A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England From the foul Aspersions of Schism and Heresy Unjustly cast upon Her by The Church of Rome. In Two Parts.  
— After the way which they call Heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets. Acts 24.14.  
LONDON, Printed by J. H. for Luke Meredith, at the King's Head at the West End of St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVII.   

IMPRIMATUR,  
Ex Aedib. Lambeth. Nou. 30. 1686. Guil. Needham RRmo more. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Cantuar. a Sacr. Domest.   

Advertisements of Books lately Printed.  
BIshop Taylor's Opuscula. The Measures of Friendship. With Five Letters to persons changed and tempted to a change in their Religion. To which is now added his Moral Demonstration, proving that the Religion of J. Christ is from God. Price bound 1 s.  
Two Treatises: The First concerning Reproaching and Censure; The Second, An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure-Footing. To which are annexed, Three Sermons Preached upon several Occasions; and very useful for these Times. By the late Learned and Reverend William Faulkner, D. D.  
Some Queries to Protestants Answered, and an Explanation of the Roman Catholics Belief in four great Points considered. 1. Concerning their Church. 2. Their Worship. 3. Justification. 4. Civil Government. Price stitched 6 d.  
The Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth; Or, a Prospect of Popery taken from that Authentic Record. With short Notes.   

A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England, etc.  

The INTRODUCTION.  
THere is nothing more frequent among those of the Romish Communion, than to charge those of the Reformation with the guilt of Schism and Heresy. They blacken us with those odious names of Schismatic and Heretic; and though we do publicly declare our abhorrence of those Crimes, and disavow both the name and thing; yet must we be represented as such, and under that Character be exposed to the World.  
Whether this Charge be just or unjust, will appear by the sequel of this Discourse. But whethersoever it be, certain it is, that it is generally taken for granted among them, that we are such. A late Author of theirs, in answer to this Question, Why are you a Catholic? having (as he thinks) charged these Crimes home upon Protestants, at length, sums up his harangue in these words, p. 12. Now it being impossible for Protestants to excuse, much less to justify their manifest Schism, to what purpose is it to enter into debate with them about particular points of Doctrine? As long as the Charge of Schism subsists, uncleared by them, and this Schism grounded on pretended dangerous errors in the Catholic Church, being Schismatics, they are Heretics too, and so condemned by themselves, and consequently not to be harkened to, when they will raise particular Controversies; since this one general Controversy determines against them all particular debates.  
And now who would not think that here were a fair end put to all debates between the Church of Rome and us? for if we be really Schismatics, and our Schism so manifest that it will admit of no excuse, much less of any justification; then this Gentleman is in the right, that it is to little purpose to enter into debate with us about particular points of Doctrine. But if we be not only Schismatics but Heretics too, then ought we not to be harkened to in any particular Controversy whatsoever.  
But if this Gentleman should happen to be mistaken in all this, and that we are neither Schismatics nor Heretics; but that our Separation from the Church of Rome is not only excusable, but justifiable too; being grounded, not on pretended, but really dangerous errors, not in the Catholic Church, but in the particular Church of Rome: then I hope we may stand upon even ground with them, and be admitted to debate the matter in difference between us; which if we be, as they hitherto have done, so I hope they always will find us ready to stand the shock, and make good our ground.  
As for the Crimes they charge us with, we have as great, it may be a greater abhorrence of them than they have; let them draw them in the most frightful shapes imaginable, let them expose them under the most black and dismal Character that is possible, yet can they not represent them worse than we already think of them. So far are we from owning either the name or thing. We believe they are most horrible sins, so dangerous and destructive that Men are thereby out of the ordinary ways and means of Salvation; they tear in pieces the Mystical Body of Christ, and are an inlet to all those mischiefs that do or can happen to the Church of God. And after such a Declaration as this, can we be thought to believe ourselves guilty of them?  
We are thus far agreed, that Schism and Heresy are dangerous sins, destructive of the peace and order, the well-being at least, if not the Being of God's Church; and such sins as without a true and timely Repentance will unavoidably and eternally ruin those that are guilty of them. It will therefore greatly concern all Persons, as well Papists as Protestants, to clear themselves of these Crimes.  
To wipe off this scandal, which is so unjustly thrown upon the Church of England, and those in Communion with her, is the design of these Papers. And to effect this, I know no better way than by laying open the nature and true notion of these two Crimes, viz. Schism and Heresy; and then considering to whom they are applicable. This I shall endeavour to do as briefly and as plainly as I can. But because they are different Crimes, to avoid confusion, I shall consider them apart; and in the first place shall begin with that of Schism.   

SECT. I. Of Schism in general.  
THE word Schism in its original signification imports no more but only a Division, Rent, or Breach; and is more properly applicable unto things than Persons. I could, if it were necessary, produce several instances out of profane Authors, where it is thus used; but waving these, I shall at present offer you only one instance, in which our Blessed Saviour thus applies the word. No Man, saith he, puts a piece of new Cloth into an old Garment, for that which is put in taketh from the Garment, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Rent, or Breach, is made worse, Matt. 9.16.  
When therefore we meet with this word applied to Persons, it is not properly, but Metaphorically used; importing a Division among them, occasioned by misunderstanding, diversity of opinions, discontent, or otherwise. Now forasmuch as every Division supposes an Unity, and that Unity broken; it cannot be applied to single Persons, but Persons in Society, who live in Communion with one another, and are obliged so to do by some common Ties and Obligations.  
There are two great and eminent Societies in the World, viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical; and both these are the Subjects of Schism; i. e. they are both liable to have their Unity broken, their Peace disturbed, and their Communion rend and shattered, if not dissolved by evil Members.  
As for the former, viz. the Civil State, when, by some factious and seditious Members, Feuds and Animosities are fomented; and by that means the Unity is broken, and the Body divided into several Parties; then doth it labour under a dangerous Schism. We have an eminent instance hereof in Holy Writ; 
1 Kings 12. v. 16.  The Ten Tribes of Israel being violently rend and torn from the House of David, in the days of Reboboam. Nor are we without as great an instance in our own memories, and in this Kingdom. But this is not the Schism we are now to treat of.  
As for the other, viz. the Ecclesiastical State, it is no less subject to it than the Civil. And hath been so much pestered therewith, that from the first foundation thereof until this day, we can hardly name a time, I am sure no long time, in which it did ever enjoy perfect Peace and Tranquillity. How much the Church of God is broken and divided, and crumbled into parties and factions at this day, is but too apparent; and who can look upon those wounds and bruises which she hath received thereby, without melting into tears, and being overwhelmed with grief and sorrow? How great and crying their sin is, who have been the occasion thereof, they will one day find, and severely suffer for it, unless with the tears of true and unfeigned Repentance, they do in time wash off the guilt of it, and by that means find favour with God. I pray God give us all grace seriously to consider what share we have in the Church's Sufferings, and in our several places to make it our great and only business to restore Peace and Unity thereunto.   

SECT. II. Of Schism in the Church.  
THIS is the Crime which by our Adversaries is laid to our charge, and this is that which I have undertaken to vindicate the Church of England from. And it is high time to do it, for on that account they begin to look very scornfully upon us, and esteem us no better than Heathens and Publicans. And we are roundly told, that whilst our Schism subsists uncleared, it is to no purpose to enter into debate with us about any particular points of Doctrine, nor are we to be harkened to in any particular Controversy. But if a bare accusation without proof be a sufficient Conviction, they may do well to look to themselves; for there are those who will not stick to charge them with the same Crime, and perhaps upon better grounds than they charge us; and if so, than their Argument may be retorted upon themselves. But I do not think a bare Re-crimination sufficient either to clear us, or burden them, and therefore I have chosen another method, viz. by laying open the Nature of Schism, and stating the Notion of it in so large, plain and comprehensive terms, that it may easily be applied to those who are guilty of it. And in pursuance of this method, I shall now present you with a Definition of Schism.  

Definition of Schism. Schism is a voluntary and causeless Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church of which we are Members.  
This I take to be as large and comprehensive a Definition of Schism as they can justly require. By this we are willing to be tried, and if found guilty, to submit to the Censure due to Schismatics; and would willingly hope (though as yet we have no great reason for it) that our Adversaries will be so ingenuous too.  
To put the matter therefore upon trial, I shall take this Definition in pieces, and having laid the several parts before you proceed to discourse of them severally.  
1. Schism is a Separation, i. e. a breach of Unity, and dividing of some well compacted Body.  
2. It is a Separation from a Christian Church, i. e. from such a Society between which and us, there either is or aught to be a Religious Union and Conjunction; for between Christians and Jews or Turks, there can be no Schism, because they are not joined together in any Religious Society.  
3. It is a Separation from the Communion of that Church, in Faith, Worship and Government, under that Notion, as they are bonds of Communion.  
4. It is a voluntary and causeless Separation, i. e. being neither forced thereunto, nor having any sufficient cause or ground for so doing.  
5. It is a Separation from that Church of which we are Members, i. e. which hath a jurisdiction over us, and to which we own subjection and obedience.    

SECT. III. I. Schism is a Separation.  
THE word Schism naturally imports a Separation, and the word Separation, as naturally implies a breach of Unity, in which consists a good part of the Nature of Schism. Yet are they not terms convertible, for though every Schism be a Separation, yet every Separation is not a Schism, in the strict notion of it, unless it be attended with all those other requisites of a Schism. There may be a good and lawful, as well as an evil and sinful Separation; if a Separation be grounded upon good reason, and managed to good ends and purposes, then is it not only good and lawful, nor only excusable, but very well justifiable too. But if there be no good ground for it, nor any good end promoted by it, then is it evil and unlawful, and by no means excusable, much less justifiable. The former of these seems to be warranted by the express Doctrine of St. Paul, who tells us, That there can be no fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness, 
2 Cor. 6. v. 14, 15, 16, 17.  nor any Communion between light and darkness, nor any concord between Christ and Belial, nor any participation between a believer and an infidel, nor any agreement between the Temple of God and Idols. And thence concludes, Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean things, and I will receive you. And the other seems to be as plainly condemned by the same Apostle, who commands us to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace. Eph. 4.3.  
This may be farther illustrated by some familiar instances. Suppose a Society of Thiefs and Robbers, or any other sort of wicked men, united and linked together by some common ties, rules and laws, framed and devised by themselves, for the support of their wicked Community; if any one should separate himself from that Company, and thereby not only break the Unity, but do what in him lies to dissolve the Society itself; would this be imputed to him as a Crime? Or would it not rather be looked upon by all mankind as a good and generous, and in a sober sense as a meritorious Act? Or suppose any particular Society of Men, though legally established, yet making the terms of their Communion such, as could not in honesty and justice be complied with; if any one should separate himself from that Society, would it be a Crime in him: Or ought he not rather to be commended for it? But it is far otherwise in the Body Politic, which is the aggregation of all particular Persons, and all particular lawful Societies; If any one shall separate himself therefrom, and thereby break the Unity, and disturb the Peace thereof; he will by all Men be judged guilty of Sedition and Treason: And the reason is evident, because in the two former Cases men have a greater liberty of judging and acting, than they have in this. For those at best are but the Ordinances of Men, but Government is the Ordinance of God; and therefore though upon just ground we may separate from them, though it be to the hazard of their Peace and Unity; yet can we have no just ground of Separation from this. For though the Governors may sometimes happen to be wicked and ungodly Men, yet the Government still is sacred, and it is not for Subjects to call their Sovereigns to account; It is our duty to study and pray for the peace and safety, and to acquiesce in the rules and determinations thereof; choosing rather to suffer under it, than disturb the Peace of it; And if either through the ignorance or inadvertency of those in Authority there happen any Maladministration in the Government, it is not the governed but the Governors, that stand accountable to God for it.  
And thus it is in the Church: Let us suppose a number of Schismatics and Heretics who have banded themselves together, and form themselves into a Society under the strictest Rules and Laws they could devise, as the Donatists and Novatians of old did. If any one should separate himself from their Communion and return into the bosom of the Church; This certainly would never be imputed to him as a Crime. Or suppose a particular Church, though lawfully constituted, and established under lawful Governors, should make the terms of her Communion such, as that her Neighbour Churches could not without sin and danger hold Communion with her; would a Separation in this case be adjudged a Schism? Or would it not rather be looked upon as their duty and interest to withdraw from her? But it is far otherwise in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; for though there may be some reasons to warrant a Separation from those; yet can there be no reason why we should separate from Herald And the reason is evident, because she being founded by God, and having his promise for her preservation, can never give any occasion thereof. Whosoever therefore separateth from Her, puts himself out of the ordinary ways and means of Salvation, and becomes guilty of the greatest and most dangerous Schism.  
By this time, I hope, 'tis evident, that though every Schism import a Separation, yet every Separation doth not make a Schism. Nor is it every Unity that we are to be so tender of, but only the Catholic Unity of God's Church. And now let us apply this to our present Case.  
We are charged with Schism by the Church of Rome, because we have separated from her Communion. Though this might safely be denied, and it might perhaps upon better grounds be said, that she hath separated from us, not we from Her; yet for the present we'll admit of it, and give her this reason for it; We have separated from Her, because she hath made the terms of her Communion such, as, till they are reform, we cannot without sin and danger join with Herald  
The Church of Rome being only a particular Church (and not the Catholic Church, as some of her Parasites would fain persuade us) hath no more security from Error and Mistakes than the rest of Her Neighbours. And therefore if this reason be true, she cannot deny (if she will be ingenuous) but that we have a just ground of Separation; and consequently are not Schismatics. And that it is true, as it hath often been demonstrated, so we are ready still to do the same again, whenever we shall be called to it. But that being no part of my design at this time, I shall proceed.   

SECT. iv II. Schism is a Separation from a Christian Church.  
AS Separation is the Act, so a Christian Church is the Subject of Schism, i. e. As it is a body compacted and united together by the Bands and Ligaments of our common Christianity. For where there is no Union or Conjunction, there can be no Schism; And therefore between Christians and Jews or Mahometans there can be no Schism; because they are not joined together in any Religious Society. Now the Christian Church may be considered either as it is Catholic or Universal, or as it is Particular.  
1. If we consider it as Catholic and Universal, there are three several Notions of it. Sometimes it is taken for the Catholic Church diffusive, i. e. for the whole body of Christians dispersed upon the face of the whole Earth; and so it comprehends all Persons, and all particular Churches professing Christianity. And this I take to be the true and genuine notion of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, mentioned in our Creed. And whosoever shall make a Defection or Separation from this Church, will be found guilty of a manifest, dangerous, and most abominable Schism. Sometimes it is taken for the Catholic Church Representative, i. e. for the Prelates and Pastors of the Universal Church, delegated by their several particular Churches, and Assembled in a Counsel truly free and general. And wherever we meet with such an one, we pay all deference and regard that is due to the Decisions and Determinations of it And if any Man, or any Society of Men shall set up his or their private Judgements against the public Judgement of the Church, declared in a Council truly free and general, and shall be so tenacious of their own opinions, as upon that account to break Communion with the Church, I do not see, how they can be excused from the sin of Schism. Sometimes it is taken for the Catholic Church virtual, and so it is generally understood by our Adversaries, though they do not agree among themselves. For some of them would confine the notion of the Church virtual to the Pope alone, others to the Pope in Conclave; some to the Pope in Council, but these differ among themselves, some telling us that the Pope is above the Council, others that the Council is above the Pope: others there are, who, to put a better Face upon the matter, do, by the Catholic Church virtual, understand the Church of Rome, and all those other Churches which are in Communion with Herald I shall not undertake to arbitrate this difference, but leaving these several Parties to compromise the matter among themselves, as well as they can: I shall call in an unexceptionable Witness to testify that this is the notion which the Church of Rome now hath of the Catholic Church, and that is Monsieur de Meaux the late Bishop of Condom, who in his exposition of the Catholic Faith, etc. tells us he will say nothing, but what shall be warranted by the Church, and to make his words good, he produceth great Credentials from the Pope, and many other great Men. This great and learned Prelate in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, etc. hath these words. We acknowledge a Head established by God, 
Sect. 21. p. 50.  to conduct his whole Flock in his paths, which Head is the Pope, as Successor to St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and that the Papal Chair is the common Centre of all Catholic Unity. 
Sect. 1. p. 2.  And in another place, he promiseth not to meddle with any thing but the Decrees of the Council of Trent, because in them the Church hath given her decision upon these matters now in Agitation. Which Council was called by the Pope's Authority only, and the true sense of all its Decrees, (by the Bull of Pope Pius iv) reserved to be explained by him alone. So that the great noise of the Catholic Church is at last dwindled into the Roman Catholic, which we of the Church of England, take to be a contradiction in Terminis, the same with a particular Universal; for they may as well say that the City of Rome is all the World, as that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church. Besides this notion of the Catholic Church virtual is altogether new, having no foundation either in the Holy Scriptures, or in any Primitive and Authentic Antiquity, and therefore we can by no means admit of it.  
This is that Church by which, and towards which we are charged with the guilt of the horrible sin of Schism. And God be thanked it is no worse, for from any Criminal Schism in this case, I hope we shall, without any great difficulty, be able to acquit ourselves.  
2. If we consider a Christian Church as it is particular, then are we to understand it of a number of Men professing Christianity, form into a Society under lawful Governors, and governed by such Laws and Rules, as are not different from, but agreeable to the Laws and Rules of the Catholic Church. And if any Man, or number of Men, who are Members of that Society, shall without just cause separate themselves from the Communion thereof; he or they so doing are certainly guilty of Schism. Nor is every occasion which a capricious humour or discontent may suggest to us, to be taken as a sufficient ground of Separation; Nay, though there be something really amiss, or at least we are persuaded that there is so, in the Doctrine, or Discipline of that Church whereof we are Members; yet ought we rather to suspect our own Judgements, and suppress our own Sentiments, than break the unity and peace thereof. In a word, unless such a particular Church shall make the terms of her Communion such as cannot be complied with without sin, I do not know any other just ground of Separation therefrom.  
Thus have I considered the subject of Schism in its greatest latitude. And now let us see how far any thing that may be gathered from hence can affect the Church of England.  
1. If the Church of England hath made no defection from the Catholic Church diffusive, i. e. from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which compriseth all Men and all Societies of Men professing Christianity; Nor from the Catholic Church representative, i. e. the Prelates and Pastors of the Universal Church lawfully assembled in a Council that is truly free and general. If she profess no other Doctrine, nor exercise any other Discipline, than what she hath received from Christ and his Apostles, and was constantly professed and exercised by their Successors in the primitive Church. If she be willing to submit all matters in difference between Her and any other Sister-Church to be tried by the Holy Scriptures, the primitive Fathers, and the Decisions of the four first General Councils. Then can she not be justly charged with Schism upon that account. And that she doth and is willing to do all this that is here supposed, we are ready to make good, whenever our Adversaries shall give us the occasion so to do.  
2. If their notion of a Church virtually Catholic be altogether new, without any foundation either in the Holy Scriptures, or in any primitive and authentic Antiquity; then the power and privileges which the present Church of Rome challengeth upon that account are mere nullities, and consequently the Schism which she chargeth of the Church England with upon that score, a mere Chimaera, which vanisheth of itself. If they think to avoid the force of this supposition, they must produce some good and authentic Record, which as yet hath not been discovered.  
3. If the Church of Rome be only a particular Church, and no otherwise Catholic than her Neighbours are, who profess the same common Christianity. If she can have no more power to censure us, than we have to censure Her, then can she not without great presumption, and great injustice, charge us with the sin of Schism. 'Tis true indeed we do not join in Communion with her, and the reason why we do not, I have given in the third Section. But it is as true, that we hold the Catholic Unity, and for the sake of that, they themselves will grant, that we may lawfully departed from the Unity of any particular Church.   

SECT. V III. Schism is a Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church.  
AS the Act of Schism is Separation, and the Subject thereof a Christian Church; so the Object in and about which the Separation is made, is the Communion of that Church. Now there are three great Bonds of Communion, viz. Faith, Worship and Government; and whosoever shall separate either from the Catholic or any particular Church whereof he is a Member in any of these, I do not see how he or they so doing can be acquitted from the guilt of Schism, unless the corruption in some one or more of these be so great as to render the Communion sinful to him who knows it.   

SECT. VI I. Of Faith as it is a Bond of Communion.  
BY Faith here I understand the established Doctrine of the Church, that common Christianity which we all profess to own and embrace. For it is not every Doctrine that is received and taught in any particular Church, that is properly the Bond of Communion, but such Doctrine as is or aught to be received by all. It is plain, and our Adversaries themselves will acknowledge it, that we may and aught to differ from particular Churches in some Doctrines; Otherwise why do they differ from us, from the Greek Church, and indeed all other Churches besides their own in many things? On this score is it, that we cannot receive their new Articles of Faith, those additions which are made unto, and those alterations which are made in the old and common Christianity, by their Council of Trent.  
We believe all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures to be infallibly true, all that was ever taught by Christ and his Apostles, and their Successors the Primitive Pastors and Governors of the Church, we readily comply with; We believe all the Articles contained in those three ancient Creeds, viz. that commonly called the Apostles, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. We are willing to submit to all the Decisions and the Determinations of the four first General Councils, and to any Council that is lawfully called, and truly free and general. We are ready to receive all Traditions that are truly Apostolical, and we are willing to embrace any other truth as yet unknown to us, whensoever or by whomsoever it shall be duly made out to be so And whilst we this do, we cannot truly be charged to have broken Communion with the Catholic Church, nor justly reputed Schismatics therefrom.  
And as for the Church of Rome, she being only a particular Church, hath no jurisdiction at all over the Church of England, and consequently no more power to censure us, than we have to censure her; for in this case the rule holds, (Par in parem non habet imperium) Equals have no Authority over one another. And therefore for her to impose her new Articles of Faith upon the Church of England, and because she refuseth to receive them, and join Communion with her upon those terms, presently cry out Schism, Schism, is so idle, so vain, so unaccountable a Clamour, as I am persuaded the Learned among them cannot but disapprove it. For whilst we hold the Catholic Faith entire, and maintain Communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church therein; though we differ from the Church of Rome, or any other particular Church in some Doctrines; Yet is it impossible that we should be guilty of a Schismatical Separation either from her or them.   

SECT. VII. II. Of Worship as it is a Bond of Communion.  
BY Worship here, I mean Public Worship, and that considered only in its Substantials and Essentials, not as it is clothed with particular Modes, Rites and Ceremonies. Otherwise it can be no Bond of Communion. The substantial and essential Parts of Public Worship, I take to be these, viz. Prayer, reading the Holy Canon, interpreting the same, and the administration of the blessed Sacraments. Now these in divers Churches may be performed in different Manners, and with different Rites and Ceremonies, and yet those Churches, notwithstanding this, may still hold Communion with the Catholic Church, and consequently be guilty of no Schismatical Separation therefrom, nor from one another. But if we by Worship understand the established Public Worship of a particular Church, then are we to consider it not as abstracted from, but clothed with such Modes, Rites and Ceremonies as are thought convenient by that Church. And if any one who is a Member of such a Church shall, upon any pretended offence taken against any such Modes, Rites and Ceremonies, separate himself from the Public Worship, I do not see how he can be acquitted from the guilt of Schism.  
And this I take to be the case not only of the Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England (as they call themselves) but of English Roman Catholics too. For that they did hold actual Communion with us many years together in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and neither then, nor ever since did pretend to take any offence at the Substantials of our Worship, is very plain and evident. And that it was not we that separated from them, but they that separated from us, is as manifest; and therefore it will concern them more than us, to clear themselves from the sin of Schism. And for this I know no other Plea they can make use of, than their obedience to the Universal Pastor of God's Church, which Plea is to be considered under the next great Bond of Communion, viz. Government.   

SECT. VIII. III. Of Government as it is a Bond of Communion.  
THat our great and Universal Pastor, the Lord Jesus Christ, did found and constitute a Church, and that he did not leave it without Laws and Rules to be governed by, nor without proper Governors invested with Power and Authority to exert and execute those Laws we steadfastly believe. But that he ever did delegate all his Power to any One, or substitute any One Person to be the Universal Pastor of the Church after him, we cannot believe, because we have no ground for it either in Scripture, or in any primitive and authentic Antiquity. And indeed how should we? for till the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople began to envy one another's Greatness, and to strive for Supremacy, (which was about 600 years after Christ) the Church was never acquainted with any such name or thing, as is now claimed. And no sooner did it adventure to peep abroad, but warning was given against it as Antichristian, and that by one of their Popes. And when afterwards it was publicly usurped, it was condemned by a General Council; and they are not yet agreed among themselves where to fix it. And therefore they cannot in reason expect that we should build our Faith upon such an uncertain Foundation, or make that a Bond of Communion in the Church, which the Church from 600 years and upwards known nothing of.  
That Government is a Bond of Communion in the Christian Church, we acknowledge; and that it was never lodged in the hands of any one Person since our Saviour, I think is very plain and evident. But where then doth it reside? This will best be known, by considering how it is derived. That it was united in the Person of our Blessed Saviour, will be acknowledged on all hands; and where he left it, there we are to look for it Now that he left it with his Apostles, and made them equal sharers therein, I think is very plain; (notwithstanding that pretence which is made by our Adversaries, that it was lodged in Peter alone; a pretence which hath been so often, and so miserably baffled, and which if it were true would do them no service, that I wonder they are not ashamed to bring it upon the stage any more.) And that from the Apostles it was derived to their Successors, the Bishops and Pastors of God's Church, is the received opinion of all Antiquity. 
Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cypr. de Vnitate Ecclesiae Edit. Oxon. p. 108.  And that it now lies dispersed among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches, (unless they be lawfully called and assembled in Synods or Councils) under the Power, Protection and Assistance of Civil Authority, we verily believe. This is the notion we have of the visible and external Government of the Catholic Church, and as it hath been, so if there were occasion for it, may it still be made appear to have been the very notion, that all the World (except those who have submitted to the Usurpation of Rome) ever had, and still have of it to this day. Now the Laws and Rules by which this Government is administered, are to be found in the Holy Scriptures, in the Usages and Customs of the Primitive Church, and in the Canons and Constitutions of the four first General Councils.  
But if by Government, we understand the Government of particular Churches, then is it lodged in the Pastors and Governors of those Churches, and is to be administered by them according to such Laws and Rules as are agreeable to those of the Catholic Church. And in this case, it can have no influence from one National Church to another; for, as such, they are equal; and Equals have no power over one another. But whosoever is a Member of any such Church, and refuseth all due obedience to the Pastors and Governors thereof, doth thereby contract the guilt of Schism.  
Now whether the Church of England, or the Church of Rome, by the violation of all these Bonds of Communion, have disturbed the Peace of the Christian Church, broken the Unity of the Universal, and of all particular Churches, and thereby incurred the guilt of Schism; you may take a prospect in this short parallel which I shall now lay before you.  
1. As for Faith considered as a Bond of Communion. What the Church of England believes, and what she is ready and willing to comply with, I have told you in the 6th Sect. But the Church of Rome not contented therewith, added to the sacred Canon some Apocryphal Books, which were never before received either into the Jewish or Christian Canon. And as if the revealed Will of God were an imperfect Rule, she undertakes to supply the defects of it, by groundless Traditions. She makes new Creeds (witness the Trent Creed) and that both without the consent of the present, and against the Doctrine and Practice of ancient Churches. Now which of these hath violated this Bond of Communion, Judge ye.  
2. As for Worship considered as a Bond of Communion, I have given you our Sentiments of it, and told you wherein it consists in the 7th. Sect. Now how far the Church of Rome hath corrupted that pure Worship of God, both by her subtractions and additions, I shall briefly acquaint you. As for Prayer it must be performed in public in an unknown tongue, which the People understand not. So that they must not know what they pray for, and consequently cannot with any true devotion say, Amen. It must be offered to Saints and Angels, and not immediately to God, who glories to be styled a God hearing Prayers: and this we take to be an Act of Religious Worship due to the Creator only, but by them paid to Creatures. As for the reading of Holy Scriptures, if any portion of them be read in public, it must be in Latin, a Language not understood by the People, and therefore impossible for them to be instructed by it. It is true indeed they sometimes interpret some portion of Scripture, by preaching in the Vulgar language; but then the People must take all they say upon trust, they must not without special leave be allowed the Bible in their own Language, no not in private, lest with the Noble Bereans, they should examine whether those things be so or no. As for the Sacraments, they have added five that were never instituted by Christ, and taken away half of one of those, which they cannot but own was of his Institution; i. e. they deprive the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper; besides those many Superstitions which they have intermixed, and therewith corrupted the pure and primitive Worship of God. Now let any indifferent Person judge, whether they or we have violated this Bond of Communion, and consequently which of us may be charged with Schism.  
3 As for Government considered as a Bond of Communion. What our thoughts are of it, you may see in the beginning of this Sect. Now how far the Church of Rome doth differ, not only from us, but from the Catholic Church both ancient and modern, and from all other particular Churches in this point, will appear, if we consider: That she usurps a Dominion condemned as Antichristian by one of their own Popes, disowned by the whole Church at that time, and which we at present cannot own without betraying the Liberty of the Church. That by virtue of this Usurped Power she imposeth unreasonable and unlawful conditions of Communion, and for noncompliance therewith excommunicates not only the Church of England, but, as some will tell you, three parts of the Christian World besides. Now if the Church of Rome by setting up and exercising this Exorbitant Power, hath broken this Bond of Communion, than who is chargeable with the Schism, judge ye.   

SECT. IX. iv Schism is a voluntary and causeless Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church.  
THese are the two conditions of Schism, it must be voluntary and causeless; and from these two conditions it receives its greatest aggravation, and becomes a sin of the deepest dye and greatest guilt.  
1. It must be a Voluntary Separation.  
I call it Voluntary, to distinguish sin from punishment, Schism from excommunication; for though by the latter a man be cast out of the Church, and made no member thereof; yet strictly speaking, he is thereby separated from the Church, and doth not separate himself. 'Tis true that every sin is a voluntary act in the sinner, but doth that excuse him? or rather doth it not aggravate his guilt? If a man be separated from the communion of the Church by some pressing necessity, this may be his misfortune and not his fault: Or if a man be under a constraint, and have a force put upon him: if he be frighted with threats and menaces, or wheadled with promises and allurements; if his fears and hopes, those two prevalent passions in man, be raised to that height, as to darken his understanding, and overpower his will; these circumstances may extenuate though they cannot altogether excuse his guilt. But when a man doth an evil action not by chance, but of choice; not by force, but by inclination; not rashly and inconsiderately, but deliberately and advisedly; this makes his sin to be exceeding sinful. For thereby the Schismatic puts himself out of the ordinary way and means of salvation, divideth the body of Christ, despiseth and condemneth the Church of God, and breaketh the bond of peace, which ought to be kept entire and inviolate. And therefore do I make this a Condition of Schism, because if we can suppose a Separation from the communion of the Church to be involuntary, it will not deserve that name.   

SECT. X. II. It must be a Causeless Separation, etc.  
THAT Schism in itself is a great and grievous sin, and in its consequences extremely mischievous to the Church of God, and to the Schismatic himself, is agreed on all hands. But how much greater must the sin needs be when thereby all this guilt is contracted, and all this mischief done without any cause. i e. without any sufficient cause.  
Now a Separation may be considered either as it relates to the Catholic, or Particular Churches. And then a Separation from the Catholic Church taken in the most comprehensive sense, is not Schism but Apostasy, and it will be impossible for any man to find a sufficient reason for that.  
But if it be considered as a separation from the communion of some particular Church, than it is implied that possibly there may be such cause given, as may justify the Separation; and if so, than the guilt of Schism will lie at the door of that Church which gives such cause, and not at his or theirs who separate therefrom. Now I have already told you, that I know no cause which can justify such a Separation, save only this, when a Church makes the terms of her Communion such as cannot be complied withal without sin. And in this case methinks it is very plain, That it cannot be sin to separate, when it is sin to communicate; for no Laws of Men can abrogate or dissolve the obligation of the express Laws of God. But if there be no such cause, then to break communion with any Christian Church, upon any other account, will amount to a Causeless Separation, and consequently incur the guilt of Schism.  
If therefore the Church of England ever did, or now doth forsake the communion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; or if she ever did, or now doth voluntarily and causelessly break communion with any particular Christian Church, then may there be some colour to charge her with the sin of Schism; but if none of all this can be made appear against her, than ought she to be acquitted of that charge. Now whether any such thing can be made out against her, or whether the whole charge will not fall heavy upon the Church of Rome, will appear in the sequel of this Discourse.   

SECT. XI. V Schism is a Separation from the Communion of that Church of which we are Members.  
THis is the last part of our Definition, and I add these words (of which we are Members) because Schism imports a Division of some united and well compacted Body, or a making two of that which before was but one. On this score is it, that we cannot charge Turks, Pagans and Jews with Schism, because they never were of the Christian Church, nor joined with her in any Religious Society. And here the Church will be at a great loss how to fix the guilt of Schism upon the Church of England, for if we neither are nor ever of right aught to have been under the Government of that Church, then hath she no Jurisdiction over us, nor do we owe her any subjection and obedience, and consequently cannot be guilty of Schism towards her, nor hath she any power to censure us for it. We own her to be a Sister-Church, and a true, though unsound Member of the Catholic Church, and so far as she holds the Catholic Faith and Worship, we are ready and willing to hold Communion with her. But we cannot submit to her Usurpations, nor communicate with her in those Errors, Abuses, Superstitions, Additions, Subtractions and Alterations, by which she hath so grossly corrupted the pure and primitive Faith and Worship of God's Church.   

SECT. XII. The Church of England acquitted from the Scandal of Schism.  
IF this Definition of Schism be allowed, (as I see no cause, why they should disown it) and not applicable to the Church of England, then is she unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism by the Church of Rome. Now whether it be applicable to the Church of England will appear, by taking a review of the several parts of it.  
1. Schism is a Separation, i. e. a breach of Unity, or a dividing of some well compacted Body. And here we are charged for breaking the Unity, and dividing the Body of the Roman Catholic Church, as they call it. To which I answer, if that Church were truly Catholic either in respect of place or Doctrine, this charge would lie heavy upon us; but being neither, we shall be able with less difficulty to answer this Objection. It must be acknowledged that the Church of Rome, at the time of the Reformation, and some long time before that had usurped a certain Power and Dominion over us; and had exerted the same in such extravagant impositions as at last became too heavy for us to bear. That Church had indeed by a long custom gained such an ascendent over our Fore fathers, that she had enslaved their Judgements, and obtruded what she pleased upon them; she had unawares led them into many Errors in Doctrine, many Superstitions in Worship, and almost swallowed up their Liberty in Point of Government. At length it pleased God to open the Eyes of our Forefathers, to see the slavery and bondage they were in, and how far they were gone from the Unity of the Catholic Church, both in Faith, in Worship, and in Government. To retrieve themselves, many Efforts were made, and great Endeavours used for a Reformation. But none of those prevailing, they at last bethought themselves of casting off the Roman yoke, which by the assistance of the Civil Authority, not in tumultuary, but in a regular way was effected; and when that was done, then upon mature deliberation they reform those other abuses which were crept in among them. Whether this broken Catholic Unity or no, let the World judge.  
If this be a Schism, we must own ourselves guilty of it, but we see no reason to own it to be so yet, for in all this we have done nothing but what we are able to justify before all the World. For even our Adversaries themselves will not deny, but that a National Church hath power in itself to reform abuses within itself. But it may be they will tell us, that we are not a Church, but a faction, or party made up of Schismatics and Heretics broke lose from the Church. If this were true, we should have little to say for ourselves, but a bare accusation is no proof. They may do well therefore to recollect themselves, and consider, that before Austin the Monk set his Foot in England, there was a Christian Church settled here under lawful Governors; which Church opposed the proceeding of that proud Monk, and denied obedience to the See of Rome, for which they severely suffered. If notwithstanding all this, our Adversaries shall, as they frequently do, revive that old threadbare question, so often baffled; Where was your Church before the Reformation? Our answer is ready, it was where it is, the same for substance now, that it was then; It is indeed reform and repaired, but not made new; There is not one stone of a new foundation laid by us, the old Walls stand still, only the overcasting of those ancient stones with the untempered Mortar of new inventions displeased us, and that we washed off. 
Durand. Ration. l. 1.  What their own Durandus saith of material Churches, is very applicable to the Spiritual. If the wall be decayed not at once, but successively; it is judged still the same Church; and (upon reparation) not to be reconsecrated, but only reconciled. If therefore our Church be the same for substance now, that it was before the Reformation, than it is plain that by our Reformation we made no Separation from the Church; we only laid aside the corruptions, i. e. those unsound and unwholesome additions, which the Church of Rome had made to the ancient Structure of Christ's Religion; and when those were removed, the Church which was by them obscured, appeared again in her primitive Lustre and Beauty. Now if the Church be the same still, it will necessarily follow, that we who are of that Church do now hold the same Communion in all the Substantials and Essentials of Religion with all other Christian Churches, that we did before. For as to all the Essentials of a Church we hold the same Faith, the same Worship, and the same Government now, that we did before the Reformation; and which now is, and always hath been owned by the Catholic. Church in all Ages. And if so, then can we not possibly be guilty of any Schismatical Separation.  
2. Schism is a Separation from a Christian Church, i. e. from such a Society between which and us there is or aught to be a Religious Union and Conjunction. That we cannot upon that score be justly charged with any Schismatical Separation, either from the Catholic, or any particular Christian Church, I hope is sufficiently made out in the 4th. Sect. of this Discourse, to which I refer the Reader, being unwilling either to give him or myself an unnecessary trouble.  
3. Schism is a Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church, in Faith, Worship and Government, considered as Bonds of Communion. And here we are roundly charged by the Church of Rome, with a Schismatical Separation from her, and a manifest breach of all these great Bonds of Communion. But having in the beginning of this Sect. I hope, sufficiently vindicated the Church of England from any Schismatical Separation from the Catholic or any other Christian Church, in her Reformation; and cleared her innocency as to the breach of any of these great Bonds of Communion, in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, Sections, I shall not need to say any more of it here. There is only one thing which as yet I have taken no notice of, and with which they often twit us, viz. The Derivation of our Orders from them.  
Mr. Harding in his answer to Bishop Jewel's Apology doth mightily triumph in this, telling us, That a Church cannot subsist without lawful Pastors and Governors, that there can be none such without lawful Ordination by imposition of hands; that we neither have nor ever had any such but from the Church of Rome; that those who received that power from her, becoming Schismatics and Heretics by their Separation from her, forfeited that power, and could not convey it to others; that therefore we have now no such thing as lawful Priests and Bishops among us, without which we cannot be a Church; that herein we have broken the great Bond of Communion, viz. Government, by departing from that Church from which ours had its Being; and therefore cannot be excused from the sin of Schism. To this B. Jewel hath given a long, learned and full answer, to which I shall refer the Reader. He may find it in the second part of the defence of the Apology of the Church of England, Chap. 5. Division 1. But to show you in how empty and insignificant a show this mighty triumph ends, I shall here offer some few things to consideration  
1. That the conferring of Orders giveth no Power or Jurisdiction to him or them by whom they are conferred, over him or them on whom they are conferred. For, do we not know, that the Bishop of Rome is always consecrated by the Bishop of Hostia, and yet I hope they will not say that the Bishop of Hostia is therefore above the Bishop of Rome.  
2. Let it be granted that we derive our Orders from the Church of Rome, (not as from the Fountain or Original of Orders, but as from the conduct or means of conveyance) I would ask this question, do they believe their Orders to be good and valid, or not? If not, why do they presume to exercise those high and holy Functions to which they are admitted thereby? If they do, than our Orders must be good and valid too, and we have as good right as they have to that Succession which they so much boast of.  
3. That the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England are true and rightful Successors to those that have been before them, being elected, consecrated, confirmed and admitted in as an effectual a manner as they were. If their Predecessors were deceived in any thing, they succeed them in Place, but not in Error. For though they were indeed their Predecessors in Office, yet were they not the Rulers and Standards of their Faith. And it cannot be denied but that a Succession in Faith and Doctrine, is far more considerable than a Succession of Persons, and that (God be thanked) we are able to make good from the pure and uncorrupted Fountain. In Doctrine therefore we succeed the Church of Rome, as the Day succeedeth the Night, as the Light succeedeth Darkness, and as Truth succeedeth Error.  
4. That those Bishops and Pastors who have once been duly elected, consecrated, confirmed and admitted in and to those sacred Functions, do not by departing from the Errors and Superstitions of any other Church, (though it be that from which they received their Orders) lose the power that was thereby committed to them, but are still in a capacity to convey the same unto others.  
5. That the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England being legally possessed of, having duly exerted, and constantly and regularly exercised this power; the Orders conferred by them by virtue thereof, are to all intents and purposes good and valid, and consequently our Church cannot be said to want true and lawful Pastors and Governors.  
6. That though the Church of England, in her Reformation, have cast off the Usurpations, and laid aside the corruptions of the Church of Rome, yet hath she not thereby broken any Bond of Communion with the Christian Church; and therefore cannot justly be charged with the guilt of Schism. For whilst she holds fast those three great Bonds of Communion, viz. Faith, Worship, and Government, in all the substantial and essential Parts thereof, the guilt of that horrid Schism, which hath so much bruised and wounded, rend and torn the Church of God, can never be laid at her door.  
These things I thought good to offer to consideration, and when they are seriously and deliberately weighed, I do not doubt, but that the ingenuous Reader will so well improve them, as to satisfy himself and others, that all this mighty triumph is no more than a vain and empty show.  
4. Schism is a voluntary and causeless Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church, i. e. When men have full liberty to make their own choice, having no force nor constraint put upon their inclinations; nor any cause or occasion given to justify their Separation; then may they be truly said to act voluntarily and without cause. And if this be our case, we must confess ourselves guilty of Schism, but if not, then are we unjustly charged with it.  
That our recession from the Church of Rome, was not a voluntary act in us, but a necessity upon us, occasioned by force and violence, constraint and compulsion, is plain and evident. We did not attempt a Separation, but only desire a Reformation, that so we might walk together in the House of God as friends; If they would have harkened to us, and removed those errors and abuses, those Superstitions and corruptions, that tyranny and usurpation, which they had introduced into the Faith, Worship and Government of Christ's Church, we had still peaceably continued in Communion with them. But so far were they from harkening to these our just desires, that instead thereof, we were menaced with fire and faggot, with imprisonment, with confiscation of our Estates, with all kind of sufferings, and even death itself, if we refused to comply with their Corruptions and innovations. And therefore we may truly say with the Learned Causaubon, 
Causaub. ad Peron.  Non fugimus sed fugamur, We did not run away from them, but were driven away by them.  
But yet notwithstanding all this force and violence, if we had not sufficient cause to justify our recession, we must still be criminal; 
Eusch. l. 6. c. 44.  for we are of opinion with Dionysius Alex. in his Epistle to Novatus, That any thing must rather be born, than that we should rend asunder the Church of God. But alas we had too great cause for what we did; The Church of Rome had corrupted the Faith of God's Church with her unwarrantable additions and alterations; The primitive beauty and purity of God's Worship she had defaced with Superstitions: That goodly and well compacted structure of Government which had been erected and established in the Church of God, she had quite demolished; and instead thereof had erected an unheard of tyrannical Government unknown to the Primitive Church, and condemned by all other Churches, ever since it appeared in the World. In a word, she had made the terms of her Communion such, as could not be complied with without sin; and when it is sin to communicate, it cannot be sin to separate.  
Thus much I hope may suffice, to satisfy any indifferent and unprejudiced Reader, that the recession of the Church of England, from that of Rome in her Reformation, was neither owing to a dividing humour, nor without just cause. And therefore she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism by the Church of Rome upon that account.  
5. Schism is a voluntary and causeless Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church of which we are Members, i. e. which hath a Jurisdiction over us, and to which we own Subjection and Obedience. Schism imports a breach of Unity, a dividing of that Body which before was but one; it implies the casting off of a lawful Jurisdiction, to which we were obliged to yield Subjection and Obedience. Now if we neither are, nor ever were of right Subjects of that Church; if we neither are, nor ever were such parts of that Body as are to depend upon the Head of it, then can we not justly be charged with breaking the Unity of that Church, or dividing of that Body, because that Church, or that Body doth still remain the same it was notwithstanding our recession therefrom. And if it neither hath, nor ever had any lawful Jurisdiction over us, than we neither do, nor ever did owe any subjection or obedience thereunto; and therefore cannot without great injustice be charged with a Schismatical Separation therefrom.  
To prove this Negative, would require a much longer Discourse than is now designed; and therefore at present I shall only say, that this we insist upon. That the Church of England neither is, nor ever was by any divine Authority bound to be in obedience to the Church of Rome. And whenever they please to make their claim, we are ready to defend ourselves against it. In the mean time, till they make this good, they have no reason to brand us, (as hitherto they have unjustly done) with the odious Names of Schismatics and Heretics.  
Thus have I taken a review of the several parts of the Definition, which (if it be allowed) will fairly acquit the Church of England from the guilt of Schism. And now let us see, whether the Church of Rome can so well discharge herself of it.   

SECT. XIII. The Church of Rome guilty of that Shism, with which they charge the Church of England.  
IT is a rule generally allowed, that the Cause makes the Schism. If the Church gives cause of Separation, there is the Schism; if not, the cause of Schism is in the Separatist. So that where the cause is found, there the charge of Schism resteth. If therefore the Church of Rome hath given just cause of Separation from her, then is she causally guilty of that Schism; and I am afraid will hardly be able to acquit herself from being so, of almost all other Schisms in the Church.  
Their ingenuous Cassander confesseth, 
Cass. de Offic. boni viri, etc.  that the Roman Church is not a little changed from her ancient beauty and brightness, and that she is deformed with many diseases, and vicious distempers. And being thus sick, 
Bernh. de vita solit.  St. Bernhard undertakes to be her Physician, and prescribes her a Diet, which he tells us must be profitable though unpleasing; i. e. she ought to be reproved, and a Reformation required. And if thereupon an offence be taken, 
Bernh. ad Hug. de Sancto vict. Epist. 77.  the same Saint Bernhard shall acquaint you where the scandal will rest, When faults are taxed, and scandal grows thereupon. He is the cause of the scandal, who did that which was worthy to be reproved, not he that reproved the ill doer. And that the Church of Rome hath given occasion both to the reproof and scandal, let their own Precedent in the Council of Trent inform you. Who saith, 
Orat. praes. Concil. Trident. Sess. 11.  That the Depravation and Corruption of Discipline and Manners in the Church of Rome, was in a great measure the Cause and Original of all those Schisms and Heresies, which then troubled the Church.  
But that it may appear that I have a desire to deal fairly and friendly with them, I shall here present them with a Copy of their Charge, and give them time to plead to it. The Charge was long since drawn up by two great men of our Church, viz. Bishop Hall, and Bishop Bramhal, and never yet pleaded to that I know, much less cleared.  
Bishop Hall in a little Book entitled The Old Religion, dedicated to his Diocese of Exeter, chap. 4. lays down their Charge in these five particulars.  
1. Nothing can be more plain, than that the Roman is a particular Church, as the Fathers of Basil well distinguish it, not the Universal; though we take in the Churches of her subordination or correspondence. This truth we might make good by authority, if our very senses did not save us the labour.  
2. No particular Church (to say nothing of the Universal since the Apostolic times) can have power to make a fundamental point of Faith; It may explain or declare, it cannot create Articles.  
3. Only an Error against a point of Faith, is Heresy.  
4. Those Points wherein we differ from Romanists are they, which only the Church of Rome hath made fundamental, and of Faith.  
5. The Reformed, therefore being by that Church illegally condemned for those Points, are not Heretics.  
This I take to be a fair discharge for the Church of England from that foul aspersion which hath been cast upon her by the Church of Rome. But Bishop Bramhal chargeth them more home, and particularly in five Articles more, and lays the sin at their door.  
1. The Church of Rome usurps an higher place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical, than of right is due unto her.  
2. See separateth, both by her Doctrines and Censures, three parts of the Christian World from her Communion, and as much as in her lies, from the Communion of Christ.  
3. She rebelleth against general Councils.  
4. She breaks, or takes away all the lines of Apostolical Succession except her own; and appropriates all Original Jurisdiction to herself.  
5. She challenges a temporal power over Princes, either directly or indirectly; which draws Sedition and Rebellion after it, and is no small aggravation of their Schism.  
These are the things we charge them with; if they can truly plead not guilty thereunto, then are we criminal; But if they cannot, if these things be really true, then are they causally guilty of that Schism with which they would charge us; and the whole weight with all the dreadful consequences thereof will lie at their doors, and be an heavy burden upon them.   

SECT. XIV. The Conclusion.  
THat there is, and for a long time hath been a great and grievous Schism in the Church, and that those who have been guilty of it, have miserably rend and torn, and even eaten out the Bowels of their common Mother, What considering Person can be ignorant? and who can know it without tears of pity, and prayers to God for the restoration of the Church's Peace and Unity? This would much better become us, than disputing about it; and this, I declare, should have been my Province, had not the daily and loud Clamours of the guilty Party so unjustly assaulted the Church of England, and forced me from my Privacy, to undertake this necessary and just Defence of my dear Mother.  
It hath for a long time been matter of debate, and a ball of contention, where the cause of the Schism was to be sound: The Church of Rome with great confidence and assurance, hath laid it at the door of the Church of England; and that Church upon better grounds, hath charged the Church of Rome with it: I pray God open both their and our Eyes, that we may all see and know the things that belong unto our Peace; that laying aside all rancour and animosity, we may at last join hearts and hands to promote Truth and Holiness, and study nothing more than to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace.  
For my own part, I have so great an abhorrence for the sin of Schism, that I do seriously profess, if I were convinced, that the Church of England were guilty of the Schism, I would rather choose to suffer any thing elsewhere, than continue in it; but, God be thanked, I am otherwise persuaded, and so well satisfied therein, that as I have lived, so I hope I shall die in the Communion of that Church.  
But alas! Perfect Peace and Unity are too great Blessings to be hoped for in this sinful World; they may be Objects of our Prayers, but hardly of our Hopes. However if we are what we pretend to be, i. e. humble and obedient Christians, it would well become us, in our several Stations, to observe the Apostle's Rule, which bids us, Fellow Peace with all Men, and Holiness, without which no Man shall see the Lord, Heb. 12. v. 14. Now the God of Peace, who brought again from the Dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the Sheep, through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, make us all perfect in all good Works, to do his Will, working in us that which is pleasant in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise for ever and ever. Amen. Heb. 13. v. 20, 21.   
FINIS.   

A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England From the foul Aspersions of Schism and Heresy Unjustly cast upon Her by The Church of Rome. PART. II.  — After the way which they call Heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets. Acts 24.14. 
LONDON, Printed by J. H. for Luke Meredith, at the King's Head at the West End of St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVII.   

A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England, etc.  

The INTRODUCTION.  
Heresy is a crime of so crimson a die, so heinous in itself, and of so dangerous and destructive consequence both to the Heretic himself, and to others; that, without great, plain and pregnant proof, to charge any Christian, or Society of Christians therewith, doth evidently betray a rash, censorious, malicious and unchristian temper in them that do it. I cannot but wonder therefore that the Church of Rome, upon so light and insufficient grounds, should be so liberal in bestowing this Character upon the Church of England, and those of her Communion. 
De corrupt artib.  Ludovicus Vives one of their own Men did long since complain of this, saying, Haeresis nomen rebus levissimis impingitur, etc. The name of Heresy is laid upon every light matter; so would the Scotists deal with the Thomists, if the custom of the Schools had not made the name so familiar. It is a good caution, and worthy to be attended to, which Alphonsus de Castro, 
De Haeres. l. 1. c. 7. p. 79.  another of their own Doctors, gives in this case, Idcirco fit, etc. Therefore it happeneth that they who so rashly pronounce and call every thing Heresy, not considering what or whereof they speak, are often smitten with their own dart, and fall into the same pit which they themselves had digged for others. For this I should rather call Heresy, to advance the Writings of Men unto the same degree of honour with the Word of God; which they do, who think it altogether as impious to descent from them, as from the Scriptures of God.  
We freely confess, with St. Austin, Errare possumus, We may mistake and be in an error; but we as fully resolve, with that holy Father, Haeretici esse nolumus, We will never be guilty of Heresy. We have too great an abhorrence for it, and are too well acquainted with the mischief of it, to run ourselves upon that rock. We are well satisfied how dangerous and destructive Heresy is. It withdraws men from the way of Truth, and makes them enemies and blasphemers of it: 
Gal 5.20, 21.  It excludes men from the Kingdom of God, and makes them become men of corrupt minds, 
2 Tim. 3.8.  and reprobate concerning the Faith. Nor is it only hurtful to those that are guilty of it, but to others also. For, It doth grievously disturb and trouble the peace of God's Church, by stirring up strife, contention, emulation and division among the members thereof. It seduceth unwary Souls, and betrays them to their own ruin and destruction. It weakens the authority of Holy Scriptures, and deprives men of the profit and advantage thereof, by perverting sometimes the sense, and sometimes the letter of those Sacred Writings. In a word, it makes the Christian Religion to be evil spoken of among those who are without.  
Bishop Jewel gives us a short but full description of it, 
Defence. Apolog. etc. part. 1. chap. 7. divis. 2. p. 43.  when he tells us, Heresy is a forsaking of salvation, a renouncing of God's grace, a departing from the body and spirit of Christ.  
These are our Sentiments of the sin of Heresy, and if our Adversaries can draw a Character more black, we solemnly promise, and seriously declare, that, so far as it is true, we are ready to join with them. And after all this can any one suspect that we should be in love with Heresy?  
But whether we be or no, it matters not, so long as the Church of Rome, which thinks herself infallible, is pleased to charge us therewith, to fix that title upon us, and as such to represent us to the World. How justly, or unjustly rather this foul aspersion is cast upon us, will be enquired into in the following discourse, the design of the Author therein being, to vindicate the Church of England therefrom, which if he shall be so happy as to do, then will it appear that the Church of Rome was mightily mistaken in her Censure, and that will be no small flaw in her Infallibility; but if upon a fair and full debate it shall plainly appear, that they who so rashly pronounce and call us Heretics, be themselves the guilty persons, then will it highly concern them (if they have any care of their Souls) to consider how deeply they are wounded with their own dart; and how low they are fallen into that Pit which they had digged for us; that so by a true and timely repentance they may rise again.   

SECT. I. Of Heresy.  
IN order to a right stating of the true and genuine Notion of Heresy; it will be requisite to consider both the Importance of the Name, and the Nature of the Thing.  
The word Heresy is a Greek word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and admits of many, and those different significations, as Scapula informs us out of several Authors. To reckon them all up, would waste too much time and paper, and conduce but little to the design in hand; I shall therefore only mention three.  
1. I find it sometimes rendered, conquering or subduing, thus it is used by Herodot. and Thucyd. in whom we meet with these expressions. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to subdue a City, 
In Epit. Basilii.  and thus it is used by Greg. Naz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou shalt not overcome us.  
2. It is sometimes rendered Election or Option, as appears by these expressions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make choice of friends, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I choose my way, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to choose a Judge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, erring in the very choice of things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Election or Creation of an Emperor. 
In Epist. ad Galat.  And thus St. Hier. useth it, where he saith, Heresy, in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Election, because every one chooseth to himself that discipline which he thinks best.  
3. Sometimes it denotes a Sect or sort of men, who having espoused an opinion different from the received opinion of all others, do tenaciously hold the same. Thus is the word usually taken by Philosophers, and Divines; Galen meeting with some of his own profession, who both in their opinions and practice, dissered from him, and the whole body of Physicians at that time, yet used some method, and did not altogether swerve from the rules of Art, calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Methodical Heresy. And finding others who observed no method, nor pretended to understand the reason of things, or the natural causes of Distempers, but practised by some receipts which they had got, and which by use and experience they had found in some cases to be very advantageous, and therefore boldly, though blindly, went on in so doing; this he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Emperical Heresy, or the Heresy of Quacks and Empirics in that profession. And in this sense, we find the word used by Ecclesiastical Writers; who by Heresy do generally understand an Opinion which is not agreeable to the Orthodox Faith; and whosoever doth espouse such an Opinion, boldly teaching and obstinately defending the same, is by them always reputed an Heretic.  
Thus have I shown you the importance of the Word, and in what sense it is used by Ecclesiastical Writers; and now I come to consider the nature of the thing imported thereby: which we may partly learn from such as have written upon that Subject, but best from the Holy Scriptures. When Men entertain Opinions contrary to those which the Catholic Church holds and believes, That is Heresy, saith St. Augustine. 
Aug. contra Faust.   
And whosoever, 
Aug. the definite.  for the sake of any temporal profit, and especially for the advancement of his own Glory and Grandeur, doth forge and follow false and new Opinions, he is an Heretic, saith the same Holy Father.  
And whosoever doth obstinately defend that new Error which he hath embraced, 
Idem ibid.  he is an Heretic.  
Heresy is a kind of Infidelity, 
Th. Aq. 22. qu. 11. art. 1. c.  belonging to them who profess the Faith of Christ, and corrupt the Doctrines thereof, saith their Angelical Doctor.  
Heresy is conversant about those things which are of Faith; 
Idem ibid. art. 2. c.  viz. the Articles of Faith, and such things as follow upon them, and consists in an obstinate dissent therefrom, saith the same Doctor.  
He that obstinately believes what is contrary to the holy Catholic Faith, 
In Enchirid. c. 11. p. 141. n. 2.  is an Heretic, if he be baptised, saith their Navar. Doctor.  
Whosoever neglecting the authority of the Church, 
Catech. ad Parochos, part. 1. in expos. art. 9 Symbol. p. 76. n. 2.  doth defend wicked opinions with a wilful and obstinate mind, is to be called an Heretic, saith the Trent Catechism.  
And what we are to understand by the name of Church, the same Catechism afterwards informs us, and quotes St. 
Ibid. n. 3. ad calcem.  Augustine in Ps. 49. for it, telling us, that by Church we are to understand the faithful people dispersed through the whole world.  
Though none of these will perhaps pass for an exact Definition, 
Aug. ad Quodvult Deum. Epist. 2.  if examined according to the strict rules thereof; nor it may be were ever intended as such; (for as for St. Aug. he freely confesseth, That to express by a regular Definition what Heresy is, or what thing it is that makes an Heretic, in his judgement, is either impossible, or very difficult) yet may they pass for good Descriptions, whence we may learn what notion they had of Heresy in those days, and what it was that in their judgement, did make a man an Heretic.  
From St. Aug. we may learn that there are three things necessary to make up an Heresy.  
1. To believe such things as are not believed by the Catholic Church:  
2. To broach those false and new opinions, and thereby endeavour to make a party, for some secular advantage; especially for the sake of ones own glory and grandeur.  
3. To defend those false and new opinions with obstinacy.  
From their own Angelical Doctor we may learn, that there are four things necessary to make a man an Heretic.  
1. He must be one that professeth the true Faith.  
2. He must corrupt the Doctrines of that Faith.  
3. He must descent from some known established Article of the Faith.  
4. His dissent must be maintained with obstinacy.  
From their Navar. Doctor we may learn that there are three things necessary to make an Heretic.  
1. He must be one that is baptised, i. e. admitted into the membership of Christ's Church, and who by himself or others, or both, hath made profession of the holy Catholic Faith.  
2. He must be one that hath embraced some false and new opinions which are contrary to that Holy Catholic Faith.  
3. He must be one that doth believe and maintain those false and new opinions with obstinacy.  
From their Trent Catechism we may learn who may properly be called an Heretic.  
1. He must be one that doth neglect and despise the Authority of the Church.  
2. The Authority which is neglected or despised by him must be the Authority of the Catholic Church diffusive, Ecclesia est populus fidelis per universum orbem dispersus, are the words of that Catechism, quoted out of St. Augustine in Ps. 49.  
3. He must be one that holdeth and defendeth wicked opinions in despite and defiance of that Authority.  
4. He must hold and defend those wicked opinions with a wilful and obstinate mind.  
Thus far may we learn the nature of Heresy from these Authorities, which are such, as I suppose, our Adversaries will not disown; and if upon any of these severally, or all of them jointly, they think fit to implead us, we are ready to join issue with them: and if by any of these they can make it appear that we are guilty, we do solemnly promise, that, by God's grace assisting us, we will repent and amend; and I would willingly hope that they would be so ingenuous on their parts as to do the same.  
But before we proceed any farther, let us see what is more to be learned of the nature of Heresy out of the Holy Scriptures.  
St. Paul writing to the Church of Corinth, tells them that there must be Heresies among them, 
1 Cor. 11.19.  that they which are approved, may be made manifest. The rise of which Heresies is intimated in the verse immediately preceding, 
V 18.  where he saith, For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there are dissensions among you, etc. Dissension is the first and greatest evil, being the Source and Original of all others; for from thence proceed strifes, debates, envyings, evil-speaking, and all manner of contention; by means whereof the Unity of the Church is broken, her peace disturbed, and her Members crumbled into parties and factions. Then doth every party set up for itself, and for the sake of its own glory and grandeur endeavours to enlarge its bounds, by alluring others to join with it. This it can never hope effectually to accomplish without having something new to present them with; and therefore all Heads are at work to forge and foment some new and plausible, though false opinion; which being once broached, must obstinately be defended, and so commenceth Heresy.  
Thus we see the rise and original of Heresy, the dangerous and destructive consequence whereof the same Apostle acquaints us with, who in his Epistle to the Church of Galatia, reckoneth Heresies among the works of the Flesh, and tells us, 
Gal. 5.19, 20, 21.  that they who do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. And on this account is it, that St. Peter gives them that dreadful Epithet, calling them damnable Heresies. For, saith he, 
2 Pet. 2.1.  There were false Prophets also among the People, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. From this Text it is plain, that the Introducers of Heresy, and the Ringleaders of Heretics, are false Teachers; and these false Teachers in the time of the Gospel, are compared to false Prophets in the time of the Law. To know therefore, and rightly understand, who those false Prophets were, and what they did to deserve that title; may possibly afford us some light, by which to discover those false Teachers who privily bring in these damnable Heresies; and not only so, but in some measure also acquaint us with the nature of those Crimes.  
He who by signs and lying wonders sought to turn away the People from the way, 
Deut. 13.1, 2, etc.  which the Lord their God had commanded them to walk in, or persuade them to pay their Religious Service and Worship to any other Being, but only the true God, was thereby known to be a false Prophet, not to be attended to, but severely punished.  
Whosoever shall presume to speak a word in the Name of God, 
Deut. 18.20.  which God hath not commanded him to speak, or shall speak in the Name of other Gods, the same is a false Prophet, and by the sentence of Almighty God adjudged to death.  
Those who come unto you in sheep's clothing, 
Matth. 7.15. 1 Tim 4.2.  but inwardly are ravening Wolves. Who speak lies in Hypocrisy, having their Consciences seared with an hot Iron. 
2 Tim. 3.5.  Who have a form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof. They are false Prophets, and to be rejected by us.  
Those who cause divisions and offences, 
Rom. 16.17, 18.  contrary to the Doctrine which we have learned, they serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own Belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the simple. These are false Prophets or false Teachers, and aught to be marked and avoided by us.  
Thus have I given you a short Character of false Prophets out of the Holy Scriptures, to whom St. Peter compares false Teachers in the time of the Gospel: And by this you may easily discern them; for, if you find any at this day so teaching and so doing, as they then taught and did, you ought to mark them for false Teachers, and such whose business it is to deceive you, and privily bring in damnable Heresies.  
But there is once place of Scripture more, in which we have a more particular account of the Nature of Heresy, and from which we may more plainly learn what it is that makes an Heretic. And that is in St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, where he gives him this direction. 
Tit. 3.10, 11.  A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject: Knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.  
In this place St. Paul directs Titus, and not only him, but all the Governors of the Church, how to deal with Heretics; and instructs both them and us, what Heresy is, and what it is that makes an Heretic.  
Heretics are to be dealt with in this manner, 1. They are to be admonished, i. e. they are by the Governors of the Church to be warned to forsake that or those errors which they have espoused. For that they are in an Error is employed, otherwise there would be no occasion for an admonition, 2. That admonition is to be repeated, i. e. they are to be admonished a first and second time, 3. If they continue obstinate after the first and second admonition, they are to be rejected; i. e. the Censure of the Church is to pass upon them, and they are thereby to be cast out of the Society of Christians, and avoided, lest others should be infected by them.  
What Heresy is, or what it is that makes an Heretic, he likewise teacheth us, when he describes the Heretical man he here speaks of: 1. A man that is an Heretic, is one that is subverted, i. e. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  one that is gone astray, who hath turned aside from the right path, forsaken and corrupted the true faith. Thus their own Lyra understands it, saying, 
Lyra in loc.  A man that is an Heretic is one, who having received the Catholic Faith, doth afterwards corrupt it. 
Gl. Ord. apud Lyr.  And with him the ordinary Gloss agreeth, telling us, he is an Heretic, who, by the words of the Law, opposeth the Law itself; and puts his own sense thereupon, that by the Authority thereof, he may strengthen himself in the naughtiness of his own mind. 2. A man that is an Heretic, is one that sinneth, i. e. one that sinneth knowingly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith the Int. Gl. Or as the word imports, one who is fallen from the way of Truth, and hath embraced the way of Error; violently opposing the one, and as obstinately defending the other. 3. A man that is an Heretic, is one that is condemned of himself. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For that Faith which he once received and owned as true, he now opposeth and condemneth as false, saith Lyra, in Loc. Or because he commendeth Error, and reproacheth Truth, saith Gl. Ord.  
Having thus considered both the importance of the word, and the nature of the thing I am treating of, I shall now adventure to lay down this short, but full and comprehensive Definition of it.  
Heresy is an Error in the Foundation of Religion, openly taught, and obstinately defended.  
I call Heresy an Error in Religion, to distinguish it from Philosophical Errors; for those, according to the strict Ecclesiastical notion of the word, cannot fall under that Head. As also to difference it from Schism, for though Schism be an Error, yet is it not properly an Error in the Faith: It concerns not the Doctrine, but Discipline of the Church; i. e. Manners, Order and Government. I call it an Error in the Foundation of Religion, to distinguish it from Errors in the less considerable parts of Religion. For in speculative points, such as are matters of Controversy, or mere School-niceties, relating to times or places, or other Circumstances of Religion, not being plainly delivered in the word of God, nor can be proved thereby; Men may safely differ in their opinions, without incurring the Gild of Heresy. I say, this Error must be openly taught, because though men may be Heretics, by espousing some fundamental Error, and tenaciously holding the same; Yet so long as they keep their opinion to themselves, and do not endeavour to infect others therewith, they are no Heretics in the Eye of the Church. The Church can take no cognizance of their thoughts, nor pass any Judgement upon them. In this case, they stand accountable only to God, and their own Consciences. Lastly, I say, that this Error must be defended with obstinacy, to distinguish it from bare Error. For though a man be, (as all men are subject to be) in an Error, yet if he be willing to be instructed, and, upon better information, to relinquish his Error, he cannot be said to be an Heretic.  
Having thus stated the notion of Heresy, I shall now proceed to consider how far it is appliable to the Church of England; and for this purpose I shall take the Definition in pieces, and consider each part severally.  

1. Heresy is an Error in Religion.  
2. It is an Error in the foundation of Religion.  
3. This Fundamental Error must be openly taught.  
4. It must be obstinately maintained.    

SECT. II. I. Heresy is an Error in Religion.  
THAT every Heresy is an Error, and an Error in Religion, will be owned by all; but that every Error, or every Error in Religion, is Heresy, must not be granted; for Error and Heresy are not terms convertible. It will be necessary therefore to explain this part of the Definition; i. e. to see what it is we stand charged with, before we go about to discharge ourselves of it.  
By Religion here, 
Judas v. 3.  I understand that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, and for the maintenance of which we are commanded earnestly to contend; or that common Christianity which we have received from Christ and his Apostles, which we all do, or aught to profess and defend. And by Error here, I understand an Opinion, which is contrary to, or at least not agreeable with that Faith and common Christianity. Every Error supposeth a Rule, and an aberration from that Rule: for what is Error, but a wand'ring out of the right way, mistaking one thing for another, esteeming that false which is really true, or that true which is really false? Heresy therefore being an Error in Religion, must be a going astray from that Rule, which the Author of our Religion hath given us to walk by. Now, who is the Author of our Religion but he who is styled the author and finisher of our faith, 
Heb. 12.2.  viz. Jesus Christ the righteous? And what standing Rule hath he left us to go by, 
John 5.39. 2 Tim. 3.14, 15, 16, 17.  but only the holy Scriptures? These, we are told, are able to make us wise unto salvation, and to make the man of God perfect. And what can we desire more? Heresy therefore must be such an Error in Religion, as is against the truth of God's word, being neither contained therein, nor to be proved thereby. And whosoever is guilty of such an Error, and proceedeth openly to teach, and obstinately to defend the same, the whole guilt of Heresy, and all the mischievous consequences thereof will lie at his door.  
And now let us see how far this first part of the Definition doth affect the Church of England: Doth she not embrace the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints? Is it not that which she doth so earnestly contend for? doth she not profess that common Christianity which she hath received from Christ and his Apostles? doth she not own Jesus Christ to be the author and finisher of her Faith? and the holy Scripture to be the rule of her Religion? Doth she teach any Doctrine that is not agreeable to the Word of God? or profess any Error that is contrary to the Truth thereof? If she do let her Adversaries implead her, and if she cannot defend herself, she will be so far from being obstinate, that she will readily own her fault, and, by God's assisting grace, repent and reform. But if they cannot justly charge her with any of these things, let them for shame forbear their ungrounded clamour against her, as an Heretical Church.  
The Innocency of the Church of England in this point will manifestly appear if we consider what she doth publicly profess, and teach her Children to believe, in her Articles of Religion.  
1. She doth declare her Belief, 
Art 6.  That the holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.  
2. That whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.  
3. That the three Creeds, viz. The Nicene, 
Art 8.  the Athanasian, and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; because they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.  
And after such a Declaration as this, with what face can the Church of Rome charge her with the guilt of Heresy? The Church of England indeed is so modest, as not to challenge to herself an Infallibility as that of Rome unwarrantably doth; She is willing to acknowledge that she may err, but she as firmly resolves that she will never be obstinate in an error, and therefore cannot be justly burdened with the guilt of Heresy.   

SECT. III. II. Heresy is an Error in the Foundation of Religion.  
THE Church of God is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, 
Eph. 2.20.  Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Where, by the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, St. 
Lyr. in. loc.  Paul means (as their own Lyra informs us) the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets; the one foretelling, and the other preaching Christ Jesus. And the same Apostle tells us, That, 
1 Cor. 3.10.  As a wise Master Builder he had laid the foundation, i. e. (saith Lyra) the Faith of Christ, and none other; which Faith worketh by love. And in another place he saith, 
2 Tim. 2.19.  The foundation of God stands sure, i.e. saith Lyra, Fides Resurrectionis, the Faith or Doctrine of the Resurrection. These Scriptures will help us to explain what we mean by the foundation of Religion in this part of the Definition, viz. some principal and fundamental point or points of Faith; or, as their own angelical Doctor styles them, 
Th. Aq. 22. qu. 11. art. 2. c.  some Article or Articles of Faith, or some Doctrines which necessarily follow therefrom. And by an Error in this Foundation, I understand, not only a dissenting therefrom, but also a making of something to be Religion, or an Article of Faith which really is not so. And whether we be guilty of such an Error I leave to the impartial Reader to judge, when he hath carefully perused these Papers.  
That the Church of England is not guilty of any such Error, methinks is very plain: For, she doth publicly declare, 
Art 6.  That whatsoever is not read in the holy Scriptures, (which contain the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, and the Faith, or common Christianity, which was once delivered to the Saints) nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. She also receiveth the three ancient Creeds, 
Art 8.  and teacheth her Children to receive and believe every Article therein. And whilst she doth this, with what colour can the Church of Rome brand her with Heresy, or charge her with an Error in the foundation of Religion? A general charge without any particular instances will not do, to such an one this general answer may suffice; and when our Adversaries think fit to descend to particulars they may be further considered.   

SECT. iv III. This fundamental Error must be openly taught.  
THE Church cannot, and therefore doth not pretend to take cognizance of the thoughts of men's hearts; that is the sole prerogative of Almighty God, who is the searcher of hearts and trier of reins. By the law of God a false Prophet or dreamer of dreams was to be slain, but then he must be such an one as had endeavoured thereby to seduce the people from the worship of the true God, Deut. 13.1, 2, 3, etc. And our Saviour tells us of some who should be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; i. e. should have no place in the Church, but be cast out of it as rotten and unsound members. And that we may not be ignorant what sort of men these are, he describes them to us, telling us, They are those who break his commandments, and teach men so. Matt. 5.19. And St. Peter tells us of some who should privily bring in Damnable Heresies, and these he calls False Teachers, 2 Pet. 2.1. And St. Paul's tells us of some who caused divisions and offences in the Church, whom he warns us to avoid; but how shall we shun them unless we know them? He therefore gives us their character, telling us, they are such as by good words and fair speeches deceive the simple. Rom. 16, 17, 18. These instances may sufficiently justify this expression, and show you that it is not without cause that I have given it a place in the Desinition of Heresy. For, though a man have not only a kindness for some heretical opinions, or fundamental errors, but do hearty espouse and embrace them; yet so long as he keeps all this locked up in the cabinet of his own breast, he is not censurable for it; nor can any one, without great rashness, pronounce him an Heretic; for, not to be, and not to appear, in foro Ecclesiae, are the same. Heresy then, which is so great and heinous a crime, an error so mischievous to the Church of God, and of so dangerous consequence to the Heretic himself, ought certainly to be very well proved, and made mighty clear and manifest, before it be charged upon any man, or any society of men who profess Christianity. For though every Heresy be an Error, yet every Error is not Heresy; It must be an Error in Religion, and in the foundation of Religion too, and that fundamental Error must be divulged and openly taught, i. e. there must be an endeavour to instill the poison of it into others, thereby to seduce and withdraw them from fundamental Truth and Holiness; and all this must be owned stoutly, and maintained obstinately, before it can merit the name of Heresy.  
Till therefore the Church of Rome, by plain and undeniable Arguments, hath proved all this particularly upon the Church of England, she cannot without great rashness and presumption charge her with it. A general imputation, without particular proofs, will amount to no more than a malicious scandal, which will betray a great want of true Christian charity in them, and the weight thereof will at last fall heavy upon their own heads. 
Alphonsus de Castro, de Haer. l. 1. c. 7. p. 79.  For, as one of their own Doctors saith, Those that so rashly pronounce and call every thing Heresy, not considering whereof they speak, are often stricken with their own dart, and fall into the same pit that they themselves had digged for others.  
So far is the Church of England from openly teaching any fundamental error in Religion, that she neither is nor can be proved guilty of any such, as is made appear in the preceding Section. She teacheth nothing but the pure Word of God, nor receiveth any thing as an Article of Faith, or necessary to Salvation, but what is contained in holy Scripture, or may be proved thereby, and therefore cannot be justly charged with the guilt of Heresy upon this account.   

SECT. V IU. This fundamental Error must be obstinately defended and maintained.  
THIS is the last part of the Definition, and that which gives spirit and life to all the rest; for though we should be guilty of Error, and of Error in Religion; yea though that Error should be a fundamental one, and openly taught by us; yet if we be not obstinate therein, but upon fair and full conviction are willing to reform our Judgements, and relinquish the same, we cannot be justly burdened with the guilt of Heresy.  
Such is the modesty of the Ch. of England, that she doth not believe, much less boast herself to be infallible, as the Ch. of Rome unwarrantably doth. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so she, or any other particular Church may err; but such is her piety and humility, that she is very desirous of, and always ready to receive better information, and thereupon to reform and amend her Errors. She is, and ever hath been willing to submit all her Doctrines to be tried by the touchstone of God's Word, by the primitive Doctors and Pastors of Christ's Church, and by the four first General Councils; and therefore, without great injustice, cannot be thought to be obstinate or contumacious.  
To make a Fundamental Error become Heresy, two things you see are required.  

1. That Fundamental Error must be defended.  
2. It must be defended with obstinacy.    

SECT. VI I. Of Defending a Fundamental Error.  
TO be guilty of a fundamental Error in Religion is a great and dangerous crime, but to persist in it and undertake the defence of it, renders it yet greater and more dangerous; for Religion is that upon the due observance of which depends all our happiness here, and all our hopes of happiness hereafter; and therefore to mistake therein, is like an error in War, which is hard to be retrieved; but to go on in so doing, and set our wits upon the rack to invent arguments to maintain it, is to form weapons against ourselves, with which to batter down all our hopes of future felicity. Yet even this may admit of some alleviation, for if those who embrace those errors be fully persuaded that they are that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, then are they obliged earnestly to contend for them; or if in the defence thereof they do not contend so much for victory as for truth, being ready, upon better information, to relinquish them; or if by the misfortune of an ill education or otherwise, they be prepossessed therewith, and only hold them till they are better instructed, not being averse to hearken thereto; such an Error, or such a defence of it will not amount to Heresy.  
But, God be thanked, the Church of England hath no need of any excuse in this case; for she receiveth nothing as an Article of Faith, but what is contained in holy Scripture, nor defends any Doctrine but such as may be proved thereby; and therefore it is a manifest injury, and malicious scandal in those who charge her with the defence of any fundamental Error in Religion. 'Tis true, she contends earnestly, but it is for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints. She strenuously defends the Religion which she professeth, but it is because she hath received it from Christ and his Apostles, and because it is well warranted by the Word of God. And if this be Heresy, then is she guilty of it; if not, then is she unjustly charged with it by the Ch. of Rome.   

SECT. VII. II. Of defending a fundamental Error with Obstinacy.  
HOW dangerous it is to espouse a fundamental Error in Religion, and how much more dangerous it is to engage in the defence and maintenance of such an error, I have already told you; But if that defence be managed with stubbornness and obstinacy, it renders the matter not only more dangerous, but very desperate. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? 
Prov. 26.12.  there is more hope of a fool than of him, saith the wise Solomon. If a fool offend it is usually out of ignorance, but the sin of the other commonly proceeds from malice; a fool sometimes will be counselled, but he that is wise in his own conceit, shutteth both his eyes and his ears against all advice and instruction. And of such St. Hilary saith well, They (i. e. 
Hilar. de Trin. l 6.  fools) forasmuch as they know not the Truth, may have their salvation in safety, if afterward they believe; but all hope of salvation is shut from thee (i. e. who art wise in thy own conceit) because thou deniest that thing which thou canst not choose but know. This is the case of him who obstinately defends a fundamental error in Religion; and it is this stubbornness and obstinacy that doth complete and perfect his Heresy, and by reason whereof he is justly styled an Heretic. But to make a man so obstinate as to deserve this title, two things are to be supposed; viz. Admonition and Conviction. 1. That he hath been admonished, and that more than once, of the evil of his way, of the danger of it, and of the necessity of leaving it. 2. That he is convinced in his own mind of all this. These two are expressly contained in that direction and advice which St. Paul gives to his Son Titus. A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; Knowing that he that is such, is subverted, (or perverted) and sinneth, being condemned of himself, Tit. 3.10, 11. Secing therefore these two are so necessary to complete the character of an Heretic, it may not be amiss to take a view of them severally, before we apply the Character.   

SECT. VIII. Of Obstinacy in Error against Admonition.  
THAT men in Error ought to be admonished will be owned by all, and that in case of Heresy the Admonition is to be repeated, is plainly intimated by St. Paul in his advice to his Son Titus, already quoted. And in what manner, and by whom this Admonition is to be given, our Saviour's Rule in the case of trespasses and offences between brethren, will very fully instruct us; 
Matth. 18.15, 16, 17.  which is this. If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him; if he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two; that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be confirmed. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the Church; and if he refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen, and a Publican. Where we may observe, that our Saviour speaks of a twofold Admonition; viz. one that is to be given in private, and in a brotherly and friendly manner; and another that is to be given in public, by those who had jurisdiction over the offending person, and are vested with power and authority to censure him. Now let us apply this to the case in hand. If thy Brother offend by embracing and tenaciously holding some fundamental error in Religion, and this come to thy knowledge, it will be a charitable work in thee, if in a brotherly and friendly manner thou dost privately admonish him between thee and him alone; if thou be'st successful therein, thou hast done a good work, thou hast gained thy brother. But if this will not do, thou must not leave it so, but take others with thee, and admonish him before them. Thus far may a private person interess himself in admonishing another, who is fallen into, or in danger of falling into Heresy; and if the person admonished continue obstinate against such admonition, he doth by that stubbornness very much add to his crime, and incur the guilt of Heresy; yet properly speaking, he cannot truly be called an Heretic in the eye of the Church, because she hath not yet taken cognizance thereof. And therefore it follows, if he refuse to hear them, tell it to the Church, i. e. bring the cause before them who have a jurisdiction over him, and sufficient power and authority to censure and punish him. And being once and again admonished by the Church, if he still remain contumacious, then let him be rejected, saith St. Paul, or as our Saviour here, let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican; i. e. let him by Excommunication be cast out of the Church, and counted unworthy the society of Christian men.  
This is the method in which we ought to proceed against Heretics, they must be admonished, and that Admonition must be repeated, and they must be obstinate against that Admonition before we ought to censure them. But it is not a private, but public, not only a friendly, but authoritative Admonition, and stubbornness against that, which will truly denominate a man, or any Society of men to be Heretics. For, Heresy is an Opinion contrary to that of the Catholic Church, 
Aug. count. Faustum.  saith St. Aug. And whosoever doth obstinately believe that which is contrary to the holy Catholic Faith, is an Heretic, 
In Enchirid. c. 11. p. 141. n. 2.  if he be baptised, saith their Navar. Doctor. And whosoever despising the authority of the Church, doth obstinately defend wicked opinions, 
Part. 1. in expos. art. 9 Symbol. p. 76. n. 2.  he is to be called an Heretic, saith their Trent Catechism.  
Now if the Church of Rome can prove that the Church of England hath espoused and publicly taught any fundamental Error in Religion, and hath been thus regularly dealt withal, and duly admonished by those who had authority so to do, and yet continued obstinate in her error against such Admonition; then is she guilty, otherwise not. But this I shall have Occasion to consider more particularly hereafter, and therefore at present I shall proceed.   

SECT. IX. Of Obstinacy in Error against Conviction.  
AN Heretic is one that is not only subverted or perverted, 
Tit. 3.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but self-condemned, saith St. Paul: i. e. One who having once received and owned the true Faith, doth now oppose and condemn it as false, saith their own Lyra in loc. or one who commendeth Error, and reproacheth truth, saith the Ord. Gl. Who like those who accused the Woman taken in Adultery before our Saviour, 
John 8.9.  is convicted by his own Conscience; i. e. who is conscious to himself of the evil of his own do. Self-condemnation always supposeth conviction; an Heretic therefore, being one that is self-condemned, must also be convinced of the error of his way; and one who notwithstanding that conviction, still remains stubborn and obstinate therein; i. e. who resists the repeated admonition of the Church. For, if a man labour under an invincible ignorance, and be thereby betrayed into some dangerous error; or by the misfortune of an ill education have his judgement perverted and prepossessed with wrong notions and sentiments of things, his case is truly pityable; and it would be very hard and injurious to burden him with the guilt of Heresy. But if such an one, being admonished of the evil of his way, shall happen to be convinced of his error, and yet, after such admonition and conviction contumaciously continue therein, he will have no plea left to excuse him from the guilt thereof. By the old Law, 
Numb. 15.24, 25, 26, 27, etc.  if a man sinned through ignorance, there was an atonement provided for him; but if he sinned presumptuously, there was no atonement for him, but he was to be cut off from among the people. This was St. Paul's case in the time of the Gospel, for he himself tells us, That he was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and an oppressor, 
1 Tim. 1.13.  but he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly through unbelief. But if after he was converted, he had been guilty of these crimes, his plea of ignorance and unbelief would then have been out of doors, and his case would have been very dangerous. For it is impossible, 
Heb. 6.4, 5, 6.  that they who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come; If they fall away, that they should be renewed again by repentance; seeing they crucify again to themselves the Son of God, and put him to open shame.  
These Instances do plainly discover to us, that before conviction, though men be in error, yea though it be a dangerous and fundamental error, and industriously propagated by them, yet may their case be pityable; But when they are better informed, or at least have means sufficient for their better information; if after this they still remain stubborn and contumacious in their error, and persist in the defence and propagation thereof; this their obstinacy will alter the nature of their crime, and render their condition very dangerous if not desperate. 
1 John 3.20, 21.  For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. But if our heart condemn us not, then have we boldness toward God, saith the Apostle John. And, Blessed is he who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth, 
Rom. 14.22.  saith St. Paul   

SECT. X. The Church of England acquitted from the guilt of Heresy.  
THIS notion of Heresy, which hath been laid down and explained in the foregoing Sections, being not only Ours but Theirs also; being supported by so great and eminent Authorities, as that of St. Aug. of their own Angelical Doctor and canonised Saint, St. Tho. Aquinas, of their great Martin Navarrus, and of the most authentic Authority of their own Church at this day, the Council of Trent in its Catechism ad Parochos: Our Adversaries can have no colourable pretence to except against it. And if it be admitted, we are ready to join issue with them, and contented to stand or fall by it. The point in difference between us is briefly this. Whether the guilt of Heresy, according to this Notion, be justly or unjustly charged upon the Church of England by the Church of Rome? To acquit the Church of England is my task at present, in order whereunto I shall take a review of what hath been said, and as briefly as may be, apply it to our present case.  
1. If it cannot be proved that the Church of England doth receive, believe or teach any other Doctrine than what hath been received, believed and taught by the Catholic Church; nor broach any new Opinions, thereby to divide the Church for any secular advantage to herself, nor obstinately defend any false Opinions: Then, by St. Austin's rule before quoted, she cannot be justly charged with Heresy: But none of all this ever was, or can be proved against her: And therefore, according to this Rule, she is unjustly taxed with Heresy by the Church of Rome.  
2. If it cannot be made appear, that the Church of England doth corrupt the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, nor teach any Doctrine contrary thereunto, nor descent from any known established Article thereof, nor obstinately maintain any such dissent therefrom: Then, by the rule of their own Angelical Doctor, she ought not to be charged with Heresy: But none of all this ever was, or can be made appear against her: Therefore, by this Rule, she ought not to be charged with Heresy by the Church of Rome.  
3. If it cannot be made manifest by any public Act or Record owned as Authentic by the Church of England, that she hath renounced or forsaken that Faith into which she was baptised, and of which she once made profession; nor embraced any false and new Opinions which are contrary thereunto; nor doth obstinately believe and maintain any such false and new Opinions; Then, by the Rule of their Navar. Doctor, she cannot be justly charged with the guilt of Heresy: But none of all this ever was, or can be made manifest against her: Therefore, by this Rule, she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Heresy by the Church of Rome.  
4. If it cannot be proved that the Church of England either doth, or ever did neglect and despise the Authority of the holy Catholic Church; or doth embrace and hold any wicked Opinions in despite and defiance of that Authority; or with a wilful and obstinate mind, defend and maintain any such wicked Opinions; Then, by the judgement of the Council of Trent in their Catechism ad Parochos, she ought not to be held guilty of Heresy: But none of all this ever was, or can be proved against her: Therefore, by the Judgement of that Council, she ought not to be held guilty of Heresy.  
5. If there be not pregnant proof, that the Church of England hath embraced some Opinions, which are contrary to, or at least not agreeable with that Faith and common Christianity, which was taught by Christ and his Apostles; or hath laid a new foundation, i. e. made something to be Religion, and an Article of Faith, which really is not so, being not built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets; or doth openly teach any Fundamental Errors in Religion, thereby to seduce and withdraw people from fundamental Truth and Holiness; or doth stubbornly maintain and defend a fundamental Error in Religion against repeated Admonitions and clear Convictions: Then can she not (if this Notion of Heresy be true) be justly burdened with the guilt thereof: But there is not, nor indeed can be any pregnant proof of any thing of all this against her: Therefore, according to this Notion of Heresy, she cannot be justly charged with the guilt thereof.  
I am well ware that the Minor Proposition in all these will stiffly be denied by our Adversaries; they will with great boldness and confidence tell the world, that all this and more hath been, and still may be proved against the Church of England. But, God be thanked, though this may soon be said it can never be proved. That they frequently call us Heretics, and both do and have all along endeavoured to represent us as such to the world, we very well know; and if they were allowed to be Judges it would go very hard with us, we should not be able to acquit ourselves at their Bar. But this we think to be a very unreasonable thing, that they, being Parties, should be Judges too; and therefore we appeal from them. And if they ask whither we do appeal? I answer, we appeal to the Holy Scriptures, to the primitive Fathers, and to the four first General Councils. But because this may seem to be either too tedious, or too troublesome a way of trial, I have made choice of one more short and easy; I have here laid down a Notion of Heresy, which is agreed upon both by them and us, and therefore unexceptionable; by this we are willing to be tried, and by this to stand or fall.  
I do not say in any of these Propositions, that they never charged us with any of these things, for that I very well know they both do and have done; but I do say, that they neither have, nor ever can prove any of these things against us. And here now were a fit opportunity to examine the particulars of their charge, and the validity of them; but before I do that, it will be requisite to make good our own ground, and by giving you some account of these Propositions that either are, or will be denied, to make it appear that they are not the issue of a rash and inconsiderate zeal, but the offspring of deliberate and well digested thoughts. And though it be contrary to the Laws and Rules of Disputation, to put one upon proving a Negative, and therefore I need not do it; yet for once, and to gratify our Adversaries, I will endeavour to do a work of Supererogation.  
To make it appear that none of all these things have been by our Adversaries proved against the Church of England, though it would be no very difficult, yet would it be a very tedious business. For to do it effectually, I should be obliged to examine not only all the particulars of their charge, but also the strength or weakness of every Argument which they have at any time brought to make it good; which would take up so much time and paper as the designed brevity of this small Treatise cannot allow. I shall therefore wave this, and instead thereof take a more short and compendious, but every way as effectual a course; It is acknowledged by all, that when an Adversary is pressed with an Absurdity which he cannot escape, the Argument is conclusive against him; If therefore I can make it appear that it is a thing impossible for our Adversaries, according to their own Notion of Heresy, to make good their charge against the Church of England; I may safely conclude that they have never done it, because they could not do that which is impossible to be done.  
A thing is then said to be impossible, either when it is simply and absolutely so in itself, or when it is so only upon supposition. It is then said to be simply and absolutely impossible, when it implies a contradiction, or is altogether repugnant to the nature of the thing; as for instance: That one and the same Body, may be in more places than one, at one and the same time, is a proposition so repugnant and contradictious to the nature of Bodies, that he must be wilfully blind who doth not see an impossibility therein. A thing may be also said to be impossible, upon supposition of an incapacity or insufficiency either in the active or passive power, in the Efficient or Matter that is to be wrought upon. Though the thing be possible in itself, yet if the Agent be not of sufficient power to produce the effect designed, it is impossible upon that account. As for instance: if ten unarmed men should undertake to beat ten thousand well appointed and well disciplined Soldiers in open field; it is possible indeed that those ten thousand may be beaten, but not by those ten, because they have not power sufficient to do it. Again, a thing may be said to be impossible upon supposition of an incapacity in the passive power or matter that is to be wrought upon; for if the subject matter be wholly incapable of receiving such an impression, as the Agent would stamp upon it, though there may be no defect in the active power, yet in respect of the passive, there is an impossibility. Let us now apply this to the case in hand.  
The Church of Rome chargeth the Church of England with the guilt of Heresy, and the question is, Whether they can make good this charge against her? I do not question the power of our Adversaries to do the thing, if it were to be done; but if it be not to be done, then, notwithstanding the sufficiency of their power, there is an incapacity in the subject they are to work upon which renders their attempt impossible. If therefore I do make it appear that it is impossible for them to prove this against us, it will be a fair Justification of the Minor Proposition in all the foregoing Arguments, and consequently a clear discharge of the Church of England from that foul aspersion so unjustly cast upon her by the Church of Rome. Now this I shall endeavour to make good in this manner.  
The Notion of Heresy here laid down, I have made appear to be that which is allowed by them as well as us, and therefore that must be the Standard we are to be tried by. Their work therefore will be, to make it manifest, that there are some Doctrines received, believed and taught by the Church of England, which are Errors in the foundation of Religion, and those obstinately defended and maintained by her. Now the only way to know what Doctrines are received, believed and taught by any Church, or Society of Christians, is, to have recourse to the public Acts, and authentic Records of that Church or Society; and that is no difficult task, for ours are made public and exposed to the view of all. And if they know not what we own as authentic Records, I shall here inform them. 1. The Holy Scripture is the foundation of our Faith, and the Rule of our Religion. 2. The 39 Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562, which are partly Positive and partly Negative; where they declare the Faith and Religion of the Church of England, they are positive; and where they reject the Additions, Alterations and Innovations of the Church of Rome, they may be termed Negative. 3. The Book of Homilies, wherein the Doctrines of our Church briefly declared in the Articles, are more largely explained. These are the public Acts and authentic Records wherein the Doctrines of the Church of England are to be found, 
Art 6.  for she publicly declares, That all things necessary to Salvation are contained in the Holy Scripture, and that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. She also declares, 
Art 8.  That the three Creeds, the Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. Unless therefore our Adversaries can find Heresy in the Holy Scripture, or in the Articles of Faith summarily contained in the three ancient Creeds, it will be impossible for them to find it in the Church of England, because she doth not receive, believe or teach any other Doctrine but what is contained therein, or may be proved thereby. This is that Faith and common Christianity which we received from Christ and his Apostles, and which we resolve (by God's grace) to hold fast. This is that which hath been always held and taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the foundation upon which our Religion is built, viz. upon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. And therefore unless they can shake this Foundation, unless they will impeach Christ and his Apostles, unless they will charge the whole Church of God with the guilt of Heresy; all their attempts and batteries leveled against us will be vain and fruitless. The Church of England will still stand like a Rock, against which those waves may break themselves, whilst she remains unbroken by them.  
Thus, you see, how impossible it is for our Adversaries to make good their charge against the Church of England, and if they cannot do it, we may safely conclude they have not done it; and if they neither have, nor can do it, then is it a foul aspersion by them unjustly cast upon us. For which their unjust, uncharitable and unchristian censure, I pray God forgive them.  
Having thus secured that Post which was most likely to be attacked by the Enemy, I shall now take the boldness to make a short Sally upon them; and take an account of their strength, by considering some of the most material Arguments which have been offered by their Champions to make good their charge.  
Arg. 1. Pope Nicholas (as I find him cited by Bishop Jewel in the defence of his Apology, p. 2.) makes short work of it, and very magisterially doth at once determine the whole matter. For (saith he) Whoso denieth the privilege and supremacy of the See of Rome, hath renounced the Faith, and is an Heretic. 
De Major. & Obed. unam Sanctam. Dist. 22. Omnes.   
Ans. To this I answer, 1. If the privilege and supremacy of the See of Rome be an Article of Faith, we desire to know in which of the three Creeds, or in what part of the Bible we may find it, for we would not willingly be wanting in our compliance with any Article of Faith. 2. If this be so, than the Council of Chalcedon, consisting of 630 Bishops and Reverend Fathers gathered together from all parts of the world, was a pack of Heretics, for they gave equal privileges to the See of Constantinople with that of Rome. 3. If this be so, then Pope Gregory the great (and I take him to be altogether as infallible as Pope Nicholas) was an Heretic, for he calleth him who usurps such an arrogant style, the forerunner of Antichrist. 4. If subjection to the see of Rome be a necessary part in the Definition of Heresy, than all the Christians in the world, except those of the Roman Communion, are Heretics; for all of them, as well as we, do unanimously oppose the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.  
Arg. 2. Their Angelical Doctor, and Canonised Saint, S. Tho. Aquinas, thus argueth. 
22. q. 11.2.3.  When a matter is once determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church, if any one shall obstinately gainsay such Determination, he is to be reputed an Heretic, which Authority (saith he) doth principally reside in the Pope.  
Ans. This Argument is founded upon several false Suppositions: viz. 1. That the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, which we cannot consent to, because we cannot believe that a part is the whole. 2. That the Determinations of that Church are obligatory to all other Churches. This we cannot agree with him in, because Par in parem non habet imperium, Equals have no authority over one another. 3. That the Authority of the Catholic Church is principally lodged in the Bishop of Rome. This we cannot believe, because we have no warrant for it, either from the Holy Scriptures, or from the four first General Councils, or from any authentic Antiquity.  
Arg. 3. Protestants are Heretics, because they oppose divers Truths propounded for divine by the visible Church  
Ans. This Argument is also supported by these false Suppositions: 1. That to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church, is Heresy; This we deny: We grant indeed that to oppose any Truth, howsoever or by whomsoever propounded, is an Error; but it cannot be called an Heresy, unless it be such a Truth as is an Essential part of the Gospel of Christ. 2. That the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, which are opposed by Protestants are divine-truths'. This we take to be a false Supposition, for we do not oppose any Truth, much less any divine Truth that is held by them, but only such false and new invented Articles as are by them superadded to the Catholic Faith. 3. That whatsoever is propounded by the Church of Rome, is propounded by the visible Church. This we cannot allow, because we know that the Church of Rome is but a part, and, God knows, a corrupted part too, of the visible Church.  
Arg. 4. The visible Church is Judge of Controversies, and therefore Infallible; To oppose her therefore is to oppose God. This Protestants do, and therefore are guilty of Heresy.  
Ans. It is here taken for granted, 1. That the visible Church is Judge of Controversies. 2. That she is Infallible. 3. That the Roman Church is this visible Church. 4. That to oppose her is to oppose God. All which Suppositions are matters of Dispute between us and yet undetermined, and therefore very insufficient grounds to build such a charge upon.  
Arg. 5. Want of Succession of Bishops and Pastors holding always the same Doctrine, and of the Forms of Ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church, is a certain mark of Heresy. But Protestants want all these things. Therefore, etc.  
Ans. We deny the Major. For, 1. Nothing but want of Truth, and holding Error, can make or prove a Man or Church to be Heretical. 2. Because it is not a Succession of Persons, but of Doctrine, that can secure a Church from Heresy. And to such a Succession there are two things necessary. 1. That there be an agreement with the Apostles Doctrine. 2. That there be an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them who challenge it: Both which we have.  
Arg. 6. Protestants have forsaken a Church confessedly very ancient, and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth. Therefore, etc.  
Ans. To this I answer, 1. That against God and Truth there lies no prescription, and therefore it is great wisdom to forsake ancient Errors for more ancient Truths. 2. That there are many other visible Churches of Christ upon earth besides the Roman.  
These are the most material Arguments I have yet met with, by which our Adversaries have attempted to make good their charge of Heresy against us; and how rotten a foundation these are to build such a mighty Superstructure upon, I shall now leave to the impartial Reader to judge. And because I design brevity, and am unwilling to draw out this discourse to too great a length, I shall now hasten to a conclusion.   

The CONCLUSION.  
IN this Discourse I have laid down such a Notion of Heresy, as is generally received and owned by our Adversaries themselves, and by that have strictly examined the Charge which they bring against us, and I hope have made it very plain and manifest, That the imputation of Heresy to the Church of England, is a soul aspersion, and cannot without great injustice be cast upon Herald Which is the only thing I have undertaken to make good in this short Treatise.  
I am hearty sorry that there should be any occasion for a Discourse of this nature, I am a great lover of Peace and Truth, and do greatly abhor both Schism and Heresy; by the former of which the Church's peace is disturbed, and her Members crumbled into parties and factions; and by the latter of which her Truth is sullied, her Doctrine perverted, and the whole frame of Religion put out of order. And therefore I do earnestly pray (as my dear Mother the Church of England hath taught me) that all those who have erred and are deceived, may be brought into the way of truth, and that Unity, Peace and Concord may flourish in all Nations. I have no pleasure in strife and debates, and if I were not commanded to contend earnestly for the Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints, should be very unwillingly drawn to engage in them. But when I meet with a loud and ungrounded clamour, branding those who embrace, and endeavour to hold fast the holy Catholic Faith, with the odious names of Schismatics and Heretics, I cannot forbear according to my poor ability, to stand up in the defence of injured Innocency, and abused Truth. This is that which I did design, and have attempted to do, in both the Parts of this discourse; and if our Adversaries be angry with me for it, I cannot help it, nor am I much concerned at it. But if through weakness or inadvertency, I have failed in my design, or not defended the Church of England so well as I ought, and as one more able might have done, from those foul Aspersions, which have been so unjustly cast upon her, I humbly beg her pardon, and do freely submit both myself and undertaking to her censure, well knowing, that she is an indulgent Mother, and will put a favourable construction upon what was well meant.  
I shall conclude all with a passionate entreaty, and earnest request, both to those of the Roman, and those of our own Communion, that they would all devoutly join with me in this humble and hearty prayer to Almighty God,  
From all Sedition, privy Conspiracy and Rebellion; from all false Doctrine, Heresy, and Schism; from hardness of Heart, and contempt of thy Word and Commandment, [Good Lord deliver us.]   
FINIS.   

ADVERTISEMENTS.  
SOme Queries to Protestants Answered. And an Explanation of Roman. Catholick's Belief in Four Great Points considered. 1. Concerning their Church. 2. Their Worship. 3. Justification. 4. Civil Government.  
Also lately printed, A Seasonable Prospect for the View and Consideration of Christians. Being a brief Representation of the Lives and Conversations of Infidels and Heathens, as to Religion and Morality in our Age. Together with some Reflections thereupon, in Relation to us who profess Christianity. Written by a Gentleman. Both Printed for Luke Meredith at the King 's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard.