A Replication TO THE BISHOP of CHALCEDON HIS Survey of the Vindication OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND, FROM Criminous Schism: Clearing the English Laws from the aspersion of Cruelty.  
With an Appendix in answer to the exceptions of S. W.  
By the right Reverend JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. and Lord Bishop of Derry.  
LONDON, Printed by K. H. for john Crook, at the sign of the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1656.   

To the Christian Reader.  
CHristian Reader, of what Communion soever thou be'st, so thou be'st within the Communion of the ecumenical Church, either in act or in desire, I offer this second Treatise of Schism to thy serious view and unpartial judgement. The former was a Vindication of the Church of England, this later is a Vindication of myself, or rather both are Vindications of both. In vindicating the Church then, I did vindicate myself. And in vindicating myself now, I do vindicate the Church. What I have performed I do not say, I dare not judge, the most moderate men are scarcely competent judges of their own works.  
No man can justly blame me for honouring my spiritual Mother the Church of England, in whose womb I was conceived, at whose breasts I was nourished, and in whose bosom I hope to die. Bees, by the instict of nature, do love their hives, and Birds their nests. But God is my witness that, according to my uttermost talon and poor understanding, I have endeavoured to set down the naked truth impartially, without either favour or prejudice the two capital enemies of right judgement. The one of which like a falls mirror doth represent things fairer and straighter than they are, the other like the tongue infected with choler makes the sweetest meats to taste bitter. My desire hath been to have truth for my chiefest friend, and no enemy but error, If I have had any bias, it hath been desire of peace, which our common Saviour left as a Legacy to his Church, that I might live to see the reunion of Christendom, for which I shall always bow the knees of my heart to the Father of our Lord jesus Christ. It is not impossible but that this desire of unity may have produced some unwilling error of love, but certainly I am most free from the wilful love of error. In questions of an inferior natu re Christ regards a charitaable intention much more than a right opinion.  
Howsoever it be, I submit myself and my poor endeavours, first, to the judgement of the Catholic ecumenical essential Church, which if some of late days have endeavoured to hiss out of the Schools as a fancy, I cannot help it. From the beginning it was not so. And if I should mistake the right Catholic Church out of humane frailty or ignorace, (which for my part I have no reason in the World to suspect, yet it is not impossible, when the Romanists themselves are divided into five or six several opinions, what ●his catholic Church, or what their infallible judge is) I do implicitly and in the preparation of my mind submit myself to the true catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, the Mother of the Saints, the Pillar of Truth. And seeing my adherence is firmer to the infallible rule of Faith, that is, the holy Scriptures, interpreted by the catholic Church, then to mine own private judgement or opinions, although I should unwittingly fall into an error, yet this cordial submission is an implicit retractation thereof, and I am confident will be so accepted by 't he Father of mer●●●s both from me 〈…〉 and sincerely 〈…〉 ●th.  
Likew● 〈…〉 representative 〈…〉 general Council, or so general as can be procured, and until then to the Church of England wherein I was baptised, or to a national English Synod. To the determination of all which, and each of them respectively, according to the distinct degrees of their authority, I yield a conformity and compliance, or at the least, and to the lowest of them, an acquiescence.  
Finally I crave this favour from the courteous Reader, that because the Surveier hath overseen almost all the principal proofs of the cause in question, (which I conceive not to be so clearly and candidly done,) he will take the pains to peruse the Vindication itself. And then in the name of God let him follow the dictate of right reason. For as that scale must needs settle down whereinto most weight is put, so the minds cannot choose but yield to the weight of perspicuous demonstration.   

An Answer to R. C. the Bishop of Chalcedons preface.  
I Examine not the impediments of R. C. his undertaking this survey. 
Sect. 1.  Only I cannot but observe his complaint of extreme want of necessary Books, having all his own notes by him, and such store of excellent Libraries in Paris at his command, than which no City in the World affords more, few so good, certainly the main disadvantage in this behalf lies on my side.  
Neither will I meddle with his motives to undertake it. I have known him long to have been a Person of great eminence among our English Roman Catholics, and do esteem his undertaking to be an honour to the Treatise. Bos lassus fortiùs pedem figit, (said a great Father) The weary Ox treadeth deeper. Yet there is one thing which I cannot reconcile, namely a fear lest if the answer were longer deferred, the poison of the said Treatise might spread further, and become more incurable. Yet with the same breath he tells us, that I bring nothing new worth answering. And in his answer to the first Chapter, that no other English Minister (for aught he knows) hath hitherto dared to defend the Church of England from Schism in any especial Treatise. Yes divers, he may be pleased to inform himself better at his leisure. What, is the Treatise so dangerous and infectious? Is the way so unbeaten? And yet nothing in it but what is trivial? Nothing new that deserves an answer? I hope to let him see the contrary. He who disparageth the work which he intends to confute, woundeth his own credit through his adversaries sides. But it seemeth that by surveying over hastily, he did quite oversee all our principal evidence, and the chiefest firmaments of our cause. I am sure he hath quite omitted them, I shall make bold now & then to put him in mind of it.  
Hence he proceedeth to five observable points, which he esteemeth so highly, that he believeth they alone may serve for a full refutation of my Book. Then he must have very favourable Judges. His first point to be noted is this, that Schism is a substantial division, or a division in some substantial part of the Church. And that the substantial parts of the Church are these three, Profession of Faith, Communion in Sacraments and Lawful Ministry. I confess I am not acquainted with this language, to make Profession of Faith, Communion in Sacraments and lawful Ministry which are no substances▪ to be substantial parts of any thing, either Physical or Metaphysical. He defineth the Church to be a Society: can these be substantial parts of a Society? as much as rationability being but a faculty or specifical quality is a substantial part of a man, because it is a part of his definition, or his essential difference.  
But I suppose that by substantial parts he means essentials, 
Three Essentials of a true Church.  as we use to say the same Church in substance, or the same religion in substance, that is in essence. And if so, than he might have spared the labour of proving it, and pressing it over and over. For we maintain that an entire profession of saving truth, a right use of the Word and Sacraments, and an union under lawful Pastors, being taken jointly, do distinguish the Church essentially from all other Societies in the World. We have been told heretofore of other notes of the Church which did not please us so well, as Antiquity, and Universality, and Splendour, etc. which may be present or absent, with the Church or without the Church. As if a man should describe money by the weight and colour and sound, or describe a King by his Crown and Sceptre, or describe a man as Plato did, to be a living creature with two legs without feathers, which Diogenes easily confuted by putting a naked Cock into his School, saying, behold Plato's man. Such separable communicable accidents are not notes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, absolutely and at all times, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, accidentally and at sometimes, whereas these three do belong unto the Catholic Church and to all true particular Churches inseparably, incommunicably, and reciprocally, and are proper to the Church quarto modo, to every true Church, only to a true Church, and always to a true Church. Yet I foretell him, that this liberal concession will not promote his cause one hairs breadth: As will appear in the sequel of this discourse.  

Great difference between a true Church, and a perfect Church.  But yet this essentiality must not be pressed too far, for fear lest we draw out blood in the place of milk. I like Stapletons' distinction well, of the nature and essence of a Church, from the integrity and perfection thereof. These three essentials do constitute both the one and the other, both the essence and the perfection of a Church. Being perfect they consummate the integrity of a Church, being imperfect they do yet contribute a being to a Church. It doth not follow that because Faith is essential, therefore every point of true Faith is essential; or because discipline is essential, therefore every part of right discipline is essential; or because the Sacraments are essential, therefore every lawful rite is essential. Many things may be lawful, many things may be laudable, yea many things may be necessary necessitate praecepti, commanded by God, of divine institution, that are not essential nor necessary necessitate medii. The want of them may be a great defect, it may be a great sin, and yet if it proceed from invincible necessity or invincible ignorance, it doth not absolutely exclude from Heaven. The essences of things are unalterable, and therefore the lowest degree of saving Faith, of Ecclesiastical discipline, of Sacramental Communion that ever was in the Catholic Church, is sufficient to preserve the true being of a Church. A reasonable Soul and an humane Body are the essential parts of a man. Yet this body may be greater or lesser, weaker or stronger, yea it may lose a leg or an arm, which before they were lost, were subordinate parts of an essential part, and yet continue a true humane body though imperfect and maimed, without destroying the essence of that individual man. Sensibility and a locomotive faculty are essential to every living creature. Yet some living creatures do want one sense, some another, as sight, or hearing. Some fly, some run, some swim, some creep, some scarcely creep: And yet still the essence is preserved. Naturalists do write of the Serpent that if there be but two inches of the body left with the head, 
Actual want of essentials not conclusive to God.  the Serpent will live, a true Serpent, but much maimed and very imperfect.  
Much less may we conclude from hence that the want of true essentials in cases of invincible necessity doth utterly exclude from Heaven, or hinder the extraordinary influence of divine Grace: No more than the actual want of circumcision in the Wilderness did prejudice the Jews. God acts with means, without means, against means. And where the ordinary means are desired and cannot be had, he supplies that defect by extraordinary Grace. So he fed the Israelites in a barren Wilderness where they could neither sow nor plant, with Manna from Heaven. True Faith is an essential, yet Infants want actual Faith. Baptism the laver of regeneration is an essential, yet there may be the baptism of the Spirit, or the baptism of Blood, where there is not the Baptism of water. He that desires Baptism and cannot have it, doth not therefore want it. So likewise Ecclesiastical discipline is an essential of a true Church, yet R. C. himself will not conclude from thence that actual subordination to every link in the chain of the hierarchy is so essentially necessary, that without it there can be no salvation. Thus he saith, We profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ. 
Changed 8. Sect. 3.  But we say not that it is necessary necessitate medii, so as none can be saved who do not actually believe it, unless it be sufficiently proposed to them. What he confesseth, we lay hold on, that subjection to the Pope, is not essentially necessary. What he affirmeth further, that it is preceptively necessary or commanded by Christ, we do altogether deny. I urge this only for this purpose, that though Ecclesiastical discipline be an essential of the Church; yet (by his own confession) every particular branch of it may not be essential, though otherwise lawful and necessary by the commandment of God.  
But if by profession of faith he understand particular forms of confession, 
Particular Rites, Forms, Opinions, no Essentials.  often differing in points of an inferior nature, not comprehended either actually or virtually in the Apostles Creed, or perhaps erroneous opinons: If by communion in Sacraments he understand the necessary use of the same rites, and the same forms of Administration, whereof some may be lawful, but not necessary to be used; others unlawful, and necessary to be refused: Lastly if by lawful ministry he understand those links of the Hierarchy, which have either been lawfully established by the church, as patriarchal authority; or unlawfully usurped, as Monarchical power; we are so far from thinking that these are essential to the Church, that we believe that some of them are intolerable in the Church.  
The other Branch of this first note, that Schism is a division in some substantial parts of the Church of God, is true, but not in his sense. All Schism is either between patriarchal Churches, or Provincial Churches, or Diocesan Churches, or some of these respectively, or some of their respective parts. But his sense is, that all Schism is about the essence of Religion. 
Schism is not always about esentials.  A strange paradox! Many Schisms have arisen in the Church about Rites and Ceremonies, about Precedency, about Jurisdiction, about the Rites and Liberties of particular Churches, about matter of Fact. Obstinacy in a small error is enough to make a Schism. Saint Paul tells us of Divisions and Factions and Schisms that were in the Church of Corinth; yet these were not about the essentials of Religion, but about a right-handed error, even too much admiration of their Pastors. The Schism between the Roman and Asiatic Churches, about the observation of Easter, was far enough from the heart of Religion. How many bitter Schisms have been in the Church of Rome itself, when two or three Popes at a time have challenged Saint Peter's Chair, and involved all Europe in their Schismatical contentions? Yet was there no manner of dispute about Faith or Sacrements, or holy Oders, or the Hierarchy of the Church, but merely about matter of Fact, whose election to the Papacy was right.  
From the former ground, R. C. makes two collections, First that Schism is a most grievous crime, and a greater sin than Idolatry, because it tendeth to the destruction of the whole Church, whose essence consisteth in the union of all her substantial parts, and her destruction in the division of them. What doth this note concern the Church of England, which is altogether guiltless both of Schism and Idolatry? I wish the Church and Court of Rome may be as able to clear themselves. I am no Advocate for Schism, Yet this seemeth strange paradoxical doctrine to Christian ears. 
Schism is not a greater sin than Idolatry.  What is all Schism a more grievious sin than formal Idolatry? who can believe it? Schism is a defect of Charity, Idolatry is the height of impiety, and a public affront put upon Almighty God. Schism is immediately against men, Idolatry is directly against God. And the Fathers hold that judas sinned more in despairing and hanging himself, than in betraying his Master, because the later was against the humanity, the former against the Divinity of Chriist. Idolatry is a spiritual Adultery, and so styled every where in holy Scriptures. A scolding contentious Wife is not so ill as an Adulteress; neither is that Soldier who straggles from his Camp, or deserts his General out of passion, so ill as a professed Rebel, who attempts to thrust some base Groom into his Sovereign's Throne. 
1. Cor. 10.10.21.  Saint Paul calls Idols Devils, and their Altars the tables of Devils. Can any sin be more grievous than to give divine honour to the Devil?  
It is true that some Schism in respect of some circumstance is worse than some Idolatry, as when the Schism is against the light of a man's knowledge, and the Idolatry proceeds out of ignorance: But the learned Surveior knoweth very well, that it is a gross fallacy to argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciser, to apply that which is spoken respectively, to some one circumstance, as if it were spoken absolutely to all intents and purposes: as if one should say that many men were worse than beasts, because each kind of beasts hath but one peculiar fault, and that by natural necessitation, as the Lion cruelty, the Fox subtlety, the Swine obscenity, the Wolf robbery, the Ape flattery, whereas one may find an epitome of all these in one man, and that by free election; yet he were a bad disputant who should argue from hence that the nature of man is absolutely worse than the nature of brute beasts.  

Aust. l. 1. de bapt. c. 8.  Saint Austin faith indeed that Schismatics baptising Idolaters do cure them of the wound of their Idolatry and infidelity, but wound them more grievously with the wound of Schism. The deepest wound is not always the most deadly. For the Sword killed the Idolaters, but the Earth swallowed up the Schismatics. And Optatus adds, 
Oped l. 1.  that Schism is summum malum, the greatest evil. That is, not absolutely, but respectively, in some persons, at some times. No man can be so stupid as to imagine that Schism is a greater evil than the sin against the Holy Ghost, or Atheism, or Idolatry. The reason of Optatus his assertion followeth, the same in effect with Saint Austin's, for the Idolatrous Ninevites upon their fasting and prayer obtained pardon, but the earth swallowed up Korah and his company. All that can be collected from Saint Austin or Optatus, is this, that God doth sometimes punish wilful Schismatics more grievously and exemplarily in this life, than ignorant Idolaters; which proveth not that Schism is a greater sin than Idolatry. jeroboam made Gods people Schismatics, but his hand was dried up then, when he stretched it out against the Prophet, yet the former was the greater sin. The judgements of God in this life are more exemplary for the amendment of others, than vindictive to the delinquents themselves. And for the most part in the whole history of the Bible, God seemeth to be more sensible of the injuries done unto his church and to his servants, then of the dishonour done unto himself. In the Isle of Man it is death to steal an Hen, not to steal an Horse, because there is more danger of the one than of the other, in respect of the situation of the Country. Penal laws are imposed, and punishments inflicted, according to the exigence of places, the dispositions of persons, and necessities of times.  
But because he hath appealed to Saint Austin, to Saint Austin let him go: I desire no better Expositor of Saint Austin than Saint Austin himself. Exceptis illis duntaxat quicunque in vobis sunt scientes quid verum sit, & pro animositate suae perver itatis contra veritatem etiam sibi notissimam dimicantes. Horum quippe impietas etiam I. dololatriam forsitan superat, 
Aust. Ep. 48.  Excepting only those [Donatists]▪ whosoever among you know what is true, and out of a perverse animosity do contend against the Truth, being most evidently known to themselves: For these men's impiety doth peradventure exceed even Idolatry itself. The case is clear, Saint Austin and Optatus did only undestand wilful perverse Schismatics, who upheld a separation against the evident light of their own conscience, comparing these with poor ignorant Idolaters; and even then it was but a peradventure, peradventure they are worse than Idolaters. But I wish R. C. and his party would attend diligently to what follows in Saint Austin, to make them leave their uncharitable censuring of others. 
ibidem.  Sed quia non facile convinci possunt, in animo namque latet hoc malum, omnes tanquam à nobis minùs alieni leviori severitate coercemini. But because these can not be easily convicted, for this evil (obstinacy) lies hid in the heart, we do use more gentle coercion to you all, as being not so much alienated from us. I wish all men were as moderate as St. Austin was, even where he professeth that he had learned by experience the advantage of severity. St. Austin and the primitive Church (in the person of which he speaks) spared the whole sect of the Donatists, and looked upon them as no such great strangers to them, because they did not know who were obstinate, and who were not; who erred for want of light, and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences. The like Spirit did possess Optatus, who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists' Brethren, not by chance or inanimadvertence, but upon premeditation; he justifieth the title, and professeth himself to be obliged to use it; he would not have done so to Idolaters. And a little before in the same Book, he wonders why his Brother Parmenian (being only a Schismatic) would rank himself with Heretics, who were falsifiers of the Creed, that is the old primitive Creed which the Council of Trent itself placed in the front of their Acts, as their North-star to direct them. I wish they had steered their course according to their compass.  
To cut off a limb from a man, or a branch from a tree (saith he) is to destroy them: most true. But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body, as in a gangreen. The word of error is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Tivi 2.17.  not cancer a crabfish, because it is retrograde, which was Anselmes mistake. So when superfluous branches are lopped away, it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better.  
His second conclusion from hence is, 
There may be just cause of separation, no just cause of Schism.  that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism, because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sin, And because there is no salvation out of the Church, which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin, to little purpose, whilst no man doubts of it or denies it. And hence he infers this corollary, that I say untruly that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church, because there ean be no just cause of Schism. My words were these, that [the Church of Rome, or rather the Pope and Court of Rome, are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church.] There is a great difference between these two. But to dispel umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words: We must distinguish between the Catholic ecumenical Church, and particular Churches how eminent soever. As likewise between criminous Schism and lawful separation. First, I did never say that the Catholic or universal Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it, yea I ever said the contrary expressly. And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian, who never understood the Catholic Church in his sense. His Catholic Church was but a particular Church with them. And their Catholic Church is a mass of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him. 
C. 2. S 6 Particular Churches may give just cause of separation.   
But I did say, and I do say; that any particular Church without exception whatsoever, may give just cause of separation from it by heresy, or Schism, or abuse of their authority, in obtruding errors. And to save myself the labour of proving this by evidence of reason, and by authentic testimonies, 
C. 2 Sect. 4.  I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey. Neither can there be any substantial division from any particular Church, unless she be really heretical or schismatical, I say really, because she may be really heretical or schismatical, and yet morally a true particular Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism, and so may require profession of her heresy, as a condition of communicating with her. In which case division from her is no schism or sin, but virtue, and necessary. And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church, as he may leave his Father's house when it is infected with some contagious sickness, with a purpose to return to it again when it is cleansed, he answers, 
Pref p. 20.  that this may be true of a particular Church, but cannot be true of the universal Church. Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome.  
Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give, or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism. The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sin; Their damnation is just, 
Rom. 3.8  who say, let us do evil that good may come of it. Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her; the guilt of the Schism lies not upon that Church which makes the separation, but upon that Church from which the separation is made. This is a truth undeniable, and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott. 
Inf. unmask ch. 7. sect. 112 p. 534.  They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions in faith, practice, liturgy, and use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been Heretics by departing from the pure faith, and Schismatics by dividing themselves from the external communion of the true uncorrupted Church. We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith, Practice, Liturgy and use of the Sacraments, and which is more, did require the profession of her errors, as a condition of communicating with her. And if so, then by the judgement of her own Doctors, the Schism is justly laid at her own door, and it was no sin in us, but virtue and necessary to separate from her. 
Lib. 2. cont. ep. Parmen. e. 11.  I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas, there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church. But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alleged, as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation. He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8. and 1. Tim. 1.3. He speaks of bad manners and vicious humours and sinister affections, especially in the preachers, as envy, contention, contumacy, incontinency. This was his case then with the Donatists, and is now the case of the Anabaptists. That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity, he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18. He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause, cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt, when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiastica●ll discipline. He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause, what doth this concern us who believe the same?  
His second note is this, 
Sect. 2. Pro●●stans have forsaken no ancient Churches.  that Protestants have forsaken the Pope, the Papacy, the universal Roman Church, and all the ancient Christian Churches, Grecian, Armenian, Ethiopian, in their communion of Sacraments; and to clear themselves from Schism, must bring just cause of separation from every one of these. I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy, that is, from his primacy of power, from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right, which two are already established from his superiority above general Counsels and infallibility of judgement, which are the most received Opinions and near establishing in the Roman Church. We have renounced their patriarchal power over us, because they never exercised it in Britain for the fi●st six hundred years, nor could exercise it in after ages without manifest usurpation, by reason of the Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Yea because they themselves waved it, and implicitly quitted it, presently after the six hundreth year. Disuse in law forfeits an office as well as abuse. But we have not separated from the Pope or Papacy, as they were regulated by the Canons of the Fathers. We look upon their universal Roman Church as an upstart innovation, and a contradiction in adjecto. We find no footsteps of any such thing throughout the primitive times. Indeed the Bishops of Rome have sometimes been called Ecumenical Bishops; so have the other Patriarches, for their universal care and presidency in general Counsels, who never pretended to any such universality of power. But for all ancient Churches, Grecian, Armenian, Ethiopian, etc. none excluded, not the Roman itself; we are so far from forsaking them, that we make the Scriptures interpreted by their joint belief, and practice, to be the rule of our reformation. And wherein their Successors have not swerved from the examples of their Predecessors, we maintain a strict Communion with them: Only in Rites and Ceremonies and such indifferent things, we use the the liberty of a free Church, to choose out such as are most proper for ourselves, and most conducible to those ends for which they were first instituted, that is, to be advancements of order, modesty, decency, gravity, in the service of God, to be adjuments to attention and devotion, furtherances of edification, helps of memory, exercises of Faith, the the leaves that preserve the fruit, the sh●ll that preserves the kernel of Religion from contempt. And all this with due moderation, so as neither to render Religion sordid and sluttish, nor yet light and garish, but comely and venerable.  
Lastly, 
in Sacraments.  for communion in Sacraments, we have forsaken no Sacraments either instituted by Christ, or received by the primitive Christians. We refuse no Communion with any catholic Christians at this day, and particularly with those ancient Churches which he mentions, though we may be, and have been misrepresented one unto another: yea though the Sacraments may be administered in some of them not without manifest imperfection, whilst sinful duties are not obtruded upon us as conditions of communion. Under this caution we still retain communion in Sacraments with Roman Catholics. If any person be baptised or admitted into holy Orders in their Church, we baptise them not, we ordain them not again. Wherein then have we forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments? not in their ancient Communion of genuine Sacraments, but in their septinary number, and suppositious Sacraments, which yet we retain for the most part as useful and religious Rites, but not under the notion of Sacraments: not in their Sacraments, but in their abuses and sinful injunctions in the use of the Sacrament. As their administration of them in a tongue unknown, where the people cannot say Amen to the prayers and thanksgivings of the Church, contrary to Saint Paul. As their detaining the Cup from the Laity, contrary to the institution of Christ, 
1. Cor. 19 Math. 26.27  drink ye all of this, that is, not all the Apostles only; for the Apostles did not consecrate in the presence of Christ, and (according to the doctrine of their Schools, and practise of their Church) as to the participation of the Sacrament at that time, were but in the condition of Laymen. As their injunction to all Communicants to adore, not only Christ in the use of the Sacrament, to which we do readily assent, but to adore the Sacrament itself. And lastly, as their double matter and form in the ordination of a Priest, never known in the Church for above a thousand years after Christ. These and such like abuses were the only things which we did forsake: so as I may truly say, non tellus Cymbam, tellurem Cymba, reliquit: It was not we that did forsake them in the Communion of their Sacraments, but it was their Sacraments that did forsake us: And yet we do not censure them for these innovations in the use of the Sacraments or the like, nor thrust them out of the communion of the Catholic Church, but provide for ourselves, advise them as Brethren, and so leave them to stand or fall to their own Master. So on our parts there is a reformation, but no separation.  
His third point is, 
Sect. 3.  that Protestants vary in giving the pretended just cause, of their separation from the Roman Church. For at the first their only cause was the abuse of some that preached Indulgences. Since some others give the adoration of the blessed Sacrament, or communion in one kind; others give the Oath made by Pius the 4th, which they call a new creed; others other causes. Which variety is a certain sign of their uncertainty of any true just cause of their separation. That the Pardoners and Preachers of Indulgences, and the envy of other Orders, and the passionate heat of the Court of Rome, (tange montes & fumigabunt, touch the high mountains and they will smoak,) did contribute much to the breach of this part of Christendom, is confessedly true.  
But it is not only the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences, 
The true cause of the separation of some Protestants.  but much more the abuse of Indulgences themselves which we complain of, that a treasury should be composed of the blood of Christ, and the sufferings and supererogatory works of the Saints, to be disposed by the Pope for money. What is this, but to mingle Heaven and Earth together, the imperfect works of man, with the sacrified blood of Christ? Neither was it the Doctrine and abuse of Indulgences alone, but the injunction to adore the Sacrament also and Communion in one kind and the new Creed of Pius the 4th, or the new Articles since comprised in that Creed, and the Monarchy of the Pope by divine right, and sundry other abuses and innovations all put together, which gave just cause to some Protestants to separate themselves, so far as they were active in the separation. But we in England were first chased away by the Pope's Bulls. If these abuses were perhaps not discovered, or at least not pleaded all at once, what wonder is it. Dies diei eructat verbum, & nox nocti indicat scientiam, 
Psal. 19  day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.  
His fourth point, which he saith is much to be noted, is reduced by himself to a Syllogism, Whosoever separate themselves in substance (that is in essentials) from the substance of a Catholic and true Church in substance, are true Schismatics. But Protestants have separated themselves in substance from the Roman Church, which is a Catholic and true Church in substance, therefore Prostants are true Schismatics. His proposition is proved by him, because the substances of things do consist in indivisibili and the changing of them either by addition or by subtraction is not a reformation but a destruction of them. And therefore it is a contradiction to say that a Church which hath the substance or the essence of a Church, can give just cause to depart from her in her essentials, and not only a contradiction but plain blasphemy, to say that the true Church of Christ in essence, his mystical body, his Kingdom, can give just cause to forsake it in essentials. The assumption is proved by him, because we confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance, and yet have forsaken it in the essentials of a true Church, namely the Sacraments, and the public worship of God.  
His proposition admits little dispute. I do acknowledge that no Church true or falls, no society of Men or Ang●●s, good or bad, can give just or sufficient cause, to forsake the essentials of Christian Religion, or any of them, and that whosoever do so, are either heriticks, or schismatics, or both, or which is worse than both, down right Infidels and Apostates. For in forsaking▪ any essential of Christian Religion they forsake Christ and their hopes of Salvation in an ordinary way. But here is one thing which it behoveth R. C. himself to take notice of, That if the essences of all things be indivisible, 
Essences of things are indivisible, & destroyed by addition as well as subtraction.  and are destroyed as well by the addition as by the subtraction of any essential part, how will the Roman Church or Court make answer to Christ for their addition of so many (not explications of old Articles but) new pretended necessary essential Arricles of Faith, under pain of damnation, (which by his own rule is to destroy the Christian Faith,) who have coined new Sacraments, and added new matter and form, that is, essentials to old Sacraments, who have multiplied sacred Order, and added new links to the chain of the Hierarchy. This will concern him and his Church more nearly, than all his notes and points do concern us.  
Concerning his assumption, two questions come to be debated: first, whether the Church of Rome be a true Church, or not: secondly, 
How the Church of Rome is and is not a true Church.  whether we have departed from it in essentials. Touching the former point, a Church may be said to be a true Church two ways, metaphysically and morally. Every Church which hath the essentials of a Church, how tainted or corrupted soever it be in other things, is metaphysically a true Church, for ens & verum convertuntur. So we say a thief is a true man, that is a reasonable creature, consistng of an humane body and reasonable soul. But speaking morally he is a faulty filching vicious person and so no true man. So the Church of Rome is metaphysically a true Church, that is to say, hath all the essentials of a Christian Church, but morally it is no true Church, because erroneous; contraries, as truth and error may be predicated of the same subject, so it be not ad idem, secundum idem, & codem tempore. Truth in fundamentals and error in superstructures may consist together. 
1 Cor. 13.12.  The foundation is right but they have builded much hay and stubble upon it: And in respect of this foundation she may, and doubtless doth bring forth many true Members of Christ, Children of God, and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Church of the Jews was most erroneous and corrupted in the days of our Saviour; yet he doubted not so say Salvation is of the jews. 
john 4.22. Eph. 5.26.  I know it is said, that Christ hath given himself for his Church to sanctify it, and cleanse it, and present it to himself a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle: But that is to be understood inchoactively in this life; the perfection and consummation thereof is to be expected in the life to come.  
To the second question, whether the Church of England in the Reformation have forsaken the essentials of the Roman Church? I answer negatively, we have not. If weeds be of the essence of a Garden, 
We have not left the Roman Church in essentials.  or rupt Humours, or Botches, or Wens, and Excrescences be of the essence of man: If Errors, and Innovations, and Superstitions and sperfluous Rites, and pecuniary Arts be of the essence of a Church, than indeed we have forsaken the Roman Church in its essentials: otherwise not. We retain the same Creed to a word, and in the same sense by which all the primitive Fathers were saved; which they held to be so sufficient, that in a general Council they did forbid all persons, 
Con. eph. p. 2. Act 6 c 7.  under pain of deposition, to Bishops and Clerks, and anathematisation to Laymen, to compose or obtrude any other upon any Persons converted from Paganism or Judaisme. We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline which they retained; we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them, we make their doctrine and their practice (under the holy Scriptures, and as best Expositors thereof) a Standard and Seal of truth between the Romanists and us. It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the modern Roman Church by substraction, But they who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Romau Church by addition. Can we not forsake their new Creed unless we forsake their old faith? Can we not reduce the Liturgy into a known tongue, but presently we forsake the public worship of God? Can we not take away their tradition of the Patine and Chalice and reform their new matter and form in Presbyterian ordination; which antiquity did never know, which no Church in the World besides themselves did ever use, but presently we forsake holy Orders? The truth is, their errors are in the excess, and these excesses they themselves have determined to be essentials of true Religion: And so upon pretence of interpreting, they intrude into the Legislative office of Christ; and being but a patriarchal Church, do usurp a power which the universal Church did never own, that is, to Constitute new essentials of Christian Religion. Before the determination their excesses might have passed for probable Opinions or indifferent Practices, but after the determination of them as Articles of faith, extra quam non est salus, without which there is no salvation (they are the words of the Bull) they became inexcusable errors. So both the pretended contradiction & the pretended blasphemy are vanished in an instant. It is no contradiction to say, that a true humane body in substance may require purgation, nor blasphemy to say, that a particular Church (as the Church of Rome is) may err, and (which is more than we charge them withal) may apostate from Christ. In the mean time we preserve all due respect to the universal Church, and doubt not to say with St. Austin that to dispute against the sense thereof, 
Aust ep. 118.  is most insolent madness.  
His fifth point to be noted hath little new worth noting in it, 
Nor differ in substance from the Roman Church.  but tautologies and repetitions of the same things over and over. Some Protestants (saith he) do impudently deny that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church. If this be impudence, what is ingenuity? If this be such a gross error for man to be ashamed of, what is evident truth? We expected thanks for our moderation, and behold reviling for our good will. He might have been pleased to remember what himself hath cited so often out of my vindication, That our Church since the Reformation is the same in substance that it was before. If the same in substance, than not substantially separated. Our comfort is that Caleb and joshua alone were admitted into the Land of promise, because they had been Peacemakers in a seditious time, and endeavoured not to enlarge but to make up the breach. He adds that the chiefest Protestants do confess that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church. Who these chiefest Protestants are, he tells us not, nor what they say, but refers us to another of his Treatises which I neither know here how to compass, nor, if I could, deem it worth the labour. When these principal Protestants come to be viewed throughly and seriously with indifferent eyes, it will appear that either by [substantially] they mean really, that is to say that the differences between us are not mere logomachies, or contentions about words and different forms of expression only, but that there are some real controversies between us both in credendis and agendis, and more and more, real in agendis, than in credendis. Or secondly that by [substance] they understand not the old Essentials or Articles of Christian Religion, wherein we both agree, but the new Essentials or new Articles of Faith lately made by the Romanists, and comprehended, in the Creed of Pius the fourth, about which we do truly differ. So we differ substantially in the language of the present Romanists: But we differ not substantially in the sense of the primitive Fathers. The generation of these new Articles is the corruption of the old Creed. Or lastly, if one or two Protestant Authors either bred up in hostility against new Rome, as Hannibal was against old Rome, or in the heat of contention, or without due consideration, or out of prejudice or passion, or a distempered zeal, have overshot themselves, what is that to us? Or what doth that concern the Church of England?  
He, saith St. Austin, told the Donatists, that though they were with him in many things yet if they were not with him in few things, the many things wherein they were with him would not profit them. But what were these few things wherein St. Austin required their communion? Were they abuses, or innovations, or new Articles of Faith? No, no, the truth is, St. Austin professed to the Donatists, that many things and great things would profit them nothing (not only if a few things, but) if one thing were wanting: videant quam multa & quam magna nihil prosint, 
Aust y. 1. de happed. c. 8.  si unum quidem defu●rit, & videant quid sit ipsum unum. And let them see what this one thing is. What was it? Charity. For the Donatists most uncharitably did limit the Catholic Church to their own party, excluding all others from hope of salvation, just as the Romanists do now, who are the right successors of the Donatists in those few things, or rather in that one thing. So often as he produceth St. Austin against the Donatists, he brings a rod for himself. Furthermore he proveth out of the Creed and the Fathers that the communion of the Church is necessary to salvation, to what purpose I do not understand, (unless it be to reprove the unchristian and uncharitable censures of the Roman Court.) For neither is the Roman Church, the Catholic Church, nor a communion of Saints a communion in errors.  
His sixth and last point, which he proposeth to judicious Protestants, is this, that though it were not evident, that the Protestant Church is Schismatical, but only doubtful. Yet it being evident, that the Roman Church is not schismatical, because (as Doctor Sutcliff confesseth) they never went out of any known Christian Society, nor can any Protestant prove that they did, it is the most prudent way for a man to do for his Soul as he would do for his lands, liberty, honour or life, that is to choose the safest way, 
It is not lawful or prudent to leave the English Church and adhere to the Roman for fear of Schism.  namely to live and die free from schism in the communion of the Roman Church.  
I answer, first, that he changeth the subject of the question. My proposition was that the Church of England is free, from schism: he ever and anon enlargeth it to all Protestant Churches, and what or how many Churches he intendeth; under that name and notion I know not. Not that I censure any foreign Churches, with whose laws and liberties I am not so well acquainted as with our own. But because I conceive the case of the Church of England to be as clear as the Sun at noonday, and am not willing for the present to have it perplexed with heterogeneous disputes. So often as he stumbleth upon this mistake I must make bold to tell him that he concludes not the contradictory.  
Secondly, I answer, that he disputes ex non concessis, laying that for a foundation granted to him, which is altogether denied him, namely that it is a doubtful case, whether the Church of England be schismatical or not. Whereas no Church under Heaven is really more free from just suspicion of schism than the Church of England, as not censuring nor excluding uncharitably from her communion; any true Church which retains the essentials of Christian Religion.  
Thirdly, I answer, that it is so far from being evident that the Roman Church is guiltless of schism, that I wish it were not evident that the Roman Court is guilty of formal schism, and all that adhere unto it, and maintain its censures of material schism. If it be schism to desert altogether the communion of any one true particular Church, what is it not only to desert, but cast out of the Church by the ban of excommunication, so many Christian Churches, over which they have no jurisdiction, three times more numerous than themselves, and notwithstanding some few (perhaps) improper expressions of some of them, as good or better Christians and Catholics as themselves; who suffer daily, and are ready to suffer to the last drop of their blood for the name of Christ.  
If contumacy against one lawful single superior be schismatical, what is rebellion against the sovereign Ecclesiastical Tribunal, that is a general Council? But I am far from concluding all indistinctly. I know there are many in that Church, who continue firm in the doctrine of the Counsels of Constance and Basile, attributing no more to the Pope then his principium unitatis, and subjecting both him and his Court; to the jurisdiction of an Ecumenical Council.  
Fourthly, I answer that supposing, but not granting, that it was doubtful, whether the Church of England were schismatical or not, and supposing in like manner that it were evident that the Church of Rome was not schismatical, yet it was not lawful for a son of the Church of England; to quit his spiritual mother. May a man renounce his due obedience to a lawful Superior upon uncertain suspicions? No. In doubtful cases it is always presumed pro Rege & lege, for the King and for the Law, Neither is it lawful (as a Father said some Virgins, who cast themselves desperately into a River, for fear of being deflowered) to commit a certain crime for fear of an uncertain. Yea to rise yet one step higher, though it were lawful, yet it were not prudence, but folly, for a man to thrust himself into more, more apparent, more real danger, for fear of one lesser, less apparent, and remoter danger. Or for fear of Charybdis to run headlong into Scylla. He who forsakes the English Church for fear of Schism, to join in a stricter communion with Rome, plungeth himself in greater and more real dangers, both of Schism and Idolatry, and Heresy. A man may live in a schismatical Church, and yet be no Schismatic, if he err invincibly, and be ready in the preparation of his mind to receive the truth whensoever God shall reveal it to him, nor want (R. C. himself being Judge) either Faith, or Church, or Salvation.  
And to his reason, 
The present Church of Rome departed out of the ancient Church of Rome.  whereby he thinks to free the Church of Rome from Schism, because they never went out of any Christian Society, I answer two ways, first, It is more schismatical to cast true Churches of Christ out of the communion of the Catholic Church, either without the Keys or Clave errand with an erring Key, then merely and simply to go out of a particular Church. This the Romanists have done, although they had not done the other. But they have done the other also. And therefore I add my second answer by naming that Christian Society, out of which the present Church of Rome departed, even the ancient primitive Roman Church, not locally, but morally, which is worse, by introducing corruptions in Faith, Liturgy, and use of the Sacraments, whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the external communion of the true, primitive, uncorrupted Church of Christ, and became the cause of all following separation. So both ways they are guilty of Schism, and a much greater Schism than they object to us.  
All that follows in his preface or the most part of it, 
Sect. 4.  is but a reiteration of the same things, without adding one more grain of reason to enforce it. If I did consider that to divide any thing in any of its substantial parts, is not to reform, but to destroy the essence thereof, etc. If I did consider, that there are three substantial parts of a true Church in substance, etc. If I did consider, that any division of a true Church in any substantial part thereof is impious, because it is a destruction of Christ's mystical body, etc. If I did consider all these things, etc. I should clearly see that the English Protestant Church, in dividing herself from the substance of the Roman Church in all her formal substantial parts, committed damnable sin, and that I in defending her therein commit damnable sin. I have seriously and impartially weighed and considered all that he saith. I have given him a full account of it, that we have neither separated ourselves from the mystical body of Christ, nor from any essential or integral part or member thereof. I have showed him the original of his mistake, in not distinguishing between sacred institutions, and subsequent abuses; between the genuine parts of the body, and wenns or excrescences. And in conclusion (waving all our other advantages, I do not, for the present, find on our parts the least shadow of criminous Schism: He prays God to open my eyes that I may see this truth. I thank him for his charity in wishing no worse to me then to himself. But errors go commonly masked under the cloak of truth. Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis & umbra. I pray God open both our eyes, and teach us to deny ourselves, that we may see his truth, and prefer it before the study of advancing our own party. For here the best of us known but in part, and see as through a glass darkly, 
1 Cor. 13.9, 12.  that we may not have the faith of Christ in respect of persons.  
That which follows is new indeed. 
jam. 2.1.  To communicate with Schismatics is to be guilty of Schism. But the English Church joins in communion of Sacraments and public Prayers with Schismatics, namely Puritan, and Independants. This is inculcated over and over again in his book. But because this is the first time that I meet with it, and because I had rather be before hand with him, then behind hand, I will give it a full answer here. And if I meet with any new weight added to it in any other place, 
To communicate with Schismatics is not always Schism.  I shall endeavour to clear that there, without wearying the reader with tautologies and superfluous repetitions. And first I deny his proposition. To communicate with heretics or Schismatics in the same public Assemblies, and to be present with them at the same divine offices is not always Heresy or Schism, unless one communicate with them in their heretical or schismatical errors. In the primitive Church at Anti●ch when Leontius was Bishop, the Orthodox Christians and the Arrians repaired to the same Assemblies, but they used different forms of doxologies, the orthodox Christians saying, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the holy Ghost, And the Arrians saying, Glory be to the Father, by the Son, in the Spirit. At which time it was observed, that no man could discern what form the Bishop used, because he would not alienate either party. So they communicated with Arrians, but not in Arrianism; with heretics, but not in Heresy. Take another instance, the Catholics and Novatians did communicate and meet together in the same Assemblies. Illo autem tempore parum aberat quin Novatiani & Catholici penitus conspirassent. 
Soz●m. l 4 ●. 19  Name eade● de Deo sentientes, communiter ab Arrianis agitati, in similibus calamitatibus constituti, se mu●ua complecti benevolentia, in unum convenire, pariter orare caeperunt. And further, decreverunt deinceps inter se communicare. At that time it wanted little that the Novatians and Catholics did not altogether conspire in one; for having both the same Faith concerning God, suffering the same persecution from the Arrians, and being both involved in the same calamities, they began to love one another, to assemble together, and to pray together; And they decreed from that time forward to communicate one with another. The primitive Catholics thought it no Schism to communicate with Novatians, that is with Schismatics, so long as they did not communicate with them in their Novatianism, that is, in their Schism. Have the English Protestants matriculated themselves into their congregational Assemblies? Have they justified the unwarrantable intrusion of themselves into sacred Functions, without a lawful calling from Christ or his Church? Or their dispensing the greatest mysteries of religion with unwashen, or it may be, with bloody hands? As for communicating with them in a schismatical Liturgy, it is impossible; they have no Liturgy at all, but account it a stinting of the Spirit. And for the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ, it is hard to say whether the use of it among them be rarer in most places, or the congregations thinner. But where the ministers are unqualified, or the form of Administration is erroneous in essentials, or sinful duties are obtruded as necessary parts of God's service, the English Protestants know how to abstain from their communion, let the Roman Catholics look to themselves; for many say (let the Faith be with the authors) that sundry of the Sons of their own Church, have been greater sticklers in their private Conventicles and public Assemblies, than many Protestants.  
Secondly, I deny his assumption (that the Church of England doth join in communion of Sacraments and public Prayers with any Schismatics. What my thoughts are of those whom he terms Puritan and Independants, 
The Church- of England doth not communicate with Schismatics.  they will not much regard, nor doth it concern the cause in question. Many Mushroom Sects may be sprung up lately in the world which I know not, and posterity will know them much less, like those misshapen creatures which were produced out of the slime of Nilus by the heat of the Sun, which perished soon after they were generated for want of fit organs. Therefore I pass by them, to that which is more material. If the Church of England have joined in Sacraments and public Prayers with Schismatics, let him show it out of her Liturgy, or out of her Articles, or out of her Canons and constitutions, for by these she speaks unto us. Or let him show that any genuine son of hers by her injunction, or direction, or approbation, did ever communicate with Schismatics: or that her principles are such as do justify or warrant Schism, or lead men into a communion with Schismatics: otherwise then thus a national Church cannot communicate with Schismatics. If to make Canons and Constitutions against Schismatics be to cherish them: If to punish their Conventicles and clandestine meetings be to frequent them: If to oblige all her sons who enter into holy Orders, or are admitted to care of souls, to have no communion with them, be to communicate with them, than the Church of England is guilty of communicating with Schismatics, or otherwise not.  
But I conceive that by the English Church he intends particular persons of our communion. If so, then by his favour he deserts the cause, and altars the state of the question. Let himself be judge whether this consequence be good or not. Sundry English Protestants are lately turned Romish Proselytes; therefore the Church of England is turned Roman Catholic. A Church may be Orthodox and Catholic, and yet sundry within its communion be heretics or Schismatics or both. 
1 Cor. 1.2. 11. c. 15: 12.  The Church of Corinth was a true Church of God, yet there wanted not Schismatics and heretics among them. The Churches of Galatia had many among them, who mixed circumcision and the works of the Law with the faith of Christ. The Church of Pergamos was a true Church, yet they had Nicholaitans among them, and those that held the doctrine of Balaam. The Church of Thyatira had a Preaching jesabel that seduced the servants of God. 
Rev 2.14 15.20.   
But who are these English Protestants that communicate so freely with Schismatics? Nay he names none. We must take it upon his word. Are they peradventure the greater and the sounder part of the English Church? Neither the one nor the other. Let him look into our Church, and see how many of our principal Divines have lost their Dignities and Benefices, only because they would not take a schismatical Covenant, without any other relation to the Wars. Let him take a view of our Universities, and see how few of our old Professors, or Rectors and Fellows of Colleges he finds left therein. God said of the Church of Israel, that he had reserved to himself seven thousand that had not bowed their knees unto Baal. I hope I may say of the Church of England, that there are not only seven thousand, but seventy times seven thousand that mourn in secret, and wish their heads were waters and their eyes fountain of tears, that they might weep day and night for the devastation and desolation of the City of their God.  
And if that hard weapon Necessity have enforced any (perhaps with an intention to do good or prevent evil) to comply further than was meet, I do not doubt but they pray with Naman, The Lord be merciful to me in this thing. Suppose that some Persons of the English Communion do go sometimes to their meetings, it may be out of conscience to hear a Sermon; it may be out of curiosity as men go to see May games, or Monsters at Fairs; it may be that they may be the better able to confute them; As St. Paul went into their heathenish Temples at Athens, and viewed their Altars and read their Inscriptions, yet without any approbation of their Idolatrous devotions. Is this to communicate with Schismatics, or what doth this concern the Church of England?  

CHAP. 1. A Reply to the first Chapter of the Survey.  
HOw this Chapter comes to be called a Survey of the first Chapter of my vindication, 
Sect. 1.  I do not understand, unless it be by an antiphrasis the contrary way, because he doth not survey it. If it had not been for the title, and one passage therein, I should not have known whither to have referred it. In the first place he taxeth me for an omission, that I tell not Why the objection of Schism seemeth more forcible against the English Church then the objection of Heresy. And to supply my supposed defect he is favourably pleased to set it down himself. The true reason whereof (saith he) is because Heresy is a matter of doctrine, which is not so evident as the matter of Schism, which is a visible matter of fact, namely a visible separation in communion of Sacraments and public worship of God. I confess I did not think of producing reasons before the question was stated; but if he will needs have it to be thus, before we inquire why it is so, we ought first to inquire whether it be so; 
Objections against the Church of England in point of Schism are colourable, not forcible.  for my part I do not believe that either their objections in point of Heresy or in point of Schism, are so forcible against the Church of England. So he would have me to give a reason of a non entity, which hath neither reason nor being. All that I said was this, that there is nothing more colourably objected to the Church of England, at first sight, to Strangers unacquainted with our affairs, or to such Natives as have looked but superficially upon the case, than Schism. Here are three restrictions, Colourabley, at first sight, to Strangers. Colourably, that is, not forcibly, nor yet so much as truly. He who doubteth of it, may do well to try if he can warm his hands at a Glowe-worm. At first sight, that is, not by force, but rather by deception of the sight. So fresh water Seamen at first sight think the shore leaves them, terraeque urbesque recedunt; but straightways they find their error, that it is they who leave the shore. To Strangers, etc. that is, to unskilful Judges. A true diamond and a counterfeit do seem both alike to an unexperienced person. Strangers did believe easily the Athenian fables of Bulls and Minotaures in Crete. But the Crecians knew better that they were but fictitious devises. The seeming strength lieth not in the objections themselves, but in the incapacity of the Judges.  
But to his reason, the more things are remote from the matter and devested of all circumstances of time and place and persons, the more demonstrable they are; that is the reason why Mathematicians do boast that their Principles are so evident, that they do not persuade but compel men to believe. Yet in the matter of fact, and in the application of these evident rules, where every particular circumstance doth require a new consideration, how easily do they err? in so much as let twenty Geometricians measure over the same plot of ground, hardly two of them shall agree exactly. So it seemeth that an error in point of doctrine may be more easily and more evidently convinced, than an error in matter of fact. He saith the separation is visible. True; but whether the separation be criminous, whether party made the first separation, whether there was just cause of separation, whether side gave the cause, whether the Keys did err in separating, whether there was not a former separation of the one party from the pure primitive Church, which produced the second separation, whether they who separated themselves or others without just cause, do err invincibly, or not, whether they be ready to submit themselves to the sentence of the Catholic Church, is not so easy to be discerned. How many separations have sprung about elections, or jurisdiction, or precedency, all which Rites are most intricate, and yet the knowledge of the Schism depends altogether upon them. This Surveier himself confesseth, That a Church may be really heretical or schismatical, and yet morally a true Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of her Heresy or Schism, in which case it is no Schism, but a necessary duty to separate from her. In this very case proposed by himself, I desire to know how it is so easy by the only view of the separation, to judge or conclude of the Schism.  
But the true ground why Schism is more probably objected to the Church of England than Heresy, is a false but prejudicated opinion, That the Bishop of Rome is the right Patriarch of Britain, That we deserted him, and that the differences between us are about patriarchal Rites; all which with sundry other such like mistaken grounds, are evidently cleared to be otherwise in the vindication. This is all that concerns my first Chapter. The rest is voluntary.  
The next thing observable in his Survey is, that Protestants confess that they have separated themselves not only from the Roman Church, but also from all other Christian Churches in the communion of the Sacraments and public worship of God: And that no cause but necessity of salvation can justify such a separation from the crime of Schism. And it must needs seem hard to prove that it was necessary for the salvation of Protestants, to make such a separation from all Churches in the World: As if there had been no Christian Church, in whose communion in Sacraments they could find salvation, whence it will follow, that at that time there was no true Church of God upon earth. For proof of the first point, That Protestants have separated from all Christian Churches, he produceth Calvin, Chillingworth, and a treatise of his own.  
It were to be wished that Professors of Theology would not cite their testimonies upon trust, where the Authors themselves may easily be had, 
Author's ought to be cited fully and faithfully.  (only impossibility is stronger than necessity, as the spartan Boy once answered the old Senator after the laconical manner,) and that they would cite their Authors fully and faithfully, not by halves, without adding to or new moulding their authorities according to their own fancies or interest. It may seem ludicrous, but it was a sad truth of a noble English Gentleman, sent Ambassador into foreign parts, and with him an honourable Espy under the notion of a Companion, by whom he was accused at his return to have spoken such and such things, at such and such times. The Gentleman pleaded ingenuously for himself, that it might be he had spoken some of those things, or it might be all those things, but never any one of them in that order, nor in that sense. I have, said he, several Suits of apparel, of purple cloth, of green Velvet, of white and black Satin. If one should put my two purple Sleeves to my green velvet Doublet, and make my Hose the one of white Satin, the other of black, and then swear that it was my apparel; they who did not know me, might judge me a strange man. To disorder authority, to contract or enlarge them, to misapply them besides the scope, contrary to the sense of the Author, is not more discommendable than common. I have seen large volumes containing some hundreds of controversies (as was pretended) between Protestants and Papists: And among them all not above five or six that I could own; as if they desired that the whole woven Coat of Christ should be torn more insunder than it is, or that they might have the honour to conquer so many fictious Monsters of their own making. I have seen authorities mangled and misapplied, just like the Ambassadors clothes, so as the right Authors would hardly have been able to know them. So much prejudice and partiality, and an habit of alteration, is able to do like a tongue infected with Choler, which makes the sweetest meats to taste bitter, or like coloured glass, which makes every object we see through it to appear of the same colour.  
Wherefore I do entreat R. C. to save himself and me and the Reader so much labour and trouble for the future, by forbearing to charge the private errors or opinions of particular persons (it skilleth not much whether) upon the Church of England, the most of which were mere strangers to our affairs, and many of them died before controversies were rightly stated or truly understood, for none of which the Church of England is any way obliged to be responsable. And likewise by forbearing to make so many empty references, to what he believes or pretends to have proved in some of his other books. See the Author of the Protestant Religion: See the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals: See the sufficient proposer of faith: See the Protestants plain confession: See the Flowers of the English Church: See the Epistle to King James: See the prudential Balance: See the collation of Scripture. To what end can this serve, but either to divert us from the question we have in hand? or to amuse the Reader and put him into a belief of some great achievements which he hath made elsewhere, or to excuse his present defects, upon pretence of large supplies and recruits which he hath ready in another place, but where the Reader cannot come to see them? And what if the Reader have them not to see, as it is my condition in present? What am I or he the worse? If he see no more in some of them, than I have seen heretofore, he will see a great many of mistated and mistaken questions, a great many of Logomachies or contentions about words, a great many of private errors produced as common principles of Protestants, a great many of authors cited contrary to their genuine sense and meaning, and very little that is material towards the discussion of this or any other question.  

Protestants contesse no separation from the universal Church. I'll c. 3 p. 132.  Just as Master Chillingworth is cited here to prove, That Protestants have separated themselves in communion of Sacraments, and public service of God, not only from the Roman Church, but also from all other Christian Churches in the World, which is not only contrary to his sense, but also contrary to his very words in the place alleged. It is not all one (saith he) though you perpetually confound them, to forsake the error of the Church, and to forsake the Church, or to forsake the Church in her errors, and simply to forsake the Church, etc. The former then was done by Protestants, the later was not done. Nay not only not from the Catholic Church, but not so much as from the Roman, did they separate per omnia, but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious. Not only from the Roman Church, but from also all other Christian Churches in the world, 
c. 1 s. 1.  saith R.C. Not only not from the Catholic Church, but not so much as from the Roman Church, saith Mr. Chillingworth. In communion of Sacraments and public worship of God, saith R. C. Only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious, saith Mr. Chillingworth.  
But because there is no question wherein they study more to blunder and trouble the water, and to involve themselves in dark Clouds of obscure generalities; I will do my endeavour to distinguish that which is deceitful and confused, and represent the naked truth to the eyes of the Reader. 
Nor from the Roman, but only in her errors.  First I acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a true Christian Church in that sense that I have declared, that is metaphysically, because it still reteins all the essentials of a true Church. To have separated from it in any of these, had been either formal Heresy, or formal Schism, or both. But we have retained all these as much as themselves, and much more purely than themselves: For it may seem doubtful whether some of their superstitious additions, do not virtually overthrow some of the fundamentals of Religion. But with us there is no such danger.  
Secondly, I acknowledge that, besides the Essentials of Christian Religion, the Church of Rome reteins many other truths of an inferior nature, in Doctrine, in Discipline, in Sacraments, and many lawful and laudable Practices and Observations. To have separated from these, had been at least material Schism, unless the Church of Rome should obtrude them upon other Churches as necessary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion, and so presume to change the ancient Creed, which was deposited with the Church by the Apostles, as the common Badge and Cognisance of all Christians for all succeeding Generations.  
Thirdly, It is agreed that one may not, one must not separate himself from the communion of a true Christian Church, for the vices or faults of particular Persons in point of manners. We may not leave the Lords Field because there are Tares, nor his Floor because there is Chaff, nor his House because there are Vessels of dishonour, nor his College because there was a judas.  
Fourthly, Some errors and abuses are not simply sinful in themselves, but to those that did first introduce them, to those who maintain and practise them for ambitious or avaricious ends they are sinful. These are pressures and grievances to the Christian Flock, rather than sins. They suffer under the burden of them, but they are innocent from the guilt of them. And so reum facit Superiorem iniquitas imperandi, innocentem subditum ordo serviendi. A Superior may sin in his commands, and yet his Subject be innocent in his obedience. These are no just cause of separation to a private Christian, Charity covers a multitude of sins. 
1. P●t 4. 8.  But they are just cause of Reformation to a national Church or a Synod.  
Fiftly, There are some errors in disputable points, and some abuses are mere excesses without guilt, rather blemishes than sins: And for these alone no man ought to separate himself from a Christian Society; or abandon a true Church for trivial dissensions. Our duty in such a case is to pray and persuade, without troubling the peace of the Church, and to leave the rest to God. Let us therefore as many as be perfect, 
Phillip 3 15.  be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.  
Lastly, We affirm that in the superstructions of Christian Religion, the Church of Rome hath added and mixed sundry errors and abuses of greater consequence, and sinful innovations, in point of Doctrine, and Discipline, and administration of the Sacraments, and Feasts, and Fasts, etc. This we are ready to maintain. Neither doth she only profess and practise these errors and abuses, which perhaps by some persons at some times might be separated without a separation; but she obtrudes them upon all others as essential Truths and necessary Articles. She injoins sundry of them as a condition of her Communion. She commands all Christians to believe and practise them under pain of damnation; and whosoever refuseth, she casteth them out of her society. Such is their new Creed in point of Faith, directly contrary to the Canon of the general Council of Ephesus. Such is the Pope's Supremacy of power in point of Discipline, expressly contrary to the determinations of the Counsels of Constance and Basile. Such is the adoration of the species of Bread and Wine, the detention of the Cup from the People, their unknown langguage, etc. in the administration of the Sacraments, and in the public service of God. From these sinful duties thus enjoined as necessary, all men ought to separate. Lawful authority of man may oblige one to suffer, but no authority of man can warrant or oblige one to do sinful duties. Such a cause justifies a separation, until the abuse be reform for which the separation was made. And being thus separated from sinful Innovations, it may be lawful or convenient to reform lesser errors, which were not of such dangerous consequence, nor had been a sufficient cause of separation of themselves.  
But here I must advertise the Reader of a double manner of expression, used by English Protestants concerning this separation. They agree that the Roman Church retaineth the Essentials of a true Church. They agree that she hath introduced errors and abuses into Christian Religion. They agree that she obtrudes sinful Innovations as necessary conditions of her Communion. They agree that the separation is only from these errors and abuses, and are ready to return to a Communion, when these errors and abuses are removed. So in effect they say the very same thing, neither more nor less. But because these errors and abuses are inherent in their Confessions. Liturgy, and forms of administration of holy Sacraments; therefore some say that they are separated from the external communion of the Roman Church. And because these errors and abuses are but adventicious & accidently inherent, and may be, and aught to be removed; therefore others say that their separation is not from the Communion of the Roman Church, as it was, and may be, and aught to be, but only from the errors and abuses. The one speaks simply and absolutely from the errors and abuses: The others speak respectively, and secundum quid, from the external communion of the Roman Church, that is, so far as it is corrupted by these errors and abuses, and not further, and so in sense they say the very same thing.  
And therefore it is mere sophistry and a groundless cavil to argue from their separation from errors, to their separation from truths, and from their separation in abuses, to their separation in the Sacraments themselves. Suppose one who is appointed to minister diet to another, will give him nothing but poisonous meats, And he knowing it, will not receive it; tell me who is the refuser, he that will not eat poison, or he that will not give him healthful food? The Roman Catholics do profess themselves to be as loyal to their Sovereign, as any of his best Subjects. And that they are as ready as any others to give assurance of it by oath. Yet they say there are some clauses inserted in the form prescribed, which they may not, they dare not take. If any man should accuse them hereupon, to have deserted the communion of the English Monarchy in point of loyalty, they would be angry, and they had good reason for it. Upon the same equity let them forbear to accuse us of leaving the communion of their Church in Sacraments, when we only left their abuses. Distinguish between old institutions and new errors, and the case is clear.  

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

It is necessary to Salvation to forsake known errors.  He urgeth that nothing but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation (as he hath fancied to himself) from the crime of Schism. Let it be so●● He might have spared his Authors in the margin to prove it. His defect lies on the other side. Doth not he think it necessary to Salvation for every man so far as he can to escheu deadly sin? Or thinks he that a man may live securely in known errors, contrary to the dictate of his Conscience, without any prejudice to Salvation? This was our condition. But yet there was Salvation to be had in the Church of Rome. So it was not necessary to Salvation to make such a separation. A strange consequence, just like this other, God hath mercy in store for sinners, therefore it is not necessary to Salvation to forsake sin. God's extraordinary mercy is one thing; our duty another. Because his compassion is great, towards his poor Creatures that offend out of invincible ignorance, is it therefore not necessary to Salvation for those who are convinced of their errors, to follow the commandment of God, and the light of their own Conscience? This is so evident that it admits no doubt.  
He adds, That we separated ourselves not only from the Roman Church, but from all Christian Churches in the World, as if there had been no Christian Church in the World, in whose communion we could find Salvation, whence it will follow that at that time in their conceits, there was no true Church upon Earth. This he inculcates over and over in several places, according to his manner. And in his ninth Chapter and fifth Section, 
C. 9 Sect. 5  he triumpheth in it, where he endeavours to prove out of Calvine, and Chillingworth, and Doctor Potter, that Protestants separated themselves from the whole World. That is, as he expresseth himself in other places, from all Christian Churches. And particularly, from the Roman, Grecian, Armenian, and Aethiopian Church, and all other ancient Churches, whatsoever. If it be so, than he may truly call us Penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos. Of the Roman Church in particular, and how that possibility of Salvation in any Church, is not in true reason impeditive of its just reformation, we have already spoken sufficiently. It remaineth to give an answer concerning our separation from these Eastern Churches. 
Our reformation no separation  Our particular reformation cannot be said to be any separation from them. For they do neither pretend to be the Catholic or universal Church, as the Roman doth, nor challenge any jurisdiction over the Britannic Churches, as the Court of Rome doth, neither do we deny them the right of Christian Churches, or the right hand of fellowship. In coordinate Churches, 
2 Gal 9  whereof one is not subordinate to another, some Churches reforming themselves, and not censuring or condemning others which are unreformed, whilst they preserve their duty entire to the Ecumenical Church, and its representative a general Council, do not separate from other Churches, but from their own errors. In a large garden suppose there should be many quarters, some weeded, some unweeded, there is indeed a separation of the Plants from the Weeds in the same quarters, but no separation of one quarter from another. Or if a man shall purge out of himself corrupted humours, he doth not thereby separate himself from other persons, whose bodies are unpurged. It is true, that such weeding and purging doth produce a distinction, between the quarters weeded, and the quarters unweeded, and between Bodies purged and Bodies unpurged. But either they stand in no such need of weeding or purging, or it is their own fault who do not weed or purge when they have occasion. If they will needs misconstrue our lawful reformation, to be an unlawful and uncharitable separation, how can we help it? We have separated from no Eastern, Southern, Northern, or Western Church. Our Article tells them the same, 
A●t 30.  either let them produce some Act of ours, which makes or implies such a separation, or let them hold their peace for ever.  
But all this noise proceeds from hence, that R. C. conceives that we will no more join with those Eastern Churches, or any of them, in their Creeds, in their Liturgies or public forms of serving God, nor communicate with them in their Sacraments, than we do with the Church of Rome. If we communicate not with the Roman Church in some things, it is not our faults. It is not their serving of God, 
Lawful to communicate with the Eastern Churches.  nor their Sacraments that we dislike, but their disservice of God, and corrupting of the holy Sacraments. But for these Grecian, Russian, Armenian, and Abissine Churches, I find gross superstitions objected to some of them, but not proved. I find some inusitate expressions about some mysteries which are scarcely intelligible or explicable, as the procession of the holy Ghost, and the Union of the two natures in Christ, which are not frequently used among us, but I believe their sense to be the same with ours. The Grecians do acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son. And all the other Churches are ready to accurse the errors both of Nestorius and E●tyches.  
But that which satisfies me is this, that they exact of no man, nor obtrude upon him any other Creed, or new Articles of Faith then the Apostolical, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, with the explications, of the general Counsels of Ephesiu, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, all which we readily admit, and use daily in our Liturgy. If the Church of Rome would rest where they do, we might well have disputable questions between us, but no breach of unity in point of Faith. Likewise in point of discipline, all these Churches ascribe no more to the Pope than a primacy of Order, no supremacy of Power or universal Jurisdiction. They make a general Council, with or without the Pope's suffrage, to be the highest Ecclesiastical tribunal. Let the Romanists rest where they do rest, and all our controversies concerning Ecclesiastical discipline will fall to the ground. Thirdly, they have their Liturgy in a language understood, they administer the Sacrament in both kinds to all Christians. They do not themselves adore, much less compel others to adore the species of Bread and Wine. Howsoever they have a kind of elevation. They have no new matter and form, no tradition of the paten and chalice in Presbyterian ordination, but only imposition of hands. They know no new Sacrifice, but the commemoration, representation, and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse. Just as we believe. Let the Romanists but imitate their moderation, and we shall straight come to join in Communion, in Sacraments, and Sacramentals also. Yet these are the three essentials of Christian Religion, Faith, Sacraments, and Discipline. So little ground had R. C. to tell us, that we had separated ourselves from all Christian Churches in the World.  
But Calvin saith, 
Calv. ep●st. 141.  we have been forced to make a separation from all the world. Admit he did say so, What will he conclude from hence that the Church of England did the same? This consequence will never be made good without a transubstantiation of Mr. Calvin into the English Church. He himself knoweth better that we honour Calvin for his excellent parts, but we do not pin our Religion either in Doctrine, or Discipline, or Liturgy to calvin's sleeve. Whether Calvin said so or not, for my part I cannot think otherwise but that he did so in point of Discipline, until some body will be favourably pleased to show me one form national, or provincial Church throughout the world, before Geneva, that wanted Bishops, or one lay Elder that exercised Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Christendom. I confess the Fratres Bohemi had not the name of Bishops, but they wanted not the order of Bishops under the name of Seniores or Elders, who had both Episcopal Ordination (after their Presbyterian) & Episcopal Jurisdiction, and Episcopal Succession from the Bishops of the Waldenses, who had continued in the Church under other names, time immemotiall, and gave them charge at their Reformation (long before Luther's time) to preserve that Order. All which themselves have published to the World in private. 
Ratio ordinis & discipline Fratrum Bohemo rum.  I confess likewise that they had their lay Elders under the name of Presbyteri, from whence Mr. Calvin borrowed his. But theirs in Bohemia pretended not to be Ecclesiastical Commissioners, nor did, nor durst ever presume to meddle with the power of the keys, or exercise any Jurisdiction in the Church. They were only inferior Officers, neither more nor less than our Churchwardens and Sidemen in England. 
ibid.  This was far enough from ruling Elders. Howsoever what doth this concern the Church of England, which never made, nor maintained, nor approved any such separation?  

Calvin no enemy to Episcopacy.  No more did Calvin himself out of judgement, but out of necessity to comply with the present estate of Geneva, after the expulsion of their Bishop. As might be made appear, if it were needful, by his public profession of their readiness to receive such Bishops as the primitive Bishops were, or otherwise that they were to be reputed nullo non anathemate digni. 
Epist. ad Mart. Schaling.  By his subscription to the Augustane confession, which is for Epicopacy, cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi. 
Epl. ad Reg. Polo mae.  By his confession to the King of Polonia. The ancient Church instituted Patriarchater, and assigned primacy to single Provinces, that Bishops might be better knit together in the bond of unity. By his description of the charge of a Bishop that should join himself to the reformed Church, to do his endeavour, 
Calv. ep. Impres. Gen. an. 1570. pag. 340.  that all the Churches within his Bishopric be purged from Errors and Idolatry, to go before the Curates (or Pastors) of his Diocese by his example, and to induce them to admit the Reformation. And lastly by his letters to Archbishop Cranmer, the Bishop of London, and a Bishop of Polonia.  
I have searched the hundred one and fortieth Epistle, and for fear of failing, the hundred and one and fortieth page also in my edition, but I do neither find any such confession, nor remember any such, nor find any thing like it in the place cited, except peradventure he mean this, that Calvine, justifying Episcopacy and condemning the Papacy, 
Ep. ad. R. Polon.  hath these words, It is one thing to receive moderate honour, such as man is capable of, and another thing to rule the whole World, that is, as the Pope would do. Calvine speaks of the Pope's ambitious, affectation of an universal Empire, not of his just right or possession. I hope he doth not presently separate from all Christian Churches, who separates from the Pope, because the Pope pretends an universal Jurisdiction. Thus it is, when men make their own collections to be other men's confessions. But supposing that Calvine had said any such thing, it must be understood Synechdochically of the Western Churches, the whole, for a part, as they say at Paris, le Mond de Paris, the World of Paris. or as a Father said, The World mourned and wondered to see itself turned Arrian. 
4 Inst. c. 18. sect. 18.  But Calvine said further, That the Idolatrous Mass had possessed all Kings and People from the first to the last. This confirms the former exposition, all Kings and People, that is in these Occidental parts of Christendom. Certainly Calvine did not dream of the Duke of Muscovia, or Prester john, much less of the great Turk, or Sophy of Persia, within whose territories most of these Churches are. They have Masses indeed, but no adoration of the Elements, and consequently no Idolatrous Masses, which Calvine disliked.  
Perhaps he will speed better with Doctor Potter's testimony. To let R. C. see plainly what credit is to be given to such citations, 
Doctor Potter cleared.  I will reduce his argument out of Doctor Potter to a syllogism. All separation from the universal Church is schismatical, but Protestants confess that their separation is from the universal Church. His proposition is proved out of Doctor Potter Sect. 3. p. 74. 
Ch. 9 Sect. 5.  This is true. Doctor Potter's words are these, There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himself. His assumption is proved out of Doctor Potter Sect. 2. p. 48. Some separation (voluntary) from all visible Churches doth not exclude from Heaven. If Protestants lie open to the lash, 
Ibid:  and have no better memories, it is an easy matter to confute them out of their own confessions, or rather let the Reader judge what credit is to be given to such citations. Doctor Potter's words are these, If separation, such as hath been said, from all visible Churches, do not exclude from Heaven. 
Sect. 2. p. 49.  First, R. C. omits these words such as hath been said, which words quite destroy his proof. The separation whereof he speaks there, is only external, not internal, from all particular visible Churches, not from the universal Church. His words are these, A man may be a true visible Member of the holy Catholic Church who is not actually (otherwise then in vow) a Member of any true visible Church. The instances or cases which he produceth are two, the one of a man unjustly excommunicated clave-errante, who is not in the actual external communion of any Particular Church, yet if he communicate in desire, 
●el l 2. de Eccl M●l c 6. Aust de Ve●. Re●. c. 6.  sufficit ei ad salutem, it is sufficient to save him, which he proves out of Bellarmine and St. Austin and others. Neither will R.C. himself deny it. The other instance is of Tertullian, who in his later days did fall off from the Catholics, out of an indiscrete piety, why may we not hope that God pardoned the errors of his honest zeal? And herein also he hath the consent, and concurrence of R. C. himself. That they who err invincibly, and hold the truth implicitly do want neither Church, nor Faith, nor Salvation. What do these cases concern the present controversy? Not at all.  
And as R. C. subtracts, so he adds the word voluntary upon his own head, which is not in Doctor Potter. He who is excommunicated unjustly, is not excommunicated with his good will. Tertullian did not wilfully run into error. Ignorance destroys liberty in many cases, as well as force. Doctor Potter speaks only of such who are in vote, in their desires, or willingly within the communion of the Church, and declares the contrary expressly, 
Ibid.  that voluntary and ungrounded separation from the Catholic Communion is without doubt a damnable Schism.  
Lastly, Doctor Potter speaks not of the ordinary way of Salvation, but of God's extraordinary mercy, Why may we not hope that God pardoned the errors of his honest zeal? Cannot God pardon formal, much more material Schism, and convert a Schismatic at the last gasp, if it please him? The primitive Church refused to receive some sorts of offenders to their actual communion, and yet left them to the mercy of God for their Salvation.  

And Master Chillingwo●●h  But his chiefest testimonies, are taken out of Master Chillingworth c. 5. p. 273. That Protestants did forsake the external communion of the visible Church. And p. 274. Master Knott objecting, that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted, Luther forsaking the external communion of the corrupted Church, could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholic Church. Master Chillingworth answers, Let this be granted. And p. 291. It is not improbable that it may be lawful and noble for one man to oppose (in Faith) the World. I answer first, that by external communion, Master Chillingworth meant nothing but errors in the external communion, and by the visible Church a considerable part of the visible Church. Hear himself, 
p 245.  Indeed that Luther and his followers, left off the practice of those corruptions, wherein the whole visible Church did communicate formerly, (which I meant, when I acknowledged above that they forsook the external communion of the visible Church) or that they left that part of the visible Church in her corruption, which would not be reform. These things if you desire, I shall be willing to grant; and that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part, he might be said to forsake the visible Church, that is, a part of it, and the greater part. But that properly speaking, he forsook the whole visible Church, I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this. And he gives this reason, because a great part of the Church joined with Luther. He might have added a stronger reason as I think, that Luther's first quarrel with the Pope was about Indulgences, and the Supremacy, etc. wherein Luther did not desert, but join in communion with the much greater part of the visible Church. If afterwards Luther fell upon other questions, not so agreeable to the Eastern Church, yet they were no Articles of the Creed, nor necessary points of Christian Religion. The same interpretation he gives elsewhere, The first reformers as well as the Donatists, 
p. 312.  etc. opposed the commands of the visible Church, that is, of a great part of it.  
Secondly I answer, that what is said of the universal corruption of the visible Church, is not delivered positively, but doubtfully, and upon supposition, not grounded upon any matter of fact, 
p. 191.  It is not improbable, and if we were put to our oaths, we should surely testify no such thing for you, which words do follow immediately in the place formerly cited. And in another place, neither to suppose a visible Church, before Luther which did not err, is to contradict this ground of Doctor Potters, that the Church may err, unless you will have us believe that may be and must be is all one, and that all which may be true, is true. Neither Doctor Potter nor Master Chillingworth did ever maintain a separation from the whole Christian World in any one thing, 
6.5 p. 273.  but from some Churches in one thing, from some in another, not necessary to Salvation, wherein they dissented one from another. That which is one and the same in all places, 
Te●t.  is no error, but delivered by Christ and his Apostles. Saint Austin gives not much more latitude, That which the whole Church holds, and was not instituted by Counsels, but always retained, is rightly esteemed to have been delivered by apostolical authority. 
L. 4 Cont. Don c. 23. c. 5. P. 302.  Let Master Chillingworth be his own interpreter, It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole World, another to separate from all the Communions in the World, one thing to divide from them who are united among themselves, another to divide from them, who are divided among themselves. The Donatists separated from the whole Christian World united, but Luther and his followers did not so. In all this, here is not a word against the Church of England, nor any thing material against any particular Protestant. A perfect harmony and unanimity were to be wished in the universal Church, but scarcely to be hoped for (until this mortal hath put on immortality) in all disputable questions. 
As great differences among the Romanists as between them and the Eastern Churches, or us.  The Romanists have no such perfect unity in their own Church, perhaps as many real differences, as there are between us and the Grecians, or between us and themselves, but only they are pleased to nickname the one Heresies, and to honour the other with the title of Scholastical questions. 
C. 1. S. 13.  Our communicating with Schismatics hath been already answered.  
In the latter part of this Chapter, 
Sect. 2.  he chargeth me with four faults at a time, able to break a back of Steel, first, That I endeavour to clear the English Protestant Church from Schism, but not other Protestant Churches. I do not understand exactly the history of their reformation, nor the Laws and Privileges of foreign particular Churches, qui pauca considerat facile pronuntiat, he that considereth few circumstances giveth the sentence easily, but seldom justly. He addeth, That either it argues little charity in me, or little skill to defend them. And elsewhere he instanceth in the Scotish and French Huguenots, 
c. 2. s. 3.  and layeth down the reason of my silence, because I condemn them as Schismatics, for wanting that Episcopacy, which I require as essentially necessary to a Catholic Church. In the mean time let him remember what it is to raise discord and make variance, Prov. 6.16. If the want of Episcopacy were my only reason, why do I not defend the Bohemian Brethren, the Danish, Swedish, and some Germane Protestants, all which have Bishops? But because he presseth me so much, I will give him a further account of myself in this particular than I intended, or am obliged.  

Wh●th●r all those be Schismatics who want Bishops.  I confess I do not approve tumultuary reformations made by a giddy ignorant multitude according to the dictates of a seditious Orator. But withal I must tell him that God would not permit evil, but that he knows how to extract good out of evil. And that he often useth ill agents to do his own works. Yea even to reform his Church. jehu was none of the best men, yet God used him to purge his Church, and to take away the Priests of Baal. The treason of judas became subservient to the secret counsels of God, for the redemption of the World by the Cross and Passion of Christ. I do also acknowledge that Episcopacy was comprehended in the Apostolic office tanquam trigonus in tetragono, and that the distinction was made by the Apostles with the approbation of Christ. That the Angels of the seven Churches in the Revelation, were seven Bishops; that it is the most silly ridiculous thing in the World to calumniate that for a papal innovation, which was established in the Church before there was a Pope at Rome; which hath been received and approved in all ages since the very Cradle of Christianity, by all sorts of Christians, Europeans, Africans, asiatics, Indians, many of which never had any intercourse with Rome, nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome. If semper ubique & ab omnibus be not a sufficient plea, I know not what is.  
But because I esteem them Churches not completely form, do I therefore exclude them from all hope of salvation? or esteem them aliens and strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel? or account them formal Schismatics? No such thing. First, I know there are many learned Persons among them, who do passionately affect Episcopacy; some of which have acknowledged to myself, that their Church would never be rightly settled until it was new moulded. Baptism is a Sacrament, the door of Christianity, a matriculation into the Church of Christ: Yet the very desire of it in case of necessity, is sufficient to excuse from the want of actual Baptism. And is not the desire of Episcopacy sufficient to excuse from the actual want of Episcopacy in like case of necessity? Or should I censure these as Schismatics?  
Secondly, There are others who though they do not long so much for Episcopacy, yet they approve it, and want it only out of invincible necessity. In some places the Sovereign Prince is of another Communion; the Episcopal Chairs are filled with Romish Bishops. If they should petition for Bishops of their own, it would not be granted. In other places the Magistrates have taken away Bishops, whether out of policy, because they thought that Regiment not so proper for their Republics, or because they were ashamed to take away the Revenues, and preserve the Order, or out of a blind Zeal, they have given an account to God: they owe none to me. Should I condemn all these as Schismatics for want of Episcopacy, who want it out of invincible necessity?  
Thirdly, There are others who have neither the same desires, nor the same esteem of Episcopacy, but condemn it as an Antichristian Innovation, and a Rag of Popery. I conceive this to be most gross Schism materially. It is ten times more schismatical to desert; nay to take away (so much as lies in them) the whole order of Bishops, than to subtract obedience from one lawful Bishop. All that can be said to mitigate this fault is, that they do it ignorantly, as they have been mistaught and misinformed. And I hope that many of them are free from obstinacy, and hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds, being ready to receive it, when God shall reveal it to them. How far this may excuse (not the crime but) their persons from formal Schism, either a toto or a tanto, I determine not, but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master.  
But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely, 
The Romanists no fit persons to object Schism to Protestants.  yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it, whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Reformation of the western Church. Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopal Jurisdiction, and the power of ordaining and confirming; but the Court of Rome, by their commissions and delegations, for avaricious ends? And could they think that the world would believe, that necessity is not as strong and effectual a dispensation as their mercicinary Bulls? It is not at all material, whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct Order, or distinct degrees of the same Order, the one subordinate to the other; whether Episcopal ordination do introduce a new Character or extend the old. For it is generally confessed by both parties, Protestants and Roman Catholics, that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a Character, or grace given by ordination, which is required to the institution of a Sacrament, that is not humane, but divine. These avaricious practices of that Court, (though it be not commonly observed) were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiastical Discipline, which do now so much disturb the peace of the Church.  
The second fault which he imputeth to me is, That I endeavour to clear the English Church from Schism only in relation to the Church of Rome, not to all other Churches. It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this. For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches, 
c 2. s 6.  but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads, or so many Packs of Heretics and Schismatics. making the Roman Church and the Catholic Church to be Convertibles. Secondly, it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt, to make a defence before we were accused. None of those Churches, nor any body else that ever I heard of, hath accused us for deserting them, before R. C. and he hath received his answer. 
5. c. 2. s. 8.  If it had been needful, the Church of Rome had saved us that labour by excommunicating them, before hand. I only wish more intelligence between us and them.  
My third fault is, 
The Church of England had better grounds than personal faults of Popes.  That I endeavour principally to justify our separation from the Roman Church, for the personal faults of Popes. And my fourth fault is, That I justify our separation from the Court of Rome for their evil manners. That this is not lawful to do, he proves by sundry authorities and arguments, I think the rather because no man denies it, or doubts of it, or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we do deny it. If he had pleased, he might have contracted these two faults into one. The Pope and his Court make but one consistory, and personal faults, and evil manners are the same thing. It had been needful to have joined them together, to give them a little more weight: for being twisted they weigh not half a grain. First, I deny that we hold personal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation. Secondly, that separation which was made, was made by themselves, not by us. Thirdly, I deny that the Pope, or Court of Rome ever had right to any Jurisdiction over us: And if they ever had any pretence of right, we had other manner of grounds for separation than evil manners. As new Articles of faith, obtruding of idolatrous, superstitions, and sinful duties, gross usurpation of the rights of the sovereign Prince, and all orders and degrees of Subjects, the overthrow or endangering of the public peace and tranquillity of the Kingdom, unlawful oaths contrary to our allegiance to our King, contrary to that duty which all Christians do owe to general Counsels, and lastly, the Pope's quitting of his patriarchal power. Yet by his leave, tyranny, and oppression, and rapine are somewhat more than personal faults, and may be just grounds to Princes and Commonwealths to subtract obedience, until there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses. Some personal faults, as Simony and Schism, may give just occasion to Christians to separate from pretended Popes. But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope, not his Episcopal Office, which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles, nor his patriarchal Office, which was instituted by the Church, but his pretended Monarchical Office, whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunal of the Church; that is, a general Council, whereof more shall be said in due place. 
Inf. c. 7 s  These faults give just cause to a general Council to separate the Popes themselves, and to take away their domineering Courts; or to a sovereign Prince with a N●tionall Council, to shake off their tyrannical Yoke.   

CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Question.  
IN stating the Question I observed this Method; 
Sect. 1.  first to show what Ecclesiastical Separations were not Schismatical. As first, those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat, without attempting to make any parties, as those between St. Paul and Barnabas, St. Hierome and Ruffinus, St. chrysostom and Epiphanius. Secondly, premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained; if they forbear to censure one another, and be ready to submit to the determination of a general Council, are not schismatical; as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptisation, Thirdly, where just cause of separation is given, for there the Separaters are innocent, and they who give the cause, are Schismatics. Fourthly, separation, from an erroneous Church, or Pastor in their errors. Of all these, and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all, but passeth silently by them, without either granting, denying, or distinguishing.  
The first Exception that he takes, is against my two supposed definitions of Schism; 
P. 8.  the former is, Schism is a criminous scissure, rent, or division in the Church, an ecclesiastical sedition, like to a mutiny in an Army, or a faction in a Sat. The second, mere Schism is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholic Communion. 
P. 12.  And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own. 
P. 16.  True Schism is a voluntary division in some substantial part of the true Church. Really, I do not wonder if my definitions be not complete. I do not take myself to have so happy a vein, that all that I utter should be a definition. I did not hold it needful, nor had any purpose to define Schism, but only to explain it, which my very words might have taught him. Schism signifies a criminous scissure, not is, but signifies. And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition, like a mutiny in an Army, or faction in a State. Similitudes are apt to illustrate, but not to define. The definition and the thing defined are ever the same. Those things which are like one another, are never the same. But let us view his grand exceptions to my supposed definitions.  

All Schism is not in essentials.  My first great fault is, That I do not express it thus in some substantial part or parts of the Church. For all Schism is in essentials, otherwise division in ecclesiastical Ceremonies, or scholastical Opinions should be Schism. Here is nothing new but his reason, to which I answer, that all differences in Rites and Ceremonies are not schismatical; but if unlawful or sinful Rites be obtruded by any Church, as a condition of their Communion, and a separation ensue thereupon; the Obtruders of sinful Rites, and they who break the unity of the Church, for difference in indifferent Rites, are guilty of Schism. So likewise scholastical Opinions are free, and may be defended both ways scholastically; but if they be obtruded Magisterialy upon Christians as necessary Articles of faith, they render the Obtruders truly schismatical. This is the case of the Church of Rome in both these particular instances: and therefore it is not true, that all Schism is a division in the essentials of Religion, or its substantial parts. When Pope Victor excommunicated the Eastern Churches about the observation of Easter, the difference was but about a Rite, aut Ritus potius tempore (saith a Roman Catholic) or rather the time of a Rite. Yet it occasioned a Schism, for either Victor's Key did err, and then he was the Schismatic, or it did not err, and then they were the Schismatics. What the opinion of Ireneus and the Fathers of that age was, Eusebius tells us, that their letters were extant, wherein they chid Victor sharply about it. There was much and long contention between the Sees of Rome and Constanstinople, concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Bulgaria, a mere humane Rite, nothing to the substance of the Church. 
Bar. Annal. an. 878.  And john the 8th excommunicated Ignatius the Patriarch about it. Here was a Schism, but no essential of Religion concerned. How many gross Schisms have been in the Church of Rome, merely about the due election of their Popes, a matter of humane right, which was sometimes in the Emperors, sometimes in the People, sometimes in the whole Roman Clergy, and now in the College of Cardinals: Essentials of Religion use not to be so mutable.  
Nay, I believe that if we search narrowly into the first source and original of all the famous Schisms that have been in the Church, as Novatianisme, and Donatism, etc. we shall find that it was about the Canons of the Church, no substantials of Religion. Novatians' first separation from Cornelius, was upon pretence that he himself was more duly elected Bishop of Rome, not about any essential of Religion. The first original of the Schism of the Donatists, was because the Catholic Church would not excommunicate them who were accused to have been traditores. On the other side, Felicissimus raised a Schism in the Church of Carthage, and set up Altar against Altar, because the lapsi or those who had fallen in time of persecution might not presently be restored, upon the mediation of the Confessors, or as they then styled them, Martyrs. What Schisms have been raised in the Church of England about round or square, white or black, about a Cup, or a Surpless, or the sign of the Cross, or kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament, or the use of the Ring in marriage? What bitter contentions have been among the Franciscans in former times about their habits, what colour they should be, white, or black, or grey; and what fashion, long or short, to make them more conformable to the rule of St. Francis? with what violence have these petty quarrels been prosecuted, in so much as two succeeding Popes, upon two solemn hear durst not determine them. And nothing was wanting to a complete Schism but a sentence. 
Antimach●aveil in ●●ist ad Lect.   
He might have spared his second proofs of his three substantial parts he meaneth essential properties of the Church, until it had been once denied. Yet I cannot but observe how he makes Heresy now worse than Schism, because Heresy denyeth the truth of God, which simple Schism doth not, whereas formerly he made Schism worse than Idolatry.  
The second fault which he imputeth to me is, That I confound mere Schism with Schism mixed with Heresy, and bring in matters of faith to justify our division from the Roman Church. This second fault is like the former, both begotten in his own brain. Let him read my supposed definition over and over again, and he shall not find the least trace of any such confusion in it. To bring in their errors in matters of faith, 
Errors in faith obtruded, justify a separation.  to justify us, not only from Heresy, but from mere Schism, is very proper. He himself hath already confessed it: I hope he will stand to his word, for it is too evident a truth to be denied; that supposing they hold errors in matters of faith, and make these their errors a condition of their Communion; it is not only lawful, but necessary, and a virtue to separate from them. Their very errors in matters of faith, and their imposing them upon us as necessary Articles, doth justify a separation from them, and acquit us before God and man from all criminous Schism, whether mere or mixed. The sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiran was not mere Schism, but ambition, treason, and rebellion. Korah would have had the High-priesthood from Aaron, and Dathan and Abiran would have been sovereign Princes in the place of Moses, by right of the Primogeniture of Reuben.  
So he proceeds to my other definition. Mere Shcism is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholic Communion, to which he saith I add in the next page without sufficient ground, and should have added also in Sacraments or lawful ministry, and lastly have showed what is a sufficient ground. But he mistakes throughout: for first to have added without sufficient grounds, had been a needless tautology, which is not tolerable in a definition. To say that it is culpable, implies that it wants sufficient grounds. For if it had sufficient grounds, it were not culpable. Secondly, to have added in Sacraments or lawful Ministry, had been to spoil the definition, or description rather, and to make it not convertible with the thing defined or described. I have showed that there are many mere Schisms, that are neither in Sacraments nor lawful Ministry. Lastly, I have showed what are sufficient grounds, and that the Church of Rome gave sufficient cause of separation, if he please to take it into consideration. 
Sect. 2. Me●●rall Schism.   
He saith, internal communion is not necessary to make a man a Member of a visible Church, or to make him a Catholic; neither is it put into the definition of the Church. Let it be so. I am far from supposing that none but Saints are within the communion of a true visible Church: But I am sure it is a good caution both for them and us. There is a mental Schism as well as a mental Murder. 
1 john 3. 15.  Whosoever hateth his Brother is a Murderer. What will it avail a man to be a Catholic in the eye of the World, and a Schismatic in the eye of God? to be a Member of the visible Church, 
Rome 2 29.  and to be cast into utter darkness? He is not a jew who is one outwardly, neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a jew who is one inwardly, and Circumcision is that of the heart. (So he is not a Catholic who is one outwardly, but he who is a Catholic inwardly) whose praise is not of men but of God.  

Sect. 3.  Then I set down wherein the external Communion of Catholics doth consist, in the same Creeds or Confessions of faith, in the participation of the same Sacraments, in the same Liturgies or divine Offices, in the use of the same public Rites and Ceremonies, in the communicatory Letters, and admission of the same Discipline. These observations about the parts of the Catholic Communion, are so innocent, so indifferent, and so unsubserviant to either party, that I hoped they might pass without any censure. But behold there is not one of them can escape an exception. To the first part of Catholic communion in the same Creeds, he takes two exceptions; first, That communion in faith is pretended a sufficient excuse from true Schism. Fear it not; no man dreameth that communion with the Church in her Creed doth acquit from Schism; but not communicating with the Church in her Creed, doth make both Schism and Heresy. The having of faith doth not supply the want of Charity; but the want of one necessary requisite, renders the having of another insufficient. Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis, 
Communion in all points of faith not necessary always.  malum ex quolibet defectu.  
His second Exception is, That true saving faith requireth not only a communion in the Creed, but in all God's words clearly revealed to him, and sufficiently proposed. I answer. What is necessary for this man, at this time, in this place, is one thing; what is necessary for all Christians, at all times, in all places, is another thing. Though all revealed truths be alike necessary to be believed, when they are known, yet all revealed truths are not alike necessary to be known. And they who know them not, are not obliged to communicate in the belief of them, until they know them. So to believe them when they are revealed to us, is a necessary duty of all Christians: And yet the explicit belief of them is no necessary part of Christian communion. He that holds fast the old Creed of the Church, hath all things that are absolutely necessary in point of Faith. Perhaps he thinks that the determination of the Roman Church is a sufficient proposal: we know no such thing. Let him first win the privilige and then enjoy it.  
To the second and third parts of Catholic Communion he objects, That it is not sufficient to participate in Catholic Sacraments, unless it be done with Catholics. This is true. How can they be parts of Catholic Communion, 
Sacraments purely and corruptly administered the same Sacraments.  if no Catholics do participate of them? But here are two advertisements necessary: the one, that Sacraments purely administered, and Sacraments corruptly administered, so long as the abuses do not destroy the essence, are the same Sacraments. As Baptism administered in pure water, and Baptism administered with salt and spittle, also is the same Baptism. The other, that it is not any Church of one denomination whatsoever, either Roman or other, that either is the Catholic Church, or is to judge under Christ who are true Catholics. There are many more Catholics without the Roman Communion, than within it. Our Separatists in England having first laid their own drowsy conceits for infallible grounds, that their Discipline is the Sceptre of Christ, that they alone are Zion, and all other societies Babylon; then they apply all the power, and privileges, and prerogatives of the Church unto themselves. So the Church of Rome having flattered itself into an opinion, that she alone is the Catholic Church, and all other Churches divided from her, heretical or schismatical Conventicles, though they be three or four times larger than herself; presently lays hold on the keys of the Church, opens and shuts, le's in and thrusts out, makes Catholics and unmakes Catholics at her pleasure.  
He tells us That the Communion of the Church doth not necessarily imply the same Rites and Ceremonies. I know it right well. The Queen's Daughter was arrayed in a Garment wrought about with divers colours. No men have been so much too blame as the Church of Rome, in obtruding indifferent Rites as necessary duties upon other Churches. But yet the more harmony and uniformity that there is in Rites, the greater is the Communion. The Church is compared to an Army with banners. What a disorderly Army would it be, if every Soldier was left free to wear his own colours, and to give his own words?  
I know the Communion of the Church did not consist in communicatory Letters, but they were both expressions, and excellent helps and adjuments of unity, and antidotes against Schism. What he saith now the third time of our communicating with Schismatics, hath been answered already.  
Wherefore (saith he) since I. D. hath failed so many ways in defining Schism, 
Sect. 4.  let us define it better. And then he brings in his definition triumphantly; True Schism is a voluntary division in some substantial part of the true Church, that is, in some essential of Christian Religion. Where lies the difference? I call it a separation, and he calls it a division; I say culpable, and he saith voluntary; omnis culpa est voluntaria. My expressions are more significant and emphatical. All the difference lies in these words, in some substantial part of the true Church. Which for the form of expression is improper, to make essential properties to be substantial parts; and for the matter is most untrue: for there have been, are, and may be many Schisms, which do not concern any essentials of Christian Religion. I would borrow one word more with him, why he calls it rather a division of the true Church, 
Schismatics in part do st●ll remain in the Catholic Church.  than a division from the true Church. I know some Roman Catholics have doubted and suspended their judgements, whether Schismatics be still Members of the Catholic Church, others have determined that they are: And we are of the same mind, that in part they do remain still coupled and mortised to the Church, that is in those things wherein they have made no separation, ex ea parte in texturae compage detinentur, in caetera scissi sunt. 
A●●t. l. 1. d● bapt. cont Don●istas.  And that in this respect, the Catholic Church by their baptism doth beget Sons and Daughters to God. And we think we have St. Austin for us in this also. una est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum habet in Communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis, 
Idemo. 10  per hoc quod suum in iis habet, ipsa utique generat, non illae. This perhaps is contrary to R. C. his opinions, howsoever we thank him for it: But we do not think Schismatics to be equally in the Church with Catholics, nor to be capable of salvation, without repentance particular or general.  
He saith, That universal Schism or a division from the whole Church is always wicked, because the universal Church, can give no just cause of division from her. And he proves it out of St. Austin, 
Aug. ep. 48.  His words are these, s● possunt, quod fieri non potest, aliqui habere justam causam, qua communionem suam separent a communione orbis terrarum. If any could have a just cause to separate their commuion from the whole communion of the whole World, which cannot be. Let him always bring such proofs which concern not us, but make directly against himself. It is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole World, Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abissine, Protestant, by their censures. We have made no absolute separation even from the Roman Church itself. I say more, that all Schism whether universal or particular is wicked. But still he confounds Schism, which is always unlawful, with separation which is many times lawful, (I take the word according to its use, not according to its derivation.) Hear R.C. 
R. C. his confession.  his ingenuous confession in this place, which overthrows and casts flat to the ground, all that he hath endeavoured to build in this Survey. Neither indeed, can there by any substantial division from any particular Church, unless she be really heretical or schismatical. I say really, because she may be really heretical or schismatical, and yet morally a true particular Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of Heresy or Schism, and so may require profession of her Heresy, as a condition of communicating with her, in which case division from her is no Schism or sin, but virtue and necessary. Apply but this to the Roman and English Churches, and the controversy is ended. The Roman Church is such a particular Church as he hath here described. The English Church hath been separated, (but we will suppose that it had separated itself) from the Roman. In this case, by his own confession the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church, from which the separation was made, if they separated first, from the pure primitive Church which was before them, not locally, but morally. Yet saith he, this erroneous Church is still morally a true particular Church; either this Church hath not all the essentials of a Christian Church, and then how doth it still continue a true Church? Or it hath all the essentials, and then a true Church in substance may give just ground to separate from her in material Heresy and Schism. I will be as free with him concerning the universal Church. If any man or Society of Christians separate themselves from the united communion of the whole Catholic Church, dispersed throughout the World, I cannot excuse him from Schism. For whether the Catholic Church of this present age may err or not, this is certain she cannot err universally in any thing that is necessary to Salvation, nor with obstinacy. And other inferior errors (if there be any such) are not of weight enough to yield sufficient ground of separation, from the communion of the Catholic Church united. But for the divided parts of the Catholic Church, a man may differ from all of them in inferior points, some in one thing, some in another, wherein they differ one from another, and separate from some of them in their errors without criminous Schism; And yet maintain a perfect union with the Catholic Church united.  
I must not here forget to put R. C. in mind, of sundry propositions laid down by me in this place, tending much to the clearing of this present controversy, all which he passeth by untouched: as this, That external communion may sometimes be lawfully suspended, or withdrawn. That there is not the like necessity of communicating in all externals. That Catholic communion implies not unity in all opinions. That inferiors in some cases may lawfully subtract communion from their Superiors, and in special the Bishop of Rome, that in tract of time, abuses will creep into Christian Churches, and aught to be reform.  
Only whereas I said in the vindication, 
Sect. 5.  that the ancient Britannic Churches were never judged, (that is censured by a judgement of Jurisdiction to be Schismatics) for their different observation of Easter, (he saith) they were judged Schismatics, both by Catholics of that time, and since, and Protestants, and that he hath proved it in one of his Treatises. I never see his treatise, but I know his manner of proof well enough. 
The Britannic Churches never judged Schismatics.  I say it over again, that I do not believe that they were ever judged Schismatics for it, either by the Church, or by a Council, or by any lawful or supposed Superior, which shows plainly that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. For it is not credible that he should excommunicate the Asiatic Bishops for that observation, and suffer his own Subjects to differ from him under his Nose, which is the only reason why I urged it. And I expect the proof of the contrary at the Greeks Calends. My assertion is negative, that they were not sentenced as Schismatics, this is affirmative, that they were censured. The burden of the proof lies upon him. Let him show who judged them, when and where, or that they were censured at all.  
I showed clearly in the vindication, 
Sect. 6.  out of the Colloquy between the Catholics, and Donatists at Carthage, that the Catholic Church is no Church of one denomination, but the whole Christian World. True saith he, 
What is the true Catholic Church.  Neither the Church of the City of Rome, nor of afric, is the Catholic Church, but the whole Church of Christ. By the Church of Rome I understand not either the Church of the City of Rome, or the Diocese of Rome, or the Patriarchate of Rome, but all Churches of the Roman communion, which altogether do not make the fourth part of the Christian World, yea saith he, but the whole Church is not such a multitude, or multitudes of Christians, who agreed only in Fundamentals, but disagree in other points of Faith, and differ wholly in Communion of Sacraments. All these great multitudes of Christians, he feareth not to call a mass of Monsters, and an Hydra of many Heads, because they are not wholly one in profession of Faith, Communion of Sacraments, and lawful Ministry, as that Catholic primitive Church was. I wonder he should forget their own distinction of the virtual representative, and essential Church, that is, these multitudes of dispersed Christians. I hope there be others that will not slight them so much. I confess that primitive Catholic Church had an exact communion in all essentials, or fundamentals, and in many other things. But that they had differences also of lesser moment in points of Doctrine and Discipline, and forms of Administration of the holy Sacraments, and Liturgies, no man can doubt that hath his eyes in his head. Yet these lesser inconsiderable differences could produce no Schism, whilst one Church did not condemn another, and all did submit themselves to the determination of a general Council, as the highest Judge of controversies upon Earth. The reason of their agreement was plainly this, because all Churches received the primitive Creed, and no Church exacted more in point of Faith then the primitive Creed. It would better become the Church of Rome, to repent of their rash temerarious censure, in excluding above three parts of the Christian World from the communion of Saints, out of passion and self interest, because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Bishop, no more than their predecessors did before them, 
In●erest makes Catholick● with the Court of Rome.  from the beginning. If these dispersed and despised multitudes of Christians, would but submit to the Roman yoke, their religion would be found orthodox enough, and they would no longer be held a mass of Monsters and a Hydra of many Heads, but pass muster for good Catholics. 
Th●m. a jesu. cited by Doctor Field l. 3 c. 1.  Take an instance or two. Of all these multitudes of Christians, the Assyrians or the Nestorians have not the best repute. Yet when Elias a petty Patriarch of Muzall, submitted to the Bishop of Rome, and sent the confession of his Faith, it was found to be Orthodox. Of later days about the year 1595. when part of the Russians subject to the Crown of Poland, submitted themselves to the Papacy, because they could not have free access to the Patriarch of Constantinople, in their submission they articled for the free exercise of the Greek Religion. 
〈◊〉 ibid.  To come nearer home This is certain that Pius the 4th sent Vincentio with Letters of Credence to Queen Elizabeth, with secret instructions, for he entreated her in his Letter to give the same credit to his Agent, which she would do to himself. If these instructions were not written we need not wonder. Such instructions are not to be seen publicly unless they take effect. 
Babing. upon Numbers c 7.  But some of our Authors of great note, in these days write positively, others probably upon common report, that he offered the Pope's confirmation of the English Liturgy, 
Cam Annal Elis. An. 1560.  and the free use of the Sacrament in both kinds, etc. so she would join with the Romish Church, and acknowledge the primacy of the Chair of Rome. It is interest, not Religion, that makes Catholics, and Heretics, or Schismatics with the Court of Rome. Lastly, all these famous Churches or the most of them, which he calls (multitudes of Christians) have a perfect concord both among themselves, & with the primitive Church in all essentials. How should it be otherwise, whilst they hold the same Creed without addition or subtraction? They agree in most dat truths. They hold their old Liturgies and forms of administration of the Sacraments, with less variation than the Church of Rome. If there be some differences among them, the Romanists have as great among themselves. One of these Churches alone, the Church of Constantinople hath as many dependants and adherents, as all the Churches of the Roman communion put together. And I believe a greater harmony within itself, in Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline. Whereas he chargeth me, that I profess to communicate with the Catholic Church only in fundamentals, not in any other thing, he wrongs me much, but himself more. For I profess myself ready to adhere to the united communion of the true Catholic Church in all things, whether they be fundamentals or no fundamentals, whether they be credenda or agenda, things to be believed or to be practised.  

Sect. 7.  He saith, the Church of Rome is not homogenall with the Protestant Church. This is true, qua tales as they are Roman and Protestant. The Roman Church is not a Protestant Church, nor the Protestant Church a Roman Church. Yet both the one and the other may be homogeneous Members of the Catholic Church. Their difference in essentials is but imaginary. Yet he goes about to prove it by three arguments. First, An Indolatrous Church differs essentially from a true Church. But he saith, I charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the adoration of the Sacrament. 
The Church of Rome is materially Idolatrous  Judge, Reader if this be not like the envious man in the Fable, who was contented to have one of his own Eyes put out, that his fellow might lose both his Eyes. He had rather his own Church should be questioned of Idolatry, then that the Protestant Church should be a coheir with her of Salvation. Because the Ear is not the Eye, 
1 Cor. 12.16.  is it therefore not of the Body? In the places alleged by him, I do not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry. In the one place I speak of the adoration of the Sacrament as an abuse, but not one word of Idolatry. In the other place, I speak of the peril of Idolatry, but not a word of the adoration of the Sacrament. If he cite his Authors after this manner, he may prove what he list. Again, The Sacrament is to be adored, 
Bell l. 4. ●e Sac. Euch. c. 29  said the Council of Trent, That is, formally the body and blood of Christ, say some of your Authors, we say the same. The Sacrament, that is, the species of Bread and Wine, say others. That we deny, and esteem it to be Idolatrous. Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry, for the error of a party? Lastly I answer, that a true Church out of invincible ignorance may fall into material Idolatry; He himself confesseth that it may fall in material Heresy and Schism; And Schism with him is worse than Idolatry. Though the Church of Rome do give divine worship to the Creature, (or at least a party among them) yet I am so charitable as to hope, that they intent it to the Creator.  
From the adoration of Sacrament, he passeth to justification by special Faith only, and from thence to the propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass. As if two Churches could not differ about any questions, nay not in the forms of expression, but presently the one of them must cease to be a true Church. I dare say, 
Special Faith is no Article of our Creed  that when I have declared my Faith in these two particulars, he dare not step one step beyond me. Or if he do, he steps into a manifest error. I do acknowledge t●ne inherent righteousness in this life, though imperfect, by which a Christian is rendered truly just, as Gold is true Gold, though it be mixed with some dross. But if justification be opposed to condemnation, and signify a legal acquittal from guilt formerly contracted, 
Rom. 8 33  as It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Then it is the free Grace of God that justifieth us for the merits of Christ, by the new evangelical Covenant of believing. But where doth the Church of England teach, that man is justified by special Faith? 
Mark 16.16.  Now here. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, that is a part of the Catholic Faith. But I believe and am Baptised, that is justifying Faith. Therefore I shall be saved, that is special Faith. There may be Catholic Faith, without justifying Faith, and justifying Faith, without special Faith, because a man may truly believe, and yet not know so assuredly that he doth believe▪ and that he shall persevere in his belief, as to be able to infer the conclusion. Special Faith is a rare jewel, not to be acquired but by long experience, by being deeply radicated in holiness, and by the extraordinary grace of God. So far he errs from truth, when he saith, That justification by special Faith is prora & puppis, the Life and Soul and definition of a Protestant. But supposing it were true, what a strange arguing were this? All Protestants believe justification by special Faith, but the Church of Rome condemneth special Faith. Therefore the Protestant and the Roman Church are not both true Churches. As if it were impossible for one true Church, to condemn the opinions of another. But we shall meet with this subject of special Faith again.  
And for his power to offer Sacrifice, 
Papists can pretend to no other Sacrifice than Protestants.  Protestants have as much power as Romanists. The holy Eucharist is a commemoration, a representation, an application of the all-sufficient propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse. If his Sacrifice of the Mass have any other propitiatory power or virtue in it, then to commemorate, represent, & apply the merit of the Sacrifice of the Cross, let him speak plainly what it is. Bellarmine knew no more of this Sacrifice than we. Sacrificium crucis, etc. The Sacrifice of the Cross, remitteth all sins past, present, and to come, seeing it acquired a most sufficient price for the sins of the whole World. 
Bell▪ l 1. de M●s●▪ c. 25.  And therefore that Sacrifice being finished, and Sins being remitted, there remains not any oblation for sin like to that, that is, for acquiring a price or value for the remission of sins. To what use then serves the Sacrifice of the Mass? Hear him out. Adhuc sunt, etc. There are yet, and will be unto the end of the World, those to whom this price of deliverance is to be applied. If this be all, as clearly it is, to apply that price of deliverance, which Christ paid for us, than what noise have they raised in the World to no purpose? Then our Sacrifice is as good as theirs. Of our not communicating with them in Sacraments, he hath received an account formerly; And of our Ministers wanting power to offer Sacrifice, he shall receive a just account in due place.  

Sect. 8. 4 Ways to incur heretical pravity.  I said, that a man might render himself guilty of heretical pravity four ways; first, by disbelieving any fundamental Article of Faith, or necessary part of saving Truth. For though fundamentals only be simply necessary to be known of all Christians, yet there are many other truths revealed by God, which being known, are as necessary to be believed as the fundamentals themselves. And to discredit any one of these lesser truths, after it is known that God hath revealed it, is as much as to deny the truth of God, or to deny all the fundamenmentals put together. Against this he urgeth, that Heresy is incurred by disbelieving any point of Faith whatsoever, if it be sufficiently proposed. Right, if it be so proposed that a man knows it to be a revealed truth, or might know it, if he did not obstinately shut his eyes against evident light. But the Church of Rome is no such sufficient or infallible proposer, that every man is bound to receive its determinations as Oracles. But R C. leaves these words out of my discourse, [or necessary part of saving truth,] that is necessary to some persons, in some places, at sometimes, to whom they are sufficiently revealed. Is this fair dealing?  
Secondly, I said that Heresy was incurred, by believing superstitious errors or additions, which do virtually and by evident consequence, overthrew a fundamental truth. This is denied by R. C. because Faith is an assent to divine Revelations upon the authority of the revealer, and therefore is neither gotten nor lost, nor Heresy incurred by consequence. Doth he not know that whosoever believeth a revealed truth, doth of necessity believe all the evident consequences of it? As he that believes that Christ is God, doth of necessity believe that he is eternal. And if he maintain that erat quando non erat, There was a time when he was not, he doth implicitly deny his De●ty, and incur the crime of Heresy. Hath he forgotten what their own Doctors do teach, 
Bell. de Eccles. milit. l. 3. c. 15.  that a conclusion of Faith may be grounded upon one proposition inevident (that is revealed) and another proposition evident, (that is not revealed) but evident in itself? The hypostatical union of the two natures divine and humane in Christ, is a fundamental truth, that the blessed Virgin is the mother of God, that Christ had both a divine and humane will, are evident consequences of this truth, not expressly revealed. Yet for denying the former Nestorius, for denying the later, the Manothelites were condemned as heretics.  
Thirdly, Heresy may be incurred by obstinate persisting in lesser errors, after a man is convicted in his conscience, that they are errors, either out of animosity, because he scorns to yield, or out of covetous, ambitious, or other sinister ends. And lastly, Heresy is incurred by a froward and peevish opposition, to the Decrees of a general Council, to the disturbing of the peace and tranquillity of the Church. Against these two last ways of incurring Heresy, R. C. saith nothing directly, but upon the by, he taxeth me of two errors. First, 
The Power of general Councils.  that I say, No Council can make that a point of Faith, which was not ever such. We agree in this, That no Council can make that a fundamental, which was not a fundamental, nor make that a revealed truth, which was not a revealed truth. I acknowledge further that a general Council, may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed, by a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary to be believed, that is whensoever the reasons and grounds produced by the Council, or the authority of the Council, (which is and always aught to be very great, with all sober, discreet Christians,) do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Counsels definition. In doubtful questions, if there be no miscarriage, no packing of Votes, no fraud used in the Council, like that in the Council of Ariminum for receiving Christ and rejecting homoousios, and if the determination be not contrary to the tradition of the Church, who would not rather suspect his own judgement, than a general Counsels? I confess yet further, that when a general Council hath determined any controversy, no man may oppose its determination, but every one is bound to acquiesce, and possess his Soul in patience, though he be not convicted in his conscience of the truth of their sentence. And if any man out of pevishnesse, or stubbornness shall oppose their definition, to the disturbance of the peace and tranquillity of the Church, he deserves to be punished as an Heretic.  
Then wherein lies the difference? First, in R. C. his misreciting my words according to his ordinary custom. I said only this, that a Council could not make that proposition heretical in itself, which was not ever heretical, nor increase the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith, either in number or substance. What I said is undeniable true. [First, in itself] That is in its own nature, without any reference to the authority of a Council. And [necessary Articles of the Christian Faith] that is, absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians. If the proposition were heretical in itself, than they that held it before the Council were Heretics, as well as they who hold it after the Council. And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith, without the actual belief, whereof Christians could never be saved.  

The Pope's confirmation adds nothing to general Counsels.  This is sufficient to answer his objection. But for the Readers satisfaction I add moreover, that the Romanists believe a general Council, not only to be fallible without the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope, (whose privilege and prerogative the most of them do make the foal ground of the Church's infallibility,) but also without his concurrenee to have often erred actually. But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope, they make the determination of a general Council to be infallible. On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope, but the contrary. After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave, spoiled him of his pontifical Attire, cut off his two Fingers, and cast his body into Tybur, 
Platina.  it became an usual thing with the following Popes, either to infringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors. Neither was this act of Stephen an error merely in matter of fact, but principally in matter of Faith, that the Episcopal character is deleble. We know no such confirmation needful, nor of any more force than the single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolical Church. And therefore we give the same privileges to a Council unconfirmed (which they acknowledge to be fallible) and to a Council confirmed by the Pope. We have no assurance that all general Counsels were, and ever shall be so prudently mesnaged, and their proceedings always so orderly and upright, that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians, which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation. If R C. be not of my mind, others of his own Church have been, and are at this day. When I forbear to cite, because I presume it will not be denied. In sum I know no such virtual Church as they fancy. Antiquity never knew it. I owe obedience (at least of acquiescence) to the representative Church; and I resolve for ever to adhere (to the best of my understanding) to the united Communion of the whole essential Church, which I believe to be so far infallible, as is necessary for attaining that end, for which Christ bestowed this privilege, that is, salvation.  
Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice, or subterfuge to decline the authority of general Counsels. I know none we need to fear. And I do freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly general, which he shall produce in this question. As for occidental Counsels, they are far from being general.  

Acquiescence to the decrees of a general Council is necessary.  My other supposed error is that I say, That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a general Council, yet he ought to be silent and possess his soul in patience. That is, until God give another opportunity, and another Council sit, wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary. This (he saith) is to bind men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in matter of Religion, and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth; and brings them within the compass of Saint Paul's Woe; 
1 Cor 9  woe be unto me if I evangelise not. Excellent Doctrine, and may well serve for a part of the Rebel's Catechism. Because my Superior is not infallible, if I cannot assent unto him, must I needs oppose him publicly, or otherwise be guilty of Hypocrisy and Dissimulation? If he shall think fit in discretion, to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions, am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth? If he shall by his authority suspend a particular Pastor, from the exercise of his pastoral Office, must he needs preach in defiance of him, or else be guilty of St. Paul's Woe, Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gospel? I desire him to consult with Bellarmine. All Catholics do agree that if the Pope alone, or the Pope with a particular Council, do determine any controversy in Religion; whether he can err, 
Bell de Ro. pont. c. 4. c. 2.  or whether he can not err, he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians. May not I observe that duty to a general Council, which all Roman Catholics do pay to the Pope? or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience? Certainly these things were not well weighed.  
Where I say that by the Church of England in this question, 
Sect. 9  I understand that Church which was derived by lineal succession, from British, English, & Scotish Bishops, 
Mixed ordination.  by mixed ordination, as it was legally established in the days of Edward the sixth, and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King james, and King Charles; and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution, to let us see what an habit of alteration is; he excepts against every word of this. First, against the lineal succession, because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone. This is an argument from the Staff to the Corner. I speak of a succession of holy Orders, and he of a succession of Opinions. And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom, he will be found at a default here also. Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we do.  
In the next place, he excepts against mixed Ordination, as partly Papistical, partly Protestanticall. He errs the whole Heaven's breadth from my meaning. Before Austin preached to the Saxons, there were in Britain ancient British Bishops, and ancient Scotish Bishops, who had their several lines of succession, to which Austin added English Bishops, and so made a third succession. These three were distinct at first, but afterwards in tract of time, they came to be mixed and united into one succession. So as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British, Scotish, and English Bishops. This is the great bugbear of mixed Ordination.  

The English Church lawfully established.  He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child. He mistakes. King's are never Children nor Minors whilst they have good Tutors, and good Councillors. was he more a Child than King jehoash; and yet the Church was reform during his minority. This was no Childish Act, thanks to jehoiada, a good Uncle and Protector.  
He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edward's days, which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops, whereof divers were cast in Prison, for not assenting to the erecting of it? And I ask how it was not legally established, which was established by sovereign authority, according to the direction of the Convocation, with the confirmation of the Parliament? What other legal establishment can there be in England? By the Laws of England, a Bishop had but his single vote either in Parliament or Convocation. Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed, but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops, whether for not assenting, or for other reasons, will require further proof than his bare assertion. This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Papacy, in the reign of Henry the eighth.  
He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament, 
Not lawfully suppressed.  under King Charles. Why should I add a notorious untruth, as contrary to my conscience as to my affections? I might have said oppressed, I could not say suppressed. The external splendour was abated, when the Baronies of the Bishops, and their votes in Parliament were taken away, but the Order was not extinguished. So far from it, that King Charles himself suffered as a Martyr for the English Church. If his meaning be, that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royal, he cannot be so great a stranger in England, as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity.  
Yet he is pleased to style it a dead Church, 
The English Church nor dea●,  and me the Advocate of a dead Church; even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves, or as the Sun is set when it is behind a Cloud, or as the Gold is destroyed when it is melting in the Furnace. When I see a seed cast into the ground, I do not ask where is the greeness of the leaves? where is the beauty of the flowers? where is the sweetness of the fruit? but I expect all these in their due season: Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe. The rain is fallen, the wind hath blown, and the floods have beaton upon their Church, but it is not fallen, for it is founded upon a Rock. The light is under a Bushel, but it is not extinguished. And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candlestick, yet the Church of England is not dead, whilst the Catholic Church survives.  

But under persecution.  Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution: And though some of the Church do suffer, yet it is not for Religion, but matters of State. What can a man expect in knotty questions from them, who are so much transported with prejudice, as to deny those things which are obvious to every eye. If it be but some that have suffered, it is such a some as their Church could never show, wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed, may read the Martyrology of London, or the List of the Universities, and from that paw, guess at the proportion of the Lion. But perhaps all this was for matters of State. No, our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State, nor our Ecclesiastical Revenues exposed to sale for matters of State. The refusal of a schismatical Covenant is no matter of State. How many of the orthodox Clergy, without pretence of any other delinquency have been beggared? how many necessitated to turn Mechanics or day-Laborers? how many starved? how many have had their hearts broken? how many have been imprisoned? how many banished from their native Soil, and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World? No man is so blind as he that will not see.  
His tenth Section is a summary or repetition of what he hath already said, 
Sect. 10.  wherein I find nothing of weight that is new, but only one authority out of St. Austin, That Catholics are every where, and Heretics every where, but Catholics are the same every where, and Heretics different every where. If by Catholics he understand Roman Catholics, they are not every where, not in Russia, nor in Aethiopia; and excepting some handfuls, for the most part upon toleration, not in any of the Eastern Churches. The words of Saint Austin are these. Vbicunque sunt isti, illic Catholica, 
● 4. cont. Cresion. c. 61.  sicut in Africa ubi & vos; non autem ubicunque Catholica est, aut vos istis, aut Heresis quaelibet earum. Wheresoever they are, there is the Catholic Church; as in Africa where you are; but wheresoever the Catholic Church is, you are not, nor any of those Heresies. St. Augustine's scope is to show that the Catholic Church is more diffused, or rather universal than any Sect, or all Sects put together. If you please, let this be the Touchstone between you and us: But you will say that you are united every where, and we are different every where. Nothing less. You are united in one pretended head, which some of you acknowledge more, some less. We are united in the same Creed, the same Sacraments, and for the most part the same discipline. Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place? of the Novatians, Arrians, Patripassians, Valentinians Patricians, Apellites, Marcionites, Ophites; all which condemned all others but themselves, and thereby did separate themselves Schismatically from the Catholic Church, as it is to be feared that you do. Our case is quite contrary: we reform ourselves, but condemn no others.   

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

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

Sect. 2.  Yet something he saith upon the by, which is to be examined first, That they who made the King head of the Church, were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion, that they were not then of the Roman Religion, but Schismatics and Heretics outwardly, whatsoever they were inwardly. What a change is here? Even now when they opposed the Reformation, they were the best Bishops: and now when they oppose the Pope's Supremacy, they are Schismatics and Heretics. Let them be what they were, or whatsoever he would have them to be, certainly they were no Protestants. And if they were not Roman Catholics, they were of no Christian Communion. They professed to live Roman Catholics; and they died Roman Catholics. The six bloody Articles contrived by them, and executed by them in the reign of King Henry, and the Bonfires which they made of poor Protestants in the days of Queen Mary, do demonstrate both that they were no Protestants, and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion.  
But (saith he) the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope. If it be so, then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles, the Roman Religion hath but one Article, and that none of the twelve, namely, the supremacy of the Pope. But this needs makes no difference between us: For they denied not the Pope's Primacy, that is, of order, but his Supremacy of power. Neither is his Supremacy either the essence. or so essential a part of the Roman Catholic Belief, but that many of the Roman Catholic Communion have denied it of old, as the Counsels of Constance and Basile, and many do deny it, and more doubt of it at this day. But let that be as it will. In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists, and the denomination is from the greater part. Certainly they were no Protestants, which is enough for my purpose.  
He tells us from Bishop Gardiner, 
The Parliament not compelled.  that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy (he means Supremacy) of the Bishop of Rome. A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament, and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced, without any noise against their conscience, to forswear themselves, to deny the essence of their faith, and (to use his own words) to turn Schismatics and Heretics. How many of them lost their lives first? Not one, not one changed his Soil, not one suffered imprisonment about it. For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographers, Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor were imprisoned, before this Act of the Supremacy was made, for denying the King's Marriage, and opposing a former Act of Parliament, touching the succession of his Children to the Crown. Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher, and p. 81. concerning Sir. Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat, The Law (of Supremacy) was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moor. Of this much cruelty I do not find so much as a threatening word, or a footstep, except the fear of a Praemunire. And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdom should value their Goods above their Souls? Or that two successive Synods, and both our Universities, (nemine dissentiente) should be so easily constrained? But who constrained the most learned of the Bishop●, and the greatest Divines in the Kingdom, to tell the King that it was his right, to publish Catechisms, or Institutions, and other Books; and to preach Sermons at St. Paul's Cross and elsewhere, for maintenance of the King's Supremacy? These Acts were unconstrained. Hear the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth, given in their life time, to their faces, before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World, when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it, if he could. When the Emperor and other Roman Catholic Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops, she returned this answer, That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine, which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, 
Camd. An. Eliz. anno. 1559.  had of their own accord with heart and hand publicly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others, when they themselves were not private Persons, but public Magistrates. The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer. First, of their own accord; Secondly, not only under Henry the eighth, but Edward the sixth; Thirdly, when they themselves were public Magistrates; Fourthly, with heart and hand, not only in their Sermons, but also in their printed Writings. Against Subscriptions and printed. Writings there can be no defence: But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry? upon Bishop gardiner's? In good time, he produceth a Witness in his own cause. He had an hard heart of his own, if he would not have favoured himself, and helped to conceal his own shame, after King Henry was dead. Mortui non mordent. 
Bishop Gardiner.  Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia, to justify the King's Supremacy? Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tells us, That no foreign Bishop hath authority among us, that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath aught to do with Rome? Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy, and in all the great transactions in the later days of King Henry? was not he one of them who tickled the King's ears with Sermons against the Pope's Supremacy, 
Speed in Hen. 8. c. 21 n. 1 c 5.  who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants, and was able by his power with the King, to bring the great Favourite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresy and Treason. To conclude, if any thing did constrain him, it was either the Bishopric of London or Winchester; or which I do the rather believe out of charity, the very power of conscience. So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia, where he proposeth this objection against himself, 
De vera ob●dientia, in fine.  that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope. To which he answers, That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted, then to make an oath the bond of iniquity. He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide, as to his second Wife, but after the return of his first Wife (that is the Truth) to which he was espoused in his 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  
His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome. And he names three, Cranmer, Crumwell, and Barnes. He might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army, (and perhaps not one of them at the fight) were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae. It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously. It was the Synods that directed the separation. It was the King that established the separation. It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation. How could two or three Privadoes without Negromancy, have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods, and Parliaments, and the King himself. Yet they might have an hand in it, no, nor so much as a little finger. As much as the Fly that sat upon the Cartwheel, had in raising of the dust. The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdom: what had these three been able to do among them, supposing they had been than Protestants and of the House? Even as much as three drops of honey in a great vessel of vinegar, or three drops of vinegar in a great vessel of honey.  
But let us see what it is, 
Archbishop Cranmer.  which he objects against Cranmer and the rest, That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised, that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome, And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome, he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad. There was no hurt in all this. There could be no suspicion, that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court. But upon this (saith he) it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities. And so he concludes triumphantly, Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope. I answer, That this secession was no secession of the Church of England, nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church, but only concerning a particular process, there depending, between King Hen●y and Queen Katherine, about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Pope's dispensation, which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law, not by Canon law. The truth is this. Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry, and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any design at Waltham, where discourse being offered concerning this process, Cranmer freely declared his judgement, that the marriage of a Brother with his Brother's Wife was unlawful by the Law of God, and that the Pope could not dispense with it. And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe, then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court. This was related to the King. The King sent for Cranmer. He offered freely to justify it before the Pope. And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome, 
Speed, Baker, etc. in Henr. 8.  and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time, it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this, Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome, and returned home in the Pope's good Grace, not without a mark of his favour, being made his penitentiary. Likewise, saith another, Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his (the Earl of hartford's) right hand, 
Image of both Churches, second edition pag. 413.  and chief assistant in the work▪ although but a few months before he was of King Harry's Religion, yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles. That is as much as to say, no friend no favourer of Protestants. So this victorious argument fails on both sides. 
Sand de Schism. pag 115. Sacrificio missae intersuit quotidie dum regnabat Henricus.  Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer, That he freed the King's conscience from the yoke of Papal dominion, that is to say, in that process. That by his counsel, destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome, that is, occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God. That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospel, that is, in that particular case, that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God. And lastly, That the Papal power being discovered by King Henry's authority and Cranmers, did easily fall down. I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should find these testimonies such as they are cited. Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis. They could not be spoken of the first separation, when Cranmer had no more authority than a private Doctor, but of the following times. King Henry suppressed the Papal tyranny in England by his Legislative Power, and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations, and care to see the Laws executed.  

Crumwell.  Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony, That it was generally conceived, and truly (as never thought,) That the politic ways for taking away the Pope's authority in England, and the suppression of Religious Houses, were principally devised by Crumwell. First, this is but an argument from vulgar opinion. Secondly, when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy, and the Title of Head of the English Church, Crumwell was no Protestant, he had lately been Cardinal Wolsy's Solicitor, and was then Master of the Jewel House, of no such power to do any great good or hurt to the Protestants. And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary, and that he died in the Catholic Faith. Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540 Holl. an. 32. H. 8. fol. 242.  
But for the suppression of Religious Houses, it is not improbable. He might well have learned that way under Cardinal Wolsy, when he procured the suppression of forty Monasteries of good note, for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. In which business our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers, to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver.  
Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man, 
Barnes.  he was neither Courtier nor Councelor, nor Convocation man, nor Parliament man. All the grace which ever he received from King Henry, was an honourable death for his Religion. He said, That he and such other wretches as he, had made the King a whole King, by their Sermons. If they did so, it was well done. The meaning of a whole King, is an Head of the Church, saith R. C. It may be so, but the consequence is naught. Perhaps he meant a Sovereign independent King, not feudatory to the Pope, which he that is, is but half a King. Not only of old, but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions, as appeareth by the Pope's Bull sent to james the fifth King of Scotland, wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdom, as an Heretic, a Schismatic, 
Speed l. 9 c. 21.  an Adulterer, a Murderer, a Sacrilegious person, and lastly a Rebel and convict of laesae Majestatis, for that he had risen against him (the Pope) who was his Lord.  
But now supposing all R. C. his suggestions had been true, That Cranmer and Crumwell had been Protestants at that time; and had been in as much grace; and had had the like opportunity of address to the King, as they had afterwards; that Cranmer had persuaded the King as a Divine, and Crumwell as a Politician, to separate from the Court of Rome: And that Barnes had preached against the Pope's Supremacy. Yet this is far from the authoritative separation of the whole Church, and Kingdom from the Court of Rome. Moral persuasions may incline, but cannot necessitate the will.  
Therefore not confiding to these broken Reeds at length he admits that Roman Catholics were the Authors of the saparation, Be it so that Roman Catholics were the authors of the division, that is worse for Protestants, because than Protestants continue a wicked Schism, wicked begun, against conscience, against known truth, and consequently a sin against the holy Ghost. And to make his assertion good, he produceth the authority of Optatus, 
L 1. Cont. Parm.  It appeareth evidently that you are the heirs of Schismatics. He who reads this would believe, that Optatus spoke positively of Protestants, when he speaks only of Donatists, 
Papists are the right Heirs of the Don●rists, not Protestants.  cum haec it● gesta esse manifestissime constet, & vos haeredes esse traditorum & Schismaticorum evidenter appareat. Seeing it is most evident that these things did fall out thus, that is, that Majorinus (whose Chair Parmenianus did now possess) did divide himself from the communion of Caecilianus, and set up a Chair against a Chair in the same Church, or a new Chair, quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat, and seeing Majorianus was a traditor and a Schismatic, it appears evidently that Parmenian was the heir of a Schismatic. Now what doth this concern us? The Donatists set up a new Chair against an old Chair in the same Church, we have done no such thing. God make us able to keep up tha old. Secondly, the Donatists separated themselves from all other Churches, we separate ourselves from no Churches, neither from the Chair of Caecilian, nor of Peter, nor of Cyprian. But if we would know, not only who are the heirs of the Donatists, but who are their heirs in their Schism, we may find them easily. It is the Roman Catholics themselves, first, in their uncharitableness, in breaking the bond of brotherly unity. The Catholics owned the Donatists for their brethren, but the Donatists refused to own the Catholics for their brethren, quamvie & illi non negent & omnibus not 'em sit, etc. Although they deny it not, and it is known to all men, 
Opt. l 1. Cont. Par. in●initio.  that they hate us, and accurse us, and will not be called our brethren, yet &c. without doubt they are our brethren. And a little after, And because they will not have the Episcopal College common with us, let them not be our fellow Collegians if they will not, yet, as I said before, they are our brethren. This is just the case between them and us, we offer them the right hand of brotherhood, as the Catholics did to the Donatists, but they refuse it, as the Donatists did to the Catholics. Secondly, the Donatists separated the whole Catholic Church from their communion, and substituted themselves, being but a small part of the Christian World in the place of the Catholic Church. Just as the Romanists do at this day. Optatus speaks home unto them both, the old and new Donatists. Se pro voluntate vestra inangustum coarctatis Ecclesiam, 
Opt. l. 2. Cont. Parm. in initio.  etc. If ye for your pleasure do thrust the Church into a strait, if ye subtract all Nations, where is that which the Son of God hath merited, where is that which the Father hath given him? 
Psal. 2.  I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession. Why do you infringe this promise? Or imprison this universal Kingdom, etc. Suffer the Son to possess his Father's gift. Suffer the Father to fulfil his promise. Why do you set bounds and limits? And still ye endeavour to persuade men that the Church is only with you. Let the Reader judge who are the right heirs of the Donatists.  
The rest of his discourse is a groundless ask of the question. 
Roman Cathol●cks sinned not against conscience in their separation  First, those Roman Catholics did make no separation from the Roman Church, but from the Roman Court. Secondly, they separated from the Roman Court only in its innovations without criminous Schism. Thirdly, we cannot, we dare not be so uncharitable as to judge that the whole Kingdom, and all the Pastors of the Church, did sin against their conscience, but we believe firmly that it was the clear light and evidence of truth, that made them so unanimous in their separation. Fourthly, though they had sinned against the known truth, not being done of malice, it was not the sin against the holy Ghost. St. Peter did not sin against the holy Ghost when he denied Christ. Fiftly, though they had sinned against conscience in separating, yet the fault being not in the thing done, but in the conscience of the doer, we being better informed may with a good conscience hold, what they with a bad conscience did take away. Lastly, though they had sinned, not only in separating against conscience, but also in the very act of separation. Yet we who found the separation made to our hands, who never did any act either to oblige us to Rome, or to disoblige us from Rome, holding what we received from our Ancestors, and endeavouring to find out the truth, and ready to receive it whensoever God shall reveal it unto us, are not censurable as Schismatics, as I proved out of Saint Austin, though R. C. be pleased to take no notice of it.  

Henry the eight no Protestant  Here he makes a short double and will needs have Henry the eight to have been a substantial Protestant. If he was a Protestant, doubtless he was a substantial Protestant, But why a Protestant? Doctor Barnes and many more who were burned by him for Protestants, would hardly have believed it. But he saith, Henry the eight was an Antipapist, and that is sufficient to make a Protestant. If that be sufficient to make a Protestant it is well, otherwise one of his friends tells us, 
●ul. Alan. Apol. c. 4. p. 59  We had a King who by his Laws abolished the authority of the Pope, although in all other things he would follow the Faith of his Ancestors. Lately he told us, that the essence and life and soul and definition of a Protestant, was to hold justification by Faith alone, then Henry the eight was no Protestant, for he did not hold justification by Faith alone. Now he makes the essence of a Protestant, to be impugning the Pope's Supremacy. I had not thought essences or definitions had been so mutable: but for my part I am glad of the change. If all Antipapists be Protestants, than all the Grecian, Armenian, Abyssen, Russian Christians are Protestants, than we shall not want Protestants to bear us company in the Church of Rome itself, so long as there are any followers of the Counsels of Constance and Basill.  
But some Protestants have confessed, 
Sound de Schism p 103 b. Denique nulla in re a side Catholica discessit nisi libidinis & luxury causa.  That he was a Member of the Catholic Church. Why not? There are many Members of the Catholic Church besides Protestants. Others call him a true Defender of the true Faith, a Denfender of the Gospel, an Embracer of the pure Gospel of Christ, rejecting devises of men contrary thereunto. All this may be true, and yet they neither say nor intend this absolutely, but comparatively; not universally but respictvely to some particular controverted points, and principally this of the Supremacy.  
I charged some for making the cruelty of the Protestants, 
Sect. 4.  and the rigour of their Laws the motives of their falling away from the English Church. 
A full justification of our penal Laws.  And showed that more Protestants suffered not only death, but extreme torments in death for Religion, in the short reign of Queen Mary, than Roman Catholics in all the much longer reigns of all the Protestant Princes since the Reformation. And that the Kingdom of France and the Commonwealth of Venice had made the like Laws to ours. Whatsoever I say in our defence he takes no notice of, but declaims against the injustice of our Laws and Judges, not without a specious show of reason. Wherefore, because it intrencheth upon the honour of our Church and Nation, I will take the liberty to search this sore to the bottom.  
I confess that no man or Society of men can be justly punished (notwithstanding the brutish opinions of some persons) because they are noxious, unless they be noxious in the eye of the Law. No not by a legislative authority. Where a man cannot give sentence innocently, he cannot vote innocently. The reason is plain, Where there is no Law, there is no transgression; and where there is no transgression, there is no guilt, nor just punishment.  
Secondly, I confess that a Law made like a Casting-net, to throw over men's lives, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
L 3.  a most lawless Law. In the twelve Tables which Livy calls the fountains of public and private right; which alone said Tully, 
L. 1. de Orator.  do excel all the Libraries of all the Philosophers in the World, it is thus enacted, according to the excellent concise simplicity of their stile, 
Leg. 12. tall.  Privilegia ne inroganto. Let no private Laws be made to any man's hurt or prejudice. Likewise it was the Law of Solon, That no Law should be made of particular men, 
Aen Gaz. in Theo. ph●asium.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless it were imposed upon all the Athenians indifferently (said Demosthenes.) For the same reason, 
Cont Arist●c●aetem & Timocratem.  when the Thebans had a mind to banish Heraclitus, they durst not name him, but pointed him out in general, If there was any man in the City that never laughed, and hated all Mankind, let him depart before Sunset. Thinking vainly to hide the nakedness of their Law with a few figg-leaves of general expressions. So universally was this received throughout the World, that Laws should not be made for the ruin of particular Subjects.  
Thirdly, We must Take notice that many things are lawful in public Justice, that is, in War, or Legislation, or the like, which are not lawful in particular Justice between Subject and Subject. As it is lawful to pull down any Citizen's house, to save the whole City from fire. It is lawful to make use of any man's land, to make a bank to save the whole Country from inundation; in which cases nevertheless the public is obliged to repair the Subjects damage. Suppose the greater part of a City should force the honester part to submit to their pleasure, and contribute to their rebellious courses, or force them to it, the party forced is innocent. Yet in the recovery of the Town, the honestest Citizens are as subject to be slain, their houses to be burned, their goods to be plundered, as the most disloyal: And justly. For it being lawful to reduce the City to obedience by war, this justifies all necessary means of reduction. And the honest party who suffer without fault, cannot blame the Magistrates for their sufferings, nor the Soldiers who do their commands, but their fellow Citizens. But when this necessity is over, and the City is reduced, and distinction can be made, particular Justice must take place again, and then none ought to suffer but Delinquents, according to the degree of their Delinquency.  
Fourthly, To proceed one step nearer to the case in question. The same necessity doth justify those Laws which are enacted for the common safety and tranquillity of the whole body politic, under whatsoever penalties they a●e pleased to impose, as banishment, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, or death itself, so they be proportioned to the exigence of the dangers greater or lesser, though these Laws prove burdensome to particular Citizens, or restrain Subjects from the exercise of those things which otherwise were beneficial, lawful, and laudable to them in particular. Suppose a General should make an Edict, That no Soldier, u●der pain of death, should leave the C●mp: Yet one goes to visit his Father being sick, and suffers for it. This is not for doing his filial duty, but for violating of his General's Edict. In Ireland it was forbidden by Statute, under pain of most severe punishment, to use the words Crumabo and Butlerabo, because they were badgets of Faction, and incentives to Sedition. The Philistims did not suffer a Smith in Israel, lest the Hebrews should make themselves Swords and Spears. The King of Spain, weighing the danger that might arise from the numerous multitudes of Moors within his Dominions, sent them all packing away by an Edict. The Athenians thought it no injustice to banish their chiefest and most loyal Citizens, if they f●ared a tyranny▪ or necessity of State did require it. All Nations have their Imbargues, and prohibited goods, and forbid all Commerce and Conversation with those that are in open hostility against them. If a ship arrive from any places infected with some contagious disease, they keep the passengers from mixing with their Subjects, until they have given sufficient proof that they are ●ound. If they find cause to banish a citizen, either for a prefixed term, or for ever, under pain of death, or forfeiture of all their goods, if there be a necessity in it to secure the Commonwealth, they may do it. And if the persons to banished will return on their own heads, upon pretence that they love their Country so well that they cannot live out of it; or if any of them being a Clergy man should pretend that he returns out of conscience to do the offices of his Function among his Countrymen, it is not the Law, but they who pull the penalty of the Law upon themselves. In sum, it is clear that whensoever a Prince or a Republic, out of just necessity, and for the preservation of the Commonwealth, sh●ll restrain their subjects from anything that threatens the same with imminent dangers, upon whatsoever penalty it be, so it be proportionable to the danger, it is just. And if the Subject will not obey, his blood is upon his own head. The only question is, whether there was at that time not only a pretended, but a real necessity to make those Laws, which they call sanguinary or bloody, for the preservation of the Common wealth. This is the case between the Romanists and us, upon these two hinges this controversy is moved.  
Then to leave the Thesis, and come unto the Hypothesis, and to show that at that time there was a real necessity for the making of those Laws. First, let it be observed, that after the secession of the English Church from the Court of Rome, the succeeding Popes have for the most part looked upon England with a very ill eye. 
Sand de Schis. l. 1.  Witness that terrible and unparallelled excommunication and interdiction of England, a deprivation of Henry the eighth, formerly mentioned, published at Dunkirk, because they durst bring it no nearer. Witness the Bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth, against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents, 
Camd Annal. Eliz. l. 2. p. 7.  absolving all her Subjects from their oaths of Allegiance, without so much as an admonition preceding. Witness the Pope's negotiations with the English, Spanish, French, and Portugheses, to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murder, and the frame of the Government altered, published at Rome by Hieronimo Catena Secretary to Cardinal Alexandrino, in the time and with the privilege of Sixtus the fifth, Witness the Logantine authority given to Sanders, and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests, to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his Rebellion: 
Id. l. 2. p. 98.  And the Phoenix plume sent to Terowen, to encourage him likewise in his Rebellion, 
Id l 4. p. 145 & p. 150.  and a plenary Indulgence for him and all his adherents and assistants, from Clement the eighth. Lastly, witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King james from the inheritance of the Crown of England, 
p 164.  unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman catholic Interest.  
This is not all. In the second place the Popes, to have the greater influence upon England, did themselves found or conserve several Colleges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome, at Rheims, at Douai; where the English youth were trained up more for the advantage of the Pope, than of their Prince and native Country. What those Principles were which were then infused into them, I have neither means at present, nor in truth desire to inquire, because I hope that at this day they are disclaimed by all or the most learned and moderate persons of those Societies: Only for the justification of my native Country, give me leave to set down some of them in the words of the former learned Historiographer. Suspicions also were daily raised by the great number of Priests creeping more and more into England, 
Com'd Annal l 3 p. 11  who privily felt men's minds, spread abroad That Princes excommunicate were to be deposed: and whispered in corners, That such Princes as professed not the Roman Religion, had forfeited their Title and Regal Authority: That those men which had entered into holy Orders, were, by a certain ecclesiastical freedom, exempted from all jurisdiction of Princes, and not bound by their Laws, nor aught to reverence their Majesty. And that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole World, yea even in temporal matters. And that the Magistrates of England were no lawful Magistrates; and therefore not to be accounted for Magistrates. Yea, that all things whatsoever done by the Queen's authority from the time that the Bull declaratory of Pius quintus was published, were by the Laws of God and Man altogether void, and to be esteemed nothing. And some of them dissembled not that they were returned into England with no other intent, then, by reconciling in confession, to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Queen. Judge how such Emissaties deserved to be welcomed into a Kingdom. More might be added, but this itself is enough or too much.  
Lastly, View all the Treasons and Rebellions that were in Queen Elizabeth's time, and see from what source they did spring. Parsons proposed to Papists the deposing of the Queen, so far forth that some of them thought to have delivered him into the Magistrates hands. And wrote a Book under the name of Doleman, to entitle the Infanta of Spain to the Crown of England. Of Sanders I have spoken formerly. Only let me add this, That when he was found dead, they found in his pouch Orations and Epistles to confirm the Rebels, with promise of assistance from the Bishop of Rome and others. Parr confessed, That that which finally settled him in his treasonable purpose, 
Ibid. l. 3. p. 44. l. 3. p. 74.  to kill the Queen, was the reading of Allens Book, that Princes excommunicated for Heresy were to be deprived of life. Ballard was himself a Priest of the Seminary of Rheims. See his conspiracy. I pass by the commotions raised in Scotland by Bruce, Creiton, and Haies. 
Camd. An. l. 3. p. 132  Squire accused Walpoole for putting him upon it to poison the Queen. I speak not of the confession of john Nicholas, nor the testimony of Eliot mentioned in their own Apology, because they are not of undoubted faith. 
Apol. Marc. p. 329.  This is most certain, That when Campian was interrogated before his death, whether Queen Elizabeth were a lawful and rightful Queen, he refused to answer: And being asked, If the Pope should send forces against the Queen, whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope, he openly professed and testified under his hand, that he would stand for the Pope. 
Camd. An. l 3. p. 11.  The same Author addeth, That his fellows being examined in like manner, either refused to answer, or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory answers, that some ingenuous Catholics began to suspect that they fostered some treachery.  
Lay all these together, their disloyal answers, their seditious tenets, so many treacherous attempts, so many open Rebellions, so many depositions and deprivations and exclusions, so many Books brimful of prodigious treason. At such a time when the seditious opinions of that party were in their Zenith; when seditious persons crowded over daily in such numbers; when the Heir apparent of the Crown of England was a Roman Catholic. And let any reasonable man judge, whether the Kingdom of England had not just cause of fear; whether they were not necessitated to provide nequid detrimenti caperet Respublica, that the Commonwealth should sustain no loss; whether our Statesmen who did then sit at the stern, were not obliged to their Prince and to their Country, to provide by all means possible for the security of their Prince and tranquillity of their Country, which could not be done at that time, without the exclusion of such Bigots and Bowtifeus from among them, nor they be possibly excluded but by such severe Laws.  
These are the very reasons given in the Edict itself, 
Apr. 1. & El. 23. ex Apol. Mart.  That it did plainly appear to her Majesty and her Council, by many examinations, by their own Letters and confessions, and by the actual conspiracies of the like persons sent into Ireland by the Pope, that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesty's Dominions, was to prepare the Subjects to assist foreign invaders, to excite the People to Rebellion, and to deprive her Majesty of her Crown and dignity, and life itself.  
Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some. Though many of them who were bred in those Seminaries were Pensioners of the Pope, the King of Spain, or the Duke of Guise, all which at that time were in open hostility with the Crown of England. (Is it not lawful to forbid Subjects to be bred in an enemy's Country, or to turn their Pensioners? or if they do go out of themselves, to exclude them from their native Soil?) Yet in other places, and it may be in those Colleges also, many others preserved their principles of loyalty. At the same time Doctor Bishop, one of the Roman communion, writ a Book to prove that the constitution obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran Council, upon which the Pope's authority of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their allegiance is founded, was not decreed by the Fathers, nor ever admitted in England, but was a private Decree of Pope Innocent the third. If all his Fellows had held the same moderation, there had been no need of such Laws. But it is a remediless misery of Societies, that when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and the Innocent, public Justice (which seeks to prevent the common danger) looks upon the whole Society with one eye. And if any innocent persons suffer, they must not blame the Law, but their own Fellows, who gave just occasion for the making of such severe Laws.  
So we see how many things here were of their own election. First they were warned by an Edict not to study in those Seminaries, which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in public hostility with the Crown of England. Nevertheless they would not do it. They were commanded to return home by a prefixed time. They would not do it. This alone had been sufficient to punish them as Traitors by the ancient laws of the Land. Yet further they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England, nor to exercise their priestly Functions there. Yet they did it. And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Council, 
Edm. Camp. epist. ad Conc. R. Aug.  That he was come over, and would not desist until he had either turned them to be Roman Catholics, or died upon their Lances.  
To conclude if we view the particular Laws, we shall find that they looked more upon the Court of Rome then the Church of Rome. The Act and Oath of Supremacy were framed in the days of Henry the eighth by Roman Catholics themselves. The first penal Laws of this nature that I find made by Queen Elizabeth, were in the sixth year of her reign, against those who should maintain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing, or refuse the Oath of ●upremay twice. The second in the fourteenth year of her reign, against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an Heretic, Schismatic, or Infidel. And likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome, to reconcile any of the Queen's Subjects, or Indulgences, or Agnus Dei, or the like. Yet was this never put in execution for six years, until the execution of it was extorted. All this either concerned the Court of Rome, or such Acts as were not necessary to a Roman Catholic for the enjoyment of his conscience. A man might believe freely what his conscience dictated to him, or practise his own religion, so he prated not too much, nor meddled with others. Afterwards in the twenty third year of her reign, issued out the Proclamation against the English Seminaries, wherein her Subjects were bred Pensioners to the enemies of her Crown. The last Laws of this kind were made in the twenty fourth year of her ●eign, against those who should dissuade English Subjects from their obedience to their Prince, or from the Religion established, or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome.  
In all these Laws, though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions, and treasons, and deprivations, and extremest necessity, there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen mary's Priest, or any that were ordained within the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving, so they were not over busy, and meddled with others. These might have sufficed or officiating to Roman Catholics if the Pope had pleased: But he preferred his own ends before their safety, Non his juvenius orta parentibus infecit aequor sanguine. These were not principled for his purpose, nor of that temper that his affairs required. And therefore he erected new Seminaries, and placed new Readers according to his own mind. And in conclusion forced the Queen to use necessary remedies so save herself and the Kingdom. These things being premised, it will not be difficult to answer to all which R. C. saith.  
First, he saith that in all the pretended cases of treason, there is no election but of matters of Religion, and that they suffer merely for matters of Religion, without any show of true Treason. I confess that Treason is complicated with Religion in it. But I deny that they suffer merely for Religion, any more than he that poisoned an Emperor or a Prior in the Sacrament, could have been said to suffer for administering the Sacrament, and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament; or then he, who out of blind obedience to his Superior kills a man, can be said to suffer death for his conscience; or he who being infected with the Plague, and seeking to infect others; if he be shot dead in the attempt, can be said to suffer for his sickness. In so many designs to take away the Queen's life, in so many rebellions, in so many seditious tenets, in so many traitorous books, and lastly in adhering unto, and turning Pensioner to a public professed Enemy of their Prince and native Country, can he see no treason? nothing but matters of Religion? If he cannot, or will not; yet they who were more nearly concerned in it, had reason to look better about them.  
He asks how I can term that political Supremacy, which is Supremacy in all causes, to wit, Ecclesiastical or Religious? I answer, very well; As the King is the Keeper of both Tables, to see that every one of his Subjects do his duty in his place, whether Clergyman or Layman, and to infl●ct political punishment upon them who are delinquent. And where he saith that Queen Elizabeth challenged more, he doth her wrong. She Challenged no more. And moreover in her first Parliament took order to have the head of the English Church left out of her Title.  
He demands further, whether Nero by the same right might not have condemned St. Peter and St. Paul of Treason, for coming to Rome with forbidden Orders, and seeking to seduce his Subjects from the Religion established. No, for no Orders were forbidden in Rome by law, true or false: Neither did those blessed Apostles seduce Subjects when they converted them from vanities to serve the living God. Let him show that Saint Peter by his declaratory Bull did deprive Nero of his Empire, and absolve his Subjects from their allegiance, or had his Emissaries to incite them to rebellion, or sent hollowed banners, and Phoenix plumes, and plenary indulgences, to those who were in Arms against him, or plotted how to take away his life, or that Christians in those days did publish any such seditions books, or broach Opinions so pernicious to all civil government. And then his question will deserve a further answer. Until than it may suffice to tell him the case is not the same. Still he confounds political Supremacy with ecclesiastical, and the accidental abuses of holy Orders, with holy Orders themselves.  
Upon this mistake, he urgeth an Enthymeme against us, Popish Priesthood and Protestant Ministry are the same in substance: Therefore if the one be treasonable, the other is treasonable also. His consequence is just such another as this; Thomas and Nicholas are both the same creatures in substance, that is, men; therefore if Thomas be a Traitor, Nicholas is another. How often must he be told, that their Treason did not lie in the substance of their holy Orders, but in the abuses, and in the treasonable crimes of the persons constituted in holy Orders, in their disobedience to the Laws in being Pensioners to public enemies of the Kingdom, etc.  
But he presseth this Argument yet further. If Popish Priests can be lawfully forbidden by Protestants to return into England, contrary to the Laws under pain of Treason, than Protestant Ministers may be also forbidden by Puritans and Independents to return into England, contrary to their Laws, upon pain of Treason.  
Hoc Ithacus velit, & magno mercentur Achivi.  
This is that which many of them desire. They doubt not at long running to deal well enough with the rest, but the English Protestants are a beam in their eye. To his Argument I answer by denying his consequence, which halts downright upon all four. First, Let him show that those whom he terms Puritan and Independents have the same just power. Secondly, That there is such a Law in force. Thirdly, That there are as just grounds now for such a Law as there were then, That the Protestant Clergy on this side the Seas are so formidable, either for their number, or for their dependency upon the Pope or foreign Princes. Let him show that they left the Kingdom contrary to Law, and have been bred here in such Seminaries contrary to Law, and are so principled with seditious opinions, which threaten such imminent a●d unavoidable danger and ruin to the Kingdom. If he fail in any one of these, as he will do in every one of them, his consequence falls flat to to the ground.  
In the close of this Chapter, he produceth two testimonies beyond exception, to prove that Popish Priests in England died for Religion. The one of King james in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance. 
pag. 127.  I do constantly maintain that which I have said in my Apology, that no man either in my time or in the late Queens, ever died here for his conscience, Priests, and Popish Churchmen only excepted, that receive Orders beyond Seas. The other of Queen Elizabeth, that she did think that most of the poor Priests, 
Camb. Annal Eliz an. 1581.  whom she executed were not guilty of Treason, and yet she executed them for Treason. What satisfaction he will make to the Ghosts of these two great Princes I know not. This is apparent, that he hath done them both extreme wrong. First, to King james by coupling together two divided and disjointed sentences, and likewise by cutting off his sentence in the midst. For evident proof whereof, I will here lay down the sentence word for word, as they are in the French edition, for I have neither the Latin nor the English by me. I maintain constantly and it is most true which I said in my Apology, that never, neither in the time of the late Queen, nor in my time, any man whatsoever hath been executed simply for Religion. Here is a full truth without any exception in the World. Then follows immediately, For let a man be as much a Papist as he will, let him publish it abroad with as much constancy and zeal as he pleaseth, his life never was, nor is in danger for it: Provided that he attempt not some fact, expressly contrary to the Laws, nor have an hand in some dangerous and unlawful enterprise. Then follows the exception, Priests and Popish Churchmen excepted which receive their Orders beyond the Seas. Which exception is not referred to the former clause, never hath been executed simply for Religion, but to the later clause, his life never was nor is in danger for it. Their lives were in danger indeed, being forfeited to the Law, but they were never executed, by the grace and favour of the Prince. The words following, which he hath altogether clipped off, do make the fraud most apparent: who (which Priests) for many and many treasons and attempts which they have kindled and devised against this estate, being once departed out of the Kingdom, are prohibited to return, render pain of being reputed, attainted and convicted of the crime of treason. And nevertheless if there were not some other crime besides th●ir simple return into England, never any of them were executed. We see plainly that these penal Laws were not made in Order to Religion, but out of necessary reason of Estate to prevent treason. Nor was any man executed for disobedience to those penal Laws, unless it was complicated with some other crime.  
To come to Queen Elizabeth, If that which he saith here be true, than that flower of Queens was a tyrant worse than Nero, to thirst not only after humane blood, but after innocent blood, yea after the blood of those who were designed to the service of God. Shall we never have one testimony ingenuously cited? Reader, I beseech thee, take the pains to peruse the place, and thou shalt find that nothing was more merciful than that Royal Queen, and nothing more cruel than the Pope and their Superiors, who sacrificed those poor Priests to the ambition of the Roman Court, having first blindfolded them with their vow of obedience, and exposed them to slaughter, as the Turks do their common Soldiers, only to fill up Ditches with their Carcases, over which themselves may mount the Walls.  
First, 
Camb. Annal. Eliz an. 1581.  the Author alleged, doth testify, That the Queen never thought men's consciences were to be forced, no sign of purposed cruelty, quaeque, dolet quoties cogitur esse ferox. Secondly, that she complained many times that she was driven of necessity to take these courses, unless she would see the destruction of herself and her Subjects, under colour of conscience and the Catholic Religion. Tell me, who are the supreme Judges of the public dangers and necessities of England? Is not the Prince? At least with his Council and the representative body of the whole Ki●gdome. When all these unanimously have declared that there is a necessity, and have prescribed the best means that possibly they could devise to prevent the danger, shall a foreign Prelate, and he not only interessed, but the very source of all the danger, have power to contradict it, and to send his suspected Emissaries more frequently than ever into the Kingdom? A Pit is digged, true, but the Authors of these seditious opinions and practices, are they who digged it. The Queen did what she could to cover it, by her Proclamations and Acts of Parliament, to premonish every one of the danger. If the Pope and their Superiors would be so cruel to thrust out their Emissaries upon desperate attempts, upon their vow of blind obedience, and a promise of Celestial rewards, their blood is upon their heads. The Queen said further, That for the most part of these silly Priests, she did not believe them to be guilty of practising the destruction of their Country, but their Superiors were they, whom she held to be the instruments of this foul crime, for as much as they who were sent, committed the full and free disposition of themselves to their Superiors. So first, R. C. inserts these words into the Queen's speech [whom she executed] she executed none, she condemned none. Those who were executed in her long reign of above forty four years were not so many. This expression would have fitted the short reign of Queen Mary much better. Secondly, he adds these words, [were guilty of treason] whereas the Queen said no such thing, but [were guilty of practising the destruction of their Country.] Can none have an hand in the destruction of their Country, but only they who are practisers and plotters and contrivers of it? Are none guilty of treason, but only they who practised the destruction of their Country? There are Instruments in treason as well as engineers, who are not privy to the intrigues of the conspiracy. And yet suffer justly for acting their parts in it. Yea without practising or acting, the very concealment of treason alone, is sufficient by the Law of England, and by the Law of Nations, to condemn a person for not discovering it. Lastly, he leaves out these words which are a clear exposition of the whole sentence. But their Superiors were they whom she held to be the Instruments of this foul crime, for as much as the Emissaries did commit the whole disposure of themselves to their Superiors. So she makes the Superiors and some others, who we●e most busy, most subtle, and most affected among them, to be the contrivers and grand traitors. But for the most part of the silly Priests, she took them to be but executers of the designs of their Superiors, to shoot those Bolts which they had made, and to pull the Chestnuts out of the fire with their naked fingers for their Superiors to eat. What dealing may others expect from them in citations, who are not afraid to cast undeserved dirt upon Majesty, and prevaricate with their natural Princess, under the gracious protection of whose just government they first beheld the light It may serve as one instance of his undue citing testimonies, and authorities, that whereas I say, that dangerous and bloody positions and practices, produce severe Laws. And that I wish all seditious opinions and overrigorous Statutes, with the memory of them buried in perpetual oblivion, he inferreth that I seem to confess, that the Laws made against Catholics, were cruel and un●ust. He did well to say [it seemeth] for I neither say the one nor the other, though my wishes be the same they were. On the contrary I justify them upon this undeniable ground, that no Kingdom is destiture of necessary remedies for its own conservation. That which I said, I spoke indifferently both of their Laws and ours. That Law which was justly enacted, may be over-rigorously executed, when that necessity which was the only ground of the Law is abated. I wish the necessity had not been then so great as to require Laws written in blood, and that a lesser coercion would have sufficed then for a remedy. The necessity being abated I wish the rigour may be likewise abated. To divide their Laws and our Laws, or the necessity and the remedy is a fallacy and contrary to what I said, when I wished all seditious opinions and overrigorous Statutes were buried in oblivion.  
He addeth, That perhaps mine own persecution hath taught me this lenity. At last he confesseth that we suffer persecution, which even now he denied. The Earl of Strafford then Lieutenant of Ireland, did commit much to my hands the political regiment of that Church, for the space of eight years. In all that time let him name one Roman Catholic, that suffered either death or imprisonment, or so much as a pecuniary mulct of twelve pence for his Religion upon any penal Statute. If he cannot, as I am sure he cannot, than it is not my present persecution that taught me that lenity. I remember not one Roman Catholic that suffered in all that time, but only the titular Archbishop of Cashells, who was indeed imprisoned for three or four days, not only upon suspicion, but upon information out of Spain, that he was a pensioner of the Catholic Kings, and being found to be no such dangerous person upon my representation was dismissed.  
Let no man hence imagine that we neglected our duties. We did our work by more noble and more successful means then penal Laws, by building of Churches and mansion Houses for Ministers, by introducing a learned Clergy, by enjoining them residence, by affording them countenance and protection and means of hospitality, by planting and ordering Schools for the education of youth, and by looking carefully, to the education and marriages of the King's Wards. To look to the Ecclesiastical Regiment was the care of particular Bishops. To look to the public safety of the Kingdom, and to free it from sedition masked under the Wizard of Religion, was the care of the Sovereign Magistrate.   

CHAP. 4.  

Sect. 1.  IN the fourth Chapter of the vindication I set forth the dignity of Apostolical Churches, 
The Kings of England always political Heads of the English Church.  & he great influence they had upon their neighbour Churches, yet without any legal jurisdiction over them, especially the Roman Church in the West. I showed how they endeavoured to convert this honourable Presidency into Monarchical power; But that the power which they endeavoured to usurp, was in itself uncapable of prescription. And if it had been capable, yet they had no prescription for it. That the British, Saxon, Danish, and Norman Kings, successively were the only Patrons and Protectors of the Church within their Dominions, and disposed of all things concerning the external regiment thereof, by the advice of their Prelates, called ecclesiastical Synods, made ecclesiastical Laws, punished ecclesiastical persons, prohibited ecclesiastical Judges, received Appeals from ecclesiastical Courts, rejected the ecclesiastical Laws of the Popes at their pleasures, gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiastical Laws, as they thought good, in order to their own Dominions; made ecclesiastical Corporations, appropriated ecclesiastical Benefices, translated episcopal Sees, forbid Appeals to Rome, rejected the Pope's Bulls, protested against his Legates, questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the King's Bench, condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court, enlarged or restrained the privileges of the Clergy, prescribed the endowment of Vicars, set down the wages of Priests, and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court. And all this was showed evidently, not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors, but out of the Customs and Common Law of the Realm, out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers, out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor, the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlisle, the Articles of the Clergy, the Statutes of Provisors, and many other Statutes made with the general consent of the whole Kingdom. It is not possible in any cause to produce more authentical proofs than these are: To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word. So as once more I take it for granted, that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome, but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him.  
All that he saith, with any show of opposition to this, is first, That whatsoever Kings do is not lawful, Whereas I spoke not of any single Kings, but of the whole succession of British E●glish, Danish, and Norman Kings, nor of Kings alone, but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdom, Clergy and Laity, whi●h proves irrefragably, that what they did, was the Custom and common fundamental Law of the Kingdom. And that there is no Prescription, nor can be, against it. That they did it de facto, is enough to make good my assertion, that Henry the eight did no new thing, but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him.  
Secondly, he saith, That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papal power sometimes, and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced, 
Not only acts of Papal Power, but the Power itself contrary to our Laws.  do not only speak against some acts of Papal power, but against the power itself, against the Pope's power to make Laws, to send Legates, or Bulls, or Excommunications without licence, the power to receive Appeals, the power to make ecclesiastical Co●porations, the power to dispose of ecclesiastical Benefices, etc. What lawful power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England, who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to do Justice there, nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to do Justice there, without licence? Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus, or this or that Legate, but against all Legates that come without licence; nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone, but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdom, without licence. Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum, In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another man's licence. Lastly, our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge, The Patronage of the Church, the power to make ecclesiastical Laws, the power to call ecclesiastical Synods, the power to dispose of all things which concern the external regiment of the Church, by the advice of his Clergy and Council, within his own Dominions. In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papal power and the power itself, seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papal power, but deny the power itself.  
He saith, If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty, I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediately under Christ, by which headship, as it was expressed in King Edward's time, all jurisdiction both in spiritual and temporal causes descended from the Crown. To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty, it is not necessary that I should justify all the extravagant expressions, or oily insinuations of parasitical flatterers. Our Kings neither do challenge, nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spiritual causes, nor any part of the power of the Keys, either to their own use, or to derive it to others. Great Palaces seldom want their Moths, or great Princes their Flatterers, who are ready to blow the coals of ambition, and adorn their Masters with stolen plumes, such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes. It is not much to be wondered at, if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject, having learned that language from a Roman Catholic before them. Bishop Bonner, being the King's Ambassador with Clement the seventh, did so boldly and highly set forth his Master's Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinals, that they thought of burning him, or casting him into a vessel of scalding lead, if he had not provided for his own safety by flight. Acworth contra Monarch. Sanderi, l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me, if any such thing had been, to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is Gods. It is enough to my purpose to have showed that all King Henry's Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this political headship of the Church, as I have showed throughout all the parts & branches thereof, if he could see wood for trees. These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter, and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication, do make up that politic headship, that is, a power paramount, to see that all persons do their duties in their callings, and that all things be acted by fit Agents, which are necessary to that great and architectonical end, that is, the safety and tranquillity of the Commonwealth. This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest, namely, The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions, which is neither more nor less than the political head of the Church. In a great Family there are several offices, as a Divine, a Physician, a Schoolmaster, and every one of these is supreme in his own way; yet the Master of the Family hath an economical power over them all, to see that none of them do abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family. Our Parliament Rolls, our ecclesiastical Registers, the Records of the King's Bench and Common Pleas do all prove, that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiastical affairs. I do confess that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King, as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops, in later days were snatched from the Crown by the violence of Popes; but for many of the rest, and especially for that which did virtually include them all, that is, the Legislative power in ecclesiastical causes, wherein the whole body of the Kingdom did claim a nearer interest, in respect of that receptive Power which they have ever enjoyed, to admit or not admit such new Laws whereby they were to be governed, it had been folly and madness in the Popes to have attempted upon it.  
One doubt still remains, How ecclesiastical Jurisdiction could be said to be derived from the Crown. (For they might be apt enough in those days to use such improper expressions. 
Jurisdiction is from Ordination, but Princes apply the matter. ) First, with the Romanists themselves I distinguish between habitual and actual Jurisdiction. Habitual Jurisdiction is derived only by ordination. Actual Jurisdiction, is a right to exercise that habit, arising from the lawful application of the matter or subject. In this later the Lay Patron, and much more the Sovereign Prince, have their respective Interests and concurrence. Dioceses and Parishes were not of divine but humane institution. And the same persons were born Subjects before they were made Christians. The ordinary gives a School master a licence or habitual power to teach, but it is the Parents of the Children who apply or subtract the matter, and furnish him with Scholars, or afford him a fit subject whereupon to exercise this habitual power.  
Secondly, we must also distinguish between the interior and exterior Court, between the Court of Conscience and the Court of the Church. For in both these Courts the power of the Keys hath place, but not in both after the same manner. That power which is exercised in the Court of Conscience, for binding and losing of sins, is solely from Ordination. 
Jurisdidiction enlarged and fortified with coercive power by Princes  But that power which is exercised in the Court of the Church, is partly from the Sovereign Magistrate, especially in England where Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is enlarged and fortified with a coercive power, and the bounds thereof have been much dilated by the favour and piety of Christian Princes, by whom many causes have been made of Ecclesiastical cognisance which formerly were not, & from whom the coercive or compulsory power of summoning the King's Subjects by processes and citations was derived. It is not then the power of the Keys, or any part or branch thereof in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, even in the exterior Court of the Church which is derived from the Crown: But it is coercive and compulsory and coroboratory power, it is the application of the matter, it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdicton in the Court of the Church, to prevent the oppressions of their Subjects, and to provide for the tranquillity of the Commonwealth, which belongs to Sovereign Princes.  
As to his corollary that never any King of England before Henry the eighth, did challenge an exemption from all jurisdiction under Christ, 
Henry the eighth not exempt from the power of the Keys.  it is as gross a mistake as all the rest. For neither did Henry the eighth challenge any such exemption in the Court of Conscience. Among the six bloody Articles established by himself, that of auricular confession was one. Nor in the Court of the Church, seeing the direct contrary is expressly provided for in the Statute itself. 
An. 25. H. 8. C. xxi.  The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, and his Successors shall have power and authority from time to time, by their discretions to give, grant, and dispose, by an instrument under the Seal of the said Archbishop, unto your Majesty and to your Heirs and Successors, Kings of this Realm; as well all manner of such Licences, Dispensations, Compositions, Faculties, Grants, Rescripts, Delegacies, Instruments, and all other Writings, for causes not being contrary or repugnant to holy Scriptures and Laws of God, as heretofore hat● been used and accustomed to be had and obtained by your Highness, or any of your most noble Progenitors, or any of yours or their Subjects at the See of Rome. So vain a suggestion it is, That King Henry the eighth did free himself not only from Papal Authority, but also and as well from Episcopal, archiepiscopal, and all Spiritual Authority either abroad or in England.  

Sect. 2.  And his Argument which he presseth so seriously to prove it is as vain, That the Head of a Company is under none of that Company. The Pope himself is under his Confessor, who hath power to bind him or lose him in the Court of Conscience. The Master of a Family is under his own Chaplain for the regiment of his Soul, and under his Physician for the government of his Body. What should hinder it, that a Political Head may not be under an Ecclesiastical Pastor. The Kings of England are not only under the foreign Jurisdiction of a general Council, but also under their Ecclesiastical Pastors though their own Subjects. Only they are exempted from all coercive and compulsory power.  
Let us try whether he be more fortunate in opposing, than he hath been in answering. The Kings of England (saith he) permitted Appeals to Rome in ecclesiastical causes, as is evident in St. Wilfrides' case, 
Saint Wilfrid.  who was never reproved nor disliked for appealing twice to Rome: not so, but the clear contrary appeareth evidently in Saint Wilfrides' case. Though he was an Archbishop, and if an Appeal had been proper in any case, it had been in that case. 
Spel. conc An. 705.  This pretended Appeal was not only much disliked but rejected, by two Kings successively, by the other Archbishop, and by the body of the English Clergy, as appeareth by the event. For Wilfride had no benefit of the Pope's sentences, but was forced after all his struggling, to quit the two Monasteries which were in question, whether he would or not, and to sit down with his Archbishopric, which he might allwnies have held peaceably if he would. This agrees with his supposed Vision in France, that at his return into his Country, he should receive the greatest part of his possessions that had been taken from him, 
Bed. l. 5. Ecc. hist c. 20.  that is, praesulatum Ecclesiae suae, his Archbishopric, but not his two Monasteries. But this is much more plain by the very words of King Alfride, cited by me in the Vindication, to which R. C. hath offered no answer, That he honoured the Pope's Nuncios for their grave lives and honourable looks. Here is not a word of their credential Letters: O how would a Nuncio storm at this, and take it as an affront! The King told them further, That he could not give any assent to their legation. So that which R. C. calls permitting, was in truth downright dissenting and rejecting. The reason follows, because it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Pope's Letter. Is not this disliking? What could the King say more incivility, then to tell the Pope's Nuncios that their Master's demands were unreasonable; or what could be more to the purpose, and to the utter ruin of R. C. his cause, then that the Decrees of the pope were impugned, not once but twice, not by a few factious persons, but by two or three Kings successively, and by Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Roman, with the flower of the Clergy, and the whole Council of the English.  
He proceedeth, 
St. Austin and his ● Fellows. Bed. l. 2. c 4.  they never disliked that Profession of Saint Augustine's Fellows, that the See Apostolic had sent them to preach in Britanny, as she is accustomed to do in all the World. First, why should they dislike it? they had no reason for it. No good Christian can dislike the Husbandman's sowing of Wheat, but every good Christian doth dislike the envious man's supersemination, or sowing of Tares above the Wheat: Or if there had been reason, how could they dislike that which in probability they did not know. The Letter, out of which these words are cited, was not written to the English Kings, but to the Scotish Bishops, by Laurentius, Successor to Austin, in the See of Canterbury, and Melitus of London, and justus of Rotchester, which three were all the Bishops of the Roman Communion, that were at that day in Britain.  
But if perchance he imagine that the Pope's sending Preachers into Britain, doth either argue an ancient or acquire a subsequent Jurisdiction over Britain, he errs doubly; first they did nothing without the King's licence for matter of fact, they produced no Papal mandates, which had been in vain to a Pagan King. At their first arrival the King commanded them to abide in the Isle of Thanet until his further pleasure was known. They did so. Afterwards they were called in by his command; 
Bed. l. 1. e. 25.  he gave them an express licence to preach to his Subjects, and after his own conversion majorem praedicandi licentiam, a further and larger licence. So the conversion of Kent was by the Pope's endeavoures, and the King's authority. Secondly, for matter of right, Conversion gives no just title to Jurisdiction. 
See Speed l. 6 c. 9 11.22.  How many Countries have been converted to the Christian Faith by the Britan's and English, over which they never pretended any authority.  
It followeth, they never disliked That Saint Gregory should subject all the Priests of Britain under Saint Austin, and give him power to erect two archiepiscopal Sees, and twelve Episcopal Sees under each of them. 
Fed. l. 1. c. 29.  Whom could Ethelbert, being himself a Novice in Christianity, better trust with the disposing of Ecclesiastical Affairs in his Kingdom, than those who had been his Converters? But either Saint Gregory in his projects, or rather Austin in his informations, did mightily over-shoot themselves; for the twentieth part of Britain was not in Ethelberts power: And all the other Saxon Kings were Pagans at that time. We have seen that after the death of Austin and Gregory, there were still but one Archbishop, and two Bishops of the Roman Communion throughout the Britannic Islands. The British and Scotish Bishops were many, but they renounced all Communion with Rome. The British Bishops professed plainly to Austin himself in their Synod, that they would not acknowledge him for their Archbishop. 
Bed. l. 2. c. 2.  And the Scotish Bishops did so much abhor from the Communion of the Bishops of the Roman Communion, that (as themselves complained) Dagamus one of the Scotish Bishops refused to eat with them, or to lodge with them in the same Inn: 
Bed l. 2. c. 4.  And yet he tells us in great earnest that they never disliked it.  
He addeth, 
St. Melit.  they never disliked that Saint Melit should bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod, to be observed of the Church of England. It may be so. But whether it was so or not, whether they liked them or disliked them, whether they received them or rejected them, 
L. 2. c. 4.  Venerable Bede who is his Author speaketh not a word. This is not proving, but presuming. And why might they not receive them if they found them to be equal and beneficial, non propter authoritatem Legislatoris, sed propter aequitatem Legis, not for the authority of the Roman Synod, but for the equity of their Decrees? And what were their Decrees? 
Ibidem.  Ordinationes de vita & quiet Monachorum, Orders for the good conversation and quiet of Monks. A matter of no great importance, but great or small, the Decrees of the Roman Synod were of no force in England, unless they were received by the King and Kingdom; and if they were received by the King and Kingdom, than they were naturalised and made the Laws of England, not of Pope Boniface an usurping and (if we may trust Saint Gregory his Predecessors) an Antichristian Prelate.  

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

Bed l. 3. c 25. St. Peter Po●ter of Heaven.  They acknowledged that Saint Peter was the special Porter of Heaven, whom they would obey in all things. I understand not why he urgeth this, except it be to expose the simplicity of those times to derision. The case was this, there was a disputation between Coleman and Wilfrid about the observation of Easter. Coleman pleaded a tradition from Saint john, upon whose bosom Christ leaned, delivered to them by Columba their first Converter; Wilfrid pleaded a different tradition from St. Peter, to whom Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. The King demanded whether that which was said of Saint Peter was true. They acknowledged it was. And whether any thing of like nature was said to Saint Columb. They said no. Thereupon the King concluded, Hic est Ostiarius ille cui ego contradicere nolo, etc. ne forte me adveniente ad fores Regni Coelorum, non sit quireseret, averso illo qui Claves tenere probatur, This is the Porter whom I will not contradict, lest peradventure when I come to the gates of Heaven, there be none to open unto me, having made him averse to me, who is proved to keep the Keys. No man can be so simple as to believe that there are Gates, and Keys, and Porters in Heaven. It were but a poor office for Saint Peter to sit Porter at the Gate, whilst the rest were feasting within at the Supper of the Lamb. The Keys were given to Saint john as much as to Saint Peter.  
They publicly engraved in the front of their Churches, 
Camd. Brit. p. 165. St Peter Superior to Saint. Paul.  that Saint Peter was higher in degree than Saint Paul. Let them place St. Peter as high as they please, so they place him not so high as Christ, nor make him Superior to the whole conjoint college of Apostles. The truth is this. King Ina builded a magnificent Temple at Glastenbury to the honour of Christ and memory of St. Peter and St. Paul; and upon the same caused some verses to be engraven, wherein St. Peter and St. Paul were compared together Doctior hic monitis, celsior ille gradu, or St. Paul was more learned, but St. Peter higher in degree; St. Paul opened the hearts, St. Peter the ears; St. Paul opened heaven by his Doctrine, St. Peter by his Keys; St. Paul was the way, St. Peter the gate; St. Peter was the rock, St. Paul the Architect. Theological truths ought not to be founded upon Poetical licence. He knows right well that their own Doctors do make St. Paul equal in all things to St. Peter, except in primacy of order. We acknowledge that St. Peter was the beginning of unity; why then might he not have the first place, according to his primacy of Order? But the question between them and us is of another nature, concerning a supremacy of Power. When St. Peter's Nets were full, he did but beckon and his fellows came to partake: But the Court of Rome use him more hardly. For whatsoever was ever said or done to his honour or advantage, rests not upon his person, who was still no more but a fellow of the Apostolical college, but devolves wholly upon his Successors, to make them Monarches of the Church and Masters of all Christians.  
They suffered their Bishops to teach, 
L. 2. Flor. c. 11. St. Peter a Monarch.  That St. Peter had a Monarchy; Was, next after Christ, the foundation of the Church; And that neither true Faith nor good Life would save out of the unity of the Roman Church. As if our Ancestors had ever understood the Roman Church in that sense which they do now, for the universal Church, or heard of their new coined distinction of a mediate and immediate foundation; as if Saint Peter was laid immediately upon Christ, and all the rest of the Apostles upon Saint Peter: or as if the Court of Rome were Saint Peter's sole Heir. If their Bishops had taught any such Doctrine in the Counsels of Constance and Basile, they would have gone near to have been censured for Heretics, unless they had explained themselves better than he doth. Though it is true, that after the Popes by violence and subtlety had gained so much upon the World, as to be able to impose new upstart Oaths, first upon Archbishops, and then upon Bishops, inconsistent with their Oaths of Allegiance, and had falsified the very forms of their own Oaths from regulas sanctorum Patrum, the rules of the holy Fathers, to regalia sancti Petri, the Royalties of Saint Peter; then they had the Bishops bound hand and foot to their devotion. But who were these Bishops? What were their names? What were their words? Who were the Kings that suffered them? Nay he telleth us not, but leaveth us in the dark, first to divine what was his dream, and then to show him the interpretation of it: Only he referreth us to a treatise of his own, called the flowers of the English Church, which I never see nor heard of but from himself. If there be any thing that is pertinent and deserveth an answer, had it not been as easy to have cited his Authors, as himself, in the margin? When his latent testimonies come to be viewed and examined, it will be found that his Monarchy is nothing but a primacy or principality of Order; his foundation a respective, not an absolute foundation; and his Roman Church the Catholic Church: Or else it will appear, that instead of gathering flowers, he hath been weeding the Doctors of the Church.  

Bed. l. 4 c. 18.  They admitted Legates of the Pope, whom he sent to examine the faith of the English Church. The intended Pope was Pope Agatho: 
John the precentor.  The pretended Legate was john the precentor, whom the Pope sent into England at such time as the Heresy of Eutyches was frequent in the oriental parts, ut cujus esset fidei Anglorum Ecclesia diligenter edisceret, that he should learn out diligently what was the faith of the English Church. He saith not to examine juridically, but to learn out diligently. This john his supposed Legate, had no more power than an ordinary Messenger. Well, a Synod was called: by whom? by the supposed Legate? No, but by the English. Who presided in it? the pretended Legate? No, but Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is not the least footstep of any foreign Jurisdiction or Authority in the whole business.  
They caused divers Bishoprics to be erected at the commandment of the Pope. 
Malm. l 2● Reg. c 9 Bishoprick● erected in England by the Pope▪ answered.  If it had been proper for the Pope, or if he had had power to have erected them himself, why did he put it upon others? To command them to erect new Bishoprics had been a power paramount indeed, This was more than to execute the Canons. The history is recited not in the ninth chapter, but in the fifth chapter of the second Book of William of Malmesburie, de Gestis Regum Anglorum, not as his own relation, but transcribed out of a nameless Writer, verbis eisdem quibus inveni scripta interseram. In the days of Edward the elder, the Region of the Westsaxons had wanted Bishops (upon what ground doth not appear) per septem annos plenos, seven whole years. And it may be that some of the Bishoprics had been longer vacant, perhaps engrossed by the Bishops of Winchester and Shireborne, which two I find to have been always of great note in the Court of the West-Saxon Kings. The ground of my conjecture is the words of the Author, Quod olim duo habuerunt in quinque diviserunt, What two for ●ome space of time had possessed, they divided into five. Formosus the then Pope resented this; R. C. remembers what tragical stirs he made at Rome; but as to this particular a better man might have done a worse deed. He sent his Letters into England, misit in Angliam Epistolas, and it seemeth that they were very high, quid a Papa Formoso praeceptum sit, but praeceptum signifies a lesson or instruction as well as a commandment. And again, dabat excommunicationem & maledictionem Regi Edwardo & omnibus Subjectis ejus, he bestowed an excommunication and a curse upon King Edward and all his Subjects. Why what had the poor Subjects offended? or King Edward for any thing that appeareth? This was sharp work indeed, the first summons an excommunication with a curse: A man of Formosus his temper, who was indeed a Bishop of an Apostolical Church, though he violated his oath to obtain it; and who supposed himself to be not only the Patriarch of Britain, but a Master (of misrule) in the Church, might adventure far: But to do him right, I do not believe that this was any formal sentence; that had been too palpably unjust before a citation, I remember not that any other Author mentions it, which they would have done, if it had been a solemn interdict, in those days. And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle. Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope, but not a word of any absolution, which had been more to his purpose, if this had been an excommunication. It could be nothing but a threatening, That unless this abuse were reform he would hold no communion with them: As Victor a much better Pope, and in much better times dealt with the asiatics, over whom he had no Jurisdiction. There is a vast difference between formal excommunication and withholding of communion; as also between imposing ecclesiastical punishment, and only representing what is incurred by the Canons.  
Where observe with me two things, First, R. C. his great mistake, that here was a command to erect new Bishoprics, to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not, and therefore it must proceed from sovereign Authority, whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees. The Author's words are de renovandis Episcopatibus, of renewing, not erecting Bishoprics; and per septem annos destituta Episcopis, they had wanted Bishops for seven years. Lastly, the names of the Sees supplied, which were all ancient episcopal Sees from the first conversion of the Westsaxons, do evince this. 
Will Malmes l. 1. Reg. c. 6.  Winchester, Schireborne or Salessb●ry, Wells, Credinton now Exeter, and the Bishopric of Cornwall, called anciently St. Germans. Secondly, observe that whatsoever was done in this business, was done by the King's Authority, congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum, King Edward assembled a Synod, saith the same Author in the place cited: And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis, the King's Decree. This is more to prove the King's political headship, in convocating Synods, and confirming Synods, than all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary.  

L. 2● Flo●. c. 11.  They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Off●, and admitted the erection of a new Archbishopric in England. Why should they not admit Legates? What are Legates but Messages and Ambassadors? The office of an Ambassador is sacred, though from the Great Turk. But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts, and swallow up the whole ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kingdom. King Offa desired to have a new Archbishopric established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions; and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian, had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdom, by royal Authority. On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishopric settled as it was formerly at Canterbury. This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction. England always admitted the Pope's Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King, 
Edgar apud Ealred in orati. ad Episcopos withered a pud Speim. Conc p. 192  but not otherwise. Here again he citys no Authority but his own.  
They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men, and not to Kings. No man doubts of it in their sense, but they who leave nothing certain in the World. Here is nothing but a heap of confused generalities. In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings, 
Clergymen not exempted from secular Judges.  but Archbishops, that is, cases of Ecclesiastical cognisance, tryable by the Cannon Law, in the first instance. In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops, but to Kings to be their Judges, as in cases of civil cognisance, or upon the last appeal: Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person, but by fit Deputies or Delegates. Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts, 
Plat. in politico.  knowing, commanding, and executing: The first belongs to the King and his Council, The second to the King in h●s person, The third to the King by his Deputies. So the King governs in the Church, but not as a Churchman; in the Army, but not as a Soldier; In the City, but not as a Merchant; in the Country, but not as an Husbandman. Our Kings did never use to determine Spiritual or Ecclesiastical causes in their own persons, but by meet selected Delegates. Persons of great maturity of judgement, of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws, of approved integrity: And lastly such (at least some of the number) as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keys, and to act by excommunication or absolution, according to the exigence of the cause; and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment than Archbishops and Bishops? This is so evident in our Laws and Histories, that it is not only lost labour, but shame to oppose it. King Edgar's words in the place alleged were these. Meae solicitudinis est, etc. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches, etc. and to take order for their peace and quiet, the examination of whose manners belongs to you, whether they live continently, and behave themselves honestly to them that are without, whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices, diligent to instruct the People, sober in their conversations, modest in their habits, discreet in their judgements. No man doubts of this. But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty. See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy, contempta sunt verba, 
Ib●dem.  veniendum est ad verbera, etc. words are despised, it must come to blows, Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester, and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester, I commit that business to you, that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches, and persons of good life brought in by your episcopal censure, and my royal Authority. So Edgar did not forget his political headship.  
What King Withered said was spoken in the Council of Becancelde, where he himself fate as a civil precedent, and where the Decrees of the Council issued in his name and by his Authority, firmiter decernimus, etc. His words are these, It belongs to him (the King) to make Earls, Dukes, Noble men, Princes, Precedents, and secular judges, but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches, to choose Bishops, Abbats, and other Prelates, etc. If King Withered had said, It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches, it had made for his purpose indeed; But saying as he doth, it belongs to the Metropolitan, it cuts the throat of his cause, and shows clearly what we say, that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiastical Superior. As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop, we know them well enough: he needed not trouble his head about it.  
They suffered their Subjects to profess, that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est; 
〈◊〉 Ser. 25 in 14 c 〈◊〉  quicquid ipsa statuerit, suscipio; & quod damnaverit, damno: He is an Heretic that holds not communion with the Church of Rome; what she determines, I receive; what she condemns, I condemn. Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred, 
Rome hath no certain●y of i●tallibiliti●.  though I have no reason to trust his citations further than I see them, and supposing them to have been spoken in R. C. his sense; yet Ealred was but one Doctor, whose authority is not fit to counterbalance the public Laws and Customs and Records ●f a whole Kingdom. Neither doth it appear ●hat they who sat at the stern in those days did either suffer it, or so much as know of it. Books were not published then so soon as they were written, but lay most commonly dormient many years or perhaps many ages before they see the Sun. But Ealred his sense was not the same, it could not be the same with R. C. his. No man in those days did take the Church of Rome for the Roman Catholic or Universal Church, but for the Diocese of Rome, which their best protectors do make to be no otherwise infallible then upon supposition of the inseparability of the Papacy from it, which Bellarmine himself confesseth to be but a probable opinion, Neque Scriptura neque traditio habet, sedem Apostolicam ita fixaem esse Romae, 
Bell. de Ro. Pont. l. 4. ●. 4.  ut inde auferré non possit, There is neither Scripture nor Tradition to prove that the Apostolic See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed from it. Therefore these words of Ealred cannot be applied to this present question, because the subject of the question is changed. And if they be understood simply and absolutely of an universal communion with the Church of Rome both present and future, they are unfound in the judgement of Bellarraine himself. It remains therefore that they are either to be understood of communicating in essentials; and so we communicate with the Church of Rome at this day. Or that by the Church of Rome Ealred did understand the Church of Rome of that age, whereas all those exceptions which we have against them for our not communicating with them actually in all things, are either sprung up since Ealreds' time or at least, since that time, made or declared necessary conditions of their communion. Lastly, I desire the Reader to take notice, that these words of Ealred do contain nothing against the political Supremacy of Kings, nor against the liberties of the English Church, nor for the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over England, and so might have been passed by as impertinent.  
They indicted their Letters to the Pope in these words, 
Aclred de vita & Mirac. Edw. Conf. superseriptions to Popes.  Summo & universali Ecclesiae Pastori Nicholas, Edwardus Dei gratia Angliae Rex debitam subjectionem & omnimodum servitium. It seemeth that the Copies differ, some have not Pastori but Patri, nor universali but universalis Ecclesiae, and no more but obedientiam for omnimodum servitium. But let him read it as he list, it signifies nothing. There cannot be imagined a weaker or a poorer argument then that which is drawn from the superscription or subscription of a Letter. He that enrolls every man in the catalogue of his friends and servants, who subscribe themselves his loving or obliged friends, or his faithful and obedient servants, will find his friends and servants sooner at a feast then at a fray. Titles are given in Letters more out of custom and formality then out of judgement and truth. The Pope will not stick to indite his Letter To the King of the Romans, and yet suffer him to have nothing to do in Rome. Every one who indicted their Letters to the high and mighty Lords the State's General, did not presently believe that was their just Title before the King of Spain's resignation. Titles are given sometimes out of courtesy, sometimes out of necessity, because men will not lose their business for want of a compliment. He that will write to the great Duke of Muscovia must style him Emperor of Russia. How many have lost their Letters and their labours for want of a mon Frere or mon Confine, my Brother or my Cousin.  
It were best for him to quit his argument from superscriptions, otherwise he will be showed Popes calling Princes their Lords, and themselves their Subjects and Servants, yea Princes most glorious and most excellent Lords, and themselves Servants of Servants, that is, Servants in the snperlative degree. They will find Cyprian to his brother Cornelius health, and Justinian to John the most holy Archbishop of the City of Rome, & Patriarch. Did St. Cyprian believe Cornelius to be his Master and style him Brother, or owe obedience and service and send but health? Had is been comely to style an ecclesiastical Monarch plain Archbishop and Patriarch, and for the Christian World to set down only the City of Rome?  
But what doth he take hold on in this superscription to their advantage? Is it the word summo? That cannot be, it is confessed generally that the Bishop of Rome had priority of order among the Patriarches. Or is it the word universali? Neither can that be, all the Patriarches were styled ecumenical or universal, not in respect of an universal power, but their universal care, 
2 Cor. 11. 28.  as Saint Paul saith, The care of all the Churches did lie upon him, and their presidence in general Counsels. It cannot be the word Pastori, all Bishops were anciently called Pastors. Where then lies the strength of this Argument? In the words due subjection? No. There is subjection to good advice, as well as to just commands. The principal Patriarches bore the greatest sway in a general Council, in that respect there was subjection due unto them. The last words all forts of service, are not in some Copies, and if they were, verborum ut nummorum, as they are commonly used, as well from Superiors to their Inferiors, as from Inferiors to their Superiors, they signify nothing.  
I wonder he was not afraid to cite this superscription, considering the clause in Pope Nicholas his letter to King Edward, 
Aclred ibidem.  Vobis veroì & posteris vestris Regibus committimus Advocationem & tuitionem ejusdem loci, & omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, ut vice nostrâ, cum consilio Episcoporum & Abbatum, constituas ubique quae justa sunt. King Edward by the fundamental Law of the Land, was the Vicar of God to govern the Church of God within his dominions. But if he had not, here is a better title from the See of Rome itself, then that whereby the King of Spain holds all the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Sicily to him and his heirs at this day.  

Walsing, A●. 133 How the Pope presideth above all Creatures.  They professed that it was Heresy to deny that the Pope omni praesidet creaturae, is above every creature. That is no more than to say, that the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter is principium unitatis the beginning of unity, or hath a principality of order (not of power) above all Christians. It will be hard for him to gain any thing at the hands of that wife and victorious Prince Edward the third, who disposed of Ecclesiastical dignities, received homage and fealty from his Prelates, who writ that so much admired Letter to the Pope for the liberties of the English Church, cui pro tunc Papa aut Cardinales rationabiliter respondere nesciebant, 
W●lsi●g. ●, An 1343.  to which the Pope and Cardinals did not know at that time how to give a reasonable answer. Wherein he pleads, that his Ancestors had granted free elections, ad rogatum & instantiam dictae sedis upon the earnest entreaty of the See of Rome, which now they endeavoured to usurp and seize upon, who made himself in Parliament the Judge of all the grievances, which the Kingdom sustained from the Pope, who made express Laws against the oppressions of the Roman Court, declaring publicly, 
25 E. 3.  That it was his duty and that he was bound by his oath to make remedies against them. This was more than twenty such compliments as this, which is most true in a right sense. That it was but a compliment appeareth evidently by this. The question was about Edward the thirds right to the Crown of France, and his confederation with Lewis of Bavaria, these were no Ecclesiastical matters, the King sent his Ambassadors to the Pope, to treat with him about his right to the Crown of France. But notwithstanding his supereminent judgement, he gave them in charge to treat with the Pope, not as a judge, 
Wals. An. 1343.  but as a private person, and a common friend not in form nor in figure of judgement. He attributeth no more to the Pope, then to another man, according to the reasons which he shall produce. His own words are these, parati semper nedum a vestro sancto cunctis presidente judicio, imo a quolibet alio de veritate contrarii (si quis eam noverit) humiliter informari, & qui sponte rationi subjicimur aliam datam nobis intelligi veritatem cum plena & humili gratitudine complectemur. Being ready always humbly to be informed of the truth of the contrary, if any man know it, not only from your holy judgement being placed in dignity before all, or as it is in another place before every Creature) but from any other. And we who are subject to reason of our own accord, will embrace the truth with humility and thankfulness, when it is made known unto us. This was Edward the thirds resolution to submit to reason, and the evidence of the truth, from whomsoever it proceeded. Yet though the case was merely Civil, and not at all of Ecclesiastical cognizance, and though Edward the third did not, would not trust the Pope with it as a Judge, but as an indifferent Friend, yet he gives him good words, That his judgement was placed in dignity above all Creatures, which to deny was to allow of Heresy.  
Why do we hear words, when we see Deeds. The former Popes had excommunicated Lewis of Bavaria, and all who should acknowledge him to be Emperor. Nevertheless Edward the third contracted a firm league with him, 
Wals. ibidem.  and moreover became his Lieutenant in the Empire. Pope Benedict takes notice of it, writeth to King Edward about it, intimates the decrees of his predecessors against Lewis of Bavaria and his adherents, signifying that the Emperor was deprived, and could not make a Lieutenant. The King gives fair words in general, but notwithstanding all that the Pope could do to the contrary proceeds, renews his league with the Emperor, and his Commission for the Lieutenancy, and trusted more to his own judgement then co the supereminent judgement of the Pope.  
So he draws to a conclusion of this Chapter, and though he have proved nothing in the world, yet he asks, What greater power did ever Pope challenge then here is professed? Even all the power that is in controversy between us and them. He challenged the political headship of the English Church, under pretence of an Ecclesiastical Monarchy. He challenged a Legislative power in Ecclesiastical causes. He challenged a Dispensative power above the Laws, against the Laws of the Church, whensoever, wheresoever, over whomsoever. He challenged liberty to send Legates, and hold legantine Courts in England without licence. He challenged the right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects. He challenged the Patronage of the English Church, and investitures of Bishops, with power to impose a new Oath upon them, contrary to their Oath of Allegiance. He challenged the first Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical livings, and a power to impose upon them what pensions or other burdens he pleased. He challenged the Goods of Clergymen dying intestate, etc. All which are expressly contrary to the fundamental Laws and Customs of England.  
He confesseth, That it is Lawful to resist the Pope, invading either the Bodies or the Souls of men, or troubling the Commonwealth, or indeavoring to destroy the Church. I ask no more, Yea forsooth, saith he, if I may be judge, what doth invade the Soul? No I confess I am no fit Judge. No more is he. The main question is who shall be Judge, what are the Liberties and Immunities of a national Church, and what are the grievances which they sustain from the Court of Rome. Is it equal that the Court of Rome themselves should be the Judges? Who are the persons that do the wrong. Nothing can be more absurd. In vain is any man's sentence expected against himself. The most proper and the highest judicature upon Earth in this case, is a general Council, as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishops and their pretended Patriarch. And until that remedy can be had, it is lawful and behooveth every Kingdom or national Church, who know best their own rights, and have the most feeling where their Shoe wrings them, to be their own Judges, I mean only by a judgement of discretion, to preserve their own rights inviolated, and their persons free from wrong, sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae. And especially Sovereign Princes, are bound both by their Office and by their Oaths to provide for the security and indemnity of their Subjects, as all Roman Catholics Princes do when they have occasion.  
And here he falls the third time upon his former Theme, that in things instituted by God, the abuse doth not take away the use. Which we do willingly acknowledge and; say with Saint Austin, Neque enim si peccavit Cecilianus, ideo haereditatem suam perdidit Christus, 
Aust. Ep. 50.  & sceleratae impudentiae est propter crimina hominis quae orbi terrarum non possis ostendere, communionem orbis terrarum velle damnare. Neither if Cecilian offended, did Christ therefore lose his inheritance. And it is wicked impudence for the crimes of a man, which thou canst not show to the World, to be willing to condemn the communion of the World. But neither was that authority of the Bishop of Rome, which we have rejected either of Divine or Apostolical institution. Nor have we rejected it for the personal faults of some Popes, but because it was faulty in itself. Nor have we separated ourselves, from the conjoined communion of the Christian World in any thing. I wish the Romanists were no more guilty thereof then we.  
Of King Henry's exemption of himself from all spiritual jurisdiction we have spoken formerly in this very Chapter. 
Sect. 2.    

CAAP. 5.  
THe scope of my fifth Chapter, was to show that the Britannic Churches were free from all foreign jurisdiction for the first six hundred years, and so ought to continue. For the clearing of which point, I showed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles. And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle, but in the Apostolical college. I showed that in the age of the Apostles, and the age next succeeding the highest Order in the Church, under the Apostles, were national Protarchs' or Patriarches. And by what means, and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarches came to be exalted above the rest, and to obscure their fellows. But each of these within their own Patriarchates, 
Patriarches independent upon a single Superior.  did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior. As might be made clear by many instances, when Athanasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope julius for their restitution, 
Socrat. l. 2. ●. 11.  (I meddle not with the merits of the cause) the Bishops of the East took the reprehension of julius as a contumely, they called a Council at Antioch, they accused julius sharply, and showed that he had nothing to do to contradict them, more than they did contradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church. Neither did the great Protopatriarches challenge this independency only, but other lesser Patriarches also, as Saint Cyprian. When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in afric, addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome, let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it, 
Cypr. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3.  What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops? Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickedness, or if it displease them and they fall from it, they know whether to return: for whereas it is decreed by us all, and it is equal and just, that every one's cause should be heard there where the crime was committed, and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor, which he is to govern, and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down, nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitful rashness. But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes, unless the authority of the African Bishops, who have sentenced them already, seem to a few desperate cast aways to be inferior, etc. To say, with Bellarmine, that Saint Cyprian speaks only of the first instance, is to contradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith expressly that the cause had been sentenced already in afric.  
Then I showed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus. The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syllogism. Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the foreign Jurisdiction of the Roman Court, from the beginning, until the general Council of Ephesus, and after, until the six hundreth year of Christ, aught to continue free and exempted for ever, notwithstanding the subsequent usurpation of any foreign Prelate or Patriarch. This was clearly and irrefragably proved out of the words of the Council itself. 
Conc. aphasia. part 1. act. 7.  And if the Bishop of Rome did intrude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper, and can never prescribe to a legal possession, according to the famous rule of the Law; Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto.  

B●itain enjoyed the Cyprian privilege.  But the Britannic Churches were free and exempted from the foreign Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning, until the general Council of Ephesus, and after, until the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their silence, upon whom the proof in law doth rest, being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Britain, or any of the Britannic Islands, for the first six hundred years, and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. 
Math Paris in H 3. an. 1238.  years. When the Pope's Legate would have entered into Scotland to visit the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second than King of the Scots forbade him to do so, alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such, neither would he suffer it; and therefore willed him at his own peril to forbear. Secondly by priority of foundation, the Britannic Church being the elder Sister and ancienter than the Roman, and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning; that was, before there was a Roman Church. Thirdly, it was proved by the right of ordination and election of all our Primats: For all other right of Jurisdiction doth follow or pursue the right of Ordination. But it is most evident that all our British Primates, or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods, and ordained by their own Suffragans at home, as Dubricius, St. David, Samson, etc. not only in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrose, and King Arthur, but even until the time of Henry the first, after the eleven hundreth year of Christ, as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth. Semper tamen, etc. 
Itine●az. Ca●●b. l 2. c 1.  Yet always until the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England, Henry the first, the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. David's: And he likewise was consecrated by other Bishop● as his Suffragans, without professing any manner of subjection to any other Church. But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus, the reverend and learned Abbot and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor, and from the solemn Sentence or Decree of two British Synods in the point, recorded by all our Historiographers, who write the Acts of those times.  
I confess he nobles here and there at some odd ends of this discourse, but taketh no ●●ner of notice of the main grounds, especially the two British Synods which are express in the point, and the Answer of Dion●thus, that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope, or to receive Austin for their Archbishop, That as for that man whom they called the Pope they oligist 〈◊〉 no obedience, but the obedience of love, that they were immediately under God, subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon: But let us take a view of his exceptions.  

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

L 1. de Ro Pont. c. 12.  But Bellarmine telleth us, That this is meant not in respect of themselves, but in respect of all other men. I know Bellarmine saith so; not in this place but elsewhere. But first he saith it upon his own head, without any authority. None of the Fathers ever taught that Saint Peter had a supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles. All that they say is, that he was the beginning of unity, and the Head of the Apostolical College; that is, in order and eminence, Princeps Apostolorum, as Virgil is called the Prince of Poets, or Saint Paul the Head of Nations, or Saint james the B●shop of Bishops.  
Secondly, this answer is altogether impertinent. The question is not between us, what the Apostles were in respect of their personal actions among themselves one towards another, though even this were absurd enough to say that Saint Peter had Power to suspend his fellow Apostles, either in their offices or in their Persons: But the question between us is, what the Apostles were in respect of the government of the Christian World, wherein by this distinction he granteth them all to be equal.  
Thirdly, by his leave he contradicts himself; for if Saint Peter had any Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, and they had none mutually over him; than it was not par Potestas, an equal Power, for par in parem non habet Potestatem. If his Power was fuller than theirs, than theirs was not plenissima Potestas: If his Power was higher than theirs, than theirs was not summa Potestas: If there was some ecclesiastical Power which they had not, than all ecclesiastical Power was not comprehended in Apostolical Authority, than the Power of opening and shutting is larger than the Power of binding and losing; and to feed Christ's Sheep, is more than to be sent as his Father sent him; all which is contrary both to the truth, and to what himself hath taught us.  
Lastly, if Saint Peter had not only a primacy of Order, but also a Supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles; then his Successors Linus, and Cletus, and Clemens were Superiors to Saint john, and he was their Subject, and lived under their Jurisdiction, which no reasonable Christian will easily believe; Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, 
Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae.  pari consortio praediti & honoris et Potestatis; sed exordium ab unitate profeciscitur, & primatus Petro datur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur. If they were equal in honour and power, than the primacy must be of Order. That these words [to thee will I give the Keys] and [feed my Sheep] do include Power and Authority I grant, but that they include a supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles; or that they include more Power than these other words [as my Father sent me, so send I you] I do altogether deny.  
I acknowledge the words of Saint Hierosme, That one was chosen, that an Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away. 
Cont. jovin l. 1. c. 14. How Peter head of the rest.  But this Head was only an Head of order: And truly what Saint Hierosme saith in this place seemeth to me to have reference to the persons of the Apostles, and by Schism to be understood Contention & Altercation among the Apostles themselves, which of them should be the greatest, as Mark 9.34. To this I am induced to incline; first, by the word occasio he saith not as elsewhere for a remedy of Schism, but to take away occasion of Schism or Contention. Secondly, by the words following in St. Hierosme, Magister bonus qui occasionem jur gij debuerat auferre Discipulis, to take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples; and in Adolescentem quem dile●erat sa●●●● 〈◊〉 videretur invidia; because Peter was the eldest and john the youngest, our Saviour would not seem to give cause of envy against him whom he loved, To take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples, and not to give cause of envy against his beloved Disciple, do seem properly to respect the Apostolical College. But let this be as it will, I urge no man to quit his own sense.  
He presseth his former Argument yet further, 
A superiority of Order is sufficient to prevent Schism.  That a superiority of Order is not sufficient to take away Schism, without a superiority of Power and Authority. I answer that in all Societies an Head of Order is necessary to prevent and remedy Schism, that there may be one to convocate the Society, to propose Doubts, to receive Votes, to pronounce Sentence. And if there be a judiciary Power and Authority in the body of the Society, it is a sufficient remedy against Schism. As in a College Schism is as well prevented by placing the Power jointly in the Provost and Fellows, as by giving the Provost a monarchical Power over the Fellows. And in the Catholic Church by placing the supremacy of ecclesiastical Power in a Council, or by placing it in a single person. And thus the sovereign Power over the universal Church was ever in an ecumenical Council, until of later days, that the Pope's hving gotten into their hands the bestowing of the most and best ecclesiastical Preferments in Europe, did find out their own advantage in that behalf above a general Council, which hath neither Dignities nor Benefices to bestow. When, or where, or by whom, the primacy of Order was conferred upon Saint Peter, it concerns R. C. to inquire more than me?  

The rest Pastors as well as Peter.  They have yet another evasion, that the highest ecclesiastical Power was given not only to Saint Peter, but to all the rest of the Apostles; but to Saint Peter as an ordinary Pastor to descend from him to his Successors, because they were appointed heads of the universal Church, which they could not govern without universal Power; and to the rest of the Apostles as Delegates or Commissioners only for term of their lives, not to descend to their Successors. This distinction I called a drowsy dream, hatched lately without either reason or authority divine or humane. Against this he takes exception. And I am ready to maintain my assertion. That if he can produce but one Text of holy Scripture expounded in this sense by any one ancient Interpreter, or but one Sentence of any one Council, or single Father, for a thousand years after Christ, who taught any such Doctrine, or made any such distinction as this is, directly without far fetched consequences, and I w●ll retract: but I am confident he cannot produce one Author or Authority in the point. All his reason is, because Saint Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the Church, and the rest of the Apostles but Delegates, which is a mere begging of the question. Neither was Saint Peter sole Pastor of the Church, nor his universal Authority necessary to a true Pastor, neither were the Apostles mere Delegates, for than they could have had no Successors, which yet he acknowledgeth that they had. 
De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. l. 1. c. 9  Sometimes Bellarmine will admit no proper Successors of the Apostles, no, not of St. Peter, as an Apostle. At other times he makes the Pope an Apostolical Bishop, his See to be an Apostolical See, and his Office to be an Apostleship. It is strange the Spirit of God should be so silent in a piece of Doctrine which they assert to be necessary, and that the blessed Apostles, and the Nicene Fathers, and holy Athanasius should be so forgetful, as not to insert it into their Creeds. But that the whole Church should be ignorant of such a mystery for fifteen hundred years, is not credible.  
I pass by their comparison of a Bishop who is Pastor and ordinary of his Diocese, whose Office descends to his Successors, and a Friar licenced by the Pope to Preach throughout the same Diocese, whose Office determineth with his Life. So what they can not prove they endeavour to illustrate. Before they told us that the Apostles were the Vicars of Christ, are they now become the Vicars of Saint Peter, and his Coadjutors? Before they taught us that the Apostolical power was summa & plenissima potestas, a most high, a most full power, and comprehended all Ecclesiastical power, and is it now changed to a licence to Preach? No, the Apostles had more than licences to Preach, even as ample power to govern, as Saint Peter himself. The Pope having instituted one man into a Bishopric, cannot during his incumbency give the joint government of his Church to another. This were to revoke his former grant.  

Sect. 2. Universality an incommunicable qualification of the Apostles. 9  I confess, that which R. C. saith, is in part a truth, That the rest of the Apostles did not leave an universal and Apostolical authority and jurisdiction to their successors. But it is not the whole truth, for no more did Saint Peter himself. The Apostles had divers things peculiar to their persons, and proper for the first planters of the Gospel. Which were not communicated to any of their successors. As universality of jurisdiction, for which their successors have assignation to particular charges. Immediate or extraordinary vocation, for which their Successors have episcopal Ordination. The gift of strange Tongues and infallibility of Judgement, for which we have Christian Schools and Universities. The grace of doing miracles and giving the holy Ghost, by Imposition of Hands. If the Bishops of Rome will take upon them to be Saint Peter's Heirs ex ass, and pretend that their Office is an Apostleship, and that they themselves are truly Apostolici, excluding all others from that privilege, let us see them do some Miracles, or speak strange Languages, which were Apostolical qualifications. If they cannot, certainly they are not Saint Peter's Heirs ex ass, and though their See be Apostolical, yet their Office is no Apostleship. Nor may they challenge more than they show good evidence for, or then the Church is pleased to confer upon them. The Bishops of Rome pretend to none of these Privileges, but only this of universal jurisdiction, for though they challenge besides this an infallibility of judgement, yet it is not an Apostolical infallibility, because they challenge no infallibility by immediate revelation from God, but from the diligent use of the means, neither do they challenge an infallibility in their Sermons and writings as the Apostles did, but only in the conclusions of matters of Faith. And why do they pretend to this Apostolical qualification more than any of the rest? Either because that if they should pretend to any of the rest, the deceit would presently be discovered, for all men know that they can work no Miracles, nor speak strange Languages, nor have their calling immediately from Heaven, but are elected by their Conclave of Cardinals, many times not without good tugging for it. Or else because this claim of universal power and authority doth bring more moliture to their mill, and more advantage to the Court of Rome.  
This is certain, that when the Pope is first elected Bishop, it may be of some other See, before he be elected Pope, he is ordained after the ordinary form of all other Bishops, he receives no other, no larger character, no more authority and power, either of order or of jurisdiction, than other ordinary Bishops do. Well after this he is elected Pope, but he is ordained no more. Then seeing the power of the Keys and all habitual jurisdiction is derived by Ordination, and every Bishop receiveth as much habitual jurisdiction at his Ordination as the Pope himself, tell me first, how the Pope comes to be the root of all Spiritual jurisdiction? Which though it be not the general Tenet of the Roman Church, as R. C. saith truly, yet it is the common Doctrine of the Roman Court. 
c. 8. s. 2.  Secondly, tell me, how comes this dilatation of his power, and this Apostolical Universality? Since all men do confess that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a character or Grace given by Ordination, which is required to the institution of a Sacrament, that is, not Humane but Divine. But the election of the Cardinals is a mere Humane policy, without all manner of Sacramental virtue, and therefore can neither render his Judgement infallible, nor his Jurisdiction universal. What can the new election do? Only apply the new matter, that is, make him Bishop of that See whereunto he is elected. They who elect him are the Bishops of the Roman Province, and the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Rome. Fit persons indeed, to choose a Bishop of Rome, but no fit persons to choose an universal Bishop for the whole Church. It were too much honour for one Nation to have the perpetual Regiment of Christ's Church throughout all ages. And whom do the Conclave choose? An universal Pastor? No, but expressly a Bishop of Rome.  
They have a third novelty as ill as either of these which I touched even now, that the Regiment of the Church being monarchical, as in a Kingdom, all Civil authority is derived from the King, so in the Church all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope. 
Bel l. 4. de Ro. Pont c ●4.  If all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction be derived from the Pope, as all Civil Authority is from the King, then as Civil Magistrates do exercise their Civil authority in the name of the King; 
All Episcopal jurisdiction is not derived from the Pope.  so Bishops ought to exercise their Spiritual jurisdiction in the name of the Pope. But this they do not, this they never did.  
Again if Spiritual jurisdiction be derived to Bishops from the Pope, by what way, by what means, by what channel doth it descend? Either it must be by Commission, or by Ordination. But it is not by Commission. No Bishops did ever need or expect any Commission from Rome, for the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within his Diocese. Neither is it by Ordination, they are very few indeed, that receive Ordination from the Pope. How many thousand Bishops have been and are still in the World, that never received any Ordination from any Pope, either mediately or immediately? But derive the line of their Succession from the other Apostles? If Ecclesiastical jurisdiction be conveied by Ordination, than it is a part of the character or Grace conferred, which is Divine and Sacramental. I hope the Pope will be wiser than to challenge to himself the conferring of Sacramental Grace.  

Sect. 3. The Chair of St. Peter not fixed to Rome by Divine right.  I made a question how the Bishop of Rome came to be Saint Peter's Heir ex ass, to the exclusion of his eldest Brother the B●shop of Antioch, where Saint Peter was first Bishop, where Christians had their first denomination. I had reason, for I never read that the Church was governed by the Law of Gavellkind, that the youngest must inherit. I said moreover that they produced nothing that I had seen but a blind Legend out of a counterfeit Hegesippus. I spoke not this to the disparagement of that venerable Saint, but to discredit that supposititious treatise. He saith, If I had read Bellarmine, I should have found the same testified by Saint Marcellus the Pope, 
l. 2. de Pont. Ro. c. 12.  by Saint Ambrose, and Sain● Athanasius. I have read Bellarmine, and I find no such thing testified by Marcellus, more than this, That Peter came to Rome by the commandment of the Lord. Nor by Athanasius more than this, That when Peter heard that he must undergo Martyrdom at Rome, he did not lay aside his voyage, but came to Rome with joy. What conclusion can any man make from these premises? Saint Ambrose indeed saith more, but as little to his purpose, That Saint Peter being about to go without the Walls in the night did see Christ meet him in the gate, and enter into the City, to whom Peter said, Lord whether goest thou? Christ answered, I come to Rome to be crucified again. And that Peter understood that the answer of Christ had relation to his own Martyrdom. I have likewise read what Bellarmine citeth out of Saint Gregory elsewhere, that Christ said to Saint Peter, 
Bel. de Pont. Ro. l. ●● c. 23.  I come to Rome to be crucified again. For he who had been crucified long before in his own person, said that he was to be erucified again in the person of Saint Peter. Though these things be altogether impertinent, yet I rehearse them the more willingly, to let the Reader see upon what silly grounds they build conclusions of great weight. We receive the Fathers as competent Witnesses of the faith, and practise, and tradition of the Church in their respective ages, we attribute much to their expositions of the holy Text: but in those things which they had upon the credit of a supposititious Author, the conclusion always follows the weaker part. How common a thing hath it been for credulous piety to believe, and to record rumours and uncertain relations? If they see no hurt in them, and if they tended to piety. But in a case of this moment to give an infallible Judge to the Church, and a spiritual Prince to the Christian World, to whom all are bound to submit under pain of damnation, we ought to have had better Authority than such a blind History. Yet this is all the plea they have in the World for the divine right of their succession. How came Saint Ambro●e or Saint Gregory to know a matter of fact, done some centuries of years before they were born? They had it not by Revelation, nor other Authority for it then this of a counterfeit Hegesippus, in the judgement both of Baronius and Bellarmine, except only the borrowed name, not much ancienter than themselves.  
Supposing that Saint Peter had had such a spiritual monarchy as they fancy, and supposing that this Apocryphal Relation was as true as the Gospel, yet it makes nothing in the World for the Pope's succession to Saint Peter therein, but rather the contrary. That Saint Peter sub finem vitae, just upon the point of his death was leaving of Rome, showeth probably that he had no intention to die there, or to fix his See there. That Christ did premonish him of his Martyrdom in Rome, and that he assented to it with joy, hath nothing in it to prove, or so much as to insinuate either the Act of Christ or the Act of St. Peter, to invest the Bishop of Rome with the Sovereignty of Ecclesiastical Power. Had they urged this history only to show how Christ fore-armes his Servants against impendent dangers, or how he reputes their sufferings for his sake to be his own, it had been to the purpose: But they might even as well prove the Pope's Supremacy out of our Saviour's words in the Gospel to Saint Peter, 
Io 21.18.  When thou art old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst not: For our Saviour did signify by these words by what death St. Peter should glorify God. These words have authority, th●●gh they be nothing to the purpose, but those they cite have neither authority nor any thing that comes near the purpose.  
They see this well enough themselves, what a weak unjointed and unnecessary consequence this is, wherefore they suppose that Christ said something to Saint Peter which is not recorded, to command him to fix his Chair at Rome, 
Bel de R●. Po● 2. c. 12.  Non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte jussisse, ut Sedem suam Petrus ita figeret Romae, ut Romanus Episcopus absolute ei succederet, Because some Fathers say that Peter did suffer Martyrdom at Rome by the commandment, or at least according to the premonition of Christ, it is not improbable that the Lord did likewise openly command him that he should so fix his Chair, or See, at Rome, that the Roman Bishop should absolutely succeed him. Judge Reader freely, if thou didst ever meet with a poorer foundation of a divine right, because it seemeth not improbable altogether to a professed sworn Vassal and partial Advocate, well fed by the party.  

Ibidem  It is no marvel if they build but faintly upon such a groundless presumption, licet fortè non sit de jure divino, although peradventure it is not by divine right. He might ●ell have omitted his peradventure.  
Wherefore doubting that this supposition will not hold water, he addeth, That though it were not true, it would not prove that the Pope is not Successor to Saint Peter ex ass, but only that he is not so jure divino.  
It is an old artifice of the Romanists, when any Papal privilege is controverted, to question whether the Pope hold it by divine right or humane right, when in truth he holds it by neither, so diverting them from searching into the right question, whether he have any right at all, taking that for granted which is denied.  

Nor by humane right  But for humane right they think they have it cocksure, The reason is manifest, because S. Peter himself left the Bishopric of Antioch, but continued Bishop of Rome until his death. This will afford them no more help then the other. When the Apostles did descend and deign to take upon them the charge of a particular Church, as the Church of Rome or Antioch; they did not take it by institution as we do. They had a general institution from Christ for all the Churches of the World. When they did leave the charge of a particular Church to another, they did not quit it by a formal resignation, as we do. This had been to limit their Apostolical Power, which Christ had not limited. But all they did was to depute a Bishop to the actual cure of Souls during their absence, retaining still an habitual cure to themselves. And if they returned to the same City after such a deputation, they were as much Bishops as formerly. Thus a Bishop of a Diocese so disposeth the actual cure of Souls of a particular Parish to a Rector, that he himself remains the principal Rector when he is present. Saint Peter left Rome as much as he left Antioch, and died Bishop of Antioch as much as he died Bishop of Rome. He left Antioch and went to Rome, and returned to Antioch again, and governed that Church as formerly he had done. He left Rome after he first sat as Bishop there, and went to Antioch, and returned to Rome again, and still continued the principal Rector of that Church. Linus & Clemens or the one of them were as much the Bishop or Bishops of Rome during the life of St. Peter and St. Paul, as Evodius and Ignatius or the one of them were the Bishop or Bishops of Antioch. Suppose a Rector having two Benefices dies upon the one of them, yet he dies the Rector of the other as much as that. I confess an Apostle was not capable of pluralities, because his Commission was illimited, otherwise then as a B●shop is Rector of all the Churches within his Diocese. And though he can die but in one Parish, yet he dies governor of all the rest as much as that. If we may believe their History, St. Peter at his death was leaving Rome, in probability to weather out that storm (which did hang then over his head) in Antioch, as he had done in a former persecution. If this purpose had taken effect, then by their Doctrine St. Peter had left the Bishopric of Rome, and died Bishop of Antioch. Thus much for matter of fact.  
Secondly, For matter of right, I do absolutely deny that Saint Peter's death at Rome doth entitle the Bishop of Rome as his Successor to all or any of those privileges and prerogatives which he held in another capacity, and not as he was Bishop of Rome. Suppose a Bishop of Canterbury dies Chancellor of England, another Bishop dies Chancellor of the University of Cambridge or Oxford; must their respective Successors therefore of necessity be Chancellors of England or of that University? No, the right of donation devolves either to the Patron or to the Society. So supposing, but not granting, that one who was by special privilege the Rector of the Catholic Church died Bishop of Rome, it belongs either to Christ or his Vicegerent or Vicegerents, invested with Imperial power, to name, or to the Church itself to choose a Successor. If they could show out of Scripture that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in a spiritual Monarchy, it would strike the question dead: Or that St. Peter did design the Bishop of Rome to be his Successor in his Apostolical power: Or lastly that the Catholic Church did ever elect the Roman Bishops to be their ecclesiastical Sovereigns, it were something. But they do not so much as pretend to any such thing. The truth is this, that after the death of St. Peter that pre-eminence (I do not say Sovereingty) which he had by the connivance or custom of the Church, devolved to his Successors in his Chair, the Patriarches of Rome, Alexandria (for I look upon Saint Mark as St. Peter's Disciple) and Antioch, among whom the Bishop of Rome had priority of Order, not of Power; to which very primacy of Order great privileges were due. Yet not so but that the Church did afterwards add two new Protopatriarches to them, of Constantinople and Jerusalem, and equalled the Patriarch of Constantinople in all privileges to the Patriarch of Rome: which they would never have done, nor have proposed the honour which they gave to Rome with a placet? Doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter? If they had believed that Saint Peter's death at Rome had already settled a spiritual Monarchy of that See, which had been altogether as ridiculous, as if the Speaker of the House of Commons should have moved the House in favour of the King, Doth it please you that we honour the King with a judiciary power throughout his own Kingdom?  

Sect. 4.  Hitherto R. C. hath not said much to the purpose, now he falls on a point that is material indeed (as to this ground) if he be able to make it good, That the Bishops of Rome exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Britannic Churches before the general Council of Ephesus, or at least before the six hundreth year of Christ. First he complaineth that few or no Records of British matters for the first six hundred years do remain. If so few do remain that he is not able to produce so much as one instance, his cause is desperate. Howsoever he proveth his intention out of Gildas, who confesseth that he composed his History, 
Gild. in Prol.  non tam ex scriptis Patriae, &c not so much from British Writings or Monuments (which had been either burned by their enemies with fire, or carried beyond Sea by their banished Citizens) as from transmarine relations. Though it were supposed that all the British Records were utterly perished, this is no answer at all to my demand, so long as all the Roman Registers are extant: Yea so extant that Platina the Pope's Library keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the primitive Bishops of Rome, and the persons ordained. It was of these Registers that I spoke, [let them produce their Registers.] Let them show what British Bishops they have ordained, or what British Appeals they have received for the first six hundred years: Though he be pleased to omit it, I showed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained, three by Saint Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clement, six by Anacletus, five by Evaristus, five by Alexander, and four by Sixtus, etc. that there were few enough for the Roman Province, none to spare for Britain.  
He saith Saint Peter came into Britain, converted many, made Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. That Saint Elutherius sent hither his Legates Fugatius and Damianus, who baptised the King, Queen, and most of his People. That St. Victor sent Legates into Scotland, (it seemeth they had no names) who baptised the King, Queen, and his Nobility. That Saint Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts. That Pope Celestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland, where as yet was no Bishop. And Saint Patrick into Ireland, and Saint German and Lupus into Britain, to confute the Pelagian Heresy. And in the year 596 St. Gregory sent over St. Austin and his Companions, to convert the Saxons, and gave him power over all the Bishops in Britain, and gave him power to erect two Archiepilcopall Sees, and twenty four Episcopal: And moreover that Dubritius, Primate of Britanny, was Legate to the See Apostolic. And lastly, That Saint Samson had a Pall from Rome. I confess here are store of instances for Preaching, and Baptising, and ordaining, and Converting: but if every word he saith was true, it is not at all material to the question. Our question is concerning exterior Jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiae. But the Acts mentioned by him are all Acts of the Key of Order, not of the Key of Jurisdiction. If he do thus mistake one Key for another, he will never be able to open the right door. He accustometh himself to call every ordinary Messenger a Legate. But let him show me that they ever exercised Legantine authority in Britain. That he doth not, because he cannot. The Britannic and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to foreign Nations, to convert them, to baptise them, to ordain them Pastors; yet without challenging any Jurisdiction over them.  
Now to his particular instances. We should be glad that he could prove St. Peter was the first converter of Britain, 
Whether St. Peter converted Britain.  and take it as an honour to the Britannic Church: But Metaphrastes is too young a witness, his authority over small, and his person too great a stranger to our affairs: If it could be made appear out of Eusebius it would find more credit with us. If St. Peter did ever tread upon British ground, in probability it was before he came first to Rome, which will not be so pleasing to the Romanists. For being banished by Claudius, 
Onuph.  he went to Jerusalem, and so to Antioch, and there governed that Church the second time. Whether St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. james, or Simon Zelotes, or Aristobulus, or joseph of Arimathea, was the first converter of Britain, it makes nothing to the point of Jurisdiction, or our subjection to the Bishop of Rome. But for joseph of Arimathea we have the concurrent testimonies of our own Writers and others, the tradition of the English Church, the reverend respect borne to Glastenbury, the place where he lived and died, the ancient characters of that Church, wherein it is styled, the beginning of Religion in this Island, the burial place of the Saints, builded by the Disciples of the Lord. The very name of the Chapel called St. Joseph's, the Arms of King Arthur upon the walls, and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the second, do all proclaim this truth aloud.  

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

And Victors into Scotland  Concerning Pope Victor's sending of Legates into Scotland to baptise the King, Queen, and Nobles, when he tells us who was the King, who were the Legates, and who is his Author, he may expect a particular answer. But if there be nothing in it but baptising, he may as well save his labour, unless he think that baptising is an act of Jurisdiction, which his own Schools make not to be so much as an act of the Key of Order. Ireland was the ancient Scotland. The Irish Scots were converted by St. Patrick, the British Scots by St. Columba.  
Next for Saint Ninian, 
Ninian.  he was a Britain, not a Roman, Neither doth venerable Bede say that he was taught the Christian Faith at Rome simply, but that he was taught it there regularly, that is, in respect of the observation of Easter, the administration of Baptism, and sundry other Rites, wherein the British Church differed from the Roman. Nor yet doth Bede say that he was sent from Rome to convert the Picts: His words are these, The Southern Picts (as men say) long before this had left the error of their Idolatry, 
Bed l. 3● c. 4.  and received the true Faith by the preaching of Ninias a Bishop, a most reverend and holy man of the British Nation, who was taught the Faith and mysteries of truth regularly at Rome. Capgrave finds as much credit with us as he brings authority. And in this case saith nothing at all to the purpose, because nothing of Jurisdiction.  
From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick. 
Palladius and S. Patrick.  Pope Celestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland: And not forgetful of Ireland, sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto, we find nothing but Preaching, and Converting and Christening, not one syllable of any Jurisdiction. Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kind, and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act? Then certainly there were none in those days. Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots, is disputable: But this is certain, that whithersoever he was sent, he was rejected, and shortly after died. In whose place succeeded St. Patrick. 
Bed in vi●a St. Patri●. l. 1.  Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon, etc. came to St. Patrick and declared it, who having received the Episcopal degree from a Prelate called Arator, straightway took ship, etc. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator, nor of a Mandate but St. Patrick's free devotion.  

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

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

Dubritius.  Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius, primate of Britain, was Legate of the See Apostolic. I should sooner have believed it if he had proved it out of Gildas, who lived in or about the age of Dubritius, then upon the credit of jeoffry of Monmouth, who lived so many hundred years after his death, whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables. It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him, then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age. Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the days of King Arthur, and resigned his Archbishopric of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his archiepiscopal See from thence to Minevia, now called St. David's by the licence of King Arthur, not of the Pope. King Arthur began his reign, as it is commonly computed, about the year 516. perhaps something sooner, or later, according to different accounts. But certainly after the Council of Ephesus, from whence we demonstrate our exemption. And so it can neither advantage his cause, nor prejudice ours. We are told of store of Roman Legates, & yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction, pretended to be done by any of them. Certainly either they were no Papal Legates, or Papal Legates in those days were but ordinary Messengers, and pretended not to any legantine Court, or legantine Power such as is exercised now a days.  
St. Samson (saith he) had a Pall from Rome, 
St. Samson  wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings, after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether, and my words also: I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ, but the abuse of it, that is, the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches. 
Vind. p. 150.  When they would not suffer an Archbishop, duly ellected and invested, to exercise his function, until he had bought a Pall from Rome. I know the contrary, that they were in use formerly. But whether they were originally Ensigns of honour, conferred by Christian Emperors upon the Church, namely, Constantine and Valentinian, as is most probable, or assumed by patriarchs, is a disputable point. This is certain, other patriarchs and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times, which they received not from Rome. This Samson was Archbishop of Wales, and had his Pall; But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome: It may be that they had it from their first conversion, or rather that the British Primates themselves assumed it, in imitation of foreign Patriarches, as they might well do. This Pall he carried with him into lesser Britain, in the time of an Epidemical sickness, and such extreme mortality, 
Pol. Virg. l 13 hist. Angl.  ut mortui aegros, aegri integros tum metu tum tabe infecerint, so that the dead did infect the sick, the sick infect the sound both with fear and contagion. That the same Bishop never returned to his See again appears to me more than probable by this, that his Successors for many ages retained their metropolitical dignity, but ever after wanted the use of their Pall. Certainly he who was so careful of his Pall when he forsook his See, would have been more careful to have brought it back with him, when he returned to his See. What time this Samson lived and when that contagious sickness raged so cruelly, is more doubtful; whether it was in the reign of Maglocunus the fifth, or in the reign of Cadwallader the ninth in succession after King Arthur, or long after both these. Giraldus Cambrensis makes him to be the five and twentieth Archbishop after St. David, 
Iti●. Camb l. 1. c. 1.  sederunt a tempore David successivis temporum Curriculis Archiepiscopi ibidem viginti quinque, etc. the last of which was this Samson. And then follows, Tempore Samsonis hujus pallium in hunc modum est translatum, etc. In the time of this Samson the Pall was transported after this manner: The pestilence increasing throughout Wales during his incumbency, whereof the people died by heaps, etc. 
R●g. ●●ved. An. anno. 1●99.  The same is testified by Roger Hoveden in the life of King john, that this Samson, whom he makes the four and twentieth Archbishop after St. David, flying from an infectious yellow jaundice, did transport with himself into Little Britain the Pall of St. David, etc. So R. C. had need to retract his rash censure of me, that I said untruly, That the Pall was first introduced in the reigns of the Saxon Kings, for neither did I say so, neither doth he prove that it was not so. A few of these histories would quickly spoil the Pope's market for his Palls: The Menevoan Archbishops had but one Pall, that was Saint David's Pall, for him and all his Successors, whereas the Pope compels every succeeding Archbishop to buy a new Pall.  
King james doth not at all speak of the Bishop of Rome's right, 
King james.  but how far himself would condescend for peace sake; which words being expressly used by the King in the place alleged, are guilefully omitted by R. C. Much less doth he speak of any supremacy of power, or submission to the Pope's Jurisdiction in any of the cases controverted between us and them. Our differences are not about any branches of patriarchal Power. If they like King james his proposition, why do they not accept it? If they like it not why do they urge it? 
Matrix Ecclesia.  A Church may be, and is usually called a mother Church in two senses, either because it is the Church of a Metropolis or Mother-City: and so no man can deny but the Church of Rome, among many others, is a prime Mother-Church: Or else, because it hath converted other Churches to the Christian Faith. And so also we acknowledge that the Church of Rome is a Mother-Church to sundry of our Saxon Churches, and a Sister to the British Church, but a Mistress to no Church.  
I showed clearly that that Power which the Bishops of Rome do challenge and usurp at this day, is incompatible and inconsistent with true patriarchal Power, & that thereby they themselves have implicitly quitted and disclaimed that true Power which was conferred upon them by the Catholic Church. So by seeking to turn spiritual Monarches, they had lost their just Title of Patriarches. But withal that Britain was never rightly a part of their Patriarchate. To this he answers nothing, but objects, That this is to depose all the Popes since Boniface the third, for more than a thousand year, and say, that they have all lost their Patriarchate. And cries out, O intolerable presumption. Thus he confoundeth Papal and patriarchal Power, making things inconsistent to be one and the same thing. If they have lost their patriarchal Power it is their own fault who quitted it; it is his fault who doth no better defend it. With as much reason he might plead, that he who saith that a Rector of a Church by accepting of a new incompatible Benefice, had quitted his old, doth deprive him of his former Benefice. Or that he who saith the King of Spain hath quitted his Title to the united Provinces, doth thereby depose him from his Monarchy. O intolerable mistake!  
I said not ignorantly, 
Sect. 5.  but most truly, that the British (I will add also the Scotish Church) for many hundred years sided with the Eastern Church in the observation of Easter. He saith, That they did not side entirely with them. Neither did I say they did. They observed Easter always upon Sunday, which Polycrates and those asiatics that joined with him did not. And so they had nothing common with the Jews, those parricides, as Constantine the great calls them, who murdered Christ, and herein they did join with the Roman Church, but it is as evident that they did not observe it upon the same Sundry with the Church of Rome. This is clear by those two British Synods mentioned by venerable Bede. This being one of Augustine's propositions to them, that they should conform themselves to the Roman Church in the observation of Easter, 
Bed. l. 2. c. 2.  and after solemn discussion altogether rejected by them. That in this they sided with the Eastern Church, appeareth as evidently by the public conference between Colman and Wilfrid about this very business, wherein Coleman did expressly and professedly maintain the tradition from Saint john, 
●ed. l. 3. c. 25.  before the tradition from Saint Peter.  
Lastly, to say that this manner of observing Easter was but risen in Scotland a little before the year 638, upon the authority of Pope john, is ridiculous. For it is most evident that it was as ancient as their Christianity,) contrary to reason, for the Britan's and Scots had no commerce with the Oriental Christians in those days, and contrary to authority, for Colman in that disputation did derive it from Saint john the Apostle.   

CHAP. 6. Sovereign Princes in some cases have power to change the external Regiment of the Church.  
IF the Reader doth not find so much in this Reply as he desires and expects, let him blame R. C. who, according to his custom, omitteth all the chiefest grounds, and the whole contexture of my discourse, only snatching here and there at a word or a piece of a sentence. I shall deal more fairly with him. In the first place I complain that besides the omitting of those main principles whereupon my discourse in this Chapter is grounded, which are received by both parties,) he doth me wrong in stating of the question. For whereas I set down four conditions or limitations necessary in every reformation, first, that it be made advisedly upon well grounded experience, Secondly, 
Vind. p. 115, 116.  that it be done in a national Synod, Thirdly, that it be only in matters of humane right, Fourthly, that nothing be changed, but that which is become hurtful or impeditive of a greater good, he leaves out three of these restrictions altogether, and only mentions one, that it be in matters of humane institution, as if the rest were of no consideration. He cannot choose but know that by the Doctrine of their own Schools, if a man do vow any thing to God, which afterwards is found to be hurtful and impeditive of a greater good, maketh his vow null and void, 
Aqui. ● 〈◊〉 2.2. quaest. 88 Art. 2. & 10.  and disobligeth him from performance of it. If it be true in a vow to God, it is more true in a promise made to man, and he needeth no dispensation to retract it.  

A King hath all power needful for the preservation of his Kingdom  But let us follow his steps. First, whereas I allege their own Authors to prove that to whom a Kingdom is granted all necessary power is granted, without which a Kingdom cannot be governed, he distinguisheth between the necessity of the Kingdom, and the benefit of the Kingdom, a King hath power to do whatsoever is necessary for the government of his Kingdom, but not whatsoever is for the benefit of his Kingdom. To this I answer first, That he confounds Power, and the exercise of Power, or the necessity of the one with the necessity of the other. Power is the necessary qualification of a King. But the act or exercise of that power may be free, and sufficiently grounded not only upon the necessity, but upon the benefit of the Kingdom. A Legislative power is necessary to a King, but this doth not imply that he cannot make a Law except only in cases of absolute necessity. Power to administer an Oath, or to commit a Malefactor is a necessary qualification of a Judge, yet he may administer an Oath upon discretion, or commit a man npon suspicion. If a King or a Judge invested with such a power should misapply it, or err in the exercise of it, he owes an account to God and the Prince from whom he received the power, but the Subject is bound at least to passive obedience. Now let him see his own mistake. The question between us is whether a power to reform abuses and inconveniences be necessary to a King, to which all his Subjects owe at least passive obedience. He answers, concerning the exercise of this power, in what cases a King may lawfully use it, but if the King mistake the case, yet the Subject owes passive obedience.  
Secondly, 
A respective necessity is a sufficient ground of a Reformation.  I answer that there is a double necessity, first, a simple or absolute necessity, Secondly, a respective necessity secundum quid, which we may call a necessity of convenience, which is a true necessity, and a sufficient ground of a Christian Law, that is, rather to make such a Law, then to sustain such indignities, or to run such extreme hazards, or lose such great advantaages, As it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us, 
Act. 15.28.  to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. And of four things these were three, to abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled. None of which things were necessary in themselves, either necessitate medii, or necessitate precepts. But they were necessary to avoid scandal, and to gain advantage upon the Jews, and to retain them in a good opinion of Christian Religion. Saint james used the same argument to Saint Paul, 
Act. 21 20  Thou seest Brother how many thousands of jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law, etc. If the advantage be but small, it is not worth abrogating a Law or changing a received custom, but if it be great, 
Senec.  Malo semel excusare quare secerim, quam semper quare non secerim. It is better to make one just apology why a man doth abrogate such a prejudical custom, then to be making daily excuses why he doth not abrogate it. Vivere, non est vita, sed valere. To live is not to draw out a linger breath, but to enjoy health. So the health and convenience, and good constitution of a Kingdom, is more to be regarded, than the bare miserable being of it.  
Thirdly, I answer that our Reformation in England was not only beneficial and advantageous to the Kingdom, 
Our Reformation was necessary.  but necessary, to avoid intolerable extortions, and gross unjust and general usurpations of all men's rights. They found plainly that this foreign Jurisdiction did interfere with the Sovereign power. The Oaths which Bishops were forced to take to the Pope were examined in Parliament, 
Hall. 24. Hen. 8. sol. 205.  and found to be plainly contradictory to their Oaths of Allegiance, and repugnant to that duty which they did owe to general Counsels. They found that they were daily exposed to peril of Idolatry, and in danger daily to have new Articles of Faith obtruded upon them, they see that the Pope had implicitly quitted their patriarchal right, and challenged a Sovereignty over the Church by Divine right. Lastly, they see that this foreign Jurisdiction was become not only useless, but destructive to those ends for which patriarchal authority was first instituted.  
As the Hangings are fitted to the House, 
The Regiment of the Church conformed to that of the Commonwealth.  so was the external Regiment of the Church, fitted and adopted to the then State of the Empire, when these Ecclesiastical dignities were first erected, for the ease and benefit of the Subject, to the end that no man should be necessitated to seek further for Ecclesiastical Justice, than he did for Civil, nor to travel without the bounds of his own Province for a final sentence. Therefore wheresoever there was a Civil Metropolis, there was placed an Ecclesiastical Metropolitan also. And where there was a Secular Protarch, there was constituted an Ecclesiastical Patriarch, to avoid the confusion and clashing of Jurisdictions. This is plain out of the Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, that whereas some ambitious persons, contrary to the Laws Ecclesiastical, had multiplied Metropolitical Sees, making two in one Province, where there was but one mother City or one Civil Metropolis, the Council defined that no man should attempt any such thing for the future, 
conc. chalc. c. 11. vel 12.  But those Cities which had been adorned with the name of Metropolis by the Edicts of Kings, should only enjoy that privilege. And more plainly by that of Anacletus, cited by Gratian, if we may credit him, Provinces were divided long before the coming of Christ, 
Dist. 99  for the most part. And afterwards that division was renewed by the Apostles and Saint Clement our predecessor, so that in the chief Cities of all Provinces, where long since were primates of the Secular Law, and the highest judiciary Power, etc. There the Divine and Ecclesiastical Laws commanded Patriarches or Primates to be placed and to be, which two, though they be different in names, yet retain the same sense. This was well so long as the Empire continued in the same State, and the Provinces kept their ancient bounds. But now when the State of the Empire is altogether changed, the Provinces confounded and the Dominions divided among lesser Kings, who are sometimes in hostility one with another, and the Subjects of one Prince, cannot freely nor securely repair for Justice into the Dominions of a foreign Prince, without prejudice to themselves, and danger to their native Country. It is very meet that the Subjects of every Sovereign Prince should have final Justice within the Dominions of their own Sovereign, as well in Ecclesiastical causes as Political. And this is agreeable with the fundamental Laws and Customs of England, which neither permit a Subject in such cases to go out of the Kingdom, nor any foreign Commissioner to enter into the Kingdom, without the King's licence. Upon this ground the Bishops of Scotland were freed from their obedience to the Primate of York, and the Bishops of Muscovia from the Patriarch of Constantinople.  
But (saith he) That which is for the benefit of the Kingdom, 
In gain or loss all circumstances to be considered.  may be contrary to the good of the Church, and should we prefer a Kingdom before the Church, the Body before the Soul, Earth before Heaven? I answer that gain and loss, advantage and disadvantage ought not to be weighed or esteemed from the consideration of one or two circumstances or emergents. All charges damages and reprises must first be cast up and deducted, before one can give a right estimate of benefit or loss. If a Merchant do reckon only the price which his commodity cost him beyond Sea, without accounting Customs Freight and other charges; he will soon perish his Pack. If the benefit be only temporal and the loss Spiritual, as to gain Gold and lose Faith, which is more precious than Gold that perisheth, 
1 Pet. 1.7.  it is no benefit but loss, What should it advantage a man to gain the whole World and lose his own Soul? The English Church and the English Kingdom are one and the same Society of men, differing not really but rationally one from another, in respect of some distinct relations. As the Vine and the Elm, that susteins it, they flourish together and decay together. Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis, that which is truly good for the Kingdom of England, cannot be ill for the Church of England, and that which is truly good for the English Church cannot be ill for the English Kingdom. We may in reason distinguish between Alexander's friend who studies to please him, and the King's friend who gives him good advice. The one is a friend to his person, the other to his office. But in truth whilst Alexander is King and the person and office are united, he that is a true friend to Alexander is no enemy to the King, and he who is a true friend to the King is no foe to Alexander. Indeed if by the Church he understand the Court of Rome, then that which was good for the Kingdom of England was prejudicial to the Church in point of temporal profit. But seeing as he confesseth, The Soul is to be preferred before the Body, it turns to their greater advantage by lessening the account of their extortions.  
He addeth, 
Our Reformation not contrary to the Decrees of general Counsels.  That a Kingdom is but a part of the Church, and it is not in the power of any part, only for its particular profit, to alter what is instituted by the universal Church, for her universal good, no more than it is in the power of a part of the Kingdom, as one Shire or Province, to alter for its private in●erest what hath been decreed by Parliament for the good of the Kingdom. His instance of a Shire or a Province is altogether impertinent, for no particular Shire or Province in England hath Legislative authority at all as the Kingdom hath. But particular Corporations being invested with power from the Crown to make Ordinances for the more commodious government of themselves, may make and do make ordinarily by Laws and Ordinances, not contra against the Acts of Parliament, but praeter besides the Acts of Parliament. And let him go but a little out of the Kingdom of England, as suppose into the Isle of Man, or into Ireland, though they be branches of the English Empire, yet he shall find that they have distinct Parliaments, which with the concurrence of the King, have ever heretofore enjoyed a power to make Laws for themselves contrary to the Laws of the English Parliament. But we are so far from seeking to abrogate or to alter any institution of the universal Church or its representative, a general Council, in this case, that on the contrary we crave the benefit of their Decrees, and submit all our differences to their decision. No general Council did ever give to the See of Rome Jurisdiction over Britain. And though they had, yet the state of things being quite changed, it were no disobedience to vary from them in circumstances, whilst we persist in their grounds.  
To make my word good I will suppose the case to have been quite otherwise then it was, That Protestants had made the separation, That they had had no ancient Laws for precedents, That the Britannic Churches had not enjoyed the Cyprian privilege for the first six hundred years: Yea I will suppose for the present, That our Primates were no Primates or Patriarches, And that the Britannic Churches had been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by general Counsels: Yet all this supposed upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire, and the great variation of affairs since that time, it had been very lawful for the King and Church of England to subtract their obedience from the Bishops of Rome (though they had not quitted their Patriarchate) and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves. Provided that what I write only upon supposition, he do not hereafter allege as spoken by way of concession.  
We have seen formerly in this chapter that the establishment of Primates or Patriarches and Metropolitans in such and such Sees, was merely to comply and conform themselves to the Edicts and civil constitutions of Sovereign Princes, for the ease and advantage of Christians, and to avoid confusion and clashing of Jurisdiction That where there was a civil Exarch and Protarch established by the Emperor, there should be an ecclesiastical Primate or Patriarch: And where a City was honoured with the name and privilege of a Metropolis or mother City, there should be a Metropolitan Bishop. The practice of Bishops could not multiply these dignities, but the Edicts of Emperors could. And this was in a time when the Emperors were Pagans and Infidels.  
Afterwards when the Emperors were become Christians, if they newly founded or newly dignified an Imperial City or a Metropolis, they gave the Bishop thereof a proportionable ecclesiastical pre-eminence at their good pleasure. Either with a Council, as the Counsels of Constantinople and Chalcedon with the consent and confirmation of Theodosius and Martian Emperors) did advance the Bishop of Constantinople from being a mean Suffragan under the Metropolitan of Heraclea, to be equal in dignity, power and all sorts of privileges to the Bishop of Rome. And this very ground is assigned by the Fathers, because that City (Constantinople) was become the seat of the Empire. So great a desire had the Fathers to conform the Ecclesiastical Regiment to the Political. Or without a Council, as justinian the Emperor by his sole Legislative Power erected the Patriarchate of justiniana prima, and endowed it with a new Province substracted from other Bishops, freeing it from all Appeals. The like prerogatives he gave to the Bishop of Carthage, notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome. 
Novel. 11 & 131.  And this was not done in a corner, but inserted into the public Laws of the Empire, for all the world to take notice of it. So unquestionable was the power of Sovereign Princes in things concerning the Order and external Regiment of the Church in those days, that neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any other Patriarch or Bishop did ever complain against it. Shall the presence of an Exarch or Lieutenant be able to dignify the City or place of his residence with patriarchal Rites, and shall not the presence and authority of the Sovereign himself be much more able to do it? Is so much respect due to the Servants, and is not more due to the Master?  
That the British and the English Kings had the same Imperial Authority to alter Patriarchates within their own Dominions, to exempt their Subjects from the Jurisdiction of one Primate, 
p. 127.  and transfer them to another, I showed in the vindication by the examples of King Arthur, who translated the Primacy from Caer-Leon to St. David's above eleven hundred years since, And Henry the first who subjected St. David's to Canterbury above five hundred years since, for the benefit of his Subjects. Neither did any man then complain that they usurped more Power then of right did belong unto them.  
This is not to alter the Institutions of the universal Church or of general Counsels (supposing they had made any such particular establishment) but on the contrary to tread in their steps, 
But in pur suance of them.  and to pursue their grounds, and to do that (with all due submission to their authority) which they would have done themselves in this present exigence of Affairs. Make all things the same they were, and we are the same. To persist in an old observation when the grounds of it are quite cha●ged, and the end for which the observation was made, calleth upon us for an alteration, is not obedience but obstinacy. General Counsels did never so fix patriarchal Power to particular Churches, as that their establishment should be like a Law of the Medes and Persians, never to be altered upon any change of the Christian world whatsoever. But to be changed by themselves (as we see they did establish first three Protopatriarchates, than four, then five.) Or when general Counsels cannot be had (which is the miserable condition of these times) by such as have the Supreme Authority Civil and Ecclesiastical in those places where the change is to be made. Suppose a patriarchal See should be utterly ruined and destroyed by war or other accidents, as some have been; or should change the Bible into the Koran, and turn Turks as others have done; suppose a succession of Patriarches should quit or resign their patriarchal power explicitly or implicitly, or forfeit it by disufe or abuse, Or should obtrude heretical errors and Idolatrous practices upon the Churches under their Jurisdiction, so as to leave no hope of remedy from their Successors, O● should go about to enforce them by new Laws and Oaths to maintain their usurpations over general Counsels, to which all Christians are more obliged then to any Patriarch: Lastly, suppose a patriarchal City shall lie in the Dominions of one Prince, and the Province in the Dominions of another, who are in continual war and hostility the one with the other, so as the Subjects can neither have licence nor security to make use of their Patriarch, ought notthe respective Provinces in all these cases to provide for themselves? Put the case that a King going to war in the holy Land should commit the Regency to his Council, and they constitute a Governor of a principal City, who fails in his trust, and makes the Citizens swear allegiance to himself, and to maintain him against the Council; all men will judge that the Citizens should do well, if he were incorrigible, to turn him out of their Gates. Christ was this King, who ascending into the holy of holies, left the Regiment of his Church with the Apostolical College and their Successors, a general Council. They made the Bishop of Rome a principal Governor, and he rebels against them. There needs no further application.  
Now to close up this point, the end is more excellent than the means. The end of the primitive Fathers in establishing the external Regiment of the Church in a conformity to the civil Government was salus Populi Christiani, the ease and advantage of Christians, the avoiding of confusion, and the clashing of Jurisdictions. We pursue the same ends with them, we approve of their means in particular, as most excellent for those times, and in general for all times, that is, the conforming of the one Regiment to the other. But God alone is without any shadow of turning by change. It is not in our power to prevent the conversion of sublunary things. Empires and Cities have their diseases and their deaths as well as men. One is, another was, a third shall be. Mother Cities become Villages, and poor Villages become Mother Cities. The places of the residence of the greatest Kings and Emperors are turned to deserts for Owls to screech in and Satyrs to dance in. Then as a good Pilate must move his rudder according to the variable face of the heavens. So if we will pursue the prudent grounds of the primitive Fathers, we must change our external Regiment according to the change of the Empire. This is better than by adhering too strictly to the private interest of particular places, to destroy that public end for which external Regiment at first was so established. I confess that this is most proper for a general Council to redress. Every thing is best loosed by the same authority by which it was bound. But in case of necessity, where there can be no recourse to a general Council, every Sovereign Prince within his own Dominions, with the advice and concurrence of his Clergy, and due submission to a future ecumenical Council, is obliged to provide remedies for growing inconveniences, and to take order that external Discipline be so administered, as may most conduce to the glory of God, and the benefit of his Christian Subjects.  
I made three conditions of a lawful reformation, just grounds, due moderation, and sufficient authority. 
King Henry's Divorce lawful, but no ground of the Reformation.  He faith, Henry the eight had none of these: First, no just ground, because his ground was, that the Pope would not give him leave to forsake his lawful wife and take another. Perhaps the Popes in justice might, by God's just disposition, be an occasion, but it was no ground of the Reformation: And if it had, yet neither this nor his other exceptions do concern the cause at all. There is a great difference between bonum and bene, between a good action and an action well done: An action may be good and lawful in itself, and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister, and his manner of proceeding indirect, as we see in Iehu's reformation. This concerned King Henry's person, but it concerns not us at all. King Henry protested that it was his conscience, 
Hall in Hen. 8. an. 20. sol. 180. b. & an 21 f. 182.  they will not believe him. Queen Katherine accused Cardinal Wolsey as the Author of it, she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began, The Bishop of Lincoln was employed to Oxford, & Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge, 
All the Cardinals of Rome opposed the Dispensation  to see the cause debated. Besides our own Universities, the Universities of Paris, Orleans, Angew, Burges, Bononia, Milan, Tholouse, and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age, did all subscribe to the unlawfulness of that Marriage, which he calleth lawful. 
Hall. An. 1. H. 8.  The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce: The Bishops of York, Duresme, Chester, were sent unto Queen Katherine to persuade her to lay aside the title of Queen: The Bishops of Canterbury, London, Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, did give sentence against the Marriage: Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope. The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholics. And if wise men were not mistaken, that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinal Wolsey, to break the league with the Emperor, and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson, 
Acworth, emt. Sand 1 2. c 13. & 14 Hall. An. 19 H 8. f●l. 161. Sand de Schism p. 11. & 12.  sister to the King of France, and a stricter league with that Crown. But God did take the wife in their own crastiness. Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawful and invalid, if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Pope's desires. I will conclude this point with two testimonies, the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, 
Steph. Wint. de vera Obedientia apnd Gild. t. 1. p. 721.  Quid aliud debuit aut potuit, etc. What else ought the King or could the King do, then with the full consent of his People and judgement of his Church, to be loosed from an unlawful contract, and to enjoy one that was lawful and allowed, and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold, to apply himself to a chaste and lawful marriage? In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient, to which all aught to submit without delay, yet his Majesty disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities. The second is the testimony of two Archbishops, two Dukes, three Marquesses, thirteen Earls, five Bishops, six and twenty Barons, two and twenty Abbats, with many Knights and Doctors, in their Letter to the Pope, Causae ipsius justitia, etc. The justice of the cause itself being approved every where by the judgements of most learned men, & determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities, being pronounced and defined by English, 
Ld. Cherb. in Hen 8. An 1530. p. 303. Sufficere saint, alioqui debuisset causae ipsius, etc.  French, Italians, as every one among them doth excel the rest in learning, etc. Though he call it a lawful Marriage, yet it is but one Doctor's opinion. And if it had been lawful, the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry.  
Secondly, he faith he wanted due moderation, because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings. 
The Parliament not forced.  I have showed sufficiently that they were not forced, by their Letter to the Pope, by their Sermons preached at St. Paul's Cross, by their persuasions to the King, by their pointed looks; to which I may add their Declaration, called the Bishop's Book, 
Idem p. 334.  signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops. Nor do I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two, who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time. Sir Thomas More, yet when King Henry writ against Luther, he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Pope's authority too much, left he diminished his own. And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the King's title of the Supreme Head of the English Church [quantum per Christi legem licet.] 
Anno. 1530.  But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation, I will show him out of Stephen Gardiner himself, who was the Tyrant that did compel him. Quin potius orbirationem nedde●e volui, etc. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion, 
De vera Obedien tia. Ib●dem. p. 719.  and compelled me to descent from my former words and deeds. That compelled me (to speak it in good time) which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit, the force of truth to which all things at length do obey. Behold the Tyrant, not Henry the eight, but the force of truth, which compelled the Parliament. Take one testimony more out of the same Treatise. But I fortified myself so that (as if I required the judgement of all my senses) I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth, nor take it to be sufficiently proved, unless I first heard it with mine ears and smelled it with my nose, and see it with mine eyes, and felt it with my hands. Here was more of obstinacy than tyranny in the case. Either Stephen Gardener did write according to his conscience, and then he was not compelled; or else he dissembled, and then his second testimony is of no value. It is not my judgement, but the judgement of the Law itself Semel falsus, semper presumitur falsus.  
To the third condition he faith only, that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reform, first, because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole. I have showed the contrary, that our Reformation was not made in opposition, but in pursuance of the acts of general Counsels, neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres. And secondly, because the Papacy is of divine right. Yet before, he told us that it was doubtful, and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution. But I have learned better, that the proof rests upon his side, both because he maintains an affirmative, and because we are in possession. It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience, that the universal Regency of the Pope is of humane right, who do absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right.  
His next exception is, that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spiritual matters, because some Princes have done so. If he think the external Regiment of the Church to be a matter merely spiritual, he is much mistaken. I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single Prince or Princes, but a whole succession of Kings, with their convocations, and Parliaments, proceeding according to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom. So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah.  
But he faith, 
King Henry did not act against conscience  that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience, as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope. It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another man's conscience. God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man. Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome, yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his mind, then that he violated his conscience. Neither will this uncharitable censure, if it were true, advantage his cause the black of a bean. His conscience might make the reformation sinful in him, but not unlawful in itself. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Action within itself, depends not upon the conscience of the doer, but the merit of the thing done. His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders. 
c 3. s. 5.  The former a great Counsellor of King Henry, a contriver of the oath, a propugner of the King's Supremacy, both in print and in his Sermons, and a persecutor of them who opposed it. For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience, comes near the sin against the holy Ghost. He had reason to say he was constrained, both to hide his own shame, and to flatter the Pope (after his revolt) whom he had so much opposed, especially in the days of Queen Marie: Otherwise he had miss the Chancellership of England, and it may be had suffered as a Schismatic. Yet let us hear what he faith, that King Henry had a purpose to resign the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North: And that he was employed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it. All this might have been, and yet no intention of reconciliation. Great Princes many times look one way and row another. And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion, or prevent a foreign war, will make no scruple to use it. But upon Bishop Gardiner's credit in this cause we cannot believe it. This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation, that if he did not hear them, 
Ld. Cherb. H. 8. an. 1530. p. 305.  certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam, ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus, they would certainly interpret it, that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves, to seek their remedy from elsewhere. This was a fair intimation, and they were as good as their words. This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia, downright for the King's Supremacy against the Pope. Lastly, this is who published to the world, that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most stead fast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England, hath aught to do with Rome. It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point, and the King alone go against his conscience.  
His later witness, Nicholas Sanders, is just such another, whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry. He feigneth that when his death did draw nigh, he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way, how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolic. Testimony he produceth none, but his own Authority. They who will not believe it may choose. But that which followeth, spoileth the credit of his relation, That one of the Bishops being doubtful whether this might not be a trap to catch him, answered that the King was wiser than all men, that he had cast off the Pope's Supremacy by divine inspiration, 
Consilio divino.  and had nothing now to fear. That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bishops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near, 
Sand. de Schism. p. 102.  and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abominably against his conscience, (as he makes this to be) is not credible.  
But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit, 
Lord Cherb fol. 398.  That it was but the coming two days short of a Post to Rome, which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made. But here is a double mistake, first, in the time, this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made, currente Rota. Some intimations had been given of what was intended, but the Bell was not then rung out. Certainly the breach must go before the reconcilement, in order of time. Secondly, in the Subject; this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church, but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine. The words are these, That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence, until he (the King) had indifferent Judges who might hear the business, he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to do in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See. The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King, and delivered it at Rome. It was not accepted. The King's answer came not within the time limited. Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence, and the Separation followed. So this was about the change of a Wife, not of Religion, before either King Henrys substraction of obedience, or the Pope's fulmination.  
In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy, acknowledging That it may be lawful in some cases to subtract obedience from the Pope, but in no case from the Papacy, which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution, whereas Protestants (saith he) for the faults of some Popes, have separated themselves both from Pope, Papacy, and Roman Church. And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme, That personal faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution. If he had been pleased to observe it, I took away this distinction before it was made, 
P 128.  showing that the personal faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty; but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline, do warrant a more permanent separation, even until they be reform.  

Our separation from the Papacy was not for the faults of Popes but of the Papacy itself  I do acknowledge the distinction of Pope, Papacy, and Church of Rome, but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another. As the Pope may have his proper faults, so may the Papacy, so may the Church of Rome. We have separated ourselves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated herself from the ancient Roman Church. In all other things we maintain communion with her. We are ready to yield the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolical Church, and whatsoever external honour the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See, if he would content himself therewith. But the chief grounds of our separation are those which are inherent in the Papacy itself, qua talis, as it is now defended, as they seek to obtrude it upon us; the lawless exorbitant oppression of the Roman Court; the sovereignty of the Pope above general Counsels; his legislative and judiciary Power in all Christian Kingdoms, against the will of the right owners; his pretended right to convocate Synods, and confirm Synods, and dissolve Synods. and hold legantine Courts, and obtrude new points of Faith as necessary Articles, and receive the last appeals, and dispose of all ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices at his pleasure, and impose Tenths and first-Fruits and Subsidies and Pensions, to invest Bishops, and sell Pardons, and Indulgences, and Palls. These and the like are not the Faults of Innocent the tenth, or urban the eighth, or Sextus, or Pius, or Alexander, or Clement, or any particular Pope. But they are the Faults of the Papacy itself, woven into the body of it, and without the acknowledgement of which, they will suffer us to hold no communion with the Papacy. I do not say that they are inseparable, for the time hath been when the Papacy was without those Blemishes; but that it is folly at this time to hope from them for the anceient liberty of the Church, as the Countryman expected that the river should be r●n out, and become dry, 
Rusticus expectat ut defluat amnis, at ille  
Labitur & labetur, in omne volubilis aevum.   
We expected remedy, and hoped for reformation from the time of Henry the first, in whose reign their encroachments did begin to grow signal and notorious, until the days of Henry the eighth, throughout the reigns of seventeen succeeding Kings, and found not the least ease from them, but what we carved out ourselves. No Law of God or man doth require that we should wait eternally. The Lord of the Vineyard thought three years enough to expect fruit of the fruitless Figtree, and when it improved not in the fourth year, the Sentence issued against it, 
Luk. 13.7.  cut it down, why cumbreth it the ground.  

whether Popes have done more good or hurt to England not material.  He urgeth that if some Popes have wronged England temporally, far more Popes have benifited it much more both temporrally and spiritually; Sufficit unus huic operi: This were more comely in our mouths then in theirs. Some man would go make an estimate of Papal Importations, as Parchment, and Led, and Wax, and Crosses, Agnus dei's, and Relics. And their Exportations, Gold, Silver, Jewels, and whatsoever the land afforded either for necessity or delight. But I will spare his modesty, and suppose more than ever he will be able to prove. Ancient virtues or benefits do not justify an old institution, when it is grown useless and subject to desperate abuses. The brazen Serpent was instituted by God himself; it was a singular type of Christ; it saved the temporal lives of the Israelites, and pointed them out the right way to eternal life. Yet when it was become useless and abused over much, Hezekiah is commended for breaking it in pieces, 
2 King. 18.4.  and calling it Nehushtan, an useless piece of common brass, that had quite lost its ancient virtue. The Order of the Templars was instituted about the year 1120. Scarcely any Order can show such an hopeful beginning at their first institution, or such an huge progress towards grearness in so short a revolution of time. He who shall read these extraordinary praises which are given them by St. Bernard, (who is thought to have been the Author of their rule) will take them rather to have been a Society of Angels then of mortal men. Yet in the days of Clement the fifth, they were generally suppressed throughout the whole world as it were in an instant, not for common faults, but horrid crimes, and prodigious villainies, by the joint consent of the occidental Church and sovereign Princes. I inquire not whether their accusation was just or not; but from hence I do collect, that in the judgement of this occidental world, a good institution may be deservedly abrogated for subsequent abuses. As we had not the same latitude of power, which they who censured them h●d; so we did not act without our own Sphere, or the Bounds of the English Dominions.  
In the vindication I urged three points, 
Sect. 2.  wherein the Romans do agree with us. First, that sovereign Princes not only may, but in justice are obliged to repress the tyranny of ecclesiastical Judges, and protect their Subjects from their violence, and free them from their oppressed Yoke. To this he answereth nothing. Secondly, that Princes may be enabled either by grant or by prescription (I added by their sovereign authority over the whole Body politic) to exercise all external ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by themselves or by fit Delegates, and to make ecclesiastical Laws for the external Regiment of the Church, to which their Subjects owe obedience. This alone were sufficient to free us from Schism. But to all this likewise he saith not one word good or bad. Thirdly, that it is lawful in several cases to subtract obedience from the Pope. And among other proofs I cited the Council of Towers. To this only he answers, 
Conc. Turor. R●sp. ad Art. 3. 48.  That they acknowledged it lawful to withdraw obedience from this or that Pope, in this or that case, but not from Papal Authority itself. Whereas I showed him in the vindication, that the same equity which doth allow substraction of obedience from this or that Pope for personal faults, 
It was lawful to withdraw obedience from Papal Authority corrupted.  as Schism or Simony, doth likewise allow substraction of obedience from him and his Successors for faulty Principles, as obtruding new Creeds, pressing of unlawful Oaths, palpable usurpation of undoubted Rites, even until they be reform. Papal Authority without the Pope, is but an imaginary idea; whosoever substracts obedience from the true Pope, substracts obedience from the Papal Authority. Perhaps indeed not simply or absolutely, but respectively, as he saith in this or that case. But what if the Pope will not suffer them to pay their obedience in part, so far as it is due, but have it entire according to his own demands, or none at all. Then it is not they who separate themselves from Papal Authority, but it is Papal Authority which separates them from it. Either he understands Papal Authority such as it ought to be de jure; and then we have substracted no obedience from it, for we ought it none, and are not unwilling for peace sake to pay it more respect than we do owe. Or else by Papal Authority he understands a spiritual Monarchy, such as it is now, with superiority above general Counsels, and infallibility of Judgement and legislative Authority, and patronage of all ecclesiastical Preferments, etc. And then the universal Church did never acknowledge any such Papal Authority. And then to withdraw our obedience from it, is not to subtract obedience from a lawful, but from an unlawful and tyrannical Power. 
Princes the last Judges of the injuries done to their Subjects by Popes.  When sovereign Princes do withdraw obedience from this or that Pope, in this or that case, they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome, as whether the Pope have invaded their privileges, or usurped more Authority than is due unto him, or in contemning his censures (which the Council of Towers doth expressly allow them to do) and judging whether the Pope's Key have erred or not. Yield thus much, and the question is at an end, That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties, and of papal oppressions and usurpations, and the validity or invalidity of the Pope's censures.  
There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit, That Papal Authority is instituted immediately by God, but not Regal. Cujus contrarium verum est. He was once, or seemed to be of another mind. 
Bish. Epist. ad Reg. jocob. p. 11.  For of almighty God his mere bounty and great grace they (Kings) receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Sceptres. Saint Paul says expressly, speaking of civil Powers: 
Rom. 13.1, & 2.  The Powers that be, are ordained of God: and whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. The eternal Wisdom of the Father hath said▪ 
Prov. ●. 15.  By me King's reign, and Prince's decree justice.. If they be ordained by God, 
Kingly Authority from God, not Papal.  and reign by God, than they are instituted by God. Therefore they are justly styled the living Images of God that saveth all things. He who said, by me Kings reign, never said by me Pope's reign. King's may inherit by the Law of man, or be elected by the Suffrages of men. But the Regal Office, and Regal Power is immediately from God. No man can give that which he himself hath not. The People have not power of Life and Death. That must come from God. By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes, and when Fathers of Families did conjoin their power to make one Father of a Country, to whom doth he owe his power but to God, from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature? As for the Pope he derives his Episcopal power from Christ, his patriarchal power from the Church, and Monarchical power from himself.  
After this in the vindication I descended to several new considerations, 
Sect. 3.  as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers, the subjection of patriarchal power to Imperial, which I showed by a signal example of Pope Gregory who obeyed the command of Mauritius the Emperor, 
The grounds of our separation.  though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God, the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors, and the translation of primacies by our Kings. And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation: first, the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England: Secondly, their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men, and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures. Thirdly, because our Ancestors found by experience that such foreign jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical discipline. Fourthly, sundry other inconveniences, to have been daily subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith, to be exposed to manifest peril of Idolatry, to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendom, to have approved the Pope's rebellion against general Counsels, and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations. Lastly, the privilege of the Britannic Churches, the Pope's disclaiming all his patriarchal authority, and their challenging of all this by Div●ne right, which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome. Lastly, I showed that our Ancestors from time to time, had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done. All this he passeth by in silence, as if it did not concern the cause at all. Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope, the Papacy, and the Roman Church, which hath been so often confuted already, and blameth Protestant's for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes. As if all these things which are mentioned here, and set down at large in the vindication, were but some infirmitives, or some petty faults of some few Popes. I have showed him clearly, that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes, but the faults of the Papacy itself. And as for forsaking the Church of Rome, he doth us wrong. I showed him out of our Canons in this very place, 
An. 30.  that we have not forsaken it, but only left their Communion in some points, wherein they had left their Ancestors, we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannic Church, a Mother to the Saxon Church, but as a Lady or Mistress to no Church.  
Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation, 
Sect. 4.  to show that they were insufficient, The new Creed of Pius the 4th, and the withholding the Cup from the Laity. Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction. He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds besides these. Yet I confess that in his choice he hath swerved from the rules of prudence, 
The Pope's new Articles of Faith a just cause of separation.  and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest. First (saith he) The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation, because the separation was made before the Creed. He saith true, if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed, that did offend us. But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed, were obtruded upon us before by his predecess o'er as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith, and required as necessary conditions of their Communion. So as we must either receive these, or utterly lose them. This is the only difference▪ that Pius the 4th dealt in gross, his predecessors by retail. They fashioned the several rods, and he bound them up into a bundle. He saith, That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholic Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiastical Catholic persons, as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed▪ proposed by them to Ministers. Pius the 4th did not only enjoin all ecclesiastics, Seculars, and Regulars, to swear to his new Creed, but he imposed it upon all Christians, as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, (they are the very words of the Bull,) as the true Catholic Faith without believing of which no man can be saved. This is a greater Obligation than an Oath, and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolical Creed. We do not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths, extra quam non est salus, without which there is no Salvation, nor enjoin Ecclesiastic persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us, and the extirpation of some growing errors.  

The de●●ining of the Cup in the Sacrament a just cause of separation.  Secondly, He adds that the detaining of the Cup, could be no sufficient grounds of separation, because Protestants do confess, That it is an indifferent matter of itself, and no just cause to separate Communion. Doth the Church of England confess it to be an indifferent matter? No, nor any Protestant Church. All their public confessions do testify the contrary. Nay more, I do not believe that any one Protestant in his right wits did ever confess any such thing. But this it is to nible at Authors, and to stretch and tenter their words by consequences quite beyond their sense. It may be that Luther at some time said some such thing, but it was before he was a formed Protestant, whilst he was half sleeping half waking. Bellarmine styles it in initio Apostasiae. But after his eyes were well opened, he never confessed any such thing, but the just contrary. Suppose that Brentius saith, that abstemious persons, such whose nature doth abhor wine, may receive under one kind; what a pitiful argument is this drawn from a particular rare case of invincible necessity, to the common and ordinary use of the Sacrament? The Elephant was exempted from doing obeisance to the Lion, because he had no knees. But it is the height of injustice to withhold his right from one man, because another cannot make use of it. Suppose that Melancthon declare his own particular opinion, that those Countries where Wine is not to be had should do well to make use of honeyed water in the Sacrament. What doth this signify as to the cause he hath in hand, whether they use some other liquor in the place of Wine, or use no liquor at all? Invincible necessity doth not only excuse from one kind but from both kinds. And where the Sacrament cannot be had as it ought, the desire to have it sufficeth before God. We read of some Christians in India where they had no Wine, that they took dry Raisins and steeped them in water a whole night, 
Odoardus Barlosa forma Celebrandi etc.  and used that liquor which they squeezed out of them in the place of Wine for the Sacrament. It would trouble one as much in many parts of the World to find right Bread, as Wine. That nourishment which Indians eat in the place of Bread, being made of the roots of Plants, doth differ more from our Bread made of Wheat, than Cider or Perry or honnied water do differ from the juice of the Grape, which are such many times, as are able to deceive a good taste. If Wine were as rare and precious in the World as right Balm, which they make to be the matter of a Sacrament, there were more to be said in it. They themselves do teach that it is absolutely necessary, that the Sacrament be consecrated in Wine, and that it be consumed by the Priest. They who can procure Wine for the Priest, may procure it for the People also, if they will. The truth is, all these are but made Dragons. No man ever was so abstemious but that he might taste so much Wine tempered with water, as they use it, as might serve for the Sacrament, where the least imaginable particle conveieth Christ to the receiver, as well as the whole Chalice full. Neither is there any Christian Country in the World, 
Papists right, Heirs of the Donatists.  where they may not have Wine enough for this use, if they please.  
So notwithstanding any thing he saith, to the contrary their daily obtruding new Articles of Faith, and their detaining the Cup in the Sacrament were just grounds of separation, but not our only grounds. We had twenty other grounds besides them. And therefore he had little reason to say, That at least the first Protestants were Schismatics, and in this respect to urge the authority of Optatus against us, 
Optat. l. 2.  to prove us to be the Heirs of Schismatics. Optatus in the place by him cited, speaks against the traditors, with whom we have nothing common, and the Donatists their own Ancestors, not ours, whose case is thus described there by Optatus, cujus in Cathedra tenet, quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat, whose Chair thou possessest, which had no original before Majorinus, a schismatical Donatist. This is not our case. We have set up no new Chairs nor new Altars, nor new Successions, but continued those which were from the beginning. There is a vast difference between the erecting of a Chair against a Chair, or an Altar against an Altar, which we have not done, and the repairing of a Church or an Altar wherein it was decayed, which we were obliged to do.  
In the next place he endeavoreth to prove by the general Doctrine of Protestants, 
Whether Protestants and Papists differ in Essentials.  that they differ from Papists in fundamental points necessary to salvation. If they do, it is the worse for the Romanists. In the mean time the charity of Protestants is not to be blamed. We hope better of them. And for any thing he saith to the contrary we believe that they do not differ from us in fundamentals. But let us see what it is that the Protestants say. Some say that Popish errors are damnable. Let it be admitted many errors are damnable which are not in fundamentals. Errors which are damnable in themselves, are often pardoned by the mercy of God, who looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices. Others say, that Popish and Protestant opinions are diametrally opposite. That is certain, they are not all logomachies. But can there be no diametral opposition except it be in fundamentals? There are an hundred diametral oppositions in opinion among the Romanists themselves, yet he will not confess that they differ in fundamentals. Lastly, others say that the Religion of Protestants, and the Religion of the Church of Rome, are not all one for substance. I answer first, that the word substance is taken sometimes strictly, for the essentials of any thing, which cannot be separated without the destruction of the subject. Thus a man is said to be the same man in substance, while his soul and body are united, though he have lost a leg or an arm, or be reduced to skin and bone. And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Church and Religion are the same in substance. At other times the word substance is taken more largely for all real parts, although they be separated without the destruction, and sometimes with the advantage of the subject. And so all the members, yea even the flesh and blood and other humours are of the substance of a man. 
Psal. 139.16.  So we read, Thine eyes did see my substance being yet unperfect, and in thy books were all my members written. And in this sense the Protestant and Popish Religion are not the same in substance. Secondly, the word substantials may either signify old substantials, believed and practised by all Churches in all ages, at all times, which are contained in the Apostles Creed. And thus our Religion and the Roman Religion are the same in substance. Or new substantialls' lately coined and obtruded upon the Chrurch; as those Articles which are comprehended in the Creed of Pius the fourth: And in this sense our Religion and theirs are not the same in substance. The former substantials were made by God, the later substantials devised by man.  
I pleaded that when all things were searched to the bottom, 
Sect. 5.  Roman Catholics do acknowledge the same possibility of Salvation to Protestants, 
Papists acknowledge possibility of our salvation as much as we of theirs.  which Protestants do afford to Roman Catholics: And for proof thereof I produced two testimonies of his own. To this he answers first, that Protestants do allow saving faith and salvation to the Roman Church and to formal Papists. But Roman Catholics do deny saving faith and salvation to the Protestant Church and to formal Prrtestants, and grant it only to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errors, who are not formal Protestants, but rather Protestantibus credentes, persons deceived by giving too much trust to Protestants. We say the very same, that we allow not saving faith or salvation to the Popish Church, as it is corrupted, but as it reteins with Protestants, the same common principles of saving truth, and is still jointed in part to the Catholic Church. Nor to formal Papists, but to such as err invincibly, and are prepared in their minds to receive the truth when God shall reveal it. Such are not formal Papists, but Papist is credentes, such as give too much trust to Papists.  
His second answer is a second error, grounded only upon those imaginary ideas which he hath framed to himself in his own head, of the opinions of particular Protestants, and laboured much to little purpose, to prove by conjectural consequences, which hang together like a roap of sand, That Protestants affirm that such as err in fundamental Articles, and such as err sinfully in not fundamentals may be saved. Neither the Church of England, against which he ought to bend his forces in this question, nor any genuine son of the Church of England▪ nor any other Protestant Church ever said, that Papists might be saved, though they held not the fundamentals of saving truth, or though they held lesser errors pertinaciously without repentance. If any particular Protestants were ever so mad to maintain any such thing in an ordinary way, for we speak not now of the extraordinary dispensations of God's grace, in case of invincible necessity, we disclaim them in it. Let him not spare them. But I believe that when all is done, about which he makes such a stir, it will prove but Moonshine in the water.  
To what I said, 
Sect. 6.  that our separation is from their errors, not from their Church, he answereth, 
Our separation only from errors.  that it shows my ignorance what their Church is, For their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors; and therefore they who separate from them, separate from their Church. In my life I never heard a weaker plea: But I desire no other advantage than what the cause itself affords. Doth he himself believe in earnest, that any errors are essentials of a Church? Or would he persuade us that weeds are essentials of a Garden; or ulcers and wenns and such superfluous excrescences essentials of an humane body? Or do weeds become no weeds, and errors no errors, because they are called pretended weeds or pretended errors, or because they are affirmed to be essentials? This is enough to justify my distinction. So it was not my ignorance but their obstinacy thus to incorporate their errors into their Creeds, and matriculate their abuses among their sacred Rites. In vain do they worship me (saith God) teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men. 
Math. 15.9  Suppose an Arrian or a Pelagian should charge him to be a Schismatic or an Apostate, because he deserted their communion: To which he should answer, that his separation was from their Arrian or Pelagian errors, not from their Church as it was a Christian Church, and that he held all other common principles of Christianity with them. And suppose the Arrian or Pelagian should plead as he doth, that their Church is a society partly in their pretended errors, or that their pretended errors are essentials of their Church and of their Religion. This might well aggravate their own faults, but not infringe the truth of his answer. Errors continue errors though they they be called essentials. There was a time before Arrianism did infest the Church, and there succeeded a time when it was cast out of the Church. Their old essentials which were made essentials by Christ, we do readily receive: Their new essentials, which were lately devised by themselves, we do as utterly reject; and so much the rather, because they have made them essentials. Their Church flourished long without these errors; and we hope the time will come when it shall be purged from these errors. 
We arrogate to ourselves no new Church, etc.   
In setting forth the modderation of our English Reformers, I showed that we do not arrogate to ourselves either a new Church, or a new Religion, or new holy orders. Upon this he falls heavily two ways. First he saith, it is false, as he hath showed by innumerable testimonies of Protestants. That which I say is not the falser because he calls it so, nor that which he saith the truer because I forbear. For what I said I produced the authority of our Church, he letteth that alone, and sticketh the falsehood upon my sleeve. It seemeth that he is not willing to engage against the Church of England: For sti●l he declineth it, and changeth the subject of the question from the English Church to a confused company of particular Authors of different opinions, of dubious credit, of little knowledge in our English affairs, tentered and wrested from their genuine sense. Scis tu simulare Cupressum, quid hoc? It was not the drift or scope of my undertaking to answer old volumes of impertinencies. If he have any testimonies that are material, in the name of God let him bring them into the lists, that the Reader may see what they say, and be able to compare the evidence with the answer, and not imagine more than is true. Let him remember that I premonish him, 
Whether our Religion be the same with theirs or not, we are no Schismatics.  that all his innumerable testimonies will advantage him nothing.  
Secondly, he would persuade us, that if it were so that our Church, Religion, and holy Orders, were the same with theirs, than what need had we to go out of theirs for salvation? then we are convinced of Schism. Alas poor men! what will become of us? Hold what we will, say what we can, still we are Schismatics with them. If we say our Church, Religion, and holy Orders are the same with theirs, than we are Schismatics for deserting them. If we say they are not the same, than we are Schismatics for censuring and condemning them. But we appeal from the sentence of our Adversary, to the sentence of that great Judge who judgeth righteous judgement. We are either Wheat or Chaff, but neither their tongues nor their pens must winnow us. If we say our Church, Religion, and holy Orders be the same with theirs, we are no Schismatics, because we do not censure them uncharitably. If we say they be not the same, we are still no Schismatics, because we had then, by their own confession, just reason to separate from them. But to come up closer to his argugument: Religion is a virtue, which consisteth between two extremes, Heresy in the defect, and Superstition in the excess. Though their Church, Religion, and holy Orders be the same with ours, and free from all heretical defects, yet they may ●e and are subject to superstitious excesses. Their Church hath sund●y blemishes: Their Religion is mixed with errors: And gross abuses have crept into their holy Orders. From these superstitious errors and abuses we were obliged to separate ourselves, wherein they had first separated themselves from their Predecessors. So if there be Schism in the case, it was Schism in them to make the first separation, and Virtue and Piety in us to make the second. I said most truly that our positive Articles are those general truths about which there is no controversy. Our negation is only of humane controverted additions. Against this he excepts sundry ways, 
Quaest 14. the side A●t. 1.  First, Because our principal positive Article is that of justification by special Faith, which (as he saith) is most of all in controversy. Aquinas makes a great difference between opinari and credere, between a scholastical opinion and a necessary Article of Faith. Sometimes the understanding doth fluctuate indifferently between the two parts of the contradiction: and this is properly doubting. Sometimes it inclineth more to the one part then to the other, yet not without some fear or suspicion of the truth of the other part: This is properly opinion. Sometimes the understanding is determined so as to adhere perfectly to the one part: And this determination proceeds either from the intelligible object, mediately or immediately; and this makes knowledge: Or from the will upon consideration of the authority and truth of the revealer; and this makes faith. 
Justification by special fa●●h no A●●icle of our Church.  Justification by special faith was never accounted an Article of the English belief, either by the English Church, or by any genuine Son of the English Church. If he trust not me, let him read over our Articles, and reading satisfy himself. I confess some particular persons in England did sometimes broach such a private Opinion, but our most learned and judicious Professors did dislike it altogether at that time, as I have heard from some of themselves. But shortly after it was in a manner generally rejected, as Franciscus a Sancta Clara ingeniously confesseth & jam hic novus error vix natus apud nostrates sepultus est, 
Probl. 22.  and now this new error being scarcely born among our Countrymen was buried. And more plainly elsewhere; 
Probl. 26.  quibus omnibus bene pensatis, saenè nulla bodie reperietur differentia in confession Anglica, & sanctissima definitione Tridentina, all which things being duly weighed, truly there will be found no difference at this day, in the English confession, and the sacred definition of the Tridentine Council, meaning about this Subject of justification.  
But saith he, if they be not points of our Faith, what do they in our confessions of Faith? I answer they are inserted into our confessions, not as supplements of our Creed, or new Articles, but as explanations of old Articles, and refutations of their supposititious Principles. Contraries being placed together by one another, do make one another more apparent.  

Our negatives no Articles of Faith.  He proceedeth. Have not Protestants a positive faith of their negative Articles? as w●ll as of their positive Articles. Commandments may be either affirmative or negative; and the negative Commandments bind more firmly than the affirmative, because the affirmative bind always, but not to the actual exercise of obedience at all times, semper, but not ad semper. But negative Commandments bind both semper and ad semper, both always, and to all times. But we find no negatives in the rule of Faith: For the rule of Faith consists of such supernatural truths, as are necessary to be known of every Christian, not only necessitate praecepti, because God hath commanded us to believe them, but also necessitate medii, because without the knowledge of them in some tolerable degree, according to the measure of our capacities, we cannot in an ordinary way attain to salvation. How can a negative be a means. Non entis nulla est efficacia. In the Apostles Creed, from the beginning to the end, we find not the least negative Particle: And if one or two negatives were added in the subsequent ages, as that, begotten not made, in the Nicene Creed; they were added not as new Articles, but as explanations of the old, to meet with some emergent errors, or difficulties, just as our negatives were.  
Yea though perhaps some of our negatives were revealed truths, and consequently were as necessary to be believed when they are known as affirmatives; yet they do not therefore become such necessary truths or Articles of Religion, as make up the rule of Faith. I suppose yet further, that though some of our negatives can be deduced from the positive fundamental Articles of the Creed, some evidently some probably, as the necessity of the consequence is more or less manifest: For it is with consequences as it was with Philo's row of iron Rings; the first that touched the Loadstone did hang more firmly; the rest which were more remote still more loosely. I say in such a case that no man was bound to receive them, either as Articles, or as Consequences, but only he that hath the light to see them, nor he further than the evidence doth invite him. And howsover they are no new Articles, but Corollaries or deductions from the old. So grossly is he mistaken on all sides, when he saith that Protestants (he should say the English Church if he would speak to the purpose,) have a positive belief, that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. Which were to contradict the words of Christ, this is my body. He knows better, that Protestants do not deny the thing, but their bold determination of the manner by transubstantiation; themselves; confessing that the manner is incomprehensible by humane reason. Neither do Protestants place it among the Articles of the Faith, but the opinions of the Schools.  

Sect. 7.  He acknowledgeth, That if I had a true preparation of mind to believe whatsoever the true real Catholic Church universally believeth and practiseth, 
An implicit submission to the Catholic Church sufficient to salvation.  the matter were ended. But he addeth that by the Catholic Church, I mean an imaginary Church, or multitude of whatsoever Christians, Catholics, Heretics, Schismatics, w●● agree in fundamental points, but disagree in other points of Faith, and wholly in communion of Sacraments, and ministry of them. I accept this offer, and I tie him to his word. If he stand to this ground, there are no more controversies between him and me for the future but this one, what is the true Catholic Church, whether the Church of Rome alone with all its Dependants, or the Church of the whole World, 
〈…〉  Roman, Grecian, Armenian, Abyssene, Russian, Protestant, which after all their brags of amplitude and universality, is three times greater than themselves. I desire no fairer issue between him and me. I do from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholic Church, diffused over the World, doth believe and practise. And if I should err in my judgement what the Catholic Church is, as I am confident that he and his fellows do err, though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement, I do furthermore pro●ess my readiness to submit to the right Catholic Church, whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me. This is sufficient to preserve me from being a Schismatic: This is sufficient for the salvation of a Christian.  
He telleth us indeed sometimes that the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church, and is diffused all over the World. Let him take Roman in the largest sense he can; yet still it is but a particular Church of one denomination, not Catholic or Universal. Whom have they of their Communion in the large Abystene Empire, consisting of seventeen Kingdoms? Not one. Whom have they of their Communion in the Russian Empire nearer home? Scarcely one. Whom have they of their Communion in all the Eastern Churches? perhaps two or three handfuls, in comparison of those innumerable multitudes of Christians, who are subject to the other Patriarches. 
Papists agree not what is their infallible proponent.  Before they were so forward and positive in voting for themselves, that they are the Catholic Church, that they are the infallible Judge, it had been meet that they had first agreed among themselves what this Catholic Church is, to which every Christian is bound to submit, whether it be the virtual Church, that is the Pope, or the Pope jointly with his Conclave of Cardinals, or the Pope with a provincial Council, or the Pope with a general Council, that is the representative Church, or a general Council without the Pope, or lastly the essential Church dispersed over the face of the World; for into so many opinions they are divided.  
He addeth that these great multitudes of Christians, whereof we speak, are not united among themselves, but divided in points of Faith, in communion of Sacraments, and the ministry of them▪ 
Aust. epist. 48. The name of Catholic from universal Communion, not right belief.  Let Saint Austin answer him, Acutum autem aliquid videris dicere, cum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis Communione interpretaris, sed ex observatione Praeceptorum omnium divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum. Thou seemest to thyself to speak very wittily, when thou dost not interpret the Catholic Church by the Communion of the whole World, but by the Catholic Faith, and the right observation of all the Sacraments, and true Discipline, that is, in their sense, submission to the Roman Court. This last badge, which Saint Austin did not know, is the only defect of those multitudes of Christians, that they will not acknowledge the monarchical Power of the Roman Bishop. As we have seen by experience, that when some few of these Eastern or Northern Christians have reconciled themselves to the See of Rome, and acknowledged the Papacy, they were straight adjudged Orthodox and sound Christians, in all other things. And the latter of these did provide expressly for themselves at the time of their submission, 
c. 2 sect. 6.  that they would retain their Greekish Religion and Rites. He himself in this very place confesseth them to agree in fundamental points, that is, to be free from fundamental errors. And for other lesser Controversies, they have not half so many among them, as the Romanists among themselves.  
As to his marginal note out of Turtullian, That Heretici pacem cum omnibus miscent, Heretics mingle themselves with all Sects, making it a Symtome of Heresy, to be over easy in admitting others to their Communion. 
More dangerous to exclude then to include others in our Communion.  I do confess it is a fault indeed. But first what doth this concern the Church of England? Secondly, the greater fault lies on the other hand, to be over severe, and over vigorous and censorious in casting out, or holding others from their Communion, and more dangerous to the Church of Christ. In this kind offended the Donatists, the Novatians, the Luciferians of old: And the Romanists at this day. This hath more of the patriarchal Garb in it, stand from me for I am holier than thou.   

CHAP. 7. That all Princes and Republiks' of the Roman Communion, do in effect the same things which King Henry did.  
WE are come now unto his seventh Chapter, 
The politic Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical causes.  wherein I am much beholden to him for easing me of the labour of replying. For whereas I proved my intention at large by the Acts, Laws, and Decrees of the Emperors, with their Counsels, and Synods, and Electoral College, by the Laws of France, the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, the Acts of their Parliaments, and Declarations of their Universities, by the practice of the King of Spain, his Counsels, his Parliaments, in Sicily, in Castille, in Brabant and Flanders, by the sobs of Portugal, and their bleat, and the Judgement of the University of Lisbon, by the Laws and Proclamations and other Acts of the Republic of Venice, throughout 68 pages. He vouchsafeth not to take notice of any one particular of all this, except only some few heads, of what I urged concerning the Emperors, which he reciteth in less than one page, and never attempts to answer one syllable of them in particular. Yet are these so diametrally opposite to the pretended rights of the Pope, his Legislative power, his convocating of Synods, his confirming Synods, his sending out Bulls, his receiving Appeals, his Patronage of Churches, his Pardons and Dispensations, his Exemption from all humane judgement, his sending of Legates, his Tenths and first Fruits, his Superiority above general Counsels, his Excommunications, and in a word his whole Spiritual Sovereignty, that nothing can be more opposite. In these precedents we did clearly see that essential power and right of Sovereignty, which I plead for in this Book, to make Ecclesiastical Laws for the external regiment of the Church, to dispose of Ecclesiastical preferments, to reform Ecclesiastical errors and abuses, to be the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances, to restrain Ecclesiastical tyranny, and to see that all Ecclesiastical persons within their Dominions do their duties. And if these instances were not enough, many more might be produced of the best Christian Princes. Paul the third writ to Charles the fifth, 
Hist conc. Trid. An. 1544  That the Decrees of Spira were dangerous to his Soul, commands him to put away all disputes of Religion from the Imperial Diet, and refer them to the Pope, to order nothing concerning Ecclesiastical goods, to revoke the grants made unto the Rebels against the See of Rome. Otherwise he should be forced to use greater severity against him than he would. 
An. 1545.  Yet Cardinal de Monte was more angry than his Master, saying, That he would put his Holiness in mind, rather to abandon the See, and restore the Keys to Saint Peter, then suffer the Secular power to arrogate Authority to determine causes of Religion. The Emperor did not trouble himself much at it. But the Pope having created three Spanish Cardinals he forbade them to accept the arms, or use the name or habit. And not long after published a Reformation of the Clergy, 
An. 1548.  containing twenty three points, First, of Ordination and Election of Ministers, Secondly of the Office of Ecclesiastical Orders, Thirdly of the Office of Deans and Canons, Fourthly of Canonical hours, Fifthly of Monasteries, Sixtly of Schools and Universities, Seventhly of Hospitals, Eighthly of the Office of a Preacher, Ninthly of the Administration of the Sacraments, Tenthly of the Administration of Baptism, Eleventhly of the Administration of Confirmation, Twelfthly of Ceremonies, Thirteenthly of the Mass, Fourteenth●y of the Administration of Penitence, Fifteenthly of the Administration of extreme Unction, Sixteenthly of the Administration of Matrimomy, Seventeenthly of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, Eighteenthly of the Discipline of the Clergy and People, Nineteenthly of plurality of Benefices, Twentithly of the Discipline of the People, One and twentithly of Visitations, Two and twentithly of Counsels, Three and twentithly of Excommunication. Charles the fifth and the Germane Diet did assume to themselves a Legislative power in Ecclesiastical causes. None of our Princes was ever more devoted to Rome then Queen Mary, yet when Paul the 4th revoked Cardinal Poolos Legantine power in England, and designed one Petus a Franciscan to come Legate in his place, She shut all the Ports of England against all messengers from Rome, and commanded all the Briefs (and Bulls) to be taken from the bearers and delivered unto her. So well was she satisfied that no Roman Legate hath any thing to do in England, without the Prince's licence. But I have brought instances enough, until he be pleased to take notice of them.  
To all which he returns no answer, but these general words. Seeing L. D. hath alleged divers facts of Catholic Princes in disobeying Papal Authority, and thence inferreth that they did as much as King Henry, who not only disobeyed, but denied Papal Authority, let us allege both more ancient and greater Emperors who have professed that they had no Authority in Ecclesiastical causes, and avowed Papal Authority. After this rate he may survey the whole World in a few minutes. Let the Reader judge whether I have not just cause to call upon him for an answer. Are they only divers facts of Catholic Princes? By his leave they are both facts, and decrees and constitutions, and Laws and Canons, of the most famous Emperors and Princes of Christendom, with their Diets and Parliaments and Synods, and Counsels, and Universities. Or doth it seem to him that they only disobeyed Papal Authority? When he reads them over more attentively, he will find that they have not only disobeyed Papal Authority, but denied it, as he saith Henry the 8th did, in all the principal parts and branches of it, which are in controversy between them and us. Nay they have not only denied to the Pope that which he calls Papal Authority, to Convocate Synods, to confirm Synods, to make Ecclesiastical Laws, to dispose of Ecclesiastical preferments, to receive the last Appeals in Ecclesiastical causes, but they have exercised it themselves: They have disposed of the Papacy, they have deposed the Popes, they have shut out his Legates, they have Appealed from his sentences, they have not suffered their Subjects to go upon his Summons, they have caused his Decrees to be torn in pieces most disgracefully, and made Edicts and Statutes, and pragmatical sanctions against his usurpations, they have regulated the Clergy, and reform the Churches within their Dominions. And when they thought fit during their pleasures they have stopped all entercouse with Rome. The Kings of Spain suffer no more Appeals from Sicily to the Court of Rome, than our Princes from England, and exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdction by Delegates, which certainly neither they, nor other Princes would do, if they did at all believe, that the Papacy was an universal Spiritual Monarchy, instituted by Christ.  
But it seemeth that he delighteth more in the use of his sword then of his buckler, and in stead of repelling my arguments, he busieth himself in making new knots for me to untie. He knows well that this is no logical proceeding. And I might justly serve him with the same sauce. But I seek only the clear discovery of truth: and will pursue his steps throughout his oppositions. 
The Oath of Supremacy justified.  The first thing that he objecteth to me is the oath of Supremacy made by King Henry and his Church, in which oath (saith he) are sworn five things: First, that the King of England is not only Governor, but only and supreme Governor. Secondly, not only in some, but in all ecclesiastical things and causes. Thirdly, as well in all ecclesiastical causes as temporal. Fourthly, that no foreign Prelate hath any spiritual jurisdiction in England. Fifthly, all foreign jurisdiction is renounced. This he is pleased to call the first new Creed of the English Protestant Church, by which it is become both heretical and schismatical. Before I give a distinct answer to this objection, it will be needful in the first place to put him in mind of some things which I have formerly demonstrated to him touching this particular, which he hath been pleased to pass by in silence. First, 
Sand. de Schism. p 59 De Schis. Ang p. 57 Hail an. 22. H. 8.  who it was that first presented this Title to King Henry, Archbishop Warrham (whom Sanders calleth an excellent man) and a Popish Convocation? Secondly, who confirmed this. Title unto him? Four and twenty Bishops, and nine and twenty Abbats in Parliament, none dissenting. There was not one Protestant among them all. Thirdly, who were the flatterers of King Henry, that preached up his Supremacy, and printed books in defence of this Supremacy, and set forth Catachism●s to instruct the Subjects and teach them what the Supremacy was; who contrived and penned this very Oath, and were the first that took it themselves, and incited all others to take it, even Bishop Gardiner, Tonstall, Heath, Bonner, Stokesley, Thurelby, etc. all R. C. his Friends, the greatest Opposers of the reformation, and the roughest Persecuters of Protestants. Lastly, consider what I cited out of Cardinal Poole, 
Pol de Conc Resp. ad cue 74. & 75.  That God the Father hath assigned this Office to Christian Emperors, that they should act the part of Christ the Son of God, And again, the Pope as a Priestly Head doth execute the Office of Christ the true Head, but we may also truly say that the Emperor doth execute the Office of Christ as a Kingly Head.  
These things being premised to dull the edge of his argument, now I proceed to a direct answer: and first I charge him with chopping and changing the words of the Oath. The words of the Oath are these, That the King's Highness is the only supreme Governor in this Realm: But in paraphrasing upon them, and pressing them, he renders them thus, not only Governor, but only and supreme Governor. There is a vast difference between these two, to say the King is the only supreme Governor of the Realm of England, which signifies no more but this, that there is no other supreme Governor of the Realm but he, which is most true: and to say that he is the only and supreme Governor, which implies that there is no other Governor but he, which is most false: There are both spiritual and civil Governors in England besides him. To say the Pope is the only supreme Bishop in his own Patriarchate, is most true, but to say that he is the only and supreme Bishop in his Patriarchate, is most false: this were to degrade all his Suffragans, and allow no Bishop in his Province but himself.  
Secondly, I answer that there is no Supremacy ascribed to the King in this Oath, but merely political, which is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every sovereign Prince. The Oath saith, that the King's Highness is the only supreme Governor of his Highness' Realms and Dominions. What doth Saint Peter himself say less to his own Successors as well as others? 
1 Pet. 2.13.  Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme. How often doth Saint Gregory acknowledge the Emperor to be his supreme Governor, or sovereign Lord? and profess obedience and Subjection unto him, and execute his commands in ecclesiastical things? That Commonwealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of Jurisdictions, where there are two Supremes, like a Serpent with two heads at either end one.  
The Oath addeth in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes. This is true with some limitations; as first either by himself or by fit Substitutes, who are ecclesiastical Persons. For our Kings cannot excommunicate or absolve in their own persons. Secondly, it is to be understood of those causes which are handled in foro contentioso, in the exterior Court, not in the inner Court of Conscience. Thirdly, either in the first or in the second instance, by receiving the appeals and redressing the wrongs of his injured Subjects. Some things are so purely spiritual that Kings have nothing to do in them in their own persons, as the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and the binding and losing of Sinners. Yet the persons to whom the discharge of these Duties doth belong, and the persons towards whom these Duties ought to be discharged being their Subjects, they have a Power paramount to see that each of them do their duties in their several stations. The causes indeed are ecclesiastical, but the power of governing is political. This is the true sense of the Oath, neither more nor less, as appeareth plainly by our thirty seventh Article. 
A●t. ●ccl. Angl., Art. 37.  Where we attribute to our Princes the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word or of the Sacraments, but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself: this is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrein with the civil Sword the stubborn or evil doers. Here is no power asserted, no punishment to be inflicted by the King in his own person, but only political. I confess persons deputed and delegated by the King, do often excommunicate and absolve, and act by the power of the Keys, but this is by the virtue of their own habit of Jurisdiction. All which the King contributes by his Commission, is a liberty and power to act in this particular case, & an application of the matter, which a Lay Patron, or a Master of a Family, 
Memor. de Samag. Catholic●. cap. 10.  or a subordinate Magistrate may do, much more a sovereign Prince. This power many Roman Catholic Doctors do justify. The King of Spain citys above twenty of them. Let the Princes of this World know that they owe an account to God of the Church, which they have received from him into their protection, for whether peace and right ecclesiastical Discipline be increased, or decayed by Christian Princes, God will require an account from them, who hath trusted his Church unto their Power. All this Power the King of Spain exerciseth in Sicily, in all ecclesiastical causes, over all ecclesiastical persons, as well in the first instance as the second. This Power a Lay-Chanceller exerciseth in the Court Christian, This Power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her Nuns. Whilst all the Mariners are busied in their several employments, the sovereign Magistrate sits at the Stern to command all, and order all for the promotion of the great architectonical end, that is the safety and welfare of the Commonwealth.  
It follows in the O●th [as well as temporal] that is, as truly and as justly, but not as fully, nor as absolutely. [And that no foreign Prelate hath or aught to have any jurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm. That is to say, neither the Pope nor his Court. For a general Council which is no standing Court, but an aggregate body, composed partly of ourselves, is neither included here nor intended. If this be the new Creed of the English Protestant Church, as he calls it in scorn, it was the old Creed of the Britannic Church, as I have proved evidently in the vindication. If this profession of Royal Supremacy in our sense do make men Heretics and Schismatics, we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman Doctors along with us. And for Sovereign Princes we shall leave them few, except some necessitous person, who could not subsist otherwise then by the favourable influence of the Roman Court. 
A Sancta Clara. Expos. Parapb in Art. 37  Very many Doctors do hold that for the common good of the Republic, Princes have jurisdiction in many causes otherwise Subject to the Ecclesiastical Court, not only by the positive Law of God, but by the Law of Nature. And many more give them a power indirectly in causes Ecclesiastical over Ecclesiastical persons, so far as is necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Tranquillity of the Commonwealth, nec putem ullum Doctorem Catholicum refragari, 
Ibidem.  saith the same Author in the place cited, Neither do I think that any Catholic Doctor will be against it.  
Now I have said my mind concerning the Oath of Allegiance, who they were that first contrived it, and in what sense we do maintain it, I hope agreably to the sense of the Christian World, except such as are prepossessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome. As our Kings out of Reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of Supreme heads of the English Church, so though it be not meet for me to prevent their maturer determinations, I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of Subjects, who may err out of invincible ignorance, they would be pleased to lay by the oath also. God looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices, why should not man do the same? It seemeth to be hard measure to destroy men for mere speculative opinions, which it may be are not in their own power, so long as there is neither blasphemy nor sedition in the case. It is often easier to secure a man's actions, then to cure the errors of his judgement.  
In the next place he chargeth me with contradicting of myself, 
Sect. 2.  because I say, the Emperors and other Princes of the Roman communion have done the same things in effect, 
No contradiction in my words.  with the King of England; and in another place I confess, that the Kings of England have abolished the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but the Emperors have not. This, he faith, is to give myself the lie. Certainly he was in some heat or passion when this word of disgrace dropped from his pen, as commonly disputers are, when they find that they have gotten the wrong end of the staff. If he had advisedly read over my assertion it is this, that either they have done the same thing in effect, or at least have pleaded for it. If either part of the disjunction be true, my assertion is a truth, and no contradiction, much less a lie, which implieth that it is both against truth and against conscience. Now I have showed clearly in the vindication, that they have not only pleaded it, but sworn it, that they would maintain the Rites, Liberties, and Customs of the Empire inviolated, against the Pope and the Court of Rome. And that they have protested that they would not have his Holiness to be ignorant that they neither could nor would endure his intolerable pressures any longer, but would vindicate themselves.  
Further, to do the same thing in effect, doth not signify to do the same individual action, nor always the same specifical action, but only that which argueth the same power, or implieth the same consequences. If an ordinary do suspend a Clerk from his Benefice, or degrade him from his holy Orders, so long as the question is only whether he be under Jurisdiction of the ordinary, it is all one in effect, whilst the one proveth the intention as well as the other. If a thief strale a shilling or a pound, it is not the same thing in effect, because the Thief pretendeth no right to what he taketh; But if a Magistrate impose a tribute of a shilling or a pound, where the question is only whether he have power to impose tribute or not, it is all one in effect; for his title is as just to the one as to the other, and as he imposeth a shilling to day, so he may, if he have occasion, impose a pound to morrow. The whole and all the parts are the same in effect: The Emperors have done all the particular Acts which the Kings of England have done concerning Patronage, Investitures, Legislation, Reformation, Legates, Appeals, Tenths, first Fruits, etc. And moreover have deposed Popes, which the Kings of England never attempted to do, though they have not made one general Act of abolition. Why is not this the same in effect? He that satisfieth a debt in Pistols and he who satisfieth it in cracked Groats, do both the same thing in effect. To conclude, they who assume the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Privileges, in all differences between them and the Court of Rome, do the same thing in effect, whether the respective Privileges of the one or the other be more or less; But the Emperors and the Kings of England did assume to themselves the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Privileges, in all differences between them and the Court of Rome. And therefore though the one might take or mistake himself to be within the old Roman Patriarchate, which the other was not, or whatsoever other differences there might be in the extent of their Liberties, or in their claims, yet they did the same thing in effect. The only difference between the Emperors and Henry the eight is this, that they denied the Papacy in parcels, and he denied it in gross; They denied his Sovereign Legislative power they denied his Patronage of Churches, they denied his Investitures of Bishops, they denied his Superiority above general Counsels, they denied his Tenths, and first Fruits, and Pardons, and Indulgences, and Dispensations. So they pulled away his stolen feathers one by one, and Henry the eighth uncased him all at once, but except some patriarchal Rites, (which Britain never acknowledged, which are no parts of the Papacy,) they left him as naked the one as the other. This I might well call the same thing in effect.  

Sect. 3.  Now are we come to take a view of his witnesses, to try if he be more fortunate in offending then he is in defending. 
Constantine.  But truly they are such, that their very names and their well known acts do sufficiently confute all his evidence. 
Ruffin. l. 1. c. 2.  The first is Constantine the great, who professed openly that he could not judge of Bishops. No such thing. He said only, that they could not be judged of all men. When all men have imperial power his argument will have more force in it, but nothing to his purpose. The only question between us is about the Papacy, and his proof makes only for the privileges of Episcopacy. Whatsoever Constantine did at this time was a mere prudential act. He had convocated the Bishops together against Arrius; and instead of endeavouring to suppress the common enemy, they fell into quarrels and mutual complaints one against another, about businesses of no moment. Constantine seeing, quod per hujusmodi jurgia causa summi negocii frustraretur, that the main business against Arrius was hindered by these unreasonable brawlings, and ne innotesceret ulli hominum, etc. to prevent scandal, that the faults and contentions of Priests might not appear to the world, he suppressed them, and referred them to the judgement of God. This was a more prudent course, and more conducible at that time to the advantage of Christian Religion, then to have examined every scandalous accusation of one against another. 
Theodorit. l. 1. c. 11.  Yet even in this there appeareth sufficient proof of Constantine's judiciary power over the Bishops. First, they did all offer their mutual accusations one of another to him, as to their proper Judge: Secondly, he commanded them all to put their accusations in writing, and to deliver them to his hands: Thirdly, he bound them all up in a bundle and sealed them: Fourthly, he made them friends, and then burned them in their presence, and imposed upon them a perpetual amnesty or law of forgetfulness. All these were judiciary Acts. It is true Constantine honoured Bishops very much; he made them his companions in his voyages, his fellow commoners at his table; he cast his Cloak over their faults. But this was not for want of judiciary power over them, 
Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 1. c. 35.  but because they were consecrated to God, and he believed that in thus doing God would become propitious to him. But at other times, the case is as clear as the Sun, 
Idem, l 3. c. 23  He prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches. He referred the cause of Caecilianus (an Ecclesiastical cause) to Miltiades Bishop of Rome, and Marcus, and Rhetecius, and Maternus, and Marinus, as his Delegates or Commissioners, 
Euseb. hist. l. 10. c. 5. Aust. epist. 162.  visum est mihi, it hath seemed good to me, etc. He accepted Appeals from the judgement of the Bishops: He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul, 
Euseb hist. l. 10. c. 6.  and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects, as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to do justice upon Ecclesiastical Delinquents. He sent for the Bishops assembled by his commandment at a Council first at Tyrus, then at Jerusalem, that they should repair with speed to Constantinople, 
Socrat. l. 1. c. 22.  evestigio ad castra nostra maturetis, to give an account to him of their actions, and to show how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgements. 
Sozom l. 2. c. 27.  In a word, he meddled so much in Ecclesiastical affairs, that he made himself as a common Bishop constituted by God. 
Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 1. c. 37.  I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians, If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanity, we rejoice; but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests 
Theodor. l. 1. c. 19  (Eusebius and other Bishops) he shall strait be repressed by my execution as the Minister of God. And accordingly they were spoilt of their dignities, and cast out of the Cities.  
His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius, 
Valentinian.  but which Valentinian, which Theodosius, where this Epistle is to be found, he is silent, and leaveth us, if it were worth the labour, to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay. But the truth is, there is nothing in it which concerneth this question, nothing which we deny. The words, as they be alleged by him, are these: All antiquity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome. Our question is concerning the Political Principality of Kings and Emperors, and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood. Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood, so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power. We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them. And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power: Or at least such a Supremacy of single, sovereign, monarchichall Power, as they require, about which our controversy now is. A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coif and Bench, and in some circumstantial respects a kind of eminency or principality of Power, but no single supremacy, so as to be able to cross their votes with a non obstante. Such a supremacy of sovereing, single, universal power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know, either at Rome or elsewhere. The Bishops of Rome were so far from having power over general Counsels, that they had no single power over their fellow Patriarches. So far from having power over Emperors, that they have been delegated by Emperors as their Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes, have been convened before Emperors, and deposed by Emperors. Primitive Bishops use to style Popes their brethren, their colleagues, their fellows, but never Ecclesiastical Princes. If he mean the second Valentinian, his authority weighs nothing; he was a young Novice misled by his Arrian Mother, a wilful ill-advised woman. If he mean another Valentinian, I shall show him that he exercised this political Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affays, it may be to the questioning of his Prince of Priests.  

Theodosius  His third witness is Theodosius the younger, in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus, his words are these: It is not lawful for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiastical matters. Yet he did meddle with Ecclesticall matters. 
Socrat l 7. c. 22.  This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures, as if himself had been a Bishop. This is that Theodosius which made this following Law, 
Evagr. l. 9 c. 12.  We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius, or obey his wicked Doctrine, if they be Bishops, be cast out of the holy Churches; but if Lay men, anathematised. This is that Theodosius that convocated the general Council of Ephesus by his Authority Royal, and sent Candidianus thither to be his Deputy, among other things set diligenter inspiceret, etc. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops, so see that no dissensions did arise among them, to disturb the consultations of Synods; and to repress them likewise, otherwise he might as well have stayed at home. Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged, Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus, sed eae lege, etc. We command Candidianus to go to this holy Synod, but upon this condition, that he should have nothing to do with questions and controversies which concern Doctrines of faith, for it is unlawful for one not registered in the catalogue of Bishops, to thrust himself into ecclesiastical affairs and consultations. This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperor to dispute in the Council about Theological questions, which it is probable he did not understanding, nor to overawe the Bishops or control their votes. We are of the same mind with Theodosius, and say as much as he, that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theological questions: And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Dominions yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads, but upon mature advice of free Synods of Ecclesiastical persons, who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs. All men know that Candidianus could have no decisive voice in a general Council. So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keys of the Church, either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order. We confess that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops, yet the last Appeal may be to the King. We say there are many things which Kings cannot do in their own persons, and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royal authority.  

Valentinian the elder.  His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder: It is not lawful for me who am of the People, to search curiously such matters; 
Sozo. l. 6 c. 7.  let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please. The case was this, Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire. 
Idem l. 6. c. 6.  Valens was an Arrian, Valentinian an orthodox Christian; yet so as he troubled not those who were of a contrary Opinion. He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome, the orthodox Bishops about the Hellespont, and in Bythinia, sent their Depuities unto him, to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Council, for the establishment of the right Faith, wherein they acknowledged him the political Head of the Church. It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, in so sublime a question, concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, in this exigence of affairs, being in his voyage, in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor, who was an Arrian, and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, whose Subjects these Bishops were, as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way; what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given, then that he did give? Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiastical causes, yet not without good advice, especially in such high points of Faith as that was, and who are more fit Counsellors for Princes in such cases than Synods, and Bishops? The same method is observed by us at this day. The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons, and the King confirms them and makes them Laws. But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases, but leave all to Priests? No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit, 
Theod. l 4, c 7, & 8.  Which our Highness hath commanded to be Preached every where. This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to repress the covetousness of the Clergy, which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome do so much complain of, not against the Emperors who made the Law, but against the Clergy who deserved it. 
cod.  In the Code we find Ecclesiastical Laws made by this very Valentinian, as that to Florianus, That a Bishop rebaptising one who had been formerly Baptised, out of ignorance of the Law, should be deprived of his Bishopric. It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit, speaketh, that in Occidentem profectus, etc. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Laws, and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety. He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian, to choose an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Milan, and after some debates they did choose Saint Ambrose. Some may say if it was his right, why did he not choose him himself? I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to choose one, as knowing his right, and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time, jubet Ambrosium extemplo & initiari mysteriis, & Episcopum ordinari, The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries, 
Th●od l 4. c. 5.  and to be ordained Bishop. Neither was this the case of Constantine, 
In praemio l. 5.  or Theodosius, or Valentinian alone, Socrates writes more generally, That from Constantine's time when the Emperors became Christians, Ecclesiastical affairs seemed to depend upon their beck.  
His fifth witness is Basilius. 
Basilius.  Basilius' Emperor in the seventh Synod, speaketh thus to the Laity. He is mistaken, Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod, but Constantine and Irene, but it is true that in the time of the 8th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity. The case is this, one Bardas' a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermeddling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Oriental Church into great dangers, whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words, 
An. 869.  Nullo modo nobis licet, etc. It is no way lawful for us (Laymen) to move Speech of Ecclesiastical causes, nor at all to resist the whole Church, and oppose an universal Synod. For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarches, Bishops, and Priests. Basilius was in the right. It is not lawful for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiastical causes in general Counsels as Bishops do, that is to say, to have decisive Voices, or to meddle above their capacities, much less ought they frowardly to oppose general Counsels, or to vie reason for reason with them. The Bishop's form of subscription was this, Ego B. definiens subscrips●, I B. have subscribed to this as my definition. The Layman's form was this, Ego L. consentiens subscrips●, I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it. There is a great difference between defining, and consenting. But as Kings are never minors, because they are presumed to h●ve a wise Council, so they are never to be considered as ignorant Laymen, who have a learned Council of Ecclesiastical persons to direct them. All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but meddleth not at all with the authoritative part, which only is in question between us. Sovereign Princes by their Royal Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Counsels into the Laws of the Land, and to subject the violaters of them to civil punishments.  

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

Epist. ad joan. 2. in Cedice  His seventh witness is justinian to Pope john the second, We suffer not any thing which belongs to the state of Churches not to be known to your Holiness, who is the Head of all holy Churches. I wish he had been pleased to set down the title of the Letter, 
justinian  Victor Justinianus, pius, faelix, inclytus, triumphator, semp●r Augustus, Joanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae Vrbis Romae, & Patriarchae, Where Archbishop and Patriarch are his highest titles, there is no Monarchy intended. The words are rightly cited, saving that he omitteth a clause in the middle, [although that which is changed be manifest and undoubted,] and a dangerous reason at the end [for in all things as it is said we hasten to augment the honour and authority of your See.] If the Papacy had been a Spiritual Monarchy instituted by Christ, it did not lie in justinian's power to augment it. But it is plain the honour and authority of the Roman See proceeded from the bounty of Christian Emperors, and the Decrees of the Fathers. Neither is there any thing in the words above mentioned worthy of a reply. Suppose justinian made known his own Ecclesiastical Ordinances to the Pope, to the end that he might obey them and execute them. This is no great matter. So doth a Sovereign Prince to every Governor of an inferior Corporation. Laws are no Laws until they be promulged. If the Pope had made the Laws, and made them known to the Emperor it had been more to his purpose. But all the strength of his argument lies in these words who is Head of all holy Churches. And yet he cannot choose but know, that justinian doth mean and must of necessity mean an Head of Order, and cannot possibly mean an Head of Power and Jurisdiction, having himself exalted several other Churches as justiniana and Carthage to an equal degree of Power and Privileges with Rome itself. A man may see to what streits he is driven, when he is forced to produce such witnesses as Charles the great and justinian, I say justinian who banished Pope Silverius, who created justiniana prima and Carthage new Patriarchates by his Imperial Power, who made so many Laws concerning Ecclesiastical persons, and Benefices, and holy Orders, and Appeals, and the Patronage of Churches, concerning Religion, the Creed, Sacraments, Heresy, Schism, Sanctuaries, Simony, and all matters of Ecclesiastical cognisance, that if all other precedents ancient and modern were lost, justinian's alone, who was the Father of the Imperial Law, were sufficient to evince the political Supremacy of Sovereign Princes over the Church within their own Dominions.  
His three last witnesses, are King Edgar, King Withered, and Edward the third. But these three have been produced by him before in this very treatise and there fully answered, 
Sup. c. 4. sect. 1.  and seeing no new weight is added in this place to his former discourse, I will not weary the Reader or myself with unnecessary repetitions.   

CHAP. 8. That the Pope and Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schism.  
WE are come now to my sixth and last ground that the guilt of the Schism rests upon the Pope and the Court of Rome. The first thing which I meet with is his marginal note out of Saint Austin, 
L 2. Cont. Petili. c. 51.  Cathedra quid tibi fecit Ecclesiae Romanae? What hurt hath the See of Rome done thee? But first, Petilians' case to whom those words were spoken, is not our case. He called all the Catholic Sees thoughout the World, Chairs of Pestilence, so do not we. Neither doth Saint Austin attribute any thing singular to the See of Rome in this place, more than to the See of Jerusalem, or any other Catholic See. Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris, Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, & in qua hodie Anastatius sedet, vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit, & in qua hodie Joannes sedet? Quibus nos in Catholica unitate connectimur, & a quibus vos nefario furore separastis. It is not we that have furiously separated ourselves from either of these Sees. But it is the Court of Rome which hath made the separation both from Jerusalem, and from us.  
In the next place he inquireth what I intent by this present Schism, whether the Schism of Protestants in general, or of English Protestants in particular? and whether by causually I understand a sufficient cause that freeth from sin? Doubtless I must understand a sufficient cause that freeth the innocent party from sin, or understand nothing: For an unsufficient cause is no cause: But his induction is imperfect. I do neither understand the Schism of the Protestant Church in general, nor the Schism of the English Church in particular, but directly the Schism of the Roman Church, which did first give just cause of separation, not only to Protestant Churches, but to all the Eastern Churches; and then did make the separation by their unjust and uncharitable censnres. But he saith there can be no just cause of Schisms. The greater is their fault who are the true Schismatics; first, by giving just cause of separation from their errors, and then making the separation by their censures. It is true, there can be no just cause of criminous Schism, because there can be no just cause of sin: It is not lawful to do evil that good may come of it. But there may be both just cause of separation, and just separation without any crime or sin, yea virtuous and necessary, as is confessed by themselves. 
Sup c. 2. s. 4 infid. unmasked c. 7 s. 112. p. 534.  In all such cases the sin of criminous Schism lies at their doors, who introduced the errors, and thereby first separated themselves from the uncorrupted Church which was before them.  
Before he come to answer my arguments he proposeth an objection of his own, that neither the Church, nor Court of Rome did give any sufficient cause of separation either to Luther or to Henry the eighth. In prosecution whereof he supposeth that Luther had no cause of separation but the abuse of some Preachers of indulgences, 
Indulgences.  whom the Pope of that time rebuked severely. Nor Henry the eighth but the excommunication of Clement the seventh. That of Luther is altogether without the compass of the question between him and me, which concerneth only the Church of England. I shall only make bold to tell him that whensoever it comes to be examined, it will be found that Luther had many other causes of what he did, than the abuse of some Preachers of Indulgences. If he will not give me credit, let him cousult the hundred grievances of the Germane Nation. That the Pope rebuked those Preachers of Indulgences severely, is more than I have read: only this I have read, that Carolus Militius did so chide Tecelius the Pope's Pardoner about it, that shortly after he died of grief. 
The excommunication of Henry the eighth.   
Concerning Henry the eighth, the excommunication of Clement the seventh was so far from being a total adequate cause of his separation, that it was no more but a single occasion. The original privileges of the British Churches, the ancient liberties and immunities of the English Church, daily invaded by the Court of Rome, the usurpation of the just Rites and Flowers of his own Crown, the otherwise remediless oppression of his Subjects, and the examples of his noble Predecessors were the chief grounds of his proceedings against the Court of Rome.  
He asketh, could not Henry the eighth have been saved though he was excommunicate? yes, why not? Justice looseth unjust bonds. But I see that this question is grounded upon a double dangerous error. First, that all reformation of ourselves is a sinful separation from other Churches. Whereas he himself confesseth that it is sometimes virtuous and necessary. Nay every reformation of ourselves is so far from being a sinful separation from others, that it is no separation at all, except it be joined with censuring and condemning of others.  
The second error intimated in this question is this, that so long as there is possibility of salvation in any Church, it is not lawful or at least not necessary to separate from the abuses and corruptions thereof. A Church may continue a true particular Church and bring forth Children to God, and yet out of invincible ignorance maintain material Heresy, and require the profession of that Heresy as a condition of communicating with her, in which case it is lawful, nay necessary after conviction to separate from her errors. Those errors and corruptions are pardonable by the goodness of God to them who err out of invincible ignorance, which are not pardonable in like manner to them who sin contrary to the light of their own conscience.  
He addeth, that this excommunication was not the fault of the Roman Church, which neither caused it nor approved it. Yea saith he, divers of them disliked it both then and since, not as unjust but as imprudent, and some have declared themselves positively that a Prince and a multitude are not to be excommunicated. It were to be wished for the good of both parties, that all men were so moderate. To his argument I give two answers: First, as the Church of Rome did not approve the excommunication of Henry the eighth; So neither did Henry the eighth separate himself from the Cchurch of Rome, but only from the Pope and Court of Rome. Secondly, what are we the better that some in the Roman Church are moderate, so long as they have no power to help us, or hinder the acts of the Roman Court. They teach that a Prince or a multitude are not to be excommunicated. But in the mean time the Court of Rome doth excommunicate both Princes and multitudes, and whole Kingdoms, and give them away to strangers. Whereof there are few Kingdoms or Republics in Europe that have not been sensible more or less: and particularly England hath felt by woeful experience in sundry ages. Clement the seventh excommunicated King Henry, but Paul the third both excommunicated and interdicted him and the whole Kingdom; and this was the first separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, and the original of the Schism, wherein the Church of England was merely passive. So the Court of Rome was the first cause of the Schism.  

Sect. 2.  We are come now to my first argument to prove the Court of Rome to be causually schismatical: My proposition is this: whatsoever doth leave its proper place in the body, either natural or political or ecclesiastical, to usurp the Office of the Head, or to usurp an higher place in the body than belongs unto it, is the cause of disorder, disturbance, confusion, and Schism among the Members: my assumption is this; but the virtual Church of Rome, that is, the Pope wi●h his Court, being but a coordinate Member of the Catholic Church, doth seek to usurp the Office of the Head; being but a Branch, doth challenge to himself the place of the Root; being but a Stone in the building, will needles be an absolute Foundation, for all persons, places, and times; being but an eminent Servant in the Family, takes upon him to be the Master.  
To the proposition he taketh no exception: And to the assumption he confesseth that the Church of Rome, in right of the Pope, doth seek to be Mistress of all other Churches, and an external subordinate foundation of all Christians in all times and places, which is no more than is contained in the new Creed of Pius the fourth, 
B●● Pii 4.  I acknowledge the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, And I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome as to the Vicar of jesus Christ. But all this he justifieth to be due to the Pope, and included in the Supremacy of his Pastoral Office: But he saith, that it is not the Doctrine of the universal Roman Church, that the Pope is the root of all spiritual jurisdiction. Though it be not the Doctrine of the whole Roman Church, yet it is the Doctrine of their principal Writers at this day. 
The Church of Rome no foundation of Christians.  It is that which the Popes and their Courtiers do challenge, and we have seldom seen them fail, first or last, to get that settled which they desired. The Pope hath more Benefices to bestow then a Council. If the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians, than Linus and Cletus and Clemens were the foundations of St. john, 
Rev. 21.24  who was one of the twelve foundations laid immediately by Christ How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians, when they do not agree among themselves that the Chair of St. Peter is annexed to the See of Rome by divine right? How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians at all times, when there was a time that there were Christians and no Bishop or Church at Rome? when it happens many times, as in this present vacancy, that there is no Bishop at Rome? St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome, then there was a time when Antioch was the Mistress and foundation of all other Churches, and not Rome. St. Peter might have continued Bishop of Antioch until his death, and then Antioch had still been the Mistress and foundation of all other Churches. He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome, and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistress. All this is confessed by Bellarmine. 
l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 12.  Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith, of so great contingency, that were not of perpetual necessity? How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all places, when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the days of the Apostles, who never had any thing to do with Rome, nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome? If the Pope be the Master of all Christians, he is but a young Master; for we find no such expression in all the primitive times. Why were the ancient Bishops so grossly over-seen to style him their Brother, their Colleague, their Fellow, who was their Master. It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions, as a General calls all his Army fellow Soldiers; but it was never heard that a private Colonel or Captain did call his General fellow Soldier, or a Servant call his Master fellow Servant, or an ordinary Clerk call his B●shop his Brother. 
1 Pet 5.1.  St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder, not a Master. If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistress and foundation of all other Churches, he would have given them their due title, and the whole Scripture had not been so silent in so necessary a point.  
But he saith, the Pope's Supremacy is neither against the two Creeds, nor the fi●st four general Counsels, intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation, and consequently is no sufficient cause of separation. I answer first, that it is against the four first general Counsels, if this were a proper place for the discussion of it. I answer secondly, that though it were not opposite to the Creed, or the first four general Counsels, yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed, being, as it is, by them obtruded upon all Christians as an Article of faith, or a necessary part of saving truth, extra quam non est salus, without which there is no salvation, it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is so obtruded. Of this more in the next argument.  

Sect. 3.  My second argument may be thus reduced, That Court which obtruded newly coined Articles of faith, 
The Church of Rome obtrudeth new Articles of Faith, and excommunicateth for not receiving them.  such as the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, Indulgences, and especially the Pope's Supremacy, upon the Christian world, as absolutely necessary to salvation, and necessary conditions of Catholic communion, and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them, is fearfully schismatical; But the Court of Rome doth all this. That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church, wherein they are neither explicitly nor virtually comprehended. That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome, 
An. 1564.  appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth, wherein they are added to the old Creed, ut unius & ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus exhibeatur, that the profession of one and the same faith may be declared uniformly by all, and one certain form thereof be made known to all. And lastly, That the Court of Rome hath solemnly excommunicated with the greater excommunication, and anathematised, and excluded (so far as lieth in their power) from the communion of Christ, all the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssen, and reformed Churches, being three times more in number then themselves, for not receiving these new Articles, or some of them, and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth, 
An. 1569.  called Bulla caenae, because it is read in die caenae Domini, or upon Thursday before Easter.  
In way of answer to this, he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt? I reply first, that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this, & so it had not been causa procreans, a productive cause of the separation, yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism. Secondly, the revolt, or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome, was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church, but by the Pope and Court of Rome, who excommunicated him and his Kingdom for not enduring their encroachments and usurpations. He and his Kingdom were passive in it, only the Court of Rome was doubly active, first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Predecessors, and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion. But in the separation of England from the oppessions of the Court of Rome, I confess that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active. And this very ground to avoid the tyranny, 
The Papacy a cause of separation.  and ambition, and avarice of the Roman Court was the chief impulsive cause, both to the English and Eastern Christians. For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed, yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessary point of Faith. If Henry the eight had any other private sinister grounds known only to himself, they do not render the Reformation one jod the worse in itself, but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly, which concerneth him, not us.  
Secondly, he answereth, that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ, yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii, so as none can be saved who do not actually believe it. If all this were true, yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, by virtue of the commandment of God. But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull, and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto, do make it to be necessary necessitate medii, so as none can be saved who do not actually believe it. And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Counsels of Constance and Basile, out of the Popes own Court, which was then the only Noah's Ark. The words of their Oath are these, Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, etc. This true catholic faith without which no man can be saved, which I profess freely, and hold truly in present, I do promise, 
Bull. Pauli 4.  vow, and swear by the help of God to retain and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly, to my last gasp; and will take care (so far as in me lieth) to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge. If it were not necessary necessitate medii, some might be saved without it, namely all those who are invicibly ignorant of it. But they swear expressly that no man can be saved without it: And so make it to be an essential Article of the catholic Faith.  
Thirdly, 
The Pope excommunicates the Eastern Churches.  he answereth, that the Roman Church (he should say the Roman Court) doth not excommunicate all the Christians of afric, Asia, Greece, and Russia, but only such as do err vincibly or sinfully, such as are formal or obstinate Heretics or Schismatics. There are innumerable in those Churches who are but credentes Hereticis & Schismaticis, because the Catholic Faith was never sufficiently preached to them. And these the Pope doth not excommunicate. I wish he did not: But his own Bull speaks the contrary, that he excommunicates them all solemnly, anniversarily, with the greater excommunication. The Bull makes no such distinction between Heretics or Schismatics, and those who give credit to Heretics or Schismatics. The Bull hath no such exception of those who err out of invincible ignorance. If the Grecians be not all excommunicated, then by the same reason the Protestants are not all excommunicated, there is no difference. Yet he seemeth to extenuate their fault, because the Faith was never sufficiently preached to them, whereas in truth they hold the Pope's declaration to be a sufficient proposal. I do not say that the efficacy of this rash censure doth extend either to them all, or to any of them all. But they owe no thanks to the Court of Rome for sparing them, but to Christ for annulling their sentence. So much as lieth in them they exclude them all from the communion of Christians and all hope of salvation. How cometh it to pass that he who pleaded but even now, that a multitude ought not to be excommunicated on a sudden, is contented to give way to the solemn annual excommunication of such innumerable multitudes of Christians? to whom himself confesseth that the catholic Faith (he meaneththeir newly coined Articles) was never sufficiently preached.  
Fourthly, he answereth, that the Pope doth not exclude them by his excommunication, but only declares that they are excluded by their own Heresy or Schism. It is a great question in the Schools, whether any sentence of binding and losing be more than declaratory. But this is certain, that as to this case now in question between him and me it is all one whether the sentence of the Pope do cut them off from the communion of the Catholic Church, or only declare them to be cut off. For still the same rupture or schismatical separation of one part of the catholic Church from another, doth follow thereupon. If the Pope do justly exclude them, or declare them to be excluded, the Schism lieth at their own doors. If the Pope do either unjustly exclude them, or declare them to be excluded, the Schism lieth at his door. I know Ecclesiastical Canons do sometimes inflict penalties upon Delinquents ipso facto, or by the sentence of he Law: Sometimes they do moreover require the sentence of the Judge. The sentence of the Law takes place sooner than the sentence of the Judge: But the Delinquent stands not legally convicted, until a juridical declaration. And in all such cases the Law must be confessed, the fact notorious. But in this case of the Eastern Churches, there is no Law, there is no Canon that inflicteth any penalty of Heresy or Schism upon them, their Delinquency is not notorious, or rather it is evident that they are no Delinquents. They have no competent Judge except a general Council, whereof they make the greatest part themselves. Finally, the proceeding against them was illegal, temerarious, and coram non judice.  
I said that for divers years in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, there were no Recusants known in England, 
No Recusants in England, or few, in the beginning of Q Elizabeth's reign  until Papists were prohibited by a Bull to join with us in our public form of serving God. This (he saith) is most false. If it be so, I am more sorry: It was before my time. But I have no reason to believe it to be false. If I had the use of such Books as I desire, I should show great Authors for it. And as it is I shall produce some not to be contemned, who say not much less. First, I cite a Treatise printed at London by john Day, about the time when Pius the fifth's Bull was published against Queen Elizabeth, 
The disclosing of the great Bull.  called the disclosing of the great Bull that roared at my Lord Bishop's gate, with a declaratory addition to the same. In hope of the success of this Bull a number of Papists that sometimes did communicate with us, or at the least came ordinarily to our public prayers, have of late forborn. With which Author Mr. Camden agreeth, 
Camd Elizab an. 1●70.  who saith that the more modest Papists did foresee an heap of miseries hanging over their heads by the means of this Bull, who formerly could exercise their own Religion securely enough within their own private houses, or else without any scruple of Conscience were content to go to Church to hear the English service. The reason of this indifferency and complyanee is set down by one of their own Authors, 
Image of both Church's edit. an. 1653 p. 442.  because the Queen, to remove, as much as might be, all scruples out of the People's heads, and to make them think that the same Service and Religion continued still, etc. provided that in the Common Prayer Book there should be some part of the old frame still upheld, etc. by which dextrous mannagement of affairs the common People were instantly lulled a sleep, and complied to every thing.  
Concerning that catalogue which he citys out of Mr. Camden, 
Camd. Elizab. an. 1559.  of so many Papists that were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's time, it makes nothing at all against that which I said. 
More Protestants suffer now then Roman Catholics at the Reformation.  They were not deprived for being Recusants, or refusing to hear the English Service, but for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy, as the same Author saith. Neither is that account Mr. Camden's account, but the account of the Roman Catholics themselves. His words are these, The number if these, according to their own account, throughout the whole Kingdom. Which account Mr. Camden doth in part correct and contradict. For he telleth there of three popish Bishops that changed their Religion of their own accords, the Bishops of Chester, Worcester, and St. Asaph. But suppose this account were true, what great matter was it for an hundred and ninety at the most, of all ranks and conditions, high or low, to suffer deprivation for their Religion throughout the whole Kingdom of England, wherein, without his Abbats and his Abbesses, which he reckons among the rest to make up the number, there are above nine thousand Parish Churches, besides all Dignitaries and Prebendaries of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and Masters and Fellows of Colleges. It was a very small inconsiderable proportion. He will not vouchsafe our present sufferings the name of persecution; yet there is neither the City of London, nor either of our Universities, wherein more of us have not suffered for our Consciences, then of Papists in those days throughout the whole Kingdom of England. In the City of London alone we find an hundred and twenty Pastors of Parish Churches, whereof forty were Doctors in Theology, turned out of their Benefices and homes, plundered, imprisoned, and many of them dead under the burden of their grievous pressures, besides all the numerous Dignitaries, prebend's, and inferior Clergy men belonging to the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, and the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, and their respective Quires. I could say more touching your Romish Confessors at that time, That they refused the Oath of Supremacy more out of compact than Conscience, hoping by their unanimity, and for fear of wanting means of ordination, to necessitate the State to continue them all. But when they see how miserably they were deceived, and their Churches filled with such as were returned from banishment, of whom they dreamt not, conjurationis eos poenituit, they repented of their foolish plot. And when it was too late, 
Acworth Cont. Saunder l. 2. p. 197.  multi ad judices recurrunt contumaciam agnoscunt, ac petunt sibi contra pontificem jurare licere, many of them run to the judges, confessed their obstinacy, and desired leave to take the Oath, as they had done in King Henry's days. But let the faith of this rest upon the Author.  
To my third Argument he giveth no answer in his Survey, 
Sect. 4  but what was taken away in the vindication before it was made. The sum of my Argument was this: That Court which rebelleth against the highest tribunal of the Church, & assumeth a sovereign Power over it to itself, is schismatical; but the Court of Rome rebelleth against the supreme Tribunal or Judicatory of the Militant Church, that is, the Representative Church, or a general Council. The Reader will excuse me if I do sometimes complicate two or three medios terminos together for brevity sake.  
His first exception is, That whereas I should prove that the Papacy is the cause of Schism: I do seek to prove that the Papacy is Schism. To say the Papacy is Schism is non sense. I hope I may have leave to write common sense. But I did say, and I do say that the Court of Rome is in Schism, or Schismatical. To say it is in Schism, and to say it is the cause of Schism, is the same thing; for it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schism. They who give just cause of separation are Schismatical, and they who take it are innocent.  
Secondly, he demandeth, how the Papacy, as it is now maintained by many, could be a sufficient ground of separation to the Protestants, especially of separation from the whole Roman Church? I answer very well, because it was then and two or three ages before that, maintained in the same manner, or rather an higher degree, by the Court of Rome and some others of the Roman Church, though not so many as at this day. Our separation from the Court of Rome is total and absolute, because we know no legal Subjection which we owe to the Court of Rome. But I know no such absolute separation on our parts from the Church of Rome, but only a difference from them in their erroneous Opinions, and a forbearance to practise some other things, which are made by them conditions of their external Communion, wherein we cannot join with them with a good conscience. The making of their errors to be essentials and necessary conditions of Catholic Communion, makes the breach appear greater than it is. That this is clearly the sense of our Church I have showed out of the thirtieth Canon. 
Vind. c 6. s.   
So he comes to his main answer, That to rebel against a complete general Council, 
A general Council complete without the Pope.  joined with the Pope as Head thereof, is gross Schism: But not to resist an incomplete general Council without the Pope. This answer is sufficiently confuted in the vindication; first, by the authority of Saint Gregory, who makes it to be schismatical in the Pope to challenge such an universal headship of Power. Secondly, by the Pope's own Laws, and by their professions of obedience to the Canons. Thirdly, by the Appeals made by Princes, and Prelates, and Universities from the Popes to general Counsels. And lastly, by the express Decrees of the Counsels of Constance and Basile in the point. To which I add, that those very Decrees of general Counsels which have been not only not ratified but opposed by the Popes, have nevertheless been evermore received and obeyed as Laws in the Catholic Church, for the authority of the Council. As the Decree of the Council of Chalcedon for equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome, was protested against by the Pope's Legates in the name and on the behalf of their Master, and yet was ever held and practised as an authentic Rule by the Catholic Church, and reverenced by Saint Gregory as a part of the Gospel. justinian the Emperor called the fifth general Council, at which Vigilius the then Pope refused to be present, or to give any consent unto it, for which his frowardness he was banished by the Emperor. This in R. C. his judgement was an incomplete general Council: Yet in all succeeding ages and by the Popes themselves, 
Greg l. 1. epist. 24  it was honoured and esteemed as a true general Council. 
Bron. Annot. in Conc. 5.  I confess a general Council was not held complete in the primitive times, when such an assembly might be had, without the presence of the five Protopatriarches by themselves or their Deputies. But to think that any one of these, either the Roman Patriarch or any other had an Headship of Power over the Council, or a negative voice against the Council, is a most groundless fancy, whereof we find not the least footstep in all antiquity. And therefore R. C. might well have forborn his comparison of King and Parliament as altogether impertinent. The King was confessedly an Head of Power over the Parliament, so was not the Pope over a general Council. The King had evermore a negative voice in Parliament, so had the Pope never in a general Council. When the Parliament had made up their Bills they preferred them always to the King by way of petition, but the Bishops in a general Council by way of definition. Ego A. definiens subscripsi. In a general Council the Precedent (who is no more than a Prolocutor or Speaker in Parliament) makes his last address to the body of the Council in this sort, placet? aut non placet? doth it please you, or not? But in Parliament after the Members have voted content, or not content, the last address must be to the King; and he is free to say the King will have it, or the King will advise. If a general Council have not the Rites and Privileges of a general Council, unless the Pope be present as the Head thereof, and concur with it, to what purpose were those questions so canvased in the Western Church, whether a general Council be above the Pope? and whether a general Council can depose the Pope? Doth any man think that our Ancestors were so simple as to question whether the Body be above the Head? or to hope that the Pope would concur willingly to his own deposition? This we know for certain, that the Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope, did Decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council, superior to the Pope, and that he was subject to their censures. And deposed three Popes at a time. And their acts were confirmed in the Council of Basile.  
To this Decree of the Council of Constance he giveth two answers: 
The Decree of the Council of Constance for its superiority above the Pope lawfail.  First, That it is probable that the Council meant only of doubtful Popes. But I did take away this answer in the vindication two ways. First, because it is contrary to the text. The words of the Council are these [the Pope] that is, a Pope truly elected and lawfully admitted: It is uncertain whether a doubtful Pope be Pope or no [is subject to a general Council] that is, a general Council without the presence or concurrence of the Pope, such as the Council of Constance was, [As well in matter of faith as of manners.] This is more than doubtful titles, [so as he may not only be corrected, but if he be incorrigible be deposed.] So a Council may correct the Pope, and if they please continue him, or if they find him incorrigible depose him. Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles, but for faults in faith or manners. Neither can they be said to be deposed, who are only declared to have been usurpers. Secondly, I confuted this answer by the execution of the Decree. The Council did not only declare who was the right Pope, which is a judiciary act, and may be done by an Inferior towards his Superior, but they turned out three Popes together, whereof one without controversy was the right Pope. And so made right to be no right for the public good of the Church, which is a badge of sovereign and legislative Authority.  
His second answer, is, That this Decree was not conciliarly made, and consequently not confirmed by Martin the fifth. This answer was likewise taken away in the vindication. First, because the Pope's confirmation is but a novelty, never practised in the ancient Church, and signifieth nothing. The Pope and his Legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their Legates did. And that was all. Secondly, because Pope Martin's title to the Papacy did depend merely upon the Authority of the Decree. If this Decree were not a lawful Decree of a lawful general Council, and such a Council as had power to depose the former Pope, than Pope Martin was no Pope, but an usurper, and then his confirmation signified nothing also in that respect. Last I showed that it was conciliarly made. And what the word conciliarly there signifieth out of the Acts of the Council. And that passage was not intended for a confirmation, but an occasional Speech after the end of the Council, after the Fathers were dismissed, in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope, by the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania, about a seditious Book, which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations, but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the public Acts of the Session, the Pope answered, that he approved what had been conciliarly done. To all this he answereth nothing, but that the word [conciliariter or conciliarly] signifieth rather the manner of a Council, then of a Council. Let it be so. Is not the decreeing of any thing publicly in the Session the manner of the Counsels Acting? The Duputies of the Nations were like a Committee of Parliament, who have no power to Decree, though they be a committee of the whole House, but only to prepare things for the House. Now suppose the King at the close of the Parliament, being requested to confirm some Acts of a committee, should use the very same expression which Martin the fifth did, That he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that Parliament, Parliamentariter or Parliamentarily. Doth not this evidently confirm all the Acts and conclusions of the Parliament? Or what can this in reason exclude but only the Acts of the Committees. To say as R. C. saith, That he confirmeth only those Acts which were done with due liberation, is as much as to say, that he confirmeth just nothing at all. How shall it be known, or who shall be Judge, what was done with due deliberation, and what was not? Neither doth it weigh any thing at all to say (as he doth) that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations, without adding conciliariter, for first, it is a rule in Law that abundans non vitiat, A word or two too much do no hurt. Secondly, the Deputies of the Nations did sit and Act by the Authority of the Council, and consequently their Acts were mediately and in some sort the Acts of the Council. Lastly, whether the Decree of the Council were confirmed or not, to me seemeth all one. The end of Convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those respective Churches from which they are sent, and to witness the received belief. We see by their Votes what was the received opinion of the Occidental Church. And we see otherwise suffi●ently what was the received opinion of the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches. So as the Roman Court will not be able to find one national Church of that age throughout the World, to maintain their exorbitant claims.  
To my fourth argument drawn from the Pope's challenge of all Episcopal Jurisdiction, and consequently the breaking of all the lines of Apostolical Succession except his own, and to my two additional arguments concerning the infallibility of the Pope's judgement and his power over Princes, he answereth nothing, but that they are not defined by the Roman Church, and therefore cannot be a cause of departing from her communion. Neither have I endeavoured to charge the crime of Schism upon the Roman Church in general, but upon the Roman Court, and the violent propugners thereof, whose Tenets these are. I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendour of an Apostolical Church, and the principal Protropatriarchate, and its beginning of unity.  
Notwithstanding the weakness of his answers, yet he lays down this for a conclusion, That whatsoever I now pretend, our separation was schismatically begun. And thence infers upon a ground brought by me, Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tract is temporis non convalescit, That it is schismatical still. First, I deny his ground, the separation was not made by us, but by them. what we did was not schismatical but just and necessary. Secondly, his inference is grossly mistaken, and the rule which I brought altogether misapplyed. That which was invalid from the beginning, cannot become valid prescription or tract of time, but it may become valid by subsequent Acts of Parties interessed. And that which was uncharitably begun and schismatically, may be charitably, piously, and necessarily continued, as by many reasons and instances may be made appear, but that it is besides our question.   

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

Sect. 1.  IN the first place he observeth a difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics, 
Some Rom. Cath. formal Schismatics.  That Protestants do not charge Roman Catholics with formal Schism, but only with causal Schism, whereas Roman Catholics do charge Protestant's with formal Schism. To which I give three answers. First, if Protestants do not charge them with formal Schism, their charity is the greater, and the Roman Catholics are the more obliged to them. Certainly we have better grounds to charge them with formal Schism than they have to charge us. But indeed Protestants do charge the Roman Court, and all Roman Catholics who maintain it, and adhere unto it out of ambitious, avaricious, or other sinister ends, and not out of simplicity of heart and invincible or at least probable ignorance, with formal Schism.  
Secondly, causal Schism may be, and in this case of the Romanists is as well formal, nay sometimes more formal than actual Schism, or to speak more properly then actual separation. Whosoever give just cause of separation to others, contrary to the light of their knowledge, out of uncharitable or other sinister ends, are causal and formal Schismatics. Whereas they who separate actually and locally upon just cause, are no criminous Schismatics at all, and they who separate actually without just cause, may do it out of invincible ignorance, and consequently they are not formal but only material Schismatics.  
Thirdly, when the case comes to be exactly weighed, it is here just as it is in the case of possibility of Salvation, that is to say, the very same. Protestants do not charge all Roman Catholics with formal Schism, but only such as break the bond of unity sinfully, whether it be by separating themselves, or others, unduly from the Catholic Communion, or giving just cause of separation to others. Nor doth R. C. himself charge all Protestants with formal Schism. For he confesseth that all those Protestants who err invincibly do want neither Church nor Salvation. Formal Schismatics, whilst they continue formal Schismatics, want both Church and Salvation; therefore whosoever want neither Church nor Salvation are no formal Schismatics.  
The reason of his former assertion is this, because Protestants can name no Church out of whose communion the present Church of Rome departed. His reason shows that he confounds material and formal Schism, with causal and actual Schism. Whereas actual Schism may sometimes be only material, and causal Schism may also sometimes be formal. To his reason I give two clear answers. 
The present Roman Church d●parted out of the ancient Roman Church;  First, Protestants can name a particular Church out of whose Communion the present Roman Church departed, even the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome which was before it, by introducing errors, abuses, and corruptions into it. There is a moral departure out of a Church as well as a local, and acknowledged by themselves to be culpable and criminous Schism. Secondly, That Church which departs out of the Communion of the Catholic or universal Church, is more schismatical than that which departs only out of the Communion of a particular Church, both because our Obligation is greater to the Catholic Church then to any particular Church, 
And, which is worse, out of the Catholic Church.  and because the Catholic or universal Church doth comprehend all particular Churches of one denomination in it. When the Court of Rome by their censures did separate three or four parts of the Christian World, who were as Catholic or more Catholic then themselves, than they departed out of the Communion of the Catholic Church, as the Donatists did of old. There is but this difference between the Donatists and them, that the Donatists did it only by their uncharitable opinions, and verbal censures, but the Court of Rome did it moreover by a solemn Juridical Decree, which is much the greater degree of Schism.  
He telleth us, That it is vain to liken them to the Donatists, because the Donatists said that the Catholic Church of that time, was but a part of the Church, (as Protestants say now of the Roman,) for which Saint Austin laughed at them. 
Lib 2. Gent. Pet. c. 38.  The truth is, the Donatists said, that they being but a small part of the catholic Church, (if any part,) were the true catholic Church, 
The Romanists true Donatists.  and that the true catholic Church was no catholic Church, nor any part of it, which is expressly contrary to what he saith here. Just as the Romanists say now, that they themselves being with all their dependants not a fourth part of the Christian World, are the catholic Church, and that the Patriarchate of Constaentinople which is as large as theirs, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which including the seventeen Kingdoms of Prester john, all Christians, and dependants upon that Patriarchate, is likewise as large, and the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, and all the lesser Patriarchates in the East, and the whole Empire of Russia, and all the Protestants in Europe, are no parts of the catholic Church. Is not this to make the part to be the whole, and the whole to be nothing beyond that part, as the Donatists did. Ouum ovo non similius. And therefore Saint Austin might well laugh at them or rather pity them as indeed he did, for speaking such evident absurdities. Si mihi diceres quod Ego sim Petilianus, non invenirem quomodo te refellerem, nisi aut jocantem riderem, aut insanientem dolerem. Sed quia jocari te non Credo, vides quid restet. 
Ibid.  If thou shouldest tell me that I am Petilian, (or any such thing that is evidently falls,) I should not know how to confute thee, unless I should either laugh at thy folly, or pity thy frenzy. But because I believe not that thou jeastest, thou seest what remaineth. When they tell us in such earnest, that the Roman Church is the catholic Church, they might even as well tell us that Petilian was Saint Austin.  

Sect. 1. & 2.  Their first objection is, that we have separated ourselves from the Communion of the Catholic Church; to which I gave this answer, that we had not separated ourselves from the Communion of the Catholic Church, for we are ready to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholic Church doth unanimously believe and practise. No, nor yet from the Roman Church in the essentials of Christian Religion, or any of them, but only in their errors and innovations; and that it was the Court of Rome that made the separtion. To this answer he takes great exception, but as it seemeth to me in a most confused manner. For method sake I will reduce all which he saith to four heads. First, that the Church of Rome is the true Catholic Church. Secondly, That we have separated ourselves from it in essentials. Thirdly, That all the other Patriarchates (except the Roman) are no parts of the Catholic Church. Fourthly, That we hold no Communion with them. To all these I have answered formerly in this Treatise, and therefore now I shall touch them more lightly.  
That the Roman Church is the Catholic Church he proveth thus, 
The Roman Church not the Catholic Church.  because it is a company of Christians, instituted by Christ, spread over the World, and entirely united in the profession of faith, and communion of his Sacraments under his Officers. And therefore he bids us out of St. Austin, 
L. de unit. c. 6.  either give or take, either receive their Church, or show one of our own as good. This Argument is grounded upon a wrong supposition, that the Catholic Church is a Church of one denonination, as Roman, or Grecian, etc. which we do altogether deny as implying an evident contradiction. Secondly, we deny that the Roman Church, including the Papacy, in respect of which it challengeth this universality, and to be the Foundation of Christian Religion, and the Mistress of all other Churches, is instituted by Christ, or by his Church; this is their own usurpation. Thirdly, we deny that the Roman Church is spread over the World. Divide Christendom into five parts, and in four of them they have very little or nothing to do. Perhaps they have here a Monastery, or there a final handful of Proselytes. But what are five or six persons to so many millions of Christian souls, that they should be Catholics, and not all the others? This was not the meaning of Saint Austin in the place alleged. Date ni high hanc Ecclesiam si apud vos est, ostendite vos ommunicare omnibus Gentibus, quas jam videmus in hoc semine benedici. Date hanc, aut furore deposito accipite, non a me, sed ab illo ipso in quo benedicuntur omnes Gentes. Give me this Church if it be with you: Show that you communicate withal Nations which we see to be blessed in this seed. It is not a few particular persons, nor some handfuls of Proselytes, but multitudes of Christian Nations that make the catholic Church. The Romanists are so far from communicating with all these Nations, that they excommunicate the far greater part of them. Fourthly, we deny that such an exact entire union in all points and opinions which are not essentials of Christian Religion, is necessary to the being of the catholic Church, or that the Romanists have a greater unity among themselves or with others, then sundry of those Churches which they have excommunicated. Fiftly, I deny that the Officers of the Conrt of Rome or any of them (qua tales) are either the Officers of Christ or of his Church. And lastly, if all this were true, well might it prove the Church of Rome a catholic Church, that is, a part of the catholic Church, but not the catholic or universal Church. Still there would want universality. To be spread through the Christian World is one thing, and to be the common faith of the Christian World another thing.  
Secondly, 
If denial of the Pope's Supremacy maketh Protestants, the World is full of Protestanns.  he proveth that they did not exclude us, but that we did separate ourselves, because England denied the Pope's sovereignty by divine right, before the Pope excommunicated them. And so though it was not perfectly Protestant, yet it was substantially Protestant. I take him at his word. Then all the Eastern, Northern, and Ethiopic Christians are substantially Protestant's as well as we: for they all deny the Pope's sovereignty either by divine or humane right. Then all the world were substantially Protestant's in the time of the Counsels of Constance and Basile, except the Court of Rome, that is, the Pope and his Officers. Then we want not brethren that are substantially Protestant's as well as we, in the bosom of the Roman Church at this day. To seek to obtrude this spiritual Monarchy upon us was causal Schism, to excommunicate us for denying it was actual Schism.  

Our separation not in essentials.  To prove that we have departed from them in essentials, he only saith, that we have left them simply, absolutely, nay wholly in the communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God, and the entire profession of faith, which are essentials to a Church. How often hath this been answered already? That every Opinion which a particular Church doth profess to be essential, is either an essential or a truth, or that every abuse crept into the administration of the Sacraments, is of the essence of the Sacraments, is that to which we can never give as●ent. Let them keep themselves to the ancient Creed of the Church, as they are commanded by the Council of Ephesus, and we shall quickly join with them in profession of faith. Let them use the ancient forms of administration of the Sacraments, which the primitive Roman Church did use, and we shall not forbear their communion in Sacraments. Did the ancient Roman Church want any essentials: Or are the primitive Roman and the present Roman Church divided in essentials. If they differ in essentials than we ought not to join in Communion with the present Church of Rome. If they differ not in essentials, no more do we.  
Thirdly, he proveth that the other Patriarchates are not the Catholic Church, not true parts thereof, because they are divided in profession of faith, in communion of Sacraments, and in Church Officers. Yea (saith he) it were dotage to think that the Catholic Church can consist of heretical and schismatical Churches, as I cannot deny but they are, except I will deny the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England to which I have sworn. I answer that those Churches which he is pleased to undervalue so much, do agree better both among themselves and with other Churches, than the Roman Church itself, 
The Eastern Churches true parts of the catholic Church.  both in profession of Faith, for they and we do generally acknowledge the same ancient Creeds, and no other; and in inferior questions, being free from the intricate and perplexed difficulties of the Roman Schools. In point of Discipline they have no complaint against them, saving that they & we do unanimously refuse to acknowledge the spiritual Monarchy of the Roman Bishop. And concerning the administration of the Sacraments I know no objection of any great moment which they produce against them. How should they, when the Pope allowed the Russians the exercise of the Greek Religion? It is true, that they use many Rites which we forbear; But difference in Rites is no breach of communion, nor needeth to be, for any thing that I know, if distance of place and difference of Language were not a greater impediment to our actual communion, so long as the Sacraments are not mutilated, nor sinful duties enjoined, nor an unknown tongue purposely used. How are they then schismatical Churches? only because they deny the Pope's Supremacy. Or how are they heretical Churches? Some of them are called Nestorians, but most injuriously, who have nothing of Nestorius but the name. Others have been suspected of Eutychianism, and yet in truth orthodox enough. They do not add the word [filioque, and from the son] to the Creed, and yet they acknowledge that the holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, which is the very same thing in sense. It is no new thing for great quarrels to arise from mere mistakes. He would persuade the World that there is something in our English Articles which reflects sadly upon the Greek Church, to declare them guilty of Heresy or Schism. Either he is deceived himself, or he would deceive others. There is no such thing, nor the least insinuation against them, either directly or by consequence. But he is fallible, and may err in this as well as he doth in saying that I have been sworn to them: we do use to subscribe unto them indeed, not as Articles of Faith, but as Theological verities, for the preservation of unity among ourselves; but never any Son of the Church of England was obliged to swear unto them, or punished for dissenting from them in his judgement, so he did not publish it by word or writing.  
Secondly they charge us with schismatical disobedience to the determinations of the general Council of Trent. 
Sect. 3.  To which I answered that that Council was neither general, 
The Council of Trent not general.  nor free, nor lawful. First, not general, because there was not one Bishop present out of all the other Patriarchates, and but a part of the occidental Church: Secondly, of those who were present, two parts were Italians, and many of them the Pope's Pensioners: Thirdly, at the definition of some of the weightiest controversies there were not so many Bishops as the King of England could have called together in a month within his own Realms: Fourthly, it was not generally received by the Romanists. To this he answers that there were some Grecian Bishops there. Perhaps one or two titular Bishops without Bishoprics, not empowered by commission, nor sent with instructions from any Patriarch: These were no Grecian Bishops. He addeth that it is not necessary to summon heretical or schismatical Bishops. Yes the rather before they be lawfully condemned, as these never were. Besides this is begging of the question. When or where were they convicted of Heresy or Schism? This is but the opinion of the lesser and unsounder part of the Church, against the greater and sounder part. Upon this ground the Donatists might have called a Council in afric, and nicknamed it a general Council. He saith, it is obeyed by all Catholics for matters of faith, though not for matters of fact. He meaneth by all Roman Catholics. But if it were the supreme Tribunal of the militant Church, it ought to be obeyed for matters of fact also, so far as they are Ecclesiastical. Break ice in one place and it will crack in more. He saith, Pius the fourth sent most loving letters to Queen Elizabeth, but his messenger was not admitted into England. As we have in horror the treacherous and tyrannical proceedings of Paul the third and Pius the fifth against our Princes and Realms: So we acknowledge, with gratitude, the civilities of Pius the fourth. Certainly he took the more prudent way for a Christian Prelate.  

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

Nor lawful.  Thirdly, As the Council of Trent was not a general, nor a free Council, so neither was it a lawful Council, First, because it was not in Germany: A guilty person is to be judged in his own Province. Secondly, because the Pope alone by himself or his Ministers acted all the four parts of accuser, witness, guilty person, and Judge. Thirdly, because the Protestants were condemned before they were heard. To this he answereth first, That Trent is in Germany: wherein he is much mistaken, for proof whereof ● produce first the public protestation of the German Protestants, That to promise a Council in Germany, and to choose Trent, was to mock the World, That Trent cannot be said to be in Germany, but only because the Bishop is a Prince of the Empire, 
Hist Conc. Tried. l. 2. an. 1545.  otherwise that for security it is as well and as much in Italy and in the Pope's power as Rome itself. To which the Pope himself giveth testimony in his answer to the Cardinal, Bishop, and Lord of Trent, when he desired maintenance for a Garrison from the Pope to secure the Council, That there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent, and engageth himself to secure it. The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany▪ the redress which they seek was in Germany. Germany, not Italy had been the proper place for the Council.  
R. C. proceedeth, the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope. It may be so, but not in a legal or judiciary way. He confesseth, That in doubtful cases there ought to be four distinct persons, the accuser, the witness, the person accused, and the judge, but not in notorious rebellion, in which case there needs neither witness nor accuser. And doth not this merit the reputation of a doubtful case, wherein so great a part of the occidental Church are engaged? who are ready to prove evidently that he who is their accuser, and usurps the office of their Judge, is the notorious Rebel himself. I confess that in some cases the notority of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses; but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the Law to be Rebellion, or Heresy, or the like. The Pope's Rebellion hath been already conde●●ed in the Council of Constance, and his heretical maintaining of it in the Council of Basile; But the Protestants renouncing of his usurped authority, hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other.  

The Protestants not condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Romanists.  Yet he saith, The Protestants were condemned not only by the Council of Trent, but by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom they appealed. One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise, would believe that the Protestants in general had appealed from the Council of Trent, and were juridically condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Who gave the Appellants procuration to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general? Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the Appeal? Where is the condemnation? Is the English Church included therein? No such thing. The case was this. One or two foreign particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them: And he delivered his opinion, it should seem, as R. C. conceiveth, more to the advantage of the Romanists th●n of the Protestants. This he calleth an Appeal and a condemnation. I crave pardon of the Reader if I do not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarches answer: It is thirty years since I see it: Neither do I know how to procure it. Thus far I will charge my memory, that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated, and the Patriarches answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome then of the Church of England. The right stating of the question is all in all. When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way, they will make them more apposite, & more to the purpose.  
But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him go, I mean Cyrillus, since the time of Hieremy, whom that learned Gentleman Sir Thomas Roe, than Ambassador for our late King at Constantinople, had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church. He published a Treatise of his own much about the year 1630, which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a confession of the Christian Faith, so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England, that it might seem rather to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury then by the Patriarch of Constantinople. I will cull out a few flowers and make a posy for him, to let him see whether the Patriarches of Constantinople do condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome. In the second Chapter he declareth, That the authority of the Scripture is above the authority of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for it is not equal (or alike) to be taught of the holy Ghost and to be taught of man. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  In his tenth Chap. he declareth, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mortal men can by no means be the head of the Church, and that our Lord jesus Christ alone is the head of it. In the thirteenth Chapter he asserteth justification by Faith alone, just according to the Doctrine of the Church of England. In the fifteenth Chapter he acknowledgeth but two Sacraments. In the seventeenth Chapter he professeth a true real presence of Christ the Lord in the Eucharist, just as we do; and rejecteth the n●w devise of transubstantiation. In the eighteenth Chapter he disclaimeth purgatory, etc. All this he declareth to be the Faith which Christ taught, the Apostles preached, and the orthodox Church ever held, and undertaketh to make it good to the World. And after, in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him, he excludeth the Apocryphal Books out of the Canon of holy Scripture, and condemneth the worship of Images. In a word, he is wholly ours. And to declare to the World that he was so, 
Knolles Turk. bist. in the life of Am. ●. p. 1503.  he resolved to dedicate his confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England.  
When this Treatise was first published, it is no marvel if the Court of Rome and the congregation for propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it, and use their uttermost indevor to ruin him. But he justified it before the Ambassadors of Roman Catholic Princes then remaining at Constantinople, and came off fairly in despite of all those who did calumniate him, and cast false aspersions upon him. Besides his own autograph, and the testimonies of the Ambassadors then present, if there had been nothing else to justify this truth, the instructions given by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope, 
Ib p. 1500.  alone had been sufficient proof, and the plots which they contrived against him, either to have him taken away by death or deposition: For at the same time they decried the Treatise here as supposititious, and accused him there as criminous, for being the Author of it. But God delivered him out of their hands.  
He pleadeth moreover, That the Bishops assembled in Trent were not the Pope's Ministers. Yet he knoweth right well that they had all taken an Oath of obedience to the Pope, for maintenance of the Papacy. Were these equal Judges? I confess there were many noble souls amongst them who did limit their Oath according to the Canons of the Church. But they could do nothing, being over-voted by the Pope's Clients and Pensioners.  
He asketh who were the accusers, witnesses, and judges of the Pope in the Parliament 1534, but King Henry himself and his Ministers? I answer that they were not King Henry's Ministers, but the trusties of the Kingdom; they were not sworn to maintain King henry's usurpations; they acted not by a judiciary, but by a legislative power; neither did they make any new Law, but only declare the ancient Law of the Land. Otherwise they meddled not with the person of the Pope or his Office. If Luther proceeded not in form of Law against the Pope, it is no marvel. I remember no process in Law that was between them. He challenged only verbum informans, not virgam reformantem. Do you think that if he or any other had cited the Pope to have appeared in Germany or England, he would have obeyed the Summons? They might as well have called again yesterday. Howsoever Luther's acts concern not us.  

Sect. 4. Why R C. not willing to argue of the Pope's patriarchal Power.  Their third objection is, that we have quitted our lawful Patriarch, which argument he saith he will omit, because we have spoken enough of that before. Either I am mistaken, or this is a fallacy of no cause for a cause. The true cause why he omitteth it being not because we have spoken enough of it, (for he hath continually declined it) but rather because he seeth that it is incompatible with that sovereignty and universality of Power which the Roman Bishops do challenge at this day. Let them lose the substance, whilst they catch at the shadow.  
But in the place of this he proposeth another objection which he calleth their most forcible argument against us. which in brief is this. No Church is to be left in which salvation is to be had, but we confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance, the true Church, etc. I cannot but observe what difference there is in the judgements of men, for of all their objections I take this to be the weakest. And so would he also if he would cease to confound the Catholic Church, with a Catholic Church, that is, the universal Church with a particular Church, and distinguish the essentials of a Church, from the corruptions of a Church, and make a difference between a just reformation of ourselves, and a causeless separation from others. But be the argument what it will, forcible or weak, it hath been answered abundantly in this Treatise over and over again. 
Answ. to the pres. S. c. 1. s. 1.  And therefore though he pleased (I use his own expressions) to say it often, to repeat it often, to inculcate it: Yet I dare not abuse the patience of the Reader with so many needless tautologies.  
He taxeth me for not answering some testimonies which he hath collected in a book of his, called the Protestants plain Confession, which he saith I have read, and therefore I ought not to have dissembled them, but perhaps I thought them too hard to be answered. I confess I have read some of his books formerly, but I deny that I have one of them in-present. If I had, doth he think it reasonable or indeed possible that in one Chapter I should take notice of all that hath been written upon this Subject. I confess I have answered many impertinences in this Treatise, but a man would not willingly go so far out of his way to seek an impertinence. When I did read some of his Treatises, I pitied the mispending of so much time, in weeding and wresting of Authors, of several reformations, who writ in the beginning of the Controversy between sleeping and waking. Sometimes he condemneth us of Schism for communicating with them; some other times he citeth them as our Classical Authors, and at other times from the different Opinions of the Sons of the same Church, he impugneth the conclusion wherein they do all accord. As if I should argue this: If the bread be transubstantiated into the body of Christ, it is either by production or a●duction, but such and such Roman catholic Authors do deny that it is by produduction, and such and such other Roman catholic Authors do deny that it is by adduction, therefore by the plain confession of Roman Catholics there is no transubstantiation. If I had omitted any testimonies of weight cited by him in this Treatise, as he hath done the most of all my grounds, then with better reason he might have called it dissembling.  
He seemeth to me to take this course, only to make his credulous Reader believe that there is more in his books then there is. It is the Church of England which he hath undertaken to combat. Let him not leave his chosen Province to seek out petty adversaries among strangers, and think to wound the Church of England through their sides. He needeth not to be so much abroad, whilst he may have enough to do at home.  
He urgeth that there is no salvation out of the Church, no more than there was out of the Ark of Noah, howsoever or for whatsoever one went out. 
1 Pet. 3.20. The Church of Rome St. Petes. Boat, not Noah's Ark.  That Noah's Ark was a figure of baptism, St. Peter doth assure us: and it may also very fitly represent the Church, but that is the catholic or universal Church, and then we yield the conclusion, that there is no salvation out of the Church. But particular Churches are like several Chambers, or Partitions within the Ark of Noah. A man might go out of one of them, until it was cleansed, into another without any danger. The Church of Rome is not Noah's Ark but St Peter Boat. The rest of the Apostles had their Boats as well as Saint Peter. He beateth but the air in citing Saint Austin and Saint Hierome against us, who have neither left the Church, nor the Communion of the Church.  
He maketh our Church to be in worse condition than the Church of the Donatists, because Protestants grant that the Church of Rome doth still retain the essence of a true Church, but the Donatists did deny that the catholic Church of their time was a true Church Doth he not see that he argueth altogether against himself? The Schism of the Donatists consisted therein, that they did uncharitably censure the catholic Church to have lost the essence of the Church; 
Our charity freeth us from Schism.  this was indeed to go schismatically out of the Communion of the Church: and on the other side this is our safety and security, that we are so far from censuring the catholic Church, that we do not censure the Roman Church, which is but a particular Church, to be no Church, or to have lost its Communion with Christ, nor have separated from it in any essential of Christian Religion, but only in corruptions and innovations. Our Charity freeth us from Schism. The uncharitableness of the Donatists rendered them Schismatics. It may be a good lesson for the Romanists who tread too much in the steps of the Donatists.  

Sect. 6.  What Calvine saith, That God accounteth him a forsaker of his Religion who obstinately separateth himself from any Christian Society which keepeth the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments. 
Cal. Inst. l. 4 c. 1. etc.  Or that there may some vice creep into the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, which ought not to alienate us from the communion of a true Church, Or lastly, that we must pardon errors in those things which may be unknown without violating the sum of Religion, or without loss of Salvation, or we shall have no Church at all, doth not concern us, who do not dream of an anabaptistical perfection, and upon this very ground do admit them to be a true Church, though imperfect, who have not separated ourselves, but been chased away, who have only forsaken errors, not Churches, much less obstinately, and least of all in essentials, who would gladly be contented to wink at small faults, so they would not obtrude sinful duties upon us as a condition of their communion.  
The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margin, whose scope is far enough from going about to persuade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome, for which they are cited by him. Rather on the contrary, if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome, and allow it not the essence of a Church, what doth that concern the Church of England? Will he blame us for being more moderate? Trust me, these Authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery.  
He telleth us. That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists, If ours be Religion yours is separation. They may rehearse the same words indeed, but neither is Saint Augustine's case, their case, nor the Donatists' case our case. Sometimes they cry down our Religion as a negative Religion, as faulty in the defect. And now they accuse us of superstition in the excess. We approve no Church, with which they communicate, and we do not.  
Doctor Field saith, that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church, they need not use any other Argument. It is most certain, we all say the same. But still he confoundeth the Church, that is the universal Church, with a Church, that is a particular Church, and a metaphysically true Church, with a morally true Church. Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense?  

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

Sect. 6.  He saith, I endeavour to prove the lawful Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time by the testimony of public Registers, and confession of Father Oldcorne. He knoweth better if he please, that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeth's time, but in Edward the sixths' time. If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it. The Ecclesiastical Registers do make their Ordination so plain, 
Our Ordination justified.  that no man who will but open his eyes can be in doubt of it. He confesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Registers were authentical. So must every one say or think that seeth them, and every one is free to see them that will. But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner, and judged others by himself. Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholic opinions. Why did he change in this more than in any of the rest? Because there is no defence against a Flail, no resisting evident demonstration, which doth not persuade but compel men to believe.  
But wherefore were not these Registers showed before King James his time? They were always showed to every man that desired to see them. Registers are public Records, the sight whereof can be refused to no man. The Officers hand is known, the Office is secured from all supposititious writings, both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register, and by the testimony of all others, who view the Records from time to time. He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not showed? Which is first publicly promulged, and after that affixed to the gates of the City, and of the Common-Hall, and all other public places. If he could have excepted against the persons, either consecraters or consecrated, as that there were not such persons, or not so qualified, or not present at that time, he had had some reason for himself. But Episcopal Ordination in England was too solemn and too public an Act to be counterfeited. And moreover the Proceedings were published in print, to the view of the World, whilst there were very many living, who were eye witnesses of the Ordination.  
And yet by his favour, if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there, as there were, it might have made the Ordination illegal, but not invalid, for which I will give him a precedent and a witness beyond exception. The precedent is Austin the first converter of the English, the witness Saint Gregory. 
Greg. Resp. ad Int. 8. August.  Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia, etc. And truly in the English Church, wherein there is no other Bishop but thyself, thou canst not ordain a Bishop otherwise then alone, etc. But when by the grace of God, Bishops are ordained throughout all places, Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops.  
He asketh why Bishop Jewel or Bishop Horn did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops? I might even as well ask him when he citeth an authority out of Saint Austin, why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject, did not cite it? and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit. An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing. Perhaps, for I can but guess until he cite the places, Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners, but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordination. Perhaps judging them to be Heretics, they thought they had lost their character, which yet he himself will acknowledge to be indelible: Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants, and they gave a general answer. Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records: or lastly perhaps, or indeed without perhaps, they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination, in respect of the Laws of England, not upon the invalidity of it, as shall clearly appear in my next answer. In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers.  
Why were they not showed (saith he) when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horn at the bar? What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight years after? Now let him take one answer for all. There was an Act passed for authorising the Book of Common-Prayer, and the Book of Ordination, as an appendix to it, to be used throughout England, in the reign of Edward the sixth. This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary, and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth, as to the Book of Common Prayer, intending, but not expressly mentioning the Book of Ordination, which was an appendix to it. So it was restored again, either expressly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer, as containing the public Prayers of the Church for that occasion; or at least implicitly, as being printed in the Book of Common Prayer from the beginning, as an appendix to it. Upon this pretended omission Bishop Bonner excepts against Bishop Horne's Ordination, nor against the validity of it, what have Parliaments to do with the essentials of Ordination? but against the legality of it as to the Realm of England, by reason of the former pretended omission. So to take away scruple, the Parliament enacted that it should be deemed good in the eye of our English Law. The Parliament knew well that they had no power to make that Ordination valid in itself which was invalid in itself, nor to make that invalid which was valid. This had been to alter the essentials of Ordination. But they had power, for more abundant caution, which never doth hurt, to take away that scruple which was occasioned by a Statute of Queen Mary, which in truth was sufficiently removed before. What is this now to our Registers, whether they be authentic or not? No, we beg no help from any civil Acts or Sanctions to maintain our Ordinations, either for matter, or form. But we are ready to justify them by those very rules which he saith the Council of Trent offered to the Protestants, namely Scripture, Tradition, Counsels, Fathers, and especially the practice of the catholic Church.  
But he saith, we are not ordered to offer true substantial sacrifice, Not expressly indeed. No more were they themselves for eight hundred years after Christ, and God knows how much longer. No more are the Greek Church, or any other Christian Church in the World (except the Roman) at this day. Yet they acknowledge them to be rightly ordained, and admit them to exercise all offices of their Priestly Function in Rome itself, which was alleged by me in the vindication, and is passed over in silence by R. C. in this survey. The Greeks have no more mention of a Sacrifice in their Ordination than we. The grace of God promotes such a venerable Deacon to be a Presbyter, yet the Church of Rome approveth their Ordination and all their other Rites, so they will but only submit to the Pope's spiritual Monarchy, as we have seen in the case of the Patriarch of Muzall, and the Russians subject to the Crown of Polonia; and the like favour was offered to Queen Elizabeth, upon the same condition. It is not so long since Pope Gregory erected a Greek College at Rome, to breed up the youth of that Nation where they have liberty of all the Greekish Rites, 
Continuation of the Tuck Histin the life of Amurath 4.  only acknowledging the Supremacy of the Pope.  
But though we have not express words for offering of Sacrifice, nor the tradition of the Patine and the Chalice (no more had their own Ancestors for a thousand years) yet we have these words, 
No difference about sacrifice if rightly understood.  Receive the holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost remit, they are remitted, etc. Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word and Sacraments, than which the Scriptures and Fathers did never know more, which their own Doctors have justified as comprehending all essentials, which being jointly considered, do include all power necessary for the exercise of the Pastoral Office. We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving; a commemorative Sacrifice, or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross; a representative Sacrifice, or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eyes of his heavenly Father; an impetrative Sacrifice, or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion, by way of real Prayer; and lastly an applicative Sacrifice, or an application of his merits unto our souls. Let him that dare go one step further than we do, and say that it is a suppletorie Sacrifice, to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever.  
Yet in his margin he hath placed a cloud of our Doctors, Whitakers, Morton, Chillingworth, Potter, Fulke, Reinolds, Latimer, without citing a syllable of what they say, saving only Latimer and Reynolds, that the name of Priest importeth Sacrifice or hath relation to Sacrifice. In good time; to do him a courtesy we will suppose that all the rest say as much. Such Sacrifice such Priest. Let the Reader learn not to fear dumb shows. There is nothing which any of these say which will either advantage his cause or prejudice ours.  
Here he professeth to omit the survey of my last chapter, 
Sect. 7.  yet because he toucheth some things in it upon the by, I am obliged to attend his motion. First, I wonder why he should term us fugitives. If we be fugitives what is he himself? No, we are Exules, excluded out of our Country, not profugi, fugitives of our own accord from our Country. And we hope that he who goeth on his way weeping, and beareth forth good seed, shall return with joy and bring his sheaves with him. If not, God will provide a resting place for us, either under heaven or in heaven. We praise thee O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.  
In the conclusion of my Treatise I proposed three ready means for the uniting of all Christian Churches, which seemed to me very reasonable. One of them was, That whereas some Sects have contracted the Christian Faith over much, by reviving some Heresies condemned by the primitive Church, and on the other side, the Church of Rome had enlarged the Christian Faith over much, by making or declaring new Articles of Faith in this last age of the World, the Creed or Belief of the Church containing all points of Faith necessary to be known of all Christians, should be reduced to what it was in the time of the first four general Counsels (I might add) and many ages after. No man dare say that the Faith of the primitive Fathers was imperfect or insufficient. Against this he maketh three objections; 
There are fundamentals.  first, That there are no such fundamental points of faith as Protestants imagine, sufficient to salvation, though other points of faith sufficiently proposed be not believed. This objection is compounded of truth and falsehood. That there are such fundamentals he himself confesseth elsewhere, which are necessary not only necessiate paecepti, but necessitate medii: 
Hebr. 5.12 and c. 6.1 etc.  And if he did not confess it, the authority of the Apostle would evince it, That the belief of these alone is sufficient for the salvation of them to whom no more is revealed, he dare not deny: And that the belief of these is sufficient to them who do not believe other truths which are reveled unto them, no Protestants did ever imagine. Observe how cunningly he confounds the state of the question. The question is not, what is necessary for a man to believe for himself: This is as different as the degrees of men's knowledge, but what may lawfully be imposed upon all men, or what may be exacted upon other men to whom it is not revealed, or to whom we do not know whether it be revealed or not. Then if he would have objected any thing material to the purpose, he should have said, That the belief of all fundamentals is not sufficient to salvation, unless other points of Faith be imposed or obtruded upon all men, whether they be revealed or not revealed to them. And this had been directly contrary to the plain Decree of the general Council of Ephesus, That no new Creeds nor new points of faith should be imposed upon Christians, more than the Creed then received.  
His second objection is this, though there were such fundamentals, yet seeing Protestant confess they know not which they are, one cannot know by them who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church. I do not blame either Protestants or others, especially private and particular persons; 
How much is necessary to be believed to salvation ordinarily.  if they be very tender in setting down precisely what points of faith are absolutely necessary to salvation, the rather because it is a curious, needless, and unprofitable salvation. Since the blessed Apostles have been so provident for the Church, as to deposit and commit to the custody thereof the Creed, as a perfect Rule and Canon of Faith, which comprehendeth all doctrinal points which are absolutely necessary for all Christians to salvation, it were great folly and ingratitude in us to wrangle about circumstances, or about some substantial points of lesser concernment, whether they be so necessary as others. This is sufficient to let us know, who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church, in point of faith, even all those Churches which hold the Apostles Creed, as it is expounded in the four first general Counsels.  
His third and last objection followeth: 
All revealed truths not essentials.  All points of faith sufficiently proposed are essential and fundamental, nor can any such point be disbeleeved without infidelity, and giving the lie to God, as Protestants sometimes confess. If by sufficient proposal he understand the proposal of the Church of Rome, I deny both parts of his assertion: Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome which are neither fundamental truths, nor inferior truths, but errors which may be disbeleeved without either infidelity or sin. Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent, than they satisfy one another what this infallible proponent is. If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent, or be not assured who this infallible proponent is, the proposition may be disbeleeved without giving God the lie. But if by sufficient proposal he understand Gods actual revelation of the truth, and the conviction of the conscience, than this third objection is like the first, partly true, and party false. The later part of it is true, that whatsoever is convinced that God hath revealed any thing, and doth not believe it, giveth God the lie; and this the Protestants do always affirm. But the former part of it is still false. All truths that are revealed are not therefore presently fundamentals or essentials of faith, no more than it is a fundamental point of faith that Saint Paul had a Cloak. That which was once an essential part of the Christian faith, is always an essential part of the Christian faith, that which was once no essential is never an essential. How is that an essential part of saving faith, without which Christians may ordinarily be saved? But many inferior truths are revealed to particular persons, without the actual knowledge whereof many others have been saved, and they themselves might have been saved, though those truths had never been proposed or revealed to them. Those things which may adesse or abesse, be present or absent, known or not known, believed or not believed, without the destruction of saving faith, are no essentials of saving faith. In a word, some things are necessary to be believed when they are known, only because they are revealed, otherwise conducing little, or it may be nothing, to salvation. Some other things are necessary to be believed, not only because they are revealed, but because belief of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation. These are, those are not, essentials or fundamentals of saving faith.  
Another means of reunion proposed by me in the vindication, was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of soveregin Jurisdiction jure divino, 
Ancient Popes challenged not sovereignty jure divino.  to his exordium unitatis, and to have his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers, which was the sense of the Counsels of Constance and Basile. Against this he pleadeth first, That ancient Popes practised or challenged Episcopal or pastoral Authority over all Christians, jure divino, in greater Ecclesiastical causes. And for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine. To which I answer first, that the Pastors of Apostolical Churches had ever great Authority among all Christians, and great influence upon the Church, as honourable Arbitrators, and faithful Depositaries of the Genuine Apostolical tradition; but none of them ever exercised sovereign Jurisdict ion over over all Christians. Secondly, I answer that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes, upon which their claim of universal Sovereignty jure divino is principally grounded, are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits. Thirdly, I answer that ancient Popes in their genuine Writings do not claim, nor did practise monarchical Power over the catholic Church, much less did they claim it jure divino, but what Powet they held they held by prescription, and by the Canons of the Fathers, who granted sundry privileges to the Church of Rome, in honour to the memory of St. Peter, and the Imperial City of Rome. And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their Authority from the Council of Nice, though without ground, which they would never have done, if they had held it jure divino. 
Of the Church l. 5. a c. 31. ad c. 36.  And for answer to Bellarmine, whom he only mentioneth in general, I refer him to Doctor Field.  
In the next place he citeth Saint Heirome that Christ made one Head among the twelve to avoid Schism. 
L. 2: Cont. jovin.  And how much more necessary (faith R. C.) is such a Head in the universal Church? It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierosme; But thou sayest the Church is founded upon St. Peter. The same is done in another place upon all the Apostles; they all receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all. I have showed him formerly in answer to this place, that in a body endowed with power, as the Church is, an Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against Schism. 
Sup. c. 5. sect. 1.  His [how much more] should be how much less: a single person is more capable of the government of a small society then of the whole world.  
After this, he citeth Melanchon, 
Cent. Epist. Theol. ep 74.  As there are some Bishops who govern divers Churches, the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops, and this Canonical policy I think no-wise man doth disallow. I cannot in present procure that century of Theological Epistles, but I have perused Melancthons' Epistles published by Casper Pucerus, wherein I find no such Epistle. I examine not whether this Epistle by him cited, be genuine or counterfeit, and if genuine; whether Melancthons' words be rightly rehearsed, and if rightly rehearsed, at what time it was written, whether before he was a formed Protestant or after. It appeareth plainly in the words here cited, that Melancthon was willing to acknowledge the Papacy only as a Canonical policy. And so we do not condemn it, whilst it is bounded by the Canons of the Fathers But then where is their jus divinum or the institution of Christ? Where is their absolute or universal Sovereignty of Power and Jurisdiction? In all probability if these be the words of Melancthon, his meaning was confined to the Roman Patriarchate, which was all the Church that he was much acquainted with. And that either these are none of his words, or that they were written before he was a formed Protestant, or that he intended only the Roman Patriarchate, is most evident from his later and undoubted writings, wherein he doth utterly and constantly condemn the Papal universal Monarchy of the Roman Bishop. 
A moderate Papacy might prove useful, but dangerous.   
And lastly, what Melancthon faith, is only in point of prudence or discretion, [he thinks no wise man ought to dislike it.] We are not so stupid as not to see but that some good use might be made of an exordium unitatis Ecclesiasticae, especially at this time when the Civil Power is so much divided and distracted. But the quere is even in point of prudence, whether more good or hurt might proceed from it. We have been taught by experience to fear three dangers, First, when we give an Inch, they are apt to take an Ell, Tyrants are not often born with their teeth, as Richard the the third was, but grow up to their excess in process of time. Secondly, when we give a free Alms, (as Peterpence were of old) they straightway interpret it to be a tribute and duty. Thirdly, what we give by humane right, they challenge by Divine Right to the See of Rome. And so will not leave us free to move our rudder according to the variable face of the Heavens, and the vicissitude of humane affairs.  
These are all the testimonies which he citeth, but he presenteth unto us another dumb show of English Authors in the margin, Whitakers, Laude, Potter, Chillingworth, Montague, besides some foreigners. But if the Reader do put himself to the trouble to search the several places, notwithstanding these titles or superscriptions, he will find the boxes all empty, without one word to the purpose, as if they had been cited by chance, and not by choice. And if he should take in all the other writings of these several Authors, they would not advantage his cause at all. Bishop Montague is esteemed one of the most indulgent to him among them, (though in truth one of his saddest Adversaries,) yet I am confident he dare not stand to his verdict. 
Mont. Orig. Eccles. part. post. p. 185.  Habeat potestatem ordinis, directionis, consiliis, consultationis, conclusionis, executionis, dellegatam. Subsit autem illa potestas Ecclesia, auferibilis sit per Ecclesiam, cum non sit in Divinis Scripturis instituta, non Petro personaliter addicta. Let the Bishop of Rome have delegated unto him, (that is by the Church) a power of Order, Direction, Counsel, Consultation, Conclusion (or pronouncing sentence,) and putting in execution. But let that power be subject to the Church; let it be in the Church's power to take it away, seeing it is not instituted in the holy Scriptures, nor tied personally unto Peter.  

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

A REPLY TO S. Ws. REFUTATION OF The Bishop of DERRIES just Vindication of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
THE most of S. Ws. Exceptions have been already largely and particnlarly satisfied in the fotmer reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon. Yet lest any thing of moment might escape an answer, I will review them, and answer them generally and succinctly, as they are proposed by him. To his Title of Down derry I have nothing to say, but that it were strange if he should throw a good cast, who seals his bowl upon an undersong.  

Sect. 1.  
In the first place, he professeth to show the impertinency of my grounds, and to stick the guilt of Schism not only with colour, but with undeniable evidence, upon the English Church, by the very position of the case or stating of the question between us; and this he calleth a little after their chief Objection against us: what then? is stating of the question and objecting all one? I confess, the right position of a case may dispel umbrages, and reconcile controversies, and bring much light to the truth. But as the lion asked the man in the Fable, who made the picture? we may crave leave to demand, who shall put this case? surely he meaneth a Roman Catholic. For if a Protestant state it, it will not be so much for their advantage, nor the bare proposition of it, bear such undeniable evidence in it.  
I hope a man may view this engine without danger. In the beginning of Henry the eighths' reign, and immediately before his sustraction of obedience from the See of Rome, The Church of England, agreed with the Church of Rome, and all the res● of her Communion in two points, which were then and still are the bonds of unity, betwixt all her members, the one concerning Faith, the other Government. For Faith, her rule was, that the Doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles, were solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed. For Government, her principle was, that Christ had made S. Peter first, or chief, or Prince of his Apostles, who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world, and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this privilege, etc. A little after he acknowledgeth that ●he first principle includeth the truth of the second. And that there is this manifest evidence for it, that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed, and that as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could be altered in it.  
Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England, or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome, it will not be amiss to examine his two principles, and show what truth there is in them, and how falsehood is hidden under the vizard of truth. In the first place, I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed, that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome & all the rest of her Communion. And again, that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome. So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependants for the Catholic Church. We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church, but we owe not that conformity & subjection to it, which we owe to the Catholic Church of Christ. Before this pretened separation, the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholic Church from their Communion, and thereby had made themselves Schismatical. The world is greater than the City, all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome, only because they would never (no more than their Ancestors) acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome, did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers, as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles, and have been as faithful depositaries of it as they. And their testimony what this Legacy was, is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome, and so much more, by how much they are a greater part of the Catholic Church.  
Secondly, I observe how he makes two principles, the one in doctrine, the other in discipline; though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former, and borroweth its evidence from it; only that he might gain themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church; and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy.  
Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora; It is in vain to make two rules, where one will serve the turn. I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one, in this subsequent form: That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers, as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles, ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed, that is substantial or essential.  
So the Church of England maintains this rule now as well as they. The question only is, who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline, we or they? we by substraction, or they by addition? The case is clear, the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary, that is, the Creed; the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication. The General Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession. Into this Faith were we baptised, unto this Faith do we adhere; whereas they have changed & enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles, as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth: so for Doctrine. Then for discipline, we profess and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years, & all the Eastern, Sowthern and Northern Churches until this day. They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction, and Sovereignty of power above General Counsels, which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know, nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day. Let S. Peter be the first, or chief, or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles, or the first mover in the Church, all this extends but to a primacy of order, the Sovereignty of Ecclesiastical power was in the Apostolical College, to which a general Council now succeedeth. It is evident enough whether they or we do hold ourselves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles.  
Thirdly, whereas he addeth, that The Bishops of Rome as successors of S. Peter inherited his privileges, and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome, that very year wherein this unhappy separation began; as it cometh much short of the truth in one respect, for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave, than ever S. Peter pretended unto; so it is much more short of that Universal Monarchy which the Pope did then, and doth still claim. For, as I have already said, two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion, but excommunicated by him, only because they would not submit their necks to his yoke. And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him, or were not so well able to contest against him, yet when they were overmuch pinched, and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable, did oppose him, and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies, and of the limits of Papal authority, and set bounds unto it, as I have demonstrated in the vindication. So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly, he cometh not near the true question at all, which is not, whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholic Church; he had authority in his Diocese as a Bishop; in his Province as a Metropolitan; in his Patriarchate, as the chief of the five Protopatriarches; and all over, as the Bishop of an Apostolical Church, or successor of S. Peter. But the true question is, what are the right limits and bounds of his authority? whether he have a legislative power over all Christians? whether the patronage and disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him? whether he may convocate Synods, and exercise Jurisdiction, and sell palles, pardons and indulgences, and send Legates, and set up Legantine Courts, and impose pensions at his pleasure, in all kingdoms without consent of Sovereign Princes, and call all Ecclesiastical causes to Rome, and interdict whole nations, and infringe their liberties and customs, and excommunicate Prints, and deprive them of their Realms, and absolve their subjects from their allegiance? Let these pretended branches of Papal power be lopped off, and all things restored to the primitiye form, and then the Papacy will be no more like that insana Laurus, the cause of contention or division in all places. In the mean time, if they want that respect which is due unto them, they may blame themselves, who will not accept what is their just right, unless they may have more.  
Fourthly ' that which follows is a great mistake, that it was and is the constant belief of the C●thelick world, that these principles are Christ's own ordination recorded in Scripture. What? that S. Peter had any power over his fellow-Apostles? or that the Bishop of Rome, succeeds him in that power? It doth not appear out of the holy text that S. Peter was at Rome, except we understand Rome by the name of Babylon. If it be Christ's own ordination recorded in the; scriptures, that S. Peter should have all these privileges, and the Bishop of Rome inherit themashis successor, thenthe great general Council of Chalcedon was much to be blamed, to give equal prviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Patriarch of Rome, and to esteem the Imperial City more than the ordination of Christ. Then the whole Catholic Church was much to be blamed, to receive such an unjust coustirution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome. Lastly, this is so far from the constant belief of the Catholic world, that it is not the belief of the Roman Church itself at this day. The greatest defenders of the Pope's Supremacy dare not say that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth S. Peter by Christ's own ordination, but only by S. Peter's dying Bishop of Rome. They acknowledge that S. Peter might have died Bishop of Antioch, and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him, or he might have died Bishop of no place, and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholic Church, though he died at Rome, as without doubt it is, and may be contracted, or enlarged, or translated from one See to another, for the advantage of Christian Religion. His manifest evidence which he styleth so ample a memory and succession as is stronger than the stock of humane government and action; That is, that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed, and as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could be altered in it, is so far from a demonstration, that it scarcely deserveth the name of a Topical argument. For as an universal uncontroverted tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united, is a convinclng and undeniable evidence, (such a tradition is the Apostles Creed comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith, repeated daily in our Churches, every Christian standing up at it, both to express his assent unto it, and readiness to maintain it, professed by every Christian at his Baptism, either personally when he is of age sufficient, or by his sureties, when he is an infant▪ and the tradition of the universal Church of this age a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us.) So the tradition of some particular persons, or some particular Churches, in particular points or opinions of an inferior nature, which are neither so necessary to be known, nor so firmly believed, nor, so publicly a●d universally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicalages by such uninterrupted succession, doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence. When the Christian world is either not united, or divided about particular opinions or inferior points of faith, it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first, but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages. Or otherwise there is a fault in the conduit-pipe, or an error and failing in the derivatton of the tradition. And both these do take much away from assurance, more or less according to the degree of the opposition. In such questionable and controverted points as these, which are neither so universally received, nor so publicly professed, his assertion is groundless and erroneous, that the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed. Yes, in such controverted points this present age may not know, yea, doth not know what itself believeth, or rather opiniateth, until it come to be voted in a Synod. The most current opinions in the Schoos are not always the most generaly received in the Church, & those which are most plausible in one place, are often hissed out of another. And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current, yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part? or if he did how shall he know that what he believeth in such points is more than an indifferent opinion? Or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church, and delivered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession? No ways, but by universal tradition of the Christian world united, either written or unwritten: but this is all the evibence which they can expect, who confound universal tradition with particular tradition, the Roman Church with the Catholic Church, the Christian world united with the Christian world divided, and Scholastical opinions with Articles of Faith.  
Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences, the one against the Church of England, that since the reformation neither the former rule of unity of Faith, nor the second of unity of government have had any power in the English Church. Whilst he himself knoweth no better what we believe, who live in the same age, how doth he presume, that the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former believed? I have showed him already how we do willingly admit this principle, wherein both his rules are comprehended, that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our Forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles, are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed. This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require. And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a trial with them. There is a fallacy in Logic, called of more interrogations than one, that is, when several questions of different natures, to which one uniform answer cannot be given, yea, or no, are mixed & confounded together. So he doth not only set down this second rule concerning government ambiguously, that a man cannot tell whether he make S. Peter only an head of order among the Apostles, or an head of single power and Jurisdiction also over the Apostles, but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into S. Peter's place by Christ's own ordination, and confounds S. Peter's Ex o dium Vnitatis with the usurped power of Popes, as it was actually exercised by them in latter ages.  
His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome, that the Roman Church with those Churches which continue in communion with it, are the only Churches which have true doctrine in virtue of the first principle above mentioned, and the right government in virtue of the second; and consequently are the entire Catholic or Universal Church of Christians, all others by misbelief or Schism being excluded. Our answer is ready, that the Church of Rome, or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplemental Articles and erroneous additions, contrary to the first principle, and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawful government contrary to the second principle, and are so far from being the entire Catholic Church, that by them both, they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of supertio n and Schism.  
And lastly, where he saith, that my only way to clear our Church from Schism, is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith; or the latter the necessary bond of government, he is doubly mistaken. First, we are the persons accused, our plea is negative, or not guilty. So the proof lieth not upon us, but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismatics.  
Secondly, if the proof did rest upon our sides, we do not approve of●his advi●e▪ It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our subtractions, but they by their additions. There is no doubt but Christ's legacy ought to be preserved inviolable; but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter, and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's heir by Christ's ordination. And that this was the constant belief of the Catholic world at any time. This is his province; let him either make this good or hold his peace.   

Sect. 2.  
So his Prologue is ended, now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments. My first ground was, because not Protestants, but Roman Catholics themselves did make the first separation. To which his first answer is, If it were so, how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning? Many ways. First, it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence, when their best friends and best able to judge, who preached for them, and writ for them, who acted for them, and suffered for them, who in all other things were great zelo●s of the Roman Religion, and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Faggot, did yet condemn th●m, and justify this separation. Secondly, though it doth not always excuse a t●to, from all guilt and punishment, to be misled by others into error, If the blind llead the blind, both fall into the ditch, yet it doth always excuse a tanto, it lesseneth the sin, and extenuateth the guilt. Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schism. If this separation be an Error in Protestants, the Roman Catholics do owe an account to God both for themselves and us, did they find cause to turn the Pope out of England, as an intruder and usurper, and could Protestants, who had no relation to Rome, imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again?  
Thirdly, in this case it doth acquit us not only a tanto, but a toto, not only from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schism, so longas we seek carefuly after truth, and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences. If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin. He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity, 
Epist. 161.  having not invented it himself, but learned it from his erring parents, if he inquire carefully after the truth, and be ready to embrace it, and to correct his errors when he finds them, he is not to be reputed an heretic. If this be true in the case of heresy, it is more true in the case of Schism. Thus if it had been a crime in them, yet it is none in us; but in truth it was neither crime in them, nor us, but a just and necessary duty.  
Secondly, he answereth, that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants, because they persecuted Protestants. For Protestants persecute Protestants; Lutherans, Calvinists; Zwinglians, Puritan; and Beownists persecute one another. What then were Warham and Heath, and Thureleby, Tunscall, and Stokesley, and Gardiner, and Bonner, etc. all Protestants? did Protestant's enjoy Archbishoprics and Bishoprics i● England, and say Masses in those days? will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church, and opposers of the Reformation? If he had wri● thus much whilst they were living, they would have been very angry with him. Yet at the least if they were Protestants, let him tell me which of these Sects they were of, Lutherans, etc. But he telleth us, that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essential part of our reformation, and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant. He is mistaken. This part of the reformation was done to our hands; it was their reformation, not ours. But if he will needs have the kingdoms and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths' days, only for renouncing the Pope's absolute universal Monarchy, I am well contented, we shall not lose by the bargain. Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants, than all the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day, than we want not store of Protestants even in the bosom of the Roman Church itself.   

Sect. 3.  
My second Ground (saith he) was, because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made, but only their ancient Liberties vindicated. This he is pleased to call notoriously false & impudence itself, because a law was made in Henry the eighths' time, and an oath invented, by which was given to the King to be head of the Church, and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England. Is this the language of the Roman Schools? or doth he think perhaps with his outcries and clamours, as the Turks with their Alla, Alla, to daunt us, and drive us from our cause? Christian Reader, of what Communion soever thou art, be but indifferent, and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falsehood and impudence doth rest, between him and me. I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter, that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome, did make no now law, but vindicate their ancient Liberties. It seemeth he confureth the Titles, without looking into the Chapters: did I say, they made no new statutes? No, I cited all the new statutes which they did make, and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here. Yet I said, they made no new law, because it was the law of the land before that statute was made. The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the land; when soever these were infringed, or an attempt made to destroy them, (as the liberties of the Crown and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope) it was the manner to restore them, or to declare them by a statute, which was not operative to make or create new law, but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law. This I told him expressly in the vindication, 
Vind. ch. 4. pag. 86.  and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers, Fitz Herbirt, and my Lord Cook, to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law, but declarative to restore ancient law. This appeareth undeniably by the statute itself. That England is an Empire, and that the King as head of the body politic consisting of the spirituality and temporality, hath plenary power to render final justice for all matters. Here he seeth expressly that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality, which is all that we assert at this day, was the an e nt fundamental law of England. And lest h●e should accuse this Parliament of partiality, I produced another that was more ancient?  

●●. H 8. c. ●2. 16. R. 2. c. 5.  The Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subjected to God in all things touching its Regality, and to no other, and ought not to be submitted to the Pope. Here the King's political Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamental Law of the Land. Let him not say that this was intended only in temporal matters, for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressly Ecclesiastical. What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more, and to accuse me of impudence.  
Secondly, he saith, that I bring divers allegations wherein the Pope's pretences were not admitted, or where the Pope is expressly denied the power to do such and such things. Do we profess the Pope can pretend no more than his right? Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected, when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted? He styleth the Authorities by me produced mere Allegations, yet they are as authentic Records as England doth afford. But though he be willing to blanche over the matter in general expressions of the Pope's pretences, and such or such things, as if the controversy had been only about an handful of goat's wool, I will make bold to represent some of the Pope's pretences, and their declarations against them. And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestors in those particulars, he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question. They declared that it. was the custom or common law of the land, ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa, 
Malm. l. 1. de G●st. pont. Aug. Reg. Honed in h. ●.  that no Pope might be appealed unto without the King's licence. They made a law, that if any one were found bringing in the Pope's letters or mandates into the kingdom, let him be apprehended, and let justice pass upon him without delay, as a Traitor to the King and kingdom. They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiastical causes, concerning the external subsistence, Regiment, and regulating of the Church, & over all Ecclesiastical persons, in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings. They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars, nor make spiritual corporations, nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary, nor appropriate Churches, nor to dispose Benefices by lapse, nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy, but the King did all these things, as I showed at large in the vindication. 
20. H. 3. c. 9  They permitted not the Pope's canon law to have any place in England further than they pleased to receive it. They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects, they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishoprics, and investitures of Bishops. They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the King's licence. They admitted no Legates from the Pope, but merely upon courtesy, and if any was admitted, he was to take his oath to do nothing derogatory to the King or his Crown. 
Stat. Clarendo. Stat. CarLile. Art Cleri. 25 Ed. 3. 37 Ed.▪ 3. ch ●. ●6. Rich. 2. c. ●. Placit an: 1. H. 7. Placit. an. 32. & 34. Edv, 1.  If any man did denounce the Pope's excommunication in England without the King's consent, or bring over the Pope's bull, he forfeited all his goods. So the laws of England, did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject, nor dispose of an English Benefice; nor send a Legate a latere, orso much as an authoritative bull into England nor to re●eive an appeal out of England, without the king's licence.  
But saith he, To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not. This was not merely to limit an authority, but to deny it. What lawful Jurisdiction could remain to him in England, who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence, nor to send any Citation or sentence thither, nor execute any authority over an English Subject, either at Rome by himself, or in England by his deputies without licence? That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it. But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent. Give us the same limitation which our Ancestors always claimed, that no foreign authority shall be exercised in England without leave, and then give the Pope as much authority as you please, volenti non fit injuria, consent takes away error. He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him.  
He demandeth first, were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths' reign? Yes: but it is no strange matter to explain or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses, as we see in magna Charta, the statute of provisoes, and many other Statutes. Secondly, he asketh whether we began our Religion there, that is, at that time when these ancient laws were made? no, I have told him formerly that these statutes were only declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdom. We began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time, before they had a Church at Rome. But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion. Lastly, he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France, Spain, Germany, and Italy itself, and yet they are Catholics, and hold communication with the Pope? Yes, there are some such laws 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, 
Ch. 7. p. 196.  as I have showed in the vindication. And therefore the Pope's friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience, loyal Countries. What ●use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more than we in England, concerns not me nor this present discourse. And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section, he cries out, How ridiculous, how impudent a manner of speaking is this? to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and ears, and all evidence. Nay Reader, it is not I that about to force thee to renounce thy Eyes or Ears; or thy evidence, but it is he that is troubled for fear thou shouldest use thine Eyes and Ears to look upon the evidence. And therefore like the Priests of Cybele on purpose makes all this noise, to deaf thine Ears, lest thou shouldest hear the loud cries of our laws.   

Sect. 4.  
The scope of my fifth Chapter was to show that the Britannique Churches (that is, the Churches of the Britannique Lands) were ever exempted from Foreign Jurisdiction for the first six hundred years, and so ought to continue. His first exception to this is, How the Britannique privileges do belong to us? Have we any Title from the Britannique Churches, otherwise then by the Saxon Christians, who only were our Ancestors? etc. Yes, well enough. First Wales and Cornwall have not only a local, but a personal succession. No man can doubt of their right to the privileges of the Britannique Churches. Secondly, there is the same reason for the Scots and Picts, who were no more subjected to Foreign Jurisdiction, than the Britons themselves. All these put together, Britons, Scots and Picts, did possess about two third parts of the Britannique Lands after the Saxon Conquests were consummated. Thirdly among the Saxons themselves the great kingdoms of Mercia and North umberland were converted by the ancient Scots, and had their Religion & ordination first from them, afterwards among themselves, without any foreign dependence, and so were as free as either Britons or Scots, and aught to continue so. Fourthly throughout the rest of England a world of British Christians after the Conquest did still live mixed with the Saxons, such as they had no need to fear, such as might be serviceable to them, as it commonly fall h out in all Conquests, otherwise the Saxons had not been able to people the sixth part of the Land. Who can deny these poor conquered Christians, and their Christian posterity, though mixed with Saxons, the just privileges of their Ancestors. Lastly, the Saxon Conquest gave unto them as good Title to the privileges, as to the lands of the Britons, so soon as they were capable of them. And so at their first conversion they were free, and continued free, & further than themselves pleased to consent aught to continue free for ever.  
Secondly he objecteth that this pretended execution of the British Churches is false. For nothing is more evident in History, then that the British Churches admitted appellation to Rome at the Council of Sardica. Before he can allege the authority of the Council of Sardica, he must renounce his divine institution of the Papacy. For that Canon submitteth it to the good pleasure of the Fathers; and groundeth it upon the memory of S. Peter, not the institution of Christ. Further, how doth it appear, that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon? This is merely presumption without any proof. The Council of Sardica was no general Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed, as they were before the making of that Canon. Neither were the Canons of the Council of Sardica ever received in England, or incorporated into the English laws, and without such incorporation they did not bind English Subjects. Lastly, this Canon is contradicted by the great general council of Chalcidon, which our Church receiveth. There appeareth not the least footstep of any Papal Jurisdiction exercised in England by Elutheri ns, but the contrary, for he referred the Legislative part to king Leucius, and the British Bishops. And if Pope Coelestin had sent S. german into Britain, to free the Britain's from Pelagianisme, or converted some of the Scots by Paladius, as we have very little reason to believe either the one or the other, yet it maketh nothing at all for the exercise of any Papal Jurisdiction in Britain, Preaching and Converting, & Baptising, & Ordaining, are acts of the key of order, not of Jurisdiction. But these instances, and whatsoever he hath in answer to the British observation of Easter, are pressed more home by the Bishop of Chalcedon, and clearly satisfied in my reply to him. 
Ch. ●.  Whither I refer the Reader.  
But (saith he) that which is mainly to the purpose is, that since this privilege (he meaneth the Supremacy) descends upon the Pope as successor to S. Peter, how far it was executed may be unknown, but, that it was due, none can be ignorant. Words are but wind, when they are utterly destitute of all manner of proof. We acknowledge the Pope to be successor of S. Peter, and (if he do not forfeit it by his own fault) we are ready to pay him such respect as is due to the Bishop of an Apostolical Church; but for any spiritual Monarchy, or Universal Jurisdiction, we know no manner of Title that he hath. His pretence is more from Phocas the Usurper, then from St. Peter. And here though I know not this hereditary privilege of the Pope descended from St. Peter, (there is no knowledge of that which hath no being) and the burden of proving it lies upon him; yet he taxeth me for leaving it, and spending my time about the Pope's Patriarchal power. I observe how ready they are all to decline all manner of discourse concerning the Pope's Patriarchal power; And yet for a long time, it was the fairest flower in their Garland, I know not what is the Reason, but we may well conjecture, because they find that their spiritual Monarchy, and this Patriarchal dignity, are inconsistent the one with the other, in the same subject. They might as well make a King to be a Sheriff of a Shire, or a Precedent of a particular Province within his own Kingdom, as make a spiritual Monarch to be a Patriarch. And yet a Patriarch he was, and so always acknowledged to be, and they cannot deny it.  
Among other proofs of the British Liberty, I produced the answer of Dionothu to Austin, no obscure person as he makes him; but a man famous for his Learning, Abbot and Rector of the famous University of Bangor; wherein there were at that time above 2100 Monks and Students, at the very close of the first six hundred years, That he knew no obedience due to him whom they called the Pope, but obedience of Love: And that under God they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caer●eon. This Record he calleth, a piece of a worn Welsh manuscript, and a manifest forgery of a Counterfeit knave. And to prove it counterfeit, he produceth three reasons. First, That the word Pope without any addition is put for the Bishop of Rome; which if our great Antiquaries can show in these days, he will confess himself surprised. I shall not need to trouble any of our great Antiquaries about it. It will suffice to commit him and his friend Cardinal Bellarmine together about it. I see, friends are not always of one mind. 
L. 2. de Ro● Pont. c. 3●, Act. 16.  Thus he, Cum absolute pronunciatur Papa, ipse solus intelligitur, ut patet ex confilio chalcedonensi: Beatissimus et Apostolicus vir Papa hoc nobis praecipit. Nec additur Leo, aut Romanus, aut nobis Romae, aut aliquid aliud. When the word Pope is put alone, the Bishop of Rome only is to be understood, as appeareth out of the Council of Chalcedon, [The most blessed and Apostolical man the Pope doth command us this] Neither is there added Pope Leo, or the Pope of Rome, or the Pope of the City of Rome, or any other thing.  
His second exception hath no more weight than the former. That there was no such Bishopric as Caerleon in those days, the See being translated 50. years before that to St. David's; Where is the contradiction? The name of the old Diocese is Caerleon. The new See or Throne was the new Abbey Church erected a● Menevia, which place posterity called St. David's. But St. david's could not be called St. David's whilst he himself lived, nor afterward, until custom and tract of time had confirmed such an appellation. Some would make us believe that St. David and St. Greg●ry died upon the same day, and then he was still living when Dinoth gave this answer; But let that be as it will, for it is not much material. St. David after the Translation of his See died Archbishop of Caerleon. 
Britt. hist L. 11. c. 3.  Tunc obi●t sanctissimus urbis Legionum Archiepiscopus David in Meneviae Civitate, etc. Then died the most holy Archbishop of Caerleon St. David in the City of Menevia; 
Pag. 106:  And long after his death it still retained the name of Caerleon, even after it was commonly called St. David's. So much Sr. Henry Spilman might have put him in mind of: Discesserat ante haec dignitas a Caerlegione ad Land●viam sub Dubr●tio, et mox ● Landavia ad Meneviam cum sancto Davide, etc. Sed retento pariter Caerlegionis titulo. And lest he should account Sr. Henry Spilman partial, Let him hear Giraldus Cambrensis, Habuimus apud Meneviam Vrbis legionum Archiepiscopos successive viginti quinque, 
Dialog. de Eccles. Mcne. distinct, 3.  quorum primus fuit sanctus David etc. We had at Menevia, five and twenty Archbishops of Caerleon, whereof St. David was the first. What can be more plain? should a man condemn every Author forcounterfeit, wherein St. Alban is called Verolam presently after St. Alban death? It is an ordinary thing for the same City to have two names, and much more the same Bishopric: one from the old See, another from the new: or one from the Diocese, another from the See: as the Bishop of Ossory or Kilkenny indifferently.  
His third exception is so slight, that I cannot find the edge of it, because Sr. Henry Spilman found no other antiquity in it worth the mention, which shrewdly implies, that the Book was made for this alone. And how doth he know that Sr. Henry Spilman found no other antiquities in it? There might be many other British Antiquities in it; And yet not proper for a collection of Ecclesiastical Counsels: Or if there had been no other Antiquity in it, Would he condemn his Creed for a counterfeit, because it is not huddled together confusedly, with some other Treatises in one volume? But to demonstrate evidently to him how vain all his trifling is against the testimony of Dionothus, Why doth he not answer the coroberatory proof, which I brought out of venerable Bede and others, of two British Synods held at the same time, wherein all the British Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome, of which all our historiographers do bear witness? Why doth he not answer this, but pass by it in so great silence? He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other, since it is so well attested, that Dionothus was a great actor and disputer in that business.   

Sect. 5.  
In my sixth Chapter, I proved three things: First, that the King and Church of England, had sufficient authority, to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch. Secondly, that they had just grounds to do it. And thirdly, that they did it with due moderation.  
Concerning the first point, he chargeth me the second time, for insisting upon a wrong Plea; that is, their Patriarchal Authority, which he confesseth to be humane and mutable. I have formerly intimated, why they are so loath to entertain any discourse concerning the Popes Patriarchate: because they know not how to reconcile a Monarchy of divine institution, with an Aristocracy of humane Institution. When I first undertook this subject, I conceived, that the great strength of the Roman Samson did lie in his Patriarchate; But since this Refuter quitteth it, as the Pope himself hath done, not for six hundred years only, (he speaks too sparingly) but for a thousand years, ever since Phocas made Boniface universal Bishop, I am well contented to give over that subject, upon these two conditions; First, that he do not presume that the Pope is a spiritual Monarch, without proving it. Secondly, that he do not attempt to make Patriarchal Privileges to be Royal Prerogatives.  
Yet he will not leave this humane Right before we have resolved him three questions. First, (saith he) suppose the Christian world had chosen to themselves one head for the preservation of unity in Religion; What wrongs must that head do, to be sufficient grounds, both for the deposition of the person, and abolition of the Government? Nay, put the case right, Suppose the Christian World should choose one for order sake, to be their Precedent, or Prolocuter in their General Assembly, and he should endeavour to make himself their Prince, upon some feigned Title, Did not he deserve to be turned out of his employment, & if they found it expedient to have another chosen in his place?  
Secondly, He supposeth, that this alteration should be made by some one party of the Christian Commonwealth, which must separate itself from the communion of the rest of Christianity; Ought not far weightier causes than these to be expected? One mistake begets another, as one circle in the water doth produce another We have made no such separation from any just Authority, instituted by the Catholic Church: We nourish a more Catholic Communion then themselves. But if our Steward will forsake us, because we will not give him leave to become our Master, who can help it?  
Thirdly, He supposeth, that by setting aside this Supreme Head, eternal dissensions will inevitably follow in the whole Church of Christ; and then demandeth, Whether the refusal to comply with the humours of a lustful Prince, be ground enough to renounce so necessary an Authority? How should the refusal to comply be any such ground? Certainly he means, the compliance with the humours of a lustful Prince. I pass by the extravagancy of the expression. Whatsoever they have said, or can say concerning Henry the eighth, so far as it may reflect upon the Church of England, is cleared in my reply to R.C.  
First, He begs the question, Christ never instituted the Apostles, never constituted the Catholic Church, never acknowledged any such Supreme Head of Power and Jurisdiction.  
Secondly, The Church and Kingdom of England, had more lawful, just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome, than any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever, as he cannot choose but see in this very Chapter. But who is so blind as he that will not see?  
Thirdly, We do confess, that the Primitive Papacy, that is, an Exordium unitatis, a beginning of unity; was an excellent means of Concord. We do not envy the Bishop of Rome, or any Honour which the Catholic Church did allow him; But modern Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us, is rather (as Nilus saith) the cause of all dissensions, 
Nilus de primatis.  and Controversies of the Christian World.  
Lastly, To his demand concerning the English Court and Church, Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy, and to the extirpation of Episcopacy; for the misgovernment of Princes, or abuses of Prelates? I answer, No; But this will not advantage his cause at all, for three Reasons; First, never were any such abuses as these objected, either to Princes or Prelates in England.  
Secondly, we seek 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 a papal Sovereignty of Jurisdiction. His parliamentary Prelacy hath more sound than weight. We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacy, as he will find that undertakes it.   

Sect. 6.  
We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome. Reader, observe and wonder! All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds: they have declaimed, that there can be no just grounds of such a separation. They have declared in the Hypothesis, that we had no grounds, but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince. Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads.  
First, The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court, committed from age to age without hope of Remedy.  
Secondly, Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights, Civil, Ecclesiastical, sacred and profane of all orders of men, Kings, Nobles, Bishops, etc.  
Thirdly, the malignant influence, and effects of this foreign jurisdiction, destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline, producing dis-union in the Realm, factions & animosities between the Crown and the Mitre, intestine discord between the King and his Barons, bad intelligence with neighbour Princes, and foreign wars.  
Fourthly, a list of other inconveniences, or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence: as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them, exposed to manifest peril of Idolatry, to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendom, to approve the Pope's rebellion against general Counsels, and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegiance, to maintain the Pope in his rebellious usurpations.  
Lastly, The weakness of the Pope's pretences, and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from foreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Council of Ephesus: Certainly, he ought to have showed, either that these grounds conjoined were not sufficient, or that they were not true, or that there were other remedies; But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence, which is as mueh as yield the Cause.  
Thus he, It is then of little concernment to examine, whether his complaints be true or false, since he does not show there was no other remedy but division? What? is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no? It belongs not to me to show that there was no other remedy, that is, to prove a negative; but if he will answer my grounds, it belongs to him to show that there was other remedy; yet so far as a negative is capable of proof, I have showed even in this Chapter, that there was no other remedy: I showed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England, so as to call them to a personal account, I showed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope, in Council, out of Council, for ease from their oppressions, in diversages, and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner. He adds, And much more since it is known, if the authority be of Christ's institution, no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment. This is a very euthumematical kind of arguing, If the sky fall, we shall have larks. He knows right well, that it is his assumption which is latent, that we deny, that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute.  
He proceedeth, But most, because all other Catholic Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends; yet they remain still in communion with the Church of Rome, and after we have broke the Ice, do not hold it reasonable to follow our example. Few or no Catholic Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath, which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight, a Well that could not be drawn dry. All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Privilege to be exempt from foreign jurisdiction, as Britain hath. Yet all other Catholic Countries, do maintain their own Privileges inviolated, and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome. Some other Catholic Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy than England doth; yet England is not alone in the separation, so long as all the Eastern, Southern, Northern, and so great a part of the Western Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome, and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we; yet if it were otherwise, we must live by precepts, not by examples.  
Nay, (saith he) The former ages of our Country had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy out of the Land: yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church, then attempt so destructive an innovation, Mistake not us so much, we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholic Church, as well as our Ancestors, at far as the Roman Court will give us leave: neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon, and abused by the Court of Rome, and to sit still in the mean time, and blow their noses. They did by their laws exclude the Pope's supremacy out of England, so far as they judged it necessary for the tranquillity of the Kingdom, that is, his patronage of Churches, his Legates and Legantine Courts, his bulls and sentences, and excommunications, his legislative power, his power to receive appeals, except only in cases where the Kingdom did give consent. They threatened him further to make a wall of separation between him and them. We have more experience than our Ancestors had, that their remedies were not Sovereign or sufficient enough; that if we give him leave to thrust in his head, he will never rest until he have drawn in all his body after, whilst there are no bonds to hold him but national laws.  
Lastly, he pleads that the pretences on which the English Schism was originally made, were far different from those which I now take up to defend it. What inward motives or impulsives our Reformers had to separate from the Court of Rome, God knoweth, not I, that concerneth themselves not me. But that there were sufficient grounds of separation, I demonstrate, that concerneth the cause, that concerneth me. Their inanimadvertence might make the separation less Justifiable to them, but no less lawful in itself, or to us. These causes are as just grounds to us, now to continue the separation, as they could have been to them, then if they had been observed, to make the separation, and most certainly they were then observed, or the greatest part of them, as the liberty of the English Church, the weakness of the Pope's pretences, the extortions of the Court of Rome, their gross usurpation of all men's rights, and the inconsistency of such a foreign discipline with the right ends of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. These things he ought to have answered in particular, if he would have said any thing at all, but it seemeth he chose rather to follow the counsel of Alcibiades to his Uncle, when he found him busy about his accounts, that he should study rather how to give no account.   

Sect. 7.  
The next thing which I set forth, was the due moderation of the Church of England in their reformation. This he calleth a very pleasant Topick. Qu●cquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis. The saddest Subjects were very pleasant Topics to Democritus. The first part of our moderation was this, we deny not to other Churches, the true being of Churches, nor possibility of Salvation, nor separate from the Churches, but from their accidental errors, and this I showed to have been S. Cyprians moderation whereby he purged himself and his party from Schism, neminem judicantis, etc. judging no man, removing no man from our Communion, for difference in opinion. This is, saith he, to declare men Idolaters, and wicked, and nevertheless to communicate with them, reconciling thus, light to darkness, and making Christ and Antichrist to be of the same Society. I spoke of our forbearing to censure other Churches, and he answers of communicating with them. That is one aberration from the purpose. But I may give him more advantage than that in this case. It is one thing to communicate with material Idolaters, Heretics, or Schismatics in their Idolatry, Heresy, or Schism, which is altogether unlawful: and it is another thing to communicate with them in pious offices, and religious duties, which may in some cases be very lawful. The orthodox Christians did sometimes communicate with the Heretical Arreans. And the primitive Catholics with the Schismatical novations, in the same public divine offices, as I have formerly showed in this treatise. But they communicated with them in nothing that did favour the Heresy of the one, or the Schism of the other. The Catholics called the Donatists their brethren, and professed that they were obliged to call them brethren, as we read in Optatus. But the Donatists would not vouchsafe to acknowledge the Catholics for their brethren, upon this refuters principles, that a man cannot say his own Religion is true, but he must say the opposite is false, nor hold his own certain, without censuring another man's. Yet it was not the Catholics, but the Donatists that did mingle light and darkness together. These following princlples, are so evident and so undeniable, that no man can question the truth of them, without questioning his own judgement. That particular Churches may fall into errors. 2. That all errors are not essentials, or fundamentals, 3. That those errors which are not in essentials do not destroy the true being of a Church, 4. That nevertheless every one is bound according to the just extent of his power, to free himself from them. To dote so upon the body as to cherish the Ulcers, and out of hatred to the Ulcers to destroy the being of the body, are both extremes. That is, so to dote upon the name of the Church as to cherish the errors of it, or to hate the errors so much as to deny the being of the Church  
Preposterous zeal which is like Hell, hot without light, maketh errors to be essentials, and different opinious different Religions, 
1. Cor. 3.12.  because it will not distinguish between the good foundation which is Christ, and the hay and stubble that is builded thereupon.  
The second proof of our moderation is our inward Charity; we leave them unwillingly, as a man would leave his fathers or his brother's house infected with the Plague, desirous to return so soon as it is cleansed. His answer is, that if we did manifest it by our external works, they might have occasion to believe it. I did prove it by our external works, namely our daily prayers for them in our Litany, and especially our solemn aniversary prayer for their conversion every good Friday, though we are not ignorant how they do as solemnly anathematise us the day before  
The third proof of our moderation was this, that we do not challenge a new Church, a new Religion, or new holy orders; we obtrude no innovation upon others, nor desire to have any obtruded upon ourselves; we pluck up the weeds, but retain all the plants of saving truth. To this he objects two things:  
First, to take away goodness is the greatest evil, and nothing is more mischievous then to abrogate good laws and good practices. This is not to fight with us, but with his own shadow: I speak of taking away errors, and he speaketh against taking away goodness: I speak of plucking up weeds, and he speaks against abrogating good laws and practices, yea, of taking away the new Testament. Where is the contradiction between us? These are no weeds but good plants. We retain whatsoever the primitive Fathers judged to be necessary, or the Catholic Church of this present age doth unanimously retain, which is sufficient. We retain other opinions also and practices, but not as necessary Articles or Essentials. Let him not tell us of the Scots reformation, who have no better an opinion of it than it deservs.  
His second Ojection is, that he who positively denies, over adds the contrary to what he takes away, he that makes it an article that there is no Purgatory, no Mass, no prayer to Saints, has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary. Therefore this kind of moderation is a pure folly. It may be he thinketh so in earnest, but we know the contrary. We do not hold our negatives to be Articles of Faith. How should a negative, that is, a non 'em, be a fundamental? This is a true proposition, either there is a purgatory, or there is not a purgatory. But this other is a falls proposition; either it is an Article of Faith that there is a purgatory, or it is an article of Faith, that there is no purgatory. Faith is a certain assent grounded upon the truth and authority of the revealer, opinion is an uncertain inclining of the mind more to the one part of the contradiction than the other. There are an hundred contradictions in Theological opinions between the Romanists themselves, much grearer than some of these three controversies, wherein he instanceth. Yet they dare not say, that either the affirmatives or negatives are articles of Faith.  
In things not necessary a man may fluctuate safely between two opinions indifferently, or incline to the one more than the other without certain adherence, or adhere certainly without Faith. We know no other necessary Articles of Faith, but those which are comprehended in the Apostles creed.  
The last proof of our moderation was our readiness in the preparation of our minds to believe and practise whatsoever the Catholic Church, even of this present age doth universally believe and practise. This he saith is the greatest mock fool proposition of all the rest. Wherefore? For two reasons. First we say there is no universal Church. Then we have not only renounced our Creed, that is, the badge of our Christianity, whereof this is an express Article, but our reason also. If there be many particular churches: wherefore not one universal Church, whereof Christ himself is head and king? His only ground of this calumny, is because we will not acknowledge the Roman Church, that is, a particular Church to be the universal Church.  
The second reason is because we say if there be a Catholic Church, it is indetermined, that is, no man knows which it is. Then it is all one as if it were not. Non existentis & non apparentis eadem est ratio. It is a brave thing to calumniate boldly, that something may stick. We know no virtual Church indeed, that is, one person who hath in himself eminently, and virtually as much certainty of truth and infallibility of judgement, as the universal Church; but we acknowledge the representative Church, that is, a general council, and the essential Church, that is, the multitude, or multitudes of believers, either of all ages which make the Symbolical Church, or of this age which make the present Catholic Church; but mala mens, malus animus. He knoweth right well that they themselves are divided into five or six several opinions what that Catholic Church is, into the authority whereof they make the last resolution of their Faith. So it is not true of us, but of themselves it is true, that their Catholic Church is indeterminate, that is, they know not certainly what it is.   

Sect. 8.  
My fifth ground was, that what the king and Church of England did, in the separation of themselves from the Court of Rome, is no more than all other Princes and Republics of the Roman communion have done in effect, or pleaded for, that is, made themselves the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances. For proof whereof I instanced in the Emperors, the Kings of France, and the liberties of the Sallicane Church, the Kings of Spain in their Kingdoms and Dominions of Sicily, Castille, Flanders, the Kings of Portugal, the Republic of Venice, and in all these particular cases which were in difference between the Popes and us, concerning the calling of Ecclesiastical Synods, making of Ecclesiastical laws, disposing Benefices, reforming the Churches within their own dominions, rejecting the Pope's sentences, bulls, Legates, Nuncios, shutting up their Courts, forbidding appeals, taking away their tenths, first fruits, pensions, impositions, etc. To all which neither R. C. nor S. W. answers one word in particular. Yet he pays me in generals. Vir dolofus versatur in generalibus. If his cause would have borne it, we had had a more particular answer.  
First he asketh what nonsense will not an ill cause bring a desperate man to? Concedo omnia. I grant all saving only the application. He must seek for the nonsense, and the ill cause, and the desperate man nearer home. But what is the ground of his exception? nothing but a contradiction, first I would persuade the world that Papists are most injurious to Princes, perjudicing their Crown, and subjecting their dominions to the will of the Pope, and when I have scarce done saying so, with a contrary blast I drive as far back again, confessing all I said to be false, and that the same Papists hold the Doctrine of the Protestants in effect. If he will accuse other men of contradiction, he must not overshoot himself so in his expressions, but keep himself to the rules of opposition, ad idem, secundum idem, & eodem tempore. Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect, and do them right in another. They may be disloyal at one time, and loyal at another. Here is no shadow of contradiction. But his greatest fault is to change the subject of the proposition I did not plead either that Papists were injurious to Princes, or that the same Papists did hold the very doctrine of the Protestants, nor so much as mention Papists in general, either to justify them or to accuse them. But I said, that the Pope and the Court of Rome had been injurious to Roman Catholic Princes, and that Roman Catholic Princes with their party had done themselves right against Popes and their Court. Here is no contrary blast, nor contradiction, any more than it is a contradiction to say, that the Gnelphes maintained the Pope's cause against the Emperor, and the Gibilines maintained the Emperor's cause against the Pope, because both factions were Roman Catholics, both Italians.  
He urgeth, that the Popes did not cast out of their Communion those Cotholick divines who opposed them, which argueth, that it is not the Roman Religion, nor any public tenet in their Church that binds any to these rigorous assertions which the protestants condemn. I know it is not their religion. Our Religion and theirs is the same. I know it is not the general tenet of their Church. But it is the tenet of the Court of Rome, and the governing party amongst them. It is but a poor comfort to one that is oppressed by their Court, to know that there are particular Doctors which hold that he is wronged. But to his question. Did the Pope never excommunicate those Doctors that opposed him? Yes, sundry times, both Princes and Doctors, and whole Nations. Sometimes he spared them, perhaps he did not take notice of them whilst they were living, the Pope and his Court have somewhat else to do then to inquire after the tenets of private Doctors. perhaps they lived about the time of the counsels of Constance and Basile, when it had been easier for the Pope to have cast himself out of his throne, then them out of the Church; or perhaps they lived in places without his reach: he knows who it was that said, my Lord the Emperor defend me with the sword, and I will defend thee with my pen. What did the Sorban Doctors in former ages value the Court of Rome? Now of late the Court of Rome have learned another method to purge their Doctors, when they displease them. It is a shrewd sign when men are glad to cut out the tongues of their own witnesses.  
Here he falls into a bitter invective against our bloody laws, and bloodier execution. It is hard when they come to accuse us of blood guiltiness, I could require him with a black list of murders and Massacres to the purpose indeed: the Waldenses alone might furnish me with overmuch store of matter, whose first beginning is so ancient, that it seemeth to me like the Spring head of Nilus, scarcely to be searched out, but innocent blood crieth loud enough of itself, without help. I choose rather at this time to use the buckler then the sword: the accusation of them is no acquittal of us; whatsoever he saith here against the Church or State of England for cruelty, is clearly and satisfactorily answered in my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, 
C. 3. Sect. 4.  whither I refer him.  
Afterwards he telleth how unlucky I am in this Chapter, that do absolutely clear their Religion of Calumny, which Protestants most injuriously charge upon them, that their Vassalage to the Pope destroys their subjection to their Prince, by citing so many instances, where Catholics remaining such, have disobeyed the Pope. 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. It is not accused by us, but the envious man hath sowed tares among the wheat. No man can deny but that seditious opinions have been devised and dispersed and cherished in the Church of Rome in this last age, which were destructive to Loyalty, and due subjection to Princes; and how some of our own country men came to be seasoned, with these pernicious principles more than other nations, 
Sop. cap. 3. Sect. 4.  I have partly showed in the place alleged. The instances by me cited in this chapter were before these poisonous opinions were hatched, and so are alogether impertinent to that purpose for which he urgeth them. They prove that those Roman Catholics at that time were loyal Subjects: they do not prove that all Roman Catho●icks at this time are loyal Subjects; that were to infer a general conclu●i●n from particular premises, or to argue àminore ad majus affirmatiuè, which is mere Sophistry. But I shall readily grant more than he proveth, and as much as he can seek with reason, that those seditious doctrines were never generally received, nor yet by the greater and sounder part of the Roman Church, and that at this day I hope they are almost buried. If ever God be so gracious unto us, as to suffer us to meet together in a Council or Assembly, either of the Christian world, or of the Western Church; the first thing to be done were to weed out all seditious opinions, both among them and us, which are scandalous to Religion, and destructive to all civil societies.  
In the next place he fancieth to himself a platform of the Christian Church. That Christ being to build his spiritual Kingdom upon the Basis of a multitude of earthly Kingdoms, saw it necessary, to make a bond of unity betwixt the Churches; that for this reason he gave the principality among his Apostles to St. Peter, and consequently to his Successors the Bishops of Rome, which one See m●ght by the ordinary providence of Almighty God, keep a continuance of succession from St. Peter to the end of the world, which the vicissitude of humane nature, permitted not to all the Apostolical Sees. Hence Rome is invested with the privilege of Mother and Mistress of the Church, and the hinge upon which the common government and unity of the Church depends, which being removed the Church vanisheth into a pure Anarchy. Excellently well contrived. Sr. Thomas Moores Utopia, or my Lord Verulam's new Atlantis may give place unto it: What great pity it was that he had not been one of Christ's Counsellors when he first form his Church; Only it seemeth a little too saucy with Christ. Christians should argue thus, Christ form his Church thus, therefore it is the best form: Not thus, this is the best form; therefore Christ form his Church after this manner.  
The old Hermit prayed to God for rain, & fair weather for his Garden, as he thought most expedient for it, and had his desire; yet his Garden did not prosper, whereas other Gardens which wanted that special privilege prospered well; his brother Hermite told him the reason of it. Thou fool, di●st thou think thyself wiser than God? I wonder he did not go one step higher, to make the Bishop of Rome universal Emperor also; for prevention of Civil Wars, and bloodshed among Christians, and so he might have been Rex idem hominum d●vumque Sacerdos.  
Now let us take his frame in pieces, and look upon it in parcels. St. Paul reckons up, not one but seven bands of unity among Christians, one body, one spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
Eph. 4.4.  one God and father of all. First, one body, What can be more prodigious then for the members of the same body to war one w●th another? One Spirit, that is, the Holy-Ghost, which is the soul that enliveth the Church; Can there be a better bond of unity to the body, than the soul? One hope of our Calling, we must be all friends in Heaven, Why do we bite and kick one another in the way thither? One Lord, by whose blood we are redeemed, Should they pursue one another as mortal enemies, who serve the same Lord? One faith delivered by the Apostles, do not adulterate it with new devises, to raise contentions. One Baptism, we are marked with the same cogniscance, we use the same word, we fight under the same Standard, why do we mistake one another for enemies? Lastly, One God and Father of all, who is above all by his excellency, through all by his providence, and in all by the inhabitation of his grace; Above all as Father, through all as Son, in all as Holy-Ghost; for Christian to fight against Christian, is to divide this one God, and commit him against himself. Among all these bands of unity, why did St. Paul forget (unus Papa) one Bishop of Rome, or spiritual Monarch. If there had been any such thing, here had been the proper place for it.  
Secondly, I will not dispute with him about this, whether Christ did give St. Peter a principality among the Apostles, so he do not rob Paul to cloth Peter, but likewise consent to me, that this was but a principality of order; and that the principality of power, did r●st in the College of the Apostles there: and now in their Successors a General Council, which is a sufficient band of unity, as I have formerly demonstrated. I wish this Refuter had expressed himself more clearly, whether he be for a beginning of order & unity, or for a single head of Power & Jurisdiction; for to me he seemeth to hover between two, as if he would gladly say more for the Pope if he could.  
Thirdly, it followeth, and consequently to his Successors; I like the general proposition well enough, and consequently to his Successors. For the reason of the first institution being of perpetual necessity, seemeth to imply strongly, that such an headship of order ought to continue in the Church, or at least may lawfully be continued in the Church. But I like not his application to the Bishops of Rome, or his Successors in the See of Rome; That consequence is but like a Rope of sand. There is no necessity at all, that he who succeedeth a man in a particular Bishopric, should succeed him in a higher office, which is not annexed to that Bishopric. As if a man should argue thus, Such a Bishop of such a See died Lord Chancellor of England; therefore all succeeding Bishops of the same See, must succeed him likewise in the Chancellor ship of England. If the Catholic Church do nominate the Bishop of Rome for the time, that is another matter; but that is no perpetuity to the Bishops of that See for ever, whether the Church will or not.  
Certainly, Christ did leave the chief Mesuagery of his family to his Spouse, that is, the Church, and not to any single servant, further than as subservient to his sp●use. But to make Rome to be the M●stris of the Church, as this Resuter doth, and the Bishop o● Rome the Master of the Church, is s●ch an indignity and affront, as no husband would tolerate, much less Christ, 
Eph. 5. ●  who is proposed to all husbands as the perfect pattern of conjugal love Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.  
His argument drawn from the vicissitude of humane affairs, cu●s the throat of his cause; for, what privilege hath Rome from this vicissitude more than other places? It may be demolished and destroyed by enemies, it may be swallowed by an earthquake as some great Cities have been, it may become heretical, or Mahometan. And in all these cases must it still continue Mistress of the Church? That were an hard condition, Nem● sapiens Ligat sibimanus, The Church n●ver disposeth so of her offices, that she may not be able to move the rudder, according to the change of wind and weather, and to change the mesuagery of Ecclesiastical affairs, according to the vicissitide of humane things.  
Let not the Refuter trifle between a primacy of order, and a Supremacy of power: a Tyranny and an Anarchy are the two extremes. The Church may shake off tyranny, and yet not vanish into a pure Anarchy, nor the frame thereof be utterly dissolved; these are but made Dragons. Between a tyranny and an Anarchy, there is an Aristocracy, which was the ancient Regiment of the Christian Church; they know no Monarch but Christ their spiritual King. A primacy of order is as sufficient, nay more sufficient in this case, to prevent all these dangers which he seemeth to fear, and to procure all those advantages which he mentioneth, than a Supremacy of power. And I hold it a reasonable proposition, that whosoever is admitted to the one, should disclaim the other.  
In the next passage, he forgetteth himself over much, when he maketh the Pope's principality to be the bridle which our Saviour hath put into the mouth of his Church: So he makes the Church to be the Beast, and the Pope's office to be to ride upon the Church; No, he quite mistaketh the matter. Our Saviour hath put the bridle into the hand of his Church, D●c Ecclesiae, tell it to the Church, not into the mouth of his Church; and the Pope at the best is but one of the Church's Escuriers. Next, he proclaimeth the advantages of the Papacy. He doth well to cry up his cause: No man proclaimeth in the market that he hath rotten wares to sell. But it is but with an if, If this authority were duly preserved and governed, no dissension in faith or discipline, nay not any war among Christian Princes, could annoy the world. What Christian Prince can choose but be glad to have an arbitrator so prudent, so pious, so disinterressed as a good Pope should be? He brings to my mind, our old distinction between Plato and Aristotle, Plato script sit somnians, Aristoteles vigilans, Plato writ dreaming, and Aristotle waking: the one looked upon men as they ought to be, and the other as they were, which was much more proper for one that was to write politics.  
If all things were as they should be, we should have a brave world: bu● if we look upon the case without an if, or as he should be, we shall find the Papacy as it is settled, or would have been, so far from deserving these eulogiums which he gives it, that it hath been the cause either procreating, or conserving, or both, of all the Schisms, and all the greater Ecclesiastical dissensions in Christendom, and rather an incentive to wa● for its own interest and advantage, than a means of peace and reconciliation among Christian Princes.  
But now Reader, look to thyself that thou receive no hurt; for he hath undertaken to let us see all the arrows which I have shot against them, falling down upon mine own head. Yes, at the Greek Calends, when an oblique and a perpendicular motion are the s●me. But let us see how he attempts to prove it: Because the Papacy stands firm, and strong in all these Countries which have resisted the Pope, when they conceived that he encroached on their liberties, etc. whereas as the Reformation has made England an headless Synagogue, without brotherhood or order. Neither ●o, nor so, the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches admit no Papacy, nor any thing higher than the chiefest Patriarch. A great part of the Western Churches, have shaken off the Roman yoke; and the rest who do still acknowledge the Papacy, do it with such cautions and reservations, and restrictions, especially France and Sicily, that I think the Cardinal Legate in the Council of Trent, had reason to say, that he would rather persuade the Pope to give up his Keys to St. Peter, then hold them upon such terms. I believe, not one of them all doth admit such a Papacy, as the Roman Court endeavoured to have obtruded up●n them.  
Whereas he styleth England, an headless Synagogue, without brotherhood or order, he seeth or may see, that for order, we are as much for it as himself: for Christian Brotherhood, we maintain it three times larger than himself; and for his headless Synagogue, they want no head who have Christ for a spiritual head, a General Council for an Ecclesiastical head, and a gracious Christian Prince for a political head. That Title would better have become themselves about two or three months since, who sometimes have two or three heads, sometimes a broken head, sometimes never an head.  
The Protestants do not attempt to make themselves a distinct body from the rest of the Christian world, much less do they arrogate to themselves alone the name of the true Church, as the Romanists do; but they content themselves to be part of the Catholic Church. That they have any differences among them either in doctrine or discipline, it is the fault of the Court of Rome, which would not give way to an uniform reformation of the Western Church; But that their controversies are neither so many, nor of any such moment as he imagineth, the Harmony of Confessions published in print, will demonstrate to all the world. So far is he wide from the truth, that they have no more unity than a body composed of Turks, Jews, Heretics and Christians; who have neither the same body, nor the same spirit, nor the same hope of their calling, nor the same Lord, nor the same faith, nor the same baptism, nor the same God to their Father: But he faith, our faith consisteth in unknown Fundamentals, which is a mere sh●ft, until we exhibit a list of such points. We need not, the Apostles have done it to our hands in the Creed, and the Primitive Church hath ordained, that no more should be exacted of any, of Turks or Jews in point of faith, when they were converted from Paganism, or Jewisme to Christianity.   

Sect. 9  
In the eighth chapter, I proved that the Pope and the Court of Rome, were most guilty of the Schism, and shall not need to repeat or fortify any thing; that which he opposeth being of so little consequence.  
To the first argument, he denieth that the Church of Rome is but a sister or a mother, and not a Mistress to other Churches: It is their saying it, and our denying it (saith he) till they have proved what they affirm. To gratify him, I will do it though it be needless. Let him consult with St. Bernard in his fourth Book of consideration, to his most loving friend Eugenius the Pope, so he styles him, Amantissime Eugenio. If they would listen to St. Bernard's honest advice, it would tend much to the peace of Christendom. Si auderem dicere, If I durst say it, these are the pastures of devils rather than of sheep. And, Exi de Hur Caldeorum, or, Go out of this Hur of the Chaldeans, (Rome) It will not repent thee of thy banishment, to have changed the City for the world. But to satisfy his demand. 
Bernard. de consider. l. 4.  Thus that Father, Consideres ante omnia sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam cui Deo auctore praees Ecclesiarum matrem esse non Dominam, te vero non Dominum Episcoporum sed unum ex ipsis. Above all things consider, that the holy Roman Church over which thou art placed by God, is a Mother of other Churches, not a Lady or Mistress, and thou thyself art not a Master of other Bishops, but one of them.  
Secondly, He denieth that the Church of Rome obtrudeth any new Creeds, whereas I accused not the Church of Rome for it, but the Court of Rome, & for proof produced the Bull of Pius the fourth in the point, as it is set down at the end of the Council of Trent; wherein he sets forth a new form of confession of faith, containing many new Articles, which he enjoineth all the Clergy, and all Religious persons to swear unto: and that they will teach it to all others under their charge, that there may be an uniform confession of faith among Christians, Extra quam non est salus, without which there is no salvation; If he deny this authority, he and I are nearer an union than the Court of Rome and he.  
My third argument was, because they maintain the Pope in his rebellion against a general Council. To this argument he answers not a word, so as I am confirmed more and more in my suspicion, that notwithstanding all his specious pretences for the Papacy, he himself is one of those, who prefer the Council before the Pope, and attribute to the Pope only an Exordium unitatis. But he spareth me not upon the by, telling the Reader that I lay the axe not to the root of Schism, but to mine own legs, & bids me good night, my wits are in the dark. If it were so that I should steal a nap, it is neither felony nor treason, Aliquando bonus dormit at Homerus. But what is it that raiseth this great wind of words? forsooth because I say, that (the Papacy) (qua talis) as it is now maintained by many, with Superiority above General Counsels, etc. is the cause, either procteant, or conservant, or both, of all, or the most part of the Schisms in Christendom. To say as it is maintained by many, doth imply that it is not so maintained by all, and therefore not the Papacy qua talis; for so Catholics have not the least difference among them. He might as well tell us, that wherein they all agree, they have no difference. But do not some Roman Catholics subject the Pope to a General Council? and other subject a General Council to the Pope? Do not the greater part of them, both for number, dignity and power, who sit at the stern, who hold the bridle, (that he spoke of even now) in their hands, to govern the Church, subject a General Council to the Pope? And then might not I say well [the Papacy qua talis] my conclusion was not against the Church of Rome in general; but against the Pope and Court of Rome, that they were guilty of Schism. And now to let him see that I did not sleep, I will reduce mine argument into form, without a [qua talis.] They who subject a General Council, which is the highest Tribunal of Christians to the Pope, are guilty of Schism; but the Pope and Court of Rome, with all their maintainers, that is, the much greater part of their writers, do subject a General Council to the Pope; therefore they are guilty of Schism. Of the same nature is his exception to my fourth charge, They who take away the line of Apostolical succession throughout the world, except in the See of Rome, who make all Episcopal Jurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome, and to be founded in his Laws, to be imparted to other Bishops, as the Pope's Vicars and Coadjutors, assumed by them into part of their charge, are Schismatics; but the Pope and Court of Rome, and their maintainers do thus. To which his only answer is, that this is a more gross and false imputation than any of the rest. Because it is not their general tenet, neither did I urge it against them all in general.  
But because he takes no notice of these tenets, but as private opinions, If you will dispute against private opinions, cite your Authors, and argue against them, not the Church. Let him know, that these are the most common, & most current opinions of their writers. Of the former, 
De council. l. 2 c. 17. De council. l. 2. c. 13.  Bellarmine saith, that it is almost de fide a point of faith. He saith that the Council of Florence seemed to have defined it, though not so expressly; and that the Council of Lateran hath defined it most expressly. And the words of that Council seem to import no less, that it is most manifest that the Bishop of Rome hath authority over all Counsels. Tanquam super omnia Consilia authoritatem habentem. And for the latter opinion, Bellarmine declares it to be most true, quae sententia est verissima, citys great Authors for it; and saith, that it seemeth to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen, 
De Roma. Pont. l. 4. c. 22. & 24  That Bishops do derive all their jurisdiction from the Pope, as all the virtue of the members is derived from the head, or as all the virtue of the branches springs from the root, or as the water in the stream flows from the fountain, or as the light of the beams is from the Sun. This is high enough.   

Sect. 10.  
I answered, that we hold communion with thrice so many Christians as they do. He replieth, that if by Christians I mean those who lay claim to the name of Christ, he neither denies my answer, nor envies me my multitude; for Manichees, Gnostics, Carpocratians, Arrians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. without number, do all usurp the honour of this title, adding that he doth most faithfully protest, he doth not think, I have any solid reason to refuse communion to the worst of them. O God how is it possible that prejudice and partiality, or an habit of alteration should make Christians and Pastors of Christ's flock to swerve so far, not only from truth and charity, but from all candour and ingenuity? Wherein can he or all the world, charge the Church of England, or the Church of Greece, or indeed any of the Eastern, Southern or Northern Christians, with any of these Heresies? It is true, some few Eastern Christians, in comparison of those innumerable multitudes, are called Nestorians, and some others, by reason of some unusual expressions suspected of Eutychianisme, but both most wrongfully. Is this the requital that he makes to so many of these poor Christians for maintaining their Religion inviolated, so many ages under Mahometan Princes? Yet Michael the Archangel, 
Judg. 6.  when he disputed with the devil about the body of Moses, durst not bring a ●ailing accusation against him; but said, the Lord rebuke thee. The best is, we are either wheat or chaff of the Lords ffoare; but their tongues must not winnow us. Manes a madman, as his name signifies, feigned himself to be Christ, chose twelve Apostles, and sent them abroad to preach his errors, whose disciples were called Manichees; they made two Gods, one of good called light: another of evil called darkness; which evil God did make impure creatures of the more faeeulent parts of the matter; he created the world; he made the old testament; Hereupon, they held flesh and wine to be impure, and marriage to be unlawful, and used execrable purifications of the creatures; They taught that the soul was the substance of God; that war was unlawful; that bruit beasts had as much reason as men: that Christ was not true man, nor came out of the womb of the Virgin, but was a phantasm; that john Baptist was damned for doubting of Christ; that there was no last Judgement; that sins were inevitable: many of which errors they sucked from the Gnostics and Carpocratians. The Nestorians divided the person of Christ, and the Eutychians confounded his natures; what is this to us, or any of those Churches which we defend? we accurse all their errors. If he be not more careful in making his charge, he will soon forfeit the stock of his credit.  
He engageth himself, that if I can show him but one Church, which never changed the Doctrine which their Fathers taught them, as received from the Apostles, which is not in communion with the Roman Church, he will be of that ones communion. I wish he may make good his word. I show him not only one, but all the Eastern, Southern, Northern, and I hope Western Churches, who never changed their Creed; which comprehends all these necessary points of saving truth, which they received from their Ancestors, by an uninterrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles. As for Opinions or Truths of an inferior nature, there is no Church of them all, that hath changed more from their Ancestors, even in these very controversies that are between them and us, than the Church of Rome. For the clear proof whereof, I refer him to Doctor Fields appendix to his third book of the Church, & the first part of his appendix to four books, at the latter end of the first Chapter.  
I pleaded that the Council of Trent was not general; I had reason. The conditions of a general council recited by Bellarmine are, that the summons be general; there none were summoned but only out of the western Church. That the four Protopatriarches be present by themselves or their deputies; there was not one of them present. That some be present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces; there were none out ●f three parts of four of the Christian world. 
Bellarm●ce council. l. 1. c. 17.  He saith, the other Patriarches were Heretics. Though it were true, yet until they were lawfully heard & condemned in a general Council, or refused to come to their trial, and were condemned for their obstinacy, they ought to have been summoned; yea, of all others they especially aught to have been summoned. But where were they heard, or tried, or condemned of heresy, by any Council or person that had Jurisdiction over them? Others of his fellows will be contented to accuse them of Schism, and not pronounce them condemned heretics. Guido the Carmelite is over partial and temerarious in accusing them without ground, as some of his own party do confess, and vindicate them: And Alphonsus á castro taketh his information upon trust from him. The plain truth is, their only crime is, that they will not submit to the Pope's spiritual Monarchy, and so were no fit company for an Italian Council.  
His demand. (Is not a Parliament the general representative of the nation, unless every Lord though a known and condemned Rebel be summoned? or unless every member that hath a right to sit there be present?) is altogether impertinent. Neither hath the Pope that power over a general Council that the king hath over the Parliament; Neither are the Protopatriarches known condemned Rebels; Neither is this the case, whether the necessary or neglective absence of some particular members, but whether the absence of whole Provinces, and the much greater part of the Provinces of Christendom for want of due summons, do disable a Council from being a general representative of the whole Christian world. And as it is impertinent, so it makes altogether against himself. Never was there a session of a national Parliament in England, wherein so few members were present, as were in the pretended general Council of Trent, at the deciding of the most weighty controversy concerning the rule of Faith. Never was there lawful Parliament in England wherein there were more Knights and Burgesses out of one Province, than out of all the rest of the Kingdom; Never was there lawful Parliament in England, the acts whereof either of one kind or of another might be questioned by any single Province, as the acts of the Council of Trent in point of discipline are questioned by the Church of France. The question is not, whether Ecclesiastical superiors may forbear to execute, but whether inferiors may renounce and protest against the execution. One of the prime privileges of Parliament is to speak freely; but this was not allowed in the Council of Trent.  
He excepteth against some angry expressions of mine, Where I call the Bishops of Italy hungry parasitical pensioners, not foreseeing it might be retorted upon mine own condition. And here he addeth in a scoffing manner, It seemeth, my Lord, you keep a good table, speak the truth boldly, and have great revenues independent of any. I spoke not there out of passion against them, nor of ancient Italian Bishops, but mere Episcopelles, a great part of which were Italians; nor all of them, but only such as were the Pope's creatures, raised and maintained by him for his own ends: whether these were his hungry parasitical pensioners, they know best, who know most. As for myself, I never raised myself by any insinuations: I was never parasitical pensioner to any man, nor much frequented any man's table. If mine own be not so good as it hath been, yet contentment and a good conscience is a continual feast, and a golden bed of rest. And I thank God, I can say heartily with holy job, The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the Name of the Lord. What was this to his cause?  
To prove the Council of Trent was not free, I cited somethings out of the history of that Council, and somethings out of Sleidan. To which he answereth nothing but this, That it is a false injurious calumny, taken out of Sleidan, accounted by their party a stark liar and forger. This is a very easy kind of refuting, as good as Bellarmine thou liest.  
To the plea of the Patriarchal authority of the Bishop of Rome over Britain, I gave three solutions.  
First that Britain was no part of the Roman Patriarchate.  
Secondly, that although it had been, yet the Popes have both quitted, and forfeited their patriarchal power, and though they had not, yet it is lawfully transferred.  
Thirdly, that the difference between them and us is not concerning any patriarchal rights. To none of these doth he offer to give any answer, but only to one passage, where I endeavour to prove that a spiritual Monarchy from Christ, and a patriarchal authority from ●he Church are inconsistent. From whence the Reader may make this collection, that because the Pope was undoubtedly constituted a Patriarch by the Church, therefore as undoubtedly he was not instituted a spiritual Prince by Christ. And all the answer that he giveth to this is, that I argue weakly & sillily, Satis pro imperio. This is magisticall enough: as if he were another Pythagoras, that we must receive his dictates for oracles. I will set down the argument for the Readers satisfaction. It may be at the second reading, this Refuter will not find it altogether so weak & silly. To bea Patriarch, & to be an universal Bishop in that sense, are inconsistent, and imply a contradiction in adjecto. The one professeth human, the other challengeth divine institution; the one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain province; the other pretendeth to an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world: the one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers, & a mere executer of them, & can do nothing either against them or besides them; the other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons, besides the Canons, against the Canons. To make them, to abbrogate them, to suspend their influence by a non obstante, to dispense with them in such cases wherein the Canons give no dispensative power, at his own pleasure, when he will, where he will, to whom he will. Therefore to claim a power Paramount, and Sovereign Monarchical regality over the Church, is implicitly and in effect to disclaim a patriarchal Aristocratical dignity; and on the other side, the donation and acceptance of such a patriarchal Aristocratical dignity, is a convincing proof that he was not formerly possessed of a Sovereign Monarchical Royalty.  
To the point of sacrifice, he saith, that I hide it in obscure terms, and shuffle certain common words. In answer, I believe his meaning is quite contrary, that I have set it down over distinctly. If I shuffle any thing, I must shuffle my own words, for I see no answer of his to shuffle among them. His exception against our Registers, that he could never hear that any Catholic esteemed indications was ever admitted to a free perusal of them, Shows only, that he understandeth not what our Registers are. They are public offices, whither every man may repair at his pleasure, And if he will be at the charge of a search & a transcription, may not only peruse them freely, but have an authentic copy of any act that is there recorded  
Towards the conclusion of his treatise he inveigheth against our uncharitableness, that it is not enough to satisfy our uncharitable eyes, that so many of them have been hanged, drawn and quartered for their Religion; telling us, that on all occasions we are still upbraiding the liberty given to Papists. And adviseth us, never hereafter to be so impertinent as to repine at their liberty. Doubtless, he found this in his own fancy: for in my discourse there is nothing either of repining or upbraiding: but this point of the penal laws hath been formerly handled at large.  
Last; to his expedient to procure peace and unity, that is, To receive the root of Christianity, that is a practical infallibility in the Church: We do readily acknowledge that the true Catholic Church is so far infallible, as is necessary to the salvation of Christians, that is the end of the Church. But the greater difficulty will be, what this Catholic Church is, wherein they are not only divided from us, but more among themselves.  
But because he hath another exception to a testimony of mine in his Schism disarmed. 
Pag. 24●  I will make bold to give it an answer here also: Even when the Grecians were disgusted, & refused unity, they acknowledged the power of the Bishop of Rome, 
Vind. pag: 101.  as appears by a testimony of Gerson, cited by your friend Bishop Brounhall against himself, which witnesseth that the Greeks departed from the then Pope, with these words, We acknowledge thy power, we [cannot satisfy your covetousness, live by yourselves.] Doth he think that power is always taken in the better sense? The words are not potestatem tuam recognoscimus, we acknowledge thy just power, yet even potestas is taken sometimes in the worse sense: as, potestas tenebrarum, the power of darkness: but potentiam tuam recognoscimus, we acknowledge thy might; which words might be used by a true man to an high way robber. The Greeks accounted the Latins Heretics and Schismatics, and principally upon this ground of the Pope's claim of a spiritual Monarchy, And that Gerson apprehended their words in this sense, it may appear by the context. His position is this, that men ought not generally to be bound by the positive determinations of Popes, to hold and believe one and the same form of government in things that do not immediately concern the truth of our Faith, and the Gospel. From thence he proceedeth to set down some different Customs of the Greek & Latin Churches, both which he doth justify, citing S. Austin to prove that in all such things the custom of the country is to be observed. And among the rest of the differences, this was one, that the Greek Church paid not such Subsidies and Duties as the Gallicane Church did. It seemeth that the Pope would have exacted them, 
Gers. p. 4. Serm. de pace & unit. Cyril. considerate. ●●  and that thereupon the Grecians did separate from him, using this free expression, potentiam tuam recognoscimus, avaritiam tuam implere non possumus, vivite per vos, We know thy might, we are not able to satisfy thy covetousness; live by yourselves. And from thence the aforesaid author draweth this conclusion, that per hanc consider ationem bene captam etc. upon this consideration, they might proceed to the reformation of the French Church, and the liberties thereof, notwithstanding the contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make. There is not one word or syllable herein that maketh against me, but there is both the practice of the Greek Church, & the opinions of Gerson, for the justification of our Reformation, and Separation from the Court of Rome.  
FINIS.