himself stileth his Treatise the Prentisage of his Endeavours in controversy. Pag: 2. And is it not a great boldnesse for a single apprentice (if he doe not shoot other mens bolts after he hath bestowed a little Rheto­ricall Varnish upon them) to take up the Bucklers against two old Doctors at once, and with so much youthfull presumption of victory that his Titles sound nothing but disarming and dispatching and knocking down, as if Caesars Motto. I came, I see, I overcame, were his Birthright? He that is such a con­querour in his apprentisage, what victoryes may not he promise himself, whē he is grown to be an experienced Master in his profes­sion? But let him take heed that his over da­ring doe not bring him in the conclusion to catch a Tartar, that is in plaine English to lose himself. The cause which he oppugneth is built upō a rock, though the wind bluster ād [Page 6] the waues beat, yet it cannot fall.

I heare moreover by those who seem to know him, that he was sometimes a Novice of our English Church, who deserted his Mother before he knew her; If it be so to doe, he oweth a double account for Schism, and one which he wil not claw of so easily. And if no man had informed me, I should have suspected so much of my self: Wee find Strangers civill and courteons to us e­very where in our Exile, except they be set on by some of our own; but sundry of those who have run over from us, proved vio­lent and bitter Adversaries without any pro­vocation, (as Mr. Serjeant for example). I cannot include all in the same Guilt. Whe­ther it proceed from the Consciousnesse of their owne guilt in deserting us, at this time especially; or the Contentment to gaine Companions or fellow Proselites: or they find it necessary to procure themselves to be trusted; or it be injoyned to them by their Superiours as a Pollicy to make the Breach irreparable; Or what else is the true reason I doe not determine. But this wee all know that Fowlers doe not use to pursue those Birds with Clamour whith they have a desire to catch.

His manner of writing is petulant railing and full of Praevarication, as if he had the [Page 7] gift to turn al he touched into Absurdities Calumn [...]es and Contradictions. Someti­mes in a good mode, he acknowledgeth my poore labours to be a pattern of wit and indu­stry; and that there is much commendable in them At other times in his passion he maketh them to be absurd, non sensicall, ridiculous and every where contradictory to them selves, and mee to be Worse then a Madman or born foole. Good words. If better were within better would come out. Sometime he confesseth mee to be candid and downright, and to speake plaine; at other times he accuseth me for a falsifier and a Cheater without ingenuity. A signe that he uttereth whatsoever commeth upon his tongues end, without regard to truth or falshood. If he can blow both hot and cold with the same Breath, there is no great re­gard to be had of him.

The Spartans brought their Children to love Sobriety by shewing them the detes­table Enormityes which their Servants committed being Drunken: so the onely View of Mr. Serjeants railing writings are a sufficient Antidote to a staied man against such extreme scurrility. And I wonder that the Church of Rome which is so provident that none of her Sons in their writings swerve from their rule of faith, should per­mit them so Licentionsly to transgresse the [Page 8] rule of good manners: and whilest they seem to propugn true Piety, to abandon all Civility, as if Zeale and Humanity were in consistent. When Michaell the Arch-an­gell disputed with the Devill about the body of Moses, he durst not bring a railing Accu­sation against him. Whether doth this man think him self to have more Privilege then an Archangell, or us to be worse then De­vills? When the Holy Ghost fell upon the Apostles it was indeed in fiery Tongues to expresse Devotion: but likewise in cloven tongues to expresse Discretion. St. Paul would have the Servant of the Lord to be gentle to all men, in meeknesse instructing those that oppo­se them selves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. This is the right way to gaine soules.2. Tim. 2. 24. The mild Beames of the Sun wrought more ef­fectually upon the Travailer, then the bluste­ring Blasts of the Northwind. Generosus est animus hominis. The mind of man is Generous and is more easily led then drawn: The Lord was not in the loud wind nor in the Earthquake, nor in the Fire; but in a still voice.1 Kings 19. 12. Such a one Maister Serjeants is not.

If he had objected but two or three Ab­surdityes or contradictions, it had been able to have troubled a man, because there [Page 9] might have been some Verisimilitude in it: but when he Metamorphoseth my whole Discourse into absurdityes and Contradic­tions, that they lye as thick as Samsons E­nemyes,Iudges 15. 10. heaps upon heaps with the Iawbone of an Asse, it sheweth plainly that they are but made Dragons, without any reality in them. Like that strange Monster which a cunning Cheat promised to shew his credulous Spectators, An Horse whose head stood in the place of his Taile: And when all came to all, he him self had tyed the Horse to the manger the wrong way; There needs no Ap­plication. So an expert Puppet-player can at his pleasure make the little Actors chide and fight one with another, and knock their own heads against the Posts, by secret Mo­tions which he him self lendeth them. So the Picture of a glorified Saint, by changing of the prospect, may be turned into a poore Lazar.

He professeth that he hath the gift of unpraejudiced sincerity, if he could be credited upon his bare word: but Re­member to Distrust, was Epictetus his Iewell. No man proclaimeth in the Streets that he hath rotten Wares to sell: and Iu­glers when they are about to play their tricks use to strip up their sleeves in assu­rance [Page 10] of faire dealing. What pledge he hath given us in this Treatise of such Candor and unprejudiced sincerity, wee may observe by the sequele.

In summe (Reader he complaineth much of Wording: yet he himself hath nothing but words. He calleth earnestly for rigid Demonstrations, but produceth none; And if the na­ture of the subject would beare one, he kno­wes a way how to turn it into a Contradic­tion. He hateth Contradictions with all his heart, Mistake him not, it is in another not in him self. It were to be wished that he knew a little better what Contradictions are, least innocent propositions go to wrack in his fury under the Notion of Contradictions, As poore old women doe for witches in some part of the world. He is a great Friend to Christian Peace, and a mighty Desirer of Vnity if wee may trust his word; If he be indeed, it wil be the better for him one Day, but who would have thought it, that scrat­ching and biting among reasonable men were a ready way to Vnity. I doubt it is but such an Vnity as Rabshakeh desired be­tween Senacherib and Hezekiah, a slavish Vnity. I proposed but three Expedients in the Conclusion of my Vindication of the Church of England, to obtein a wished pea­ce in Christen dome, such as themselves can­not [Page 11] deny to be lawfull, and all moderate men will judge necessary to be done. To re­duce the present Papacy to the Primitive forme, The Essentialls of faith to the Pri­mitive Creed, And Publick and private de­votions to the Primitive Leiturgies: But this peaceable man is so far from listening to them, that he doth not vouchsafe to take notice of them; But in answer wisheth us To receive the roote of Christianity, that is Practi­call Infallibility in the Church, (he meaneth the Church of Rome) which being denyed there is no religion left in the world. His stile is too­sharp, his Iudgement over partiall, his Ex­perience too small, his sentences and censu­res over rash and' rigorous, his Advises too Magisteriall, to be a fit instrument of pro­curing peace. But let us listen to those truths which he proposeth whether they be as he avoucheth (with more Confidence then discretion) as evident in themselves, as that two and three make five. If he can make this good, his worke is done: but if there be no such thing, as thou wilt find, learn that all is not gold that glisters; And let him take heed that' his new light be not an ignis fatuus, which maketh Precipices seem plaine wayes to wandrimg mis [...]ed persons.

A SVRREIOINDER or Defence of the Bishop of Derrys Reply to the Appendix of Mr. Wil­liam Serjeant.

The First part of his Rejoinder is a Corol­lary, drawn from his former Principles brought against Doctor Hammond. That little remaines to be replyed to mee in substantiall points, Since neither can I deny there is now a bre­ach made between us, Nor doe I pretend demon­strative and rigorous evidence, that the Popes Authority was an Vsurpation, Nor lastly doe I pretend that probable reasons are a sufficient ground to renounce an Authority so strongly sup­ported by long possession, and Vniversall Delivery of immediate Forefathers as come from Christ, or that it was prudence to hazard a Schisme upon the uncertain Lottery of a Probability. These grounds are supposed by him to be demon­strated against Doctor Hammond; and are barely repeated here, to try if he can kill two Birds with one Bolt made of a Burre. But I refuse the Province at present as a need­lesse and a thanklesse Office; N'eedlesse in [Page 13] respect of his learned Adversary, who will shew him sufficiently the weaknesse of his pretended Demonstration,Pag. 543. And thanklesse, in respect of him self, who had taxed mee in this Rejoinder of busying my self to answer an objection that was not addressed to me.

Yet least Mr. Serjeant should feign that I seeke Subterfuges, I wil briefly and clearly declare my Sense of his grounds as they are here proposed, that he may fight no more with his own shadow as it is his com­mon use; in hope I may recover his good opinion of my Candour and ingenuity. And if it please him, he may borrow Diogenes his Candle and Lanthorn at noon Day to search for contradictions.

First that there is a breach between them and us is too evident and void of Question. Whether they or wee be guilty of making this breach, They by excommunicating us, or obtruding unlawfull Conditions of their Communion upon us, or wee by seperating from them without sufficient Grounds, is a question between us. But that which changeth the whole state of the Question is this, If any Bishop or Church or Court Whatsoever, shall presume to change the ancient Discipline of the Church and Doctrin of Faith, either by Addition or by Substraction, either all at once or by [Page 14] degrees, and in so doing shall make a Breach between them and the Primitive Church, or between them and the present Catholick Church; To separate from him or them in those things wherein they had first separa­ted from the Ancient or present Catholick Church, is not Schism but trûe piety. Now wee affirm that the later Bishops of Rome did alter the Discipline of the Church and Doctrin of Faith, by changing their begin­ning of Vnity into a Plenitude and Univer­sality of Soveraign Iurisdiction, and by adding of new Essentialls of Faith to the Creed; and in so doing had made a former Breach between them selves and all the rest of the Christian World. Here the Hindge of the Controversy is, moved. Hither­wards all his supposed Demonstrations o [...]ght to have looked. Neither will it availe him anything to say there can be no sufficient cause of Schism, for in this case the Separati­on is not Schisme but the cause is Schism.

Secondly if by Demonstrative and rigorous Evidence he understand perfect Demon­strations according to the exact rules of Lo­gick, Neither is this cause capable of such demonstrations, nor can his Mediums amount unto it: but if by Demonstrative evidē ­ce, he understand onely convincing proofes, as it seemeth by opposing it to probable [Page 15] reasons I have made it evident that the Popes Authority which he did sometimes excercise in England, before the Reformatiō when they permitted him, and which he would have excercised alwayes de futuro, if he could have had his own will, was a mere Usurpation and innovation never attemp­ted in the Brittish Churches for the first six hundred yeares; Attempted but not admit­ted by the Saxon Churches for the next five hundred yeares; And damned by the Lawes of the successive Norman Kings ever since, as destructive to the rights of the English Crown, and the Liberties of the English Church, as shall be manteined where soever occasion offers it self. Yet all this while I meddle not with his beginning of Vnity; If he want that respect from me, it is his own fault.

And this includeth an answer to his third ground that the Papall Authority which wee rejected, was so strongly supported by long possession and the Vniversall Delivery of Forefa­thers as come from Christ. He had alwayes so­me shew of right for his beginning of Vnity, but no pretence, in the world for his Soveraignty of power. To make Lawes, To repeale La­wes, to dispense with the Cannons of the Vniversall Church, to hold Legantine Courts, to dispose of Ecclesiasticall prefer­mētes [Page 16] to cal the subjets out of the kingdoms, to impose tributes at his pleasure and the like. Wee will shew him such an usurpation as this; Let him prove such a Papacy by uni­versall tradition, and he shall be great Ap­pollo to mee. Wee doe not hold it prudence to hazard a Schism upon probabilities: but trust me such a multitude of palpable usurpations as wee are able to reckon up, so contrary to the fundamentall Lawes of England, which were grounded upon the ancient Privileges of the Brittish and Saxon Churche [...], together with the addition of twelve new articles or Essentialls to the Creed at once by Pius the fourth (I say addition not explication) are more then probabilities. He converseth altogether in Generalls, a Papacy or no Pa­pacy, which is commonly the Method of de­ceivers: but if he dispute or treate with us, wee must make bold to draw him down to particulars; Particulars did make the Breach.

I censured his light and ludicrous title of Down derry modestly in these words. It were strange if he should throw a good cast who soales his Bowle upon an undersong, alluding to that ordinary and elegant expression, in our En­glish tongue, Soale your bowle well, that is, be carefull to begin your work well.

Dimidium facti, qui bene cepit habet.

[Page 17]The Printer puts seales for soales, which easy errour of the presse any rationall man might have found out: but Mr. Serjeants pen runs at random, telling the Reader, that I am Mystically proverbiall, that I am far the better Bowler. Surely he did but dreame it. And that he him self is so inexpert, as not to understand what is meant by sealing a Bowle upon an undersong. If he were such a stranger in his Mothers Tongue, Yet he might have learned of some of his friends what soaling a Bowle was, rather then burthen the presse, and trouble the World with such empty and impertinent Vanities Neither did his plea­sant humour rest here, but twice more in his short Rejoinder he is pursuing this in­nocent Bowle. Afterwards he telleth us that I was beholden to the merry S [...]ationer for this Title, who without his knowledge or approba­tion would needs make it his Post-past to his bill of fare. This answer if it be true had ex­cused himself: but it sheweth that the Sta­tioner was over scurriloufly audacious, to make such Antepasts and Postpasts at his pleasure. Neither is it likely that the com­poser was such a perfect stranger to our langnage as he intimateth in his Epistle, and the merry Stationer so well versed in our Vndersongs. But after all this he owneth it by telling us [Page 18] that the jeast was very proper and fatall. Yes as fatall as it is for his Rejoinder to contein 666 pages, which is just the number of the Beast. His merry Stationer might easily have contrived it otherwise, for feare of a fatality, by making one page more or lesse, but his mind was otherwise taken up, how to cheat his Customers with coun­terfeit bills of fare, which they will never find, I will endeavour to cure him, of his opinion of fatality.

Sect: I. Cap: I.

BEcause Mr. Serjeant complaineth much of wording, and yet giveth his Reader no­thing but words, and calleth so often for rigorous demonstrations, yet produceth nothing for his part which resembleth a strict de­monstration; and because this first part of his discourse is the Basis or ground worke of the whole building, whereof he boasteth that it doth charge the guilt of Schisme upon our Church, not onely with Colour but with undeniable Evidence, I will reduce his discourse into a Logicall forme, that the Reader may see clearly where the Water sticks between us. Whatsoever he prateth of a rigorous demon­strative way as being onely conclusive, it is but a Copy of his countenance. He cannot be [Page 19] ignorant, or if he be, he will find by expe­rience that his glittering principles will faile him in his greatest need, and leave him in the durt. I have known sundry phantastick Persons who have been great pretenders to demonstration, but always succeslesse, and for the most part ridicu­lous. They are so conceitedly curious about the premisses, that commonly they quite mistake their conclusion: Causes en­combred with Circumstances, and those left to the election of free agents, are not very capable of demonstration.

The Case in difference between us is this as it is stated by me, Schism disar­med. pag. 306. Whether the Church of England have withdrawn themselves from Obedience to the Vicar of Christ and seperated from the Communion of the Catholick Church.

And upon those Termes it is undertaken by him in the words immediatly following, And that this Crime is justly charged upon his Church not onely with Colour, but with undenia­ble Evidence of fact, will appeare by the posi­tion of the Case, and the nature of his exceptions. We have the State of the Controversy agreed upon between us, Now let us see how he goeth about to prove his inten­tion.

What Church soever did upon probable reasons without any neeessary or convincing [Page 20] grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches, is guilty of Schisme: But the Church of England in Henry the eight [...]s dayes did upon pro­bable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds, break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches, therefore the church of England is guilty of Schisme. I doe readily assent to his Major proposition, and am ready to grant him more if he had pleased to insert it, That that Church is Schismaticall which doth breake the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in his Gospell, whatsoever their reasons be whether convincing or probable, and who­soever doe either consent to them or dissent from them: But I deny his Minor which he endeavoureth to prove thus.

Whatsoever Church did renounce or reject these two following Rules or Principles, first that [The doctrines which had been inherited from their Forefathers as the Legacyes of Christ and his Apostles were solely to be acknowledged for Obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed.] Secondly that [Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles, who was to be the first mo­ver under him in the Church after his de­parture out of this World, and to whom all others in difficulties concerning Matters belonging to Universall faith or Govern­ment, [Page 21] should have reco [...]rse, and that the Bishops of Rome as Successors from St. Peter inherited from him this privilege in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles.) That Church did breake the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in his Gospell, and agreed upon between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and the rest of her commu­nion. But the Church of England did all this in Henry the eyghts dayes that very yeare where in this unhappy Separation began, upon meerly pro­bable, no convincing grounds. Therefore &c.

To his former Proposition I made this exception, That he would obtrude upon us she Church of Rome and its dependents for the Ca­tholick Church: Uppon this he flyeth out as it is his Custome into an invective discourse, telling me, I looke a squint at his position of the case. He will not find it so in the conclu­sion, And that I strive Hocus-pocus like to divert my Spectators eyes, With a great deale more of such like froath, where in there is not a syllable to the purpose, except this, that he did not mention the word Catholick in that place. The greater was his fault. It is a foule Solecisme in Logick not to conclude contradictorily. I did mention the Catho­lick Church in the State of the Question. Whether the church of England had separated it self from the communion of the Catholick [Page 22] Church. And he had undertaken in the words immediatly following, to charge that very Schisme upon us with undeniable Evidence. And in his very first Essay shuffles out the Catholick Church, and in the place thereof thrusts in the Church of Rome with all the rest of her communion. He might have known that wee doe not looke upon the Church of Ro­me with all the rest of her Communion as the Catholick Church; Nor as above a fifth part of the present Catholick Church; And that wee doe not ascribe any such in fallibility in necessary truths to the Ro­man Church with all her dependants, as wee doe to the true Catholick Church, Nor esteem it alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the modern Roman Church, Name­ly in those points wherein shee had first seperated both from the primitive Roman Church, and from the present Catholick Church. But wee confesse it to be alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the Commu­nion of the Catholick Church united. Thus much he ought to take notice of, and when he hath oecasion hereafter to write upon this Subject, not to take it for granted (as they use to doe) that the Catholick Church and the Roman Church are convertible Termes, or tell us a Tale of a Tub what their Tenet is, that these Churches which continue [Page 23] in Communnion with the Roman are the onely true Churches. We regard not their Schismaticall and uncharitable Tenets now, no more then we regarded the same tenets of the donatists of old. They must produce better autho­rity then their Owne, and more substan­tiall proofes then he hath any in his Bud­get, to make us believe that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church. It is cha­rity to acknowledge it to be a Catholick church inclusively; but the greatest uncharitable­nesse in the world to make it the Catholick church exclusively, that is to seperate from Christ and from hope of Salvation as much as in them lieth all Christians who are not of their own communion. Howsoever, it is well that they who used to vaunt that the Enemy trembled at the name of the Catholick church, are now come about themselves to make the Catholick Church to be an ap­pendix to the Roman. Take notice Rea­der that this is the first time that Mr. Ser­jeant turns his back to the question, but it will not be the last.

My next ta [...]ke is to examine his two Rules or Bonds of Unity.the rule of faith. And first con­cerning his Rule of faith, I doe not onely approve it but thanck him for it; and when I have a purpose to confute the 12 new Ar­ticles of Pius the fourth, I will not desire a [Page 24] better medium then it. And I doe Cordially subscribe to his Censure, that the Trans­gressors there of are indeed those who are truly guilty of that horrid Schisme which is now in the Christian world.

To his second Rule or principle for Go­vernment that Christ made S [...]. Peter First or Chiefe or Prince of his Apostles,The rule of Go­vernmēt No con­troversy about St. Pe­ter.who was to be the first mover under him in the church, after he departed out of this world to whom all others should have recourse in greater Difficulties. If he had not been a meer Novice and altoge­ther ignoran [...] of the Tenets of our English Church, he might have known that wee have no controversy with S [...]. Peter, nor with any other about the privileges of St. Peter, Let him be First, Chiefe, or Prince of the A­postels, in that sense wherein the Ancient Fathers stiled him so, Let him be the First Ministeriall Mover, And why should not the Church have recourse to a prime Apo­stle or Apostolicall Church in doubtfull ca­ses? The learned Bishop of Winchester (of whom it is no shame for him to learn) might have taught him thus much, not onely in his own name, but in the name of the King and Church of England,Resp. ad Apol Bellarm [...]. 1. Neither is it que­stioned among us whether St. Peter had a Pri­macy, but what that Primacy was. And [Page 25] whether it were such an one as the Pope doth now Challenge to him self, and you challenge to the pope. But the King do [...]h not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the Apostles. I wonder how it commeth to passe that he who com­monly runneth over in his expressions, should now on a suddain become so dry u­pon this Subject. If this be all, be needed not to have forsaken the Communion of the Church of England, for any great Devotion that he beareth to St. peter, more then wee.

But yet wee dare not rob the rest of the Apostles to cloath St. Peter, Wee say clearly with St. Cyprian, Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & Po [...]estatis, sed exordium ab Vnitate proficisci [...]ur,cyprian de Vni­tate Ec­cles.Primatus Petro da [...]ur ut una christi Ecclesia & una ca [...]hedr a monstretur, The rest of the Apostles were even the same thing that Peter was, endowed with an equall Fellowship both of honour and power: but the beginning commeth from Vnity, the primacy is given to Peter, to signify one church and one chaire. It is wel known that St. Cyprian made all the Bisshop ricks in the World to be but, one masse, Epis­copatus unus est Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus, Ep. 52. ad An­ton. de Vnitate. whereof every Bishop had an entire part, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. All that he attributeth to St. Peter is this beginning of Vnity [Page 26] this primacy of Order, this preheminence to be the Chief of Bishops, To be Bishop of the principall Church from whence Sacerdot all Vnity did spring, Ep. 55. ad Cor­nel. Yet I esteem St. Ciprian as fauorable an Expositor to the See of Rome, as any they wil find out of their own Chaire that was no more interessed in that See. This primacy neither the Ancients nor wee doe deny to St. Peter, of Order, of Place, of preheminence, if this first Movership would serve his turn, this controversy were at an end for our parts. But this Primacy is over leane, The Court of Rome have no Gusto to it, They thirst after a visible Mo­narchy upon earth, an absolute Ecclesiasti­call Soveraignty, A power to make Canons, to abolish Canons, to dispense with Canons, to impose pensions to dispose dignities, to decide Controversies by a single Authority. This was that which made the breach, not the innocent Primacy of St. Peter, as I shall demonstrate by evident proofes as cleare as the noone day light.

Observe Reader that Mr. Serjeant is ma­king another Vagare our of the lists, to seeke for his Adversary where he is sure not to find him, here after if he have a mind to em­ploy his pen upon this subject and not to barke at the Moonshine in the water, let him endeavour to demonstrate these foure [Page 27] things which wee deny indeed.

First that each Apostle had not the same power over the Christian world by virtue of Christ Commission (As my Father sen [...] mee so send I you) which St. Peter had.Io. 20. 21.

Secondly that St. Peter ever excercised a single Iurisdiction over the persons of the rest of the Apostles, more then they over him besides and over and above his Prima­cy of Order, or beginning of Vnity.

Thirdly that St. Peter a lone had his Com­mission granted to him by Christ as to an Ordinary Pastour, to him and his Successors, And all the rest of the Apostles had their Cō ­missions onely as Delegates for term of life; This new hatched Distinction being the foundation of the present Papacy, I would be glad to see one good author for it, who writ within a tho [...]sand yeares after Christ.

Lastly that the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasti­call power and Iurisdiction rested in St. Pe­ter alone, and was exercised by him alone, and not by the Apostolicall College, Du­ring the hystory of the Acts of the Apostles.

Now let us proceed from St. Peter to the Pope which is the second part of his rule of Government.The p­pe Suc­cessour to Saint Peter. And that the Bishops of Ro­me as Successors of St. Peter inherited from him this Privilige in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles, And actually exercised this [Page 28] power in all the Countreyes which kept Communi­on with the Church of Rome. what Privilege? To be the first Bishop, the Chiefe Bishop, the principall Bishop, the first mover in the Church, just as S. Peter was among the A­postles? we have heard of no other Privilege as yet. If a man would be pleased ou: of meer pitty to his starving cause, to suppose thus much, what good would it doe him? Doth he think that the pope or the court of Rome would ever accept of such a Papacy as this, or thanke him for his double diligence? He must either be meanly versed in the Primi­tive Fathers, or give little credit to them, who will deny the Pope to succced St Peter in the Roman Bishoprick, or will envy him the Dignity of a Patriarck with in his just Bounds. But the Breach between Rome and England was not about any Episcopall, Me­tropolitical, or Patriarchall rightes. A Patri­arch hath more power in his proper Bishoprick then in his province, and more in his province then in the rest of his Patriarchate: But papall power is much greater then any Bishop did ever challenge in his own Dio­cesse. In my answer to his Assumtion I shal shew sufficiently who they were that Brake this Bond of Vnion, and are the undoubted Authors of Schisme.

[Page 29]But before I come to that,But not by Christs Ordina­tion. I would know of him, how the Pope did inherit, all those Privileges which he claimeth from S. Peter, or how he holds them by Christs own ordina­tion in holy Scripture? First all the Eastern Churches doe affirm Confidently that the most of these Privileges were the Legacyes of the Church representative, not Christ or St. Peter. And it seemeth to be very true by that of the Councell of Sardica,Conc. Sardic. c. 3.Si vobis placet Sancti Petri memoriam honoremus. If all these Priuileges were the popes inheritance, it was not wel done of old Osius to put it upon a Si placet, content or not content, and to assigne no better a reason then, the memory of a Predecessour. It semeth like­wise to be true by the Councel of Chalce­don which attributeth the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Decrees of the Fathers and the dignity of that imperiall City; Conc. chal­ced. And when the popes Legates did oppose the Acts of the Councell,Act 16. Gloriosissimi Iudices dixerunt. The most glorieus Iudges said, let both partyes plead the Canons. By the Canons that great Councell of six hundred and thirty Fathers did examin it; By the Canons they did deter­min it, there was no inheritance pretended in the case.

[Page 30]Secondly if the Bishop of Rome did hold all his privileges by inheritance from S. Peter how much were three successive Popes over seen, Zosimus, Bonifacius and Caelestinus, to ground them upon the canōs of the councell of Nice, and these either counterfeited or mistaken for the Canons of Sardica▪ Which when the African Fathers did find o [...]t by the true Copyes of the Nicene Councell, they rejected that part of papall power as appeareth by their Letter to Pope Caelestine We earnestly beseech you that hence forwards you doe not easily lend an eare to such as come from hence nor (which Bellarmine cuts of guilefully) receive any more such as are excommunicated by us into your Communion, Epist. Conc. Afr. ad caele­stin. with this sharp inti­mation, Ne fumosum typum saeculi in Ecclesiam videamur inducere. If soveraigne Iudica­ture did belong to the Bishop of Rome by Inheritance from St. Peter why did three po­pes challenge it upon the Decrees of the Ni­cene Concell and why did the Affrican Fa­thers refuse to admit it, because it was not conteined in the Decrees of the Nicene Councell?

Thirdly if by Prince of Bishops Mr Ser­jeant understand an absolute Prince, one who hath a single Legislative power, To make Canons, To abolish Canons, to dis­pense with Canons as seemeth good in his [Page 31] owne eies, if he makea greater Prince of the Steward, then he doth of the Spouse of Christ, he will have an hard Pro­vince to secure him self from the Censures of the Councells of Constance and Basile, in the former of which were personally pre­sent one Empereur, Two Popes, Two Pa­triarchs, All the Cardinalls, The Embassa­dors of all' the Princes in the West, and the Flower of Occidentall Schollars, Divines and Lawyers. These had reason to know the Tradition of the Universall Church as well as Mr. Serjeant.

Lastly, before he can determine this to be an vndeniable truth, and a necessary Bond of Vnity, that the Bishop of Rome is Inheri­ [...]er of all the Privileges of St. Peter, And that this Principle is Christs own Ordination re­corded in Scripture, He must first reconcile him self to his own party. There is a Co­mentary upon the Synodall answer of the councell of Basile, printed at Colone in the yeare 1613.commēt in Epist. Synodal conc. Basil. pa. 31. b. wherein is mainteined,Idem pag. 40. That the Provinces subject to the foure great Pa­triarchs from the beginning of the Christi­an church, did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarchs. And if the Pope be a Primate it is by the church, If he be the head of all chur­ches it is by the church: and where as wee have said that it is expressed in the councell of Nice, [Page 32] that many provinces were subjected to the church of Rome by Ecclesiasticall custome, and no other right, the Synod should doe the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome, if it should attribute those things to him onely from Custom, which were his due by divine right.

Gerson goeth much more accurately to worke,Gerson de vita spirit. animae. distinguishing Papall rights into three sorts, divine, which the Bishop of Rome challengeth by succession from St. Peter, Canonicall, wherewith he hath been trusted by generall councells, and civil, gran­ [...]ed to that See by the Emperours. Of the first sort he reckoneth no more but three privileges, To call councells, To give sentencee with councels, and Iurisdiction purely spiri­tuall.

Among the Propositions given in to the councell of Pisa and printed with the acts of the councell,Acta con [...]. primi Pisani impres. Lutet. 1612. fol. 69.wee find these, first, Although the Pope as he is the Vicar of Christ may after a certain manner be called the head of the church: Yet the Vnity of the church doth not depend necessarily, or receive its beginning from the Vnity of the Pope. Secondly, The church hath power and authority originally and imme­diatly from Christ its head to congregate it self in a gonerall councell, to preserve its Vnity. It is added, That the Catholick church hath this power also by the Law of Nature. Thirdly, In [Page 33] the Acts of the Apostles we read of four Coun­cells Convocated and not by the Authority of Peter, but by the Common Consent of the Church. And in one Councell celebrated at Ie­rusalem, we read not that Peter, but that Iames the Bishop of the Place was President and gave Sentence. He concludeth that the Church may call a Generall Councell without the Au­thority of the Pope, and in some cases, though he contradict it. The Writers and writings of those times, in and about the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pi­san Councells, Can. lo. l. 6. c. 8 Cus. concord. catholl. 2. ca. 34. Stap. de princip­fid. l. 13 ca. 15. So [...]o 4. sent. dist 24. qu▪ 2. art. 5 Driedo de Ec­clesiast. dog. li. 4. c. 3. Contar. De Po­test. Pont. doe a bound with such ex­pressions.

Before he determined positively. The divine right of the Papacy as it includeth a Soveraignty of power, he ought to con­sider seriously what many of his own friends have written about it; as Canus, and Cusanus, and Stapleton, and Soto, and Driedo, and Segovius, as it is related by Aene­as Sylvius and others; That the Popes succes­sion is not revealed in Scripture; That Christ did not limit the Primacy to any particular Church; That it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is perpetuall Prince of the Church; That the Glosse which preferreth the Iudgement of the Roman Church be­fore the Iudgement of the world, [Page 34] singular and foolish and unworthy to be followed; That it hath been a Catholick Tenet in former times, that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop doth depend not upon divine, but human right and the positive Decrees of the Church; That men famous in the Study of Christian The­ology,Aen [...] Sylvius de Gest. Bas. Conc. li have not been affraid in great As­semblies to assert the Humane Right of the Po­pe. He ought to Consider what is said of a great King, that Theologians affirmed that the Pope was the head of the Church by divine right,Sleid. li. 9.but when the King required them to prove it, they could not demonstrate it, And lastly what the Bishop of Chalcedon saith lately, To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters Successour:Bish Chalc: Survey cap. 5.and this all Fathers Testify, and all ihe Catholick Church believeth, but whe­ther he be so Jure divino or humano, is no point of Faith.

Here Reader I must intreat the before wee proceed a step-farther to read his As­sertion,Schism. disar­med Pa. 304. That the Constant beliefe of the Catho­lick World was and is, that this Principle (na­mely that the Bishop of Rome inherited the Privileges of St. Peter) is Christs own Ordina­tion recorded in Scripture, Derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our Nature is capable of. What a strange Confidenee is this, to [Page 35] tell his Readers he cares not what so it may serve his present turne? How should this be recorded in Scripture, when the Bis­shoprick of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture, nor so much as whether St. Pe­ter ever was at Rome? Except we under­stand Rome by Babilon? but this is too re­mote and too obscure to be Christs own Ordinance. If it be recorded in Scripture, it is either in Nicodemus his Gospell, or in the Popes Decretall Epistles. Certainly in the Genuine Scriptures there is no manner of mention of any such thing.

Heare the ingenuons Confession of a more learned Adversary,Bellar de Rom Pont [...] lib. 4. cap 4. Neque Scriptura neque Traditio habet, sedem Apostolicam it a fixam esse Romae ut inde auferri non possit, there is neither Scripture nor Trrdition to prove that the See of St. Peter is so fixed to Rome, that it cannot be taken from it. But if the Bishop of Ro­me did in herit the Privileges of St. Peter By Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture, then there were Scripture to prove, that it cannot be taken away from Rome. Christs own Ordination must not be violated Behold both his grounds Scrip­ture and Tradition swept away at once.

It will not serve his turne at all to saySchism. dis. pa. 504. [Page 36] that I take him in a Reduplicative sense as if he spake of the Bishops of Rome,Schism, dis. pa. of Rome. Either Christ ordained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in his privileges, And then the Bishop of Rome doth succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome. Or Christ hath not ordained in Scri­pture that the Bishop of Rome should suc­ceed S. Peter in his privileges; And then the Bishop of Rome is not St. Peter Successour by Christs own Ordination. He may be his Successour upon another account: but by Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture he cannot be, if Christ himself have not ordained in holy Scripture that he should be. He addeth that I picked these Words out of a Paragraph a leafe after. Why? is he not bound to speake truth in one Pa­ragraph as well as in another? Or will he oblige one who combatteth with him to watch where his Buckler is ready▪ and be sure to hit that? These things are as cleare as the light, and yet he vapours about my frivolous and impertinent answers, and wonders how any man can have the pa­tience to read such a Trisler. Let the Reader judge which Scale hath more weight in it.

How should the Bishop of Romes Succes­sion to S. Peter be Christs own ordination recor­ded in Scripture; When both his fellowes [Page 37] and he himself doe ground the Bishop of Romes right to succeed St. Peter upon the fact of St. Peter: Namely, his dying Bis­hop of Rome?Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2 cap. 12. and lib. 4. ca. 4.Bellarmine distinguisheth between the Bishop of Romes succession of St. Peter, and the reason of his succession. The succession (saith he) is from the institution of Christ by divine right, and commanded by Christ: but the reason of this succession is from the fact of S. Peter, not from the institution of Christ. Which two are irreconciliable. For if Christ commanded that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter (as he saith) Deus ipse jussit Romae figi Apostolicam Petri se­dem, quae autem jubet Deus mutari ab hominibus non possunt, Then not the fact of St. Peter, but the mandate of Christ is the reason of the succession. There was no need that St. Peter should doe any thing to perfect the commandement of Christ: and on the other­side, if the fact of St. Peter be the true rea­son of the Bishop of Romes succession, thē it is evident that Christ did not command it. Let it be supposed to avoid impertinent disputes, that Christ did create a chiefe Pa­stor of his church as an office of perpetuall necessity, without declaring his pleasure who shall be his successour, but leaving the choise either to the chief Pastor or to the church: without peradventure in such a [Page 38] case the Office is from Christ and the per­petuity is from Christ, but the right of the Successour is from them who make the ap­plication, whether if be the Cheif Pastor, or the Church. The Succession of the Bis­hop of Rome to S. Peter. is not recorded in Scripture; The fact of S. Peter. is not re­corded in Scripture. No such ordination of Christ is recorded in Scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should be S. Peters Succes­sour; And therefore it is impossible that the Succession of the Bishop of Rome to S. Pe­ter. should be Christs own ordination recor­ded in Scripture.

Then what is this Mandate of Christ? and where conteined? The Mandate is an old legend conteined in Marcellinus, Leo, Athanasius, Ambrose, and Gregory, some of which point at it, others relate it, some define it as a matter of faith. That S. Pe­ter a little before his Passion being ready to de­part out of Rome did meete Christ in the gate who told him that he came to Rome to be Crucified againe, Thereby intimating that St. Peter must suffer martyrdome there. Here is no mandate of Christ to S. Peter to fixe his See at Rome, much les­se that he should place it there for ever, never to be removed. True (saith Bellar­mine) [Page 39] but yet non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse ut Sedem suam Petrus it a fi­geret Romae ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet. It is not improbable that the lord did command plainly that Peter should fixe his See at Rome, that the Roman Bishop should succeed him absolutely. Alas? this is but a poore ground to build a mans faith upon, that it is not improbable. And therefore the said Author proceedeth, Tame [...]si forte &c. Although peradventure it be not of divine right that the Romaen Bishop because he is the Roman Bishop, doth succeed S. Peter in the prefecture of the Church.

And though it were supposed a point of faith, That the Bishop of Rome were S. Peters Successour: Yet it cannot be a point of faith that Pope Vrban or Pope Clement are S. Peters Successours, and true Bishops of Rome, because there can be no more then morall Certeinty for it. Who can assure us of their right Baptisms and right Ordinations, according to the com­mon Roman grounds? How can wee be sure of their Canonicall Election, that two third parts of the Cardinalls did con­curre, or that the Election by Cardinalls now, and by the Emperours, and by the People formerly were all Authentick, [Page 40] formes, though I doubt not but any of these might serve to obteine an humane right? But especially what can secure us from the [...]aint of Simoniacall Pravity, which they who knew the Intrigues of Sta­tes doe tell us hath born too great Vogue in the Conclave of late dayes? And if it can­not be a point of Faith to believe the pre­sent Pope is St. Peters Successour for these reasons; neither can it be a point of Faith that any of them all hath been his Succes­sour for the same reasons. I doe not urge these things to encourage any man to with­draw Obedience from a lawfull Superiour, either upon improbable or probable suppo­sitions but to shew their temerarious pre­sumption who doe soe easily chāge humane right into Divine right, and make many things to be necessary points of Faith, for which there never was revelation or more then Morall Certainty.

Sest. I. Cap. II.

The next thing which offereth it self to our Consideration is his Minor Proposi­tion,Orall and im­mediate traditi­on no certeine rule. Whether the church of England did breake these Bonds of Vnity &c▪ But I hold it more Methodicall to examine [Page 41] first the Proofes of his Major, That these were the right Bonds of Vnity, and so dis­patch that part out of my hands.

All which was agreed upon unanimouslly between the Church of Rome and its dependents, and the Church of England, and delivred from hand to hand in them all by the Orall and imme­diate Tradition of a World of Fathers to a world of Children successively, as a rule of Faith or Difcipline received from Christ and his Apostles, which so vast a Multitude of Eye witnesses did see visibly practised from Age to Age, is un­doubtedly true, and such a rule is infallible and impossibe to be Crooked.

But these two Rules are such Rules.

And so he concludeth that they are inca­pable of Vsurpations, and as easy to teach faith as Children learn their A B C.

I have given his Argument as much for­ce and edge as I could possibly; but all this Wind shakes no Corn. His other two Rules were not so much to be blamed; as this Rule of Rules, Orall and immediate Tradition. Mat. 15. 6. Of such Orall and immediate Tradition it was that our Saviour told the Sribes and Pharisees, That they made the Commandements of God of none effect by their Tradition, 1. Pet▪ 1. 18. And St. Peter told the dispersed [Page 42] Iewes, that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ from their vain Conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers. These were▪ such Traditions as The Iewes pretended they had receiued from Moses and the Pro­phets: as the Romanists pretend now to have received their Traditions from Christ and his Apostles. Otherwise, wee doe not onely admit Orall Traditions in generall, as an excellent Introduction to the Doctrin of saving truth, and a singular help to ex­pound the holy Scriptures: but also parti­cular unwritten Traditions derived from the Apostles and delivered unto us by the manifest Testimony of the Primitive Church, being agreeable to the holy Scriptures. The Apostles did speak by inspiration as well as write, and their Tradition whether by word or writing in­differently was the word of God, into which faith was resolved: The Traditions of the Catholick Church of this present or another age, have this Privilege, to be free from all Errours that are absolutely De­structive to Salvation: but this they have not from the nature of Tradition; which is subject to Errour, to Corruption, to Change, to Contradiction: ‘Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.’ [Page 43] but from the speciall Providence and protection of Christ, who hath promised to be with his Church untill the end of the World.

In summe, I deny both his Propositions, First his Major. Immediate Tradition from Parents to Children is not a certain and infallible Rule of Truth and Faith. Traditions are often doubtfull, doe often change with the times, and sometimes con­tradict one another: As we see in the Dif­ferent Traditions of the Eastern and West­ern Churches about the observation of Easter, And the Councells of Nice and Frankford about Images &c. Neither points of Faith nor Papall rights are so vi­sible as he imagineth. Credulity, and Igno­rance, and Prejudice, and Passion, and In­terest, doe all act their parts. Upon his Grounds there can be no Ecclesiasticall U­surpations: yet Experience teacheth us that there have been such Vsurpations in all Ages. If he had reason to renounce the immediate Tradition of his Father and Grandfather and great Grandfather; Then others may have the like and better rea­sons. Let him believe the Suns dancing upon Easter morn, and the Swanssinging, and the Pellicans digging of her Breast [Page 44] with her Bill, and all the Storyes of King Arthur and Robin Hood, for it may be he hath received all these from his Elders by immediate Tradition.

He him self Confesseth that the possession of goverument must be such a possession as may be presumable to haue come from Christ, not of such an one as every one knowes when it began. P. 49. To what purpose is it to pre­tend tradition for all those branches of Pa­pall power which are in controversy be­tweene them and us, seeing all of them had their first originall eleven hundred yeares after Christ?

Secondly, this is not all, he ascribeth mo­reover too much to the immediate Tradi­tion of the present Church, but much more then too much to the immediate Tradition of his elders, to make it absolutely infallible cui non potest subesse falsum, and to resolve Faith into it, The last resolution of Faith must be into that which is formally the word of God. The voice of the pre­sent Church may be materially the word of God in regard of the matter and thing testified: but it cannot be formally the word of God, in respect of the Witnes­ses and manner of testifying. But imme­diate Tradition is often a Seminary of Er­rours.

[Page 45]Thirdly he makes the Orall and imme­diate Tradition of Fathers to their Chil­d [...]ren, to be a more ready and safe Rule of Faith then the holy Scriptures, which are the Canon of Faith; and so rea­dy, that it is as easy, as for Boyes to learn their A B C. aud so safe, that it is impossi­ble to be made crooked.

Lastly he Confoundeth the Tradition of the Roman Church with the Tradition of the Catholick Church: yet the one is but particular,Aug. lib. 4. contra Donati [...]tistas cap. 24, the other Universall Tradition, Saint Augustine setteth us downe a certeine rule how to know a true genuine Apostoli­call tradition; Quod univers a tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum sed semper Retentum est, nonnifi authoriate Apostolica traditum verissī me creditur. Whatfoever the whole Church doth hold, which was not instituted by councells, but allwayes received, is most rightly beleeued to have bene delivered by Apostolicall authority. These three markes, conjoinctly do most firmly prove an Apostolicall Tradition. I do not denie but that there have bene A­postolicall Traditions which have wanted some of these Markes, but they were nei­ther necessary to salvation, nor can be pro­ved at this day after sixteene hundred ye­ares to have bene Apostolicall Traditions. Whatsoever wanteth either universality or [Page 46] perpetui [...]y is not absolutely uecessary. Nei­ther can the reception of one Apostolicall Church proue a tradition to be Apostoli­call, if other Apostolicall Churches do re­ject it, and contradict it.

To conclude we give all due respect to Tradition; but not so much to Orall Tra­dition as to Written Tradition, as being­more certain, lesse subject to mistakes, and more easily freed from mistakes, Liter a scriptamanet. A serious person if he be but to deliver a long message of importance from one to another, will be carefull either to receive it in writing, or put it in writing. Nor so much to particular immediate Tradi­tion, as we do to Vniversall and perpetuall tradition. He overshooteth himself beyond all aime in affirming of immediate and Par­ticular Tradition, that where it hath place it is impossible for usurpations or abuses to enter or find admittance. He might as well tell us that it is impossible to make a croo­ked line with a leaden Rule. Particular Tradition is flexible and is often ben­ded according to the interests and inclina­tions of particular ages and places and per­sons. He saith, that there can be no encroach­ments so as men adhere to this method that is immediate Tradition. He telleth us that [Page 47] they did adhere to this Method, and that there was such immediate Tradition: and yet we have seen and felt that encroach­ments and vsurpations and abuses, did not onely creep into the Church, but like a Violent Torrent did beare down all oppo­sition before them. I produce but two Witnesses, but they are beyond exception. The one is Pope Adrian the sixth in his Instructions to his Nuncio Franciscus Che­regatus when he sent him to the German Princes at the diet of Nuremberg,Apud Goldast Const. Imper. pa. 29.Wee know that in the holy See for some yeares past, many things have been to be abhominated, Abuses in Spirituall things, Excesses in Mandates, and all things changed perversly. Neither is it to be marveiled at, if sicknesse descend from the head to the members, from the Chiefest Bishops to other inferiour Prelates, &c. And againe, Wherein for so much as concerneth us you shall promise, that wee will doe our uttermost endeavour, that in the first place this Court from whence perad­venture this evill hath proceeded may be refor­med, that as the Corruption flowed from thence to all inferiours; so likewise the health and re­formation of all may proceed from thence. Pope Adrian Confesseth abominable abuses, and excesses, and perverse mutations and cor­ruptions: and yet Mr. Serjeant would make [Page 48] us believe that where this Method of Orall and immediate Tradition is used, there can be no changes. Either this Method was not used, or this Method is not a sufficient pre­servative against innovations: both wayes his demonstration falleth to the ground.

My other Witnesse is the Councell of nine cheife Cardinalls, who upon their Oaths delivered up as their veredict, a bundle of abuses, grievons abuses, abuses not to be tolerated, concil. delect. card. impr. Lutet. p. 1612 & 140. (they are their own words) ye a Monsters, to Paul the third in the yeare 1538; beseeching him that these spots might be taken away, which if they were admitted in any Kingdome or Republick would streight bring it to ruine. Never any man did make encroach­ments and innovatious to be impossible be­fore this man.

His assumtion is as false as his major proposition,There was no Tradi­tion for the Di­vine right of the Pa­pacy. But these two Rules (whereof this is one part, that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of S. Peter did inherit from him this privilege to be the first or Chiefe or Princes of Bishops, &c.) Were agreed upon unanimously between the church of Rome and its dependents and the church of England, and delivered from hand to hand in them all by the Orall and immediate Tradition, of a World of Fathers to a World of children successively [Page 49] as a Rule of discipline received from Christ and his Apostles, &c. If all this were true, it con­cerneth us nothing we may perhaps differ from them in judgmēt, but have no formed quarrell with them about this that I know of. We are willing to submit not onely, to the Ordinances of Christ, b [...]t to the just ordinances of man, and to yeeld for the com­mon Peace and Tranquility of Christen­dome, rather more then is due, then lesse. But otherwise how was that unanimously agreed upon between the Churches of Rome and England, and so delivered by Fathers to Children as a thing accorded, whereof the Church of Rome is no better accorded within it self unto this day? I mean concerning the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to all the privileges of St. Peter, when the Popes greatest Champions maintein it so coldly as a thing that is not improbable; that peradventure may be, peradventure may not be, as grounded upon a fact of St. Peter, that is as much as to say not upon the Mandate of Christ?

And though wee should be so kind­hearted as to suppose that there is some part of Papall power, in the abstract not in the concrete, which is of Christs own institution, Namely, The beginning of Vnity, that is a power to Convocate the [Page 50] Church, and to preside in the Church, and to pronounce the sentence of the Church, so far and no further then power purely spirituall doth extend; although there be no speciall mandate of Christ to that pur­pose, for one to be the successour of S. Pe­ter, or any prime or chiefe of all other Bis­hops: yet in the Iudgement even of the greatest opposers of Ecclesiasticall Hier­archy, it is the dictate of nature that one should preside over the rest,Beza defenf. pag. 153. Ex dei ordi­natione perpetua necesse fuit, est & erit, ut in Presbyterio quispiam & loco & dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit. Yet what is this to that great Bulke of Ecclesiasticall Autho­rity which hath been conferred upon that See by the decrees of oecumenicall coun­cells; and by the Civill Sanctions of Chris­tian Emperours▪ which being Humane Institutions may be changed by Humane Authority? Can one scruple of divine right convert a whole masse of Humane right into divine? Wee see Papall power is not equall or alike in all places, but is exten­ded or contracted variously according to the different Privileges and liberties of severall Churches and kingdomes. We see at this day the Pope hath very lit­tle to doe in Sicily, as I have shewed in my Vindication of the Church of [Page 51] England), by reason that one of his Prede­cessors long since hath alienated in a man­ner the whole Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to the Soveraign Prince of the Country and to his Heirs. Wee may call it by depu­tation or delegation. but this is plain, it is to him and his He [...]res for ever. This is certain, divine right cannot be exten­ded or contracted; There is no Privilege or prescription against divine right, That which belongeth to one person by divine right cannot be alienated to ano­ther person by humane right; for then Humane right should be stronger then di­vine right.

In summe although there be some co­lour or pretext of divine right for a be­ginning of Vnity, wheresoever the Catho­lick Church should fix it, yet it appeareth evidently by the Vniversall practice of the Christian world in all ages, that there is no Colour nor so much as a shadow of divine right for all the other Branches of papall power, and those vast Privileges of the Roman Court. In the Councell of Con­stance they damned most of the Articles of Iohn Wickliffe down right without hesita­tion:Concil. Constan. Sess. 8. but when they came to the one and fortieth Article (It is not necessary to Salvati­on to believe that the Roman Church is supreme [Page 52] among other Churches,) they paused and used some reservation, It is an errour if by the Roman Church he understood the Vniversall Chureh, or a Generall Councell, or for as much as he should deny the primacy of the Pope above other particular Churches, Their judgement is clear enough, they yeilded to the Pope primatum not suprematum. A primacy of Order not a supremacy of power; They made him a beginning of Vnity to all particular Churches, Yet subjected him to the Vni­versall Church; They looked upon him as Highest Bishop, and Successour of St. Peter, but they believed that a Generall Councell had power to shake his Candlestick, and remove it, if they found it expedient for the good of Christendome.

If he come so far short of divine right in his faire pretensions; by what right will he seek to justify all his foule Vsurpations and enchroachments, which have no de­cree of any Oecumenicall councell to war­rant them, no Imperiall Institntion to au­thorise them; which have no foundation but the Popes own decretalls? But [...] reserve a full account of this for the next part of my Answer. Onely Reader be pleased to take notice, that it behooved Mr. Ser­jeant to have proved his Traditions clearly [Page 53] and distinctly, as to those parts of Papall power which are controverted between us in earnest, with the Vniversality of it, and the perpetuity of it. This he neither doth nor attempteth to doe, nor in deed is he or any other able to doe, but meerly presumeth it, and slubbereth over the mater in deceitfull Generalls.

Sect. I. Cap. III.

Wee are come now to the last part of his demonstration, which was the Minor or Assumtion of his former Syllogisme, That the Church of England in Henry the eighths dayes did breake these Rules of Vnity upon probable reasons, not convincing grounds. Which being the main question, he should have fortifyed with proofes: but he according to his Custome thinkes to carry it with confidence and clamours, Does not all the World grant and hold that King Henry denyed the Popes Supremacy: Does not all the World see that the pretended Church of England, stands now otherwise in Order, to the Church of Rome, then it did in Henry the sevenths dayes? &c.

Was Papall power cast out before? was it not in actuall force till and at that time? [Page 54] Wee beg nothing gratis, but begin our Processe upon Truth acknowledged by the whole World. What Papall power king Henry did cast out, and what Papall power we hold out, I shall demonstrate to the World, not con­fusedly but distinctly, by such proofes as are not to be gainsaid for matter of fact.

But before I gird my self to the worke, it will not be amisse for the freeing of the Cause from future Cumber about them, to give Satisfaction to his two Circumstances, that wee did it onely upon probable reasons, And in the dayes of king Henry the eighth. Menti­on of exceptions here imperti­nent.

For the first, he keepeth a great stirre and bustling every where about our proba­ble reasons, and tbe nature of our Exceptions. And he would make his reader believe that I have omitted this part of his word [...] Gu [...]le­fully. All which discourse is superfluous and impertinent.Schism. dispat. pag. 477. For if he could make good his Conclusion that wee have cast out that which Christ himself did ordein in holy Scripture, no reasons nor exceptions can be sufficient or so demonstrative and convincing as to justify a wilfull violati­on of Christs own ordination.Mat. 15. 13 Every Plant (saith our Saviour) which my heavenly fa­ther [Page 55] hath not planted shall be roo [...]ed up. But if this be Christs own Plant which he him­self hath planted, to goe about to root it up were plainly to fight against God. We renounce all reasons and all exceptions a­gainst Christs own ordination. His very intimation that wee might doe what we did upon demonstrative reasons, is an im­plicit Confession, that it was not against Christs own ordination.

There was no need why I should meddle wich mine own exceptions here, That was his office in the position of the Case. That case is meanly and partially stated, which is stated but on one side, he ought to have included my Exceptions in his case Besides I was sure to meet wich my exceptions in every Section, and therefore reserved them for their proper-places, as being loath to offend the Reader wich twice sodden Cole­worts. But let him not feare that I will relinquish my Exceptions, I shall maintain them to be demonstrative of the Popes V­surpations in England, and leave them freely to try it out with his Demonstra­tions.

The second Circumstance is concerning the time when the breach is supposed to have been made,The first breach before Henry the 8. was bor­ne. In the dayes of Henry the [Page 56] eighth; And it is thus far true, that then the breach was declared, and the War pro­claimed to all the World: but this breach was making long before Henry the eighth was born; form the dayes of Pope Hilde­brand for about four hundred yeares. There was no open hostility indeed between the Court of Rome and the Church and Kingdome of England: but they were still upon their Gards, and still seeking to gaine ground one upon another, as appea­reth by the decrees and Lawes and Machi­nations of those times. A breach in a strong Tower is long making before the Walls tumble visibly down; A Scathfire is long kindling before it breake out in an univer­sall flame. A Cronicall disease is long ga­thering and forming before the certain Symptoms there of doe appeare. We use to say the second blow makes the fray, but the first blow makes the Battery and the guilt. All that time that they were forcing their grosse usurpations upon us, the Breach was making.

I have done wich his two Circumstan­ces.Every one in­volved in a Schism▪ is not a formall Schtsmatick. The Substance of his Assumtion re­maineth. [Page 57] But before I grapple with him about that, give me leave to lay down four grounds or Considerations, so indifferent that no rationall man can deny them. The first is that every one who is involved mate­rially in a Schism is not a formall Schisma­tick, no more then [...]hee that marrieth after long expectation, believing and having reason to believe that her former Husband was dead, is a formall Adultresse, or then he who is drawn to give divine Worship to a creature by some misapprehension, yet addressing his devotions to the true God, is a formall Idolater. A man may be Bapti­satus voto (as S. Ambrose said) baptised in his desire, and God Almighty doth accept it: why may he not as wel Communicate in his desire, and be accepted with God li­kewise? If S. Austin say true of Heresy, that.Ezech. 162. He who did not run into his Errour out of his own overweening presumption, nor defends it pertinaci [...]asly, but received it from his seduced pa­rents, and is carefull to search out the truth, and ready to be corrected if he find it out, he is not to be reputed among Hereticks.

It is much more true of Schism, that he who is involved in Schism through the errour [Page 58] of his Parents or Predecessors, who seeketh carefully for the Truth, and is prepared in his mind to embrace it whensoever he finds it, he is not to be reputed a Schismatick. This very Bond of Vnity and preparation of his mind to peace, is an implicit [...]enun­ciation and abjuration of his Schism be­fore God. This is as comfortable a ground for ignorant Roman Catholicks, as for any persons that I know, Who are hurried hoodwinked in to erroneous tenets as ne­cessary points of faith, and Schismaticall Practises, meerly by the authority, and to uphold the interest and ambitions or a [...]a­ricious courses of the Roman Court.

My second ground is this, God almighty doth [...] not approve of that unequall pro­verb, The Fathers have eaten sowre Grapes and the Childrens teeth are set on edge. Poste­rity is not guilty of their Ancestours trans­gressions,Ezech. 18. 2 [...] wee are not chargable with the excesses of our Prede­cessours. further then they doe either imitate them or maintain them. Suppose these calumnies had been truths which some have belched forth against our Re­formers, that they had Sacrilegious or other sinister ends, it signifieth nothing to us, so long as wee neither justify them, nor imitate them. Iehues heart was not over upright; and yet God himself ap­proved [Page 59] his Reformation. Suppose any of our Reformers have run into any excesses or extremes, either in their expressions, or perhaps in their actions, (it is a difficult thing in great changes to observe a just meane,) it may be out of humane frailty, as Lycurgus out of hatred to drunkennes [...]e, cut down all the Vines about Sparia: or it may be out of Policy, as men use to bend a crooked Rod, as much the contrary way to make it streight: or as expert Masters in Musick doe sometimes draw up their Scho­lars a note too high, to bring them to a just tone. What is that to us so long as we practise the meane and maintain the mean, and guide our selves by the cer­tain line and Levell of Apostolicall and primitive Tradition. Charity commands us to thinke well of our Predecessors, and Theology to look well to our selves.

Thirdly, that difference which divines doe make between affirmative and nega­tive precepts,Nega­tive Presidents prove more strongly then af­firma­tive. that affirmative bind al­wayes, but not to all times, semper but not ad semper. A man is bound alwayes to pray, but is not hound to the actuall exer­cise of praier at all timts, but nega­negative precepts bind both semper and ad semper. The same I say of affirmative aud negative presidents, affirmative presidents [Page 60] prove alwayes that such a fact was done, and it may be that it was justly done at that time in that case, but they prove not a right ad semper, to doe it at all times The reason is evident, Particular Acts may be done by Connivence, or by speciall License; but a Generall Prohibition implyeth a perpetual right. As for instance I produce Negative Presidents, both Generall Lawes against all appeales to Rome, that no man may appe­ale to the Pope without the Kings Licen­se, and Particular Prohibitions out of the Kings Courts, by form of ordinary Iustice, against such and such Appeales or such and such Sentences upon Appeales, This argueth a perpetuall Right to forbid Ap­peales, whensoever it is Iudged expedient: On the otherside he preduceth Presidents of Particular Appeales to Rome, (which he may doe of later Dayes, but for the First eleven hundred years it was not so, This Proveth onely the Kings License or Con­nivence in such cases,negati­ve Pre­sidents prove more strongly then af­firmati­ve. it doth not prove a perpetuall Right, because two perpetuall Rights contradictory one to another can not be.

My fourth and last ground is, that nei­ther King Henry the eighth nor any of our Legislators, did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the [Page 61] Keys or any part thereof, either the Key Order or the Key of Iurisdiction, I mean jurisdictiō purel [...] spiritual which hath place onely in the Inner court of conscience, and over such persons as submit willing [...]y. Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume unto them selves either the Key of order or the key of jurisdiction purely Spirituall. All which they deprived the Pope of, all which they assumed to themselves, was the exter­nall Regiment of the Church by Coac­tive power, to be excercised by persons ca­pable of the respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had, ot could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose subjects they were. And there fore when wee meet with these words or the like, that no forrein Prelate shall exercise any manner of power Iurisdiction Superiority, Preheminence or Privilege Eccle­sias [...]icall or Spirituall within this Realme, It is not to be understood of internall or purely Spiritual power in the court of conscience, or the power of the Keys: (Wee see the Contrary practised every day:) but of ex­ternal and coactive power in Ecclesiasticall causes in foro conten [...]ioso. And that it is and ought to be so understood; I prove clear­ly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parlia­ment, and a Canon of the English Church.

[Page 62]First the Proviso is conteined in the Act for the Exoneration of the Kings Subjects from all Exactions and Impositions paid to the See of Rome.XXV. Hen. 8. ca. 12.Provided alwayes this Act nor any thing therein conteined shall be here after interpre [...]ed or expounded, that your Grace your nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and Vary from the Congregation of Christs Church, in any things concerning the very Ar­ticles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome, or any other things declared by the Scripture and the Word of God necessary for your and their Salvations; but onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice, aud for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Vnity and Tranquility, from ravine and Spoile, insueing much the old ancient Custo­mes of this Realme in that behalfe. They pro­fes [...]e their Ordinance is meerly Politicall; What hath a Politicall Ordinance to doe with power purely Spirituall? They seek onely to preserve the kingdome from ravi­ne and Spoile; Power purely spirituall can commit no Ravin or Spoile. [...]he [...] follow ancient Customes of the Realm There was no ancient Custome of the Realm for aboli­tion or translation of power purely spiri­tuall. They professe all Conformity to Holy Scriptures; but the power of the keys [Page 63] was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successors, not to Soveraign Princes. If any thing had been conteined in this Law for the Aboli­tion or Translation of power meerly and purely Spirituall, it had been retracted by this Proviso at the same time it was enac­ted.

The Canon is the 37. Canon, where we give the Kings Majesty the Supreme Go­vernment, Wee doe not give our Kings either the Administration of Gods word or Sacraments, which the Injunctions published lately by Queen Elisabeth doe most evidently declare, but onely that Prerogative which wee see to have been al­wayes attributed to all Godly Princes by him self in holy Scripture, That is, to preserve or contein all Estates and Orders committed to their trust by God, whether they be Ecclesiasti­call or Civill in their Dutyes, and restrein con­tumacious Offenders with the Civill Sword. You see the Power is Politicall, the Sword is Po­liticall, all is Politicall, Our Kings leave the power of the keys and Iurisdiction purely Spirituall to those to whom Christ hath lest it.

Sect. I. Cap. IV.

And now having dispatched the Circum­stances out of my way,The Po­pe and Court of Rome did break the bonds of unity not we. and laid down some [Page 54] Necessary grounds, I come directly to the Substance of his Assumption, and affirm, That neither the King of England, nor the Church of England, neither Convoca­tion nor Parliament, did breake his two Necessary Bonds of Christian Vnity) or ei­ther of them, or any part of either of them. But that the Very Breakers and Violaters of these Rules were the Pope and Court of Rome, They did breake his Rule of Faith, by adding new points to the Necessary Doctrin of saving Truth, which were not the Legaceyes of Christ and his Apostles, nor delivered unto us by Universall and perpetuall Tradition. The Pope and Court of Rome did breake his second Rule of Vnity in Discipline, by obtruding their excessive and intolerable usurpations vpon the Christian world, and particularly upon the Church of England, as necessary Conditions of their Communion.

It appeareth plainly by comparing that which hath been said with his positiō of the case, that after all his Bragges of undeniable evidence and unquestionable certeinty. he hath quite missed the question. We joine with him in his rule of Faith, Wee oppose not St. Peters Primacy of Order, and he him self dare not say that St. Peter had a larger, or more extended power then the rest of [Page 65] his Fellow Apostles. And though wee can­not force our understandings to assent, that after the death of S. Peter, Linus, or Cletus, or Clemens, or Anacle [...]us, were Superiours to S. Iohn, and had actuall Iurisdiction, over him, who had as large a commission imme­diatly from Christ as S. Peter himselfe, and larger then any succeeding Romane Bishop ever had: Yet to shew him how little wee are concerned in it, and for his clearer conviction, wee are willing to sup­pose that they were his Superiours, and give him leave to make all the advantage of his second Rule which he can in this cause.

And here if I regarded not the satisfaction of my self and the Reader more then his opposition, I might withdraw my hand from the Table. But I am so great a Friend of Ingenuity, that I will for once discharge his Office, and shew the World demonstra­tively and distinctly, what Branches of Pa­pall power were cast out of England by Henry the eighth; upon which considera­tion the weight of the whole Controversy doth lye. For it is agreed between us, that if it appeare by rigorous Evidence, that all those Branches of Papall power, which were renounced and cast out of England [Page 66] by Henry the eight were grosse Vsurpattons, then his renouncing was no eriminall Breach, but a lawfull self enfranchisement. And by undeniable consequence the Guilt of [...]chism resteth upon them who made the Vsurpati­ons, that is, the Pope and Court of Rome. I adde further upon the equity of my second Ground; that although Henry the eight had cast out something more then be ought, yet if wee hold not out more then wee ought, and be ready to admitt all which ought to be admitted by us, then we are innocent and free from the Guilt of Schism and it resteth soly upon them, who either will have more then their due or nothing. Wheresoever the fault is, there the Guilt of Schisme is: If the fault be single, the Guilt is single,What branches of Papal power were cast out of En­gland by Hen­ry the 6. if the fault be mutuall, the Guilt is mutuall.

And for rigorous Evidence, There cannot possibly be any Evidence more demonstra­tive what Papall power was cast out of En­gland, then the very Acts of Parliaments themselves, by which it was cast out. Let us view them all. The first Act made in the Reign of Henry the eight, which hath any referente to Rome, is the Act for holding Plurality of Benefices against the lawes of the land by dispensation from the Court of Rome, making licenses for non Residence from the [Page 67] Court of Rome to be voide, and the party who procureth such Licenses for Pluralityes or Non­residence to forfeyt twenty pounds, and to lose the profits of that Benefice which he holdeth by such dispensation▪ It were a pretty thing indeed, if the Church and Kingdome should make necessary lawes, and the Pope might give them liberty to break them at his pleasure.23. Hen. 8. cap. 9.

The second Act is, that No person shall be cited out of t [...]e diocesse where he dwelleth, except in certain cases. Which though it may seem to reflect upon the Court of Rome: yet I do not find that it is concerned in it, but the Arches, Audience, and other Archiepisco­pall Courts within the Realm.

The third Act is meerly declarative of the law of the land, as well the Common lawes as the Statute lawes, and grounded wholy upon them, as by the View of the Statute it self doth appeare. So it casteth out no forraine power, but what the lawes had cast out before.24. Hen. 8. ca. 12. The summe of it is this, That all Causes Matrimoniall, Testa­mentary, or about Tithes &c. shall be heard and finally judged in England, by the proper Iudges Ecclesiasticall and Civill respecti­vely, and not elswhere notwithstanding any forrein Inhibitions Appeales, Sentences, ci­tations, suppensions, or Excommunications. And that if any English Subject procure a Pro­cesse [Page 68] Inhibition Appeale, &c. From or to the Court of Rome, or execute them to the hin­derance of any processe here, he shall incurre the Penalties ordained by the Statute of provision or premunire, made in the sixteenth yeare of King Richard the second, against such as make provision to the See of Rome. 25 He. 8. c. 19. This law was e [...]larged afterwards to all causes of Ecclesiasticall cognisance, and all ap­peales to Rome forbidden.

The fourth Act is an Act for punishing of Heresy. Wherein there are three clauses that concern the Bishop of Rome. The First is this, 25. He. 8. c. 14. And that there be many Heresies and paines and punishments for Heresies, De­clared and ordained in and by the Canonicall Sanctions, and by the Lawes and Ordinations made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome and by their Authorities, for holding, doing, preaching of things contrary to the said Canonicall Sanc­tions Lawes and Ordinances, which be but hu­mane, being meer repugnant and contrarious to the royall Prerogative, Regall Iurisdiction, La­wes Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm. The second Clause is that, No License be obtained of the Bishop of Rome to Preach in any part of this Realm, or to doe any thing con­trary to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm, or the Kings Prerogative Royall. The third Clause followeth, That the Decrees of the [Page 69] Bishops of Rome, not confirmed by Holy Scrip­tures, were never commonly attested to be any Law of God or man within this Realme. And that it should not be deemed Heresy to speak or doe contrary to the pretended power or Authority of the Bishop of Rome, made or given by Humane Lawes and not by Scriptures; nor to speake or Act contrary to the Lawes of the Bishop of Rome, being contrary to the Lawes of this Realm.

The Fifth Act is an Act concerning the Submission of the Clergy to the Kings Ma­jesty,25. H. 8. c. 19. The scope of it is this, that the Clergy shall not assemble in Convocation, nor make or proniulge any new Canons, without the Kings License. Hitherto there is nothing new in point of Law. Then, that the King should have power to name and constitute, two and thirty Commissioners, sixteen of the Clergy, and other sixteen of the Peers and Parliament, to view the Ecclesiasticall Lawes of the Kingdome, and declare which were fit to be retained,27. H. 8. c. 15. and which were to be abro­gated. The same Law is confirmed and en­larged.

The Sixth Law restreineth the pay­ment of Tenths and First Fruits to the Bishop of Rome. And prescribeth how Arch-bishops, Bishops &c. are to be elected and consecrated within the Realm, [Page 70] without payment of any thing to Rome for Bulls and Pals &c.25. He: 8.

The seventh law is, an Act of E [...]onera­tion of the Kings subjects from exactions and impositions heretofore paid to the See of Rome, for Pensions, Peterpence, Licenses, Dispensa­tions, Confirmations, faculties &c. and for having licenses and dispensations within the Realm, without further suing for the same; As being Vsurpations co [...]trary to the law of the land. 26. H 8. cap. 1.

The eighth Act is Concerning the Kings Highnesse to be supreme Head of the Church of England (that is Politicall head) and to have Authority to redresse all Errours, Heresies and Abuses in the same. That is to say, with ex­ternall Coactive Iurisdiction. Wee never gave our Kings the power of the Keys, or any part of either the Key of Order, or the Key of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall: but onely that Coactive power in the ex­ternall Regiment of the Church, which their Predecessors had alwayes enjoyed.26. H. 8. cap 3. 28. H. 8. ca. 10.

The Ninth Act is for the annexing Tenths and first fruits to the Crown, for the better sup­portation of the Burthens of the Commouwealth.

The tenth Act is au Act extingu [...]shing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, or extirpating it out of this Realm. That is, Not the Bishop of Romes Primacy of Order, Not his begin­ning [Page 71] of Vnity, Not that respect which is dne to him as Bishop of an Apostolicall See. If he have not these it is his own fault. This is not our quarrell. It is so far from it, that wee do not envy him any just legacies of Christian Emperours or Generall Coun­cells. But that which our Ancestors did extinguish and endeavour to extirpate out of England, was the Popes externall Coact­ive power over the Kings Subjects in foro contentioso, as wee shall see by and by, when we come to state the quarrell rightly bet­ween us.35. He. 8. cap. 5.

After this Act there followed au eleventh Act made for corroborating of this last Act, to exclude the usurped power and Iurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome. And both these Acts are backed with new Oaths, as those times were fruitfull of Oaths, such as they were.

The last Act of any moment,35. H. 8. cap 3. was an Act of Ratification of the Kings Majestjes Style of Supreme head of the Church of England ma­king it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it. But as well the eighth Act which gave the King that title of the Head of the Church, as this twelfth Act which makes it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it, are both repealed, and never were restored. So are likewise the tenth Act of extinguishing the Authority of the [Page 72] Bishop of Rome; and the eleventh act made for corroboration of that Act with both their Oaths included in them.

All that hath been added since of moment which concerneth the Bishop of Rome is one Act,1. El. c. 1. Restoring to the Crown the ancient Iu­risdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spi­rituall, and abolishing all forrain power repug­nant to the same. Here is no power crea­ted in the Crown, but onely an ancient Iu­risdiction restored. Here is no forrein power abolished, but onely that which is repugnant to the ancient Lawes of England and to the Prerogative Royall. In a word, here is no power ascribed to our Kings but meerly Politicall aud Coactive, to see that all their Subjects doe their Dutyes in their severall places. Coactive power is one of the Keys of the Kingdome of this world, it is none of the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven. This might have been expressed in Words lessé subject to exception. But the case is clear. The Grand Act xxv. Hen. 8. cap. 12, The Injunctions of Queen Eliza­beth, The Articles of our Chutch Art. 37. doe all proclaime that this power is merely Politicall. Christ gave St. Peter a Com­mission to preach, to baptise, to bind and loose in the Court of Conscience: but whe­re did he give him a Commission to give Li­censes, [Page 73] to grant Facultyes, to make Lawes, to dispense with lawes to receive appeales, to impose Tenths and First fruits in other mens Kingdomes, whether the right owner will or no?Luke. 12. 14. Who gave him power to take other mens Subjects against their Wills to be his Officers and Apparitors? That is more power then Christ himself did chal­lenge here upon Earth.

And now Reader take a Stand and looke about thee; See among all these Branches of Papall power which were cast out of England, if thou caust find either of St. Pe­ters Keys, or his Primacy of Order, or his Be­ginning of Vnity, or anything which is pure­ly Spirituall, that hath no further influence then merely the Court of Conscience. No: but on the other side behold a pack of the grossest Usurpations that ever were hatched, and all so late, that is was above a thousand years after the death of S. Peter, be fore any of his pretended Privileges did see the sun in England; 21, Hen. 8. ca. 13. observe them one by one.

The first is a power to dispense with English Subjects for holding Plurality of Benifices con­trary to the Lawes of England, And for non Residents contrary to the Statutes of the Realm. It had been much to have made Merchandise of his own Decrees: but to Dispense with the Lawes of the Land, [Page 74] Non auderet haec facere Viduae mulieri. He durst not doe so much to a poore widow woman, as he did to the Church and King­dome of England, to dispense with their Lawes at his pleasure. It is but vain for the Flower of our Kingdome to assemble aud consult about healthfull Lawes: if a For­rainer have power to dispense with the breach of them as it seemeth good in his Eyes, They might as well sit them down­quietly & fall to pilling of rushes,

The second Branch of Papall power which was Excluded out of England, was the Popes Iudiciary power. I doe not mean in Controversies of Faith when he is in the Head of a councell:Conc. Basil. Sess. 16 in revoc bullae 3. Yet Eugeniur the fourth confesseth that in points of Faith the sentence of the councel is rather to be attēded thē the sentence of the Pope. But I mean in points of meum and tuum, not onely in some rare cases between Bishop and Bishop, which had been lesse intollerable, and had had more shew of Iu­stice: but generally in all cases promiscu­ously; as if the whole nation wanted either discretion or Law to determin their own differences at home,24. Hen. 8 cap 12. without the help of the Roman Courtier tosqueese their purses. It was not Henry the eighth, but the old Lawes of England which gave them this blow against Appeales to Rome.

[Page 75]The third Branch of papall power which was turned out of England by Henry the eighth was the Popes Legislative power, especially in making new Heresies by his own Authority, and for his own Interest, prescribing the punishment, as if all the world were his Subjects. Mr. Serjeant may be pleased to inform himself better, that the Popes Canons and decretalls never had since the First Conversion of England the force or power of Lawes in England, un­till they were received by the Nation, nor then any further then they were recei­ved.

The fourth Branch is the Soveraign pa­tronage of the English Church with all those rights aud appurtenances which be­long thereunto, as to convocate the clergy, and Dissolve their Assembly, To exempt their persons from secular Iudgement, To have the Disposition of Ecclesiasticall Di­gnityes and the Custodium of them in the Vacancy. But these things are so noto­ [...]ious, to all those who are acquainted with the Ecclesiasticall Customes of England, that there can be no manner of Qnestion of it. The Convocation was alwayes called and dissolved by the absolute and precise Mandate of the King to the Arch-Bishop; Yea even when the Arch-Bishop was the [Page 76] Popes legate, and when he might have chal­lenged, another right, if the Pope had had any pretense. The temporaltyes of the Bi­shopricks in the Vacancy were ever sèised into the hands of the King, untill he gran­ted out his Writ of Manum amoveas, or Oster la main: If ordinary Patrons did not pre­sent in due time to a benefice, it devolved to the Ordinary, and from him to the King, there it stayed, Nullum [...]empus occurrit Regi.

The fifth Privilege was the receiving of Tenths and First fruits, which were a late encroachment of the Bishop of Rome upon the Clergy, without any just ground, and upon that score were condemned in the Councells of Constance and Basile, and now were seised into the Kings hand to­wards the discharge of the Ecclesiasticall Burthens of the Kingdome.

The last perqnisire whith the Pope lost was all the profits of his Court, by Bulls, and Palls, and Pensions, and Reservations, and Exemptions, and Licenses, and Dispen­sations, and Consirmations, and Pardons, and Indulgences, and an hundred other pe­cuniary Artifices practised in his Court at Rome, and in his Legantine Courts and Nun­ciatures abroad. But this abuse is so foule, that the Popes own selected Cardinalls doe [Page 77] cryshame upon it, as much as wee, and lay­down this genera Rule,Conf. delct. Card. That it is not lawfull to make any gain by the exercise of the Keys, seing wee have the firm word of Christ, freely ye have received, freely give, &c. For as the use which now prevaileth doth disgrace the See of Rome, and disturbeth Christian people; so the contrary practice would bring much honour to this See, and marveilously edify the people.

These are the reall differences between the See of Rome and the Church and King­dome of England concerning the papacy.The true diffe­rence about the Pa­pacy. all these altercations which wee have about. Thou art Peter, and the Keys given to St. Peter, and Feed my Sheep, and I have prayed for thee; are but like to the tinkling of Cybeles Priests upon their Cymballs, on purpose to deafe the eares of the Spectators, and to conceale the Cryes and ejulations of poore oppressed Christians. To reduce them into a little better Method then they lye in the Statutes.

The maine quaestious are or may be reduced to four heads. The first grand quaestion is concerning the Soveraignty of the En­glish Church in respect of the externall Regiment thereof. This hath four sub­ordinate Branches.

[Page 78]First who is the right Patron of the En­glish Church under God, the King or the Pope? Secondly, who hath power to Con­vocate Synods of the Kings subjects with­in England, The King or the Pope? Thir­dly, whether the Pope have justly imposed new Oaths upon the Arch Bishops and Bis­hops? fourthly whether Tenths and first fruits in England be due to the See of Rome.

The second question is concerning the Popes legislative power. Whether the Canon law or the decretalls have been an­ciently esteemed binding lawes in England or ought to be so esteemed, except they be received by the English Nation, and metriculated among our lawes.

The third is concerning his judiciary power, Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeales from England by the An­cient lawes of that Land, and send for whom he pleaseth to Rome? 2. Whether Bulls and Excommunications from Rome can be lawfully executed in England, ex­cept the King give leave for the execution of them? 3. Whether the Pope can send Legates and set up Legantine Courts in En­gland, by the Ancient lawes of that Realme.

The fourth Difference is concerning the popes dispensative power, whether the Pope can dispense with the lawes of En­gland? [Page 79] 2. Whether we stand in need of his dispensations?

In every one of these diffe [...]ences wee maintein that the Bishop of Rome and the Court of Rome have been guilty of most grosse Vsurpations.

Sect I. Cap V.

To begin with the first.To whom thepatronage of the En­glish Church doth of right be­long. If it were ne­cessary to call in any forreyn subsidiary Supplies for the further fortifying of the King of Englands Soveraign Patronage under God of the Church within his Ter­ritories; I might find strong recruits from the Greek Emperours, to shew that they alwayes practised this power within their Dominions, to place Bishops in vacant Sees: and that the Contrary was hactenus inauditum, never heard of in S. Gregoryes dayes.Greg. lib. 4. Regist [...] indict. 13. cap 78. To them I might adde the French and Germane Emperours, who not onely injoyed the same privilege by ancient Cu­stome, but to whom the Roman Bishops disclaimed it, with all their Clergy Iud­ges and Lawiers; Adrian the first to Char­les the greate, Anno 774. And Leo the eighth to the Emperour Otho, Anno 964. I might produce the presidents of the Spa­nish Monarchs Conc. Tolet: 12. cap. 6. [Page 80] It were a most unreasonable thing that So­veraign Princes should be trusted with the Government of their people, and have their Bishops, who must participate in the Government, by informing the consciences of their Subjects, be obtruded on them by Strangers. I cannot omit the observation of a Learned Bishop, That, Quacunque ra­tione ad pontificatum pateret ingressus, nemo Apostolicae Cymbae gubernacula capessebat, ni prius Imperatoris authoritas in [...]ercessisset,Bell. de cler. lib. 1. ca. 9.By what way soever the Election of the Pope was made (And Bellarmine, mentioneth seven changes in the manner of choosing the Po­pe.) Yet no man was ever admitted to the actuall Government of the Apostolicall See, without the Emperours confirmation.

But our case is strong enough without twisting any forrein presidents with it. William the conquerour, William Rufus, and Henry the first, did injoy the right of placing in vacant Sees by the tradition of a Ring and of a Crosier staffe, without ever seek­ing for Forrein approbation, or ordina­tion, or confirmation, as their Predeces­sors Kings of England and Brittain had done before them. Els it had been very strange, The Roman Ro [...]a will give decisive Sentence, for him to be Patron of a Church who [Page 81] first builded it and endowed it. But then after Eleuen hundred years were e [...]luxed, (a strange time to set up a divine right,) Gregory the seventh (otherwise called Pope Hildebrand) and after him Pope Calixtus did condemne all Investitures taken from a Lay hand, aud prohibit the Arch Bishops to cousecrate any persons so invested, Prae­sens audivi in Romano Concilio prohiberi, apud Eadm [...] ­rum & Hove­den in Hen. 1. saith Anselm, I heard it with mine own eares prohi­bited in the Roman Court. But what were their reasons? I believe, not overrigorous De­monstrations. The first was frequent suspi­cion of Simony; An unheard of piece of Iustice to take away an hereditary right for suspicion of a personall fault. The se­cond and third reasons are contained in the letter of Adrian the fourth to Frederick the first, Apud Goldast: Ab his qui Dii sunt & filii excelsi omnes, homagium requi [...]is, Fide­litatem exigis, & manus eorum sacratas mani­bus tuis innectis, Thou requirest homage of those who are Gods, and all the Children of the most High, thou exactest an Oath of Fidelity and knittest their sacred hands with in thy hands. A strange presumtion in a Soveraign Prince, if you marke it well, to hold his subjects hands within his Hands, whilest he was swearing his Allegiance; [Page 82] But the maine exception was the Homage or Oath of Fidelity it self. And was it not high time thinke you to except against their swearing of Fidelity to their Native Prin­ce, whom the Bishops of Rome intended to exempt from his Iurisdiction, aud to ma­ke them turn Subjects to themselves: as they did in a great part effect it very short­ly after. Then was the time where of Pla­tina speaks, that there was great Consulta­tion about the Homage and Fealty and Oaths of Bishops,Plat. in Pasch. 2.which in former times were sworn to lay men. Were they so indeed? Here is an in­genuous Confession of the Popes own Li­brary Keeper.

Indeed at the first whilest they were rob­bing the King of the Iewells of his Crown, they preached up nothing but free Elec­tions:Mat. Par. an 1229. but after they had onte seised their prey, they changed their once forthwith to Dei & Apostolicae Sedis Graria, By the Grace of God and the Apostolique See: Or ex plenitudine Ecclefiasticae potestatis out of the Fulnesse of our Ecclesiasticall power. And when this Bell had rung out a while, Egypt never a bounded more with Caterpillars, then our Native Country did with Provisi­ons, and reservations, and Pensions, with all the ̄hellish arts of Sublimated Simony. [Page 83] Then our best dignityes and Benefices were filled with Strangers (who could not speak an English word, nor did ever tread upon English ground,) dayly more and more un­till these well chosen Pastors who knew how to sheare their Flocks, though they did not know how to feed them,Mat. Par. m. Hen. 3. an. 1345. received yearly out of the Kingdome more theu the revenues of the crown. He were very sim­ple who should thinke the Court of Rome, did not lick their own Fingers.

There remaineth but one thing to be do­ne, to stick the Guilt of this intolerable V­surpation undeniably upon the See of Rome that is to s [...]ew that the Investiture of Bis­hops was the undoubted right of the Crown

This is as cleare as the Sun, both in our most Authentick Historiographers, and records if I had the meanes to producethē, and also in our ancient Lawes published long since to the world in print, and these not enactive of new law, but decla­rative of the fundamentall law of the land.

First for our Histories Gervasius Dorober­nensis relateth that Lanfrank desired of William the conquerer the Patronage of the Abby of S. Austin: but the King answered. Se velle omnes baculos pastorales in manu tenere [Page 84] That he would keep all the Crosier staffes (that is the Investitures) in his own hand. The same is testified Anselm himself by one whose Authority cannot be doubted of, He (An­selm) after the manner and Example of his Predecessor was inducted according to the Cu­stome of the Land,Eadm. lib 1. pag. 20.and did Homage to the King (homo Regis factus est) as Lanfranke (his Predecessor in the Archbishoprick of Can­terbury) in his time had done. Eadm. lib. 1. pag. 18. And the man­ner of his Investiture is related, how the Bishops pulled him, and haled him as it were by violence to the Kings bedside (Wil­liam Rufus) where he lay sick, and helped to thrust the Crosier staffe by force into his hand. Yet all that time, though Anselm had many other Pretenses, he had no ex­ception against Investiture by a Lay hand: but shortly after it grew to such an height, (and Anselm was the chief Stickler in it) that William the Agent of King Henry the First protested openly to Pope Paschall, Whatsoever is said on this side or on that,Eadm. lib. 3. pag. 73.I would have all men here present to know, that my Lord the King of England, will not suffer the losse of his Investitures for the losse of his Kingdome. To whom Pope Paschall answe­red as resolutely, but not so justly, Know thou I speake it before God; that Paschall the Pope [Page 85] will not suffer him to keep them without punish­ment, no not for the redemtion of his head.

Neither was this the case of Anselm or Lanfranke alone, but the commō case of all Bishops in those dayes. Hear the confession of the same author, Ead. mer. in praefat. pag. 2. To conclude, the very cause (of the difference between the King and Anselm) seemed a new thing (or innovation) to this our age, and unheard of to the English from the time that the Normans began to Reign, (that I say not sooner,) For from the time that William the Norman conquered that Land, no Bishop or Abbat was made before Anselm, who did not first doe Homage to the King, and from his hand by the gift of a Crosier staffe, receive the investiture to his Bishoprick or Abbacy, except two Bishops of Rochester, who were Surro­gates to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and inducted by him by the Kings Concession.

Yea by his Favour, so did Anselm him­self, Though he sought afterwards to wave it. And though he be loath to speak out (That I say not sooner) Yet he might have said sooner, and others doe say sooner; as Ingulph the Abbat of Crowland in the time of the Conquerer, For many yeares past there hath been no free Election of Prelates,malms [...]. de gest. Reg. l. 2. cap. 8. but the Kings Court did conferre all dignities ac­cording to their pleasure, by a Ring and by a Crosier. And this Custome had held not [Page 86] onely for Many yeares but for many Ages, king Edgar did grant to the monkes of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbat for ever: but he reserved to him self and to his Heirs the power to invest the Brother elected by the tradition of the Pastorall staffe. Thus for our histories now for our Lawes where of I shall need to cite but three.

The First is the Statute or Assise or Me­moriall of Clarendon containing part of the ancient Liberties and Customes of the Re­alme, made in the Generall assembly of the Kingdome, King, Bishops, Peers, to which they gave both their oathes assertory for the truth of it, and Promissory for performance of it. The fourth Custome was this, that when an Arch Bishoprick Bishoprick Abbacy or Priory did fall void, the Election was to be made by such of the Principall Dignitaryes or Members of that respective Church which was to be filled as the king should call together for that purpose, with the kinges consent, in the kings own Chappell. And there the person elected was to doe his Homage and Fealty to the King as to his Liege Lord, The Pope had no part to Act, neither to collate, nor consent, nor con­firm, nor Institute, nor induct, nor ordeine.

The Second Law is the Statute of Carlile made in the time of Edward the First.the right to give Bishop-Ricks in Englād is the KingsThe [Page 87] summe of it is this, That the king is the Foun­der of all Bishopricks, and ought to have the Custody of them in the Vacancyes, and the right of Patronage to present to them. And that the Bishop of Rome usurping the Right of Patrona­ge, giveth them to aliens. That this tendeth to the annullation of the State of holy Church, to the Disinheriting of Kings, and the Destruction of the Realm. And they ordained in full Par­liament that this is an Oppression (that is as much as an entroachment or Vsurpation) and should not be suffered.

The third law was made in the 15th yeare of Edward the third, called the Statute of Provisors, wherein they affirm that Elec­tions were First granted by the Kings Progeni­tors upon a certain form or Condition to demand Licenfe of the King to chuse, and after the E­lection to have his Royall Assent. Which Con­ditions not being kept, the thing ought by reason to resort to his First nature. And there fore conclude, that in case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch Bishoprick &c. Our Soveraign Lord the King and his Heirs shall have and enjoy the Collations for the same time to the said Arch Bishopricks Bishopricks and other dignityes E­lective which be of his Aavowre, such as his Progenitors had before the free Election was [Page 88] granted. They tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Land is such, that the King is bound to make remedyes and Lawes, against such mischiefes. And they acknowledge that he is Advowée Paramont immediate of all Churches, Prebends, and other Benifices which are of the Advowry of holy Church. That is as much as Sove­raign Patron of the Church; Where no Election can be made without the Kings Congé d' Estire or leave antecedent, nor stand good without his subsequent consent; it is all one as if the Crown did Collate.

I come next to the second Branch of the First Question,the right to conv­ocate English Synods is the Kings. about the Patronage of the Church, Who hath power to Convocate and Dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes? and whether the Crown or the Pope have usur­ped one upon another in this particular? I cannot tell whether Henry the eighth or Paul the third, did mistake more about that Aiery title of the head of the english church Henry the eight supposing that the right to convo­cate and dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes, and to receive Tenths and First fruits, did es­sētially follow this Title; And Paul the third declaringe it to be Hereticall and Schisma­ticall. To be head of the English Church, is neither more nor lesse then our Lawes and [Page 89] Histories, ancient and Modern, doe every where ascribe to our English Kings. To be Governers of Christians. To be the Advocates of the Church, To be Patrons and Advowées Paramont of all Churches, To be Defen­ders of the Fa [...]h there Professed, And to use the Words of the Convocation it self, Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectores singulares, V­nicos & Supremos Dominos. The same body may have severall heads of severall kinds upon Earth, as Politicall and Ecclesiasti­call; and then that which takes care of the Archirectonicall end, to see that every member doe his Duty, is alwayes Supreme; That is the Politicall head. This truth Cardinall Poole did see clearly enough, and reconcile the seeming difference by distin­guishing between a Regall head and a Sacer­dotall head, This truth the French Divi­nes see wel enough,Polus de Conc. pa. 70. and doubt not to call their King the Terrene head of the Church of his Realme, without attributing to him any Sacerdotall right Wee had our Sacerdotall heads too in Englād, without seeking for thē so far as Rome; As the Archbishop of Canter­bury in the Reigns of our English Monarchs, who of old was Nullius unquam Legati ditioni subjectus, Never subject to the Iurisdiction of any Legate. When the Pope sent over Guy [Page 90] Archbishop of Vienna into England as his Legate throughout Britaigne for the Apo­stolicall See, It was received with wonder and Admiration of all men.Eadmor. l. 3. p. 58. Inauditum sci­licet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet homi­num super se vices Apostolicas gerere, nisi so­lum Episcopum Cantuariae: All men did know that it was never heard in Britagne, that any Man whatsoever had Apostolicall power over them, but onely the Archbishop of Can­terbury. And accordingly the new Legate did speed, so it followeth, Wherefore as he came so he returned, received as Legate by no man, nor having exercised any part of his Legan­tine power. Eadm. l. 5. p. 120. This was the ground of that Let­ter of the English Bishops to the Pope. That the Church of Canterbury might not be depri­ved of its dignity in his times, and that he would neither Diminish it him self, nor suffer it to be diminished. As appeareth by the Popes ac­knowledgment in his answer.

But to come up close to the Difference, The Question is not whether [...]he Bishop of Rome have Authority to call Synods. He is a Bishop, a Metropolitan, a Patri­arch, a Prince in his own Dominions. As a Bishop he may Convocate his Dioces­se, As a Metropolitan his Province; As a [Page 91] Patriarch his Patriarchate, under the pain of Ecclesiasticall Censure, more or lesse compulsory according to that Degree of Coactive power which hath been indul­ged to him in these Distinct Capacities by former Soveraigns: And as a Prince he may convocate his Subjects under Politi­call paines. The more these two powers are united and complicated, the more ter­rible is the Censure. And therefore our kings would have their Bishops denounce spirituall paines also against the Viola­ters of their great Charters. Spirituall paiues are more heauy then Politicall, but Politicall most commonly are more speedy then Spirituall. And more certain; Spiri­tuall paines doe not follow an erring Key, but Politicall doe.

Neither will I dispute at praesent whe­ther the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Pri­macy of Order or Beginning of Unity may lawfully call an Oecumenicall or Occiden­tall Councell, by power purely Spirituall, which consists rather in Advise then in Mandates properly so called, or in Manda­tes of Courtesy not Coactive in the Exte­riour Court of the Church; considering the Division and Subdivision of the ancient Empire, and the present Distractions of [Page 92] Christendome, it seemeth not altogether in convenient. Wee see the Primitive Fathers did Assemble Synods and [...]ake Canons, before there were any christian Emperours, but that was by aurhority meerly spirituall; they had no coactive power to compell any man against his Will. The Vttermost they could doe was to separate him from their Communion, and to leave him to the Comming or Iudgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha.

The true Controversy then is this,1. Cor. 16. 22. Whe­ther the Bishop of Rome by his Legates, have Coactive power in the exteriour Court, to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England, when he will, where he will, whom he will, without their Consents, and without the leave of the Soveraign Prince or King of England, The Case being thus stated determineth it self. Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England? Wee see by often experience, that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Councell in Italy, within the Dominions of another Soveraign Prince or Republick, although they be of his own Communion; he must First aske leave, and obtein leave, before he can tell how to doe it; Or how [Page 93] should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave, where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King. Thus for point of right.

Now for matter of Fact, First I doe utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Sy­nod in the Brittish Island during the First eleven hundred yeares, Or preside in any by his Legates, Or confirm them by his Authority. If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary, he may cry guilty to the Vsurpation where of he is accused▪ and hold his peace forever.

Secondly, I doe confesse that after ele­ven hundred yeares, The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civill combustions, and prostituting the reputation of the Apo­stolicall See to their temporall ends, did by the leave of our Kings, (not otherwise,) sometimes call Synods in England, and preside in them. The first Synod held in England by any of the Popes Legats was at London, in the yeare 1125. by Ioannes Cre­mensis,Gerva­sius Do [...]robor­nensis.Which moved England into no smal in­dignation, to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdome of England, A Priest sitting president upon an high throne above Arch Bishops, Bishops, [Page 94] bats &c. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference betwen affirmative and negative Presidents. All which this proveth, is that the King did give leave or connive at that time▪ But it doth not prove, it cannot prove a right to doe the same at other times when the King contradicteth it.

Further wee ought to take notice that there is a greate deale of difference, be­tween an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation. Although in truth our Con­vocations be Synods; So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them, Convocari facias. All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Sy­nod: but all the whole Clergy, of the Kingdome were present at a Convocation, either in their Persons, or by their Pro­ctors sufficiently authorised. Secondly, the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papall Synod, as they had to the Acts of a royall Convocation, sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium, under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates.

Lastly to drive the naile home, and to demonstrate clearly the Grossenesse of this Papall usurpation; it remaineth onely to shew that by the Ancient Lawes of England [Page 95] the calling of Convocations or Synods, belonged properly to the King, not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates. And first by reason. By the Lawes of England more ancient then the Popes intrusion, no Ro­man Legat could enter into the Kingdome withont the Kings leave, nor continue in it longer then he had his License, as wee shall see hereafter, and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor doe any Synodicall Act without the Kings leave. Secondly by Records of the English Con­vocation itself, that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are, alwayes have been, and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532.

Thirdly, by the Form of the Writt, which hath ever been the same in all succe­ding Ages, constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces, The very Form speakes it English sufficiently; For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church, and the peace tranquility, publik good and defence of our King­dome and Subjects, Wee command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe [...]o us, that you cause to be convocated with con­venient speed in due manner all and singular [Page 96] Bishops of your Province, Deanes and Priors of Cathedrall Churches, &c. And the whole Clergy of your diocesse and Province, to meet before you, &c. Another Writ did alwayes issue from the King for the dissolution, Wee command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation, this very day, in due manner, without any delay, &c. Lastly by the concurring Testimonyes of all our Historiographers, That all the space of time of eleven hundred yeares, wherein the Popes did neither call Councells, nor Preside in them, nor Confirm them, and af­ter unto the very Reformation; Our Kings did both call Councells, and Preside in them, and Confirm them, and own their Lawes: as I have shewed him by the Lawes of Ercombert, Ina, Withred, Alfred, Edwerd, Athelstan, Edmund, Edgar, Athelred, Canutus, and Edward the Confessor, in my Vindica­tion. And particularly that Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Presided in a Councell, in the Presence of Iohn the Popes Legate. That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decre [...]um Regis, The Kings decree: That King Withred called a Councell at Becancelde and Presided in it, and that the decrees of the Councell issued in his name and by his Authority. Firmiter [Page 97] decernimus &c. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon. All this he pretendeth to have answered: but it is with deep silence. If he desire more Presidents and more wit­nesses, he may have a cloud of Authors u­pon holding up his Finger, to prove un­deniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them, and confirm their Acts with in his own Do­minions but followed the steps of his Ro [...] ­al Predecessors in all Ages, from the first planting of religion untill his own dayes.

And not onely of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours. The President of Charles the great is very conspicuous. To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf,Synod [...] Franci­ca 2. Tom. Conc. Pe [...]ri. Crab.In the French Synod. I Charlemain Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Ser­vants of God and my Princes, have congregated the Bishops wich are in my Kingdome with the Priests to a Synod, for the feare of Christ to Counsaile me, how the Law of God and Eccle­siasticall Religion may be recovered, which in the Dayes of forepassed Princes is dissipated and fallen to ruine &c. And by the Counsaile of my Clergy and princes we have ordained Bishops through out the Cities and constituted over them Arch-bishop Boniface the Popes Le­gate, Qui est missus Sancti Petri. [Page 98] And [...]we have decreed every Yeare to congregate a Synod, that in our Presence the Canonicall Decrees and the Rights of the Church may be re­stored, and Christian Religion Reformed. And in the Synod of Arles held under the said Emperour, they begin the Synod with a solemne prayer for the Emperour. The Lord of all things establish in the Conservation of his Faith, our Most Serene and religious Lord the Emperour Charles, by whose Command wee are here congregated. And they conclude the Sy­nod with a submission to him, These things which wee judged worthy to be amended, wee have briefly noted and decreed them to be presented to our Lord the Emperour: beseeching his Clemency that if any thing be here wa [...]tin [...], it may be sup­plied by his Prudence, if any thing be amisse it may be amended by his Iudgement, if any thing be reasonably taxed it may be perfected by his help, through the assistance of the Divine Clemen­cy.Ibidem. So the Councell of Toures begin their Synodicall Acts, That which was enjoi­ned us by so great a Prince we accomplished in meeting at the time and place appointed, Where being congregated wee noted such things by Chap­ters as needed to be amended according to the Ca­nonicall Rule, to be shewed to our most serene Emperour. So they conclude their Acts, These things wee have ventilated in our Assem­bly, [Page 99] but how our most pious Prince will be plea­sed to Dispose of them, wee his faithfull ser­vants are ready at his beck and pleasure with a willing mind.Ibidem. Lastly the Synod called Sy­nodus Cabilonensis in the dayes of the said Emperour beginneth thus, Our Lord Iesus Christ assisting us, and the most renowned Empe­rour Charles commanding us &c. We have noted out certain Chapters wherein reformation seemed necessary to us, which are hereafter inserted, to be presented to our said Lord the Empe­rour, and referred to his most sacred Iudgement, to be confirmed by his prudēt examination of those things which wee have reasonably decreed, and wherein wee have been defective, to be supplied by his Wisdome. So they conclude, We have ventilated these things in our Assembly, but how it shall please our most pions Prince to dispose of them, we his fathfull servants with a willing mind are ready at his beck and pleasure. One Egge is not liker to another, then these Sy­nodicall Representations are to our old En­glish Customes, Yet these were Catholick times, when Kings convocated Synods of their own Subjects, and either confirmed or rejected their Acts, as they thought meete for the publick good: aud did give the Po­pes own Legate his power of presiding in them by their Constitutions, who joined [Page 100] with the rest in these Synodicall Acts.

I proceed to the third Branch of the Po­pes first usurpation,Oath of all [...]giā ­ce due to Kings from Clerkes not due to the Pope. concerning the tying of English Prelates by Oath to a new Allegiance to the Pope. No man can serve two supreme Masters, where there is a possibility of clashing one with ano­ther. It is true one is but a Politicall Soveraign, and the other pretendeth but a Spirituall Monarchy: Yet if this sup­posed Spirituall Monarch, shall chal­lenge either a direct power and Iurisdic­tion over the Temporall in the exteriour Court, as Pope Boniface did, Nos, nos imperia, regna, principa [...]us & quicquid ha­bere mortales possunt, auferre & dare posse; Wee, even Wee have power to take away and give Empires Kingdomes Principalities, and what soever mor [...]all men are capable of: Or challenge an indirect power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spi­rituall good, (which is the opinion of Bel­larmine and his party) Or lastly shall de­clare those things to be purely spirituall which are truly Politicall, as the Patronage of Churches and all Coactive power in the exteriour Court of the Church. In all such cases the subject must desert the one or the [Page 101] other and either suffer justly as a Traitour to his Prince, or be subjected unjustly to the Censures of the Church, and be made as an Heathen or Publicane. This is a sad case.

But this is not all, If this poore subject shall be further perswaded, that his Spiri­tuall Prince hath Authority to absolve him from all Sinnes, Lawes, Oaths, know­ing that his temporall Prince doth chal­lenge no such extravagant power, what Emperour or King can have any assurance of the Fidelity of his own naturall subjects? It is true, a Clerk may sweare allegiance to his King, and Canonicall obediente to his Bishop, but the cases are not like. No Ca­nonicall obedience either is or can be in consistent with true allegiance. The law full Canons oblige without an Oath. And all that Coactive power which a Bishop hath, is derived from the Prince and Sub­jected to the Prince.

The question then is not whether a Pastor may enjoine his Flock to abstaine from an unjust oath; An oath of allegiance to a natu­rall Prince is justifiable both before God ād man. Nor yet whether the Clergy have im­munities, orought to enjoy immunities such as rēder them more capable of serving God [Page 102] alwayes the first Article in our Great Char­ter of England. Let the Chur [...]h injoy her Im­munities. The question is not whether Cler­gy men transgressing of the Canons, ought to be tryed by Canonicall Iudges accor­ding to the Canons, especially in the first instance. For by the Law of England the Delinquent was alwayes allowed the liber­ty to appeale to Caesar. But the question is whether the Pope by any Act or decree of his can acquit English Subjects, or prohi­bit them to do homage aud sweare Allegi­ance to their King, according to the An­cient Lawes of the Realme, because they are Clergymen: And can Command them whether the King will or not, to take a new Oath never heard of or practised for­merly; An Oath of Allegiance aud Obedi­ence to himself. So it is called expresly in the Edition of Gregory the thirteenth, Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apostolica Palli­um non tradet, nisi prius praestet fidelitatis & O­bedientiae Iuramentum, The Apostolicall See will not deliver the Pall to an Archbishop elect, unlesse he first take a [...] Oath of Fidelity aud O­bedience.

Wee have seen already how Henry the First was quietly seised aud possessed of the Homage of his Prelates aud their Oaths of [Page 103] and their Oaths of Fidelity; and his Pre­decessors before him. So wee have heard Platina confessing, that before the Pope­dome of Paschalis the second, the Homage and Feudall Oaths of Bishops were performed to Lay Men, that is to Kings, not Popes. Thus much Eadmerus and Nauclerus and William of Malmesbury and Hoveden and Iorvalensis doe all assure us. This agreeth sweetly not onely with the Ancient Law of Feuds, Ridleys View of Civill and Ec­cles. p. 64. from whence they borrowed the name of Investi­tures: but also is confirmed by the decrees of ancient Councels, as diverse Toletan Councells, and that of Aquisgrane, which who so desireth to see, may find them cited at large by King Iames in his Apology for the Oath of A legiance.Apol. pro Iu­ram. fid. ca. 56.

But these Oaths, land Homages, and Regal Investitures, as th [...]y were a Bond of Peace and Vnity between the King and his Cler­gy, so they were a great Eyesore to the Bishops of Rome, because they crossed their maine Designe to make them selves the one­ly Liege Lords of the Ecclesiasticks. As appeareth by that severe Check which A­drian the fourth gave Frederick the first, for Requiring Homage and Fealty of Bishops, who are Gods, and for holding their sacred hands in his hands. It staied not here, That Ho­mage [Page 104] and Oath of Fidelity which Gregory the seventh and Calixtus did rob the King of, their immediate Successour Paschalis the second did assume to himself, as wee find by the unanimous consent of all Histo­riographers, and by the Canon of Pascha­lis himself recorded by Gregory the ninth,De E­lect. & Elect. p [...]otest. ca. 4. Significasli &c. Thou signifiedst that Kings and the Peers of the Kingdome were moved with Ad­miration, because the Pall was offered to Thee by our Apocrisiaries, upon Condition to take that Oath which they brought Thee written from us. &c. The Admiration sheweth the novelty of it. He confesseth there, that the Oath was not established by the Canon of any coun­cell, but by Papall Authority, and [...]ustifieth it, For feare of further evill; That is, Apo­staring from the Obediēce due to the Apo­stolick See. The very Title doth assure us that it was an Oath of Fidelity and Obedience What manner of assurance can Soveraign Princes promise themselves of those Sub­jects, who have sworn Allegiance and O­bedience to a forrein Prince.

This Form at First was modest and mode­rate, bounding the Obedience of Arch-Bishops by the Rules of the holy Fathers, as wee find in the old Roman Pontificall: but it was quickly changed from Regulas [Page 105] Sanctorum Patrum, to Regalia Sancti Petri, as wee find in the new Pontificall. The Change in Letters was not great, but in the Sense abhominable, Semel falsus semper praesu­mitur falsus. He who is apprehended in palpable forgery, is alwayes deserved­ly suspected of forgery. With what Face can Mr. Serjeant tell us, that where the Method of immediate Tradition hath pla­ce, it is impossible for encroachments to gaine Admittance, Where were see such Hocus Pocus tricks plaid before our eyes in their Pontificall. Bellarmine would per­swade us that in St. Gregory the firsts time there was such an Oath of Obedience fully made to the Bishop of Rome. Greg. episi. l. 10. epist. 30. in­dic. 5. But he doth either abuse him self, or seeketh grossely to abuse us First the Oath mentioned in Saint Gregory, was not an Oath of Obe­dience or allegiance, but promissio cujus­dam Episcopi haeresim suam anathematiz ani [...]s, A promise of a Certeine Bishop anathematizing his haeresy, or an Oath of abjuration. Second­ly, the Oath mentioned by Saint Gregory, was not imposed by his authority, but ta­ken freely by the converted Bishop, to sa­tisfie the world and to take away all suspicion of Hypocrisy, (ne non pura ment [...] seu simulate reversus existimer) [Page 106] dictated to his owne Notary by the advise of his Clergy, Notario meo cum consensu presbyteror [...]m & Diaconorum atque Clerico­rum, scribendum dictavi. It was no Com­mon Case of all Bishops, neither did it com­prehend any such obligation to mainteine the praetended royallties of S. Peter.

And as they extended the matter of their Oath, so they did the Subject, about an hun­dred yeares after in the time of Gregory the niuth,De jure jurando cap. 4. enlarging it from Arch-Bishops to all Prelates, Bishops, Abbats, Priors, And now what remaines, but to cry up the Authority of the Canons above all Impe­riall Lawes, Cedant Arma Togae, concedat Laurea Linguae: As Bellarmine doth, who denyeth the supe­riority of Princes above Clergymen, Prin­cipes Seculares respectu Clericorum non sunt Principes,Bell. li. de Cler­ca 28.Princes are no Princes of Clerkes, &c. Politicall lawes have no coactive obligation over Clerkes, but onely directive, The Civill lawes of Emperours must give place to the Canons of Popes. What new Monster is this, To receive Protection from the Lawes of Princes, aud to acknowledge no Subjection to the Lawes of Princes? If Princes should put Church men out of their Protectiō, as Bellarmine exempts them from [Page 107] all Coactive Obligation to the Lawes of Princes, They would quickly find their Errour. It is an honour to Princes to pre­serve to Church men their old Immunities, but is it a Shame to Churchmen like Swine, to eat the Fruit aud never looke up to the Tree from whence it falleth.

Wee have viewed the spoile Committed evidently, when, and by whom. He whose office it was to praeserve all others from spoile, could not preserve himself. It is a Rule in Law, Ame omnia Spolia [...]us resti [...]ui debet, Before all other things he that is spoiled ought to be restored to his Right, And our old English Lawes are Diametrally opposite to these new Papall Vsurpations, in all the parts of them. First though the Kings and Kingdome of England, were alwayes care­full to preserve the Privileges of Holy Church. In all our Great Charters that was the first thing was taken Care for, yet not as due by Divine Law,25. E [...] 3. cap 4. and much lesse by the Lawes of the Pope, (which they never re­garded,) but as Graces aud Privileges gran­ted by the Kings of England, aud there­fore they excluded from benefit of Clergy such sort of delinquents as they thought fit,6. H. 4. cap. 2. as Proditores, Traitours against the Person of the King, Insidiatores viarum, such as lay [Page 108] in wait to doe mischief upon the High­wayes; Depopulatores agrorum, such as de­populated the Land. And the most severe Lawes that ever they made, are the Statutes of Premunire and Provisors against Church­men, for siding with the Bishop of Rome in his Vsurpations, even to the forfeiture of their Goods and Lands, their Losse of their Liberty, and the putting them out of the Kings Protection.

Secondly, our Lawes doe acknowledge every where that Homage and allegiance is alwayes due to the King from all Cler­gymen what soever. Edward the first in­joined all the Prelates upon their faith (or Al­legiance) which they ought him. 3. Ed. 1. ca. 2. They know no Fidelity or allegiance which is due to the Pope from any English man either Clergy man or Lay man; but the just contrary that they are bound by their allegiance to fight for the King against the Pope, for the redresse of these and such like Vsurpations. In the fourteenth Yeare of Richard the second, all the Spirituall Lords did answer unanimously, That if any Bishop of England, 16. Ric. 2. c. 4. were excommu­nicated by the Pope for having executed the sentences and commandements of the [Page 109] King, The same is against the King and his Crown, And they will and ought to be with the King in these Cases lawfully, and in all other Cases touching his Crown and his Regality, as they be bound in their Allegiance. Our Lawes know no Oath of Allegiance or Fealty due to any person but the King, they make the King to be Advowee Para­mont,25. Ed. 3.Supreme Lord and Patron, Guardian, Protector, and Champion of th [...] Church of England.

Lastly these Papall Oaths doe necessarily suppose a Voiage to Rome, either to take the Oath there, or if the Oath was sent them into England, one Clause in the Oath [...]was, that they should come to Rome in person to receive the Popes Commands within a prefixed time. But this is di­rectly contrary to the Lawes of England, which allow no Subject Clergiman or other, to goe to Rome without the Kings Leave. Thus much both the Prelates and Peers of the Realm told Anselm when he had a mi [...]d to visit the Pope. Thus much wee find attested by the Ge­nerall Assembly of the Kingdome in the [Page 110] Statute or Assise of Clarendon, where one of the Customes or Lawes of the Kingdome is, That No Ecclesiasticall person might depart out of the Kingdome, without the Kings License. No,Mat. Par. Anno 1164. Hove­den. not though he were expresly summo­ned by the Bishop of Rome. And at a Par­liament held at Northampton in the Reign of Henry the third, it was enacted, that if any persons departed out of the Kingdome, un lesse they would return within a prefixed time, and answer it in the Court of our Lord the King, let them be outlawed. This was the unanimous complaint of the whole Kingdome to the Pope,Ma. Par. Anno 1945. That the English were drawn out of the Realm by his authority, contrary to the Customes of the Kingdome. No Clergy man may goe to Rome without the Kings License, say the ancient Lawes of the Realm: Every English Prelate [...] shall come to Rome, upon my com­mand saith the Pope: What Oedipus can re­concile the English Lawes and Papall man­dates? Commonly good Lawes proceed from evill manners, and abuses doe ordi­narily precede their Remedies. But by the Providence of our Ancestors our English Remedies were preexistent before their Vsurpations. Non remittitur Pecca [...]um nisi re­stituatur ablatum, Vntill they restore those rights whereof they have robbed the King [Page 111] and Kingdome, Wee may pardon them, but they can hope for no forgivenesse from God. I will conclude this point with an ancient Fundamentall Law in the Britan­nick Island,Hect. Boet. Hist. Si quis cum alio societatem coierit, fidem & obsequium adversus quemlibet professus, capite punitor, If any subject enter into Leagne with another [...]Prince) professing Fidelity and obedience to any one (besides the King) Let him lose his head. Tenths and first fruits usurped by the Pope.

I come now to the last Branch of the first Papall Vsurpation Tenths and First fruits. If Christ be still crucifyed between two Thieves, it is between an old overgrown Officer of the Roman Court, and a Sacri­legious Precisian. The one is so much for the Splendour of Religion, and the other for the Purity of Religion, that between them [...] th [...]y destroy Religion. Their Faces like Samsons Foxes locke contrary wayes, but both of them have Firebrands at their tailes: both of them prate of Heaven altogether, both of them have their hearts nai­led to the Earth. On the one side, if it had not been for the Avaricious Practises of the Roman Court, the Papacy might have beē a great advantage to the Christiā world in point of Order and Vnity, at least it had not been so intolerable a Burthē; It is feared [Page 112] these will not suffer an Eugenius an Adrian or an Alexander to be both honest and long-lived. On the otherside these Counterfeit Zelots do but renew the Policy of the two old Sicilian Gluttons, to blow their Noses in the dishes, that they might devour the meate alone: that is cry down Church Revenues as Superstitious and Dangerous, because they gape after them themselves. If it were not for these two factiōs, wee might hope to see a reconciliation. Self interest and self profit are both the procreating and conserving cause of Disunion.

Who would Imagin that the large Patri­mony of St. Peter should not contēt or suf­fice an old Bishop abundantly, without preying upon the poore Clergy for Tenths and First fruits, and God knowes how many other waies? The Revennes of that See were infinite, yet the Bishops of ten complained of Want: Gods blessing did not goe along with these Ravenous Courses. So Pharohs lean Kine devoured the fat, yet were nothing the Fatter them selves.Ma. Par. An [...] 1229. The first Tenth which the Pope had from the English Clergy was onely a single Tenth of their moveable Goods, not by way of Imposition, but as a Bene­volence, or free gift out of Courtesy. But the Roman Bishops having once tasted the [Page 113] sweet, meant not to give over so ‘Non missura cutem nisi plena cruoris [...]irudo.’

The next step was to impose Tenths upon the Clergy, not in perpetuity or as a certain Revenue due to the Papacy, but for a fixed number of yeares, as a stock for the Defence of Christendome against the incur­sions of the Turke. About the same time First fruits began to be exacted, not gene­rally but onely of the Popes own Clerkes, as a Gratuity, or in plain English as a hand­some Cloak of Simony. But he that perfec­ted the Work, and made both Tenths and First fruits a certain annuall Revenue to the See of Rome, Plat. In Vita Bonifa­ci Noni. was Boniface the ninth, or Iohn the two and twentieth his Successor, so saith Platina, And with him almost all other writers doe agree. This Boniface lived about the year fourteen hundred, whom Turselline maketh to have been the restorer of Papall Majesty,Tursel­in vita Vineis­lai.whose pru­dence did transcend his Age, for he was but thirty yeares old. He was the Vsurper, that tooke away from the Romans the free choise of their Magistrates. Iohn the two and twentieth lived in the time of the Councell of Constance, some thing above the fourteen hundreth yeare. [Page 114] It was he that called the Councell, and was him self deposed by the Councell for grie­vous Crimes, and the payment of First fruits abolished. For neither the paiment of Tenths nor First fruits did agree with the palate of the Councells of Constance and Basile, Concil: Const. edit. Petri Crab. p. 1182 Notwithstanding their gilded pre­tences.

The Councell of Constance decreed, that it was not lawfull for the Bishop of Rome to im­pose any Indictions or Exactions upon the Church, or upon Ecclesiasticall persons in the Nature of a Tenth or any other way. Which Decree was passed in the nineteenth Session, though it be related afterward. Ibidem pag. 1164. Sess. 12 16. According to this Decree Pope Martin issued out his Mandate, Wee Command that the Lawes which prohibit Tenths and other Burthens to be imposed by the Pope upon Churches and Ecclesiasticall persons, be observed more Strictly. And the Councell of Ba [...]ill Commandeth, Con. Basil. Ses. 21. that as well in the Ro­man Court as elswhere &c, Nothing be exacted for Tenths or Firstfruits &c.

But for all this the Popes could not hold their Hands.Concil. Later. sub Leo­ne 10. Ses. 12. Leo the tenth made a new impo­sition for three yeares, Ad triennium proxime futurum, for the old ends. And it should seem that their mind was, that thence for­ward as the cause lasted, so should the im­position. [Page 115] But the Germane Nation were not of the same mind, who made this their nineteenth Grievance, for as much as concer­neth Tenth,Cent. Gra. vain. cap. 19.which Ecclesiasticall Prelates paid yearely to the Pope, which the Germane Princes some yeares since did consent unto, that they should be paid to the See of Rome for a certain time, upō Condition, that this money should be deposited at Rome as a stock, for defence against the Turk, and no otherwise. But the time is effluxed since, and the Princes have learned by Experience▪ that the moneys have not been imployed agains [...] the Turkes, but converted to other Vses &c. The Emperour Charles the fifth was not of the same mind,Apud Goldast an. 1522. as appeareth by his Letter to Pope Adrian the sixth, where in he reci­teth the same fraud, and requireth that the Tenths may be detained in Germany, for that Vse for which they were first intended. Lastly Henry the eighth and the Church and Kingdome of England were not of that mind, nor intended to indure such an egre­gious cheat any longer, so extremely con­trary to the Fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome,24. Ed. cap 1. and destructive to them. By which Lawes the King himself (who onely hath Legislative power in England,) may not compell his Subjects to pay any such Pensions, without the Good will and Assent of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, [Page 116] Knights Burgesses and other Freemen of the land. Much lesse can a forrain Prince or Praelate whatsoever he be, impose any such pay­ments by his own Authority. This is that which is so often Condemned in our Sta­tutes of Provisors▪ Namely, the imposing Pensions and exporting the Treasure of the Realme. The Court of Rome is so far from any Pretense of Reparation,Traictes des droit & libertees de l' E­glise Gallica­ne & Pro Li­bertate Ecclesiae Gallica­nae ad­versus Roma­nam Aulam Defensio Parisi­ensis Cu­riae. that if their Predecessors were living, they were o­bliged to make restitution. These are all the Differences that are between us▪ concer­ning the Patronage of the Church of Englād.

Yet now least he should urge that these Lawes alledged by mee, are singular obso­lete Lawes, not Consonant to the Lawes of other Christian Kingdomes, I will Para­lell them with the Lawes and Liberties of France, which he him self acknowledgeth to be a Catholick Country, as they are re­corded in two Authentick Bookes, One of the Rights and Libertyes of the Gallican Church. The Other, The Defence of the Court of Paris for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Roman Court, both prin­ted by Authority. First for the Patronage of the Church.

The fourth Liberty is, The King hath power to Assemble or cause to be Assembled, Synods Provinciall or Nationall, and therein to treat of [Page 117] such things as concern Ecclesiasticall Order.

The seventh Liberty is, The Prelates of the French Church, although commanded by the Pope, for what cause so ever it be, may not de­part out of the Kingdome without the Kings Commandement a [...]d License.

The eleventh Liberty is, The Pope can­not impose Pensions in France upon any Benifices having Cure of Soules, Nor upon any other, but according to the Canons &c.

The Fourteenth Liberty is, Ecclesiasti­call persons may be Convented, Iudged, and sen­tenced before a secular Iudge for the First enor­mious Crime, or for lesser offences after a relapse.

The fifteenth Liberty is, All the Prela­test of France are obliged to swear Fealty to the King, and to receive from him their Investitu­res for their Fees and Manours.

The nineteenth Liberty is, Provisions, Reser­va [...]iōs, expectative graces have no place in Frāce.

This is the brief summe of those Liberties which concern the Patronage of the Gallican Church, agreeing perfectly with our old En­glish Customes. I shall shew him the same per­fect Harmony between their Church Liber­ties and our English Customes, the Assise of Clarendon, the Statutes of Provisors and Premu­nire, through out. Either Mr. Serjeant must make the Gallican Church Schismaticall, which he dare not doe, and if I conjecture rightly hath no mind to doe: or he must acknowledge our English Lawes to be good Catholick La­wes for Company.

Sect. I. Cap. VI.

The next Vsurpation which offereth it self to our Consideration, is the Popes Le­gislative power ouer the Church and King­dome of England, The po­pe hath no legis­lative power in Eng­land. either in his person or by his Legates▪ For the clearer understanding whereof, the Reader in the first place may be pleased to take notice, that we receive the ancient Canons of the Catholick church, and honour them more then the Romanists themselves; as being selected ou [...] of the Canons of Primitive Councells, before the Roman Bishops did challenge any pleni­tude of Legislative power in the Church. And especially of the first four General Councells: of which King Iames said most truly,Omni­bus Christ Mon­uarch. pag. 4. 1. Eli. c. 1. that Publica Ordinum nostrorum Sanct­ione rec [...]pta sunt, They are received into our Lawes. We acknowledge that just Canons of Councells lawfully Congregated and lawfully proceeding, have power to bind the Conscience of Subjects as much as Po­liticall Lawes, in themselves not from themselves as being humane lawes, but from the Ordinance of God, who commandeth Obedience of Subjects to all sorts of Supe­riours.Conc▪ Constan Sess. 39. We receive the Canons of other Primitive Councells, but not with the sa­me degree of Reverence as wee doe the first four generall Councells. No more did [Page 119] S. Gregory of old, No more doth the Pope now in his solemne Profession of his Faith, at his election to the Papacy, according to the decree of the Councell of Constance. That which restrained them, restraineth us. I am more troubled to thinke, how the Pope should take himself to be an Ecclesiasti­call Monarch, and yet take such a solemne Oath, In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to keep the Fait [...] of the Councell of Chalcedon to the least Tittle. What the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon was in this greate Controversy about the Papacy, may appeare by the six teenth Session, and the Acclamation of the Fathers to the Sentence of the Iudges, Haec justa Sententia, haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent &c. This is a just Sentence, These things wee all say, These things please us all &c

Secondly, we acknowledge that Bishops. were alwayes esteemed the proper judges of the Canons, both for composing of them and for executing of them: but with this caution, that to make them Lawes the con­firmation of the Prince was required;Constit▪ Iustin. cont. Antim▪ in Syn 5 and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them, the Princes grant or concession was needfull. The former part of this caution is evident, in Iustinians confirmation of the fifth Generall Synod. Haec pro communi Pa­ce [Page 120] Ecclesiarum Sanctissimarum statuimus, haec sententiavimus, sequentes Sanctorum Patrū do­gmata, &c. These things wee ordaine, these things wee have sentenced, following the opinion of the Holy Fathers, &c. Quae Sacerdotio visa sunt, & ab Imperio confirmata: Which were approved by the Clergy, and confirmed by the Emperour. The second part of the caution is evident out of the Lawes of William the conquerour, Qui decimam de [...]inuerit,Hove­den.per justitiā Episcopi, & Regis si necesse fueri [...], ad soluttionē arguatur, &c. Who shall detain his Tythe, Let him be convinced to pay it by the justice of the Bishop, and if it be needfull of the King, For these things S. Austin preached and taught, and these things (that is, both Tythes and jurisdictiō) were granted frō the King, the Barons, and the People. So hitherto there is no diffe­rence betweē us, they acknowledge that the King is the Keeper of both the Tables: and wee say that for the first Table the Bishops ought to be his Interpreters.

Thirdly, as wee question not the Popes legis­lative or coactive power over his own subjects: so we submit to the judgemēt of the Catholick church, whether he ought to have a primacy of order as the successour of S. Peter, and as a con­sequent thereof, a right (if he would content himself with it) to summō Councells, when and where there are no Christian Soveraignes to doe it: and to joyne with other Bishops in ma­king spirituall Lawes or Canons such as the A­postles made,act. 15. 25. and such as the primitive Bishops [Page 121] made before there were christiā Emperours. But then those Canons are the Lawes of the Church, not of the Pope: As those Canons in the Acts of the Apostles were the Lawes of the Apostolicall College, The Apostles and El­ders and Brethren, not the Lawes of S. Peter. Then their Lawes have no Coactive Obli­gation to compell Christians in the outward Court of the Church against their Wills, or further then they are pleased to submit thē ­selves. All exteriour coactive power is from the Soveraigne Prince, and therefore when and where Emperours and Kings are Christians, to them it properly belongeth to summon Councells, and to confirm their Ca­nons, thereby making them become lawes. Because Soveraign Princes onely have power to License and Command their Sub­jects to Assemble, to assign fit places for their Assembling, to protect them in their Assem­blyes, and to give a Coactive power to their Lawes, without which they may doe their best to drive away Wolves, and to oppose Heriticks; but it must be with such Armes as Christ had furnished them withall, that is. persuasions, Prayers, Teares, and at the most seperating them from the Communion of the faithfull, and leaving them to the Iudgement of Christ.

[Page 122]The Controversy is then about new up­start Papall Lawes either made at Rome (such are the decretalls of Gregory the ninth, Boniface the eighth, Clement the fifth and succeeding Popes:) Or made in England by Papall Legates, as Otho and Othobone; Whe­ther the Pope or his Legates, have power to make any such Lawes to bind English Subjects, and compell them to obey them against their Wills, the King of England contradicting it. The first time that ever any Canon of the Bishop of Rome, or any legislative Legate of his, was attempted to be obtruded upon the King or Church of England, was eleven hundred yeares after Christ. The first Law was the Law against taking Investitures to Bishopricks from a Lay hand. And the first Legate that ever presided in an English Synod was Io­hannes Cremensis, of both which I have spoken formerly. Observe Reader and be astonished, if thou hast so much faith to be­lieve it, That the Pope should pretend to a legislative power over British and English Subjects by divine right, and yet never offer to put it in execution for above eleven hundred yeares.

It remaineth now to prove evidently that Henry the eighth by his Statute made for [Page 123] that purpose, did not take away from the Bishop of Rome, any Privilege which he and his Predecessors had held by Inheritance from St. Peter, and been peaceably possessed of for fifteen hundred yeares. But on the contrary, that eleven hundred yeares after St. Peter was dead, the Bishops of Rome did first invade the right of the Crown of England, to make Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church, which the Prede­cessors of Henry the eighth had enjoyed peaceably, untill the dayes of William Rufus, nemine contradicente. And that the Kings Lawes were evermore acknowledged to be true Lawes and obligatory to the English Subjects: but that the Popes decrees were never esteemed to be binding Lawes in England, except they were incorporated in to our Lawes, by the King and Church or Kingdome of England. Whence it follo­weth by irrefragable consequence, that Henry the eighth was not the Schismatick in this particular: but the Pope and those that maintain him, or adhere to him in his Vsurpations.

First, for the Kings right to make Lawes, not onely concerning the outward Regimēt of the Church, but even cōcerning the Keys of Order and jurisdiction, so far as to oblige [Page 124] them who are trusted with that power by the Church, to doe their dutyes, it is so evi­dent to every one who hath but cast his Eyes upon our English Lawes, that to bestow la­bour on proving it, were to bring Owles to Athens, Their Lawes are extant made in all Ages, concerning faith and good Manners, Heresy, Holy Orders, the Word, the Sacra­ments, Bishops, Priests, Monkes, the Privile­ges and Revenues of Holy Church, Marria­ges, Divorces, Simony, The Pope, his Sentē ­ces, his oppressions and usurpations, Prohi­bitions, Appeales from Eeclesiasticall judges, and generally all things which are of Eccle­siasticall Cognifance; and this in those times which are acknowledged by the Romanists themselves to have been Catholick. More then this, they inhibited the Popes own Le­gate to attempt to decree any thing contrary to the Kings Crown and dignity, And if they appro­ved the decrees of the Popes Legates,Ma. Par. an 1237. Flor. wigorn. an 1227. they confirmed them by their Royall Authority, and so incorporated them into the Body of the En­glish Lawes.

Secondly, that the Popes decrees never had the force of Lawes in England without the Confirmation of the King, Witnesse the decrees of the Councell of Lateran as they are commonly called: but it is as cleare as [Page 125] the day to any one who readeth the elevēth, the six and fortieth, and the one and sixtieth Chapters, that they were not made by the Councell of Lateran, but some time after; perhaps not by Innocēt the third, but by some succeeding Pope. For the author of them doth distinguish himself expresly from the Councell of Lateran, It was well provided in the Councell of Lateran &c. But because that statute is not observed in many Churches, we con­firming the foresaid statute doe adde &c. Again, It is known to have been prohibited in the councel, of Lateran, &c. But we inhibiting the same moro strongly &c. How soever, they were the Popes decrees, but never were received as Lawes in England, as wee see evidently by the third Chapter, That the Goods of Clergimen being convicted of Heresy be forfeited to the Church, That all Officiers Secular and Ecclesiasticall should take an Oath at their Admission, into their Office, to their power to purge their Territories from Heresy, That, if a Temporall Lord did neglect, being admonished by the Church, to purge his Lands from Heresy, he should be excommunicated, And if he con­temned to satisfy within a yeare, the Pope should absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance. And by the three and fortieth Chapter, [Page 126] That no Ec [...]siasticall person be compelled to swear allegiance to a Lay man. And by the six and fortieth Chapter, that Ecclesiasticall persons be free from taxes. Wee never had any such Lawes, all Goods forfeited in that kind were ever confiscated to the King; We never had any such Oaths, Every one is to answer for himself; We know no such power in the Pope to absolve Subjects from their allegiance in our Law; With us, Cler­gymen did ever pay Subsidies and taxes as well as lay men. This is one Liberty which England hath, not to admit of the Popes Lawes unlesse they like them.

A second Liberty of England is to reject the Popes Lawes in plaine termes.20. H. 3. c. 9. The Pope made a Law for the Legitimation of Children borne afore Matrimony as well as those borne in Matrimony, The Bishops moved the Lords in Parliament, that they would give their consent to the Common Order of the Church: But all the Earles and Barons answered with one voice, that they would not change the Lawes of the Realm, which hitherto had been used and approved. The Popes le­gislation could not make a Law in England, without the concurrence of the three Or­ders of the Kingdome: and they liked their own old Lawes better then the Popes new Law.

[Page 127]A Third Liberty of England, is to give a legislative Interpretation to the Popes Lawes, which the Pope never intended. The Bishop of Rome by a constitution made at the Councell of Lions, excluded Bigamists (men twice Married) from the Pri­vilege of Clergy, that is, that should Marry the second time de futuro: But the Parliament made an Act that the constitution should be understood on this wise, that whether they were Bigamists before the constitution, or after, they should not be delivered to the Prelates, but Iustice should be executed upon them as upon other Lay people. Ejus est Legem Interpretari cujus est condere. They that can give a Law a new sense, may abrogate it if they please.

A fourth Liberty of England is to call the Popes Lawes Vsurpations, Encroachments, Mischiefs, contrary to, and destructive of the Municipall Lawes of the Realme, derogatory to the Kings Regality: And to punish such of their Subjects as should pursue them, and obey them, with Imprisonment, with Confiscation of their Goods and Lands, with outlawing them, and putting them out of the Kings Protection. Witnesse all those noble Lawes of Provisors and Premunire, Which we may truely call the Palladium of England, which [Page 128] preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast Gulfe of the Roman Court;25. E. 1. 27. E. 3. 2. H. 4 cap. 3. & 4. 7. H. 4. cap 6. made by Edward the first, Edward the third; Richard the second, and Henry the fourth. All those Collations, and Reservations, and Provisions, and Privileges, and Sentences, which are condemned in those Statutes▪ were all grounded upon the Popes [...]Lawes▪ and Bulls, and Decrees, which our Ancestors entertained as they deserved.

Othobon the Popes Legate in England; by the Command of Vrban the fifth made a Constitution for the endowment of Vicars in Appropriations, but it prevailed not: whereas our Kings by two Acts of Parlia­ment did easily effect it. No Ecclesiastical Act is impossible to them who have a Le­gislative power:15. R. 2. cap 6. 4. H. 4 cap 12. but many Ecclesiasticall Acts were beyond the Sphere of the Popes Activity in England. The King could make a spirituall Corporation; but the Pope could not. The King could exempt from the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary; but the Pope could not. The King could Convert Seculars into Regulars; but the Pope could not.2. H. 4. cap 3. & 4. The King could grant the Privilege of the Cistercians; but the Pope could not. The King could Appro­priate Churches; but the Pope could not. [Page 129] Our Lawes never acknowledged the Popes plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power,2. H. 4. c. 3 & 4. which was the ground of his legislation. Euphemius objected to Gelasius, that the Bishops of Rome alone could not condemne Aca­tius, Gelas. epist. ad Faustū ▪ ab uno non potuisset damnari. Gelasius answered, that he was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon, and that his Predeces­sor was but the Executor of an old Law, and not the Author of a new. This was all the an­cient Bishops of Rome did challenge, to be Executors of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, and not single Law makers. I acknowledge that in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, he attributeth much to the Bishops of Rome wich a Councell; but it is not in making new Lawes or Canons, but in executing old, as in the case of Athanasius and Chrysostome. The Privileges of the Abby of Saint Austin in Englād granted by the Popes,Eadm▪ l. 4. Pa [...] 92. were condemned as null, or of no validity, because they were not ratified by the King, and approved by the Peers.Eadm. l. 1. Pa [...] 6.William the Conquerer would not suffer any man within his Dominions to receive the Pope for Apostolicall Bishop, but by his com­mand, nor to receive his letters by any meanes, [...]nlesse they were first shewed to him. It is [...]ikely this was in a time of Schisme, when there were more Popes then [Page 130] one, but is sheweth how the King did in­terest himself in the affaires of the Papacy, that it should have no further influence upon his subjects then he thought fit. He who would not suffer any man to receive the Popes letters without his leave, would much less suffer them to receive the Popes lawes without leave. And in his prescript to Remigius Bishop of Lincolne [...], know ye all Earles and Viscounts, that I [...]ave judged, that the Episcopall (or Ecclesiasticall) lawes which have bene of force untill my time in the Kingdome of England, being not well constituted according to the praecepts of the holy Canons, should be amended in the common assembly, and with the Counsaile of my Arch-Bishops and the rest of the Bishops and Abbats, and all the Princes of my Kingdome. He needed not the helpe of any forreine Legislation, for amending Ecclesiasticall Canons and the externall regiment of the Church.

Now let us see whether the Libertyes of France be the same with our English Pri­vileges. The second Liberty is this, The Spirituall Authority and power of the Pope is not absolute in Franee (if it be not absolute then it is not singly Legislative,) but limited and restreined by the Canons and ancient Coun­cells of the Church. If it be lim [...]ted by [Page 131] Ancient Canons, then it hath no power to abrogate Ancient Canons by new Canons. Their ancient Canons are their Ecclesiasti­call Lawes, as well as ours, and those must be received in that Kingdome. They may be excellent Advisers without reception: but they are no Lawes without publick re­ception, Canons are no Canons either in England or in France, further then they are received.

The third Liberty is, No Command what­soever of the Pope (Papall decrees are his chief Commands) can free the French Clergy, from their Obligation to obey the Commands of their Soveraign. But if Papall power could abrogate the ancient Lawes of France, it did free their Clergy, from their Obedience to their Soveraign Prince.

The sixteenth Liberty is, The Courts of Parliament have power to declare null and voide the Popes Bulls, whē they are found contrary to the Liberties of the French Church, or the Pre­rogative Royall.

The twentieth Liberty, The Pope cannot exempt any Church, Monastery, or Ecclesiasticall Body from the jurisdiction of their Ordinary, nor erect Bishopricks into Arch Bishopricks, nor unite them, nor divided them, without the Kings license. England and France as touching their Li­berties walk hand in hand.

[Page 132]To conclude, the Popes legislative power in England was a grosse Vsurpation, and was suppressed before it was well formed. But they are affraid of the old Rule, Breake ice in one place and it will crack in more. If they did confesse one Errour, they should be suspected of many; If their Infallibility was lost, all were gone: And therefore they resolve to bear it out with head and shoul­ders, and in place of disclaiming a single power to make Ecclesiasticall Lawes, and to give them a coactive obligation in exte­riour Courts, they challenge a power to the Pope (some say ordinarily, others ex­traordinarily; some say directly other in­directly,) to make and abrogate Politicall Lawes throughout Christendome, against the Will of Soveraign Princes. They who seem most moderate and Cautelous among them are bad enough, and deserve right well to have their workes inserted into the Rebells Catechisme,Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6. If a Civill Law be hurt­full to the Soules of Subjects and the Prince will not abrogate it, If another Civill Law be health­full to the Soules of the Subjects, and the Tem­porall Prince will not enact it; The Pope as a Spirituall Prince may abrogate the one, and establish the other. For Civil power is inferiour, and consequently subject to Spirituall power. [Page 133] And, The Ecclesiastick Republ [...]ck ought to be perfect and sufficient to atteine its end: But the power to dispose of things Temporall is necessary to atteine Spirituall ends. And, It is not lawfull to chuse an Infidel or Hereticall Prince, but it is the same danger or dammage to chuse one who is no Christian, and to tolerate one who is no Christian, and the determination of the Question whether he be fit to be tolerated or not, belongs to the Pope. In good time. From these premisses, wee may well expect a necessary Collusion. Who ever see such a Rope of Sand, so incoherent to it self, and consisting of such Heterogeneous parts, composed al­together of mistakes? Surely a man may conclude that either nocte pinxit, The lear­ned Author painted this Cypresse tree in the night, or he hath a pittifull penurious Cause, that will afford no better proofes, But I hope the quarrel is dead or dying, and with it much of that Animosity which it helped to raise in the World. At least I must doe my Adversaryes in this cause that right, I find them not Guilty of it. Let it dye and the memory of it be extinguished for ever and ever.

Sect. I. Cap. VII.

So I passe over from the Popes Legisla­tive power,The Po­pe hath no judi­ciary power in En­gland. to his Iudiciary power. Perhaps the Reader may expect to find something here of that great Controversy between Protestants and Papists; whether the Pope be the last, the highest, the infallible Iudge of Controversies of faith, with a Councell or without a Councell? For my part I doe not find them so well agreed at home, who this Iudge is. All say it is the Church, but in Determining what Church it is, they differ as much as they and wee. Some say it is the Essentiall Church by reception, whatsoever the Vniversall Church receiveth is infallibly true; Others [...]ay it is the Re­presentative Church, that is a Generall councell; Others say it is the Virtuall Church, that it is the Pope; Others say it is the Virtuall Church and the Represen­tative Church together, that is the Pope with a Generall Councell; Lastly, others say it is the Pope with any councell, either Generall, or Patriarchall, or Provinciall, or (I thinke) his College of Cardinalls, may serve the turne.

And concerning his infallibility all men [Page 135] confesse, that the Pope may erre in his Iud­gement and in his Tenets as he is is a priva­te Doctor, but not in his Definitions. Se­cōdly the most men doe acknowledge, that he may erre in his Definitions, if he Define alone without some Councell either generall or Particular. Thirdly others goe yet high­er, that the Pope as Pope with a particular Councell may Define erroneously or here­tically, but not with a Generall Councell. Lastly many of them which goe along with others for the Popes Infallibility, doe it upon a Condition, Si maturus procedat, & consilium audiat aliorum Pastorum. If he proeeed maturely, and hear the Counsell of other Pastors. Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. Cap. 2. Indeed Bellarmine saith that if any man should demand, Whether the Pope might erre if he defined rashly? Without doubt they would all answer, that the Pope could not de­fine rashly. But this is meer presumption without any colour of proofe. I appeale to every rationall man, of what communiō soever he be, whether he who saith, The Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely upon due ad­vise, doe presume that the Pope cannot proceed immaturely or without due advise, or not rather that he may proceed rashly and without due advise. Otherwise the con­dition was vainly and su [...]e [...]fluously added, frustra fit perplura quod fieri potest per pauciora.

[Page 136]But the truth is, wee have nothing con­cerning this Question, nor concerning any Iurisdiction meerly Spirituall in all the Statutes of Henry the eighth. They doe all intend Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court of the Church: Yet al­though nothing which he saith doth con­strain me, I will observe my wonted In­genuity. Wee give the Supreme Iudicature of Controversies of Faith to a Generall Councell, and the Supreme Power of Spi­rituall Censures, which are Coactive onely in the Court of conscience: but if the Sove­raign Prince shall approve or confirm the Acts of a generall Councell, then they have a Coactive power in the Exteriour Court, both Politicall aud Ecclesiasticall. There is nothing that wee long after more, then a generall Councell rightly called, rightly proceeding; or in defect of that a free Oc­cidentall Councell, as Generall as may be. But then wee would have the Bishops to re­nounce that Oath which hath been obtru­ded upon them, and the Councell to declare it void. I. A. Bishop &c. will be faithfull to St. Peter, and to the Holy Apostolicall Church of Rome, and to our Lord Pope Alex­ander &c. I will be an assistent to retein and to defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter. Where this Oath is esteemed [Page 137] Obligatory, I doe not see how there can be a Free Councell.

But I retire my self to that which con­cerneth our present Question and the Lawes of Henry the eyghth, concerning Iudiciary Power in the Exteriour Court of the Church The First Branch of this third Vsurpation s, The Pope cā receive no ap­peales from England Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeales from England, and send for what English Subjects he pleaseth to Rome, without the Kings leave? The First President, and the onely President that we have of any Ap­peale out of England to Rome, for the First thousand yeares after Christ, was that of Wilfrid Arch-Bishop of Yorke; though to speak the truth, that was rather an Equita­ble then a Legall appeale to the Pope, as the onely Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in the west, and an honorable arbitrator, and a Faithfull Depositary of the Apostolicall Traditions, not as a Superiour Iudge. For neither were the Adverse Parties sum­moned to Rome, nor any witnesses produ­ced, both which ought to have been done in a Legall Appeale. But the successe was so contrary to the Popes Interest, and the Re­solution of the King Church and King­dome of England so unanimous, That they could not assent to the Popes Legation, because it was against reason that a person [Page 138] twice condemned by the whole Councell of the En­glish, should be restored upon the Popes Letter, that England was never troubled with any more appeales to Rome untill after the Con­quest. Neither Durst the Pope send any Bulls or Mandates then, but a plain Letter.

The next Appellant was Anselm a Stran­ger (who knew not the liberties of England) in the Dayes of Henry the first, as succeslesse as Wilfrid had bene.Malm. de gestis Pont. Angl. l. 1. Will you trust the Testimony of a King? (And I know not why a King should not be trusted for the Customes of his own Kingdome) Hear King Henry the First the Sonne of the Con­querour, It is a Custome of my Kingdome in­stituted by my Father, (instituted indeed, but not first instituted, for it was an old Saxon Custome) that no Pope be appealed to without the License of the King. Another Law of the same King was,leg. Hen 1. c. 31 By all meanes wee discharge forrain Iudgements. If you will not trust the King, trust the whole Kingdome upon their Oaths, in the Dayes of Henry his Grandchild. The First English Custom re­cited in the Assise of Clarendon is this,Mat. Par. an▪ 1164. That all Appeales in England must proceed regularly frō the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop, to the Arch Bishop, and if the Arch Bishop failed [Page 139] to doe Iustice, the last cōplaint must be to the King to give order for redresse. Eadmee [...]us l. 5. p. 113. If wee will not trust the King and Kingdome, Yet l [...]t us trust the Pope him self: thus Paschal the secōd wri­teth to our Henry the first, The Popes Nun­cioes and Letters doe find no reception within thy Iurisdiction, There are no Complaints from those parts, no Appeales are destined to the Aposto­lick See. Hove. den an. 119. The Abbat of Thorney found this true by experience, who lay long in prison notwithstanding his Appeale to Rome. The Case is so plaine, that I shall not cite one Authority more in it, but onely one of our Statute Lawes, made not onely by the Assent (as is usnall) but upon the prayer, and grievous and clamorous Complaints of the Peers and Commons;xxvij. Edw. 3 [...] That because People are Drawn out of the Realm to answer things, the Cognisance whereof belongeth to the Kings Courts, and the Iudgements of the Kings Courts are impeached in another Court (the Court of Rome,) to the disinheriting of the king and his Crown, and the undoing [...]and de­struction of the Common Law of the Land; Therefore it is ordeined, that whosoever shall draw a man out of the Realm in Plea, if he doe not ap­peare upon Summons and conform to the sentence of the kings Court, he shall forfeit Lands and Goods, be outlawed and imprisoned.

[Page 140]Against such Fortifications grounded upon Prescription and Imperiall Lawes, the Canon of the Councell of Sardica will make no great Battery. Take the Councell of Sardica at the best, waving all exceptions, yet certainly it was no generall Councell; If it were, it had been one of the four first. If it had been a generall Councell it self, three succeeding Popes were much to blame, to Father the Canons of it upon the first Generall Councell of Nice. The Canons of the Councell of Sardica did not bind the Africans of old, much lesse bind us now. Secondly, the Canon of Sardica doth onely give way to Appeales to Rome in cases between two Bishops: but the Court of Rome admitteth Appeales from inferiour Clergy men, from Lay men, from all sorts of men, in all sorts of Causes that are of Ec­clesiasticall Cognisance. Thirdly, the Ca­non of Sardica is a meer permission, no precept, what may be done in discretion, not what ought to be done of necessity: it was proposed with a Si vobis placet, If it please you, and the ground of it is a Com­plement, Let us honour the Memory of S. Peter. Fourthly, There is one great Circumstance in our Case, which varieth it quite from [Page 141] that proposed by Osius to the Sardican Fa­thers, that is, that our King and the Lawes of the Realm do forbid Appeales to Rome. If there had been such an Imperiall Law then, doe wee thinke that the Fathers of Sardica would have been so disloyall, or so simple to thinke to abrogate the Imperiall Lawes by their Canons, which are no Lawes but by the Emperours Confir­mation? No, the Fathers of that Age did know their duty too well to their Empe­rour, and if they could have foreseen what avaricious practises, and what grosse Op­pressions, would have sprung in time from this little seed of their Indulgence, they would have abhominated them. Lastly, supposing the Sardican Councell had been of more Authority, and the Canon thereof of more Extent then it was, and more peremptory, and that there had been no such intervening impediment why English Subjects could not make use of that Remedy: yet the Councell of Sardica can give but humane right, And a contrary Prescription for a thou­sand years, is a sufficient Enfranchise­ment from all pretence of humane right.

[Page 142]The second branch of this Vsurpation,Of Pa­pall Bulles and excom­municaetions. is as cleare as the former, concerning Pa­pall Bulls and Excommunications; That by our ancient Lawes they cannot be executed in England without the Kings Leave. In the Assise of Clarendon, this is found to be one of the ancient Customes of England, That none of the Kings Servants or Tenents that held of him in Capite,Ma. Par. Anno 1164. might be excommu­nicated, or their Lands interdicted, before the King was made acquainted. There was a se­vere Lawe made in the Reign of the same King,Hoved. in Hen. [...] 2. If any man be found bringing in the Popes Letter or Mandate, Let him be apprehended, and let justice passe upon him without delay, as a Traitour to the King and Kingdome. It seemeth that the first and second Henryes, were no more propitious to Rome then Henry the eighth. Take one Statute more; it was enacted in full Parliament by Richard the secōd,26. Ric. 2. cap. 4. that if any did procure or pursue any such Processes [...]or excommunications in the Court of Ro­me, as are there mētioned, that is, concerning presentatiōs to benefices or dignities Eccle­siasticall and they who bring them into the realm, or receive them, or execute them, shall be put out of the Kings protection, their Lands Goods and Chattells be confiscated to the King, and their Bodies attached. They had the same [Page 143] respect for the Popes Bulls as often as they did not like them,2. Hen. 4. c. 4. in Henry the fourths time, as wee see by the Statute made against those, who brought or prosecuted the Popes Bulls granted in favour of the Cystercians. Placit [...] An. 32 & 34. Edw. 1. By the Law of England if any man denounced the Popes Excommunication, without the assent of the King, he forfeited al his Goods, And it is recorded in particular, how the Kings writ issued out against the Bishops of London and Norwich, as being at the Kings Mercy, Hoved. An. 1165. Ma. Par, an 1164. because contrary to the Statute of Clarendon, by the Popes Mandate, they had interdicted the Lands of Earl Hugh, and had published an Excommunication without the Kings License, which the Pope had given out against him. All these Lawes continued still in force, and were never repealed in En­gland, neither before Henry the eighth began the reformation, nor since by Queen Mary, but have ever continued iu full force untill this day.

Lastly for Legates and Legantine courts, there could be no Appeale in Eugland to any Legate or Nuncio without the Kings leave:Or Pa­pall Le­gates. but all Appeales must be from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, from the Archbishop to the King, as we see expresly by the sta­tute [Page 144] of Assise of Clarendon formerly cited. The Kings of England did ever deem it to be an unquestionable right of the Crown (as Ead­merus testifieth) to suffer none to excercise the Office of a Legate in England,Eadme­rus l. 5. p. 125. if the King him self did not Desire it of the Pope, upon some great quarrell that could not be so well Determined by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops. Which Privilege was consented unto by Pope Calixius. Ibid. By the Lawes of England, if a Legate was admitted of Cour­tesy,Plat. An. 1. He. 7. he was to take his Oath to doe nothing De­rogatory to the King and his Crown. Henry the sixth by the counsaile of Humphry Duke of Gloster the Protector, protested against Pope Martin and his Legate, that they would not admit him contrary to the Lawes and Libertyes of the Realm,Acts and Monuments.and dissented from whatsoever he did. And when the Pope had recalled Cardinall Pooles Commission of Legate for England, and was sending ano­ther Legate into England, Queen Mary being very tender of her Kinsmans Ho­nour, for all her good affection to Rome, was yet mindfull of this point of old En­glish Law, to cause all the Seaports to be stopped, and all Letters Briefs and Bulls from Rome to be intercepted and brought to her. Shee knew this was an old En­glish, [Page 145] not a new protestant Privilege: Nei­ther would she ever admit the new Legate to appeare as Legate in her presence.

Now let us see how these old English Customes doe agree with the French Li­berties. The Pope cannot send a Legate a latere into France with power to Reform, Iudge, Collate, dispense, except it be upon the desire or with the Approbation of the most Christian King. Neither can the Legate execute his Charge, untill he hath promised the King under his Oath upon his holy Orders, to make no longer use of the Legantine power in the Kings Dominions then it pleaseth him, That he shall attempt nothing Contrary to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church. And it is lawful to Appeale from the Pope to a future Councell.

Another Liberty is, The Commissions and Bulls of Popes are to be viewed by the Court of Parliament, and registred, and published with such Cautiōs as that Court shall Iudge expedient.

A third Liberty is, Papall Bulls Sentences Excommunications and the like, are not to be ex­ecuted in France, without the Kings command or Permission.

Lastly, neither the King, nor his Realm, nor his Officers, can be Excommunicated nor Inter­dicted by the Pope.

[Page 146]And as England and France, so all the seventeen Provinces, did enjoy the same Privileges, as appeareth by the Placaet of the Councell of Brabant, dated at Bruxelles May 12, An. 1653. Wherein they declare, that it was notoriously true, that the subjects of those Provinces, of what State or Condition soever (that is the Clergy as well as the Laity) cannot be cited or convented out of the Land, no not before the Court of Rome it self. And that the Censures Excommunications▪ &c of that Court, might not be published or put in execution without the Kings Appro­bation. It seemeth that if the Pope had any judiciary power of old, he must seek it nearer Home; People had no mind to goe over the Alpes to seek for Justice. And that Ordinance of Sainct Cyprian, had place every where among our Ance­stours,Cypr. ad Cornel. Ep. 55. Seing it is decreed by all, and it is equall and just that every mans cause be heard there where the Crime was committed, and a Portion of the Flock is assigned to every Pastor, which he may rule and govern, and must render an account of his Actions to the Lord; It be­hoveth those whom wee are over, not to run up and down, nor to knock Bishops who agree well, one [...] against another, by their Cunning and deceitfull Rashnesse; but to plead their [Page 147] Cause there, where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime. Vnlesse the Au­thority of the African Bishops who have Iudged them already, seem lesse to a few desperate and lost persons &c. To say S. Cyprian meant not to condemne appeales, but onely the bringing Causes out of Africk to Rome in the first Instance, is a shift as desperate as that of those Fugitives. For St. Cyprian tel­leth us plainly that the cause was already Iudged, and sentence given in Africk; The first Instance was past, and this Canon was made against Appeales out of Africa to Rome.

Sect I. Cap VIII.

So from his Iudiciary power I come to Papal dispensations,Of Pa­pal dis­pensati­ons. the last of the grosser Vsurpations of the Bishops of Rome. Where I have a large Field offered me to expa­tiate in, if I held it so pertinēt to the present Controversy. The Pharisees did never di­late their Philacteries so much as the Ro­man Courtiers did their dispensative power. The Pope dispenseth with Oathes, with Vowes, with Lawes, he looseth from Sinnes, from Censures, from Punishments. Is not this a strange Key, which can unlock [Page 148] both sinnes, and censures, and Punishments, and Lawes, and Oaths, and Vowes, where there are so many and so different wards? It is two to one that it proveth not a right Key, but a Picklock. Their doctrin of Dispensa­tions was foule enough, especially in such cases as concern the Law of God or Nature; as Oaths, Vowes, Leagues, Marriages, Allegiance. For either they make the dis­pensation to be onely Declarative; and then the Purchaser is meerly Cheated, who payes his money for nothing: Or else they make all Contracts, Leagues, promises to be but Conditionall, If the Pope approve them, which destroyeth all mutuall trust and hu­mane Society: Or thirdly they make the Popes Dispensations, to be a taking away of the matter of the Vow or Oath, that is, the Promise; as if the Papall power could recall that which is past, or make that to be undone to day which was done yester­day, or that not to be promised which was promised: Or lastly they doe dispense with the Law of God and Nature, as they doe indeed, what soever they pretend to the Contrary, or all this kind of dispensations signify nothing.

But the Practise of Dispensations was much more foule. Witnesse their Peniten­tiary Taxe, wherein a man might see the [Page 149] Price of his Sin before hand, Their com­mon Nundination of Pardons, Their absol­ving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegi­ance, Their loosing of Princes from their solemne Leagues, of Married people from the Bonds of Matrimony, of Cloysterers from their Vowes of Celibate, of all sorts of persons from all Obligations Civill or sacred. And whereas no Dispensation ought to be granted without just cause, now there is no cause at all inquired after in the Court of Rome, but onely the Price. Memo­riall. de sa Ma­gestad. Catoli­ca cap. 6. This is that which the nine choise Cardinalls laid so close to the conscience of Paul the third, How Sacred and Venerable the Authority of the Lawes ought to be, how unlawfull and pernicious it is to reape any gaine from the exercise of the Keys. They in­veigh sadly throughout against dispēsatiōs, and among other things that Simoniacall per­sons were not affraid at Rome, first to commit Si­mony, and presently to goe buy an Absolu­tiō and so reteine their Benefice. Bina Venena juvant. Two grosse Simonies make a title at Rome, Thankes to the Popes dispensa­tions.

But I must contract my discourse to those Dispensations which are intended in the Lawes of Henry the eight, that is, the power to dispense with English Lawes in the Exte­riour Court, Let him bindor loose inwardly [Page 150] whom he will, whether his Key erre or not, we are not concerned. Secondly as he is a Prince in his own Territories, he that hath power to bind, hath power to loose, He that hath power to make Lawes, hath power to dispense with his own Lawes. Lawes are made of Common Events. Those benigne Circumstances which happen rarely, are left to the dispensative Grace of the Prince. Thirdly as he is a Bishop, whatsoever dis­pensative power the ancient Ecclesiasticall Canons, or Edicts of Christian Emperours, give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories which were subject to his Iu­risdiction by Humane right, we do not envy him; So he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities, freed from his encroachments and Vsurpations. The Chief ground of the Ancient Ecclesia­sticall Canon was, Let the Old Customes pre­vaile. A Possession or Prescription of eleven h [...]ndred yeares, is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against humane Right, and much more against a new pretense of divine right. For eleven hundred yeares our Kings and Bishops enjoyed the [...]ole dispen­sative power, with all English Lawes Ci­vill and Ecclesiasticall. In all which time he is not able to give one Instance of a Pa­pall [Page 151] Dispensation in England, nor any sha­dow of it when the Church was formed. Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legi­slative power, no Iudiciary power in the Exteriour Court, by necessary consequence they could have no Dispensative power. The first reservation of any Case in En­gland to the Censure and absolution of the Pope, is supposed to have been that of Al­bericus the Popes Legate, in an English Sy­nod in the yeare 1138. Neque quisquam ei praeter Romanum Pontificem, nisi mortis urgente periculo, modum paenitenttae finalis injungat. Let no man injoyn him the manner of finall Pennance but the Bishop of Rome, except in danger of death.

But long before this, indeed from the beginning,Gervas Dorber. pag 1648. our own Bishops (as the most proper Iudges, who lived upon the place and see the nature of the Crime and the de­gree of the Delinquents Penitence or Im­penitence,) did according to equity relaxe the rigour of Ecclesiasticall Canons; as they did all over the Christian world, be­fore the Court of Rome had usurped this gainfull Monopoly of Dispensations. In the Lawes of Alured alone, and in the con­joint Lawes of Alured and Gu [...]thrun, we see how many sortes of Ecclesiasticall crimes were dispēsed withall by the sole authority [Page 152] of the King and Church of England, and satisfaction made at home to the King, and to the Church, and to the Party grieved, or the Poore, without any manner of reference at all to the Court of Rome, or to any for­rein Dispensation.Spelm: Concil. pa. 364. &c. The like we find in the the lawes of some other Saxon Kings. There needed no other paenitentiary taxe. Dunstan the Arch-Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count, He made his Peace at Rome, and obteined the Popes Commaund for his restitution to the bosome of the Church. Dunstan answered, I will obey the Pope wil­lingly when I see him paenitent, But it is not Gods will that he should lie in his sinne free from Ecclesiasticall discipline to insu [...]t over us. God forbid that I should relinquish the law of Christ for the cause of any mortall man.ibid. p. 481. Roman dispensations were not in such Request in those daies.

The Church of England dispensed with those Nunnes, who had fled to their Nunne­ries not for the love of religiō,Lanf. Ep. 32. but had takē the veile upon them meerly for feare of the French; and this with the counseile of the King in the daies of Lanfranke: and with Queene Maud the wyfe of Hēry the First in the like case,Eadm. l. 3. p. 57. in the daies of Anselme, without any suite to Rome for a forreine dispensatiō.

There can be nothing more pernicious [Page 153] then where the sacred Name of Law, is pro­stituted to avaricious ends; Where Statutes or Canons are made like Pitfals or Traps to catch the Subjects by their purses; where profitable faults are cherished for private Advantage by Mercinary Iudges, as beggers doe their sores. The Roman Rota doth ac­knowledge such ordinary avaricious Dis­pensations, to be Odious things. The Delec­ted Cardinalls make them to be sacrile­gious things, an unlawfull selling of the power of the Keys. Commonly they are cal­led Vulnera Legum, The wo [...]nds of the La­wes:27. Edv. 3. And our Statutes of Provisers doe stile them expresly the undoing and Destruc­tion of the Common Law of the Land. The King, the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and the whole Common wealth of England, complained of this abuse as a mighty Grie­vance; Of the frequent comming among them of this infamous Messenger the Popes Non Obstante,Mat. Pa. an. 1245. (that is his Dispensations) by which Oaths, Customes, Writings, Grants, Statutes, Rights, Privileges, were not onely weakened but exinanited. Sometimes these Dispensative Bulls came to legall Tryalls, and were con­demned. By the Law of the Land the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visiter of the Vni­versity of Oxford, Boniface the eyght by his Bull dispēsed with this law, and exēpted the [Page 154] Vniversity from the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop. Whereupon there grew a Controversy, and the Bull was decreed voide in Parliament by two succeding Kings,Ex Arch. Tur. Londin. Ex An­tiq. A­cad. Cantab. pa. 91. as being obtained to the Prejudice of the Crown, the weakning of the Lawes and Cu­stomes of the Kingdome, (in favour of Lollards and hereticks) and the probable Ruine of the said Vniversity.

How the Liberties of France and the Lawes and Customes of England doe accord in condemning this Vsurpation wee have seen formerly, The power of the Pope is not absolute in France, but limit [...]ed and restrained by the Canons of Ancient Councells. If it be Li­mitted and restrained by Ancient Canons, then it is not Paramount above the Canons, then it is not dispensative to give Non Ob­stante's to the Canons. And the Popes Legate may not execute his Commission, before he have promised under his Oath upon his holy Orders, that he will not attempt any thing in the exercise of his Legantine power to the Prejudice of the Decrees of Generall Councells, or the Privile­ges of the French Church. Then he must gi­ve no Dispensarions against the Canons, or Contrary to those Privileges.

Thus we have viewed all the reall dif­ferences between the Church of Rome and us, concerning Papall power which our [Page 155] Lawes take notice of. There are some other pet [...]y Abuses which we complain of, but they may be all referred to one of these four heads, The Patronage of the Church of England, The Legislative, The Judicary, and Dispensative powers. Other differences are but the Opinions of particular Persons: But where no Law is there is no Transgression. Wee have seen evidently, that Henry the eighth did cast no Branch of Papall power out of England, but that which was dia­metrally repugnant to the Ancient Lawes of the Land, made in the Reign of Henry the fourth, Richard the second, Edward the third, Edward the first, Henry the third, Henry the second; And these Lawes ever of Force in England, never repealed, no not so much as in Queen Maryes time, when all the Lawes of Henry the eigh [...]h and Edward the sixth which concerned the Bi­shop of Rome were repealed. So that I pro­fesse clearly, I doe not see what advantage Henry the eighth could make of his own La­wes, which he might not have made of those anciēt lawes; except onely a gawdy title of Head of the English Church, which survived him not long; and the Tenths and first fruits of the Clergy, which was so late an usurpation of the Pope, that it was not in the nature of things, whē those ancient lawes were made.

[Page 156]And since I have mentioned the Novelty of that upstart Vsurpation, give me leave to let you see how it was welcommed into England, whilest it was but yet hatching with the shell upon the Head of it, By a Law of Henry the fourth, about an Hun­dred yeares before Henry the eyghth, (so la­te this Mushrom began to sprout up.)6. Hen. 4. cap. 1. For the grievous Complaints made to the King by his Commons in Parliament, of the horrible Mis­chiefs and Damnable Custome which is introdu­ced of new in the Church of Rome, that none could have Provision of an Archbishoprick, untill he had compounded with the Popes Chamber to pay great excessive summes of money, as well for the First fruits as other lesser Fees and Perquisites, &c▪ The King ordeineth in Parliament, as well to the Honour of God as to eschew the Dammage of the Realm and perill of soules, That whosoever shall pay such summes should forfeit all they had, or as much as they might forfeit. Wherein are Hen­ry the eights Lawes more bitter against the Bishop of Rome, or more severe then this is?

To conclude, we have seen the precise time when all these Weeds did first begin to peep out of the earth, The very first In­troduction to the intended Pageant, was the spoiling of Christian Kings of the Patronage [Page 157] of the Church, which Bellarmine confesseth that they held, Apol. Card. Bell. contra praef. Monit. p. 66. Epist. Cler. Leod. Contrae Pasch. 2. in 2. tom. Conc. Per non breve tempus, For a long time. A long time indeed, so long as there had been Christian Princes in the world, from Constantine the Great to Henry the fourth in the Empire; and yet longer with us in Brittaine, from King Lucius to Henry the First. The Clergy of Liege say, Nimium effluxit tempus quo hae [...] consuetudo in­cepit, &e. It is too long since this Custome (of swearing fidelity to Princes) did begin. Aud under this Custome Holy and Reverend Bishops have yielded up their soules to God, giving to Caesar that which was Caesars, and to God that which was Gods. But thē rose up Po­pe Hildebrand otherwise called Gregory the seventh, Fortissimus Ecclesiae Dei Vindex, The most undaunted Vindicator of the Church of God,Bell. Who feared not to revoke and defend the old Holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes.ibid. With this accordeth the Church of Liege, Hildehran. dus Papa Author hujus Novelli Schismatis, pri­mus Levavit Sacerdotalem Lanceam contra Diadema Regni &c. Pope Hildebrand the author of this new Schisme, first lift up his Episco­pall Lance against the Royall diadē. And a little after, Si utriusque Legis totam Bibliothecam &c. If I turn over the whole Library of the old and new Law, and all the ancient Expositors thereof [Page 158] I shall not find an Example of this Apostoli­call precept, onely Pope Hildebrand perfected the Sacred Canons, when he Commanded Maud the Marchionesse to subdue Henry the Empe­rour, for remission of her Sinnes.

I take no exceptions to the person of Po­pe Hildebrand, others have done it suffici­ently. Whether the Title of Antichrist was fastened upon him justly or injustly, I regard not.Bern. Ep. 56. Yet it was in the time of this Hildebrand and Paschalis his Successor, that the Arch-bishop of Florence affirmed by re­velatiō, (for he protested that he knew it most certainly) that Antichrist was to be revealed in that age.Bern. Serm. 65. in Cant. And about this time the Walden­ses, (of whom St. Bernard saith that if we inqui­re into their Faith, nothing was more Christian, if into their Conversation, nothing was more irre­prehensible,) made their Secession from the Bishop of Rome. And not long after in the yeare 1120. published a Booke to the world that the great Antichrist was come; That the present Governers of the Roman Church,Ioseph Mede de Nu­meris Danie­lis. armed with both Powers Secular and Spirituall, who under the specious Name of the Spouse of Christ did oppose the right way of Salvation, were Anti­christ.

But I cannot but wonder what are those [Page 159] old holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes which Bellar­mine mentioneth,Plat. in Vita Greg. 7. Those Institutions of the Holy Fathers which Hildebrand himself pro­fesseth to follow, Sanctorum Patrum in­stituta sequen [...]es; Why doe they men­tion what they are not able to produce, or pretend what they never can perform? Bellarmin hath named but one poore coun­terfeit Canon, without Antiquity, without Authority, without Vse, without Truth. If Mr. Serjeant be able to help him with a re­cruit, it would come very seasonably: for without some such helps, his pretended In­stitutions of the Fathers will be condemned for his own Innovations, and for arrant Vsurpations,Our Lawes Meddle not with spiri­tuall Iuris­diction. and the Guilt of Schism will fall upon the Roman Court.

Sect. I. Cap. IX.

But I expect it should be objected, that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church, the Le­gislative, the Iudiciary, the Dispensative power of Popes,28. Hen. 8. cap. 10. there are two other Sta­tutes made by Henry the eighth;35. Hen. 8. cap. 5. The one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, The other an Act for esta­blishing the Kings Succession in the Crown, [Page 160] wherein there is an Oath, that the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any Iurisdiction or Au­thority in this Realm. And that it is declared in the 37. Article of our Church, that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Kingdome of England. And in the Oath or­dained by Queen Elisabeth That no Forrein Prelate hath or ought to have, any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall with in this Realm.

I answer this Objection three wayes. First as to the two Lawes of Henry the eighth, They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary, and never were restored by any succeding Prince, If there were any thing blame worthy in them let it dye with them. I confesse I approve not the Con­struing of one Oath for another, nor the swearing before hand to Statutes made or to be made. But, De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

Secondly, I answer according to the equi­ty a [...] my second ground, that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over reached themselves and the truth in some expressions: yet that concerns not us at all, so long as we keep our selves exactly to the Line and Level of Apostolicall Tradition

Thirdly and principally I answer, That our Ancesters meant the very same thing [Page 161] that we doe. Our onely difference is in the use of the Words Spirituall Authority or Iuris­diction, Which we understand properly of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall, which exten­deth no further then the Court of Con­science. But by Spirituall Authority or Iuris­diction, they did understand Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court, which in truth is partly Spirituall partly Politicall; The interiour habit which enableth an Ec­clesiasticall Iudge to Excommunicate, or Absolve, or degrade, is meerly Spirituall, but the Exteriour Coaction is Originally Poli­ticall. So our Ancestors cast out Externall Ecclesiasticall Coactive Iurisdiction, The same doe wee: They did not take away frō the Pope the power of the Keyes, or Iuris­dictiō purely Spirituall; No more doe wee.

To cleare the whole businesse, We must know, that in Bishops there is a threefold power; The first of Order, The second of Interiour jurisdiction, The third of Exte­riour jurisdictiō. The first is referred to the Consecrating and Administring of the Sa­craments, The second to the Regiment of Christians in the interiour Court of Con­science, The third to the Regiment of Chri­stian people in the Exteriour Court of the Church. Concerning the two former, I know no Controversy between the [Page 162] Church of Rome and us but one, Whether the Bishop of Rome alone doe derive his Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ, and all other Bishops do derive theirs mediatly by him? Yet I confesse this Controversy is but with a part of the Church of Rome: For many of them are of our mind, that all Bishops hold their Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ, as well as the Pope. And if it were otherwise, it were the grossest absurdity in the world. For thousands of Bishops in Christendome, doe not at all derive their holy Orders from S. Peter, or any other Roman Bishop, either mediatly, or immediatly (especially in Asia and Africa,) but frō the other Apostles. Must all these poore Bishops wāt the Key of Iuris­diction, and be but half Bishops, to humour the Court of Rome? For they never had ordi­nation, or Delegation, or Commission from Rome, either mediatly or immediatly, yet the Christiā World hath evermore received them for true complete Bishops.

But we have a Controversy with some others, who acknowledge no power of Go­verning in a Bishop but meerly directive, neither more nor lesse then a Phisitian hath over his Patient, To advise him to abstain from some meats because they are hurtfull to him; which advise the Patient, may either obey or reject without sinne. But all the [Page 163] Schooles have tyed two Keys to the Chur­ches Girdle, the Key of Order and the Key of Iurisdiction, and I doe not mean to rob my Mother of one of her Keys.1. Cor. 4. 21. What will ye, shall I come unto you with a Rod? A rod is more then chiding. The principall Branch of this Rod is Excommunication (a Punish­ment more to be feared in the Iudgement of the Fathers then all earthly Paines,) The Spirituall Sword, Like the cutting of a member in the Body naturall, Or the out lawing of a Subject in the body Politicall. It is a Question in the Schooles, whether the Pastors Sentence in binding and loosing, be onely Declarative, or also [...]perative? As if such glorious promises, and so great solem­nity where with this power was given, did imply a naked declaration; Keys are not gi­ven to signify the doore is open or shut, but to opē or shut it indeed. For my part I have alwayes esteemed this Questiō, to be a meer Logomachy or Contention about words. They who make the Sentence onely decla­rative in respect of man, doe acknowledge it to be operative in respect of God. And they who make it to be Operative, make it to be Operative by the power of God, not of mā. Whether the effect be attributed to the principall cause, or to the Instrument, being rightly understood, it is both wayes true.

[Page 164]But this will not excuse our Innovators, who have robbed the Church of one of her Keys, the Key of Spirituall jurisdiction. They are so Iealous of the honour of God, that they destroy the beauty of the world, and jumpe over the backes of all second causes; and so they would make the holy Sa­craments to be bare Sigus. As it was said of old, the sword of the Lord and of Gideon: so we may say now,1. cor. 1. 12. the Key of Christ and his Pastor. St. Paul taxeth the Corinthians for saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ, What (saith he) is Christ divided? Is Christ divided from his Mini­sters? As it is an Errour on the one hand to depend so much upon Paul, and Apollo, and Cephas, or any of them, as not to depend principally upon Christ: so it is an Errour on the other hand so depend so upō Christ, as to neglect Paul Apollo and Cephas.

In summe Christ made his Apostles not onely Lawiers to give Advise, but Iudges to give Sentence.Ioh. 20. 21. He gave them not onely a Command but a Commission, As my Fa­ther sent me, so send I you, That is, I doe constitute you my Deputies, and Surro­gates, with as ample power and commission as my Father gave me; Bind, Loose, Re­mitt, Retein, whatsoever you doe on earth (Clave non errante, as long as your Key erreth [Page 165] not) I confirm in heaven. This is the Dif­ference between the binding and loosing of Christ, and the binding and loosing of his Ministers; His power is Originall, Primitive Soveraign, Imperiall; Their power is de­rivative, Subordinate, Delegate, Ministe­riall. His Sentence is absolute ad Senten­ [...]iandum simplicit [...]er; Their Sentence is Con­ditionall ad Sententiandum si. His Key never erreth, Their Key may erre and many tim­es doth erre. To conclude the Apostles had a legislative power,Act. 15 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater Bur­then then these Necessary things. The Observa­tion of Sunday, was an Apostolicall precept, so is the Order of Deacons. They had a Iudiciary power,1. Tim. 5. 19. and their Tribunalls; A­gainst an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before two or three witnesses. They had a dis­pensative power,2. Cor. 2. 10. To whom I forgave any thing for your sakes, forgave I it in the person of Christ? But all this is onely in the interiour Court of Conscience.

The third power of Bishops, is the power of ex­teriour Iurisdictiō in the Court of the Church, whereby men are compelled against their wills by Exteriour Meanes. This the Apostles had not frō Christ,Ioh. 18. 36. [...] nor their Successours frō them,Luke 12. 14. Neither did Christ ever assume any such power to him self in the world, My Kingdome is not of this world: And, Man who made me a Iudge or di­vider over you? Yet the greatest Controversies [Page 166] at this day in the Ecclesiasticall Court are about Possessions, as Glebes, Tithes, Obla­tions, Portions, Legacies, Administra­tions,Bern. de Consid. lib. 1. &c. And if it were not for these, the rest would not be so much valued, in Cri­minibus non in Possessionibus potestas vestra, quontam propter illa & non propter has accepi­stis Claves regni Caelorum, Saith, St. Bernard well to the Pope. Your power is in Crimes not in possessions, for those and not for these you received the Keys of the kingdome of Heaven. But suppose the Controversy to be about a Crime, Yet who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please, and imprison or punish them for not ap­pearing without his leave? All that power which Ecclesiasticall Iudges have of Exter­nall Coaction, they owe it wholy either to the Submission of the parties, where the Magistrate is not Christian (as the Iewes at this day doe undergoe such Penitentiall Acts as are enjoined them by their Supe­riours; because the Reverence of them who obey, doth supply the defects of their power who Command) Or where the Magistrate is Christian, they owe it to his Gracious Concessions. Of which if any Man doubt, and desire to see how this Coactive power, how these externall Privileges, did first co­me to be enjoyed by Ecclesiasticall persons, [Page 167] Let him read over the first booke of the Code, and the Authenticks or Novels of Iusti­nian. And for our English Church in Parti­cular, let him consult with our best Histo­riographers. Eadmerus was one whom they need not suspect of partiality, as being Pope Vrbanes own Creature, and by his speciall appointment placed over Anselm, at his own intreaty, as a Superviser to exer­cise his Obedience. Whose injunctions had so much power over him,Malms de Gest. Pont. Angl. l. 1. pa. 120. that if he placed him in his Bed, he would not onely not rise with­out his Command, but not so much as turn him self from one side to another. Vt cum Cubili locasset, non solum sine praecepto ejus non surge­re [...] sed nec latus inverteret. What Marvell is it if the ancient Liberties of the English Church went first to wrack in Anselms Da­yes, about the Yeare of our Lord 1000 (for he died Anno 1109) who being a Stranger Primate had so totally surrende­red up his own reason to the Popes Crea­ture?Eadmer l. 4. p. 120. Yet this Eadmerus saith of Lanfranke, His wisdome recovered other Customes, which the Kings of England by their Munificence, had granted to the Church of Canterbury in an­cient times, and established them for ever by their sacred Decrees, that it might be most free in all things. All externall exemption and Coac­tion is Politicall, and proceedeth originally from the Soveraign Prince.

[Page 168]This is that which S. Paul teacheth us, The weapons of our warfare are not Carnall. The weapons of the Church are Spirituall, not worldly, not externall: But Citations, and Compulsories, and Significavits, and Writs ad excommunicatum capiendum (which are not written by the Bishops own hand, yet at his beck,) and Apparitors, and Iaolers, &c, Are Weapons of this world, and tend to exter­nall Coaction. For all which, the Church is beholden to the Civill power, to whom alone externall Coaction doth properly and originally belong.Chryso­stom. lib. 2. de Sa­c [...]rdotio. This is that which St. Chrysostome observed in his comparison be­tween a Bishop and a Shepheard, It is not lawfull to cure men, with so great Authority as the Shepheard cureth his Sheep. For it is free for the Shepheard, to bind his sheep, to drive them from their meat, to burn them, to cut them: But in the case of the Bishop, the Faculty of curing consisteth not in him who administreth the Phisick, but in him that is sick, &c. St. Chrysost. speaketh of power purely Spirituall, which extendeth it self no further thē the Court of consciēce, where no man can be cured against his will: But Soveraign Princes have found it expe­diēt, for the good both of the Church and of the Commonwealth, to strengthen the Bi­shops hāds, by imparting some of their Po­liticall authority to him; from whose gra­cious [Page 169] indulgence, all that externall coactive power which Bishops have, doth proceed.

Now to apply this to our purpose. Where­soever our Lawes doe deny all Spirituall Iurisdiction to the Pope in England, it is in that sense that wee call the exteriour Court of the Chur [...]h, the Spirituall Court; They doe not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the Keys, or of any Spirituall power that was bequeathed unto him by Christ or by his Apostles, when he is able to prove his Legacy. Yea even in relation to England it self, Our Parliaments never did pretend to any power to change or Abridge divine right. Thus much our very Proviso in the body of our Law doth testify, that it was no part of our meaning, to vary from the Articles of the Catholick Faith in any thing,25. Hen. 8. An Act for Exo­neration. Nor to vary from the Church of Christ in any other thing, declared by the holy Scripture and the word of God, necessary to sal­vation. If wee have taken away any thing that is of divine right, it was retracted be­fore it was done. Then followeth the true Scope of our Reformation, Onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and conve­nient, to represse Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in peace, unity, and tranquillity, from ravine and spoile, insuing much the an­cient Customes of this Realm in that behalf. [Page 170] That wich professed it self a Politick Ordi­nance doth not meddle with Spirituall Jurisdiction. If it had medled with Spiri­tuall Iurisdiction at all, it had not in­sued the ancient Customes of the Realm of En­gland,

In summe that externall Papall power which we rejected and cast out,Ead­mer l. 1. pag. 8. and which onely we cast out, is the same which the En­glish Bishops advised A [...]selm to renounce, when it was attempted to be obtruded upon the Kingdome, But know, that all the King­dome complaineth against thee, that thou endea­vourest to take away from our Common Maister the Flowers of his Imperiall Crown, Whosoever takes away the Customes which pertein to his roy­all dignity, doth take away his Crown and Go­vernment together: for we prove that one cannot be decently had without the other. But we be­seech the consider, and cast away thy Obedience to that Vrban, who cannot help the if the King be offended, nor hurt thee if the King be pacified. Shake of the yoke of Subjection, and freely, as it becomes an Arch-bishop of Canterbury,1. Eliz. [...]. in all thy Actions expect the Kings pleasure and Com­mands. What soever power our Lawes did divest the Pope of, they invested the King with it: but they never invested the King with any Spirituall power or Iurisdiction, witnesse the Injunctions of Queen Elisabeth, [Page 171] witnesse the publick Articles of our Church, witnesse the Professions of King Iames, witnesse all our Statutes themselves, wherein all the parts of Papall power are enumerated which are taken away; His Entroachments, his Vsurpations, his Oaths, his Collations, Provisions, Pensions, Tenths, First fruits, Reservations, Palls, Vnions, Com­mendams, Exemptions, Dispensations of all kinds, Confirmations, Licenses, Faculties, Suspensions, Appeales, and God knoweth how many pecuniary Artifices more: but of them all, there is not one that con­cerneth Iurisdiction purely Spirituall, or which is an essentiall right of the power of the Keys; They are all Branches of the Ex­ternall Regiment of the Church, the grea­ter part of them usurped from the Crowne, sundry of them from Bishops, and some found out by the Popes themselves; as the payment for Palls, which was nothing in S. Gregoryes time, but a free gift or liberality or bounty, free from imposition and ex­action.

Lastly consider the grounds of all our grievances, expressed frequently in our Lawes, and in other writers, The disinheri­ting of the Prince and Peers, The destruction and Anullation of the Lawes and the Prerogative Royall, The Vexation of the King Liege people, [Page 172] The impoverishing of the Subjects, the draining the Kingdome of its treasure, The decay of Hospita­lity, The disservice of God, And filling the Chur­ches of England with Forreiners, The excluding Temporall Kings and Princes out of their Domi­nions, The Subjecting of the Realm to spoil and ra­vine, grosse Simoniacall contracts, Sacrilege, Grie­vous and intolerable oppressiōs and extortions, Iu­risdiction purely Spirituall doth neither dis­inherit the Prince nor the Peers, nor destroy and anull the Lawes and Prerogative royall, nor vex the Kings Liege people, nor impove­rish the Subject, nor draine the Kingdome of its Treasures, nor fill the Churches with For­reiners, nor exclude Temporall Kings out of their Dominions, nor subject the Realm to spoile and Ravine. Authority purely spiritu­all is not guilty of the decay of Hospitality, or disservice of Almighty God, or Simony, or Sacrilege, or oppressions and extortions▪ No, No, it is the externall regiment of the Church, by new Roman Lawes and Manda­tes, by new Roman Sentences and Iudge­ments, by new Roman Pardons and dispen­sations, by new Roman Synods and Oaths of Fidelity, by new Roman Bishops and Clerk­es; It is your new Roman Tenths, and First fruits, and Provisions, and Reservations, and Pardons, and Indulgences, and the rest of those horrible mischiefs and damnable Cu­stoms, [Page 173] that are apparently guilty of all these evills. These Papall Innovations we have taken away indeed, and deservedly, having shewed the ex­presse time and place and person, when and where and by whom, every one of them was first introduced into England. And we have restored to every Bird his own Feather, To the King his Politicall Supremacy, to the Peers their Patrona­ges, to the Bishops that Iurisdiction which was due to them, either by Divine right or Humane right. More then these In­novations we have taken nothing away, that▪ I know of. Or rather it is not wee, nor Henry the eighth, who did take these Innovations away: but our Ancesters by their Lawes, three, foure, five hun­dred yeares old; so soone as they began to sprout out, or indeed before they were well formed, as their Statutes yet extant doe evidence to the world? But that filth which they swept out at the Fore doore, the Ro­mā Emissaryes brought in again at the back doore. All our part or share of this worke, was to confirm what our ancesters had done.

I see no reason why I might not conclude my discourse upon this Subject, Mutatis Mutandis, with as much Confidence as [Page 174] Sanders did his visible Monarchy, Quis­quis jurabit per Viventem in aeternum &c. Whosoever shall sweare by him that liveth for ever, that the Church of England is not Schismaticall, in respect of any Branches of Papall power, which shee hath cast out at the Reformation, he shall not forswear himself. But Wagers and Oaths and Pro­testations, are commonly the Arguments of such as have got the wrong end of the staffe. I will shut up this long Discourse concer­ning Henry the eighths Reformation, with a short Apostrophe to my Countrymen of the Roman Communion in England.

They have been ta [...]ght, that it is we who Apostate from the Faith of our Ancesters in this point of the Papacy, that it is we who renounce the Vniversall and perpetual Tradition of the Christian world. Whe­reas it is we who maintain ancient Aposto­licall Tradition against their upstart Inno­vations: whereas it is we who doe propug­ne the Cause of our Ancesters against the Court of Rome. If our Ancesters were Catholick in this Cause, we cannot be Schismaticall. Let them take heed least whilst they fly o [...]t of a Panicall Feare from a supposed Schisme, they doe not plunge themselves over head and eares into reall Schisme. Let thē choose, whether they will [Page 175] joine with their Ancesters in this cause,15. Ri. 2. c. 4. or with the Court of Rome, for with both they cannot joine. If true English blood run in their veins, they cannot be long deliberating about that which their Ance­sters, even all the Orders of the King­dome, voted unanimously, That they would stand by their King, and maintaine the rights of his Imperiall Crown, against the Vsurpations of the Roman Court.

I have represented clearly to you the true Controversy, betweē the Church and King­dome of England and the Court of Rome, concerning Papall power, not as it is stated by private writers, but in our English Lawes, a glasse that cannot deceive us, for so farre as to let us see the right Difference. Let them quit these grosse Vsurpations; Why should they be more ashamed to re­store our lust rights, then they were to plunder us of them? Let them distinguish between Iurisdiction purely Spirituall, and Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court, which for the much greatest part of it is Politicall: between the power of the Sword, which be longeth to the Civill Soveraign, and not to the Church further then he hath been gra­ciously pleased to communicate it: between that Obedience with procedeth from feare of wrath, or from feare of Gods Revenger to [Page 176] execute wrath (that is, the Soveraign Prince) and that Obedience which proceedeth meerly from conscience; Ro. 13. And then there is hope we may come to understand one ano­ther better.

It is true, there are other Differen­ces between us: but this is the main Diffe­rence, which giveth Denomination to the Parties, And when they come to presse those Differences, they may come to have such another account as they have now. The wider the hole groweth in the middle of the Milstone, Men see clearer through it. Dies Diei eructat verbum & nox nocti indica [...] ▪ Scientiam. The latter day is the Schollar of the former.

Sect. I. Cap. X.

BY this time wee see that Mr. Serjeants great Dispatch will prove but a sleeve­lesse Errand,An answer to Mr. Serjeāt concer­ning im­mediate traditiō and his two ru­les of V­nity. and that his First Movership in the Church, which he thought should have born down all before it, is an unsignifi­cant expression, and altogether imperti­nent to the true Controversy between them and us. Vnlesse as Dido did encompasse the whole Circuit of Cathage, with a Bulls hide by her art: so he within his First [Page 177] Movership can comprehend the Patro­nage of the English Church, and the right to Convocate and dissolve and confirm English Synods, and to invalidate old Oaths and to impose new Oaths of Al­legiance, and to receive Tenths and first fruits, and all Legislative Judiciary and dispensative power, Coactively in the ex­teriour Court of the Church, over English Subjects. He cannot plead any Charter from England, we never made any such Grant: and altho [...]gh we had, yet conside­ring how infinitely prejudiciall it is to the Publick Tranquility of the Kingdome, we might and ought more advisedly to retract what we unadvisedly once resolved. And for Prescription, he is so far to seek, that there is a [...] cleare Prescription of eleven hundred Yeares against him. So there is nothing remaineth for him to stick to, but his empty pretense of divine Right, which is more ridiculous then all the rest; to claime a divine right of such a Sove­raign power, which doth branch it self into so many particulars, after eleven hundred Yeares, which for so many Ages had never been acknowledged, never practi­sed in the English Church either in whole or in part.

[Page 178]We cannot believe that the whole Chri­stian world were Mole-eyed, or did sit in darknesse for so many Centuries of years; untill Pope Hildebrand, and Pope Paschalis, did start up like two new Lights with their Weapons in their hands, to thumpe Princes and knock them into a right Catholick be­liefe.

And indeed this Answer to his pretended demonstration, by a reall demonstration where the true Controversie doth lye, and who are the true innovators, doth virtually answer whatsoever he hath said. So I might justly stop here and s [...]spend my former paines, but that I have a great mind to try if I can find out one of those many Falsifi­cations, and Contradictions, which he would make ns believe he hath espied in my discourse, if it be not the deception of his sight.

First,Our faith not onely proba­ble. he telleth us that our best Champions doe grant, that our faith and its grounds are but probable. Surely he did write this between sleeping and waking, when he could not well distinguish between necessary points of faith, and indifferent Opinions concer­ning points of faith: Or to use Cajetans ex­pression, between determinare de fideforma­liter, and determinare de eo quod est fidei Ma­terialiter, [Page 179] Between points of faith necessary to be believed, And such Questions as doe sometimes happen in things to be believed. As for Essentialls of faith, the Pillars of the Earth are not founded more firmly, then our beliefe upon that undoubted Rule of Vincentius, Quicquid ubique semper & ab omni­bus, &c. Whatsoever we believe as an Ar­ticle of our faith, we have for it the Testi­mony and Approbation of the whole Chri­stian World of all Ages, and therein the Church of Rome it self. But they have no such perpetuall or Vniversall Tradition, for their twelve new Articles of Pope Pius. This Objection would have become me much better then him. Whatsoever we be­lieve, they believe, and all the Christian World of all Places, and all Ages, doth now believe, and ever did believe; except con­demned Hereticks: But they endeavour to obtr [...]de new Essentialls of faith upon the Christian World, which have no such Perpetuall, no such Vniversall Tradition. He that accuseth another, should have an eye to himself.

Does not all the World see, that the Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome, then it did in Henry the sevenths dayes? He addeth further, that it is confessed [Page 180] that the Papall power in Ecclesiastical affaires▪ was cast out of Englād in Henry the eights dayes, I answer that there was no Mutation con­cerni [...]g faith, nor concerning any Legacy which Christ left to his Church, nor con­cerning the power of the Keys, or any Iuris­diction purely Spirituall: but concerning coactive power in the exteriour Court, con­cerning the Politicall or Externall Regimēt of the Church, concerning the Patronage or civill Soveraignty over the Church of En­glād, and the Legislative, Iudiciary, and Dis­pensative power of the Pope in Englād, over English Subjects; Which was no more then a Reinfranchisement of ourselves, from the upstart Vsurpations of the Court of Rome. Of all which I have shewed him expresly the first source, who began them, when, and where; before which he is not able to give one instance, of any such Practises attem­pted by the Bishop of Rome, and admitted by the Church of England.

Who it is that lookes asquint or awry upon the true case in Controversy between us, let the ingenuous Reader Iudge. I doe not deny, nor ever did deny, but that there was a reall separation made, yea made by us from their Vsurpations: but I both did deny and doe deny, that there was any Separatiō [Page 181] made by us from the Institution of Christ, or from the Principles of Christian Vnity. This Separation was made long since by them­selves, when they first introduced those novelties into the Church: and this Sepe­ration of theirs, from the pure Primitive Doctrine and Discipiine of the Church, doth acquit us, and render them guilty of the Schisme before God and man.

And therefore it is a vain and imperti­nent Allegation of him to tell us, that Go­vernours may lawfully declare themselves pub­lickly and solemnly, against the renouncers of their Authority, by Excommunication; unlesse he could shew that the Bishop of Rome, hath such an absolute Soveraignty over us as he imagineth, extending it self to all those Acts which are in Controversy between us; And that in the exercise of the power of the Keys, they proceded duely in a legall man­ner; And especially that they did not mi­stake their own Vsurpation for the Institu­tion of Christ, as we affirm and know they did.

His whole Discourse about immediate Tradition, is a bundle of uncertain pre­sumptions and vain Suppositions. First he supposeth that his Rule of so vast a mul­titude of Eye-witnesses of Visible things, is uniform and vniversall: but he is quite [Page 182] mistaken, the practi [...]e was different. The Papalms made Lawes for their Vsurpations, and the three Orders of the Kingdome of England made Lawes against them. To whom in Probability should our Ancestors adhere, to their ow [...] Patriots, or to Stran­gers?

Secondly he presumeth, that this uniform practise of his Ancestors was invariable, without any shadow of Change, but it was nothing lesse. First Investitures were in the Crown, and an Oath of Fidelity made to the King without any Scruple, even by Lanfranke and Anselm both Strangers; Afterwards the Investitures were decried as profane, and the Oath of Fidelity for­bidden. Next a new Oath of Allegiance was devised of Clergimen to the Pope; First onely for Archbishops, then for all Pre­lates; And this Oath at first was moderate, to observe the Rules of the holy Fathers, but shortly after more Tyrannous, to maintain the Ro [...]alties of Sainct Peter, as their own Pon­tificalls the old and the new do witnesse. First when they tooke away Investitures from the Crown, they were all for free Elections, but shortly after there was no­thing to be heard of but Provisions, and such Simoniacall Arts. It is as easy to shape a [Page 183] Coat for the Moone, which alteretb every day, as to fit one constant Tradition to all these diversified Practises.

Thirdly he supposeth, that all Paren [...]s have Iudgement to understand aright what they see, and to penetrate into the secret Caballs and Practises of their times, And Ingenuity void of self Interest, to relate it rightly to their posterity: But herein also he will fall much short of his aime. Most Parents know what is acted publickly: but they know little what is done in their reti­ring Roome. They know who is their Bishop: But who invested him, what Oa­thes he hath made, they are to seeke. Most Parents see a Bishop fit in his Consistory: But by what authority he sits, whether meerly by the power of the Keys, or part­ly by Concession of the Soveraign Prince, they know nothing. What doe thy under­stand of any distinction between Iurisdi­ction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall and Po­liticall? What Legends of Fopperies have been brough [...] into the Church, by this Orall Tradition and the Credulity of Pa­rents? And if all Parents had Iudgement to understand these things: Yet who shall secure us that they are void of Self interest? The Philosopher found that all the people [Page 184] forsooke him, so soone as the market Bell began to ring.

Lastly, he supposeth one constant suc­cession of Truth, upon this Tenour or Method throughout many Ages. Why doe wee heare words, when we see deeds? We see them change dayly; if they had not chan­ged we had had no need to leave their Cōpany. I have shewed him whē and where and by whom▪ all these changes wherein they and wee differ concerning discipline, did come into the Church of Englād, at least all those which made the Breach between us. Immediate Orall Tradition, without any further Corroboration, is but a [...]oy: Per­petuall and Vniversall Tradition is an un­deniable Evidence; or so Vniversall for time and place, That the Opposers have been censured in a manner Vniversally for Here­ticks or Heterodox. In a chaine, if one linke be loose, or have a notorious Crack or Flaw, there is little trust to be reposed in it. Then what Credit is to be given to the pre­tended Chaine of Tradition, where the ele­ven first Linkes are altogether divided from the rest, and fastened to the hand of the Soveraign Prince, beyond the Popes reach? The four next Linkes are full of Cracks and Flawes, the Pope pulling at the one end, and the Prince holding at the other. The last [Page 185] Linke of all, in England is put again into the hand of the Prince. Where so many Centu­ries are wanting, he is like but to maintain a poor Traditiō. All this while I speake onely of the externall Regiment of the Church.

But it is a wonder to me, why he of all others should so much magnify this Mediū of Immediate Traditiō, as an in [...]allible Rule: For if I be not misinformed by some Friēds, his Fathers chalked out another way to him by their Examples and Instructions, to hold himself in the Communion of the Church of England. But let that passe as not much ma­teriall. If he reduce his Argument into any Form, he will quickly find that it halteth on both sides. Whatsoever we received by immedi­ate Tradition from our Fathers, as the Legacy of Christ, is infallibly true; But we received those points of discipline wherein we differ, by imme­diate Tradition from our Fathers, as the Legacies of Christ. I deny both his Propositions, my reasons he will find formerly at large.

I charged him for making two distinct Rules of Vnity, whereas one would have served his Turne; that he might have more opportunity to shuffle the later Vsur­pations of the Popes, into the ancient disci­pline of the Church. For this I am lashed, as a man that cannot or will not write common sense, with a deale of such poore stuffe not [Page 186] worth repeating. Cannot a man abandon his Religion unlesse he abandon his Civi­lity also? He might remember that I had the honour to be a Doctor in the Vniversity, I think assoone as he was a Schooleboy in the Country. The first part of my Charge is confessed by him self,S. D. pa. 308 that his first Principle doth also include the truth of the second. If his second Principle be comprehended in the first, then it is no new distinct Principle, but either an inference, or a Tautologie. But let him carve and mince his Principles into shreds if he please, rather then I will draw the Saw of Contention about the dream of a Shadow. To the second part of my Charge he answereth,S. D. pa. 484 that Neither I, nor any man else can instance of any Vsurpa­tion which did ever come in, either in Secular or Ecclesiasticall Government, pretending that Tenour, or could come in so long as men adhered to that Method. Doth not he pretend to that Tenour? Or indeed taketh it for gran­ted, and would make us believe they doe adhere to that Method? If they doe not, his demonstration doth not weigh a Graine. Yet I have shewed him heaps of usurpa­tiōs, more perhaps thē he is desirous to see. Some men have made the Pope infallible, in point of faith formerly; but he is the first that ever made him uncapable of usurping, [Page 187] and I thinke will be the last; if he can per­swade us with reason to be thus mad, he deserveth to have his head stroked, Go, Go Mr. Serjeant, Learn better, there are more wayes of erring in point of Tradition, either reall or supposed,S. D. pa. 484 then the Conspiracy of a World of Fathers, to tell a World of Children this Lye, that ten yeares agoe they practised that which all the World besides knoweth they did not practise. Of all men Juglers pretend most to perspicuous Evidence.

I was contented to admit both his Rules in Generall, to try what use he could make of them against us: but whether I use sharpnesse or blandishments, he is still waspish; See Reader the right Protestant Method,S. D. pa. 485which is to bring the Controversy from a Determinate State to Indetermination and Confusion; I feare he will rather dislike my being too distinct and particular. I have shewed him expresly what Branches of Papall power we have al­together rejected, and what we are not un­willing to acknowledge, for peace sake, if that would content him; which is more then he hath done hitherto, as much as he will doe, and I feare more then he dare doe; They are not free from their Jealou­sies and Dissensions at home among them selves. Hitherto he hath not adventured to let us know, into what Church he him­self [Page 188] resolveth his Faith; whether the Vir­tuall Church, that is the Pope; or the Repre­sentative Church, that is a Generall Coun­cell; or the essentiall Church, that is the whole multitude of Believers, whose Ap­probation is their reception. And in this very Pāragraph, he hath one passage that pointeth at the last opinion,S. D. p. 486. making the con­sent of Catholick Fathers, immediatly attesting that they received this Doctrin from their fore fathers, to be the infallible voice of the Church.

At other times he maketh the extent of Papall power to be a matter of Indifferency,S. D. wherein every Church is free to hold their own Opinions. In his Rule of Discipline, he maketh St. Peter onely to be the Head, the Chiefe, the Prince of the Apostles, the First mover in the Church; all which in a right sense we approve, or do not oppose. Why doth he not acknowledge him to be a visible Monarch, an absolute Soveraign, invested with a plenitude of power, Soveraign, Le­gislative, Iudiciary, Dispensative? All the rest of the Apostles were First Movers in the Church, even as well as St. Peter (except onely his Primacy of order which we allow▪) When your men come to a [...]swer this, they feign the Apostles were all equall in relatiō to Christiā people, but not in relatiō to one [Page 189] another. Yes, even in Relation to them­selves and one another; as hath beē expresly declared long since, in the First Generall Councell of Ephesus, not now to be contra­dicted by them;Epist. Conc. Ephes. ad Nest. To. 1. fol. 315. Edit. Pet. Crab. Petrus & Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis, Peter and Iohn were of equall Dignity one towards another. A Primacy of Order may confist with an Equa­lity of Dignity: but a Supremacy of power taketh away all Parity; Par in parem non ha­bet potestatem. He is blind who doth no see in the History of the Acts of the Apostles, that the supremacy or Soveraignty of power, did not rest in the person of any one single Apostle, but in the Apostolicall College.

These indefinite Generalities he stileth Determinate points. It may be Determinate for the generall truth: but Indeterminate for the particular manner, about which all the Controversy is. Yet he who never wanteth Demonstrative Arguments to prove what he listeth, will make it evident out of the very word Reformation, which we own and extoll, that we have broken the Rule of Unity in Disci­pline. If he doe he hath good luck, for by the same reason he may prove that all the Councells of the Christian world▪ both Ge­nerall and Provinciall, have broken the Bond of Vnity, by owning and extolling the very word Reformation, both name and thing.

[Page 190]As for the points of our Reformation, I doe not referre him to Platonicall Ideas, to be found in the Concave of the Moone: but to our Lawes and Statutes, made by all the Or­ders of our Kingdome, Church and Com­monwealth; not as they are wrested by the tongnes and pens of our Adversaries, (Ma­lice may be a good informer but a bad judge,) but as they are expounded by the Genuine and Orthodox Sons of the English Church; by our Princes, by our Synods, by our subsequent Parliaments, by our Theologians, by our most Iudicious Lawiers; in their Injunctions, in their Acts, in their Canons, in their writings; which he may meete with if he have such a mind in earnest, without any great search, in every Library or Stationers shop,The creed is the old rule of faith. Our Articles no points of Faith. who falsifieth the Councel of Eph­esus.

Sect I. Cap. XI.

We doe not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither doe we looke upon them as Essentialls of saving Faith, or Lega­cies of Christ and of his Apostles: but in a me­ane, as pious Opinions fitted for the Pre­servation of Vnity, neither doe we oblige any man to believe them, but onely not to [Page 191] contradict them. Yet neither is the Bishop got into a wood, nor leaveth his Reader in another, further from knowing what these Doctrines of saving Faith are, then he was at first. It is Mr. Serjeants Eyesight that failes him, through too much light, which maketh him mista­ke his ancient Creed for a wood, and the Articles for trees (persons who are gogle eied seldome see well,) wherein all things necessary to be believed are comprehended. And although he inquire,S. D. pa. 487▪ Where are the processions of the Divine Persons, the Sacra­ments, Baptism of Children, the Government of the Church, the acknowledging there is such a thing as Scripture, to be be found in the creed? The Bishop is so far from being gravelled with s [...]ch doughty Questions, that he pitieth his simplicity, ād returneth him for answer, that if he be not mop [...]eyed he may find the Procession of the Divine Persons in his Creed; that the Sacraments and Discipline of the Church are not to be reckoned amōg the Credenda or things to be believed, but among the Agenda or things to be acted; and the Holy Scripture is not a particular Doctrin or point of Faith, but the Rule wherein and whereby, all Fundamentall Doctrins or points of Faith are compre­hended and tried. So still his truth remai­neth [Page 192] unshaken, that the Creed is a Sum­mary of all particular points of saving faith, which are necessary to be believed.

He proceedeth,S. D. pa. 487 that the Protestants have introduced into the Church since the Reformation no particular Form of Government, in stead of that they renounced. A grievous accusation! We had no need to introduce new formes, having preserved the old. They who do onely weed a Garden, have no need to set new Plants. We have the Primitive Disci­pline of the Church, and neither want Spi­rituall, nor Ecclesiasticall, nor Politicall Government. If you have any thing to say against it, cough out and spare not. And although we want such a free and generall Communion with the Christian World as we could wish, and such as Bishops had one with another by their formed Letters: Yet we have it in our desires; and that we have it not actually, it is principally your faults, who make your Vsurpations to be Conditions of your Communion.

And so I leave him declaiming against Libraries of Bookes filled with dead words, and thousands of Volumes scarcely to be examined in a mans whole life time, and quibling about Forefathers, and inheriting, and Reformation, and Manasseh Ben Israel, and repeating [Page 193] the same things over and over againe, as if no man did understand him who did not heare him say over the same things an hun­dred times.

He Chargeth me that having granted that They and we do both maintain his Rule of Vnity,p. 490.yet I do immediatly disgrace it by adding, that the Question is only who have changed that Doctrin or this Discipline, we or they? We by substraction or they by Addition? Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is no Rule at all. When he and his Merry Stationer were set upon the Pin of making Con­tradictions, doubtlesse this was dubbed a famous Contradiction or an absurdity at least. As if a man might not hold one thing in his Iudgement, and pur­sue another in his Practice, professe one thing in words, and perform another in deeds, Video melior a proboque, Deterior a sequor; Medea see that which was right and approved it, but swerved altoge­ther from it in her Practise,Tit 1. 18 They professe (saith St. Paul) that they know God, but in wor­kes they deny him. The Church of Rome pro­fesseth in words, to adde nothing to the Le­gacies of Christ and his Apostles: but in their deeds they doe adde and adde notoriously; as the Vniversality of the Roman Church, [Page 194] the doctrins of Purgatory, of Indulgences, of Worshiping of Images, and the rest of their new Essentialls of faith, Extra quas nemo salvus esse potest (saith Pope Pius,) With­out the beliefe of which no man can be saved. Then no man was saved for a thousand yeares after Christ. If there be the least Print of a Contradiction here, it is not in my dis­course, but between their own Principles and their Practice. He taunteth me suffi­ciently for making the Apostles Creed, a summary of all things necessary to be be­lieved by all Christians, calling it the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head, and would gladly perswade us that it was one­ly an Act of Prudence, to keep out hetero­geneous persons in that present age, which was to be inlarged as often as new Heresies did arise. I pitty the young man, who is no better acquainted with that Value, which both the ancient Fathers and his own Doc­tors set upon the Creed. Whilest he thin­keth to confute me,Tert. de virgin. cap. 1. Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. ad frat. Dom. he is ignorātly condem­ning all them. He condemneth the Fathers, who made it to be the one onely immovea­ble and irreformable Rule of Faith: The summe of the whole Catholick Faith: The Key of the Christian Faith: The Rule or Square of the Apostolicall (Sermons after the Com­position of it.) Wherein the Apostles [Page 195] of the Lord have collected into one bre­viary,Amb. Serm. 38.all the points of the Catholick Faith which are diffused throughout the Scriptures. He condemneth his own Authors,Aust. Serm. 18. de Temp. Canis. Catech. Bellar. de Iust. l. 4. cap 2. who ac­knowledge it to be a short comprehension or summary of all things to be believed. Bellar­mine saith it containeth the summe of the Gospell: And more plainly, there is ex [...]ant that most an­cient Symboll which is called the Creed of the Apostles, because the Apostles composed it to this end, that it might be agreed among all men what was the summe of the whole Christian Faith. Whereof he produceth Witnesses, St. Am­brose, St. Hierom,De Iust. l. 1. cap. 9.St. Austin, Maximus; Adding that in the Creed (although briefly) is conteined in a Summary the whole object of Faith. According to that of St. Austin, the Creed is a simple,Aust. i [...]bid.short, full Comprehension of our Faith: that the simplicity may provide for the Rudenesse of the Hearers;Aust. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. cap. 6. Conc. Trident. Ses. 3.the shortnesse for their memory; and the fulnesse for their Doc­trine. And elswhere he telleth us, that all Catholicks doe confesse, that it is the unwritten word of God. So there is more in the Creed then a meer Shiboleth, to distinguish an Ephraimite from a Gileadite. It is funda­mentum firmum & unicum, not onely a firm but an onely Foundation. He asketh me whether ever Protestant did hold, there is nothing of Faith but the 12 Articles in that Creed? [Page 196] I doe not know how I come to be obliged to answer him to so many impertinent Questions: but for once I will not refuse him. Protestants doe know as well as him­self, that there are many things of faith, which are necessary to be believed by some men at some times; as that St. Paul had a Cloak: but there is no Article or Point, absolutely necessary to Salvation to be be­lieved, which is not comprehended within the 12 Articles of the Creed. And here, he serveth us up again his twice sodden Cole­worts, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism of Infants, the Sacraments, the Scriptures, are not comprehended in the 12. Articles. I have but newly answered the very same Objection, and here Meander-like with a suddain turning he brings it in again: but I will not wrong the Reader so much, as to follow him in his Battologies. Onely if he think the Creed was imperfect, untill the word Filioque was added, he is much mistaken.

But saith he, by the same Logick we may accuse the Church, at the time of the Nicene Councell, for pressing the word Consubstantiall. Pardon us good Sr, there is no Analogy between the Consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father, and your upstart Doctrins [Page 197] of Indulgences and Image Worship. In­deed the word Consubstantiall, was not in the Creed before the Nicene Councell, but the thing was, and was deduced from the Creed. When the Apostles delivered the Creed to the Church, they did it by Orall Tradition: and this is that famous Tradi­tion much mentioned in the Fathers, which you doe altogether misapply to the justify­ing of your new patches▪ ād when they delivered the Creed they delivered likewise the sense of the Creed, by the same Tradition: and it was the most proper worke in the world, for those first Oecumenicall Coun­cells, to search out and Determin by Tra­dition, the right sense of the Articles where in they were delivered by the Apostles. But for us now after fifteen or sixteen hundred yeares to inquire, not onely into new sen­ses of the old Articles, altogether unknown to the Ancients: but to find out new Arti­cles, which have no relation to the old Ar­ticles, and all this by Tradition, is ridicu­lous. For whatsoever Tradition we have, we have from former Ages successively: and therefore if they had no Tradition for such an Article, or such a sense; wee can have none,

[Page 198]But such are all the twelve new Articles, added to the Creed by Pius the fourth; not onely new senses of old Articles, which had been too much, but new Articles newly coined, which have no relation to the old Articles at all. Somethings are de Symbolo, conteined in the Creed; somethings are con­tra Symbolum, against the Creed; and some­things praeter Symbolum, besides the Creed. First, for those things which are conteined in the Creed, either in the Letter or in the sense, or may be deduced by good consequence from the Creed; as the Deity of Christ, his two Natures, the pro­cession of the Holy Ghost: the Addition of these is properly no addition, but onely an Explication; Yet such an Explication, none under a Generall Councell can impose upon the Church. Secondly, such things▪ as are contrary to the Creed, are not onely unlawfull to be added to the Creed, but they are Hereticall in themselves. Thirdly, for those things which are neither of the Creed, nor conteined in the Creed, either explicitly, nor can be deduced by good Consequence from the Creed, and yet they are not contrary to the Creed, but Opinions or inferiour truths, which may be believed or disbelieved, without any [Page 199] great danger of Heresy (of this nature are chose 12. points or Articles which Pius the fourth added to the Creed: To make these part of the Creed, and to oblige all Chri­stians to believe them under pain of Dam­nation, as Pius the 4•h doth, without which there is no Salvation; is to change the Sym­bolicall Apostolicall Faith, and to adde to the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles. Faith doth consist in indivisibili, and the Essentiall parts of it, cannot be contracted or inlar­ged.

This is that which we Charge the Ro­manists withall, and which I see not how they will be able to shake of. Not the Ex­plication of the old Articles of Faith, nor the prescribing of inferiour truths as infe­riour truths to those who are under their Iurisdiction, nor the obliging of their Sub­jects not to oppose their Determinations for peace and tranquilities sake: but the ad­ding of new Articles or Essentialls to the Creed, with the same Obligation that the old Apostolicall Articles had, to be believed under pain of Damnation. Either all these 12 new Articles which were added to the Creed by Pius the Fourth, were impli­citly or virtually comprehended in the 12 old Articles of the Apostles, and may be de­duced [Page 200] from them by necessary Conse­quence, (the contrary where of is evi­dent to all men): or it is appare [...] that Pius the 4. hath corrupted the Creed, and changed the Apostolicall Faith.

He might even as well let our 39. Arti­cles alone for old acquaintance sake, (Dis­suenda non dissecanda est amtcitia) as to bring them upon the Stage, and have nothing to say against them. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed: some others of them are practicall truths, which come not within the proper list of points or Articles to be believed: lastly, some of them are pious opinions or infe­riour truths, which are proposed by the Church of England to all her Sonnes, as not to be opposed; not as Essentialls of Faith necessary to be believed by all Chris­tians Necessitate medii, under pain of dam­nation. If he could charge us with this as we do them, he said something. The Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesian, Chalce­donian, and Atbanasian Creeds, are but Explications of the Creed of the Apo­stles, and are still called the Apostles Creed. He will not for shame say that Pius the fourths Creed, is onely an Explication [Page 201] of the Apostles Creed, which hath 12. new distinct Articles, added at the Foot of the 12. old Articles of the Apo­stles.

I doe not say that there can be no new He­resy, but what is against some point found in the Creed. I know, that as there are some Er­rours heretical in their own nature, so there are other Errours which become here­ticall, meerly by the Obstinacy of them who hold them. Yet if I had said so, I had said no more then some Fathers say, and sundry of their own Authors; Ne (que) ulla unquam exit it heresis quae non hoc Symbolo dam­nart po [...]uerit:Catech. Trever.There was never any Heresy which might not be condemned by this Creed. And so he may see clearly if he will, that it was no incomparable straine of weaknesse, nor self con­tradicting absurdity, nor nonsense, (as he is pleased to Vapour) to charge them with changing the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles, by the Addition of new Essen­tialls of Faith.

I will conclude this point with the excellent Iudgement of Vincentius Lirinensis; Perad­venture some man will say shall there be no growth of the Religion of Christ in the Church? Yes, very much; but so that it be a [Page 202] growth of Faith not a change. Let it increase; but onely in the same kind, the same Articles, the same sense, the same Sentences. Let the Religion of soules imitate the manner of bodies &c. The members of infants are little, young mens great, yet they are the same, Children have as many joints as men &c. But if any thing be added to, or ta­ken from the number of the members, the body must of necessi [...]y perish, or become monstrous, or be enfeebled: so it is meet that Christian Religion doe follow these Lawes of Proficiency &c.

But now he brings a rapping Accusation against me, charging me with four falsifi­cations in one sentence:pag. 495. and then con­cludes triumphantly, Goe thy wayes brave Bishop, If the next Synod of Protestants, doe not Canonise thee for an Interpreter of Councells, they are false to their best interests. Who so bold as blind Bayard? Here is a great deale more Cry then Wooll. But let us examin these great falsifications, my words were these. The Question is onely who have chan­ged that doctrin or this Disciplin, we or they? we by Substraction, or they by Addition? The Case is cleare, The Apostles contracted this Doctrin into a Summary, that is the Creed, the Primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer Explication. Then fol­low the words which he excepteth against, [Page 203] The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Bap­tismall Profession. It is strange indeed to find four falsifications in two short lines: but to find four falsifications where there is not one sillable cited, is altogether impos­sible. I relate as of my self what the Co­uncell of Ephesus did; I cite no Authority at all, neither in the [...]ext nor in the Mar­gent; nor put one word into a different Character. His pen is so accustomed to overreach beyond all aime, that he cannot help it; A Scotch man would take the Liberty to tell him that he is very good Company.

The truth is, I did forbear to cite it, be­cause I had cited it formerly in my answer to Monsieur Militier, where he might have found it if he had pleased;Conc. Eph. pa. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. That it should be lawfull for no man to publish or compose, a­nother Faith (or Creed) then that which was de­fined by the Nicene Councell, And that whosoever should dare to compose, or offer any such to any persons willing to b [...] conver [...]ed from Pa­ganisme, Iudaisme, or Heresy, if they should be Bishops or Clerkes should be deposed, if Laymen Anathematised. If he can find any Falsification in this, let him not spare it: but to find four falsifications, where not [Page 204] one word was cited, was impossible. In a word, to deale plainly with him, his f [...]ur pretended Falsifications are a silly senslesse ridiculous Cavill.

To cleare this, it is necessary to consider that this word Faith in holy Scripture Councells and Fathers, is taken ordinarily for the Ob [...]ect of Faith, or for the summe of things to be believed, that is, the Creed: and so it is taken in this very place of the Councell of Ephesus, and cannot be taken otherwise; for it is undeniable, that that Faith which was defined, published, and composed by the Nicene Fathers, was the Nicene Creed, or the Creed of the Apo­stles explicated by the Nicene Fathers. Se­condly, we must consider that the Catholick Church of Christ, from the very Infancy of Christian Religion, did never admit any person to Baptisme in an ordinary way, but it required of them a free pro­fession of the Creed or Symbolicall Faith, either by themselves, or by their sureties if they were Infants: and so did baptise them in that Faith▪ This was the practise of the Apostolicall Church; this was that good profession which Timothy made before many witnesses; 1. Timo 6. 12. This was the universall practise in the Primitive Church, and con­tinued [Page 205] ever since untill this day. Abrenun­c [...]as? Abrenuncio▪ Credis? Credo. Dost thou renounce the Devill and all his workes? I do re­nounce them. Dost thou believe in God the Fa­ther Almighty &c.? All this I stedfastly be­lieve. Wilt thou be baptised in this Faith? It is my desire. This baptisticall profession, which he ignorantly laugheth at, is attested by Fathers, by Councells, by Leiturgies, ancient and modern; even by the Leitur­gies of the Roman Church it self. And this is the undoubted sense of this place of the Councell of Ephesus, that no man should dare to offer any other Creed, to any person, willing [...] to be converted from Paganisme or Iu­daisme to Christianity, that is to say to be baptised. Alwaies upon Palm sunday, such of the Catechument, as were thought fit to be admi [...]ted into the number of the Faithfull, did petition for Baptism (the An­niversary time where of did then approach who from their joint petitioning were called competentes, and from that day forward, had some assigned to expound the Creed unto them, whereof they were to make solemn profession at their Baptism; as we find by the Homilies of the Fathers upon the Creed, made to the Compe­tentes.

[Page 206]So we keep ourselves to the old faith [...] the whole Christian World, that is the Creed of the Apostles, explicated by the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesine, and Chal­cedonian Fathers; the same which was pro­fessed by them of old at their Baptisme, and is still professed by us at our Baptisme; the same wherein all the Christian World, and themselves among the rest were Bap­tised. None of us all ever made any pro­fession at our Baptismes, of the Vniver­sality of the Roman Church, or of the Soveraign Monarchicall power of the Ro­man Bishop by divine right, or of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, Indulgences, Imageworship, or the like. Wherefore we are resolved to adhere to that faith which hath been professed alwaies, everywhere, and by all Persons, and particularly both by them and us at our Baptisms; in which faith and which alone, we were made Christians, without either diminution or Addition of any new Essentialls. This was their faith formerly, and this is ours still. But he objecteth it is a great Absurdity, that thus the Creed defined by the Fathers in the Councell of Nice,p [...]. 495and the Apostles Creed, according to the Bishop are one and the same Creed. Have you found out that? Yes, in­deed [Page 207] are they, and alwayes have been so reputed in the Church, even in the Roman Church it self in their ancient Leiturgies, which call the Nicene Creed the Evange­licall Creed, the Creed of the Apostles, inspired by the Lord, instituted by the Apostles; and when he groweth older, he will be of the same mind.

I hope by this time he seeth that although I did not cite the Councell of Ephesus in this place, and therefore could be no falsi­fier of it: Yet the Councell of Ephesus saith more then I did in every respect. I said onely the Councell did forbid: but the Coun­cell it self goeth higher, that whosoever should dare. I said forbid to exact: but the Councell itself goeth higher, whosoever should dare to compose, or publish, or offer. The Originall word is Prospherein, to offer, and as it is translated into Latin, Qui verò ausi fuerint aut componere fidem al­teram, aut proferre, aut offerre. Whosoever shall dare to compose, or to utter, or to offer another faith or Creed. One may compose or pub­lish and not offer; one may offer and not exact: but whosoever doth exact doth more then offer. If the Councell doth forbid any man to compose or publish, or offer any other Creed, much more doth it forbid [Page 208] them to exact it. Thirdly I said to exact any more then the Apostles Creed, as it was ex­plicated by the Fathers, that is, concerning Essentialls of saith: but the Councell goeth higher, to compose or publish or offer al­teram fidem, another Creed, containing either more or lesse, either new Essentialls or new Explications. I said onely at our Baptismall profession: but the Councell extendeth it further, to the reconciliation of Hereticks, as well as the Baptism of Pagans and Iewes; and generally to all occasions, not allowing any man Clergy or Lay, to com­pose or publish any other Creed or form of profession. So every way the Councell saith more then I said.

But he saith, there is nothing in the Coun­cell of Baptismall profession, except the bare word fidem. Well, fides in that place signi­fieth the Creed, and that Creed which all Christians did professe at their Baptisme, is their Baptismall Profession. But that is not all, for as fides signifies their Creed or Profession of faith: so those other words, to any Persons willing to be converted from Pa­ganisme or Iudaisme, signi [...]ieth as much as who desire to be Christened or to be Bap­tised. But he saith, these words if the propo­sers of another faith [...]e Lay men, let them be ex­communicated, [Page 209] do make it impossible to have re­lation to Baptism, because the Ordinary Mi­nister of Baptisme is a Clergy man. If a Sophister should have brought such an Ar­gument in the Schooles, he would have been hissed out for his labour. Because one part of the Canon hath reference to Lay men, therefore no part of it can have refe­rence to Clergy men. Iust like this, an Aethiopians teeth are white, therefore it is impossible that any part of him should be black. Whereas the Canō saith expresly the Contrary, if they be Bishops or Clerkes let them be deposed, if Laymē Anathematised.

But this great Censurer himself doth falsify the Councell of Ephesus indeed, twice in this one place. Once in omitting the word Prospherein, to offer. Secondly where he saith, that Charisius had made a wicked Creed. It was not a wicked Creed, but a wicked exposition of the Creed which the Councell condemned, Depravata Symboli Expositio; Which was indeed produced by Charisius, but neither made by him, nor ap­proved by him, but condemned by him as well as by the Councell. Observe Reader, with what grosse Carelesnesse these great Censurers doe read Authors, and utter their fictitious Fancies with as great Confidence. He would have called this Forgery in ano­ther.

Sect. I. Cap. XII.

He saith I charged their whole Church, with changing the anciēt discipline of the Church, into a Soveraignty of power above Generall Councells, whereas I confesse that it is not their Vniversall Tenet, and withall acknowledge that they who give such Exorbitant Privileges to Popes, do it with so many Cautions, that they sig­nify nothing; And then curteously askes me, whether this be a matter deserving that Church Vnity should be broken for it? I charge not the Church but the Pope and his party I doe easily believe that this is one of his merry Statio­ners Contradictions. What pittifull Cavills doth he bring for just exceptions? First I doe not clap it upon their whole Church (that is one injury, or if I should speake in his language a grosse Falsification) but upon the guilty party. Secondly, I never said that they who change the ancient Government of the Church, into a Soveraignty of power, do it with so many Cautions: but I spake expresly of them, who ascribe infallibility and temporall power over Princes to the Pope; This is another injury or falsification. Thirdly, how often must I tell him, that we did not disunite our selves from their Church: but onely reinfranchise ourselves [Page 211] from their Vsurpations? Lastly, this party which advanceth the Papacy, above the Representative Church, is no worse then their Virtuall Church, the Pope and the Court of Rome with all their adherents, they who have the Keys in their hands: such a party as he dare not say his soule is his own against them, nor maintain the Contrary; that a Generall Councell is above the Pope.

He urgeth, that I ascribe no more to S. Peter and the Pope for their first Movership,pag. 496. First mover­ship.but onely Authority to sit first in Councell or some such things. I ascribe unto the Pope, all that power which is due unto him either by di­vine right or humane right, at the Iudge­ment of the Church, but I doe not hold it meet, that he should be his own Carver. And for S. Peter, why doth he not leave his wording of it in Generalls and fall to work with Arguments in particular, if he have any? We offer him a faire tryall for it, that S. Peter never enjoyed or exercised any greater or higher power in the church, then every one of the Apostles had, either extensively or intensively, either in rela­tion to the Christian world or the Apo­stolicall College, except onely that Primor­dium Vnitatis or Primacy of Order, which [Page 212] he scoffeth at every where: Yet neither do we make his first Movership, void of all Activity and influence, as he accuseth us. First we know he had Apostolicall power, which was the highest spirituall power up­on Earth, As my Father sent me so send I you. Secondly, some power doth belong to a First Mover even by the Law of nature, besides the First seate; As to convocate the Members, to preserve Order, to propose such things as are to be discussed, to receive the Votes, to give the Sentence, and to see it executed so far as he is trusted by the Bo­dy. What the Church of England belie­veth,p. 497, of the Popes inheriting St. Peters Pri­vileges, and the exercise of that power before the Reformation, and how the breach was made, and when, I have shewed abun­dantly already.

Wee have seen his rare skill, in the dis­covery of a Falsification or a Contradictiō, now let us see if his sent be as good to find out an Absurdity. He maketh me argue thus, The Pope did not exercise St. Peters po­wer, because he exercised St. Peters power and much more, which is as much as to say, totum est minus parte; aud more does not contain lesse: and then he Crowes out his Victory aloud; a hopefull Disputant, who ch [...]seth rather [Page 213] to run upon such Rocks &c. What Rocks, doth he mean? I hope none of the Acro [...]eraunia. those ridiculous things which he calls Rocks, are soapy bubbles of his own Blowing. This inference is none of mine, but his own Is it not possible for this great pretender to sincerity, to misse one Paragraph without Falsifications? Give him leave to make In­ferences and Periphrases [which is as much as to say] and Africa did never abound so much with Monsters, as he will make the most rationall writing in this world abound with Absurdities. I desire the Courteous Reader to view the place, and either to pit­ty his Ignorance, or detest his Impudence. The words which I answered were these, That the Bishops of Rome actually exercised St. Peters power in all those Countries, which kept Communion with the Church of Rome, that very yeare when this unhappy Seperation began. My answer was, that this Assertion did come far short of the truth in one respect, for the Popes exercised much more Power in those Coun­tries which gave them leave, then ever St Peter pretended to. Here is no other inference but this, The Pope exercised more power then ever St. Peter pretended to, there­fore this Assertion that he exercised St. Peters power came short of the truth; [Page 214] which consequence is so evide [...]t that it can admit neirher denyall or doubting. What hath this to do with his whole is lesse then the part, or more does not contain the lesse?

But now suppose I had said,Half more then the whole▪ as he ma­keth me to say on his own head, that in this case the whole is lesse then the part, or more does not contain the lesse, what had he to carpe at? Hath he never heard or read, that in morality the half is more then the whole? Hath he forgotten his Ethicks, that he who swerveth from the Meane or strict measure of virtue, whether it be in the ex­cesse or in the defect, is alike Culpable, and commethshort of his Duty? If the Pope as Successour to S. Peter, did usurp more power then S. Peter had right to; no man in his right wits, can call it the actuall exer­cising of S. Peters power.

The second part of my answer was,Papall usurpa­tions not univers­all. that as the Pope exercised more power then was due to him, in some places, where he could get leave: so in other places, no lesse then three parts of foure of the Christian World, that is all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches, his Vniversall Monarchy which he claimed, was Vniver­sally rejected. For this I am first reviled. [Page 215] Are moderate expressions of shamelesnesse suffi­cient to Character this man? &c. If better was within better would come out. But Stultis the saurus iste est in linguasitus, ut discant male loqui melioribus. And then when he hath first censured me, he attempteth to answer me, as well as he is able, that the Pope exercised his power over them, by excommunicating them as Revolters. As Revolters? In good time; They were Christians and had Governours of their own, before either there was a Church of Rome, or Bishop of Rome, and never acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects untill this day, nor regarded his Excommunicatious upon that score at all. If they were Revolters, the Apostolicall Age and all succeding Ages were joined in the Revolt. These are his rigorous demon­strations, to prove the Popes single Iurisdi­ction by divine right, from his own impo­tent Actions. If the Pope have a Supremacy of Power by divine right, he hath it over the world, but that we see evidently he never enjoyed from the beginning: if he did did not enjoy it universally from the beginning, then certainly it cannot be an Apostolicall Tradition.

I doe begin with the Eastern Church, because their case is plainest, as having [Page 216] Proto-patriarchs of their own, and Aposto­licall Churches of their own: but when that is once acknowledged, I shall be con­tented to joine issue with him in the West, First for our Britannick Churches, and next even for the Church of Rome it self; that the Popes Vniversall Monarchy, and plenitude of Soveraign power by divine right, was neither delivered from Parents to Children by perpetuall Tradition, as a Legacy of Christ and his Apostles, nor re­ceived by the Sonnes of that Individuall Church as a matter of Faith; but onely a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity, which we do not oppose, nor yet those ac­cessions of humane power, which Christian Emperours and Oecumenicall Councells, have conferred upon that See, provided they be not exacted as a divine right.

His First Movership and his First Go­vernourship, are but generall unsignifi­cant Termes, which may agree as well to a beginning of Vnity or Primacy of Order, as to an absolute Monarchy or ple­nitude of power. If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly, par­ticulars began the breach particulars must stop rhe breach. I have given him an ac­count, what particular Differences we have [Page 217] with him concerning St. Peter, what parti­cular Differences we have with him con­cerning the Pope, let him apply him self to those, aud not make continuall Excursions (as he doth) out of the Lists.

When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church,What respects due to the Pope. as a Bishop in his Diocesse, as a Metropolitan in his Province, as the Bishop of an Aposto­licall See and Successour of St. Peter, I ex­pected thākes; there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps with­out a new conflict. But behold the evill na­tures or evill manners of this Age, I am ac­cused for this of frivolousnesse and insincerity. Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology, pag. 498. that whensoever the case com­meth to be solidly discussed, it will be found that the principall grounds (if I had said the onely grounds I had not said much amisse) of the Popes pretended Mo­narchy, are the just rights and Privile­ges of his Patriarchateship, his Proto­patriarchateship, and his Apostolicall Chaire, mistaken for Royalties, for want of good Distinction. I know the Court of Rome, who have been accustomed in these latter times, to milke the purses of their Clients, doe not love such a dry Primacy (as he [Page 218] phraseth it): but where they have no more right, and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges, they must have patience perforce.

His Parallel between the King of En­gland and the Pope,pa. 302. Extent of Papall power. will be then to some purpose, when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy: untill then it is a mere begging of the Question; what a grosse Solecisme that is in Logick, he can­not chuse but know. But since he is favou­rably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papall power, so they believe the Substance of it, and yet he himself either cannot, or dare not determin what the Substance of Papall power is; he might out of his Charity have compas­sion, and not stile us Mountebankes, who know no difference, between Roman Ca­tholiks and our selves about the Papacy, but onely about the extent of Papall power. Although he stile us hereticks now, yet he was lately one of us himself: and would have continued so longer, if he had under­stood himself better, or the times bene less Clowdy. Let him call it Substance, let him call it extent, let him call it what he will, I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy, let him satisfy them as well as he [Page 219] [...]an, and let truth prevaile: We have not [...]enounced the substance of the Papacy, ex­ [...]ept the substance the Papacy doe consist [...]n Coactive power. I side with no parties, [...]ut honour the Church of England, and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it.

Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur. He telleth his Reader, that I grant the whole question, where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over, as the Bishop of [...]n Apostolicall Church, or Successor of St. Peter. Much good may it doe him. As if every Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, were straight way an universall Monarch; or as if Authority did alwaies necessarily imply jurisdiction, or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legall judge. I had reasō to place a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, in my Climax, after a Patriarch, for the larger extension of his Authority every where, not for the higher intension of his jurisdiction any where.

I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter, by the ordinance of Christ, in this Privilege to be the Prince and So­veraign of the Church, endowed with a single Soveraignty of power, that the Great Councell of Chalcedon was much to be blamed, to give equall Privileges to the Patriarch af [Page 220] Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome, and to esteem the Imperiall City more then the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument, that the great Councell of Chalcedon, did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople, upon the Imperiall Dignity of those two Cities, and to much more which is urged there against him, he is as mute as a Fish: but to the for­mer part he answereth, that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain supe­riour in Iurisdiction, though they had equall Pri­vileges. Very pretty indeed. He would have his Readers to believe, that a Soveraign and his Subjects have equall Privileges. Equalls have no power one over another; there may be a Primacy of Order among Equalls, but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality. Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peters Privilege to be Prince of the Apo­stles? And doth not he tell us that this Pri­vilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome? Then if the Bishop of Constantinople, have equall Privileges with the Bishop of Rome, he is equall to him in this Privilege which descended frō S. Peter. Rome and Con­stantino­ple equall.

Let him listen to the eight and twen­tieth Canon of that Councell, where having repeated and confirmed, the decree of the [Page 221] Generall Councell of Constantinople to the same purpose,Conc. Chalc. cap. 28.they conclude thus, for the (Nicene) Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome, because it was the Impe­riall City. And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops (in the Councell of Constantino­ple) moved with the same consideration, did give equall Privileges to the See of new Rome; Rightly judging, that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate, should enjoy equall Privileges with the ancient Imperiall City of Rome, and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiasticall affaires as well as it, being the second in Order from it. And in the last sen­tence of the Iudges, upon the Review of of the Cause, The Archbishop of the Impe­riall City of Constantinople or new Rome, must enjoy the same Privileges of honour, and have the same power out of his own Authority, to ordain Metropolitās in the Asiatick, Pontick, and Thracian Diocesses. That is as much in Law as to say, have equall Iurisdiction; for all other rights doe follow the right of Ordi­nation.

But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn, his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon; tel­ling us that it was no free Act, but voted tumultuously, after most of the Fathers [Page 222] were departed. And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Councell. Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be. It was done before the Bishops had their License to depart; It had a sec [...]nd hearing, and was debated by the Popes own Legates on his behalf, be­fore the most glorious judges, and mature­ly sentenced by them, in the name of the Councell. This was one of those four Councells, which St. Gregory honoured next to the foure Gospells. This is one of those Councells, which every succeeding Pope, doth sweare solemnly to observe to the least tittle. I hope the Pope hath a better Opinion of it then he, at least for his Oaths sake.

Good Reader observe,Schism. disarm. pa. 112. what Clusters of Forgeries, this great Censurer hath re­packed together, in the compasse of a few Lines. I need to cite no other Authority to convince him, but the very Acts of the Councell. Remember whilest thou livest to distrust such Authors. First he saith, This was no free Act, most falsly: the Bis­hops all owned it as their free Act by their Subscriptions, and by their Testimonies before the Iudges. Secondly he saith, the Clergy of Constantinople extorted it, with [Page 223] tumultuous importunity, most falsly: for it had been once decreed before in the free generall Councell of Constantinople; and then the Clergy of Constantinople, did in­treat the Popes Legates to be present at the first debate of it, but they refused; and when the said Legates alleged in Councell that the Fathers were forced, they all una­nimously testified against thē, Nemo coactus est. Thirdly he saith, it was voted after most of the Fathers were departed, and onely those of the party of Constantinople left, most falsly: the Fathers were forbidden to depart, and three of the Proto-patriarchs with their subordinate Bishops determined it, and subscribed the first day. Fourthly he saith, it was disavowed by the Patriarch of An­tioch and those under him, most falsly: for the Patriarch of Antioch and those under him did ratify it, ād subscribe it in Councell. Fifthly he saith, No Patriarch of Alexandria was there; Good reason: For there was none in being, the See being vacant, by the tur­ning out of Dioscorus. Though this be not so false as the rest, yet it is as deceitfull as the worst of them. Sixthly he saith, the Alexandrian Metropolitans and Bishops refu­sed to subscribe it. They did not refuse to subscribe it, but they requested the Coun­cell, [Page 224] that because it was their Custome to subscribe nothing, untill first it was subscribed by their Patriarch, that the Subscription might be deferred, untill they had a new Patriarch chosen; and they themselves were contented to stay in Chal­cedon, untill this was effected. Now Iudg [...] freely Reader, whether this man do not deserve a whetstone.

That which followeth concerning Im­mediate Tradit on▪ is but one of his Ordi­nary Meanders, or an improper Repeti­tion of an heap of vntruths and uncertain­ties, blundred together to no purpose, without any proofe. That the Tradition of all Churches of the Roman Communion is necessa­rily an Vniversall Tradition; That onely those Churches of the Roman Communion do adhere to the rule of Tradition, and all other Churches have renounced it; That all those who differ from the Church of Rome did never pretend im­mediate Tradition, for those points wherein they differ from it: are so many grosse untruths. That the very same which is delivered by some Christian Parents to their Children, is delivered by all Christian Parents after the same manner; That whatsoever is delivered by Christian Pa­rents of this Age, is necessarily derived from the Apostles by au uninterrupted Succession; And [Page 225] that externall Vnity doth necessarily imply an Identity of Tradition: Are contingent uncer­tainties, which may be true or may be false. His reason, that it is impossible for the begin­ners of a Novelty, to pretend that their imme­diate Fathers had taught them, that which the whole World sees they did not; is absurd and impertinent, and may serve equally to both parties.

First it is absurd and Contrary to the Sense of the whole World. Wee see dayly by experience, that there are Innovations in Doctrine and Discipline, and both par­ties pretend to ancient and immediate Tra­dition, he might as well tell us.

Nil int [...]a est oleum, nil extra est in Nuce duri.

The Arrians pretended to immediate Tradition as well as the Orthodox Chri­stians.Changes undis­cernible▪ Secondly it is impertinent; Changes in Religion are neither so suddain nor so visible as he imagineth, but are often made by degrees, in tract of Time, at leisure, insensibly, undiscernibly. An Errour comes first to be a Common Opinion, then a pious Doctrin, lastly a point of faith: but seldome do Errours appeare at first in their own shape.

Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis & umbrâ.

[Page 226]A beginning of Vnity in time may grow to be a Soveraignty of power. Investitures were taken away from Kings for feare of Simony: and this feare of Simony before the wheele had done running, produced the most sublimated Art of Simony that ever was devised. Who would or could have suspected, that those huge Cryes for free Liberty of Election, should have ended in Papall Provisions; or the Exemption of Clergymen from their Alle­giance to their native Prince, have been an Introduction to a [...]ew Oath of Alle­giance to a Forrain Prelate? The subjection of the Emperours to the Popes, began with Pictures, proceeded to Poetry, and ended in down right Maxims of Theology. There hath alway been a Mystery of Iniquity, as well as a Mystery of Piety; the Tares were sown whilest men slept, and were not presently discerned. It is not I, who have changed faith into opinion: My faith is the very same that alwaies was professed throughout the Christian World, by eve­ry Christian at his Baptisme, and compre­hended in the ancient creed of the Church. But it is they who have changed Opinion into faith, when Pius the fourth metricu­lated 12. new Opinions, among the anci­cient [Page 227] articles of the creed. Let them be probable, or pious, or erroneous, or what you will; I am sure they are but Opinions, and consequently no Articles of faith.

I said such Opinions of an inferiour Nature,Opinions not ne­cessaryare not so necessary to be known. He asketh, Whether they be necessary or no? If they be not necessary, why do I grant them to be necessary by saying, they are not so necessary? If they be ne­cessary, why call I them but Opinions? Doth he know no distinction of things necessary to be known, that some things are not so ne­cessary as other? Somethings are necessary to be known, necessitate medii, to obtain Sal­vation: Somethings are necessary to be known onely, necessitate Precepti, because they are Commanded, and they may be Commanded by God or Man; the latter are not so necessary as the former. Somethings are absolutely necessary to be known by all Men: Some other things are onely by some Men;Iohn. 3. 10. Art thon a Master in Israell and knowest not these things? Somethings are en­joined to be held onely for Peace sake; those are not so necessary to be known as the Commandements, or the Sacraments, or the Articles of the Creed. The Popes infallibility in his definitions of faith, is but an Opinion, and yet they hold it ne­cessary. [Page 228] The Superiority of a Generall Councell above the Pope, was a necessary Opinion in the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile: Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. and now the Contrary Opinion is fere de Fide; almost an Article of Faith.

He knoweth better by this time what I understand by points of Faith publickly pro­fessed; even the Articles of the Creed, which every Christian that ever was from Christs time untill this day, professed at his Baptisme. All the Christian world have ever been baptised into the Faith of the old Creed, never any man yet was baptised into the Faith of their new Creed: If these new Articles, be as necessary to be known and publickly professed for the common salvation as the Old, they doe them wrong to baptise them but into one half of the Christian Faith.Heresies empeach not the perpetui­ty of tradition

He troubleth himself needlesly with Iealousy and suspicion, least under the notions of Faith universally professed, and the Christian world united, I should seeke a shelter or Patrociny for Arrians, or Soci­nians, or any other mushrome Sect; as if the Deity of Christ were not delivered by Vniversall Tradition, or not held by the Christian world united, because of thei [...] [Page 229] Opposition. I doe not looke upon any such Sects, which did or do oppose the Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition of the Catholick Church before their dayes, as living and lasting Streames, but as suddain and violent Torrents: neither do I regard their Opposition to the Ca­tholick Church, any more then of a Company of Phrenetick persons, whilest I see plainly a parte ante, that there was a time when the wheat did grow without those Tares; and a parte post, that their Errours were condemned by the Catholick Church. This exception of his hath great force against his immediate Tradition; should the Children of Ar­rians or Socinians, persist in their Arrian or Socinian Principles, because they were delivered to them, as the Lega­cies of Christ and his Apostles, by their erring Parents? But against my Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition they have no force at all. Neither do I looke upon their petty interruption, as an em­peachment to the Succession from the Apostles, no more then I esteem a great mountain, to be an Empeachment to the roundnesse of the Earth.

[Page 230]Neither was it the Church of Greece, and all the other Eastern, Southern, and Nor­thern Churches, which receded from this Vniversall Tradition, in the case in Diffe­rence between us, concerning the disciplin of the Church; but the Church of Rome which receded from them.

Non tellus Cymbam, tellurem Cymba reliquit. He knoweth little in Antiquity, who doth not know, that the Creed was a Tradition both materially, as a thing delivered by the Apostles, and Formally as being delivered by Orall Tradition. But he who shall say (as he doth) that all the points controverted be­tween us and them, were delivered as derived from the Apostles,No tra­dition for the points in differen­ce betweē a Practise as dayly Visi­ble as is the Apostles Creed, by our Forefa­thers; as invoking Saints for their intercession, the the lawfulnesse of Images, praying for the dead, Adoration of the Sacrament and in parti­cular the Subjection to the Pope as Supreme head (to use his own phrase) is a frontlesse man, His very mumbling of them, and chop­ping of them by halves, as if he durst not utter them right out, is a sufficient Evidence of the Contrary. We doe not charge them onely with invoking Saints for their intercession, or to speake more properly with the invo­king God to heare the intercession of his [Page 231] Saints: but with more insolent formes of ul­timate prayers to the Creatures, to protect them at the houre of death, to deliver them from the Devill, to conferre spirituall Graces upon them, and to admitt them into heaven, preci­bus meritisque, not onely by their prayers but likewise by their merits. As improper and Ad­dresse, as if one should fall down on his Knees before a Courtier, and beseech him to give him a Pardon, or to knight him, meaning onely that he should mediate for him to the King.

We do not question the lawfulnesse of their having of Images; but worshipping of them, and worshipping of them with the same worship which is due to the Proto­type. We condemne not all praying for the dead, not for their resurrection, and the consummation of their happinesse: but their prayers for their deliverance out of Purgatory. We our selves adore Christ in the Sacrament, but we dare not adore the Species of bread and wine. And although we know no divine right for it: yet if he would be contented with it, for peace sake we could afford the Bishop of Rome a Pri­macy of Order by humane Right, which is all that antiquity did know. And if any of our Ancestours in any of these particulars, did swerve from the Vniversall Perpetuall [Page 232] Tradition of the Church, we had much better warrant to return to the Apostolicall line and Levell, then he himself had to de­sert those principles temerariously, which his immediate Forefathers taught him, as delivered by the Apostles and derived from them.

His next exception is a meere Logo­machy, that I call two of his Assertions In­ferences. What doth this concern either the person or the Cause? Either this is to contend about the shadow of an Asse, or I know not what is. Let thē be premisses or Conclusions which he will, they may be so disposed to make them either; if they be neither what do they here, if they be con­clusions they are inferences. He calleth the former Conclusion their chiefe Obje­ction; who ever heard of an Objection with­out an Inference? And the second is so far from being no Inference, that it compre­hendeth four Inferences, one from the first Principle, another from the second Principle, and the third from both Princi­ples. That Churches in Communion with the Roman have the onely right Doctrine in virtue of the First Principle, and the onely right Go­vernment in virtue of the second Principle, and Vnity necessary to Salvation in virtue of both [Page 233] Principles. And the last conclusion is the Generall Inference from all these, And by consequence we hold them, onely to make the en­tire Catholick Church.

I said truely, that we hold both their Rules of Vnity; I adde that we hold them both in the right sense, that is, in the proper literall sense of the words: but what their sense of them is, concerneth them not us. If by the Popes Supremacy he understand a single Soveraignty or Supremacy of pow­er, by virtue of Christs own Ordinance; we hold it not indeed, neither did the Ca­tholick Church of Christ ever hold it. So likewise if by Tradition of our Ancestours, he understand Vniversall and Perpetuall Tradition, or as it were Vniversall and perpetuall; we joine hands with him: but if by Tradition he understand the particu­lar and Immediate Tradition of his Father, or ten thousand Fathers, or the greater part of the Fathers of one Province or one Patriarchate, in one Age, excluding three parts of the Catholick Church of this Age, and not regarding former Ages between this Age and the Apostles; we renounce his Rule in this Sense, as a Bond of Errour not of Vni­ty. And yet in generall, according to [Page 234] the Literall sense of the words, we embrace it as it is proposed by him self; that The Doctrins inherited from our Fore fathers, as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles, are onely to be acknowledged or Obligatory. So we acknowledge both his Rules in the Literall sense de facto: but the Popes single Supremacy of Power and particular Tradition, were never Princi­ples of Vnity, neither de facto nor de jure; and so he may seek for his flat Schismatick de facto at Rome.

I said there was a Fallacy in Logick of more interrogations then one, when Questions of a different nature are mix­ed, to which one Vniform answer can not be given. He saith he put no Interroga­tory at all to me. True; but he propoun­ded ambiguous Propositions to be an­swered by me, confounding St. Peter and the Pope, an Headship of Order and an Headship of power, which is all one. An head of Order hath power to Act First, as well as sit [...]irst: but he acteth not by his own single power, but by the conjunct power of the body or College.

To shew him,Pa. 510. that I am not ashamed of my voluntary railing (as he phraseth it) too [Page 235] silly to merit transcribing or answering, I will transcribe it for him. [The Church or Court of Rome have Sophisticated the true Doctrin of Faith, by their supple­mentall Articles, contrary to the First Principle; and have introduced into the Church, a Tyrannicall Govern­ment, contrary to the second Princi­ple: and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church, that by them both they are convicted to have made them selves guilty of Superstition and Schisme]. If this be railing, what Terme doth his Language deserve? If this be silly, what pi­tifull stuffe is his?

He said my onely way to cleare our church from Schisme,The Proof rests on their side.was to disprove his two Rules. I answered he was doubly mistaken, first in putting us to prove or disprove, who are the persons accused, the defendants duty is to answer not to prove: that is the duty of the accuser. They accuse us of Schisme, therefore they ought to prove their Rules, whereon they ground their Accusation, in that Sense wherein they take them; not put us to disprove them. He urgeth that by this Method, no Rebell ought to give any reason why he did so, because he is accused of Rebellion by his lawfull Governour. [Page 236] By his leave, he that condemneth a Sub­ject of Rebellion, before he have proved his accusation, doth him wrong, But he saith, the truth is wheresoever there is a contest each side accuses the other, and each side defends it self against the others Accusations: but we were the first accusers, who could not with any Face have pretended to reform, unlesse we ac­cused first our actuall Governour of Vsurpation. I told him before that he was doubly mi­staken; now I must be bold to tell him that he is three wayes mistaken. First the Pope was none of our actuall Gover­nour, in the externall Regiment of the Church, by the Lawes of England. Seco [...]dly our Reformation was no Ac­cusation, but an Enfranchisement of our selves sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Thirdly, I have already manifested the Vsurpatiōs of the Court of Rome, upō other manner of grounds them his ambiguous Rules. As we have proved our intention; so let him endeavour to prove his.

My second answer was, that although the proofe did rest on oursides: Yet I did not approve of his advise, that was, to dis­prove his two Rules. My reason is evi­dent, we approve of his two rules as they were set down by himself; it is not we but [Page 237] they who have swerved from them, and therefore it were madnesse in us to disprove them. He saith, he dare sweare in my be­half, that I never spake truer word in my life, and out of his Supererogatory kindnesse offers him self to be bound for me, that I shall never follow any advise that bids me speake home to the point. What silly nonsense is this, should I follow any mās advise to disprove that which I approve? I have spoken so home to the point without any advise, that I expect little thankes from him and his fellowes for it.

What he prateth of a discipline left by Christ to the Church of England in Henry the eighths time, is ridiculous indeed. And it equally ridiculous to hope to make us be­lieve, that the Removall of a few upstart Usurpations, is a change of the discipline left by Christ to his Church. pag. 513. And lastly it is ridi­culous to Fancy, that later usurpations may not be reformed by the Pattern of the Primitive times, and the ancient Canons of the Church, and the Practise of succeeding Ages, because we received them by parti­cular Tradition from our immediate Fa­thers. That one place which he repeateth as having been omitted by me, hath been answered fully to every part of it.

[Page 238]The rest of this Section is but a Repeti­tion of what he hath said, without adding anything that is new; and in the Conclu­sion of this Treatise he giveth us a Summa totalis of it again (either he must distrust his Readers memory or his Iudgement): and yet for feare of not being understood, he recapitulates it all over again in his Index. Surely he thinketh his discourse so pro­found, that no man understands him ex­cept he repeat it over and over again: and for my part I did never meet with such a Torrent of Words, and such Shallownesse of matter. And so I leave him to S. Austins censure alledged by himself. In mala causa non possunt aliter, at malam causam quis coegit eos habere.

Sect. II.
That they who cast Papall power out of England were no Protestants, but Roman Catholicks throughout, ex­cept onely in that one point of the Papacy.

HItherto (he saith) he hath been the larger in his reply, because the former points were Fundamentall concerning, and totally decisive [Page 239] of the Question. They doe concern the Question indeed, to blunder and to con­found Vniversal Tradition with particular Tradition, a Primacy of Order with a single Supremacy of power, Iurisdiction purely Spirituall with externall Iurisdiction in foro contensioso: otherwise they concern not the Question. And for deciding of the Que­stion; wherewithall should he decide it? who hath not so much as alledged one Au­thority in the Case, Divine or Humane, not a Text of Scripture, not a Canon of a Councell, not a Testimony of a Father; who hath not so much as pretended to any Vniversall or perpetuall Tradition, but onely to the Particular immediate Tradi­tion of the Roman Church; and this he hath onely pretended to, but neither proved it, nor attempted to prove it, nor is it possible for him to prove by the particular Traditiō of the Roman Church it self, that the Bi­shop of Rome is the Soveraign Monarch of the Church by Christs own Ordination. His onely grounds are his own Vapourous Fancies, much like Zenoes Vaunts, who used to bragge, that he sometimes wanted Opinions, but never wanted Arguments.

My six grounds he stileth Exceptions. And why Exceptions? But let them be [Page 240] grounds, or exceptions, or whatsoever he will have them to be: and let him take heed that every one of those Trifles and Toyes (as he calleth them) do not baffle him and trip up his heeles.

I pleaded that [Roman Catholicks did make the first separation]. He answers, that this Plea doth equally acquit any Villain in the World, who insists in the steps of his Fore­father Villains. Would no expression lower then this of Villains serve his tur [...]e? Who can help it? If those Forefathers (whom he intimates) were Villains or any thing like Villains, they were his Forefathers twenty times more then ours; We inherit but one point in difference from them, but he twenty: The denomination ought to be from the greater part. If any of them were deemed more propitious to us then the rest, it was Henry the eighth, or Arch­bishop Cranmer: For both these we have their own confession that they were theirs. First for Henry the eight,Guil. Alan. Apol. cap. 4. pag. 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 Ancestours. And for Archbishop Cranmer heare another of them, Cranmer the unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his (the Earle of Hart­fords) [Page 241] right hand and chiefe Assistant in the work, although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion, yea a great Patron and Prosecuter of the six Articles. But to deale clearly with you, there is not the same reason to imitate a notorious knave in his confessed knavery, and to follow one who hath not onely a reasonable and just cause of contending, but also the reputa­tion of an honest man, even in the judge­ment of his adverse party, in all other things, except onely therein wherein he is adverse to them. Such were all the Actors in this cause by their Confession. If we acknowledged, that they who cast out Papall Vsurpations were Schismaticks for so doing, he said something: but we justify their Act, as pious and virtuous; and so his Comparison hath never a leg to run on.

I pleaded, that [it was a violent presump­tion of their Guilt and our Innocence, when their best Friends, and best able to Iudge, who preached for them and writ for them, who acted for them and suffered for thē, who in all other things were great Ze­lots of the Roman Religion, and persecu­ted the poore Protestāts with fire and fagot, yet cōdemne thē and justify this seperariō.] [Page 242] He minceth what I say according to his use, and then excepteth, The word [best] might have been left out; They ever were ac­counted better Friends who remained in their former faith, and the other Bishops looked upon as Schismaticks by the Obedient party. Survey cap. 2. Yet the Bishop of Chalcedon doubted not to call them the best of Bishops. He should do well to tell us for his credits sake, who those other Bishops were who looked upon these as Schismaticks. Such is his ignorance in the State of these times that he dreameth of two parties, an Obedient Party and a Rebel­lious Party; whereas there were no Par­ties but all went one way. There was not a Bishop, nor an Abbot of Note in the Kingdome, who did not vote the Kings Su­premacy, Four and twenty Bishops and five and twenty Abbots personally at one time. There was not a Bishop nor any per­son of note in the Kingdome, who did not take the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, ex­cept Bishop Fisher and S. Thomas Moore; who were imprisoned for treason, either true or pretended, before that Act was made, for opposing the Succession of the Crown. If he will not trust me let him trust the Veredict of our Vniversities; A length we all agreed unanimously in this Sentenc [...] [Page 243] and were of one accord,Act. & Mon. p. 565. Reg. Epist. Vni. Ox. Ep. 2. Sac. Syn. An. 7. 1530. & 1532. 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Devera Obedi­entia.that the Roman Bishop hath no greater Iurisdiction given him by God in holy Scripture, in this Kingdome of En­gland, then any other Forrain Bishop. The same Sentence was given by our Convo­cations or Synods, The same Sentence was given by our Parliaments with the same concord and Vnanimity, Nemine Dissen­tiente; We had no parties but one and all. Let him listen to his Friend Bishop Gar­diner, No Forrain Bishop hath any Autho­rity among us; all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most stedfast con­sent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome.

And Ireland was unanimo [...]s herein with England. All the great Families as well of the Irish as of the English, did acknow­ledge by their Indentures to S. Anthony St. Leger then chiefe Governour of Ire­land, the Kings Supremacy and utterly re­nounce the Iurisdiction of the Pope. Counc. booke An [...] 32. 33. 34. Hen. 8. Yet it was not the meaning of our Ancestours then, and (though some of them had been so minded) it is not our meaning now to meddle with the power of the Keys, or abridge the Bishop of Rome of any Iurisdiction purely spirituall, or [Page 244] any Legacy which was left him by Christ or his Apostles: but onely to cast out his usurped Coactive power in the exteriour Court, without the leave of the Soveraign Prince, which Christ and his Apostles did never exercise or dispose of or meddle with, and to vindicate to our Kings the Politicall or externall Regiment of the Church, by themselves and by their Bi­shops and other fit delegates, as a Right due to all Christian Princes by the Law of God and nature.

But he attributeth all this to the Feare of the Clergy and the people, and the Kings violent Cruelty: and for proofe of what he saith, citeth half a passage out of Doctor Hammond, but he doth Dr. Hammond noto­rious wrong. Dr. Hammond speaketh onely of the first preparatory act, which occasioned them to take the matter of right into a serious de­bate in a Synodicall way: he applieth it to the subsequent act of Renunciation after de­bate. Dr. Hammond said onely it is easy to be believed: Mr. Serjeant maketh it a just Presumption or confest Evidence. Dr. Ham­mond speaketh of no feare but the feare of the law, the law of Premunire; an ancient law made many ages before Henry the eighth was borne, the Palladium of [Page 245] England, to preserve it from the Vsurpa­tions of the Court of Rome: but he mis­applieth it wholy to the feare of he Kings violent Cruelty. Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammonds Sense expressed clearly by him­self, that there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did professe, the feare being the Occasion of their debates, but the rea­sons or Arguments offered in debate the causes (as in all Charity we are to Iudge) of their deci­sion. He useth not to cite any thing inge­nuously.

If he did, he could have told his Reader, that this answer was taken away by me be­fore it was made by him. For two whole Kingdomes, the Vniversities, the Convo­cations, the Parliaments, to betray their Consciences, to renounce an Article which they esteem necessary to salvation, onely for the feare of a Premunire or the losse of their goods, to forswear themselves, to de­ny the Essence of their faith, to turn Schismaticks, as if they did all value their Goods more then their soules, without so much as one to oppose it; is a vain un­charitable surmise or rather it is incredible, and not onely incredible but impossible. They were the men that advised the King to assume the Supremacy.Act. ad Mon. Arch-Bishop [Page 246] Warham told the King it was his right to have it before the Pope, Bishop Gardmer was the chiefe framer of the oath of Supremacy, Bishop Tonstall and Longlands were the chiefe Preachers up of the Kings Supre­macy at St. Pauls Crosse. Tonstall justi­fieth it in his Letter to Cardinal Poole. Gardiner and Beckenshaw did write Pole­mick bookes in defence of the Kings Su­premacy. The whole Convocation did set forth a Catechisme or Catecheticall booke, to instruct the people in the Kings right to the Supremacy, called the Institution of a Christian man. Bishop Bonner, bloudy Bonner, who made such Bonefires of the poore Protestants, being then the Kings Embassadour with Clement the 7th,Ac­worth contra Sand. l. 2. pag. 195. did so boldly and highly set forth King Henryes Supremacy in the Assembly of Cardinalls, that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessel of Scalding lead, if he had not secured himself by flight.

Suppose it was credible that they all vo­ted out of feare, and tooke the Oath of Supremacy out of Feare; what feare could constrain them to advise the King to assume the Supremacy as his right, to frame the Oath of Supremacy, to instruct others in the Kings right to the Supremacy, by pri­vate [Page 247] Letters, by publick Catechismes, to preach up his Supremacy, to propugn his Supremacy in their Polemick writings, in their Orations before the Cardinalls them­selves with hazard of their lifes, to tickle the Kings ears with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy? Speed in Hen. 8. cap. 21. n. 105. Who shall still say what these men did was out of feare, must be a very credulous man. The contrary is as evi­dent to the world as Noone day light. I will conclude this point of the Feare of the Kings violent Cruelty, with Bishop Gardiners Testimony of himself.D [...] verae Obediē ­tia. He objecteth that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintein the Supremacy of the Pope. To which he answe­reth, that what was holily sworn, is more holily omitted [...], then to make an Oath the Bond of Iniquity. He confessed him self to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second wife; but after the return of his firs [...] wife (that is the truth) to which he was espoused in his Baptism, being convicted with undeniable 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.

Secondly, I pleaded that [although it [Page 248] doth not alwaies excuse a toto from all guilt, to be misled by others into errour, yet it alwaies excuseth a tanto, it extenuateth the Guilt]. This Allegation is so evidently true, that he hath not confidēce enough to deny it, (which is a wonder,) but argueth against it, first, how could we thinke their ex­ample to be followed, whom we confesse to have done what they did out of feare? Or rather what a shamlesse untruth is this? His witnesse saith, that feare might be the Occasion of the debate, but reason and Consci­ence were their directours in the deci­sion; and we have demonstrated that their actions could not possibly proceed from feare.

His second answer is, why doe we not ra­ther follow them in renouncing their Schisme, as those Bishops did after the Kings death? Once proved false is alwaies presumed to be false. Who told him that they made any retractation af [...]er the Kings death, after they were freed from their imminent feare? They made no Retractation, but held their Bi­shopricks in King Edwards time untill other Questions did arise, and executed the Sta­tute of Supremacy as rigorously as they did in Henry the eighths time. For proofe where [Page 249] of, I cite the Testimony of Queen Eliza­beth, given to their Faces in their lives times, before the most eminent Embassadours of the greatest Princes, when they might have contradicted it if they could, when the Emperour and other Roman Catho­lick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops: She gave them this an­swer, that they did now obstinately reject that Doctrin,Camd. an. Eli▪ an 1559which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, had of their own accord with heart and hand, pub­lickly in their Sermons and writings taught unto others, when they themselves were not private persons but publick Magistrates. Observe the words, first, of their own ac­cords. Secondly not onely under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth; therefalleth his Plea to the ground. Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates, and consequently in a Capacity of doing rather then of suffering. Lastly with heart and hand, not onely in their Sermons, but also in their printed Writings. We use to say, there is no defence against a Flaile: certainly against Subscriptions and pub­lik writings there can be no De­fence.

[Page 250] To the Queenes testimony I adde another of Sanders,D [...] Schism. Anglic. l. 2. p. 282.that the Bishops of Winchester, London, Durrham, Worcester, Chichester, Ex­cellent Men and inwardly Catholicks, yet being made Bishops in the Schisme, they had not the Spirit of courage. Therefore they resisted faintly to the Kings Primacy, or rather they subscribed simply both to it and all other innovations, which seemed not to conteine open haeresy, least they should lose their Bishopricks. When may we expect a true word from him?

Thirdly, he urged the beginners of a fault, may be lesse culpa [...]le then their follo­wers, when their Provocations be greater. Their Provocations were no lesse then expecta­tion of death and destruction by the Kings in­humane Cruelty: but our continuance in Sch [...]sme compared to the Motives of theirs is in a manner gratis, all our reasons being for our Livings and Interest heretofore, and now a vain glorious Itch to approve our­selves to our party. We have had many proofes of his Veracity, here is one more of his Charity. Suppose his new light had lead him into ready Paths not Preci­pices, (which no man will grant him, but his own Fellowes): Yet why should he accuse us of Hipocrisy rather then of er­rour in Iudgement, who have lost all our [Page 251] estates for our Consciences, which pro­bably he never had to loose, nor would have quitted it so if he had had it? but onely that his own guilt doth dictate such uncharitable Censures to him. No Mr. Serjeant, we are no such Changlings or turning weather cocks; that is your own part: And you may live to act it over againe, such hot water freeseth soonest. Are you so blind, that you do not see that this Accusation might be re­torted upon you, and upon your great Co [...]verts whom you propose to us for Pat­terns? Who as you say had been Schisma­ticks in Henry the eighths time; you might as well say for the most part of them in Edward the sixths time also, and had no other way in the World to preserve or re­cover their Bishopricks in Queen Maryes dayes but by pretēding at least such a Con­version. But we are not so uncharitable as you, we Iudge them by their profession and leave their Consciences to God.

Thirdly, I pleaded that although those who cast the Popes pretended Soveraignty out of England, had been Schismaticks as they were not: yet we cannot be charged with Schisme, so long as we seek carefully after truth, and are ready implicity in the preparation of our minds to embrace it, [Page 252] whensoever we find it. Because he shall not Prevaricate with us, I will reduce my Argument into Syllogisticall Forme. Who­soever invented not their false Opinions themselves, but learned them from their erring Parents, are not to be reputed Here­ticks (much lesse Schismaticks,) if they de­fend thē not with pertinacious animosity, but inquire carefully after the truth, and be ready to embrace it, and correct their errours when they find them: But if we had any false opinions we invented them not our selves, but learned them from our erring Parents. Therefore we are not to be reputed Hereticks (much lesse Schisma­ticks,) if we defend not our Opinions with pertinacious Animosity, but inquire care­fully after the truth, and be ready to em­brace it, and Correct our Errours when we find thē.Aust. Epist. 162. The Major is St. Austins to a word, and is yielded by Mr. Serjeāt to be true. The Minor is evident to all the world and cānot be denied: Therefore the conclusiō is firme.

I doe not urge this, as though I had the least suspition in the world that our Ance­stours did erre, but to shew that although they had erred, yet we are not to be reputed Hereticks or Schismaticks whilest we doe our endeavours to find the truth, and em­brace it implicitly in the preparation of our [Page 253] minds. Neither do I urge this to convince others who do not know our hearts, and perhaps will not believe us, when we tell them that we hold the truth implicity: but for the satisfaction of our own Conscien­ces. We know whether we hold Opinions pertinaciously or not; and whether we desire and endeavour to find out the truth or not; and whether we are willing to em­brace the truth whensoever God shal re­veale it or not: None know it but God and ourselves, Mr. Serjeant cannot know it. And therefore as his answer is improper and con [...]rary to the Rules of Logick, to deny the Conclusion or Condition contai­ned in the Conclusion: So it is vain and presumptuous to Iudge of another mans Conscience, which is known onely to God and himself. I cited S. Austin to prove the Proposition which he yieldeth, not the As­sumtion which is too evident in it self to be denied, much lesse to be a witnesse of our hearts which it was impossible for S. Au­stin to know. Iudge Reader what Ardelioes and busy bodyes these are, censuring and damning all Protestants to the Pit of Hell as Hereticks and Schismaticks, and yet when they are pressed home, are forced to confesse, that if they doe endea­vour to find out the truth, which all [Page 254] good Christians doe; then they are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks. This may be a great Comfort and Satisfaction to all Consciencious Protestants, who are dayly molested by these men and terrified with such Bugbeares as these. But Mr. Serje­ant hath devised a new Method to discover the hearts of Protestants, by the Testimony of their eyes, and the undeniable Veredict of their Reason, onely by viewing my An­swer to his first Section. Risum tenealis amici?

To draw the Saw of Contention to and fro, about Henry the eighth Warham Heath Tonstall Gardiner Bonner &c, whether they were Protestants or Papists is impertinent and frivolous. Impertinent; let them call them Protestants, or Papists, or neither, or both, it it all one to my Argument, that it is a violent Presumption of their guilt and our Innocence, that all their great Schol­lars who preached for them, and writ for them, and acted for them, and suffered for them in all other differences, should desert them in this. And frivolous; to contend about the word when we agree upon the thing. The thing is without all Controversy or Dispute; they held with the Protestants in the Article of [Page 255] the Supremacy, and with the Papist in all other Articles what soever.

Now whether their Denomination shall be from the greater part as it is in all other cases, (mixe one drop of milk with twenty or fourty of water, and we call it water not milke) or from the Lesser part as Mr. Serjeant would have it, I commit to the Rea­ders Iudgement, and desire him to deter­min it himself; whatsoever way he deter­mins it, his Iudgement will be lesse Prejudi­ciall then to be molested with such wran­glers.

Protestants may persecute Protestants, but not as Protestants, and Papists may per­secute Papists (as the Iansenists persecute the Iesuits), but not as Papists; even Ishmaels mocks are termed persecutions: but they seldome make such bloudy lawes, against those whom they acknowledge to be of their own Communions, as the law of the six Articles was, or persecute them with fire and faggot as Bonner did.p. 520 He urgeth that between every Species of Colour which we have names for, there are hundreds of middle de­grees for which we have no names. Well argu­ed against himself; Wit whither wilt thou? Then why doth he call them Protestants, and give them a name? There are indeed [Page 256] between every Species of Colours, man middle degrees which have no distin [...] names: but therefore we give thē the name of those Colours which they come neare [...] to; either with a distinction if the diffe [...]rence be easily expressed, as grassegreen [...] seagreen, willowgreen, &c. or withou [...] any distinctiō, the white of an Egge is not so white as snow, yet both white. If he would pursue his own instance this Controversy were ended.

He prateth of the subordinate Sects of Pro­testants, and how changeable they are every day. He loveth to have a Vagare out of his lists. It is his Spirituall Mother the Church of England, that gave him his Chri­stian being, which he hath undertaken to Combate; let him adorn that Sparta as he is able: and if he did it with more Modesty he were lesse to be blamed then he is. If she had been but his old Friend, yet Friend­ship ought to be unstitched by degrees not torn asunder suddainly. But to cast durt in the Face of his own Mother, is a shrewd sign of an ill nature. As the Foole said to a Favori­te, If I fall I can rise againe, but if thou fall thou wilst never rise againe: so if we change, there is no great danger in it, because we keep our selves firmly to our old Essentialls, that [Page 257] is the Apostles Creed; but their Change is dangerous, who change their Creed, and presume to adde new Essentials to the old.

He beareth such a perfect hatred against Reformation, because it is destructive to his Foundation of immediate Tradition, that he maketh No Papist and a Reformer to be the Character of a Protestant. Popes and Cardinalls, Emperours and Kingdomes, Churches and Councells have all acknow­ledged both the Lawfulnesse and necessity of Reformation. What doth he thinke of the Councell of Trent, or hath he perad­venture never read it? But what doth he thinke of the Councells of Constance and Ba­sile, who professe themselves every where to be qualified to reform the Church, tam in Capite quam in membris; as well in the head as in the members? They escape fairly if he doe not censure them as Protestants: for they were great Reformers, and they were no great Papists, placing the Soveraign power under Christ in the Church and not in the first Mover. I might well call the Reforma­tion in Henry the eights time their Refor­mation, the Papists Reformation rather then ours, if the Reformers were more Papists then Protestants, as it most evident.

[Page 258]I pressed him that if the Renunciation of the Bishop of Romes absolute vniversall Monar­chy, by Christs own Ordination, be the essence of a Protestant, then the Primitive Church were all Protestants. He answe­reth, it is flatsy false. I am contented to be silent for the present, but when time serveth, it may be made appeare, to be flatly true; and that all that the Primitive Fathers did attribute to the Bishop of Rome, was no more them a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity; and that an absolute Monarchy by Christ Ordination, is abso­lutely repugnant to the Primitive Disci­pline.

I proceeded [then all the Graecian, Russi­an, Armenian, Abyssen Christians are Pro­testants this day]. He answereth, that it it is partly true and partly false, and serveth onely to prove that the Protestants have fellow Schismaticks. And why partly true and part­ly false? when all the world seeth, that all these Churches doe disown and disclaime the Popes Monarchy. This is just the old condemned Tenet of the Schismaticall Do­natists, who did most uncharitably limit the Catholick Church to their own Party, excluding all others from hope of Salvati­on, as the Romanists doe now. The best [Page 259] is, we must stand or fall to our owne Ma­ster: But by this means, they have lost one of the notes of their Church, that is mul­titude, for they exclude three or four times more Christians, out of the Communion of the Catholick Church, then they admit into it.

I proceeded yet higher, [then we want not store of Protestants, even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self]. His answer is, that to speake moderately, it is an impudent falshood, and a plain impossibility, for whosoever renounceth the Substance of the Popes Autho­rity, and his being head of the Church, becomes totally disunited from the Church. Good words! His groundworke is to weake to support the weight of such an heavy accusation. A Primacy of Order implyeth an headship, as well as Supremacy of power; neither is it destitute of all power. It hath some power essentially annexed to it, to con­gregate sub paena purè spirituali, to propose, to give sentence according to the votes of the College; It may have an accessary power, to execute the Canons according to the Constitutions of Councells, and Im­periall Sanctions, and Confirmations.

But all this commeth far short of that headship which he asserteth, a Soveraign [Page 260] Monarchicall Headship of absolute power, above the whole Church by Christs Ordination. This is that Headship which he maintei­neth against me every where. This is that Headship which the Primitive Church never acknowledged. This is that Head­ship which the Grecians, Russians, Armenians, Abyssines and the Church of England re­nounce at this day. This is that Headship, which many of his own Communion who live in the bosome of the Roman Church, do not believe; as the Councells of Con­stance, and Basile, and Pisa, the Schoole of Sorbon, and very many others every where who do all reject it, some more some lesse. The maine difference and almost the whole difference between him and me, is concerning Coactive power, in the Exte­riour Court, over the Subjects of other Princes, against their wills; this is so far from being vniversaly believed, through­out all places of the Roman Communion, that it is practically received in few or no places, further then it seemeth expedient to Soveraign Princes. If the Pope himself did believe, that he had such an absolute Soveraignty of Monarchicall power, in the exteriour Court by Christs own Ordina­tion, to him and his Successors, How [Page 261] could he alienate it from his Successors al­most wholy to the Princes of Sicily, and to their Heirs for ever, within that Kingdome: Or how could the Princes retein it? If the King and Kingdome of France did believe, that the Pope had such an absolute Monar­chicall power, in the Exteriour Court, by Christs own Ordination; how could the King of France forbid the Popes Legates without his License, or restrain their Legantine Commissions by his Parliaments, or sweare them to act nothing contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church, and to cease to execute their Commissions whē ­soever the King and Kingdome should prohibit them, or reject Papall decrees fur­ther then they are received in that King­dome? Or if the Councell of Brabant did believe it, how could they forbid the Sub­jects to repaire to Rome out of their own Country, upon the Popes Summons? All men know that there is no Privilege or Pre­scription against Christs own Ordination. Qui pauca considerat, facile pronunciat. This is ever the end of his Contradictions.

Lastly he Chargeth me for omitting to answer to his reason,pa: 522 that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantisme. Truly I neither did nor do hold it worth an­swering. Cannot he distinguish between [Page 262] the whole Essence of any thing, and one Essentiall? He might as well affirm, that he who believeth but one Article of his Creed is a Christian. This requireth no great skill to explicate it: but I have remit­ted this Controversy to the Reader as fittest for his determination.

Sect. III.
That Henry the 8. made no new Law: But onely vindicated the ancient Liberties of England.

CHristian Reader thou hast seen hither­to, how Mr. Serjeant hath failed alto­gether to make good his pretensions: and in stead of those great mountains of Ab­surdities, and falsifications, and Contra­dictions which he promised, hath produ­ced nothing worthy of so weighty a cause, or an ingenious Schollar, but his own wil­full ridiculous mistakes. We are now come to his third Section, wherein thou maiest see this young Phaeton mounted in his Triumphant Chariot, driving the poore Bishop as a Captive before him: now [Page 263] expect to see him tumbling down headlōg, with a fall answerable to his height of pride and insolence. He professeth himself wil­ling to stand to the Award of the most partiall Protestant living, who hath so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Suns shining at noone day, or that the same thing cannot both be and not be at once. If after this lowd confident bragge; he be not able to make any thing good that is of weight against me, he hath for­feited either his Iudgement, or his ingenu­ity, and deserveth not to be a writer of Controversies. I need no partiall Iudges, but appeale to the indifferent Reader of what communion soever he be: he nee­deth but to compare my Vndication his Answer, my Reply his Rejoinder, and my Surrejoinder together in this one short Section, and give sentence readily who is the Mountebanke and Prevarica­tour.

And first I challenge this great Cham­pion of downright Cowardise, as great as ever his Predecessour Thraso shewed in the Comedy; in smothering and concea­ling palpably and shamefully his Adversa­ries reasons, and declining the heat of the assault. The maine subject of this Section, was to shew that the ancient Kings of [Page 264] England, did assume as much power in Ec­clesiasticall affaires as Henry the eighth did, that the Lawes of Henry the eighth were no new Lawes, but onely renovations and Confirmations of the ancient Lawes of England, which had never bene repealed or abrogated in the dayes of his Predecessors, but were of force in England at that very time when he made his Lawes; As the Sta­tutes of Clarendon, The Statute of Carlile, The Articles of the Clergy, The Statutes of Provisors and other old Lawes made in the time of Henry the first, Henry the third, Edward the first, and Edward the third, Richard the second, Henry the Fourth, all of them dead and gone many ages before Henry the eighth was born. I shewed par­ticularly, that they suffered not the Pope to send for any English Subject out of En­gland to Rome without leave, nor to send any Legate into England without leave, nor to receive any Appeale out of England without leave. They made it death, or at least the forfeiture of all a mans estate, to bring any Papall Bulls or Excommunications into England. They called Ecclesiasticall Coun­cells, made Ecclesiasticall Lawes, punished Ecclesiasticall persons, prohibited Ec­clesiasticall Iudges, received Ecclesiasticall [Page 265] Appeales, made Ecclesiasticall Corpora­tions, appropriated Ecclesiasticall Benifi­ces, rejected the Popes Lawes at their ple­asure with a Nolumus; wee will not have the Lawes of England to be Changed, or gave Legislative Interpretations of them as they thought fit. All this I have made evidēt out of our ancient Lawes, our Records, our Historiographers; in my Vindication, in my Reply, and in this Treatise. And therefore I might well retort upon him his own Confident bragge, that it is as cleare as the suns shining at noone day, or that the same thing cannot be and not be at once; that our Ancestours who did all this and much mo­re then this, did acknowledge no Monar­chicall power of the Pope in the Exteriour Court, by Christs own Ordination, as Mr. Serjeant asserteth; and that they did exercise as much power in the externall Regiment of the Church, as Henry the eighth did; and that Henry the eighths la­wes were no new lawes devised by himself, but were the lawes of these ancient Kings renewed by him, or rather the Fundamen­tall Lawes and Liberties of England, expo­sed by these ancient Kings as a Buckler against the Encroachments of the Roman Court.

[Page 266]Now to all this cleare evidence what an­swer doth Mr. Serjeant make? Iust Thraso­like, when the matter comes to push of pike he sneaketh away post principia, into the se­curest place he can find. Speak the truth in earnest, did Pyrrhus use to doe thus? It is not possible to squeese one word of par­ticular answer out of him: onely in gene­rall he saith I bring divers allegations,Down Derry pa 311.wherein the Popes pretenses were not admitted &c. And so proceedeth, doe we professe the Pope can pretend to no more then his right &c.? Lawes and Records are but bare Allegations with him: and prohibiting under pain of Death or Confiscation of Goods, is no more but not admitted. Speake out man and shame the devill; whether did the Pope pretend more then is right or not? whether were the anciēt English Lawes just Lawes or not? This is certain, his Pretensions and these Lawes cannot both be just. The very substance of his Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court, is prohibited by these Lawes, his Soveraign power or Patronage of the En­glish Church, his Iudiciary Power, his Legislative Power, his dispensative Power, all are lost if these Lawes stand. All which Mr. Serjeant blancheth over with this ge­nerall expression, such and such things. Will [Page 267] the Court of Rome thank such and such an Advocate, who forsakes them at a dead lift? I trow no.

And although I called upon him in my reply, for a fuller and more satisfactory answer to these Lawes: yet he giveth none in his Rejoinder, but shuffleth up the mat­ter in Generalls. As for his particularities entrenching on, or pretended to entrench on the Popes Authority; whether they were lawfully done or no, how far they extended, in what Cir­cumstances or cases they held in what not, how the Letter of those Lawes are to be understood &c. all which the Bishop Omitts, though he ex­presse the bare words; it belongs to Canon and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about them, not me. I hold my self to the Lists of the Question, and the limits of a Controvertist. Yes, even as Thrasoheld himself to the Lists, when he stole behind the second wards. This is neither more nor lesse, but flat running away, and crying to the Canonists for help. If the subject be improper for him, why did he undertake it, and not try first,

Quid ferre recusent,
Quid valeant humeri.

Why did he undertake it with so much youthfull Confidence and insulting scorn and petulance, to accuse his adversary of [Page 268] impudence? And as if impudence were too mo­derate a Character for him, as a profest and sworn enemy of truth shame and honesty; ma­king him worse then a mad man or born foole. And all this for pretending that Henry the eighth did no more against the Papacy, then his Ancestour Kings had done before him: and now when his Cavills are thrust down his own throat, when the impudence is brought home to him and laid at his own doore, when the very Lawes of his Ance­stours are produced wherein they provided the same remedies for the Roman Court that Henry the eighth did; he would with draw his own neck o [...]t of the Collar, and leave the defence of his cause to the Canō and Secular Lawiers, to scuffle about the sense of these anciēt Lawes, and whether they were law fully done or no, and how far they extended, and in what cases they hold in what not. And this is all the answer, which he vouch­safeth to these ancient English Lawes; that is as much as to say he knoweth not what to answer, or it doth not belong to him to answer: and this he calleth hol­ding himself to the Lists of the Question, but all other men call it leaping out of the Lists of the Question, and a shamefull [Page 269] deserting the cause he had u [...]dertaken to defend.

I ever acknowledged that Henry the eighth made sundry new Sta [...]utes against the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome: but I adde that these Statutes were declara­tive of old Law, not Enactive of new Law. This is as cleare as his noone day­light. And I proved it by the Authority of two of our greatest Lawiers, Fitz Her­bert and my Lord Cooke, persons sufficient to know the difference between a Statute declarative of old Law, and a Statute E­nactive of new. Secondly, I proved it by one of the Principall Statutes themsel­ves: those terms of Law which declare old Law, are not the same with those which enact new Law. This proofe is demon­strative. He urgeth, if there were something new, it was new, and a Statute we Englishmen use to term a Law. So if he new turn his Coat, there is something new, yet we English men say his Coat is and old Coat for all that. Magna Charta or the great Charter of England is an old Law, yet it hath been renewed or newly declared by almost every succeeding King. New Statutes may declare old Lawes.

[Page 270]He saith I cite two Protestants Fitz-Herbert and my Lord Cooke, both of mine owne party, to speake in behalf of Protestants. I cite no Protestants as Protestants, nor to speak for Protestants, nor as witnesses in any case in difference between Protestants and Papists: but I cite two great English Iudges as Iudges, to speak to the Difference between a Declarative Statute and an Enactive Statute by the Law of England; and who could be so proper witnesses of the Law of England as they. Secondly who told him that Fitzherbert was a Protestant? No more a Protestant then himself; for any thing that ever I could perceive. He was a great Iudge, lived in Henry the eighths time, and writ sundry workes. Where he setteth down the Charge against a Papist, he doth it in such a manner that it can hurt no man, except he will confesse himself to have done what he did obstinately and ma­liciously: Fitz Herbert the char­ge, pag. 111. & p. 129. but where he setteth down the charge of a Iustice of Peace against Here­ticks or Lollards, he giveth it home. But Mr. Serjeant hath the art to make Prote­stants or Papists, of whom he list, so it serve his present turn. Thirdly, though Fitzher­bert and my Lord Cooke had said nothing, yet the case is as cleare as the light, that [Page 271] this very Statute is Declarative of old Fun­damentall Law not Enactive of new Law.

And this I prove first by view of the Sta­tute it self. He that hath but half an eye in his head, may easily discern the difference between an Enactive Statute and a decla­rative Satute. An Enactive Statute looketh onely forward to the time to come, and medleth not at all with the time past▪ but a declarative law looketh both wayes, back­wards and forwards, forward to the time to come and backward to the time past. Again, the very from and tenour of the words is not the same in an Enactive Statute and in a Declarative Statute; An Enactive Statute regardeth onely what shall be, but a Declarative regardeth what is and what hath been; an Enactive Statute createth new Law by the authority of the present Lawgiver, a Declarative Statute cō ­firmeth old Law, and is commonly groun­ded upon the Fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome.24. He. 8. cap. 12. Now then let us take a view of this very Law. By divers old authētick histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared, that this realm of England in an Em­pire and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and King &c. unto whom a body Politick compact of all sorts [Page 272] and degrees of people, divided by names of Spi­ritualty and Temporalty, owe next to God a naturall obedience, he being instituted by the goodnesse of God, with plenary power to render finall justice for all matters. You see plainly that this Statute looketh both wayes for­ward and backward, and doth not onely create new Law, but also declare what hath been, what is, and what ought to be the perpetuall Law of England. By diverse old authentick Histories and Chronicles it is ma­nifestly declared &c.; then it is manifest that this is a declarative Law.

He saith, I quote the Schismaticall King himself and the Schismaticall Parliament to speake in their own behalf. By his leave, he is mistaken, I ground not my reason upon the Authority of the King and Par­liament, but upon the form or tenour of the Statute, whether these words doe con­tain the form of an Enactive Statute or a De­clarative Statute. Secondly, if I did so, yet he hath no reason to complain of it, who maketh the Pope and his Councell to be the last Iudge in his own case. Thirdly, I shall be bold to scrue up this pin a note higher, and tell him that if Henry the eight did make himself the last Iudge, in those differences between him and the Papacy, [Page 273] which concerned the Church and King­dome of England, he did no more then many other Christian Kings and Princes have done before him; as I have shewed in the Empire, Spain, Italy, Brabant &c. Fourthly, if that which was decreed in this Law, was decreed in former Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed, then it is not Ena­ctive of new Law, but Declarative of old Law: but I have produced him the Lawes themselves, wherein the self same things have been decreed, and he turneth his back upon them, and referreth us to the Canonists for an answer. Lastly, it, is so far from being true, that those Statutes made by Henry the eighth were new Lawes, tha [...] those ancient Statutes of Clarendon, of Carlile, the Articles of the Clergy, the Sta­tutes of Provisors, were no new Lawes when they were made: but new declara­tions of the Fundamētall Lawes of England, or of the Originall Constitution of the En­glish Empire; as appeareth undeniably by the Statutes of Clarendon, the Statute of Car­lile, and the Statutes of Provisors; wherein the same truth is affirmed as positively as I can do it.

But now, Reader, wilt thou see a con­vincing proofe, of the extreme carelesnesse and unconscionable oscitance of this great [Page 274] Champion, who writeth his answers at Randome, and never so much as readeth what is objected against him. I cited two Statutes; the one of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. the other of 16▪ Ric. 2. cap. 5. The Prin­ter citeth them right i [...] the margent, but a little confusedly: but when Mr. Serjeant commeth to answer them, he confoundeth them indeed, attributing Richard the se­conds Statute to Henry the eighth. And lest any man should excuse him and say it was the fault of the Printer, heare him; he alledgeth another Statute made in the 24. of Henry the 8▪ Yes, well guessed: otherwise cal­led the 16. of Richard the second. And a little after, what maters it what this Statute sayes, being made two yeares after his unlawfull mar­riage with Anna Bullen? I know not where he learned this, except it was from the old Puppet player, who would have Queen Dido to be Richard the thirds Mistresse; he might perchance have such another odde Fancy that Richard the second was Anne Bullens Servant. That which I observe in earnest is this, that he answereth at Ran­dom to he knoweth not what, and never peruseth that which is objected against him. If it had been some rare piece that was cited that he could not have come by it, it had [Page 275] bene the more pardonable: but it is an English Statute which he might have found in every Bookebinders Shop, in every Lawiers Study, in every Iustice of Peaces Closet. And yet he is as confident as Gawen; the best Statute he could pick out you may be sure. How doth he know that? We all see he never read it, nor knoweth whether it be a Statute or no. Then he telleth us, there is not a Syllable in it concerning Spirituall Iuris­diction. Well guessed by Instinct: but for once his Instinct hath deceived him; if Excommunication be any part of Spirituall Iurisdiction, there is more then one Syllable of Spirituall Iurisdiction in it. But con­cerning our English Statutes both ancient and new, which concern the casting of Papall Authority out of the Kingdom, I have given him a full satisfactory account formerly, to which I refer him.

We have seen how carelesse he is in reading over Lawes before he an­swer them: Now let us observe the same Oscitance or want of Ingenuity to­wards his Adversary, that he may learn what he gets by his Falsifications ‘Nempe hoc quod Veneri donatae a virgine puppae.’ [Page 276] Reall falsifications retorted upon him instead of his feigned ones. He answered that to limit an Authority, implyes an admittance of it in cases to which the Limitation extends not. I replyed, that these ancient Lawes of En­gland did not onely limit an Authority, but deny it, that is deny it in such and such ca­ses mentioned in the Lawes, deny it Co­actively in the exteriour Court without the leave of the Soveraign Prince. So the Lawes may differ, the restraints may differ, the leave may differ in degrees, according to the difference of places▪ notwithstan­ding this denyall. That which he beateth at is this, that we deny all Papall power what­soever; but other Churches do onely limit it. I answer, we doe not deny the Bishop of Rome all manner of power; We deny him not the power of the Keys, we deny him not any power purely Spirituall, we deny him not his beginning of Vnity, if he could he contended with it: but we deny him all Coactive power in the Exteriour Court, over the Subjects of other Princes, without the Soveraigns leave. If some Princes give more leave then others, as finding it more expedient for their affaires; we doe not envy it.

But he urgeth, that I do not deny equivalent [Page 277] Lawes in France Spain Germany Italy. Reply pa. 21. I nei­ther deny it nor affirm it, or I affirm it onely in part [Yes, there are some such Lawes in all these places by him mentioned, per­haps not so many, but the Liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English]. Some such Lawes, not so many, much the same, are no proofes of Equiva­lence: or if he will call them Equivalent, it is onely secundum quid not simpliciter, respecti­vely in some cases not vniversally in all cases. But he hath another place, which striketh home,Vind. pa. 73. where I affirm that [the lik [...] lawes may be found in Germany, Poland, France, Spaine, Italy, Sicily, and if we will trust Padre Paolo, the Papacy it self]. But did either I or Padre Paolo, speak of those anciēt English lawes by me cited, made to restrai­ne the Vsurpations of the Bishops of Rome? So he saith, but it is a grosse Falsification. I did neither speake of them in that place, nor Padre Paolo: but we both speake of another Law of a quite different nature from these, that is the Law of Mortmain, a Law meerly Politicall to restrain men from giving Lands to the Church without Li­cense. Of this I said there are found like Lawes to it in Germany, Poland, France, Spain, Italy, Sicily, and Padre Paolo addeth in [Page 278] the Papacy it self. What an Adversary have I to deale with, who either understandeth not what the Law of Mortmain is, or re­gardeth not how he falsifieth his Adversa­ries words?

But from these mistaken and mishapen premisses he draweth ten Conclusions, every one of them driving me to a Contra­diction or Absurdity at least▪ The first se­cond third and fourth are the same in effect, or all comprehended in the first, that it is opposite to the generall opinion of the whole world, Catholicks, Protestants, Puritans. Secondly, that it is against the profession of the Protestants, who extoll that happy time when England was freed from the yoke of Rome. Thirdly, that it contradicts our Reformation in the point of the Popes Supremacy, there could be no Reforma­tion of that which was not otherwise before; and therefore Henry the eighth added something of his own to these ancient Lawes. Fourthly, he saith that Doctor Hammond acknowledgeth, that Papall power was cast out of England in Henry the eights dayes. And the sixth is, that this Position is particularly opposite to the Com­mon [...]onsent of the Catholick Countries, who all looked on Henry the eighth and the Church of England ever since as Schismaticall. Doubtlesse he meaneth Roman Catho­lick Countries. Was it not enough to [Page 279] say that it was Contrary to the Generall opinion of the whole world, unlesse he ad­ded Protestants, and Reformers, and Doctor Hammond, and Roman Catholicks, as if they were none of the world? Reader, I undertooke to prove that Hēry the eighths Lawes against the Vsurpations of the Ro­man Bishop, were no new Lawes, but an­cient Lawes of England; I have done it by producing the ancient Lawes themselves, five or six hundred yeares old: and I am yet ready to shew further, that they were no new Lawes then, but the Fundamentall Lawes of England, derived from the first founding of the British and English Chur­ches, as to the substance of them. To all my premisses or particularities (as he calleth them) he hath been able to answer nothing, but leaves them to the Canon and Secular Law­iers to scuffle about them: but he utterly de­nyeth my Conclusion, what an absurdity that is, he is not ignorant.

But alas! what doth the world know of the Municipall Lawes of England, untill we instruct them better? and what Opinion can Forreiners have of us, but what they learn from him and his Fellowes? We acknowledge with Doctor Hammond, that Papall Vsurpations were cast out of England in Henry the eights time: but we adde, not [Page 280] by the Creation of new Lawes, but by the vigorous execution of the ancient Lawes, being first renewed and confirmed by him­self. We acknowledge that Henry the eighth did finally shake of the yoke of Rome, which could not have been done, if there had been nothing to have been sha­ken of or reformed: but this doth not hin­der but that his Predecessors did attempt to shake it of long before, even at the first appearing of it; yea and did actually shake it of, for a time, in a great part.

His fifth Objection is, that according to me the Lawes made by Henry the eighth, did no more then the former Lawes. Where did I say so? untill he is able to shew it me, (which I shall expect at the Greek Calends,) I shall score it up among his lesser Falsifica­tions. And for his inference which he ma­kes, that he never heard it pretended, that they did shake of the Roman yoke in part, or for a time, therefore they did it not; it sheweth but his ignorance in the Lawes and histories of his native Country. If he had perused them diligently, he might have observed how the Court of Rome and Crown of England, were long upon their Gards watching one ano­ther: and the one or the other gained or lost mutually, according to the Vigour of their [Page 281] present Kings or Popes, or according to the exigence of the times.

His seventh Objection, that the like Lawes to ours in England were made in the Papacy it self, but those could not be against the Popes Head­ship of the Church: and his tenth Objection that then there never was a Papist Country in the world, because equivalēt Lawes to ours were made in France Spaine Italy Sicily Gormany Poland, &c: and his answer to my demand [what law full Iur [...]sdiction could remaine to the Pope in England, where such and such Lawes had force?] The same that re­maines still to him in France Spaine Italy where the like lawes are in force, in his last para­graph; are a dish of unsavoury mushromes, all sprung up from his own negligent mi­stake or wilfull Falsification (let him chuse whether he will) in confounding the Lawes of Mortmain with the other La­wes against the Popes Vsurpations;Vind. pa 71. Which I distinguished exactly both at the beginning of that discourse [the Sta­tute of Mortmain justified] and at the Conclusion [But to leave this Digression.] Vind. pa 74.

But besydes this grosse errour, there want not other inconsequences and falla­cies in his discourse; as in his seventh Objection from the Popes particular [Page 282] Headship of his own Church, to an Vni­versall Headship over the Catholick Church, and from an Headship of order to a Monarchicall Headship of power; and in his tenth Objection from [like lawes] to the same Lawes, from Lawes made to Lawes duely observed. We had Lawes made against Non-conformists in England, will he conclude thence that we have▪ no Non-conformists in England? the Argu­ment would hold better the Contrary way, Ex malis moribus bonae leges. And in his last Paragraph, from Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court to Iurisdiction purely Spirituall in the Court of Conscience; and from Coactive Iurisdiction with the leave of the Prince to the same without Leave. Wee see all Roman Catholick Countries, doe stint the Popes Coactive Iurisdiction over their Subjects more or lesse, accor­ding to their severall Liberties, which they could not doe at all, if he held it by Christs own Ordination.

His eighth Objection, that upon this new Law made by Henry the eighth, England stood at another distance then formerly from Rome; is a Fallacy non causae pro causa, when a false cause is assigned for a true cause. Our just Lawes are not the right cause of our [Page 283] distance from Rome: but the Popes unjust Censures, and that Character which some of our Countrimen give of us. But this di­stance is greater among the Populacy then between the Estates, who do not much re­gard the Popes Censures either in making or observing of Leagues.

To his ninth Objection in his order, and his last in my order, that this Posi [...]on takes away the Question, and makes all the Contro­vertists in England on both sides talke in the aire, because it makes the Pope to have had no Au­thority there to be cast out. I answer, I wish it did, but it doth not. The Pope had Authority there, and Authority usurped fit to be cast out, notwithstanding our former good La­wes. But yet I must confesse this Position doth much change the Question, from spi­rituall Iurisdiction in the inner Court to Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court, and makes him and many other such Controvertists talk in the aire, who dispute onely about Headships and First Mover­ships, when the true Controversy lieth in point of Interest and profit.

Sect. 4.
That the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrein Iu­risdiction, for the first six hundred years, and so ought to continue.

After I had shewed the Equality of the Apostles, except onely a Priority of Order; and that the Supremacy of power did not rest in any single Apostolicall Col­lege; that Nationall Patriarchs were the highest Order constituted by the Apostles in the Church; and how some Patriarchs came to be advanced above others, with the true dignity or Preheminence of Apo­stolicall Churches: the summe of all the rest of this Section might be reduced to a Syl­logisme.

Those Churches which were exempted from all forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600 years, cannot be subjected to any forrain Iurisdiction for the future against their own wills.

But all the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first six hundred yeares.

[Page 285]The Major Proposition was proved by me undeuiably, out of the first Generall Councell of Ephesus; to which Mr. Serjeant hath objected nothing. Next I proved the Minor▪ First by Prescription. Affirmanti incumbit probatio; The burthen of the proofe in Law resteth upon the Affirmer: but they are not able to shew so much as one single act of Iurisdiction, which ever any Bishop of Rome did in Brittaign for the first six hundred yeares. Secondly, I proved it from the Antiquity of the Britannick Church, which was ancienter then the Ro­man it self, and therefore could not be sub­ject, to the Romā from the beginning. Thirdly, because the Britannick Churches sided with the Eastern Churches against the Ro­man, and therefore were not subject to the Roman. Fo [...]rthly, because they had their Ordinations ordinarily at home, which is an infallible sign of a free Church subject to no Forrein Iurisdiction. Lastly because they renounced all Subjection to the Bishop of Rome. I am forced to re­peat thus much to let the Reader see the contexture of my discourse, which Mr. Serjeant doth whatsoever he can to con­ceale, or at least to confound and dis­joint.

[Page 286]Out of this he picketh here and there what he pleaseth, First he pleadeth that my Title is the Vindication of the Church of England: but the Church of England can derive no title from the Britannick or Scottish Churches. He never read or quite forgetteth the State of the Questiō. I will help his memory. Let him read the Vindication [by the Church of England we understand not the English Nation alone,Vind. pa 24. but the English dominion, including the British and Scotish or Irish Christians]. So at unawares he hath yiel­ded the Bishopricks of Chester, Hereford, Worcester (for all these were Suffragans to Carleon), Wales, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland with all the adjacent Ilands, that is to say, two third parts of the English Domini­on.

Secondly, he pleadeth that for this many hundred yeares they acknowledged the Popes Authority as well as the Church of England. I answer, that this will doe him no good nor satisfy the Generall Councell of Ephesus at all, which hath decreed expresly in the case of the Cyprian Prelates, and they Com­mand the same to be observed in all Provinces, that no Bishop occupy another Province, which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors, and if any [Page 297] doe occupy another Province (that in this case) let him restore it,Concil. Ephes. part 1. Act. 7.that the Canons of the Fa­thers be not sleighted. But they who never ex­ercised one Act of Iurisdictiō in the Brittan­nick Iland for the first 600 years, cannot pretend that it was under their power, in the time of the Councell of Ephesus or long after. It was not for nothing that he con­cealed the words of the Councell.

Yet he asketh, what do the Scots concern the Church of Englands Vindication? Do they not? Are not the Scots a part of the Bri­tannick Ilands, and so comprehended under the name of the Church of England in this Question? Besides he must know that I challenge some Interest among the Irish Scots, from whom I derive my Episcopall Orders. Against the Irish Ordination never any man had any pretense of Excep­tion to this Day. The Irish were the an­cient and principall Scots, and the Britan­nick Scots a Colony derived from them. That they are the ancient Scots, who did join with the Britons in not submitting to the See of Rome, I shall shew him clearly from the Authority of Lawrence, Successor to S. Austin in his Archbishoprick, and the other English Bishops of that Age, in their Letter to the Bishops of Scotland, [Page 288] To conclude he tooke not onely Care of the new Church collected of the English,Bede hist. Ec. lib. 2. ca. 4.but of the old Inhabitants of Britain, and also of the Scots who inhabit Ireland, the next Island to Bri­tain. For assoone as he knew that their life and profession in their Country, was like that of the Brittons in Britany not Ecclesia­sticall &c. That is to say not Roman. He seeth I had some reason not to [...]eave out the Scots.

Besides the Britons the Scots and the Irish, I urged that [the great Kingdomes of Mor­cia and Northumberland were converted by the Scots, and had their Religion and Or­dination first from the Scots, afterwards among themselves, without any forrein de­pendence, and so were as free as the Bri­tons]. He saith all the force lieth in these words [without any Forrein dependence] wich I obtrude [...]pon them without any proofe. His mi­stakes are infinite, my proofe is Demon­strative, They who had their first Ordina­tion from the Scots, and ever after were Ordeined among themselves, never had any Ordination from the Bishop of Rome, and consequently were never subject to the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: For it is a Maxime in the Law, and is most evi­dent in the case of the Cyprian Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus, that the right of [Page 289] [...]urisdiction doth follow the right of Ordi­nation. And if it were not so, yet what man in his right wits could Imagin, that the Scots who were the Converters, should renounce Subjection to the Bishop of Rome themselves, and teach their Converts the Mercians and Northumbrians to submit to the Bishop of Rome

But if I had said no more▪ but onely that they were without any forrein dependence, it had been enough on my part. It belongeth not to me to prove a Negative, and such a con­tinued Negative as this is: but the burthen of the proofe resteth wholy upon him, both in reason and Law, to prove his Affir­mative, that the Merciās and Northumbrians did depend upon the Bishop of Rome in those dayes, in point of practise, for Or­dination and Iurisdiction; which he is not able to doe. What he addeth, that I said Ordination is nothing at all to Iurisdiction, is for want of Vnderstanding, because he is not able to distinguish between the right of Ordination, and the Act of Ordeining. We attribute to the Scots the Act of Ordeining, not a Superiour right of Ordination.

In the next place I urged, that [a world of British Christians staid behind among the Saxon Conquerours, every where all over [Page 290] England, such whom they had no cause to feare for their power Activity or Influence upon others; which poore Conquered Christians had a right to the just Privile­ges of their Ancestours]. He would per­swade us, First that all of them or all ex­cept some few fled into Wales or Cornwall. What to do? To be repacked there as her­rings? Or like Camelions to live upon the aire and leave all the rest of the Kingdome desolate? It was not ten, or twenty, nor a hundred, nor a [...] thousand little Vessells, could bring over Saxons enough with their wifes and Children and Servants, to plant the Kingdomes of England. We see dayly, that the very Armies of such Conquerours, doe consist for the greater part of Natives, and that it is not their forrain Numbers, but their Military Skill and resolution which gaineth them the Victory. Looke upon all the Kingdomes of the world, Italy, Spain, France, England, &c. and what are they but mixed Societies, of Forreiners and Natives, Conquerers and Conquered per­sons, now i [...]corporated with little or no distinction, by long Tract of time. After the Norman Conquest, hundreds of English inhabited England for one Norman. In the beginning of the late Insurrection in Ireland, [Page 291] notwithstāding those great n [...]mbers which came over daily into Ireland and Scotland to seeke for Plantations, for thirty or forty yeares together, yet there were ten Irish, for one English and Scotch▪ and yet we do not find that these Saxon warres were so bloudy as the Irish warres, or that either they persecuted the persons of the Britons with Cruelty, or so much as demolished their Churches.

But he supposeth, that if there were any such British Christians, yet they became subject to the Pope. I believe some of them were subject to the Pope as to the Bishop of their Mother Church, and all of them as to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, that is, to be guided by his grave advise and dire­ction: but I deny that ever the Saxon Bi­shops were subject to the Pope, as to an ab­solute Monarch by Christs own ordination, or that the Pope enjoyed the Soveraign Patronage of the Saxon Church, or the Supreme Legislative Iudiciary or dispen­sative power over it. This the Saxon Kings and their Bishops under thē ever enjoyed, as the Britons did before them: and this is all which our Kings desire, or we claime for them. If he have any thing to say to this point, let him bring Authorities not words.

[Page 292]He saith, This is all one as if some few men setling by accident in France, should pretend an exemption from the French Lawes, and expect English Privileges. Nay, it is cleare con­trary, as if some French men comming in­to Britaine, and planting and propagating there, should expect the British Privileges to their Posterity. So the Saxons planting in Britain, so soone as their Posterity was capable of them by becomming Christians, might justly claime the Liberties and Privi­leges of British Christians.

I said [the Saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the Privileges as to the Lands of the Britons]. He stileth it, a rare rea­son, as if I meant that Ecclesiasticall Iurisdi­ction, were a thing of that nature to be won by the sword. Or rather as if he meant Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court, and Iurisdiction purely Spirituall which Christ left unto his Church, is all one. I doe not mean that power purely Spirituall is to be won by the Sword: but I believe that exem­tion from Coactive power in the exteriour Court is to be won by the sword. So the Scots eased the Archbishop of York of the trouble of a great part of his Province [...] So just Conquerours may, and doe often change the Externall Policy of the Church, for the publick good.

[Page 293]He bids me, shew that the English Bishops were impowered by the British Bishops, or else let me confesse that they could inherit no Privile­ges from them. I can shew him that I my self was impowered, and did receive my Episcopall Ordination from the ancient Scotch Bishops by an uninterrupted Succes­sion; And many English Bishops have re­ceived their orders mediatly▪ or immediatly from the British Bishops.

I said most truely, that before he can allege the Authority of the Councell of Sardica for Ap­peales to Rome, he must renounce the divine institution of the Papacy, or at least the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to the Papacy: because that Canon submitted it to the good plea­sure of the Fathers, and grounded it upon the Memory of St. Peter, not the Institution of Christ. The reason of this Consequence is most evident. For the Councell of Sardica would not, nor could have submitted that which is the Popes right, by Christs own Ordination, to the good pleasure of the Fathers, whether he should have it or not; nor would have assigned their respect to the Memorie of Saint Peter, for a ground of that for which they had the Commandement of Christ: But the Councell of Sardica did submit [Page 294] the Popes right to receive Appeales, to the good pleasure of the Fathers, Placetne? doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter? Therefore, they did not hold this right of the Pope to receive Appeales, to be due to the Pope by Christs own Ordi­nance or Commandement: This he is plea­sed to call, a flat Falsification of the Councell, there being not a word in it, either concerning Papall power it self or its institution, but con­cerning Appeales onely. I am grown pretty well acquainted with his Falsifications. Did I say there was any thing in the Coun­cell, concerning the Papacy or Institution of it? If I did, let him tell us where and when, or els it is his own Falsification. But by his own Confession, there is something in the Councell concerning Appeales to the Pope, and this is submitted by the Coun­cell to the good pleasure of the Fathers, and no higher ground assigned for it, then the respect to the Memory of St. Peter: yet this right of receiving Appeales is made by him and all his Partakers, an Essentiall Branch of Papall power. Therefore if he and his Partakers say true, the Councell of Sardica did submit an Essentiall Branch of Papall Power, (or Papall power in part,) to the good pleasure of the Fathers; which is as [Page 295] much as to say they held it not to be of di­vine Institution. By this time I hope he understandeth my meaning better.

He presumeth, that some British Bishops sate in Councell of Sardica; it may be Athana­sius intimateth as much. He presumeth that they assented to the Sardican Canon about Appeales. It may be, or it may not be. I should rather assent to their voting to ac­quit Athanasius, who testifieth of them that they were right to the Nicene Faith. Epist. ad Iovinia. But sure­ly among all the Subscibers in the Sar­dican Councell, there is not one British Bishop named. And in the Synodall Letters of the Councell it self, wherein they reckon all the Provinces, Britain is not named. But what is the right of receiving Appeales, to an Vniversall Monarchy, or the decree of a Councell, to Christs own Ordination? If we would be contented to abrogate our old Lawes, and give the Bi­shop of Rome leave to execute that power which the Sardican Fathers did give him, he would scorn it, and much more their manner of giving it,Concil. Sard. cap. 3. Si vobis placet; if it please you, or of it seem good to your Charity let us honour the Memory of St. Peter; as both the Latin and the Greek Edition have it.

[Page 296]I said that the Councell of Sardica was no Generall Councell after the Eastern Bishops were departed, not out of any ill will to Atha­nasius, or favour to the Arrians (as for Ar­rianisme, the Sardican Fathers did no more then the Nicene had done before them): but out of another Consideration, because the presence of the five great Patriarchs with their respective Bishops, or at least the greater part of them, was ever more held necessary to the being of a Generall Councell; as Bellarmine himself confesseth that the seventh Synod judged the Councell of Constantinople against Images to have been no General Councell,Bel. de Con. li. 1. ca. 17.because it had not Pa­triarchs enough. If the Councell of Sardica had been a Generall Councell, why doe St. Gregory the great, Isiodore and Venerable Bede, quite omit it out of the number of Ge­nerall Councells? Why did St. Austin, Aly­pius, and the African Fathers sleight it? And which is more then all this, why doe the Eastern Church, not reckon it among their seven Generall Councells, nor the western Church, among their eight first Generall Councells? To Conclude, why did the En­glish Church, leave the Sardican Councell out of the number of Generall Coun­cells, in the Synod of Hedtfelde in the [Page 297] yeare 680▪ and embrace onely these for Generall Councells untill that day, The Councell of Nice, the first of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, the Councell of Chal­cedon and the second of Chalcedon? Apud Spelm. an. 680. p. 169. Here he may see a plain reason, why I say the Coun­cell of Sardica was never incorporated into the English Lawes. I would know, whether he or I be of the old English Religion in this point; The five First Generall Coun­cells were incorporated into the Law of England: but the Councell of Sardica was none of them, Therefore no Generall Councell. I have given him a further ac­count concerning this Councell Sect. 1, c. 7. to which I refer him.

I said, and I said most truely, that the Canons of the Sardican Councell touching Appeales were never received in England, nor incorporated into our English Lawes. For proofe hereof, I bring him an evident demonstration out of the Fundamentall Law of England, as it is recorded in that fa­mous Memoriall of Clarendon: All Appeales in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to doe Iustice, the last complaint must be to the King, to give Order for redresse. [Page 298] Our Ancestours had not so much respect for Pope Iulius, nor thought appeales to Rome any honour to the Memory of St. Peter.

I said, [the Canon of the Councell of Sardica, was cōtradicted after by the Great Councell of Chalcedon]. He rejuneth that I neither thought the words worth citing, nor the Canon where the Abrogation of the Sardican Canon is found worth mentioning. Pardon me, I said nothing of Abrogation, but I did say it contradicted it: and for proofe of the truth of what I said, take the very words of two Canons of that Councell, Concil. Chalc. par. 2. Act. 14. cap. 9. But if a Clerk have a cause against his own Bishop, or against another Bishop, let him be Iudged by the Synod of the Province: but if a Bishop or a Clerke have a Complaint against the Metro­politan of the same Province, let him repaire either to the Primate of the Diocesse, or the See of their royall City of Constantinople, aend let him be judged there. Wee see every Pri­mate, that is to say, every Patriarch in generall in his own Diocesse or Patriar­chate, and the Patriarch of Constanti­nople in particular out of his own Diocesse, is equalled by the Councell of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome. The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth Canon, [Page 299] that if there shall happen any Difference concerning the Possessions of the Churches, it shall be lawfull to them who affirm themselves to be grieved, to sue before the Holy Synod of the Province: but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan, let him be judged by the Pri­mate of the Diocesse, or by the holy See of Con­stantinople.

I have read those silly Evasions, which your greatest Schollars are forced to make use of, for answers to these downright Ca­nons. Sometimes by Primate of the Dio­cesse (which signifieth all Patriarchs) they understand and the Pope. Do men use such im­proper expressions, which no man can un­derstand, in penning of Lawes? Is it not a great Condiscension for the Visible Mo­narch of all Christendome, to stoupe to so meane a Title as the Primate of one single Diocesse. But alas, it will do him no good! For if it were taken in this sense, it were the most uniust Canon in the world, to deprive all Patriarchs of their Patriarchall Iurisdi­ction, except the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople. The Councell which is so carefull to preserve the Bishop his right, and the Metropolitan his right, could not be so carelesse to destroy Patriarchall right; or the Patriarchs themselves, who were pre­sent [Page 300] at the making of this Canon, so stupid to joine in it.

At other times they tell us that this is to be understood onely of the first Instance, not of Appeales. This is weaker and wea­ker What hath a Metropolitan to doe with private causes of the first instance, out of his own Bishoprick? What have the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople to doe, to Iudge causes of the first Instance in other Patriarchates? The case is cleare: if any man be grieved by his Bishop he may appeale to his Metropolitan and a Synod; and if any man be grieved by his Metro­politan he may appeale to his Patriarch. And if this absurd sēse (which they Imagin) were true, yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive Appeales, from all parts of the world, as well as the Bishop of Rome. Let them winde, and wrest, and turn things as they can, they shall never be able to reconcile the Papall Pretensions, with the Councell of Chalcedon.

I have neither changed my mind nor my note, concerning Eleutherius his Letter to King Lucius; I did, I doe esteem it to be of dubious Faith. So much I intimated [if it be not counterfeit]. So much he intimated [as much as we have Records in our Histories] [Page 301] Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over, so often as we may take occasion? Thus far then we are of accord: but in the rest we differ wholy. He is positive,Down Derry p. 133. as much as we have Records, the Popes Authority doth appeare: I am as positive, as much as we have Records, the Kings Authority doth appeare. For if those Records be true, Eleutherius left the Le­gislative part to King Lucius and his Bi­shops. This was enough to answer him.

He addeth, though our Faith relieth on im­mediate Tradition for its certain Rule and not upon Fragments of old Authors, that is in plain English, upon his bare word with­out any Authority. How should a man prove ancient Tradition but by Authors? Yet after all this flourish, he produceth us not one old Author but St. Prosper, a stranger to our affaires, and him to no purpose [...] who saith onely what he heard in Italy, That Pope Celestine sent St. German in his own stead to free the Britons from Pelaginisme, and converted the Scots by Palladius. If all this were as true as Gospell, it signifieth just nothing. I have shewed formerly that there is no Act of Iurisdiction in it, but onely of the Key of Knowledge. He rejoineth, that he relied on these words [vice sua] in his own stead, [Page 302] which sheweth that it belonged to his Office to doe it. Why should it not? The Key of Order belongeth to a Bishop, as well as the Key of Iurisdiction: And more especially to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church, as Pope Celestine was, and in such a case as that was (the Pelagian Controversy) to testify the Apostolicall Tradition; he was bound by his Office to doe it, and he trusted S. Ger­man to doe it in his place. All this is no­thing to the purpose; there is no Act of Iu­risdiction in the Case, but of Charity and Devotion. Yet if it were not altogether impertinēt to the purpose we have in hand, I should shew him that there is ten times better ground to believe that it was done by a French Synod, then by Pope Celestine; not out of an obscure Author, but out of Authentick undoubted Histories; as Constā ­tius in the Life of S. German, Venerable Bede, Mathew Westminster and many others. Is it not strange, that they being so much provoked, are not able to produce a proofe of one Papall Act of Iurisdiction done in Britain for the first six hundred years?

Here he catcheth hold at a saying of mine, which he understandeth no more then the Man in the Moone, that [all other rights of Iurisdiction, doe follow the right [Page 303] of Ordination] which he taketh as though I meant to make Ordination it self to be an Act of Iurisdiction, though I deny it and distinguish it from it. To make the Rea­der to understand it, we must distinguish between actuall Ordination, and a right to ordaine. Actuall Ordination, where there was no precedent Obligation for that per­son to be ordeined, by that Bishop, doth imply no Iurisdiction at all: but if there was a precedent right in the Ordeiner to ordein that man, and a precedent Obligation in the person Ordeined to be ordeined by that Bishop, then it doth imply all manner of Iurisdiction, suitable to the Quality of the Ordeiner; as if he were a Patriarch all Pa­triarchall Iurisdiction, if he were a Metro­politan all Metropoliticall Iurisdiction, if he were a Bishop all Episcopall Iurisdi­ction. And the Inference holdeth like­wise on the Contrary side, that where there is no right precedent to Ordein, nor Obli­gation to be ordeined, there is no Iurisdi­ction followeth: but I shewed out of our own Histories, and out of the Roman Re­gisters so far as they are set down by Plati­na, that the Bishop of Rome had no right to ordein our British Primates, but that they were ordeined at home; and therefore [Page 304] the Bishop of Rome could have no juris­diction over them.

I said no more of Phocas but this, that [the Popes pretēses were more from Phocas then St. Peter.] He referreth me to his answer to Doctor Hammond. Pa. 1. Sect. 6. And I refer him to Doctor Hammond for a reply, as Impertinent to my present businesse.

When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad Meditation upon this Subject, I con­fesse ingenuously, that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Popes Patriarchate: but in con­clusion, that which had been a cause of my trouble, proved a meanes of my [...]inall Sa­tisfaction. For seing it is generally con­fessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Pa­triarch, I concluded that he could not be a Spirituall Monarch. The reasons of my Resolution I have set down, and received no answer: Yet it shall not seem irksome to me to repeat them, as desiring nothing but the discovery of the truth. First I argue thus, The Soveraign Government and the Subor­dinate Government, of the same person in the same Society, or body Politick or Eccle­siastick, is inconsistent: But the Popes pretended Monarchy or Supremacy of power over the whole Church, and his Pa­triarchall [Page 305] Dignity in the same Church, are a Soveraign and Subordinate Government of the same person in the same body Eccle­siastick. The reason of the Major is be­cause Soveraign power is single of one per­son or Society: but this subordinate power is conjoint of fellow Patriarchs. Soveraign Power is Vniversall, but this subordinate power is particular. And therefore as a Quadrangle cannot be a Triangle, nor a King a Sherif of a Shire or a President of a Province within his own Kingdome: so neither can the same person be an Vniversall Monarch and a particular Patriarch.

Secondly, the Spirituall Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is pretended to be by divine right, his Patriarchall power is con­fessedly by humane right: but a Spirituall Soveraignty by divine right and an infe­riour dignity by humane right are incon­sistent. As it is absurd to say that God should make a man a Prince, and after the people make him a Peer: or God should give him a Greater Dignity, and after­wards the people cōferre a lesse upon him.

Thirdly, a Soveraignty above the Canōs, besides the Canons, against the Canons, to make them, to abrogate them, to suspend them with a Non obstante, to dispense with them at pleasure, where the Canon gives [Page 306] no dispensative power. and a Subjection to the Canons to be able to do nothing against them are inconsistent▪ But su [...]h a Soveraign Power is above the Canons, and such a Pa­triarchall power is subject to the Canons Therefore they are inconsistent.

All the answer he offereth to these two In­stances; the one that Bishop Vsher was at once Bishop of Armagh, and as such the Bishop of Derries superiour. I answer, first he mi­staketh much, The Primacy of Ireland and the Archbishoprick of Armagh are not two di [...]inct dignities, but one and the self same dignitie: but the Monarchicall power of the Pope by divine right, and his Patriar­chall power by Humane right, are two distinct dignities. Secondly, the Primate of Ireland is not indowed with Monarchi­call power: but all the difficulty here lieth in the Conjunction of Monarchicall power and Subordinate power. His other In­stance, must a person leave of to be Master of his own Family▪ because he is made King, and his Authority extendeth over all England. I answer, first his Argument is a transition in­to another kind, or an excursion from one kind of power to another; from Politicall power in the Commonwealth to an Oeco­nomicall power in the Family. Secondly it is one thing to make an inferiour person [Page 307] a King, and another thing to make a King a Constable, or to make Soveraignty and Subordination consist together. When a King doth discharge the place of a Gene­rall of an Army he acquireth no new dig­nity or power or place, no man calleth him my lord Generall; but he doth it as a King by his Kingly power, to which no higher or larger power can be added: but the Bis­hop of Rome did not, doth not exercise Patriarchall power, by virtue of his Mo­narchy by divine Ordination, but by hu­mane right; first by Custome or prescrip­tion, and then by authority of the Coun­cell of Nice. All the world seeth and ac­knowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome hath more power in his Bishoprick then he hath out of it in the rest of his Province; ād more power in his Province, then he hath out of it in his Patriarchate, and more power in his own Patriarchate, then he hath in anothers Patriarchate: but if he had a So­veraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination, he should have the same power every where; if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination, then all Patri­archall power should flow from him, as from the Originall Fountain of all Ecclesia­asticall honour. But the Contrary is most [Page 308] apparent, that all the Patriarchs, even the Roman himself, did owe their Patriarchall power to the Customes of the Church, and Canons of the Fathers. These are the rea­sons why I conceive Monarchicall Power and Patriarchall power, to be inconsistent in one and the same persō: But the Pope was cōfessedly a Patriarch, therefore no Monarch.

The next thing which commeth to be ob­served, is his Exceptiōs to Dionothus the lear­ned Abbat of Bangor his āswer to Austin, pro­fessing Canonicall Obedience to the Archbi­shop of Caerleō in his own name ād the name of the British Church, and disclaiming all O­bediēce except of Brotherly love, to the Bi­shop of Rome. His first exception was the naming of the Bishop of Rome [Pope] without any Addition of Name or place, contrary to the use of those times. For āswer I committed him and his Friend Bellarmine together, Whē the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome one­ly is to be understood,Bell. li. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. appeareth out of the Coun­cell of Chalcedon [the most blessed and Apostoli­call man the Pope doth command us this,] without adding Leo or Rome or the City of Rome or any other thing. He sleighteth Bellarmine and rebu­keth me for folly, to think that Catholick writers cannot disagree, and answereth the Councell that thought the word [Pope] be alone without Addition, Yet which is equivalent, the [Page 309] Comitant Circumstances sufficiently indigitate the person. For the words were spokē by Boniface the Popes Vicegerent. As if there were not the same indigitating Circūstances here as well as there, the words being spoken by Austin the Popes Legate and Vicar as well as Boni­face, in the name of Pope Gregory to the Bri­tons, which were answered here by Dinoth.

His second exception to Dinoths Testi­mony is, that there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes, the See being re­moved from Caerleon to Menevia or S. Da­vids, fifty yeares before this. That it was re­moved before this I acknowledge, but how long before this is uncertain. Some Au­thors make S. Gregory and S. David, to have died on one Day s [...]me years after this meeting. And it is an usuall thing for Bi­shopricks to have two names, as the Bisho­prick of Ossory and Kilkenny is the same Bi­shoprick: [...]he Bishoprick of Kerry and Ard­fert is the same Bishoprick. The See of Derry was long removed from Ardstrath to Derry, before it was commonly called the Bisho­prick of Derry; and so was Lindesfern to Dur­ham. I produced two witnesses for this very Place of Caerleon, that it still reteined the old name. The one the British History, Then died David the most holy Archbishop of Caerleon in the City of Menevia. And yet it is thought, [Page 310] that the first removall of the See was made by Dubritius to Landaff, and after from Lan­daffe to Menevia by St. David, at whose death it was stiled the Archbishoprick of Caerleon. The other witness was Geraldus Cambrensis, we had at Menevia five and twenty Archbishops of Caerleon successively whereof St. David was the First. He takes no notice of the first Testimony, and puffes at the second and sleights it:p. 504. but answereth no­thing Materiall, but that which will cut the throat of his cause, Had Caerleons Arch­bishops (saith he) onely for some conveniency, resided at Menevia, and the right of Iurisdiction still belonged to Caerleon, it might more easily be conceived fa [...]sible. Take notice then that the Bishops of Caerleon did remove from a po­pulous City in those dayes, (as Caerle­gion or the City of the Roman Legion was) to Menevia onely for the conveniency of a solitary life and contemplative devotion; and it is more then p [...]obable that the active part of his Iurisdiction was still executed at Caerleon. The See is changed so soone as the Church is builded: but the City will require longer time, to be fitted for Inhabi­tants and furnished. All that he opposeth to this, is that it was ordinarily called the Bishoprick of Menevia. Who douhteth of [Page 311] it? but that doth not prove that it was not also called Caerleon. It was First the Bi­shoprick of Caerleon alone, then the Bi­shoprick of Caerleon or Menevia indiffe­rently, afterward the Bishoprick of Mene­via or St. Davids indifferently, and now the Bishoprick of St. Davids onely. He carpeth at the name of Caerleon upon Vske. Why so? why not as well Caerleon upon Vske, as Kingston upon Hull, or Newark upon Trent, or Newcastle upon Tine? Where there are severall Cities of one name, as there were Caerlegions or Cities of Ro­man Legions in Brittain, it is ever usuall to give them such a marck of Distinction.

But why doth he wrangle about names and persecute an innocent paper after this manner? The thing is sure enough, that there was one Dinoth a learned Abbat of Bangor at that time, who did oppose Au­stin, and stand for the Iurisdiction of his own Archbishop of Caerleon or Menevia, chuse you whether. Thus much he him self acknowledgeth in this very Para­graph, citing out of Pitseus, a booke of this very Dinoths, the title whereof was Defensorium Iurisdictionis Sed [...]s Menevensis;p. Apology for the Iurisdictiō of the Seeof Menevia. [Page 312] And against whom should this Apology be, but against Austin and the Romans? no men els did oppose the Iurisdiction of the Bi­shop of Menevia. Bede With this agreeth that of Venerable Bede, Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. That Austin by the help of King Ethelbert, called to a Conference (or Councell) the Bishops and Doctors of the grea­test and nearest Province of the Britons: and be­gan to perswade them with brotherly Admonitions to hold Catholick peace with him, to undertake the Common work of preaching to the Pagans, for they observed not Easter in due time, and did many other things contrary to the Vnity of the Church. The end of this first Assembly was, They would give no assent, neither to the prayers nor exhor [...]ations, nor reprehensions of Austin and his fellowes, but preferred their own Tra­ditions before all others throughout the Church. And among all their Traditions, there was none which they held more tenaci­ously, then this inserted in this Manuscript, that is the Independent Iurisdiction of the British Primate, which they never deser­ted till after the Norman Conquest. To maintaine the Independence of their own Primate, is as much as to disclaime obedi­ence to the Pope.

But this is clearer in their resolution af­ter the second Synod, whereat were seven [Page 313] British Bishops and very many learned men, especially of the most noble Monastery of Bāgor, whereof that time Dinoth was Abbat; who gave this finall answer to Austins three de­mands, mentioned here by Mr. Serjeant, At illi nihil [...]orum se facturos, neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant: They answered they would do none of them, nor hold him for an Archbishop. Here wee see Dinoth was Abbat at that time; Dinoth was present at that Councell, and all the Britons did not onely reject those three propositi­ons (which he acknowledgeth): but did moreover in renouncing Austin, dis­claīme St. Gregories Authority over them, whose Legate he was. What is this lesse then Dinoths Manuscript?

The authour of the old British History called Brutus, relateth this answer of the Britons thus; Se Caerleonensi Archiepiscopo obedire voluisse, Augustino autem Ro­mano Legato omnino noluisse: That they would obey the Archbishop of Cae [...]leon but they would not obey Austin the Ro­man Legate. Here he hath expresse testi­mony of their adhering to their Bri­tish Primate, and their renouncing Papall Authority, and lastly of the very name of the Archbishop of Caerleon at that day. [Page 314] To the same purpose Grai [...]s in Scala Croni­ca, and Grocelinus in his greater History are cited by Caius de Antiquit: Acad. Can­tab.

With them agreeth Geoffry of Monmouth who saith there were at least one and twenty hundred Monkes in the Monastery of Bangor, DeOrig & gest. Brit. li. 8. ca. 4. who did all live by the Labour of their own hāds, and their Abbot was called Dinoth, marvei­lously learned in the liberall Arts, who shewed to Austin (requiring subjection from the British Bishops, and perswading them to undertake with him the Common labour of preaching,) by di­verse reasons, that they did owe him no Subjec­tion, nor to preach to their enemies. Seing they had an Arch prelate of their own &c. And a little after, Ethelbert King of the Kentishmen when he see the Britons did disdain to subject themselves to Austin, and to despise his prea­ching, stirred up the Saxon Kings to collect a great Army against Bangor, to destroy Dinoth the Abbat, and the other Clerkes of that Mo­nastery, who had despised Austin. This is the very same in effect with Dinoths Welsh ma­nuscript: and there fore it was no welsh Bal­lad first made in Edward the sixths time, by some English Schoolmaister to teach welsh boyes En­glish, as Mr. Serjeant Vapoureth.

With him agreeth Giraldus Cambrensis, [Page 315] But yet alwaies untill, Itin. Camb. l. 2. c, 1. Wales, was fully subdued which was done by Henry the first King of the English, the Bishops of Wales were conse­crated by the Archbishop of Menevia. And he (the Archbishop of Menevia) in like man­ner was consecrated by others, as being his Suf­fragans, without making any Profession of Sub­jection at all to another Church. They all agree in this, the Britons were [...] and [...], all waies ordained at home, independent upon any forrain Pre­late,Bede Ec Hist. li. 2. c. 1. ought no subjection to Rome. And there fore it is no great wonder, if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the fa­vourite both of the Pope and people, not long before his own promotion to the Pa­pacy, whether the Ilanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians.

To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet, who having commended this Di­noth for a learned and a prudent man, he addeth, that Austin meeting him did demand that they should performe subjection to him, as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome; and demanded further that he would help him in preaching: but he denied the one and the other. Still Subjection is denied. With these, Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry Spellman, and all our Antiquaries doe agree exactly. And none [Page 316] of our Historiographers that I know, doe disagree from it in the least, who write upon that subject, though some set it down more fully then others. Iudge now Reader of Mr. Serjeants Knowledge or Ingenuity, who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play: and when I said the British Clergy, did renounce all obediēce to the Bishop of Rome, citing [Be­de and all others], telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once. I challenge him to name but one Historiographer, who affirmeth the contra­ry to that which all these doe affirm: if he be not able (as he is not) I might safely say without asking him leave, that it striketh the Question dead.

His third Exception, that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry Spellman found any other An­tiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth men­tioning, is so dull and unsignificant a piece, that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it. And such like are his other Ob [...]ections, which helpresseth not but toucheth gently: the Heads of them will not merit a repetition, having been answered already by Doctor Ham­mond.

But when he is baffeld in the cause, he [Page 317] hath a Reserve, that Venerable Bede, and Gildas, and Fox in his Acts and Monuments, do brand the Britons for wicked men, ma­king them as good as Atheists: Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one, he will neither wish the Pope such Friends, nor envy them to the Protestants. What needed this, when he hath got the worst of the cause, to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stinke? We read no other Character of Dinoth, but as of a pious lear­ned and prudent man. If Gildas, or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons, it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular per­sons, There were St. Davids, St. Dubricius's St. Thela [...]s's St. Oudoceus's and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda. What have they said more of the Bri­tons, then God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people, or more then the Saxons have said one of another, or more then maybe retorted upon any Natiō in Eu­rope? Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions, thē St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish? and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints. The Question is whether the British Church, did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Let him adorn this Sparta, and leave other impertinencies.

Sect. V.
That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to with­drawe their obedience from Rome.

The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consi­sting of these three particulars. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England; That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it, And that they did it with due modera­tion. His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three Sectiōs, where­of this is the first. Whatsoever he pra­teth in this Section of my shuff­ing away the whole Question, by balking the Bishop of Romes divine right to his Soveraignty of power, to treat of his Patriarchall right, which is humane; is first vain, For I al­wayes was and still am ready to joine Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Romes divine right to a Monarchicall power in the Church; saving alwaies to myself and my cause this advantage, That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiasticall are inconsi­stent. And this right being saved, I shall [Page 319] more willingly join issue with him about the Popes Monarchy, then about his Patri­archate. Secondly as it is vaine, so it is altogether impertinent, for my Ground is this, that a Soveraign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the publick good, to change any thing in the externall Regiment of the Church, which is not of divine Institution: but the Popes pretended Patronage of the English Church, and his Legislative Iudiciary and dispensative pow­er, in the exteriour Courtes of the same Church, doe concern the externall Regi­ment of the Church, aud are not of divine Institution. Here the Hindge of our Con­troversy doth move, without encombring our selves at all with Patriarchall Authority. Thirdly I say, that this discourse is not onely vaine and extravagant, but is likewise false; The Popes Protopatriarchall power, and the Authority of a Bishop of an Aposto­licall Church as the keper of Apostolicall Traditions deposited in that Church, are the fairest flowers in his Garland. What­soever power he pretendeth to, over the whole Church of Christ, above a Primacy of Order, is altogether of humane right; and the Application of that Primacy to the Bi­shop of Rome is altogether of humane right. [Page 320] And whatsoever he presumeth of the Vni­versall Tradition of the Christian Church, or the Notion which the former and present world, and we our selves before the Reformation had of the Papacy, that is, of the Divine right of the Popes Soveraignty, is but a bold, ratling, groundlesse bragge. I did and doe affirm, that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand yeers since; not explicitly, by making a formall Resignation of it, but implicitly, by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it.

I was contented to forbeare further dis­puting about Patriarchall rights, upon two Conditions; one that he should not pre­sume that the Pope is a Spirituall Mo­narch, without proving it. The other that he should not attempt to make Patriar­chall Privileges, to be Royall Prerogatives. This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me. If he had had, so much Civility in him, he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewar­ning of him, of two Errours which I was sure he would Commit. After all his Bravadoes, all that he hath pretended to prove, is but a Headship, a First Movership, a Chief Governourship, about which we have [Page 321] no Difference with them: and all the proofe he bringeth even of that, is a bold presump­tion that there is such an immediate Tra­dition. There is not so much as a Nationall Tradition, for those Branches of Papall power which we have rejected, and much lesse for the divine right of them. And if there were such a Particular Tradition, yet wanting both perpetuity and Vniversa­lity, we deny that it is a sufficient proofe of any right. This and the Privilege to receive Appeales, which is a Protopa­triachall Privilege, is all he produ­ceth.

If he would know what a Spirituall Monarch is, let him consult with San­ders de Visibili Monarchia, and Bel­larmine in his first booke de Pon [...]fice Ro­mano. But he is quite out of his aime, who knoweth no meane between a flat Tyrant and an Ordinary Chief Governour. Vpon these Termes a President of a Councell, a Mai­ster of a College, a Major of a Corporation should be so many Monarchs. I have shewed him what are those Branches of Soveraign Monarchicall Power which the Popes have Vsurped, and when each Vsurpa­tion did begin, (the first of thē about 1100. yeares after Christ,) with the Opposition [Page 322] that was made unto them by the King and Kingdome of England. If he will speake to the purpose, let him speake to these in par­ticular, and trouble us no more with his Chief Governourships, or hold his peace for ever. All the Controversy between them and us is in point of Interest, and the Externall Regiment of the Church, which is due to every Christian Soveraigne in his own Kingdome. It is not we, but they who have changed their Governour.

He would faine perswade us if he could, that no Catholick will believe that a Patriarch is dependent on a King in Ecclesiasticall affaires: yet he himself hath confes [...]ed formerly, that they hold that every good King is to take Order to see Ecclesiasticall Grievāces remedied,Sect. 3. pa. 52 [...]and the Canons of the Church observed. Then Patriarchs are not altogether independent upon Kings in Ecclesiasticall affaires, if a King be bound to see that a Patriarch exe­cute the Canons, and see Patriarchall Grie­vances remedied. Soveraign Princes have founded Patriarchates, and confirmed Patriarchates, and conferred Patriarchates, and taken away Patriarchates, still here is some dependence. Gregory the Great was a Patriarch and a Pope: yet he acknowled­ged, that he ought due Subjectiō to the Law [Page 323] of Mauritius in an Ecclesiasticall affaire; I being subject to your Command have transmit­ted your Law to be published,Greg. Ep. l. 2. Ep. 61.through diverse parts of the world: And because the Law it self is not pleasing to Almighty God, I have expres­sed my Opinion thereof to my Lords. Where­fore I have performed my duty on both sides, in yeilding Obedience to the Emperour, and no [...] con­cealing what I thought for God. But Mr. Serjeāts reasō is silly beyōd all degrees of cōparisō; Otherwise St. Peter could not preach at Rome if Nero were a King, nor St. Iames at Hie­rusalem without unkinging Herod. See what a doughty Argument he hath brought. Apo­stles, or Patriarchs, or Bishops, or Priests may perform the Ordinance of Christ, not­withstanding the Prohibition of Pagan Emperours and Kings: therefore they are independent upon them, and owe no Sub­jection or Obedience to any Kings, Chri­stian or pagan. Yes Sr. although they owe thē onely passive Obediēce in that, yet they owe them active Obedience to their other lawfull Commands, even in Ecclesiasticall affaires.

But now he saith, he will give me fair Law. Put the case Papall Government had not been of Divine, but onely of Humane Institu [...]ion, yet it ought not to have been rejected, unlesse the abu­ses [Page 324] had been irremediable. I allow him to give law, and shuffle, and cut, ād use what expressiōs he pleaseth: yet I used but an innocēt allusiō to the soaling of a Bowle, and it is thrice cast in my teeth. But for his faire law I thāk him, I will take no Law from him but what I can win my self. He would be glad with all his Heart, to have but a good pretense of Humane Institution, for those Branches of Papall power, which are really controver­ted between us: but I deny him all manner of Institution both divine and Humane, and have shewed that they are but upstart Vsur­pations of the Popes themselves, after 1100. years, and wanting lawfull Prescription even in these last ages, which ought to be plucked up as weeds, so soone as they are discovered, and to be removed before all other things, by those who are in Authority; Ante omnia spoliatus restitui debet. And here he is at us again with his often repeated and altogether mistaken case;Mart. Ep. l. 1. Epig. 46. which hence for­ward I shall vouchsafe no other answer to, but passe by it with a [...].

He demanded, whether I would Condiscend to the Rejection of Monar­chy, or extirpation of Episcopacy, for the misgovernment of Princes or Prelates? [Page 325] I answered [No;] We fancy not their Me­thod, who cannot prune a tree except they pluck it [...]p root and Branch: but I gave him three reasons why this could not ad­vantage his cause. First, never any such abu­ses as these were objected to Princes or Pre­lates in England; Secondly, we desire not the extirpation of the Papacy, but the reduction of it to the Primitive Constitution. Thirdly; Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution, so is not Papall Soveraignty of Iurisdiction. To the first he saith no­thing, but by way of Recrimination, the most ignoble kind of answering, especi­ally when he himself cannot but condemne them in his own Conscience, for notorious Fictions of Cretian Minotaures: But these abuses which we complain of, are the pro­per subject of the next Section.

He is here pleased to relate a pretty story of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that he confessed himself to lein a Schisme, in a pri­vate discourse (I warrant it was private enough, without either witnesse or parties) as this Author was told by a very grave person, whose Candour he hath no reason to suspect. And why doth this grave person appeare in a Vizard without a name, or appeare after the parties death, that durst not have said it in his l [...]fetime, and for feare to be detected [Page 326] now telleth us it was in private? And when all is done, it is ten to one this worthy per­son (if he be in rerum natura) is an utter ene­my, and of another Communion. We have had many abhominable lies spread abroad in the world, upon the bare Testimony of some such single Adversary; as the Apo­stacy of Bishop King, the Defection of King Charles, the hopes they had of my Lord of S [...]rafford; when all that knew my Lord of Strafford and that witnesse, knew right well he never did in the presence of any other, nor ever durst offer to him any discourse of that nature.

To the second he answereth, that we have already ex [...]rpated the Papacy out of England. No, we have onely cast out seven or eight Branches of Papall Iurisdiction in the exte­riou [...] Court; which Christ or his Apostles never challenged, never exercised, never medled withall; which the Church never granted, never disposed. He might still for us enjoy his Protopatriarchate, and the dig­nity of an Apostolicall Bishop, and his Pri­macy of Order, so lōg as the Church thought fit to continue it to that See, if this would content him.

To my third reason he excepteth. If Mo­narchy be of Divine Institution, the Venetians and the Hollanders are in a sad case. I am glad [Page 327] when I find any thing in him that hath but a resemblance of matter, more then wind and empty words, although they weigh no­thing when they come to be examined. The Venetians and Hollanders may be in a sad Condition, in the Opinion of such rash Censurers as himself is, who have learned their Theology and Politicks but by the halues. Who taught him to argue from the Position of one lawfull forme of Govern­ment, to the Deniall of another? All law­full Formes of Government are warranted by the Law of Nature, and so have their Institution from God in the Law of Nature; The Powers that be are ordained of God, Rom. 13. 1. whe­ther they be Monarchicall, or Aristocra­ticall, or Democraticall, Man prepareth the Body, God infuseth the Soule of Power, which is the same in all Lawfull Formes.

But though all lawfull Formes of Go­vernmēt be warranted by the law of nature, yet not all in the same Degree of Eminency. There is but one soule in the body, one Sun in the heaven, one Maister in a Family, and anciently one Monarch in each Society: all the first Governours were Kings. The soule of Soveraign Power is the same in all Formes, but the Organ is more apt to attain its end in one Form then another; in Mon­archy then in Aristocracy or Democracy. [Page 328] And we say God and Nature doe alwaies intend that which is best. Thus it is in the Law of Nature, which is warrant sufficient for any form of Government: but in the Positive Law of God, he never instituted or authorised any form but Monarchy.

In the last Paragraph, where I say that the Popes Headship of Iurisdiction, is not of divine Institution, he excepteth, that it is my bare saying, and my old [...]rick to say o­ver againe the very point in dispute between us. If this be the very point in dispute be [...]ween us (as it is indeed), it is more shame for him who letteth the very point in dispute alone, and never offereth to come neare it, especially having made such lowd bragges, that he would charge the Crime of Schisme upon the Church of England with undeniable Evidence, and prove the Popes Headship of Iuris­diction or Power; by a more ample cleare and continued Title, then any right of Law or Hu­mane Ordinances can offer. ‘Quid tanto dignum tulit hic promiss or hia [...]u?’

As for my part I know my Obliga­tion, whilest I am upon the defensive to make good my ground: and when it is my turn to assault, I shall discharge my duty. If he have any thing to say to the Huguenots of France, they are at age to answer him themselves; Our Controversy is onely con­cerning the Church of England.

SECT. 6.
That the King and Church of England, had sufficiēt grounds to seperate from the Court of Rome.

I had reason to wonder, not at our Grounds but their silēce, that having so long, so oftē called for our grounds of Seperation, and charged us, that we have no grounds, that we could have no grounds, now when sufficient Grounds are offered to them▪ two of them one after another should passe by them in deep silence. And this Dispatcher being called upon for an answer, unlesse he would have the cause sentenced against him upon a Nihil dicit; with more ha [...] then good speed, gives us an answer and no An­swer, like the Title of an empty Apothe­caries Box. If there be any Monster, the Reader may looke for it on that side, not on our side. He may promise the View of a strange Monster in his Antepasts and Postpasts, and blow his Trumpet to get pence a piece to see it (as he phraseth it): but if the Readers expect till he shew them any such rare sight, they may wait untill Dooms day, and all the remedy he offers them is, to say he hath abused them, as he doth often.

Now roome for his Case or his two Princi­ples of Vnity, which are evermore called in to help at a dead lift. But his case, is not the true [Page 330] case, and his Rules are leaden Rules, they might be streigh [...] at the beginning, but they have bended them according to their self Interest. Both his case and his Principles have been sufficiently discussed and fully cleared: so that I will not offend the Reader with his sleight dish of Coleworts sodden over and over againe.

He is angry, that I make our seperation to be rather from the Court of Rome, then from the Churc [...] of Rome, and stileth it perfect Im­pudence. So my Assertion be evidently true, I weigh not his groundlesse Calumnies. Let any man looke upon our Grievāces, and the Grounds of our Reformation, 1. the intol­lerable extortion of the Roman Court, 2. the unjust Vsurpations of the Roman Court, 3. the malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body politick, 4. the like malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body Ecclesiastick, 5. and lastly the Violation of ancient Liberties and Exemti­ons by the Roman Court; and he can not doubt from whence we made our Separati­on. All our sufferings were from the Roman Court; then why should we seek for ease but where our Shoe did wring us? And as our Grievāces, so our Reformatiō was onely of the Abuses of the Roman Court; Their bestowing of prelacies and dignities in En­gland [Page 331] to the prejudice of the right patrons; Their Convocating Synods in England with­out the Kings leave; Their prohibiting English Prelates to make their old Fe [...]dall Oaths to the King, and obliging them to take new Oaths of Fidelity to the Pope; Their imposing and receiving Tenths and First fruits, and other arbitrary Pensions upon the English Clergy; And lastly their usurping a Legislative Iudiciary and Dis­pensative Power in the exteriour Court by Politicall Coaction. These are all the Bran­ches of Papall power which we have rejec­ted. This Reformation, is all the Sepa­ration that we have made in point of Di­scipline. And for Doctrine, we have no Difference with them about the old Essen­tialls of Christian Religion: And their new Essentialls which they have patched to the Creed, are but their erroneous or at the best probable Opinions, no Articles of Faith.

He is still bragging of his Demonstrations, (yet they are but blind Enthymematicall Paralogismes, wherein he maketh sure to set his best legge formost, and to conceale the lamenesse of his Discourse as much as he can from the eyes of the Reader) and still calling upon us for rigorous Demonstration. I wish we knew whether he understād what rigorous Demonstration is in Logick, for no [Page 332] other Demonstration is rigorous, but that which proceedeth according to the strict Rules of Logick, either a priore or a poste­riore, from the cause or the effect: And this Cause in Difference between us (whether those Branches of power which the Pope claimeth and we have rejected, be the Lega­cies of Christ or Papall Vsurpatiōs) is not ca­pable of such rigorous Demonstration, but dependeth upon Testimony, which Logi­cians call an Inartificiall way of arguing. But if by rigorous Demonstration, he u [...]derstand convincing proofes, those grounds which I offer in this Section do contain a rigorous Demonstration. That Discipline which is brimfull of intollerable Rapine, and Extor­tion, and Simony, and Sacrilege; which robbeth Kings, and Subjects Ecclesiasticall and Secular, of their just rights; which was introduced into the Church of England, eleven hundred yeares after Christ; which hath a Malignant Influence upon the Body Politick; which is Destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Disci­pline; which in stead of securing men in peace doth thrust them into Manifest and manifold Dangers, both of soule and body; which is contrary to Generall Coun­cells, and the ancient Liberties of particular Churches: qua talis, as it is such, is no Le­gacy [Page 333] of Christ, but ought to be purged and reformed from all such abuses and Vsurpa­tiōs: But such is that Papall Discipline, which the Bishop of Rome excercised in Englād be­fore the Reformation, and lesse then which they will not goe; and such are all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out.

The truth of this Assertiō I have made ma­nifest in my Vindication c. 6, and this is the place of a further examination of it, if he did discharge the part of a faire solid Dispu­tant; to leave his windy Invectives, which signify nothing to the cause, but to his own shame, and to proceed closely and ingenu­ously to the investigation of truth without prejudice or partiality. But on the Con­trary, he minceth my grounds, and concea­leth them, and skippeth over whatsoever disliketh him, and choppeth them and chā ­geth them, and confoundeth them, that I cānot know mine own Conceptions againe as he hath dressed them, ād disordered them, and mutilated them. I proposed five distinct Grounds of our Reformatiō, ād casting out so many Branches as we did of Papall power; if he dealt like a just Adversary, he should pursue my Method step by step: but he reduceth my five grounds into three, that between two Methods he may [Page 344] conceale and smother whatsoever he hath no disposition to answer, as he dealeth with many points of weight and moment, and particularly with all those Testimonies and instances I bring to prove the intolera­ble extortions, and manifold Vsurpations, and malignant Influence of the Roman Coutt upon the Body Politick and Eccle­siastick, being much the greater part of my discourse. But I doe not altogether blame him, for they are so foule, that a man can find small credit or contentment in defending them. For once rather then loose his Company, I will pursue his Method. Let us give him the hearing.

He reduceth my five grounds to three, first such as entrench upon Eternity and Conscience. May not any Heretick ob­ject that the Church imposed new Arti­cles of faith &c. or complain of new Creeds, when she addeth to her publick Professions some points of Faith held for­merly? Might not he Complaine of pe­rill of Idolatry, as your Brother Puritans did for Surplesses &c? Might not he pretend that all Hereticks and Schisma­ticks were good Christians, and that the Church was Tyrannicall in holding them [Page 335] for excommunicate? Might he not shuf­fle together Faith with Opinion, and falsly allege as you doe here, you were forced to approve the Popes Rebellion a­gainst Generall Councells, and take Oaths to maintain Papall Vsurpations? This is all the Answer I get of this brave Disputant, as if the unjust complaints of the Puritans did satisfy the just exceptions of the Protestants. It is probable enough, that he him self was one of our Brother Pu­ritans in those dayes: otherwise he could not well have talked so wildly of perill of Idolatry from Surplesses. His discourse is so sleight and impertinent, that I will not vouchsafe any answer but leave it to the Reader to compare my Vindication and Re­ply with his Rejoinder. That they have ad­ded new Essentialls to Faith, is fully evin­ced against them in this Treatise Sect. 1. cap. 11. What our Iudgement is concer­ning their Idolatry, he shall find exactly set down in my answer to Militier Pa. 133. As for the Oaths of Fidelity which every Bishop must make to the Pope, he may sa­tisfy him self Sect. 1. Cap. 5. and see the From of it. cap, 7. Or if he Desire to see a later form, let him take this. I Henry [Page 336] Archbishop of Canterbury will be faithfull and Obedient to St. Peter from this houre as formerly,Antiq. Eccles. Brit. vita 66. and to the holy Apostolick Church of Rome, and to my Lord Pope Alexander the sixth and his Successours. I will give no counsaile nor consent nor act any thing towards the losse of their lifes, or members, or liber­ty. I will discover their Counsailes to no man to their prejudice, which they have communicated to me by them­selves or their Messengers. I will help them to retein and defend the Roman Papacy, and the Royalties of St. Peter (saving my Order) against all men. I will entertein the Popes Legates honora­bly going and comming, and help them in their necessities. I will visit the Pa­pall Court every yeare, if it be on this side the Alpes, and every two yeares if it beyond the Alpes, unlesse the Pope dis­pense with me, So help me God and the Holy Gospell. What fidelity can a King expect from a Subject who hath taken this Oath, if the Pope please to attempt any thing against him? If the Popes Superio­rity [Page 337] above a Generall Councell, be but held as an indifferent Opinion in their Church, and not a point of Faith, as he intimateth: yet it is such an Opinion as he dare not contra­dict, it is fere communis, it is almost the Common Opiniō of all Romā Catholicks, if Bellarmine say true, and fere de fide, almost a point of Faith, upō which modern Popes and Councells are accorded. It is determined expresly in their last Gene­rall Councell of Laterā,Sess. 11. that the Bishop of Rome alone hath Authority over all Councells.

Were these all the grounds he could find which entrench upon Eternity and Conscience? He might have found more, that by means of Papall abuses there described, hospitality was not kept, the poore not susteined, the word not prea­ched,Math. Paris. an. 1245.churches not adorned, the Cure of soules neg­lected, divine Offices not performed, Churches ruined. He might have found Oaths, Customes, writings, grants, statutes, rights, privileges, to have been not onely weakened but exinanited, by the Popes infamous Messenger called Non obstance. And all this attested by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and the whole Common-wealth of England. But it is no matter whe­ther he take notice of it or not, whilest he answereth nothing.

He faith my second sort of Grounds, are those which relate to Temporall inconveniences and injuries to the State, by reason of the Popes pre­tended [Page 338] encroachments, which I huddle together in big Terms. Do I huddle thē together? Nay I hādled them distinctly under three heads or notions. First the intolerable Oppressiōs and Extortiōs of the Court of Rome in points of Fact, Secondly their grosse and grievous usurpations in point of Right, Thirdly the malignant influence of forrain discipline in point of Policy. It is he that huddles them together, because they are so foule and so evident, that he dare not take a view of them singly, much lesse repeat them: and so they might be buried in Oblivion for him, unlesse the Reader be pleased to take a review of them. I shall not willingly adde a word more, either to the Extortions or Malignant Influence, because I Iudge in Charity, that all good men doe wish them amended as well as I: And for the Vsurpations, being matter of perpetuall right, I hope I have cleared them sufficiētly in this Treatise throughout the first Sectiō:

But what is his answer to all this? That it is disputable between Canon and Civill Lawi­ers, whether many of these were abuses or just rights; of which kind of Controversy he neither thinkes me nor himself competent Iudges. Ad­ding, that these Questions doe not concern our present quarrell. How? not concern our Quarrell? They are all the Quarrell we [Page 339] have: and not a Primacy of Order, or any power purely spirituall in the Court of Conscience. If he have nothing to doe with these, why doth he meddle to no pur­pose? whatsoever power was given by Christ, or is recorded in Scripture, is ex­presly excepted out of our Law. And once more Reader observe and wonder, that these men who called upon us often for the Grounds of our Seperation, must be called on as often for a faire answer. He promi­sed to shew the Readers a Monster in this Section for pence a piece: It seemeth by his bogling, he seeth something that he is af­fraid to meddle with. I doubt he will prove a true Prophet of himself, that all the Rea­ders satisfaction for their money will be, to tell them that he hath abused them.

But it may be he is better at his sword then at his Buckler, at opposing in Gene­ralls, then defending himself from Parti­culars. Altho [...]gh he hath not given us one particular answer, to the truth or falshood of the Crimes and inconveniēces objected: yet he giveth in seven generall Exceptions, but it is with as much hast as the dogge by Nilus, which runnes and drinkes. First he saith, those inconveniences which I mention, if they had been true, are abuses in the [...] Officer not faults in the Office, which ought not to be [Page 340] taken away for them. Intolerable extortions and grosse Vsurpations, are no more with him then inconveniences. This Objection was answered by me before it was moved by him, if he had not thought fit to smo­ther it; where I distinguish between the personall faults of Popes, and faulty prin­ciples or Lawes, and shew how farre the one and the other doe warrant a Seperation. The former onely from the faulty person, to preserve ourselves from participating with him in his Crimes: [...]Vind. cap. 6. pa. 128 The latter from the faulty Office, so farre as it is faulty, untill it be reformed. Neither have we taken away any Office, but onely abuses and Vsurpations.

Secondly he excepreth, that some of these pretended abuses are onely my own Deductions, which I shew not evidently ou [...] of the Science of Politicks, but out of two or three matters of Fact. I answer, that experience is the Polititians best Schoolmaster: and that every man fin­deth where his own Shoe wringeth him, much better by wearing it himself, then by hearing others discourse of it. But I thanke him for his Memento, and the next time I have occasion to make use of it, I shall de­mōstrate to him out of the Sciēce of Politicks that Forrain Iurisdictiō is uselesse and char­geable [Page 341] to the Subject; Dangerous and de­structive to the King and Commonwealth; a Rack and Gibbet to the Conscience, by subjecting it to two Supremes who may possibly clash one with another; and alto­gether opposite to the Ecclesiasticall Policy of the Primitive times, which conformed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to the Civill.

Thirdly he pleadeth, that I doe not prove that some of these pretended abuses were not just rights, but onely shew that such and such things were done, and that either party had learned Lawiers for them, and that sometimes the Kings renounced their pretenses, as in point of Investitures. I answer, that the Opposition of King and Kingdome to any branch of Papall power, sheweth evidently that they did not believe, that the Pope had any right to it, divine or humane, and clearly destroi­eth his Foundation of immediate Tradi­tion. How should they leave that to their Children, as a Legacy of Christ or his Apostles, which they themselves rejected? Our Kings never renounced their right of Investitures, onely they consented, that they should not give Investitures in their own persons, but by a Bishop, still retei­ning both the right of Patronage and their Feudall Oaths.

[Page 342]Fourthly, he saith that these temporall Lawes which I cite, concluder not evidently a right; and reason gives more particular respect to Ec­clesiasticall lawes then to temporall. I an­swer, though such Lawes doe not alwaies prove a right; Yet they alwaies prove the common consent of the Kingdome, what they esteem to be right; they alwayes disprove the Popes Prescription. But he is wholy mistaken, many of those Lawes which I cited were Ecclesiasticall Lawes: And the Popes Decretalls which he inti­mateth for Lawes, are no Lawes, nor ever were held for Lawes in England, without the reception of the Church and Kingdome. Reason gives more respect to the Sanctions of Bishops then of Kings, in cases purely spirituall: but more respect to the Lawes of Kings then of Bishops, in the Externall Regiment of the Church within their own dominions.

Fifthly he chargeth me for saying, that the Pope usurped most injustly all right Ci­vill, Ecclesiasticall, Sacred, Prophane, of all Orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops, &c. Which he calleth a lowd [...]outhed Ca­lumny. By his favour, he doth me wrong and himself more with his foule Lan­guage, when he is not provoked at all. [Page 343] I said not [all right] in the abstract, but [all rights] in the concre [...]e. Hath he forgotten that which every boy in the Vniversity knoweth, to distinguish betwixt singula ge­nerum and genera singulorum, Some of all sorts, and all without exception. My words▪ onely signify some rights of all sorts; as is evident by the words following, Civill, Ecclesiasticall, sacred, prophane, of all Orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops &c. which is an ordinary and proper expression, and cannot possibly be extended to all rights without exception.

Sixthly, he urgeth that grant all these abuses had heen true, was there no other remedy but division? Had not the Secular Gover­nours the sword in their hand? Did it not lye in their power to chuse whether they would admit things destructive to their rights? I answer, that it doth not alwaies rest in the power of the Civill Magistrate, to doe that which is best in it self, especially in seditious times, when the Multitude (as a good Authour saith) doe more rea­dily obey their Priests then their Kings. But they must move their Rudder accor­ding to the Various Face of the Sky, and await for a fitter opportunity; As our Kings did, which fell o [...]t at the [Page 344] Reformation, when they followed his Counsaile in good earnest, and with the Civill sword did lop away all Papall Vsur­pations and abuses; Other Division then this, to divide between the rotte [...] and the sound, we made none. The great division which followed our Reformation, was made by themselves, and their Censures. Our Articles do testify to all the world, that we have made no division from any Church, but onely from Errours and Abuses.

Seventhly, he pleadeth that in case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable, ye [...] Ecclesiasticall Communion ought not to be broken for temporall Concern­ments. To prove this Conclusion he brin­geth six reasons, some pertinent, some im­pertinent and very improper, but he might have saved his labour. For if he under­stand his Conclusion in that sense, where­in he ought to understand it, and where­in I hope he doth understand it, of de­serting the Communion of the Catholick Church, or of any member of the Catholick Church qua [...]ale as it is a Mem­ber, for meer temporall respects, Concedo omnia, I grant the conclusion: but if by brea­king Ecclesiasticall Communion, he under­stand [Page 345] deserting the Communion of a par­ticular Church, as it is erroneous and wherein it is erroneous, his Conclusion is not pertinent to his purpose, nor his six proofes pertinent to his conclusion. But he might remember, first that our Grounds by his own Confession do not all relate to temporall inconveniences, but some of them to Eternity and Conscience, and that they ought to be considered conjointly. Se­condly, that we do not make these tem­porall Inconveniences to be irremediable, we our selves have found out a Remedy: and it is the same which he himself adviseth in this place, to thrust out all entroachments and Vsurpations with the civill sword. If they will grow Angry upon this, and break Ecclesiasticall Communion themselves, it is their Act, not ours, who have acted nothing, who have declared nothing against any right of the Bishop of Rome divine or humane, but onely against his encroach­ments and Vsurpations, and particular­ly against his Coactive powe [...] in the Exte­riour Court, within the English Domini­ons. They might take us to be not onely very tame Creatures, but very stupid Crea­tures, first to suffer them to entrench and encroach and usurp upon us dayly, and thē [Page 346] to be able to perswade us to Isachars con­dition, to undergoe our burthen with Pati­ence like Asses, because we may not break Ecclesiasticall Communion for temporall con­cernments. We have done nothing but what we have good warrant for from the Lawes of God and nature; let them suffer for it, who either seperate from others without just cause, or give others just cause to sepe­rate from them.

In the next place followeth a large Pa­negyricall Oration i [...] the praise of Vnity, of the Benefit and Necessity of it, mixed with an Invective against us for breaking both the Bonds of Vnity. The former of those considerations is altogether super­fluous, To praise Vnity which no man did ever dispraise, but to his own perpetuall Disgrace. The latter is a meer Ta [...]tolo­gy or repetition of what he hath said be­fore, which I will not trouble the Reader withall, but onely where I find some new weight added.pag. 572, He saith wee acknowledge the Chnrch of Rome to be a true Church. Right, Metaphisically a true Church, which hath the true essence and being of a Church, but not Morally true or free from Errours.

[Page 347]He demands, what is the certain Method to know the true sense of Scripture? If he please to take so much paines to View my answer to Militier, he may find both whom wee hold to be fit Expositors of Scripture, and what is the right manner of expounding Scripture; If he have any thing to say against it, he shall have a faire hearing. He telleth us, that our best Champions Chillingworth and Falkland doe very candidly confesse, that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely. He citeth no place, and I do not hold it wor­thy of a search, whether they doe confesse it or not. It is honour enough for them to have been genuine Sonnes of the English Church, (I hope they were so), and men of rare parts, whereof no man can doubt: yet one of them was a Lay man, it may be nei­ther of them so deeply radicated in the right Faith of the English Church, as many others. But our chiefest Champions are those who stick closest to the Holy Scrip­tures, interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith, and the Perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church: but for that Asser­tion which you father upon them, that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely; We detest it. And when you, or any other is pleased to make tryall, [Page 348] You will find that we have as great assurāce altogether for our faith, as your selves have for your old Articles of faith, and much more then you have for your new Articles,

He accuseth us for joining iu Commu­nion with Greeks Lutherans Huguenots,p. 373.per­haps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Qua­kers &c. And after he addeth Roman Ca­tholicks. Are not Huguenots Presbyterians in his Sense? If they be, why doth he dis­join them? I know no reason why we should not admit Greeks and L [...]herans to our Communion, and (if he had added them) Armenians Abyssines Muscovites, and all those who do professe the Apostolicall Creed, as it is expounded by the first four Generall Councells under the Primitive Discipline: and the Roman Catholicks also, if they did not make their Errours to be a Condition of their Communion. As for Adamites and Quakers we know not what they are, and for Socinians we hold them worse then Arrians. The Arrians made Christ to be a Secondary God, erat quando non erat: but the Socinians make him to be a meer creature. And for Presbyte­rians what my Iudgement is, he may find fully set down in my reply to the Bishop of [Page 349] Chalcedons Epistle.

But saith he, every one of these hath a different head of the Church, The English head is the King, The Roman Catholick head is the Pope, The Grecian head is the Patriarch, The Presbyterian head is the Presbytery or Sy­nod, and the Lutheran head is the Parish Mi­nister. First for the Lutherans he doth them egregious wrong. Throughout the King­domes of Denwark and Sweden they have theit Bishops, name and thing, and through­out Germany they have their Superinten­dents. And to the rest I answer him, that there are severall Heads of the Church, Christ alone is the Spirituall head, the Soveraign Prince the Politicall head, the Ecclesiasticall head is a Generall Councell, and under that each Patriarch in his Patriar­chate, and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order. We who maintain the King to be the Politicall head of the English Church, doe not deny the spi­rituall Headship of Christ, nor the supreme power of the Represētative Church that is a Generall Councell or Synod, nor the Execu­tive headship of each Patriarch in his Patri­archate, nor the Bishop of Romes headship of Order among them: and thus this great Objection is vanished. By this he may see [Page 350] that we have introduced no new Form of Ecclesiasticall Government into the Church of England, but preserved to every one his due right if he will accept of it: and that we have the same Dependence upon our Ecclesiasticall Superiours, which we had evermore from the Primitive times.

He chargeth us, that we give no certain Rule to know which is a Generall Councell, which not, or who are to be called to a Generall Coun­cell. There is no need why we should give any new Rules, who are ready to observe the old Rules of the Primitive Church. Generall Summons to all the Patriarchs, for them and their Clergy; Generall Ad­mittance of all Persons capable, to discusse freely, and to define freely, according to their distinct Capacities; and lastly the pre­sence of the five Protopatriarchs and their Clergy, either in their persons or by their suffrages, or in case of Necessity the grea­ter part of them, doe make a Generall Councell. Whilest we set this rule before us as our pattern, and swerve not from it but onely in case of invincible Necessity, we may well hope that God who looketh upon his poore Servants with all their Pre­judices, and expecteth no more of them then he hath enabled them to performe, [Page 351] who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his name, there will he be in the midst of them: Will vouchsafe to give his assistence and his Blessing to such a Councell, which is as Generall as may be, although perhaps it be not so exactly Generall as hath been, or might have been now, if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did an­ciently. In summe, I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the Determinaation of a Councell so Generall as is possible to be had: so it may be equall, not having more Iudges of one Country then all the rest of the Christian world, as it was in the Councell of Trent, but regulated by the equall votes of Christian Nations, as it was in the Councells of Constance and Basile: and so as those Nations which cannot in probability be personally present, may be admitted to send their Votes and Suffrages as they did of old: and lastly so it may be free, called in a free place whither all parties may have secure accesse, and Liberty to propose free­ly and define freely, according to the Votes of the Fathers, without being stin­ted or curbed or overruled by the Holy Ghost sent in a Curriers Budget.

And for the last part of his exception [Page 352] that Hereticks should not be admitted, I for my part should readily consent; provided that none be reputed Hereticks, but such as true Generall Councells have evidently declared to be Hereticks, or such as will not pronounce an Anathema against all old Heresies, which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted Generall Coun­cells. But to imagin that all those should be reputed Hereticks, who have been con­demned of Heresy or Schisme by the Ro­man Court for their own interest, that is foure parts of five of the Christian world, is silly and senselesse, and argueth nothing but their fear to come to a faire impartiall Tryall.

And this is a full answer to that which he allegeth out of Doctor Hammond, that Generall Councells are now morally im­possible to be had, the Christian world being under so many Empires and Di­vided into so many Communions. It is not credible that the Turke will send his Subjects, that is four of the Protopatriarchs with their Clergy to a Generall Councell, or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendome in a Generall Coun­cell, it being so much against this own In­terest: [Page 353] but yet this is no impediment why the Patriarchs, might not deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers; and this is enough to make a Councell Generall. In the First Councell of Nice, there were onely five Clergymen present out of the Western Churches; In the Great Councell of Chal­cedon not so many; In the Councells of Con­stantinople and Ephesus none at all. And yet have these four Councells evermore been esteemed truly Generall, because the We­stern Church did declare their consent and concurrence. Then as there have been Ge­nerall Orientall Councells, without the personall presence of a Western Bishop: so there may be an Occidētall Councell, with­out the personall presence of one Eastern Bishop, by the sole Communication of their sense and their Faith. Neither is such Communication to be deemed impossi­ble, considering what correspondence, the Muscovian Church did hold long with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Abyssine hath long held, and doth still hold with the Patriarch of A­lexandria.

It is cōfessed that there are too many diffe­rent Communions in Europe, it may be some [Page 354] more then there is any great cause for, and perhaps different Opinions where there is but one Communion, as difficult to be re­conciled as different Communions. But many of these Mushrome Sects, are like those inorganicall Creatures bred upon the Bankes of Nilus, which perished quickly after they were bred, for want of fit Or­gans. The more considerable parties, and the more capable of reason are not so many; if these could be brought to acquiesce in the determination of a free Generall Councell, they would towe the other like lesser Boats after them with ease.

No man wil say that the Vnity of the Church in point of Government, doth consist onely in their actuall subordination to Generall Coun­cells. Generall Councells are extraordi­nary Remedies, proper for curing or com­posing new differences of great Concern­ment in Faith or discipline. That being done, Generall Councells may prove of more Danger then use. No healthfull man delighteth in a continuall course of Phisick. But Vnity consisteth also and Ordinarily in Conformity and submission to that disci­pline which Generall Councells have re­commended to us, either as the Lega­cies of Christ and his Apostles, or as [Page 355] Ecclesiasticall Policies instituted by them, with the Concurrence or Confirmation of Christian Soveraigns, for the publick good of the Catholick Church.

He chargeth us, that we have so formed Gods Church, that there is no meanes left to as­ssemble a Generall Councell, having renounced his Authority whose proper Office it was to call a Generall Councell. His errours seldome come single, but commonly by Clusters or at least by paires. What height of Confi­dence is it to affirm, that it is the proper Of­fice of the Pope to call Generall all Councells, when all ingenuous men doe acknowledge that all the First Generall Councells, were Ab Imperatoribus Indicta, Called by Emperours? To which the Popes Friends adde, that it was by the Advise and with the Consent of the Pope. And Bellarmine gives diverse rea­sons why it could not be otherwise, First, because there was a Law,De Concil. lib. 1. cap. 14. which did forbid fre­quent Assemblyes for feare af Sedition. Se­condly because no reason doth permit that such an Assembly should be made in an Imperiall City, without the leave of the Lord of the place. Thirdly because Generall Councells were made then, at the Publick Charge. He might have [Page 356] added, that Councells did receive their Protection from Emperours, and they who sit in Councells were the Subjects of Em­perours.

In the second place he erreth in this also, that we have taken away the meanes of assem­bling Generall Councells. We have taken away no power from the Pope of convo­cating any Synods, except onely Synods of the King of Englands Subjects, within his own dominions, without his leave; which Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth to be agreable to reason. If the Pope have any right, either to convocate Generall Coun­cells himself, or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit seasons for Convocation of them, either in respect of his Beginning of Vnity, or of his Protopatriarchate, we do not envy it to him, since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire, so good caution be observed. Bellarmine confesseth that that power which we acknowledge, that is, that though the Pope be no Ecclesiasticall Monarch, but onely chief of the Principall Patriarchs, yet the right to convocate Generall Councells should pertein unto him. De concil. li, 1. c. 12. But it may be, this is more then Mr. Serjeant did know.

[Page 357]My last Ground, was the Exemtion of the Britannick Churches from for­rein Iurisdiction, by the Generall Councell of Ephesus. As to the Exemtion of the Britannick Churches, he referreth him­self to what he had said formerly, and so do I. To the Authority of the Councell of Ephesus he answereth, that howsoever Cyprus and some others are exemted from a Neighbouring Superiour, falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them, yet I shall never shew a Syllable in the Councell of Ephesus, exemting from the Popes Iurisdiction as head of the Church. Not directly, a mā may safely sweare it, for the Councell never suspected it, the world never dreamed of it, the Popes themselves never pretended to any such headship of Power, and Vniversall Iurisdiction over the whole Church, in those dayes. All that the Primitive Popes claymed by divine right, was a Primacy of Order or Beginning of Vnity, due to the Chaire of St. Peter: all that they claimed by humane right were some Pri­vileges, partly gained by Custome or Pres­cription, and partly granted by the Fathers to to the See of Rome, because it was the Imperiall City. But there is enough in this very Canon colla­terally [Page 358] to overthrow all the Vsurpations of the Roman Court. There is no need that Britain should be named particularly, where all the Provinces without exception are comprehended, Let the same be obser­ved in other Diocesses and in all Provinces. There is no need that the Bishop of Rome should be expressed, where all the Bishops are prohibited, That no Bishop occupy another Province, which formerly and from the begin­ning was not under the power of him or his Predecessours. If the Fathers were so ten­der of pride creeping into the Church in those dayes, or of the danger to lose their Christian Liberty in the case of the Bishop of Antioch, who pretended neither to divine right nor Vniversall Iurisdiction: what would they have said or done in the present case of the Bishop of Rome, who challengeth not onely Patriarchall but Soveraign Iuris­diction, not over Cyprus onely but over the whole world, not from Custome or Canons but from the institution of Christ? If Maister Serjeant be in the right then the Bishop of Antioch was quite out, to sue for the Iurisdiction of Cyprus which belōged more to the Bishops of Rome then to him. Then the Bishops of Cyprus were quite o [...]t, to challenge the Ordination [Page 359] of themselves, and Iurisdiction over one another, as a proper right belongi [...]g to themselves, which they hold onely by Courtesy and favour from the Bishop of Rome. Then the holy Synod was quite out, to Determine so positively, that not onely Cyprus, but every Province should enjoy its rights and Customes inviolated, which it had from the beginning, without a Salvo or saving the right of the Bishop of Rome, or a re­striction, so long as he pleaseth to permit them; and to doe it in such Imperiall Terms, It hath pleased the holy Synod, or such is our pleasure. Lastly the Pope himself was out, to ratify the Privileges and exemptions of the Cyprian Bishops, not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from himself al­so, and to suffer his divine right to be trampled under foot, by Customs and Ca­nons, which are of no force without him. But this is the least part of the passages in the foure First Generall Councells, which are repugnant to the Popes preten­sions of a Generall Monarchy. The Ea­stern Churches doe still adhere firmly to the Primitive Discipline, and for this cause the Pope hath thought fit to excommunicate them. Si violandum jus est, regnandi causâ violandum est.

[Page 360]Against all our Grounds, the most in­tolerable extortions that ever were heard of, most grievous Vsurpations, malignant Influence both upon the State Politick and Ecclesiastick, and undoubted Privileges, he produceth nothing but immediate Tra­dition: and you must be content to take his bare word for it, for he is altogether unfurnished of proofes. Some men by telling strange Stories over and over, do come at last to believe them. It may be, he believeth there was a Tradition, for those Branches of Papall power, which we cast out: but we deny it altogether, and require him to prove first that there was such a Tradition in England, next that a particular Tradition is a sufficient proofe of divine Institution.

We admit readily, that the Vnity of the Church is of great importance, and the breaking of it an heinous Crime, and that no abuses imaginable are suffi­cient excuse for a totall desertion of a just power. Thus far in the Thesis we agree, but in the Hypothesis we differ, That which is a suf­ficient ground for a reformation, [Page 361] is not a sufficient Ground for an extir­pation. So many, so grievous, so uncon­scionable extortions, and Vsurpations, and malignant influences, as we complain of and prove, are without all peradventure a sufficient ground of Reformation, which is all our Ancestours did, or we defend; though not a sufficient cause of the extir­pation of any just Authority. Our Grounds are sufficient for a Reformation of abuses and encroachments, which we acknow­ledge, and which is all we did at the Reformation: but for the abolition of any just power, it is his fond Imagination, we disclaime it altogether. We have cast out all Papall Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court, as being Politicall not Spirituall: but for any Papall Iurisdi­ction either purely spirituall or justly founded, we have not medled with it; Those things which we have cast out, are onely abuses and Vsurpations. So there is no need of that Consideration which he pro­poseth, whether the abuses were other­wise remediable, or not: for our Refor­mation is that very Remedy which he him­self hath prescribed, to hold out encroach­ments with the point of the sword, without any medling with just right. Other division [Page 362] then this (which he himself hath allowed) we believe our Ancestours intended none, we hold none, and so are accountable for none.

The main Question is whether the Bri­tannick Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not. I have demonstrated the con­trary already, that they were not, and had alwaies their Ordinations at home. But his Conclusion which he puts upon me, that true complaints against Governours, whether otherwise remediable or no, are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government, is a vain assertion of his own, no Cōclusion of mine.

He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit, whether he that mainteineth the Negative, or he that mainteineth the Affirmative ought to prove. He saith (ac­cording to his old Pueriles) that a Negative may be proved in Logick. No man doubteth of it or denieth it, Quis e [...]im potest negare? I said on the Contrary, that in this case which commeth here in difference between us▪ according to the strict rules of Law▪ the burthen to proue, resteth onely on his side who affirmeth. As the Question is here between us, whether we had other Remedies, then to make such a Reformation as we did. We say, [Page 363] No. They say, Yea. It is possible to [...]rove there might be other Remedies, [...]ut it is impossible to prove there were no [...]ther Remedies. Galen or Hippocrates him­ [...]elf would not have undertaken such a Taske, to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease, then that which they used. It is not for want of Logicall Forms, that Negatives are not to be proved [...]n matter of Fact, but for want of sufficient Mediums. He saith he is no Bowler, and so [...]nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowle; It may be it is true, but if I should put him to prove this Negative, it is impossible. But so farre as a Negative of that nature is capable of proofe, I did prove it, by our Addresses to Popes and Councells, and long expectation in vain, that we had no other Remedy then that which we used, to thrust out their Vsurpations by the power of the sword, which course he himself ad­viseth, and we practised. The division is not made by them who thrust out Vsurpations, but by them who brought them in and de­fend them.

I said, that not onely our Ancestors but all Catholick Countries did maintein their own privileges inviolated, and make themselves the last Iudges of their [Page 364] Grievances, from the Court of Rome. Hence he concludeth with open Mouth, therefore there were other Remedies, there needed no Di­vision. Alas poore man, how he troubleth himself about nothing! They and we used the very same Remedies, the same that he adviseth in this place. The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made. What then? had not the King the Sword in his own hands?p. 571.Did it not lie in his power to right him­self as he listed? and to admit those pretended en­croachments onely so far as he thought just and fitting? Yes, the King had the sword in his hands, and did right him self, and cast out those Papall Usurpatious so far as he found Iust: and now when we have followed your own advise, you call us Schismaticks and Dividers. Sr. we are no Dividers, but we have done our Duties, and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Vsurpa­tions (as we have done), you are the Schis­maticks by your own Confession.

He pleadeth, If Papall Authority be of Christs Institution, then no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment. Right: But those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out, are neyther of Christs Insti­tution nor of Mans Institution, but meer Vsurpations. Neither doe we seek to abo­lish [Page 365] Papall Authority, but to reform it from Accidentall Abuses, and reduce it to its first Institution. The best Institutions Divine or Humane, may sometimes need such Reformation. Here is nothing like proofe, but his World of Witnesses, and his Immemoriall Tradition, presumed not pro­ved.

To shew that no Nation suffred so much as England under the Tyranny of the Ro­man Court, he saith I produce nothing, but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope. Well, would he have a better witnesse against the Pope, then the Pope him self? Habemus confitentem reū, He was pleasant indeed, but ‘Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat?’

VVhat hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing? He as­keth whether those Testimonies which I produce, be Demonstrative or rigo­rous Evidences? I thinke he would have me like the unskilfull Painter, to write over the Heads of my Arguments, This is a Demonstration. It would become him better to refute them, and shew that they are not Demonstrative, then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions.

[Page 366]I shewed, that [England is not alone in the Seperation, so long as all the Eastern, Southern, Northern, and so great a part of the Western Church, have seperated themselves from the Court of Rome, and are seperated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we]. In answer to this, he bids me shew that those I call Christians, have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith &c. This is first to hang men up, and then to exa­mine their cause; first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests, because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke, and embrace their upstart Vsurpations, with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles. It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely, before they gave such a temerarious sentence, against the much greater part of Christendome, in so weighty a cause. But for their rule of Faith, they have a more certain and Authentick Rule then he himself, by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentick rule of Faith, then Pius the fourths Creed, and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground, then particular supposititious Tradition, which wanteth both Perpetuity and Vniversality.

[Page 367]I said that [we desired to live in the pea­ceable, Communion of the Catholick Church, as well as our Ancestours, as far as the Roman Court will give us leave]. He answereth, that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers &c, That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled, had no mind to be hanged, That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us, but a request of an unreasonable favour from them, to admit us into their Communion, and would be most absurd in Government, &c. Whether they hold us for theirs or not, is not much materiall; if they did, it were the better for themselves; if they doe not, it is not the worse for us: so as Christ own us for his, it skilleth not much whether they say, come ye blessed, or goe ye cursed; whether we be the wheat or Chaffe, their tongues must not winnow us. Although he snuffe at our desire of Vnion: yet God Almighty sets a greater value upon it. He is not out of the Church who is within it in the desi­res of his heart, and implicitly in the pre­paration of his mind. Observe Reader who are the procreative and conserving Causes of this Schisme. They frighted us from them with new Articles and Vsurpa­tions, they thrust us from them with new [Page 368] Censures and Excommunications; and if we had a mind to return, they tell us it were absurd in Government to readmi [...] us. But my chiefest wonder is, that he who was the other day, by his own vote, an Ar [...]h rebell, should talk so suddainly of hanging. Sud­dain Changes are alwaies dangerous, and for the most part personated.

He asketh, whether our Ancestours did renounce the Popes Authority as Head of the Church? If he mean a Head of Order, they did not, no more do we: if he mean a Head of Soveraign power, they did, and so do we. What I granted once I grant alwaies, it is for Turncoats to take their swings. I write semper idem, of the same religion wherein I was baptised: can he do the same? But he urgeth, that I make it the top of my Climax, that our Ancestours threatned to make a wall of Seperation, between the Court of Rome and them, which sheweth that they did it not: but it is evident, that we have done what they onely threatned to doe, and plead for our excu­ses, that we have more experience then our An­cestours had. I made it the top of my Climax indeed; honest mens words are as good as deeds. But doth he thinke that our Ance­stours did onely make counterfeit Grimaces, and threaten that which they could not [Page 369] Lawfully have performed? Absit: The Lawes and the threatning are easily recon­ciled. Our Ancestours made very severe Lawes against the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome, as I have shewed in parti­cular throughout: but they did not execute them so rigorously, but connived at many innocent or not pernicious en­croachments, in hope the Court of Rome and their Emissaries, would have kept themselves within some tolerable bounds of moderation. But they found by experi­ence, and we by much longer and surer ex­perience, that all our Hopes were vaine, that the Avarice of the Roman Court was not to be satiated or to be stinted, that if we give them leave to thrust in their head they would quickly draw in their body after. And therefore our Ancestours finding this true in a great part, did threaten them to make a wall of Seperation, that is, to execute their Lawes rigorously, to use no more in­dulgence or connivence, to take away their Coactive power in the Exteriour Court altogether, which the Lawes have taken away before sufficiently. And we being confirmed by much longer and surer experience, have accomplished what they threatned. So this threatned Wall of Seperation is no new Law, b [...]t a new [Page 370] Mandate to execute the old Lawes: and our experience and our Ancestours materially is the same, but ours is more grounded and more sure; their seperation and ours was the same to point of Law, but not of Exe­cution. And the reason why our Ance­stours remedies were not Soveraign or sufficient enough, was not want of virtue in the Re­medy, but want of due application. Thus all Mr. Serjean [...]s hopes are vanished, and his Contradictions tumbled to Dust▪ Great is Truth, and prevaileth.

Yet he keepeth a great stirre and bustling,Pag. 578. about our Experience more then our Ance­stours, and praieth me in his scoffing man­ner, Good my Lord tell us what this new experi­ment was; and despairing as it were of suc­cesse in his request, he addeth, Since you are resolved to make a secret of this rare Expe­riment. Now I have told him the secret, what good will it doe him? as much as he may put in his eye and see never a jot the worse. I told him this rare secret before, in these words,Rep. pa. 37. We have more experience then our Ancestours had, that their Remedies were not Soveraign or Sufficient enough, that if we give him leave to thrust in his head, he will never rest untill he have drawn in his whole body after, whilest there are no Bonds to hold him [Page 371] but Nationall Lawes. But I was not bound both to write him a Lecture and find him eyes.

Now Readers looke to yourselves, out commeth the great Monster, that hath been so long threatned, (as he phraseth it scurrilously) in the likenesse of a Drun­ken Dutchman, making Indentures with his Legges: so saith he my discourse staggers, now to the one, now to the other far distant side of the Contradiction. The Reader shall find that the fault is not in the innocent Dutchman, who goeth straight enough: but in the Prevaricators eyes, who seeth double. Either he did never know, or he hath forgotten what a Contra­diction is. The Itch or humour of Contra­dicting hath so far possessed him, that he re­gardeth not what the Rules of Contradi­ction are. The first Contradiction is, That the Lawes of our Ancestours were not remedies sufficient enough, yet I maintein stoutly that in the Seperation no new Law was made, That is (as he collecteth) the same Lawes were both suffi­cient and not sufficient. Is this the monstrous Contradiction which he promised to shew the Readers for pence a piece. The same Lawes were not sufficient in the dayes of [Page 372] our Ancestours, and yet the same Lawes were sufficient in the Dayes of Henry the eighth [...] hath no shew of a Contradiction in it, nor of any the least opposition, which ought alwaies to be made according to the Rules of Logick, at the same time. I will shew him a hundred of these Contradictiōs, every day in the week for nothing. Mr. Serjean [...] was no Roman Catholick, Mr. Ser­jeant is a Roman Catholick, is just such another Contradiction: or the same Plai­ster was not sufficient to cure such a sore at one time, yet it was sufficient at another time when the Body was better disposed. All his Contradictions end in smoke and laughter.

The second Contradiction is, that I said the Lawes of other Countries were equivalent to those of England; but I acknowledge elswhere that the Lawes of other Countries were sufficient; and here I say that the Lawes of E [...]gland were insufficient: So they were equivalent and in­equivalent. Here is another Contradiction, like the former. The same Lawes proved sufficient to France, yet proved insufficient to England. It is another rule in Logick, Opposition ought to have the same Subject and the same Predicate without ambigu­ity: but here the Predicate is diverse, sufficient for France, not sufficient for England, [Page 373] and ambiguity more then enough. He might as well argue, The same Medicine will work upon a child, which will not work upon a Man: therefore the same Medi­cine is not equivalent to it self.

The third Contradiction is, that I say All Catholick Countries did maintein their Privileges inviolate, by meanes which did not maintein them, or by Lawes which were not sufficient to do it. Where did I say this? It is his Collection not my Assertion: but let it passe muster for once. Here is a Contradiction deserves a Bell and a Bable: Catholick Countries did maintein their Privileges inviolate by such means, at one time not at another, in one place not in another, in one degree not in another, in one respect not in another.

The last mock Contradiction is, that I say The Lawes which denied the Pope all Au­thority, and were actually in force, that is, actu­ally left him none, were not sufficient Remedies against the abuses of that Authority, Which had quite taken them away. This is not finding of Contradictions, but making of them. Give him leave to use this [id est, that is] and he will make a hundred Contradictions in every page of the Bible; as here, [Page 374] actually in force, that is, which actually left the Pope no Authority, or which had quite taken his Authority away. If this [id est that is] be mine, then he may object the Contradiction to me, if it be not, then he may keep the Contradiction to him­self, such as it is. He knoweth, and all the world know, that a law is said to be actually in force, whilest it is unrepealed; in this sense I did, and all men but himself doe use that expression. And here he committeth a third grosse fault against the Rule of Opposition, which ought to be ever [...], in the same Respect. The Law taketh away abuses as a Rule: but the Magistrate by due execution, as an Arti­ficer. The Law is sufficient, when it is sufficiently penned and promulged: but the effect followeth the due execution. The not observing of this obvious and easy truth, hath made us all this stirre about Imaginary Contradictions, as I have shewed in my answer to his last [...]ra­graph, which alone is a sufficie [...] an­swer to all these pretended Contradi­ctions: but whether it will be so actually in force to procure his assent, is more then I know; if it do not, it detracteth [Page 375] nothing frem the sufficiency of the answer. Goe Mr. Serjeant, goe, bring us lesse wind and more weight

Saepius in libro memor atur Perseus uno.
Quam levis in totâ Tharsus Amazonide.

In the last Paragraph is nothing but a Ca­lumny against Henry the eight, which he is not able to prove: and if he were, it nei­ther concerneth us nor the Question.

That the King and Church of En­gland proceeded with due Mode­ration.

THis Section doth not much concern either us or the merit of the cause. A Reformation might be just and necessary, although the Reformers did exceed the bounds of due Moderation; neither are we answerable for their excesses, further then we ourselves doe maintein them. I passe by his pleasant Topick unsaluted, as being impertinent, and having nothing in it deserving the least stay of a serious Rea­der,

[Page 376]I reckoned this as the first Branch of our moderation, that we deny not to other Churhes, the true being of Churches nor possibility of Salvation, nor seperate from Churches, but from Accidentall Er­rours. For all his scoffing, if their Church would use the like moderation, it would save the world a great deale of needlesse debate. Against that which I say, he obje­cteth thus, Now the matter of Fact hath evidenced undeniably, that they (the Protestants) seperated from those points, which were the Principles of Vnity both in Faith and Government. He hath brought his matter of Fact and his Principles of Vnity so often upon the Stage already, and they have been so often clearly answered, that I will not insist upon such a threedbare subject, or trouble the Reader with an irksome repe­tition. We have seen how far his Princi­ples of Vnity, or his Fundamentall of Funda­mentalls is true, and ought to be admitted: and in a right sense, we adhere much more firmly unto them, then the Church of Rome it self.

He procedeth, that the Church of [Page 377] England defines, that our Church (the Church of Rome) erreth in matter of Faith Artic. 19. The words of the Article are, Non solum quoad agenda & Ceremoniarum ritus, verum etiam in iis quae credenda sunt, that is, Not onely in Practicall Observations and Ceremoniall rites, but also in those things which are to be believed, that is (to use Cardinall Cajetans distinction), Not in those things which are de fide forma­liter, in necessary Fundamentall Articles (for we acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essentialls of Faith), but in those things which are fidei materialiter, in inferiour Questions which happen in things to be believed, that is to say Opinions, wherein himself acknowledgeth that a particular Church may erre. That this is the right sense of the Article appeareth hence; that the Article doth contradistin­guish Credenda or things to be believed, not to Opinions, but to agenda things to be practi­sed.

He urgeth, that we have declared four points of their faith to be vain Fictions, contradictory to Gods word. Artic. 22. [Page 378] That is to say, their Doctrin of Purgatory, Indulgences, their Adoration of Images and Relicks, Invocation of Saints. Right, four points of their new Faith, enjoined by Pius the fourth, but no Article of the old Apostolicall Faith, and at the best onely Opinions. Yet neither doth he cite our Article right, which doth not define them to be contrary to Scripture, but onely besides the Scripture, or not well grounded upon any Texts of Scrip­ture.

He addeth, the like Character is given of another point Art. 28. That is Transubstan­tiation. Our highest Act of Devotion Art. 31. is stiled a blasphemous fiction and pernicious im­posture: that is, the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse. Concerning Transubstantiation what is our Opinion, I referre him to my answer to Militier in the very beginning of it. And concerning their Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse, to the same answer pag. 152. Edit. 2. The true state of the Controversy, was not so clearly understood at first on either side as it is now. He cannot goe one step further then we doe in that cause, without tumbling into direct Blasphemy.

[Page 379]It followeth, And Art. 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publickly, should be held as Heathens and Publicans. Well, here is no distinction between Roman Catho­licks and Protestants: And Franciscus a San­cta Clara, in his Paraphrasticall Expositiō of the English Articles, giveth this Iudgement of this Article, This Article is Catholick, and agreeable as well to holy Scripture as to anti­quity. Then why doth he snarle at this Article which he cannot except against? Because he conceiveth that the Article mea­neth Catholicks, or at least doth include them, Iudge Reader what a spirit of Contradi­ction d [...]th possesse this man, who when he is not able to pick any quarrell at the words of the Article, calumniateth the meaning, upon his own groundlesse suspi­cion.

But nothing was more common in the mouths of our Preachers, then to call the Pope Antichrist, the Church of Rome the VVhore of Babilon, Idolatrous, Superstitious, Blasphemous: and to make up the Measure of his Forefa­thers sinnes, the Bishop calles here the two Principles of Vnity in Faith and Government, errours and Falshoods. [Page 380] If any of our Preachers being exasperated [...] some such Boutifeus as himself, have in thei [...] Pulpits used any Virulence or Petulanc [...] against the Church of Rome; Let him mak [...] use of his stile against them, who wil [...] furnish him with Lettuce suitable to hi [...] Lips; What is that to the Church of En­gland? what is that to us? Quid imme­rentes hospites vexat Canis—Ignavus adver­sus lupos? Let him but observe what Li­berty be himself taketh, without any māner of Provocation. But as for my self he doth me notorious wrong, I did not men­tion any Principles of Vnity in this place, nor so much as dream of them, but that he must needs bring them in by head and shoulders, in every Paragraph. All I said was this, That we doe not separate from other Churches, but from their Acciden­tall Errours: but some men are like Nettle [...] touch them gently and they sting you.

The first part of our Moderation was, not to censure other Churches for no Churches, nor deny them possibility of Salvation, nor thrust them from our Com­munion; which I shewed in the Example of St. Ciprian. In answer to this he sheweth the unlawfulnesse of Communicating with Ido­laters, which is reconciling Christ with Anti-Christ. Was not this impertinent, if he him­self [Page 381] were Iudge?

I said, it might be very lawfull in some cases, to communicate with materiall Idolaters Hereticks ād Schismaticks, (that is such as erre through ignorance and frailty, not obstinacy) in Religious Duties. And for proofe hereof, I produced the instāce of the Primitive Chri­stians, communicating in some cases with the Hereticall Arr [...]ans, and the Schismaticall Novatians. He demands first who forbids them to goe visit the sick? I adde, or pray with them also? which was as much as I said there, but because he falleth with such Violence upon the point, I will now take the Liberty to expresse my self more fully. First, it is to be remembred that I did speake onely of Materiall Idolaters He­reticks or Schismaticks, not Formall. Secōd­ly, of pious Offices not of Idolatrous Acts, nor any thing favouring Heresy or Schisme. Thirdly, I do new exclude case of Scandall, for just scandall may make that Act to be unlawfull, which in it self is Lawfull. Fourthly, I except cases of Just Obedience, the prohibition of a lawfull Superiour Ci­vill or Ecclesiasticall, may make that Act to be unlawfull, which was Indiffe­rent. Lastly, I distinguish between per­sons Learned and grounded in Religion, and persons unlearned and ungrounded; [Page 382] the former may and ought to communicate with Idolaters Hereticks and Schismaticks, as far as they can with a good Conscience, to gain them to the truth; the latter are obliged not to come over near to pitch, least they be defiled.

The Question being thus stated, I be­lieve the main point hath no great Dif­ficulty in it. For they who are Idola­ters Hereticks or Schismaticks onely ma­terially, not formally, that is, against their meanings resolutions and inten­tions, are no Idolaters Hereticks or Schismaticks, in the eyes of God or dis­cerning men: neither are they out of the Pale of the Church, or out of the way of Salvation as the Bishop of Chalcedon saith most truely,De Funda­ment. cap. 2. pa. 62. VVe allow all those to have saving Faith, to be in the Church, in way of Salvation, for so much as belon­geth to Faith, who hold the Fundamen­tall points, and invincibly erre in not Fundamentalls. But all Idolaters Here­ticks and Schismaticks, who are onely ma­terially Idolatrous Hereticall or Schisma­ticall, doe erre invincibly: for if they er­red vincibly, then they were formall Ido­laters Hereticks or Schismaticks.

[Page 383]Thus much I lay down for certain; the rest I onely propose, that although they were formall Hereticks or Schismaticks, yet they are not altogether out of the Pale of the Church, but onely in part, Ex ea parte in tex [...]urae compage de [...]inentur,Aust. li [...] 1. de baptis. cont. cae [...]era scissi sunt, So farre they are woven into the web, for the rest they are divided, as St. Austin saith, And Bellarm [...]ne out of him acknowledgeth, that they are absolutely in the Church, un­till they goe out of it by Obstinacy, (which they who ate onely materially Hereticks or Schismaticks do not): and after they are gone out of the Church by Obstinacy, yet they are still in the Church secundum aliquid non simpliciter, Bell. d [...] Eccl. l. 3. ca. 4. not absolutely but respectively or in part. And after he hath vapoured a long time to no purpose, thus much is acknow­ledged by himself,pag. 585. as long as Schismaticks are not hardened into an Obstinacy (as no Schis­maticks are who are onely materially Schismaticall), there is a prudentiall Lati [...]ude allowed by the Church, delaying her Censures as long as she can possibly, without wronging her Government; as was de facto practised in England till the 10 of Queen Elizabeth. This is full as much as I said, that it may be lawfull to communicate in some cases with materiall Schismaticks.

[Page 384]And whatsoever I said, was rather to make a Charitable Construction of their materiall Idolatry, then out of fear that they should be able, to attaint us of any Schisme either materiall or formall: if he had any thing of reality to object against us, he would be ashamed to intimate our in­clinations to favour Arrianisme, which he himself knoweth our soules abhorre, and which he himself knoweth to be expresly condemned, in the second Article of our Church. He may find my Instances of the Primitive Christians, communicating with the Arrians and Novatians in Church Offices, in my answer to the Bishop of Chal­cedons Preface, pa. 36, if he have any thing to say to them. Neither was it at the first sprouting of the Arrian Heresy, but after they had formed severall Doxologies to themselves; nor at the First beginning of the Novatian Schisme, but towards the Conclusion of it. I cited St. Cyprian for no other purpose, but to shew that his mo­deration in absteining from censuring did preserve him free from Schisme, al­though he was in an errour. When Optatus called the Dona [...]ists his Brethren, he did not mean his Brethren in Adam, but his Bre­thren in Christ, and wonders why his Bro­ther [Page 385] Parmenian (a Donatist) would ranke himself with Heretieks, who were falsifiers of the Creed. If this be the infallible marke of an Heretick, Let Pius Quartus and his party looke to themselves.

I disliked a position of his, which the Reader shall have in his own words, I can­not say my Religion is true, but I must say the Opposite is false; mine is good, but I must say the Opposite is naught; mine necessary, but I must Iudge that which is inconsistent carries to damnation. Therefore who does not censure a Contrary Religion, holds not his own certain, that is, hath none. Upon this he pursueth me with a full Crye, that the Common Principle of Nature [if any thing be true the Opposite is false], or [a thing cannot both be and not be at once], is denyed by the Bishop. Stay Mr. Serjeant, be not so fierce; the Bishop know­eth as well as your self, that the disjunction of Contradictories is eternall: and it see­meth by what passed lately between us, that he understandeth the Rules of Op­position or right Contradiction better then your self.

First the Emphasis lieth not in the word [true], but in the words [say] and [censure]. Cannot a man believe or hold his own Re­ligion to be true, but he must necessarily say or cēsure another mans, which he cōceiveth [Page 386] to be opposite to it, to be false. Truth and Falshood are Contradictory, or of eternall Disjunction; but there is a meane, between believing or holding mine own Religion to be true, and saying or censuring ano­ther mans (which perhaps is opposite) to be false, both more prudentiall and more charitable, that is, silence; to looke cir­cumspectly to myself, and leave other men to stand or fall to their own Maister. S. Cy­prian did believe or hold his own Opinion of Rebaptisation to be true, yet did not censure the opposite to be false, or remove any man from his Communion for it. Rabshakeh was more censorious then He­zekiah, and down right Atheists then con­scionable Christians.

Secondly, that which he calleth his Re­ligion, is no more in truth then his Opinion; and different Opinions are stiled different Religions. In opinions it is not necessary to hold with any party, much lesse to cen­sure other parties. Sometimes seeming dif­ferent Opinions are both true, and all the Opposition is but a Contention about words, and then mutuall censures are vaine: sometimes they are both false, and then there is more use of Mutuall Charity then mutual Censures: and evermore whe­ther [Page 387] true or false, an Errour against Charity, is much greater then a meer speculative er­rour in Iudgement. Prejudice and sel [...]love are like a coloured glasse, which makes eve­ry thing we discern through it, to be of the same colour: and on the otherside rancour and animosity, like the tongue infected with Choller, maketh the sweetest meats to tast bitter; In each respect censures are dāgerous and his principle pernicious, that He who doth not censure every Religion whieh he reputeth contrary to his own, hath no Religion.

I set down some Principles, whereof this is the first, [particular Churches may fall into Errours.] He answereth, tis true if by Errours he means Opinions onely. No, I mean Fundamentall Errours also: and not onely fall into some Fundamentall Errours, but apostate from Christ and turn Turkes, and change their Bible into the Alchor [...]a; where­of we have visible experience in the world. He answers, that Principle is not so undeniable as I thinke, in case that Particular Church adhere firmly to her rule of Faith, Im­mediate Tradition. Well, but we see visibly with our eyes, that many particular Chur­ches have not adhered to any Tradition, Vniversall or Particular, Mediate or Im­mediate, but have abandoned all Aposto­licall [Page 388] Tradition, then to what purpose ser­veth his Exception, in case that Church ad­here firmly to immediate Tradition, when all the World seeth that they have not ad­hered firmly to Apostolicall Tradition? His Preservative is much like that, which an old Seaman gave a freshwater Passenger when he was to goe to Sea, to put so many pibble stones into his mouth, with assurance that he should not cast, whilest he held them between his teeth. What sort of Tra­dition ought to be reputed Apostolicall, what not, I have shewed formerly.

My second Principle was, that [all Er­rours are not Essentialls or Fundamentalls]. He demands, what is this to his Proposi [...]ō which spake of Religion, not of Opinions? Very much, because he maketh Opinions to be Essen­tialls of his Religion (as wee see in the new Creed of Pius of fourth), so do not we. To the third Principle we agree thus farre, that an Errour de side formaliter, or in those things which are Essentialls of Faith doth destroy the being of a Church. I adde, that Errours in those things, Quae sunt fidei ma­terialiter, that is, in Inferiour Questions which happen in or about things believed, or which are not in Essentialls, howsoever they may be lately crowded into the [Page 389] Catalogue of Essentialls, do not destroy the being of a Church.

My fourth Principle was, that [every one is bound according to the just extent of his power, to free himself from such Errours as are not in Essentialls.] He answereth, Why so my Lord? if those errours be not Essen­tiall, they leave accordin [...] to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation, and the true being of a Church; How prove you then you ought to breake Church Communion? &c. As if no Errours ought to be remedied, but onely those which are absolutely exclusive from all hope of Salvation: as if those Errours which are onely impeditive of Salvation, ought not to be eschewed. The least Er­rour maintained or committed against the dictate of Conscience is a sinne; every good Christian ought to doe his uttermost en­deavonr to free himself from sinne; it is not lawfull to doe evill that good may come of it. Yes, saith he, but not to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church, or to endanger our soules where there is no necessity. First, they who free themselves from known Errours, doe not thereby break Church—Communion: but they who make their Errours to be a [Page 390] Condition of their Communion. Let him heare the Conclusion of the Bishop of Chal­cedon. Brief Survey cap. 2. s. 4. In case a Particular Church do require profession of her Heresy, as a Condition of Com­municating with her, Division from her in this case is no Schisme or sinne, but virtue and ne­cessary; Where he speaketh onely of ma­teriall Heresy. It was they who made their Errours the Condition of their Com­munion, and therefore the Schisme and sin­lyeth at their doores. Secondly, Schisme doth not destroy the being of a Church, for the Church continueth a Church still, after the Schismaticks are gone out of it: but it destroyeth the Schismaticks themselves. Lastly, to free ourselves frō known Errours, when they are made Conditions of Com­munion, is so far from being dangerous to salvation, that as the Bishop confesseth truely, it is virtue and necessary.

The second proofe of our Moderation was our Charity, that we left them as one should leave his Fathers house, whilest it is infected with some contagious Sicknesse, with an hearty desire to return again so soone as it is cleansed. This Charitable de­sire of ours, I prooved by our daily prayers for thē in our Letany, that God would bring them out of the way of Errour into the way [Page 391] of truth: and particularly by our prayer on Good Fryday for them, That God would have mercy upon all Hereticks, and fetch them home to his Flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of true Israelites, and be made one fold under one Shepheard Iesus Christ our Lord. And this our Charity is the more conspi­cuous by this, that in bulla caenae, that is the next day before, anniversarily, they doe as solemnly curse and Anathematize us. To this he answereth, first that they doe more for us, and hazard their lifes dayly to convert us. They hazard their lifes to serve a forrein interest; not to convert, but to pervert as many as they can; not to sow good seed in the Lords Field, but to superseminare, or sow Tares above the wheat. We should thank them more to stay at home, then to compasse Sea and Land to gaine Proselites as the Pharisees did, and made them two­fold more the Children of Hell then them­selves. He saith, that this is the solemne Cu­stome of their Church every Good Friday. Let it be so: but they have not the same incentive and provocation which we have, we do not curse and Anathematise thē the day before, as they doe us. This Advantage we have over them, that we render blessing for cursing, which they doe not.

[Page 392]He addeth, that they cannot be understood under the notion of Hereticks; first because we acknowledge theirs to be a true Church, and therefore not hereticall; Secondly they are of Christs Flock already, and therefore not reduct­ble to his Flock. To the First [...] answer, that a particular Church which is onely material­ly Hereticall, not formally, doth still con­tinue a true Church of Christ. The Bi­shop of Chalcedon understood these things much better then himself, this is confessed by him in the place formerly alleged,Brief Survey cap. 2. sect. 4. A particular Church may be really Hereticall or Schismaticall, and yet morally a true particular Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of her Heresy or Schisme. We agree with him wholy in the sense, onely we differ in the expression. What he calleth really Hereticall, we stile materially Hereticall; and what he calleth morally a true Church, we use to stile Metaphysically a true Church, that, is by truth of Entity not of Morality. Secondly I answer, that the Flock of Christ is taken variously, sometimes more largely, some­times more strictly; more largely for all those that are In domo, by outward profes­sion; more strictly for those who are Ex domo, so in the Church, that they are also of the Church, by inward Sanctification. And our Collect hath reference to this later ac­ception [Page 393] of this word [Flock]: So Fetch them home blessed Lord to thy Floek, that they may be saved.

He taketh it ill, that our Church hath chāged these words in the Missall [recall them to our Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick Church], into this dwindling puling puritanicall expression, of [one Floek and one Fold under one Shepheard]. Whether it be because he hath a Pick against Scripture phrases, as soun­ding too preacherlike; or rather because our Church did presume to name the right Shepheard Iesus Christ, and not leave it to their Glosses to entitle the Pope to that Of­fice. But certainly the Authority of the Catholick Church, is not formidable at all to any Genuine Sonnes of the Church of England.

I doe readily acknowledge, that it is the duty of each Orthodox Church to Excommunicate Formall Hereticks, and them who swerve from the Apostles Creed as the rule of Faith: but this doth not oblige the Church of England to Excom­municate all materiall Hereticks, who fol­low the dictate of their conscience, in infe­riour Questions which are not Essentialls of Faith, and do hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds. Neither do I ever know that the Church of England [Page 394] did ever excommunicate Papists in grosse qua tales, but onely some particular Papists, who were either convicted of other Crimes, or found Guilty of Contumacy. It were to be wished, that the Court of Rome would use the same Moderation, and remember how Ireneus reproved Pope Victor, that he had not done rightly, to cut of from the Vnity of the Mysticall body of Christ, Euseb. li. 5. cap. 24. so many and so great Churehes of God. This is that great nonsense, which this egregious Prevarica­tour hath found in our Collect, that the English Church cannot reconcile her doctrine and her practise together. Let him not trouble his head with that, but rather how to recoucile himself with his own Church. He will have prayers to be onely words no works: but his Church maketh Prayer, Fasting and Almes,pa. 590 to be three satisfactory works.

My third proofe of our Moderation was, that we doe not challenge a new Church, a new Religion, or new holy Orders: but derive our Church, our Religion, our Holy Orders, from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession; we obtrude no Innovations upon others. All this is quite omitted by this great pretender to Sin­cerity, and yet he knoweth or may know, that there have been, pretended Reformers, who have committed all these excesses. [Page 395] But he catcheth hold of two words of my defence, that we have added no thing (I wish they could say as much) nor taken away any thing but Errours. To the former part he excepteth, that he who positively denies, ever addes the contrary to what he takes away; He that makes it an Article there is no Purga­tory, no Masse, no prayers to Saincts, hath as many Articles as he who holds the Con­trary. I have taken away this answer be­fore, and Demonstrated that no negative can be a Fundamentall Article, or necessary Medium of Salvation, because it hath no Entity: That there are an hundred greater disputes and Contradictions among them selves, in Theologicall Questions, or in these things quae sunt fide [...] materialiter, then those three are between us and them: Yet they dare not say, that either the Affirmati­ves or Negatives are Articles of Faith. The Christiā Church for fifteen hundred yeares, knew never more then 12. old Articles of Faith, untill Pius the 4th added twelve new Articles. And now this young Pythagoras will make us more then 1200. Articles, affirmative Articles and Negative Arti­cles, Fundamentall Articles and Super­structive Articles. Every Theologicall truth shall either be a Fundamentall Article, or an indifferent and unconcerning Opinion.

[Page 396]He saith, our 22. Article defineth the Ne­gative to Purgatory: yet I like an ill tutored Child, tell my old Crasy Mother the Church of England that she lies. pag. 593. I hope by this time the Reader knoweth sufficiently, that his penne is no slander. If the Church of England did ever ill, it was when she begot him. Neither doe I tell the Church of England she lies, nor dissent in the least from the Definition of the Church of England: neither doth the Church of England define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed, either necessitate med [...]i, or necessitate praecepti which is much lesse, but onely bindeth her sonnes for peace sake not to oppose them. But he himself can hardly be excused from lying, where he telleth us the good simple Ministers did sweare to maintein them. Perhaps he was one of the simple Ministers, did he ever sweare to maintein them? did he ever know any man who did sweare to maintein them? For him to urge such falshoods after they have been so often detected, is double Effronterie, Pe­riisse puto [...]ui pudor periit. He inferreth further, By the Bishops Logick, these propo­sitions that there are not two Gods, that the devills shall not be saved, nor the Saints in Heaven damned, that there is no Salvation but [Page 397] through Christ; must cease to be Articles of Faith, and become indifferent unconcerning Opinions, because they are Negative. I wish no more disparagement to any man, then to be the authour of such an absurd assertion, Either they are Fundamentall Articles, or un­concerning Opinions. How should they cease to be Articles, which never were Artic­les? That there is one God, and one Sa­viour Iesus Christ, that the life of the Saints is everlasting, and the Fire of the devills Everlasting, are Articles of Faith: but every thing which may be deduced from these, is not a distinct Article of Faith.

To the latter part of my plea that we tooke nothing away but weeds, he pleadeth, first that it is but a self supposition, or a begging of the Question. By his leave, I have demonstrated that all the Bran­ches of Papall power, which are in controversy between them and us, are all grosse Vsurpations and weeds, which did never sprout up in the Church of England untill after 1100 yeares; no man can say without shame, that such were planted by Christ or his Apostles. Secondly he ex­cepteth, that to take away Errours, is a requi­site act af Iustice, not a proofe of Moderation: On the contrary, therefore it is a proofe of Moderation, because it is a [Page 398] requisite Act of Iustice; all virtue consisteth in the meane or in a moderation. It is not his particular, pretended, supposititious Tradi­tion, which doth secure us that Christ was, and that the Holy Scripture is the Genuine word of God: but the Vniversall and per­petuall Tradition of the Catholick Church of Christ.

My last proofe of our Moderation was, that we are ready in the preparation of our minds to believe and practice, whatsoever the Catholick Church of this present Age doth believe and practice. And this is an infallible preservative to keep a man within the Pale of the Church, whoso­ever doth this Cordially, cannot possibly be a formall Heretick or Schismatick, because he is invincibly ignorant of his Heresy or Schisme;Ang. Epi. 48. No man can have iust cause to se­perate his Communion, a Communione or­bis Terrarum, from the Communion of the Christian world. If he would have confuted this, his way had been to have proposed so­mething which the Christian World united doth believe or practise, which wee are not ready to believe or Practice. This he doth not so much as attempt to doe, but barketh and raileth without rime or reason. First he telleth us we say that there is no Vni­versall [Page 399] Church. Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Leiturgy, wherein we pray dayly, that God will inspire the Vniversall Church with the Spirit of Truth Vnity and Concord. He telleth us, that they doe not doubt but we have renounced our Creed. Chuse Reader whether thou wilt believe him or our Lei­turgy, wherein we make profession dayly of the Apostolick, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. He telleth us, that we have re­nounced our reason. If he had said onely that we had lost our reason, it is more then any man in his right wits would say: but to say we have renounced our reason, is in­credible.

The reason of all this is, because we give no certein Rule to know a true Church from an Hereticall. He supposeth, that no Hereti­call Church is a true Church. The Bi­shop of Chalcedon may instruct him better, that an Hereticall Church is a true Church whilest it erreth invincibly. He saith that he hath lived in Circumstances, to be as well acquainted with our Doctrin as most men are: Yet he professeth that if his life were at stake, be could not [Page 400] Determine absolutely upon our Constant Grounds, VVhether Presbyterians Ana­baptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the Vniversall Church or no. The nearer relation that he hath had to the Church of England, the more shame for him to scoffe so often at the supposed Na­kednesse of his Mother, and to revile her so virulently, without either ground or Provocation, which gave him his Christian being. He hath my Charitable Iudgement of Presbyterians, in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle. And for the other Sects, it were much better to have a little patience and suffer them to dye of themselves, then trouble the world so much about them: they were produced in a Storme and will dye in a Calme. He may be sure they will never molest him, at any Councell either Generall or Occidentall. It is honour enough for them to be named in earnest by a Polemick writer.

But what manner of Disputing is this, to bring Questions in stead of Arguments? As what new Form of Discipline the Prote­stants have introduced? What are the cer­tain Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell? What is the Vniversall Church, and of what particular Churches it doth [Page 401] consist? What are the notes to know a true Church from an Hereticall? We have introduced no new discipline, but reteined the old. Our Conditions of a right Oecumenicall Councell, are the same they were, not altogether so rigo­rously exacted in case of invincible ne­cessity. We are readier to give an ac­count of ourselves, then to censure others: either to intrude ourselves into the Office of God, to distinguish perfectly for­mall Schismaticks from materiall; Or into the Office of the Catholick Church, to determine precisely who ought to be excluded from her Communion, who not. We exclude all those whom undoub­ted Generall Councells have excluded, the rest we leave to God, and to the de­termination of a free Councell as Gene­rall as may be. But because I would not leave him unsatisfied in any thing, I am con­tented to admit their own Definition of the Vniversall Church, That is, the Company of Christians knit together by the profession of the same faith, and the Communion of the same Sa­craments, under the Government of lawfull Pa­stours. Taking away that purple patch, which they have added at the latter end of it, for their own Interest, And especially of the Roman Bishop, as the onely Vicar of [Page 402] Christ upon Earth. And if they had stinted at a Primacy of Order, or beginning of unity, I should not have excepted against it.

He objecteth, that Protestants have no grounds to distinguish true believers from false. That were strange indeed, whilest we have the same Scriptures, interpreted by the same perpetuall Tradition of the Vniver­sall Church, according to the same Ana­logy of Faith (wherein we give this honour to the Fathers, not to be Authours but wit­nesses of Tradition); whatsoever grounds they have to distinguish true believers from false, we have the same. But because I made the Apostles Creed to be the rule of Faith, he objecteth, First, then the Puritans who deny the Article of Christs descent into Hell, must be excluded quite from the Vniversall Church. If they be so, what is that to the Church of England? if they be turned out, yet let them be heard first. They plead that the manner of Christs descent is not particularly deter­mined: but let it be determined or not, they ought to be turned out of the Vniversall Church by a Generall Councell; and it may be they will submit to the Authority of a Generall Councell, then there will need no turning out. Secondly he objecteth, So a man may reject all Government of the Church, [Page 403] the Procession of the Holy ghost, all the Sacra­ments, all the Scriptures, and yet continue a Member of Gods Church. Why so? When I said the Creed was a [...]ufficient Rule of Faith, or Credendorum of things to be belie­ved; I neither said nor meant, that it was regula agendorum, a Rule of such things as are to be practised; such as the Acts of discipline and of the Sacraments are. The Creed con­teined enough for Salvation, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost, before the words [Filioque] were added to it: and there is great cause to doubt, that the Contentions of the Eastern and Western Churches about this Subject, are but a meer Logomachy or strife about words. The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith, but one and the same Rule, dilated in the Scripture, contracted in the Creed; the end of the Creed being to contein all Fundamentall points of Faith, or a summary of all things necessary to Salvation, to be believed Necessitate medii: But in what par­ticula [...] writings all these fundamentall points are conteined, is no particular fundamentall Article it self, nor con­teined in the Creed, nor could be con­teined in it; since it is apparent out of Scripture it self, that the Creed was [Page 404] made and deposited with the Church as a Rule of Faith, before the Canon of the new Testament was fully perfected. Ar­rians and Socinians may perhaps wrest the words of the Apostles Creed, to their Here­ticall Sense: but not as it is explained by the first foure Generall Councells, which all Orthodox Christians doe admit. He saith, they and we differ about the sense of two Articles of the Creed, that is the des­cent of Christ into Hell, and the Catholick Church, but setteth not down wherein we differ. He hath reason to understand our Differences, having been of both Churches: but I for my part do rather believe, that he understandeth neither part right. Howsoe­ver it be, the Different Sense of an Article doth make an Heretick, after it is defined by the Vniversall Church, not before.

He saith, he hath already shewed in the fore­going Section, that the Protestant Grounds, have left no Order and Subordination of Vniversall Government in Gods Church. But he hath neither shewn it in the foregoing Section, nor any where else, nor is able to shew it. We have the same subordination that the Primitive Church, of Inferiour Clergy men to Bishops, of Bishops to Archbishops, of Archbishops to Patriarchs, and of Patri­archs [Page 405] to a Generall Councell, or as Gene­rall as may be. Let him shew any one linke of this Subordination that we have weakened. I said [we acknowledge not a Virtuall Church, or one man as infallible as the Vniversall Church]: He rejoineth, Nor they neither. I wish it were so Gene­rally: but the Pope and Court of Rome, who have the power of the Keys in their hands (whō onely we accuse in this behalf) do maintain the Contrary; that a Generall Councell without the Pope may erre; that the Pope with any Councell Generall or particular, cannot erre; that the infallibility of the Church is radicated in the Pope, by virtue of Christs prayer for S. Peter, that his faith should not faile, not in a company of Counsailers, nor in a Councell of Bishops; that the Pope cannot define temerariously, in matters of Faith or good manners, which concern the whole Church. What a Generall Councell is, and what the Vniversall Church is, and who ought to be excluded from the one or the other as Hereticks, I have shewed already; namely, all those and onely those, who doe either renounce their Creed, the badge of their Christianity, the same Faith whereinto they were baptised; [Page 406] or who differing about the sense of any Ar­ticle thereof, have already been excluded as Hereticks, by the sentence of an undoubted Generall Councell.

Howsoever he sleighteth the Controver­sies which they have among themselves, concerning the last resolution of Faith, as if they were of no moment: yet they are not of so little concernment to be so sleighted. What availeth it to say they have the Church for an infallible Iudge; whilest they are not certain or do not know what the Church is, or who this infallible Iudge is? May not a Man say unto them as Elijah said unto the Israelites, Why halt ye between two Opinions? Or rather why halt yet betwixt five or six Opinions? If the Pope alone be infallible Iudge, follow him; If a Generall Councell alone be this infallible Iudge, follow it; If the Essentiall Church be the infallible Iudge, Adhere to it; If the Pope and a Generall Councell, o [...] the Pope and a particular Councell, or the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinalls, be this infallible Iudge, fol­low them.

He telleth us, that their Vniversall Church, is as Visible as the sun at Noone day, to wit, those Countryes in Communion with the See of Rome. Without doubt they are Visible [Page 407] enough: but it is as Visible, that they are not the Vniversall Church. What shall become of all the rest of the Christian world? They are the elder Christians, and more numerous fower for one, both Pa­triarchs and people. It is against reason that one single Protopatriarch, should cast out fower out of the Church, and be both party and Iudge in his own Cause. But here it ends not; If the Pope will have his Visi­ble Church to be one Homogeneous body, he must cast out a great many more yet, and it is to be suspected this very Dispatcher himself among the rest, for all his shewes. They flatter the Pope with Generall Terms of Head, and Chief Governour, and First Mover, which signify nothing: but in rea­lity they would have the Pope to be no more, then the Duke of Venice is in the Ve­netian Common wealth, that is, lesse then any single Senatour: Or that which a Ge­nerall Maister is in a Religious Order;Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 14. Above all Priours and Provincialls, but sub­ject to a Congregation Generall. Wherein doe these men differ from us?

Sect. 8.
That all Princes [...]nd Republiques of the Roman Communion, doe in effect the same thing whic [...] Henry the eighth did, when they have Occasion; or at least doe plead for it.

This was the Title and this was my scope of my Fifth ground; which I made good by the Lawes and decrees of the Em­perours, with their Councells and Synods and Electorall College: by the Lawes of France, the Liberties of the Gallican Church, the Acts of their Parliaments, and declarations of their Vniversities: By the practise of the King of Spain, his Coun­cells, his Parliaments, in Sicily, in Castile, in Brabant and Flanders: By the sighs of Portugall and their blea [...]ings, and the Iudgement of the Vniversity of Lisbone: By the Lawes and Proclamations of the Republick of Venice. This I made good, in every particular branch of Papall power which we have cast out of England; the Pa­tronage of the English Church, The right to call and confirm Synods, to conferre Bi­shopricks, to receive Tenths and First fruits and Oaths of Fidelity, and concer­ning [Page 409] the Supreme Legislative Dispensative and Iudiciary power, in all things pertei­ning to the Externall Regimeut of the Church. To all this, neither the Bishop of Chalcedon nor Mr. Serjeant, either in his former Answer or in this rejoinder (al­though provoked), have offered one word of Answer.

This Plea doth utterly destroy their pre­tense of Divine right and of uninterrupted Tra­dition, for all these Branches of Papall po­wer. Can any man be so stupid as to Ima­gin that to be of divine right, which was first tacked into the Church, with so much Opposition, after eleven hundred yeares? or that to be grounded upon perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition, which hath been op­posed in all Ages since it was devised, in all places, by all sorts of persons; Kings and their Parliaments and Councells, Synods and Vniversities, Divines and Lawiers? What shamefull Tergiversation is this, which no ingenious Adversary could be guilty of, but out of invincible necessity? Thus he served me where I produced all our old English Lawes. Thus he served me where I produced their own Authours to testify the intolerable extortions and Vsur­patiōs of the Romā Court. Thus he serveth me here, and in place of so many lawes and [Page 410] Proclamations, and Placaets, and Synodall Acts, and Iudgements of Vniversities: he shuffleth in so many of his fiddle-faddle Contradictions, which are not all worth a deafe Nut. If it were not that I have pro­ceeded so far already; and Toto devorato Bo­ve, turpe est in Cauda deficere, I would not Vouchsafe to answer them but with Con­tempt.

Thus he begins, Nine or ten self Contra­dictions in one Section. He speaketh modestly, if there be one, there are nine hundred. This word [in effect] saith he, deserves a Comment. It hath a Comment, wherein his feigned Contradictions were satisfyed, be­fore they were hatched by him; the more uningenuous person he, to take no notice of it. He may find it in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon cap. 7. s. 2. pa. 243. Other Princes of the Roman Communion have made lawes as well as we, to renounce and abrogate all those branches of Papall Authority which we cast out, that is, onely Papall Vsurpations: but neither they nor we ever defined against Essentiall right. We deny not to the Pope a Superiority of Order above the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we deny him a Superiority of power in the Exteriour Court, that is, we deny him the supreme Iudiciary Power: so did they. King [Page 411] Henry the eighth abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions, but the Emperours did not so; If they did not so, yet if they pleaded for it, or justified it, it is as much as I said: And if they did it by parcells (as I have shewed they did) though they did it not in grosse, it is the same thing in effect. Our Ancestours threatned the Pope to make a wall of Separation between him and them, not by making a new Law, for it was the Common Law of En­gland; but by declaring the Law, by exe­cuting the Law: And though they had threatned him to make one generall Law, against all his Vsurpations in grosse; yet formerly having made single Lawes against the same in particular, it was but the same in effect. This sucking Contradiction hath been answered sufficiently in the last Se­ction. He saith, our Controversy is not about the extent of Papall Power, but about the right it self. The just Contrary is true; Our Controversy is onely about the extent of Papall Power, or about those particular Branches of Papall power which we have cast out. He loves to hover in Generalls: but we shall bring him willingly, or against his will, to descend to particu­lars.

[Page 412]He taketh notice here, of my complai­ning that they answer not particulars, and I as­sure the Reader that if their cause would have born it, they would have answered them. Ob­serve but how tame he is upon this Provo­cation, that useth to be so fierce without any Provocation. All the Answer it doth extort from him is, Was ever man so igno­rant of the common Lawes of Disputing? Needs any more answer to be given to particulars which one yields to, then to say he grants them? If he be over much acquainted with the Lawes of disputing, Reddat mihi Minam Diogenes; Let him who tanght me Logick give me my Money again. But it is well we have his Concedo omnia &c, We grant all his par­ticular Instances of these Contests between Kings and Popes: Yet not so very well neither; for what he granteth with one hand, he taketh away with the other, Not entring into that dispute, how farre they were done Iustly, how farre unjustly, which is little to our purpose, since the Autho­rity it self is acknowledged on both Sides. It is little to their purpose indeed, but it is much to ours. Is the Papall Power acknow­ledged, where the Popes Soveraign Power, his Legisllative power, his Iudiciary Po­wer, his dispensative power are all oppo­sed? [Page 413] Much good may his dry Papacy (as he pleaseth to call it sometimes) do him. In every one of these Instances, besides meer matter of Fact, there is an Inference to matter of right. The Common Lawes of Disputing require that he should have an­swered that, as well as granted the other. If his Dispatches be such as this, he may dis­patch more answers in a day, then St. Au­stin could have made Oppositions in a yeare.

When I said, what is the Ground of his Exception, Nothing but a Contradiction? he urgeth, that I make account a Contradiction is a matter of nothing. No, but I meant that his vain Objecting of Imaginary Contra­dictions, is a matter of nothing. Twenty of them will not amount to one Fleabiting: and I shewed him, that this ridiculous Con­tradiction which he bringeth here, is such an one. The pretended Contradiction is this, that their Doctrin concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes, and preju­dices their Crownes: and yet, that they hold and doe the same in effect against the Pope that Protestants doe. A doughty Contradiction; both parts are as true as can be, referendo singula singulis, [Page 414] referring what I said to the right Subject, as I applied it. The Doctrin of the Pope and Court of Rome is injurious to Princes, (of whom I speake expresly and no others:) and yet soveraign Princes and their Coun­cells have held and done, the same things against the Pope in effect that Protestants doe. Iust such another Contradiction as this, The Guelphes are for the Pope against the Emperour: yet the Gibellines are for the Emperour against the Pope, and both Fa­ctions Roman Catholicks. Thus he chan­geth Subjects, and Predicates, and times, and respects, and all Rules to make a Con­tradiction. But his defence is more ridi­culous then his pretended Contradiction, That the substance of the Popes Authority is the point which belongs to me to impugn. So the Contradiction lieth not in what I did say, but what I should have said, or rather what he would have had me to have said. When his Substance of Papall Authority, hath lost all its extent (which he gives every man leave to question), it is an Indivisible indeed. His second Exception is just such another. I pleaded that [I speake expresly of the Pope and Court of Rome]: He rejoineth, No my Lord, but I would not let you change [...]he Sub [...]ect of the whole Question. If he will change my [Page 415] sense, he must take the Contradiction upon himself. These are the Common Rules of disputing with this great Dictatour in Lo­gick.

I chanced to say, that [our Religion and theirs is the same]. He bids me answer se­riously, whether the Roman Religion and ours do not differ in this very point of the Popes Supre­macy? If the Roman Religion be the Christian Religion, then our Religion is the same. Every Difference in this point or another point, doth not make a Diverse religion. A Garden weeded and a Garden unweeded is the same Garden. We esteem it an honour to be Christians, and no Dis­honour to us that we are no Papists; what they think of us concerneth themselves not us. We do gladly admit the old Aposto­licall Rule of Religion: but we like not their new Rules or new Creeds. And we are ready for peace sake, to attribute as much to the Pope as many of their own Doctors doe, that is, a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity: and the not accep­ting of this, renders them guilty of Schisme and breaking the Vnity of Gods Church.

He demandeth, if these rigorous Assertions be not the Generall Tenet of their Church, whom do we impugn? We [Page 416] impugn the Pope and Court of Rome, whose Tenets these Rigorous Assertions are, upon which they grounded their manifold Vsurpations, which we have cast out de­servedly; and for so doing they have ex­communicated us, and so broken the Vnity of the Church. The substance of the Popes just Authority is no more then a Pri­macy of Order, or beginning of Vnity at the most; This we have not cast out. And this Act we can justify, by betier Logick then he can oppose it. We know the Pope hath sometimes remitted of his rigour, when he was not able to make good his sen­tence by force: but it will trouble him to find one instance of a Pope who hath ever retracted his unjust censures out of pure Conscience, or acknowledged his unjust Vsurpations. Whether he did or no, we do not much regard, being done with an erring Key. Many Millions of Christians are saved, which are out of his Catholick world.

Next follow two heavy Contradictions, able to make Miloes back crack with their weight. Take them in his own words, for they are even absurd enough without any Aggravavation. The Bishop said, that all Catholick Kings, abetted by their Doctors and Casuists, did resist the Pope in his Vsurpations, [Page 417] but here to shew how some Doctors at so­metimes escaped the Popes Clutches, he saith, that the Pope and his Court have some­thing els to doe, then to enquire af [...]er the Tene [...]s of private Doctors. Why may not this grow to be a Contradiction in time? It is no Conciliation already. The other Contra­diction is yet more silly. I said, perhaps some of those Doctors lived about the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile: that is one Enuntiation, what is the other? Nay there is none at all of mine. Yet he cryeth score up another self contradiction. How? A Contradiction of one Proposition? A Con­tradiction with a Perhaps? Such a Con­tradiction was never heard of in our dayes, nor in the dayes of our Forefathers. But though it be not a self Contradiction, yet per­haps it may contradict the truth: No truly, it con [...]adicts the Truth no more then it self. I will take away the [perhaps] to give him Line enough. Some of the Opposers lived in this last Age: Yet the Bishop saith some of them lived in the time of the Councells of Constance. This is the first time that ever a Con­tradiction was pretended betwixt two particular Propositions such as these. He saith, that none can tell what I meane by their living out of the Popes reach▪ [Page 418] I told him my self, their being protected by Soveraign Power; My lord the Empe­rour defend me with the Sword, and I will defend the with the Penne.

He saith, what the Sorbon Doctors thought of the Court of Rome, concerns not me nor the Question. They ever valued the Popes Supremacy as a point of Faith, for the not doing of which we are cast out of the Church. He will find, that it doth both concern me and the Question. If the Court of Rome had not obtruded another manner of Supre­macy, then the Sorbon Doctors allowed, this Schisme had never been. For all the Popes Supremacy, they radicated Ecclesiasticall power in the Church; they subjected the Pope to the Church; they made him no Soveraign Prince but a Duke of Venice, lesse then the Senate, that is, lesse then a Ge­nerall Councell. All that they allowed him was a beginning of Vnity, where have we dissallowed that?

He accused, Our bloudy Lawes and blou­dier Execution. I referred him to my Re­ply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, where this Question is clearly stated, and fully discus­sed: and I expected an account from him, of that he had to say against it solidly and fully, but I see [Page 419]Omnibus hoc vitium est Cantoribus, inter Amicos V [...]nunquam inducant animum cantare rogat [...], Injussi nunquam desistant.’ He delighteth altogether in Generalls; and I love to have Controversies circumstan­tiated, Qui pauca considerat facile pronuntiat. I bring more then pretended Feares and Iealousies on our part, to Iustify our Lawes; even grosse treason by the Law of Nations on their parts.

He saith, that in my 48. page, I cleare their Religion from destroying Subjection to Prin­ces. All I say is this [their Religion is the same with ours, that is Christian, and nee­deth not to be cleared from being a Source of Sedition, or an Incentive to Rebellion]. Here is something to clear Christian Reli­gion, but not Popery qua talis, as it is obtru­ded. Well, but he saith he will supply that defect, I subsume, But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of Faith, Therefore the hol­ding of it, is according to him no wayes injurious to Princes. Observe Reader it is he sub­sumes, not I: so it is he that clears them qua tales, as they are Papists, not I. And how doth he clear them? By a Syllogisme as memorable as his Contradictions. His [Page 420] Assumption is: But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us (Roman Catholicks) a point of Faith▪ Therefore the holding of it is according to him (the Bishop of Derry) no wayes injurious to Princes. Stay Sr. here is a Syllogisme with a witnesse, which hath more in the Conclusiō then there was in the premisses, namely, according to him. Who ta [...]ght you this Lo­gick, to assume for yourself, and Con­clude for me?

Here he presents the Reader with two new Contradictions of mine, as silly and senselesse as the rest. They are these, that I say the Instances cited by me, were before the disloyall Opinions of the Romanists: and yet some of my Instances were in Cardinall Rich­lieus dayes, and since very lately. Adding, that I contradict myself yet once more, affirming that I hope those seditious doctrins, at this day are almost buryed. What Satisfaction doth this man owe to his Reader, to conce­ale from him all the Presidents Lawes Sentences, of Emperours Kings Common-wealths Vniversities, and to present him nothing but such Fopperies as these? I will not vouchsafe to spend any time about them, but onely give the Reader an Ariadnes clew, to guide him out of this Imaginary Maze. I have shewed him, what these seditious [Page 421] Opinions were, where they were hatched, and when; namely, in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reign.Reply to the Bish. of Chalc. c. 3. sect. 4. And though some few of my Instances were after that time, yet the maine body of them was much more ancient; as in the Empire,, from Charles the great to Charles the fifth, and in France from Carolus Calvus downward. So I might truely say that the Instances cited by me, were long before those disloyall Opini­ons were hatched: and yet they are not so la­tely hatched, but I hope they are almost buried at this day. A man would have thought that I deserved thankes for my Charity, not to be traduced. But it is all one, let the Reader judge who it is that trippeth up his own heeles.

When I said, It was great Pity that he was not one of Christs Counsa [...]lers when he formed his Church; It did not suppose that Christ had any Counsailers, but to taxe him who takes upon him so Magisterially to dictate, what was necessary then for Christ to doe. This I called sawcinesse, and justly. Good Christians (as I told him formerly) ought to argue thus, Christ formed his Church thus, Therefore this is the best Forme: not thus, This is the best Forme, the­refore Christ Formed it after this manner. [Page 422] The onely reason why I cited that text of St. Paul,Ephes. 4. 4.One Body, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, one God and Father of all was this; that St. Paul reckoning up seven Bonds of Vnity, should omit this which Mr. Serjeant makes to be the onely Bond of Vnity, namely, unus Papa, One Pope, or one Bishop of Rome: Christ saw it neces­sary to make a Bond of Vnity between the Chur­ches; And that for this reason he gave the Principality to St: Peter, and Consequently to the Bishops of Rome. All this he supposeth on his own head, but doth not goe about to prove any thing; if St. Paul had been of the same, mind, that was the proper place to have recorded it, and doubtlesse he would not have omitted it. This Argu­ment which onely I used, he doth not touch: but fancieth that I make these seven Bonds of Vnity, or Obligations to Vnity, or mea­nes of Vnity, to be seven markes of those which be in the Church; which I never dreamed of. And therefore I passe it by as impertinent: Onely adding, that our Ground for Vnity of Faith is our Creed, and for Vnity of Government, the very same forme of Discipline, which was used in the Primitive Church, and is derived from them to us.

[Page 423]When I wished that he had expressed him­self more clearly, whether he be for a beginning of Order and Vnity, or for a single head of Power and Iurisdiction; I spake of St. Peter, of whō the case is cleare, that he had no more power over his Fellow Apostles then they had over him: and that the Supremacy of Power rested in the Apostolicall College; All that St. Pe [...]er had was a beginning of Vnity, What St. Peter had, the Pope may pretend a claime to, what he had not, the Pope hath no pretence for. Neither Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople, nor any other ancient Bishop, nor yet St. Gregory himself, did ever dream of such a singular Headship of Power as he mentions, that is, that no Bishop in the Church should have Power but he; Although the Court of Rome and their ad­herents come very near it at this day, deri­ving all the power of Iurisdiction of all other Bishops from the Pope. That Power which Iohn affected, and St. Gregory impug­ned then, and we impugne now, is the Power of Vniversall Iurisdiction in the Ex­teriour Court; If that were an Heresy in him (as he confesseth,) let them looke to themselves. Neither is the Bishops Pri­macy of Order, so dry a Primacy as he pre­tendeth, nor destitute of those Privileges [Page 424] which belong to a Primate of Order by the Law of Nature, To call Assemblies sub paena spirituali, or to intimate the nec [...]ssity of calling them, to propose doubts, to receive Votes, and to execute so farre as he is tru­sted by the Church; This is the single Power of a Primate of Order, but besides this, he hath also a conjoint power in the Government of the Church. What he saith to the prejudice of Generall Councells, I have answered formerly.

He askes me, What other Successour St. Peter had, who could pretend to an Headship of Order, except the Bishop of Rome? I answer, that I did not speake, of what St. Peter had, but what he might have had, or may have whensoever the Representative Church, that is a Generall Councell, should give the Primacy of Order to another Bishop. Since he is so great a Friend to the Schoole of Sorbon, he can not well be ignorant what their learned Chancellour hath written ex­presly upon this Subject, in his Booke de A [...]seribilitate Papae, not the taking away of the Papacy, but Removall of it. And what Bellarmine confesseth, that neither Scripture nor Tradition doth prove, that the Ap [...] ­s [...]olicall See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed, He urgeth, that then the Church [Page 425] should remaine without this Principality at the death of every Pope, untill all the Churches in Iapan China and India had given their consent: yet I acknowledge it to be of perpetuall necessity. First, he doth me wrong, I did not say posi­tively that it is of perpetuall necessity: but that I like it well enough, and the reason being of perpetuall necessity, seemeth strongly to imply the necessity of the thing. Se­condly I answer, that there is no need to expect such far fetched Suffrages, so long as the Primacy may remaine fixed where it is, unlesse a Generall Councell or one as Generall as may be, think fit to remove it: and if a Generall Councell remove it, it will take order for the future succession. And this same reason doth clearly take away his answer to my instance, That as the Dying of such a Bishop Lord Chancellour of England, doth not perpetuate the Chancellourship to that Bishoprick, because there is a Sove­raign Prince to elect another: so the dying of St. Peter Bishop of Rome, doth not perpe­tuate the Primacy to that Bishoprick, be­cause a Generall Councell when it is in being, hath power to transferre it to ano­ther See, if they find it expedient for the publick good.

[Page 426]The Bishop knoweth right well, that the Church of Christ is both his Spouse and his Family, both the Governesse and the Go­verned; The Supreme Governesse in re­spect of its Representative a Generall Councell, to which all Ecclesiasticall Of­ficers higher or lower, whether Consti­tuted by Christ or substituted by the Church, doe owe an account; And the Governed in respect of that Vniversality of Christians which he mentioneth. And this sounds much more sweetly in Christian eares, then to make either the Pope the Maister, or the Church of Rome the Mistresse of the Church.

He brought an Argument for the Succes­sion of the Roman Bishop, drawn from the Vicissitude of Humane affairs. I reto [...]ted it upon himselfe, that Rome itself was as much subject to this Vicissitude, as any other place, [it may be destroyed with an Earthquake.] He saith, It must be an un­heard of Earthquake, which can swallow up the whole Diocesse: if the City be destroyed, yet the Clergy of the Roman Diocesse can elect to them­selves a new Bishop. But this new elected Bishop, shall be no more the Bishop of Rome after it is destroyed, But that which concerneth him and the cause more is, he [Page 427] proposeth my Objection by halfes; I said it might be destroyed by warres also, that is both City and Diocesse, and be­come a place for Satyrs to Dance in and Owles to scr [...]ech in. As great Cityes as Rome have run that Fortune; In that case what will become of his Election. I added [it may become Hereticall or Mahumetan]. He answereth, True, so may the whole Church, if it had pleased God so to Order causes. No, by his leave not so, Christ hath promised that his Vniversall Church shall never faile: but he hath not promised that Rome shall never faile. I said, [the Church never disposeth so of her Offices, as not to be able to change her Mesnagery, according to the Vicissitude of Humane affaires]. He opposeth, that I granted in the foregoing Page, that Christ himself and not the Church instituted this Prineipality or Primacy: and bids me shew, that the Church hath Authority to change Christs Institution. I did not grant it but suppose it: but whether granted or sup­posed, it is not materiall to the pur­pose. The Church hath no power to change Christs Institution in Essentialls: but all Ecclesiasticall Officers whatsoe­ver are her Officers, and she hath power [Page 428] to dispose of them, and govern them, and to alter what is not Essentiall.

I know there are other meaus between Tyranny and Anarchy, besides Aristocracy, even all lawfull Formes of Government, as Monarchy and Democracy: but in the Go­vernment of the Catholick Church Mo­narchy and Democracy had no place, un­lesse it were in respect of Particular Dioces­ses or Provinces; and therefore to have na­med Monarchy here, had been superfluous and impertinent. But the Government of the Primitive Church in the Apostles and their Successours was ever Aristocraticall, first by an equall Participation of power in the Apostles, and then by a Subordination of Bishops in their Successours; and this as well out of Generall Councells as in them, as well before there were Generall Coun­cells as after. It is not my want of Me­mory, but his want of Iudgement, to pur­sue such shadowes as these and nickname them Contradictions.

He askes, how should a Primate of Order, who hath no power to Act at all in order to the Vniversall Church, have more power to prevent her good or procure her harme, then one who hath Soveraignty of power? This is his perpetuall Practise, to dispute from that [Page 329] which is not granted. St. Peter was a Primate of Order a [...]ong the Apostles and no more: yet he had power to act singly as an Apostle and as a Primate among the Apostles, he had power also to Act jointly with the Apos [...]olicall College; so have all other Primates of [...]rder. Whatsoever Mr. Serjeant thi [...]kes, Our Savi [...]u [...] thought this Form of Gove [...]ment as conducible to the good of his Church, both to procure her Good and to prevent her harm, as an absolute Soveraignty. I doe not feast the Reader with Contradictions; Nothing is more true then my Assertion, but he abu­seth his Reader with notorious Fictions.

If the Papacy be the Bridle in the mouth of the Church, then without peradventure the Pope is the Rider; though the Papacy be not, I said enough before to let him see the, unfitnesse of his l [...]dicr [...]us Allegory, and taxed him for it: if he delight in it let him pursue it; Nos hac a Scabie tenemus ungues. How the Church doth both govern and is governed, I have shewed him formerly.

In his answer he fell into a large Encomiu [...] of the Papacy, demanding among other things, What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an Arbitrator so prudent, so p [...]s, so distinteressed, as a Good Pope should be and if this Authority were duely Governed? [Page 430] I told him that to looke upon men as they should be, was to write dreaming. He re­joineth, that he lookes not upon men at all in this place, but speakes of the Office it self; And challengeth me, what say you to the Office it self? I answer, first he saith not truely, for he did looke at men in this place, otherwise why did he adde this Condition; as a good Pope should be? And this other; If this Au­thority were duely governed? Certainly he who lookes upon an Arbitrator so pru­dent so pious, so Disinteressed as a good Pope should be, looketh something upon men. And so in truth he ought to doe: but his fault is, that he lookes upon them as they should be, and not as they commonly are; which is the same fault I taxe him with, to write Dreaming, not wa­king.

Now to his Question, What say you to the Office it self? I say first, that though he hath stated it p. 624: Yet he hath not stated it at all, neither (I feare) dare he state it, nor is willing to state it. He telleth us in­deed sometimes of the Substance of the Pa­pacy, but wherein the Substance of the Papacy consists (except some Gene­rall unsignificant Expressions of an Head­ship, or Chief Governourship, or First [Page 431] Movership, about which we have no Controversy with them, and which are equally appliable to a Primacy of Order and a Soveraignty of Power), he saith nothing. Whether the Pope be an absolute Monarch or a duke of Venice, inferiour to the whole Senate; whether he have a Coactive power in the Exteriour Court, throughout all other Princes dominions, without their leaves; Whether he have the right to con­ferre Bishopricks, Convocate Synods, Impose Pensions, For bid Oaths of Alle­giance, and require new Oaths of Allegi­ance to himself, Set up Legantine Courts, Receive Appeales, make Lawes, dispense with Lawes at his pleasure, he saith nothing: yet these are the onely Contro­versies we have with them, to aske what we say to the Popes Authority, without stating of it, without stinting of it, is an unreasonable demand.

I say secondly, that he ought to explain himself, by what right he doth challenge this Authority Divine or Humane, or onely out of Prudentiall reasons. If he challenge it by divine right or Humane right, he ought to prove the right, according to the just extent of that Authority which he doth challenge: and not wave the extent, as a [Page 432] thing Indifferent. If he challenge it out of Prudentiall Reasons, it ought to be consi­dered, whether the Hopes or the Hazards, the Advantages or Disadvantages, the Con­veniēces or Inconveniences of such a Form of Government particularly circumstan­tiated, doe over ballance the one or the other; And the surest tryall of this is by ex­perience. It will trouble him to find so many Advantages, which the Church and Kingdome of England have received from Papall Iurisdiction, (I speak not of the Key of Order,) as may overweigh all those Disadvantages which they have su­steined, by the Extortions, and Vsurpations, and Malignant Influence of the Papacy. If he attribute no more power to the Pope, then all Roman Catholicks universally do ap­prove, (which is the onely Rule that he gi­veth us, to know what is the Substance of Papall Authority), he need not be so im­petuous, this Question is near an end.

He askes whether wee, and the Ea­stern Southern and Northern Christians, be under the Government of Patriarchs or any other Common Government? I answer wee and they are under the same Common Government, which the Pri­mitive Church was under from the Dayes [Page 433] of the Apostles, long before there were any Generall Councells; that was the Go­vernment of Bishops under Primates or Pa­triarchs. For as I have said formerly, a Protarch and a Patriarch in the Language of the Primitive Church are both one. We have as much Opportunity to Convocate Synods as they had then, before there were Christian Emperours, and more: yet by such Councells as they could Congre­gate, though they were not Generall; they governed the Church. If there be not that free Communication of one Church with another that was then, either by reason of the great distance, or our mutuall misunderstanding one of another, for want of the old Canonicall Epistles or Literae Formatae, the more is the Pity: We are sorry for it, and ready to con­tribute our uttermost endeavours to the Remedy of it.

With these western Churches which have shaken of the Roman Y [...]ke, we have much more Communion, by Sy­nods, by Letters, by Publishing our Con­fessions: ād we might justly hope for a much nearer union yet, both in doctrine and Dis­cipline, if God would be graciously pleased to restore an happy Peace. That we have it [Page 434] not already in so large a measure as we might, is their onely Faults, who would not give way to an Vniform Reformation. Sometimes they accuse us for having too much Communion with them, at other ti­mes they will not grant us to have any at all.

Concerning the rest of the Western Churches which submit to the Papacy, we have the same Rules both of Doctrine and Discipline which they had, We have the same that they have, saving their Additio­nall Errours. We have broken no Bonds of Unity, either in Faith or Discipline; we have renounced no just Authority, either Divine or Humane; we adhere to the Apostles Creed, as the ancient and true Rule of Faith, into which alone all Christiās (that ever were) have been baptised, and we renounce the upstart additionall Arti­cles of Pius the fourth. We are willing for peace sake to give the Pope the same Pri­macy of Order, which St. Peter had above his Fellow Apostles: but the Supremacy of power was not in St. Peter, but in the Apostolicall College; neither is now in the Bishop of Rome, but in a Councell of Bishops.

He saith we maintein a larger Brotherhood then they, but never goe about to shew any visi­ble [Page 435] Tye of Government. We shew them the same Badge or Cognisance of our Christia­nity, that is, the same Creed, and the same Discipline or Government, that is, the same Colours, derived down from the Apostles by an uninterrupted Succession; The same Doctrine and the same Discipline is Tye enough. To take an exact View it is necessary the Organ should be perfect, the Medium fit, and the Distance convenient; if any one of these were Defective in Mr. Rosses View, he might well mistake: but I may not doe him that wrong to trust your Testimony, without citing his words.

He urgeth, If Christ have left any Vnity of Government in his Church and Commanded it to be kept, and we have taken a Course to leave no such Vnity, then we have rebelled against Christ and his Church, and falsly pretend to have him our Spirituall head. I admit this: now let him Assume. But you (Protestants) have taken a Course to leave no Vnity of Government in the Church, which Christ left and Comman­ded to be kept. I deny his Assumtion altoge­ther: and he saith not one word to prove it. This is his Enthymematicall manner of Ar­guing.

[Page 436]He procedeth, That to have a Generall Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Head, is to con­fesse that there is no Ordinary Vnity of Govern­ment in Gods Church, but extraordinary onely when a Councell sits. I deny this Proposi­tion altogether, and the reason is Evident; because besides a Generall Councell which sitteth but rarely, (neither is it needfull that it should sit often, Nisi dignus Vindice nodus inciderit,) there are particular Councells, which in lesser Exigents serve the turn as well as Generall. There are Patriarchs and Bishops, which are Ordinary and per­petuall. In an Aristocracy, it is not neces­sary that the Governours should be ever­more actually Assembled. In the first three hundred yeares, there were no Gene­rall Councells held, there was lesse hope of ever holding them then, then now: yet there was an Ordinary Vnity of Government in Gods Ch [...]rch in those dayes, for which they were not indebted at all to any visible Monarch. B [...]t when a Generall Councell doth sit, the Supreme Ecclesiasticall power rests in it.

He wonders why I should make the King onely a Politicall Head, Contrary to our Common Assertion. It seemeth that though he hath been bred among us, yet he hath [Page 437] not been much versed in our Authors; No man that ever understood himself, made him otherwise. Yet this Politicall Head, hath a great Influence upon Ecclesiasticall Causes and persons, in the Externall Regi­ment of the Church. He demandeth, is there any Orderly Common Tye of Government, obliging this Head to Correspond with the other head? If not, where is the Vnity? I answer, yes, the direction of his Spirituall Guides, that is, his Bishops and Synods; If this Method be so great a Rarity with him, it is his own fault. He had said more properly, to Correspond with the other Heads then Head.

He saith, It is false to say, that they have sometimes two or three heads, since there can be but one true or rightly chosen Pope. True, but the Election may be uncertain, that no man living can know the true Pope: so whether there be three Popes, or one Pope and two pretenders, yet if the right Pope cannot be made appeare, it is all one rela­tively to the Church; If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the Battell. He telleth us further, that when the See of Rome is vacant, the Headship is in the Chiefe Clergy whom they call Cardinalls, as secure a Course as mans wit can invent. [Page 438] As Chiefe as their Cardinalls are, the much greatest part of them, were but Ordinary Parish Priests and Deacons of old. The Cardinalls indeed have to doe with the Church of Rome in the Vacancy: but what pretense have they from St. Peter? What have they to doe with the Vniversall Monarchy of the Church? Before he told us, that thei [...] Headship was Christs own Ordi­nation; now he telleth us that this Headship is sometimes in the College of Cardinalls, and that it is as secure a Course as mans wit can invent. What a Contradiction would he make of this?

He demandeth, doth the Harmony of Con­fessions shew, that we have one Common cer­tain Rule of Faith, or any particular sort of Government, obliging us to an Vnity, under the Notion of Governed? I doe shew him one Common certain Rule of Faith, even the Apostles Creed: and a particular sort of Government, even the same was used in the Primitive Times. What am I the better? he will take no notice of them, because I will not fixe upon that Rule of Faith, and that Form of Government which he Fancieth. Yet I am for Tradition as well as he, but it is Vniversall and perpetuall Tradition: such a Tradition is the Creed, and in deed [Page 439] is that very Tradition which is so renow­ned in the Ancients.

He chargeth me with saying, That Here­ticks can have no Baptisme. Let him either make his accusation good, or suffer as a Falsifier. All that I say is, Turkes Iewes He­reticks and Christians, have not the same Bap­tisme. The reason is plaine, because Turkes and Iewes have no Baptisme at all. Se­condly we ought to distinguish between the Baptisme of Hereticks, and Hereticall Baptisme; if the Baptisme it self be good, the Administration of it by Hereticks doth not invalidate it at all: but if the He­retick baptise after an Hereticall Forme, as without due Matter, or not in the Name of the Trinity; such Baptisme is Hereticall and naught. But all this is needlesse to understand the right scope of my words, I said that a Body cousi­sting of Iewes Turkes Hereticks and Chri­stians, had not the same Baptisme: I did not say that every one of these wanted true Baptisme; He might as well charge me with saying that Christians can have no true Baptisme.

I have manifested elswhere, that the Creed is a List of all Fundamentalls:Sect. 1. cap. 2. and in the same Section and Chapter the Reader shall [Page 440] find that the Bishop is not a Falsifier, bu Mr. Serjeant, is both an egregious Ca­lumniator and Falsifier of the Councell of Ephesus. I to [...]ke the word Paganisme, in the ancient Primitive sense for Infidelity, as it is contradistinguished to Christianity. The true reason of that Appellation was, because Country Villages did continue long in their Infidelity, after Cities were con­verted to Christianity. So the Turkes are the onely Pagans, which we have now in this part of the World. What a piece of Goteham Wisdome is this, to quarrell about names, when we agree upon the things. Turkes and Pagans in my sense were the same thing: both Infidells.

But he instructs the Learned Bishop, that the Turkes acknowledge a God. So did the Pagans also, if Lactantius say true, Non ego illum Lapidem colo quem video, sed servio eiquem non video. He addeth, that I affirme the Councell of Ephesus held in the yeare 430, Ordered something concerning Turkes, which sprang not up till the yeare 630, and calleth this good sport. If there be any sport, it is to see his Childish Vanity. If I listed to play with words, I could tell him that the Mahumetans sprung up about the yeare 630, the Turkes many Ages after. But the answer is plaine [Page 441] and easy, the Councell of Ephesus did give Orders for all Ages ensuing concerning In­fidells: but Turkes are Infidells, and so it gave Order concerning Turkes.

Socinians and Arrians, may admit the Apostles Creed interpreted their own way: but they ought to admit, it as it is inter­preted by the Frst foure Generall Coun­cells; that they doe not, and so they believe not all Fundamentalls as they should doe. What he Objecteth further, that Puritans hold not the Article of Christs descent into Hell, and the Roman Catholicks and Pro­testants differ about the sense of two other Arti­cles, hath been answered formerly. The Puritans will tell him, that the manner of Christs descent hath not bene determined hitherto. And I doubt much, he under­standeth not the Romish and English Te­nets, so well as he should.

That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schisme.

My first Charge was this, That Member of any Society which leaveth its pro­per place, to assume an higher place in the Body, is Schismaticall: But the Pope and his Party do not content themselves that the Church of Rome should be the Sister of other Patriarchall Churches, and the Mother of many Churches, unlesse she be Lady and Mistrisse of all Churches; or that the Po­pe should be the Brother of Other Bishops, or a fellow of other Bishops (as he was stiled of old), unlesse he may be the Lord and Maister of all Bishops. That the for­mer is his proper place, I clearly proved by Letters, not of himself to other Bishops, that might be Condiscension; as for a Ge­nerall to call his Officers Fellow souldiers: but of other Bishops to him; no under Officer durst presume to call his Generall fellow souldier. That he assumeth the other place to himself, is proved out of the new Creed of Pius the fourth, I acknow­ledge [Page 443] the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches: and I promise and sweare true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, as to the Vicar of Iesus Christ. And in the Oath of Allegiance which all Bishops sweare to the Pope, IAB Bishop &c. will be Faith full to St. Peter, and to the holy Apo­stolicall Church of Rome, and to our Lord Pope Alexander &c. There is a great di­stance between the old Brother Bishop and fellow Bishop, and this Oath of Alle­giance to the Pope as to their LiegeLord.

First he Chargeth me, that I doe flatly fal­sify his words, which doe never deny her to be a mother, but a Sister onely. Either I falsified his words, or he falsified mine. My words were these, First they make the Church of Rome, to be not onely the Sister of all other Patriarchall Churches and the Mother of many Churches, but to be the Lady and Mi­stresse of all Churches. The two Former Bran­ches of Sister and Mother are both acknow­ledged, the last onely of Lady and Mi­stresse is denyed. He falsifieth my words in his answer thus, because she takes upon her to be Mistresse, where she is but Sister to other Churches. You see the word Mother is left out, and because I bring it in againe as I ought, to make the Argument as it was be­fore [Page 444] his Curtaling of it, I am become the Falsifier with him, and he who is the Falsi­fier in earnest is innocent.

I cited the words of St. Bernard, to prove that the Pope was not Lord or Maister of other Bishops, and the Roman Church a Mother of other Churches, not a Lady or Mistresse. He distinguisheth between Dominam and Magistram, an Imperious proud Lady Mistrisse, and a Schoole-Mistresse or Teacheresse; Adding, that they use the word Magistram in the latter sense. So they say no more then we; we do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Teacheresse, and the Pope a Teacher, as it is an Apostoli­call Church and he an Apostolicall Bishop: but all the Question is of the other word Dominum, which the Pope taketh to him self as well as Magi­strum; as we have seen in the Oath of Allegiance which he makes all Bishops to sweare. Neither doth St. Bernard oppose proud Imperious Dominion to Gentle Dominion, but he contradistin­guisheth Dominion to no Dominion; and thy self not a Lord of other Bishops, but one of them. Not a Lord of other Bishops, saith St. Bernard: A Lord of [Page 445] other Bishops, saith the Oath of Fi­delity; I will be faithfull to our Lord Pope Alexander.

He urgeth, that the Bishop hath brought a Testimony, which asserts the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches, and so of the Church of England too. St. Bernard asser­ted the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches, so did the Bi­shop: but not to be the Mother of all other Churches, no more did the Bishop; particularly not of the Church of Britain, which was ancienter then the Church of Rome, and so could not be her daughter. Let them prove their right that they are our Mother, and we are ready to doe our filiall Duty; saving alwayes that Higher duty which we owe to our Mother Para­mount, the Vniversall Church. But nei­ther can they prove their right that they are our Mother, neither is that Subjection which they Demand, the Subjection due to a particular Mother, but to an Vniver­sall Lord.

But Schisme involves in its Notion disobediēce, &c. And so the Bishop concludes the Mother [Page 446] Schismaticall because she is disobedient to her Daughter. His first errour is, to make the Church of Rome to be our Mother. The second, to thinke that a Mother may chal­lenge what Obedience she listeth of her Daughter. The third, that Schisme con­sisteth altogether in the Disobedience of Subjects. Causall Schisme may and doth Ordinarily consist, in the unlawfuli Injun­ctions of Superiours.

My second reason to convince them as guilty of Schisme, was the new Creed set out by Pius the fourth; This he calleth a Calumny. He cannot speake lower then Calumnies, Absurdities, Contradictions, Fal­sifications &c. A high Calumny to slander them with a matter of truth; It is such a Calumny as they will never be able to shake of. He referreth the Reader to what he hath said in the first Section, and I to my Answer there. He saith it is known that each point in that profession of Faith (that is the twelve new Articles) was held of Faith by the former Church. How? held of Faith? as an Essentiall of Faith? And this known? to whom? to the man in the Moone? But here is the maddest Contradiction that ever was, and might well have become his Merry Stationer. It is a Contradiction to pre­tend [Page 447] that he (Pius the 4.) made a new Creed, till it be shewn that any of these points was not formerly of Faith, and be proved satisfactorily that the Apostles Creed conteined all necessary points of Faith. A Contradiction? I see many men talke of Robin Hood, who never shot in his Bowe: talke of Contradictions, who know not what they are. Observe the equity of these men, They Visibly in­sert 12 new Articles into the Creed, and then would put us to prove, that they were not of Faith before, and that all necessary points of Faith are contained in the Apostles Creed. He is resolved to keep two strings to his Bowe, and knoweth not which of them to trust to. Heare you Sr. If they be Articles of Faith now, as you have made them, then they were alwayes Articles of Faith: and all those were damned which did not believe them; but that you dare not say.

My third Charge of Schisme was, because they mainteine the Pope in his Rebellion against Generall Councells. Here he distin­guisheth between a Schooleman and a Con­trovertist, to no manner of purpose, for it is altogether impertinent. There is no man who inveigheth so much against wording ād Quibling as himself, and yet the world hath not a greater Worder or Quibler then he is. [Page 448] Wherefore to prevent the Readers trouble and mine own, and his shifting and flin­ching, and to tye him within his Compasse perforce; I made bold to reduce my Ar­gument to a Syllogisticall Forme. They who subject a Generall Councell, which is the Highest Tribunall of Christians, to the Pope, are guilty of Schisme: But the Pope and Court of Rome, with all their maintei­ners, (that is, much the Greater part of of their writers,) doe subject a Generall Councell to the Pope. Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome with all their Mainteiners, that is the much greater part of their Writers, are Guilty of Schisme.

Here he should have answered Punctu­ally to the Proposition or Assumtion, either by denying granting or distinguishing: but for all his calling for a Rigorous Demonstra­tive way, he liketh it not, because he cannot make such impertinent extravagant excur­sions as he useth to doe, which are the onely help he hath at a dead lift. All the Answer he giveth is this, He (the Bishop) is accused of a Contradiction and Nonsense, and to cleare himself he telles us, he will now lay aside the one part of the Contradiction and endeavour to make [Page 449] good sense of the other. To what Proposition, to what [...]erme doth he apply this answer? I see no Contradiction, I see no Nonsense in my discourse, nor any body living but himself. I said no such thing as he preten­deth. What doth the man meane by these waves of brainlesse butterd fish, by these he­terogeneous incoherent Fopperies, and Chimaeraes which have no existence but in his own pate? If he meane to answer, let him doe it clearly like a Schollar; since I have found this way to tye him to his matter, and restraine his torrent of words, I shall put it in practice oftner. Yet if I meet with any such thing as is substantiall among his va­pouring expressions, which hath but the least resemblance of an answer, though it be not reduced into Forme, I will gleane it out, and examine the weight of it.

Such is this which followeth, Was it for this Opinion of the Pope above the Councell &c. How were they guilty of Schisme for this? unlesse they had denyed you Communion for holding the Contrary, or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it, which you know they did not. Foole not your Readers my Lord; It was not for this Tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome, but for that of the Popes Headship or [Page 450] Spirituall Iurisdiction over all Gods Church held by all Catholicks, &c. For which you are excommunicated. It is true they did not deny us Communion for holding this Opinion, nor presse upon us an unconscientious Ap­probation of this Opinion directly, for any thing that I know: but neverthelesse, they have by their power subjected a Generall Councell to the Pope, they have procured it to be defined (though not expresly) in the Councell of Florence, and to be expresly defined in the Councell of Lateran under Leo the tenth. Hence it is, that all the Councells since the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells, have wanted Conciliary Freedome, and been altogether at the Disposition of the Popes; to prorogue them, to tranfferre them, to stin [...] them what matters they might handle and what not, to deferre their Determina­tions untill he had formed or created a party, or wrought some of the dissenting Bishops to his will, to ratify or reject their decrees at his pleasure. When or where was it ever heard before, that there was twice as many Bishops of one Nation in a Generall Councell, as of all other Nations in the world? Hence was that complaint of the Fathers in the Councell of Trent, that the Synode was guided by the Holy Ghost [Page 451] sent from Rome in a Male. If it had not been for this thing, but the Fathers had been permitted freely to have proceeded in the Councell of Trent, in the Resolution of that noble Question concerning the Residence and divine Right of Bishops: in all probabi­lity this great rent had been made up, and he and I had not needed to have disputed this Question at this Day.

Thus by this Opinion and by their Sini­ster Practises to establish it, they are cau­sally and formally Schismaticall: and have been both the procreating and conserving Cause of this great Schisme; the procrea­ting cause, by altering the Hierarchy, and Disordering the Members, which doth ne­cessarily produce a disturbance and Schisme in the Body; and the conserving cause, by destroying the Freedome of Councells, which are the proper Remedies of Schisme. Whether these later Councells were Occu­menicall, or Occidentall, or neither, is not the point in debate; They are those which they call Generall; They were as Generall as they would permit them to be; and to conclude, it was their fault that they were not more Generall. So though this were not the very cause alleged by them, why they did excommunicate us: yet it was one of the Causes of the Schisme, and consequently of [Page 452] our Excommunication.

I leave every man free to Iudge for him­self: but for mine own part I am so great a Lover of the peace of Christendome, that I should not oppose the Bishop of Romes headship of Order, if he would be content with it; and that is as much as many whom he stileth his own Sons do yield him. But though that be sufficient for the Catholick Church, it is not sufficient for the Court of Rome to fill their Coffers; they love not such a Dry Papacy. I dispute onely whe­ther the Popes right be Divine, or humane, or mixed (as Gerson thought); either score may justly challenge Duty: But I am very positive, that whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath more then this Primacy of Order or be­ginning of Vnity, he had it by humane right, and by humane right he may lose it. Neither doe I goe about to deprive the Bishop of Ro­me, or any Bishop whatsoever of any Iurisdi­ctiō purely spirituall, which was left them as a Legacy by Christ or by his Apostles: but I deny that Apparitors, or Pursivants, or Pri­sons are of Christs Institution; I deny that Christ or his Apostles did ever either exer­cise themselves, or grant to others Autho­rity to exercise Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court, over the Subjects of other Princes, within their Dominions, and [Page 453] without their leaves. If Subjects submit, Volenti non fit injuria, but then it is not Coa­ctive; If Princes give leave, (as they have done in all Ages, so far as they judged it ex­pedient for the publick good), then it is very lawfull: but without the Subjects sub­mission or the Princes leave, there may be indeed a spirituall kind of Coactiō in the in­teriour Court of Conscience, but no true co­actiō in the exteriour Court of the Church.

I see he understandeth not the sense of that Logicall restriction, The Papacy as it is such; which signifieth not the Papacy as it ought to be, or so far as all Roman Catho­licks doe agree about it; but the Papacy as it is Qualified in present, or as it is owned, or obtruded, or endeavoured to be obtruded by the Pope and Court of Rome. So the Pa­pacy as it is such, is opposed or contradistin­guished to the Ancient Papacy in the purer and more Primitive times, which was not guilty of those Vsurpations which the mo­dern Popes have introduced. Thus still my Contradiction doth end in his misunder­standing.

My fourth ād last charge of Schisme upō the Pope and Court of Rome was thus. They who take away the Line of Apostolicall Successiō, throughout the world except in the See of Rome, who make all Episcopall Iurisdicti­on [Page 454] to flow from the Pope of Rome, and to be founded in his Lawes, to be imparted to other Bishops as the Popes Vicars and Coadjutors, assumed by them into part of their Charge, are Schismaticks: But the Pope and Court of Rome and their maintei­ners do thus: Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners, are Schismaticks.

To this Argument, he vouchsafeth no answer at all in due Forme as it ought to be, and I have no reason to insist long upon his Voluntary Iargon. All the Answer which he intimateth is this, that this Tenet is not Generall among them, but points of Faith are held generally. Here is an answerlesse Answer, without confessing or denying either Proposition: such an Answer doth not become one, who maketh himself so great a Master in the Art of disputing; I charge not their whole Church, but the Pope and Court of Rome, and all their Abetters and Mainteiners, with the Crime of Schisme. I conclude no more then I assume. He answers that the whole Church dot not hold these Tenets. What is that to the purpose? As if a Particular person, as the Pope, or a Par­ticular Society, as the Court of Rome, or the greater part of a Church, as all their Abetters and mainteiners, could not be [Page 455] Schismaticks except the whole Church be Schismaticall, which is most absurd. I am free to charge whom I will, if he will not answer for them, he may be silent: but if he undertake to be their Advocate, let him defend them in due Forme as he ought, and not tell us, that he is not concerned as a Controvertist to defend any thing but Points of Faith. Which is neither better nor worse in plain English, then to run away from the Question. All our Controversy is, whe­ther such and such pretended Privileges be Papall Rights or Papall Vsurpations: If he dare not maintein them to be just rights, either by divine Law or humane Law, and refuse to contend with us when we prove them to be Vsurpations; to what end doth he interest himself, and break other mens heads with the clattering noise of his Sabots.

An Answer to their Objections.

THeir first Objection was, that we had seperated ourselves from the Commu­nion of the Catholick Church. I answe­red that we hold Communion with thrice so many Catholick Christians as they doe, that is, the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians, besides Protestants. He inter­preteth these Christians with whom we [Page 456] hold Communion to be num [...]erlesse Multi­tudes of Manichees, G [...]osticks, Carpocratians Arrians, Nestorians Eutichians &c. Adding, that he protesteth most faithfully, he doth not think that I have any solid reason to refuse Com­munion to the worst of them. Reader, learn how to value his faithfull Protestations hereafter. I shew that we all detest those damned He­resies, and complaine of his Partiality and want of Ingenuity, to abuse the Reader with such lying suggestions, which he himself knoweth to be most false, and challenge him to shew that any of us are guilty of any of these Heresies: now see what he produ­ceth to free himself from such an horrid Calumny.

First he saith, that the Bishops taxe is evi­dently this, to shew some solid reasons why he admits some of these and rejects others. This is not the purging of his old Calumny, but the twisting of a new Calumny to it. Labhominate and Anathematise them all, and he will have a reasō of me why I admit some of them and reject others. Well done brave disputant!

Secondly he urgeth, Suppose he could not charge the Church of England, or any of these ot [...]er Churches with any of these Heresies▪ are there no other Here [...]sies in the world but thes [...] [Page 457] old ones? Or is it impossible that a new Heresy should arise? There are other Heresies in the world, and it is possible that a new Heresy my arise: but what doth that con­cern the Church of England? unlesse he thinke that there is no Heresy in the world, nor is possible to be, but the Church of England must be guilty if it. Worser and Worser.

He proceedeth, that he accused not the Church of England or the Bishop for holding those materiall points, but that having no de­terminate certein Rule of Faith, they had no grounds to reject any from their Communion, who hold some common points of Christianity with them. It is well, habemus c [...]nfi [...]entem reum, Mr. Serjeant retracts his Charge; The Church of England and the Bishop are once de­clared innocent of those old Heresies, which he made a Muster of to no purpose▪ To let him see that I say nothing new, and how he thrasheth his own Friends blind fold: Peter Lombard, Thomas a Iesu, Cardinall Tolet, and many others, do make the Question about the procession of the Holy Ghost, to be Verball onely without Reality; and that the Grecian expres­sions of Spiritus Filii, The Spirit of the Sonne, and per Filium, by the Sonne, [Page 458] doe signify as much as our Filioque, and from the Son. And of the Nestorians, Onuphrius giveth this Iudgement,Onu­phrius in vita Iulii tertii. These Nestorians doe seem to me, to have reteined the name of Nestorius the Heretick rather then his errours: for I find nothing in them that savoureth of that Sect. And for the supposed Eutychians, Tho­mas a Iesu giveth us ample Testimony, That the suspicion did grow upon a double mistake.Thom. a Iesu Contr. l. 7. pa. 1. ca. 3. & 11. They were suspected of Eutychia­nisme because they reteined not the Coun­cell of Chalcedon; and they received not the Councell of Chalcedon, because they su­spected it of Nestorianisme: but yet they ac­curse Eutyches for an Heretick, and so did the Councell of Chalcedon Anathematise Nestorius. The same is asserted by Brere­wood, Brere­woods Enqu. ca. 25. p. 183. out of the Confessions of the Iacobites, Nestorians, Armenians, Cophites and Abys­sines. To his Objection I answer, First, that though we had no such certein Rule of Faith: yet it was not presently necessary, that we must tumble headlong into such abhominable errours, as many of these He­reticks held, which the Discreeter Heathen did detest. Secondly, we have a certain Rule of Faith, the Apostles Creed dilated in the Scriptures, or the Scriptures con­tracted into the Apostles Creed: and for [Page 459] that ugly Fardle of Heresies, which he mentioneth, we can shew that they are all diametrally opposite to the Apostles Creed, as it is explained in the foure first Generall Councells. Reader have a care to presere Epicte [...]us his Iewell, Remember to distrust such faithfull or rather feigned Protestations.

He argueth, All those Hereticks had the Same Rule or Grounds of their Faith that Pro­testants have, namely the Holy Scripture; there­fore they are all of the Protestant Commu­nion. In good time. All those Here­ticks had the same Rule or grounds of their Faith, that Roman Catholicks have, namely the Holy Scriptures, therefore they are of the Roman Catholick Communion. If he except, that the bare Letter of the Scriptu­res, is not the Ground or Rule of Faith to Roman Catholicks, but the Scripture inter­preted according to the Analogy of Faith and Tradition of the Church▪ the Church of England saith the very same for it self. So if this be the source of all errour to a­bandon the Tradition of the Church, we are far enough from the source of all er­rour. This is the onely difference in this particular betweene me and Mr. Serjeant, what he attributeth to the Tradition of imme­diate Forefathers, I ascribe to the perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition of the Catholick [Page 460] Church. Who would believe, that this man himself had deserted the Tradition of his Immediate Forefathers?

That which he addeth, the Traditio [...] of Immediate Forefathers is the onely Ground of Faiths certainty, and the Denying of it more Pestilentiall then the Denying of the God­head of Christ, or the asserting the worst of those errours which any of those old Hereticks held, as there are two Gods, a Good God and an Evill God; is most false and Dangerous, to tumble into a certain Crime for feare of an uncertein. What he addeth concerning Sects new sprung up in England, and Luther, and Carolostadius, concerneth not us nor the present Controversy.

I said, that some few Eastern Christians were called Nestorians, and some others by reasō of some unusuall expressiōs suspected of E [...]tichianisme, but most wrongfully: and in our Name, and in the name of all those Churches which hold Communion with us, I accursed all the Errours of those Hereticks. Notwithstanding all this, he saith that nothing is more right then to call them so, that what I say here is contrary to the pu­blick and best intelligence we have from those re­mote Countries, that I have a mind to cling in very Brotherly aud very lovingly, with the Ne­storians [Page 461] aud Eutychians, though I say I will not, that I stroake those errours which I accurse, with a gentle hand, stiling them but unusuall ex­pressions. First for so much as concerneth my self, I have renounced those errours, I have accursed them: if yet he will not cr [...]dit me, there is nothing left for me to doe, but to ap­peale to God the searcher of all hearts, that what I say is true, and his accusations are groundlesse Calumnies. But as to the merit of the cause he addeth, that these unu­suall expressions were onely these, that Christ had two distinct persons, and no distinct natures. Thus he saith, but what Authours, what Authority doth he produce, that any of these Churches are guilty of any such expressions? None at all, because for all his good intelligence, he hath none to produce, nor ever will be able to produce any; and so his good intelligence must end in smoke and stinke, as his most faithfull protestation did before. I will conclude this point to his shame, with the Doctrin of the English Church Art. 2. That the two Natures Divine and Humane are perfectly and inseperably conjoined in the Vnity of the person of Christ. Doth this agree with his counterfeit expressions, Christ hath two distinct persons no distnct na­tures?

[Page 462]When I used this expression [the best is we are either wheat or chaffe of the Lords Floore, but their tongues must not winnow us], these words [the best is], had no such immediate Relation unto the words immediatly following [we are either wheat or Chaffe], but to the last▪ words [their tongues must not winnow us], making this the complete sense, we are either wheat or chaffe, but the best is whether we be wheat or chaffe, their tongues must not winnow us. What poore boyish pickquering is this?

In my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, occasionally I shewed the Agreement of the Greek Churches with the Church of England, in the greatest Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome, out of Cyrill late Patriarch of Constantinople; which he taketh no notice of, but in re­quitall urgeth a passage out of Mr. Rosse, in his booke called a View of all Religions. It is an unequall match, between Mr. Rosse a private Stranger, and the Patriarch of Con­stantinople, in a cause concerning his own Church. I meddle not with Mr. Rosse, but leave him to abound in his own sense, I know not whether he be truly cited or not: but with Mr. Serjeant. I shall be bold to tell him that if he speaketh seriously and [Page 463] bona fide, he is mistaken wholy, Neither doe the Greekes place much of their De­votion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and painted Images. Cyrill. ad Int. 4. Heare Cyrill the Patriarch, we give leave to him that will, to have the Images of Christ and of the Saints, but we disal­low the Adoration and worship of them, as prohibited by the Holy Ghost in Holy Scripture. And another, They give great honour to the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ, but they neither adore her, nor implore her aide. And for the Intercession, prayers, help and Merits of the Saints, (taking the word [Merit] in the sense of the Primi­tive Church, that is not for Desert but for Acquisition), I know no Difference about them among those men who understand themselves: but onely about the last words, which they invocate in their Temples rather then Churches. A Comprecation both the Greciās and we do allow, an ultimate invo­catiō both the Grecians and we detest: so do the Church of Rome in their Doctrine, but they vary from it in their practise. It follo­weth, They place Iustificatiō not in Faith [Page 464] but in workes, Most Falsly▪ Heare Hieremy the Patriarch;Prim. Resp. cap. 6. C. 13. We must doe good workes but not confide in them: And Cyrill his Successour, VVe be­lieve that man is justified by Faith not VVorkes.

Before we can determine for whom those Eastern Southern and Northern Christians are, in the Question concerning the Sacri­fice of the Masse: it is necessary to know what the right state of this Controversy is. I have challenged them to goe one step further into it then I do, and they dare not, or rather they cannot without Blas­phemy.

The next instance concerning Purgatory, is so grosse and notorions a mistake, that it were a great shame to confute it; They believe that the soules of the Dead are bettered by the prayers of the living. Which way are they bettered? That the soules of damned are released or eased thereby, the Modern Greeks deny, and so do we; That there are any soules in Purgatory to be helped, they deny, and so do we; That they may be helped to the Consummation of their Bles­sednesse, and to a speedier Vnion with their Bodies by the resurrection thereof, they [Page 465] do not deny, no more do we: We pray day­ly, Thy Kingdome come: and Come Lord Ie­sus come quickly: and that we with this our Brother and all other departed in the Faith, may have our perfect Consummation and blesse both in body and Soule. They hate Ecclesi­asticall Tiranny and lying supposititious Traditions, so do we; but if they be for the Authority of the Church, and for genuine Apostolicall Traditions, Gods blessing on their hearts, so are we. Lastly the Grecians know no feast of Corpus Christi, nor carry the Sacrament up and down, nor elevate it to be adored. They adore Christ in the use of the Sacra­ment, so do we: They do not adore the Sa­crament, no more do we.

Yet from hence he inferreth, that there is not a point of Faith wherein they dissent from the Church of Rome, except that one of the Popes Supremacy. It is well they will acknowledge that. Yet, the Grecians agree with us and differ from them, in his two Rules or Bonds of Vnity. In the Rule of discipline; the Grecians and we have the same Government of Bishops under Patri­archs and Primates, Secondly in the Rule of Faith; the Grecians and we have both the same Canonicall bookes of Scripture, [Page 466] both reject their Apocryphall Additions from the Genuine Canon. They and we have both the same Apostolicall Creed, both reject the new Additions of Pius the fourth. In summe, they and wee doe both deny their Transubstantiation, their Pur­gatory, their Iustification by workes in sensu forensi, their doctrine of Merits and Supererogation, their Septenary number of the Sacraments, their Image worship, their Pardons, their private Masses, their half-Communion. And to be briefe, the Grecians doe renounce and reject all those Branches of Papall power, which we have cast out of the Church of England. As the Popes Soveraignty over the Catholick Church by divine Right, as Nilus saith; It is intollerable that the Roman Bishop will not be subject to the Canons of the Fathers, since he had his Dignity from the Fathers. Secondly his Legislative power, as Peter Stewart Vice-chanceller of Ingolstad witnesseth, that the Grecians object it as an errour to the Latines, that they make the Popes Commandements to be their Canons and Lawes. Thirdly his Iudici­ary power, equalling the Patriarch of Con­stantinople to the Patriarch of Rome, or rather preferring him. Lastly his dispensative power, accusing his Pardons and Dispensations [Page 467] as things that open a ga [...]e to all Kind of Villany. I am glad that Nilus is in his good grace, to be stiled by him one of the gravest Bishops and Authors of that party, for one moderate expression wherein he saith no more then we say▪ His Friend Possivine calls him a Vi­rulent Adversary: and if ever Mr. Serjeant read him throughly, it is ten to one he will change his note. Thus much for my Com­munion with the Eastern Churches, it is the same with the Southern and Northern Churches; all which doe plead better Tra­dition then himself.

Whereas he saith that my Assertion, that the Creed conteined all points necessary to be be­lieved, is grounded onely upon my falsifying of the Councell of Ephesus; he bewrayeth his ig­norance both in the Fathers and in his own Authours. The Scripture is none of those particular Articles which are neces­sary to Salvation to be believed: but it is the Evidence whereby those Articles are revealed▪ and wherein they are comprehen­ded; The Creed was composed before the Canon of Scripture was perfected. They have not onely changed from their Ancestours in Opinions: but they have changed their own Opinions, into necessary Articles of Faith, which is worse.

[Page 468]I denied that the Councell of Trent was a Generall Councell, as wanting the requi­site Conditions of a Generall Councell, which they themselves judge to be neces­sary. The summons ought to have been generall, but it was not. The great Patri­archs ought to have been present, but they were not; neither the Patriarchs of Con­stantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Hieru­salem, nor any of them; nor yet the Patri­archs of Armenia, Abissina, Mosco, Mus­sall &c., nor any of them. He answereth, they had no right to be summoned thither, unlesse to be called to the Barre as Delinquents, nor to sit there, nor are to be accounted Christians. It had need to be a large Barre indeed to hold them all. Was it ever heard before, that a fifth part of a Councell did call foure parts to the Barre? Their Ancestours had right to be summoned to a Generall Councell, and to sit and vote there as well as the best; how have their posterity lost this right? Had they been heard and condemned in a Generall Councell? No. But he urgeth what need hearing, when themselves in the Face of the whole world publickly confessed and main­taine their imputed fault. How? what nee­ded hearing? O Iust Iudge! He that giveth a right Sentence, yet if he give it [Page 469] without hearing, is an unrighteous Iudge. They confessed their imputed Fault: but did they confesse it to be a Fault? No I war­rant you, he can not say it for shame. Or how should they confesse it in the Face of the whole Christian world? They are the Chri­stian world themselves, and your Roman world is but a Microcosme in comparison of them.

The case is so evident and notorious, that no man can doubt of it. The Continent hath not left St. Peters Boat, but St. Peters Boat hath left the Continent. The Inno­vation or swerving from Apostolicall Tra­dition, was not in the Christian world, but in the Court of Rome, who would have ad­vanced their Aristocraticall power to a So­veraign Monarchicall power: but the Chri­stian world would not give way to it; if this were an errour in them, all their An­cestours were guilty of it as well as they. But the Court of Rome being conscious to themselves that they were the Innovators, to free themselves from feare of being cen­sured by the Christian World, adventured to give the first blow, by censuring the whole Christian world it self. This was a Bolder Act then that of Pope Victor which Irenaeus misliked so much.

[Page 470]He will never leave his Socraticall man­ner of disputing by Questions; what certain Rule have we to know, what Sects are of she Church? Although I needed not, yet I have answered this demand formerly. All those are of the Church who weare the Badge and Cognisance of Christians, that is, the Apostles Creed as it is explicated by the foure first Generall Councells, as all those Churches doe: and have not been cast out of the Church by the Sentence of a Ge­nerall Councell, as none of these Churches have; no nor yet by the Sentence of the Roman Church it self, if we may trust the Bishop of Chalcedons Survey cap. 8. Neither doth the Roman Church excom­municate all the Christians of Affrick Asia Greece and Russia, but onely such as doe vincibly or sinfully erre. He ad­deth, that there are innumerable who are not formall Hereticks, but onely Here­ticis Credentes. These continue good Chri­stians still, and are Churches still, and ought not to be excluded frō Generall Councells, though supposed to be materially in an er­rour; much lesse being innocent and in no Heresy or Schisme either formall or Mate­riall.

[Page 471]I pleaded that though it were true, that all the other Patriarchs were such Materiall Here­ticks, yet of all others they ought especially to have been summoned. The reason is evident, because they that are sick have more need of the Physitian, then they that are in health. Hence he inferreth, that it is more necessary that Hereticks be called to a Ge­nerall Councell, then Orthodox Fathers. Not so, both are necessary, the one to Cure, the other to be cured: but the especiall Consideration or end of a Coun­cell, is for those that erre, that they may be reduced.

I said [the Pope hath not that Authority over a Generall Councell, that the King hath over a Parliament]. He answereth, that he is so plaine a man, that he understandeth not what the Authority of King or Parliament signifies. I will help him. The King may dissolve a Parliament when he pleaseth: so may not the Pope a Generall Councell against their wills. If the King dye by whose writ it was called, the Parliament is dissolved: so is not a Generall Councell by death of the Pope. The King hath a Nega­tive voice in Parliament: so hath not the Pope in a Generall Councell.

[Page 472]I urged, that the Proto [...]patriarchs are not known or condemned Rebells. He answe­reth first, this is onely said againe not proved. He is alwaies stumbling upon the same Block: It doth not belong to me to prove they were not condemned; but to himself who accuseth them, to shew when and where they where condemned. Secondly he answereth, that their Errours have been condemned by Councells, and for the most part some of their own party being present. But the condemning of their errours, is no sufficient warrant for the excluding of their persons out of Generall Coun­cells. Neither were these Councells Generall Councells, or such as had any Iurisdiction over the Protopatriarchs. Moreover, they condemne Papall Errours as well as he condemneth their Errours, whether is more Credit to begiven to the Pope, in his own cause charging all the Patriarchs in the world, or to all the other Patriarchs in the world, unanimously condemning his Vsurpations in the name of the Catholick Church?

He demands, whether there might not be a Parliament of England, without having the fifth part of the Members found in that Coun­cell, and yet be a lawfull Parliament? I think there might, if the absence of [Page 473] all the rest proceeded from their own ne­glect: but not if it proceeded from want of Summons, as the absence of the Proto­patriarchs did.

He bids me rub up my memory, he believes I will find an English Law, that sixty Members is a sufficient number to make a lawfull Parlia­ment. I have done his Commands, and I know no such law, nor he neither: and then he must be a very confident man to cite such a Law. Perhaps he hath heard of some Ordinance of the House of Commons, how many members at the least must be present at doing of some inferiour Acts: but neither is this Ordinance an English Law, [...]or that House an English Parlia­ment.

He saith, I excepted against the superpro­portioned multitude of Members out of one Pro­vince, which never lawfull Parliament had. Superproportioned indeed, where there were double the Number of Italian Bishops to all the other Bishops of the Christian world, (this is no equall representative): and these assembled thither not to dispute, as he fancieth vainly, but meerly to overvote the Tramontanes. A few Bishops had sufficed to relate the Beliefe or Tradition of Italy, as well as the rest of the world: but that had [Page 474] not sufficed to doe the Popes worke, that was, to overswey the rest of the Christian world, with his Superproportioned multitude of Italian Bishops. He saith, perhaps I will pretend, that had the Catholick Bishops out of their Provinces been there, they would have voted against their Fellow Catholicks, in behalf of Luther and Calvin, which were a wise answer. I heed not much what he calleth wise or foolish: I doe not onely pretend, but I see clearly, that If the Bishops of other Countries had been proportioned to those of Italy, they had carried the Debate about Residence and the Divine right of Episco­pacy; and that had done the b [...]sinesse of the Western Church, and undone the Court of Rome.

But he quite omitteth the most materiall part of my Discourse, concerning his re­semblance between a Parliament and a Ge­nerall Councell; That [the absence of whole Provinces and the much greater part of the Provinces, either of England or of Chri­stendome, for want of due Summons, doth disable such a Parliament or such a Coun­cell, from being a Generall Representative of the whole.] He might even as well say, that an Assembly of the Peers and Burgesses of Wales upon Summons, without any ap­pearance or summons of all the rest of the [Page 475] Kingdome of England, was a lawfull Par­liament of all England: as say the Councell of Trent was a Generall Representative of the Christian world, which was never sum­moned.

I proved, that the Councell of Trent was no Generall Councell, because it was not Generally received, no not among the Occidentall Churches: particularly, by the Church of France in point of Discipli­ne. He answereth that notwithstanding, They acknowledge it to be a lawfull Generall Councell, and receive it in all Determinations belonging to Faith. Adding, that the Disci­plinarian Lawes of a Generall Councell, doe bind particular Countries onely in due Cir­cumstances, and according to their Conveniences. But the Contrary is most apparent, that Councells truly Generall, being the Supre­me Tribunalls of the Catholick Church, doe bind particular Churches as well in point of Discipline as of Faith. The Generall Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon, did set the See of Constantino­ple before Alexādria and Antioch, And equall it to Rome, notwithstanding the Popes Op­position. What Opiniō the King and Church of France had of the Councell of Trent in those Dayes, appeareth by the solemne Protestation of the French Ambassadour, [Page 476] made in the Councell in the name of his Master and the French Church, that seeing all things were done at Rome rather then at Trent,Gold. to. 3. pa. 571 and the decrees there published, were rather the decres of Pius the fourth then of the Councell of Trent, We denounce (said he) and protest before you all, that whatsoever things are decreed and published in this Assembly by the mere will and pleasure of Pope Pius, neither the most Christian King will ever approve, nor the French Church ever acknowledge to be the de­crees of a Generall Councell.

That the Councell of Trent was not a free Councell I proved, first by the Testimony of Sleidan; secondly by the bitter complaint of the Fathers in the Councell of Trent, that it was guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male; thirdly by the Popes creating [...]ot onely new Bishops, but new Bishop­ricks in the time of the Councell, to make his party able to overvote their Opposers. To the first he saith, that Sleidan was a notorious lying Authonr of our own side. Who fitter to relate the Grievances of the Prote­stants then a Protestant? which he did not say in a Corner but published to the world in print, when they might have refuted it if they could. To the second he answereth, that it was a jeering expression. Yes, it was biting as well as jeering [Page 477]Ridiculum acri Fortius & melius magnas plerumque secat res.’ The French Ambassador (whom he thought to passe by in silence) did not jeere: yet he said the same thing in sad earnest. To my third Argument he saith [...]t is nothing to the purpose. How nothing to the purpose, for the Pope when his affaires were going retro­grade, and his party like to be overvoted; to create new Bishopricks, to ordaine new Bishops, and pack them away presently to the Councell to assist his party, and by that means to gaine a plurality of Voices? Is this nothing to the purpose in his Opinion? It may be he thinkes, that Italy had not Bishops enough there, (yet they had two thirds of the Councell before): or that these new Bis­hops, did understand the Tradition and Beliefe of Italy better then all the rest.

If it be his mind to wave the Popes Pa­triarchall power, I am contented: other­wise his proofe will not weigh much, un­lesse we admit strangers (who know little or nothing of our Privileges, more then we know the Cyprian Privilege, before the Councell of Ephesus) to be competēt judges, and will interpret a Western Patriarch to be the onely Patriarch of all the west. The Archbishop of Yorke is Primate of Englād, [Page 478] and yet all England is not subject to his Iu­risdiction. Forfeiture and Quitting are two distinct Charges: an Office is Forfei­ted by abuse, and quitted by assuming a new Office inconsistent with the former; as I have shewed the Papacy and a Patri­archate, that is, a Soveraign and Subor­dinate power to be. But a Patriarchate and a Bishoprick, being both subordinate to a Generall Councell, are not inconsistent: and much lesse the Office of a King and Master of a Family, the one being Politi­call the other Oeconomicall. But an Vni­versall Monarchy by divine right, and the Presidency of a Particular Province by Humane right, are inconsistent; I gave him my reasons for it, and he taketh no notice of them.

He excepteth against my styling Patri­archall Authority, a Patriarchall Aristo­craticall dignity, which he calleth my thrice repeated non sense. It is well he did not ma­ke it a Contradiction. His reason is, be­cause a Patriarcha [...]e is a Government by one, an Aristocracy by many. The answer is Obvious and easy; a Patriarch is a Mo­narch in the Government of his own Patri­archate, yet subordinate to a Generall Councell: but in a Generall Councell or [Page 479] in the Governmēt of the Catholick Church, he is but one of the Optimates, or a Fel­low governour with other Bishops. He saith, it was never pretended by Catholicks, that the Pope was the King of the Church. I wonder that he is no bet [...]er acquainted with the Sorbone disputes, whether the Regi­ment of the Church, be an absolute Monar­chy tempered with an Aristocracy.

We have a Meritorious Sacrifice, that is the Sacrifice of the Crosse; We have a Commemorative and Applicative Sacrifice, or a Commemoration and Application of that Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. A Suppletory Sacrifice, to supply any want or defects in that Sacrifice, he dare not owne, and unlesse he do owne it, he saith no more then we say.

What I spake of our Registers, I inten­ded principally of that Register of the right Ordination of Protestan [...] Bishops, that he may see when he will for his love, and have the Copy of any Act in it for his money: but he had rather wrangle about it then take such paines; if he will have a little Patience I will ease him of that Labour and Expen­ces. It is no insuperable difficulty nor any difficulty at all to us, to find out that Catholick Church which we have in our [Page 480] Creed: but to find out his Roman Catholick Church; is both a Contradiction in adjecto, and an Apple of Contention, serving to commit him and his Friends together among themselves, which he knoweth and therefore declineth it.

I called not the Ancient Bishop of Italy either Episcopelles, or the Popes hungry Parasiticall Pensioners: but the Fla [...]terers of the Roman Court, and Principally those petty Bishops, which were created during the Councell of Trent to serve the Popes turne. If he think that Court free from such Moths, he is much mistaken. Nei­ther are these expressions mine originally, I learned them from the ancient Bishops of Italy themselves, who gave them those very names of Episcopelles &c. Neither did I taxe any man in particular.

He desires me to examine my Con­science, whether I doe not get my living by preaching that Doctrine which I put in my Bookes, which how many noto­rious Falsities, Contradictions, and Ter­giversations they have in them, may be judged by this present worke. Yes, if he and his merry Stationer may be my Iud­ges. Now his worke is ended and answe­red, [Page 481] I will make him a faire offer; If he be able to make but one of all his Contradi­ctions, and Falsifications, and absurdities good, I will be reputed guilty of all the rest: if he be not, I desire him both to examine his own Conscience and Discretion, what reward he de [...]erveth both at the hands of God and man, for so many notorious Ca­lumnies. As for his Faults, I shall rather leave them to the Iudgement of the Reader, then trouble myself with the Recapitulation of them.

In the close of my Discourse I answered an exception of his, that I cited Gerson against myself. The words of Gerson (or rather of the Eastern Church when they seperated from the Roman) are these, Po­tentiam tuam recognoscimus, Avar [...]iam tuam implere non possumus, Vivite per vos; We know thy power, we cannot satisfy thy Covetousnesse, Live by yourselves. They knew that he had a Patriarchall power, and that he was the first or chiefe of the Patriarchs: but this power we deny not, that power which we deny, is a Supremacy of single power, and that by Christs own Ordination. The Question is, whether the Grecians did acknowledge such a power due to the Pope in these words. That they did not, I [Page 482] prove, first by the practice of most of all the Eastern Churches, who excommunicate the Pope yearly as a Schismatick for chal­lenging this power. Secondly, I prove it by the Testimony of all their writers, espe­cially the modern Greeks, as Hieremy and Cyrill, the two succeeding Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Nilus an Archbishop &c., who all deny this power to the Pope in the name of the Greek Church. Thirdly, I prove it by his own confession in this very Chapter, There is no one point produced by him, which our Church lookes upon as a point of Faith, in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants, except that one of denying the Popes Supremacy. How? doe they grant the Popes Supremacy and deny the Popes Su­premacy, and yet continue the same with­out Variation (as they have done)? I doe not say this is a Contradiction, but let the Reader Iudge.

His reasons are mere Prevarications, not reasons. First here is no Opposition be­tween power and covetousnesse, unlesse he mean all Affirmatives and Negatives (whatsoever be the Subjects or Predicates,) are Oppo­sites; and if they were, it signifieth nothing. Secondly, he demands what power had the Pope over them except Spirituall Iurisdiction? [Page 483] I answer, he shewed them sufficiently at the Division of the Greek Empire: and then they stood in need of his assistence against the Turke.

His third fourth and fifth Arguments may be reduced to one, and when they are twisted they will not have the weight of one single haire. The Difference was about undue Subsid [...]es and Taxes, but the Demanding Subsidies seems incredible, had there not been some preacknowledged power to ground such de­mands upon. Yes, there was his Protopa­triarchall power, and that tentered and stretched out to the uttermost extent: and when he would have extended it yet higher, the Grecians cast out his Vsurpations. I see he doth but grope in the darke, I will help him to some light. Peter Steward upon Caleca tells him what these undue Subsidies and Exactions were, when the Popes Legates brought yearly the Chrisme from the Apostolick See to Constantinople, they would not depart from thence unlesse they had eighty pound weight of Gold, besides other Gifts bestowed upon them.

Lastly he addeth, Gerson concludes that upon this Consideration, they might proceed to the Reformation of the French Churches, notwith­standing the Contradiction which perhaps some of [Page 484] the Court of Rome would make; which eviden­ceth that the acknowledgement of the Popes just power was reteined, and encroachments on their Liberties onely denyed. Concedo omnia. His Protopatriarchall power was acknow­ledged, his Soveraignty of Iurisdiction was denyed as an encroachment: and this is the same Method which we observed in England.

And so Mr. Serjeant concludes his Rejoin­der, that the Bishop began like a Bowler and ends like one of those Artificers, who going to mend one hole, use to make other three. Iust Mr. Serjeant, just, As your mind thinketh, so the Bell clinketh. If there be any of those Artificers here, it is yourself, whose con­stant Custome is to make holes where there are none, and out of an eager desire of Contradicting others, to plunge yourself ir­recoverably into reall Contradiction. With Scurrility you began this Rejoinder and with Scurrility you end it.

That which followeth is a Dish of thrice sodden Coleworts, or a vain recapitulation of his own Imaginary Achievements, which the Reader hath been troubled withall too often already.

I have done with Mr. Serjeants Rejoinder, and have but one short request to the Rea­der; [Page 485] That if he meet with any thing in this Treatise, which is not becomming that Gravity or Civility which one Scholer oweth to another, especially in Theolo­gicall Inquisitions, Sciat responsum non di­ctum esse. He will be pleased to consider, that it is hardly possible to answer so much Petulance, without some Tartnesse. For the future, if Mr. Serjeant have any thing to say upon this subject, let him say it Lo­gically and he will not have cause to com­plaine that he is neglected: but if he pursue this way of quibling and wording, (which he complaineth of in others without a cause, and practiseth himself) I shall make bold to cull out and answer whatsoever I Iudge materiall, and leave the rest to a younger pen, which will attend his Motions.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.