The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 4

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 4

p. 356CHAP. IV. The Reformation of the Church of England justified.

The Church of Rome guilty of Schism, by unjustly casting Protestants out of Communion. The Communion of the Catholick and particular Churches distinguished. No separation of Protestants from the Catholick Church. The Devotions of the Church of England and Rome compared. Particular Churches Power to reform themselves in case of general Corruption, proved. The Instance from the Church of Judah vindicated. The Church of Rome paralleld with the ten Tribes. General Corruptions make Reformation the more necessary. Whether those things we condemn as errours, were Catholick Tenets at the time of the Reformation. The contrary shewed, and the difference of the Church of Rome before and since the Reformation. When things may be said to be received as Catholick Doctrines. How far particular Churches Power to reform themselves extends. His Lordships Instances for the Power of Provincial Councils in matters of Reformation vindicated. The particular case of the Church of England discussed. The proceedings in our Reformation defended. The Church of England a true Church. The National Synod. 1562. a lawful Synod. The Bishops no intruders in Queen Elizabeths time. The justice and moderation of the Church of England in her Reformation. The Popes Power here, a forcible fraudulent usurpation.

HAving thus far examined your Doctrine, of keeping Faith with Hereticks, §. 1.we now return to the main business concerning Schism. And his Lordship saying,P. 146. sect. 22. That there is difference between departure out of the Church, and causeless thrusting from you; and therefore denying that it is in your power to thrust us out of the Church; You answer by a Concession, That we were thrust out from the Church of Rome, but that it was not without cause: Which,P. 185. n. 1. that you might not seem to say gratis, you pretend to assign the causes of our expulsion. So that by your own confession the present division or separation lyes at the Church of Rome's door, if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient reasons for her casting the Protestants out of her communion. If therefore the Church of Rome did thrust the Protestants from her communion, for doing nothing but what became them as members of the Catholick Church, then that must be the Schismatical party, and not the Protestants. For, supposing any Church (though pretending to be never so Catholick) doth restrain her communion within such narrow and unjust bounds, that she declares such excommunicate, who do not approve all such errours in doctrine, and corruptions in practice, which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to, the cause of that division which follows, falls upon that Church which exacts those conditions from the members of her Communion: That i…, when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to salvation. For in this case, that Church hath first divided her self from the Catholick Church; for, the Communion of that lying open and free to all, upon the necessary conditions of Christian Communion, whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick, becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church: and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure, do not so much divide from the Communion p. 357of that Church so inclosing, as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Vniversal Church. The Catholick Church therefore lyes open and free, like a Common-Field to all Inhabitants; now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together, to enclose part of it, without consent of the rest, and not to admit any others to their right of Common, without consenting to it, which of these two parties, those who deny to yield their consent; or such who deny their rights if they will not, are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place? Now this is plainly the case between the Church of Rome, and Ours; the Communion of the Catholick Church lyes open to all such who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, and are willing to joyn in the profession of them: Now to these your Church adds many particular Doctrines, which have no foundation in Scripture, or the consent of the Primitive Church; these, and many superstitious practises, are enjoyned by her, as conditions of her Communion, so that all those are debarred any right of Communion with her, who will not approve of them; by which it appears, your Church is guilty of the first violation of the Vnion of the Catholick; and whatever number of men are deprived of your Communion, for not consenting to your usurpations, do not divide themselves from you, any further than you have first separated your selves from the Catholick Church. And when your Church by this act is already separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church, the disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical, cannot certainly be any culpable separation. For, whatever is so, must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick; but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick, i. e. so far as it hath divided her self from the Belief and Communion of the Vniversal Church.

But herein a great mistake is committed by you, when you measure the Communion of the Catholick Church, by the judgement of all,§. 2. or most of the particular Churches of such an Age, which supposes that the Church of some one particular Age, must of necessity be preserved from all errours and corruptions, which there is no reason or necessity at all to assert; and that is all the ground you have for saying,P. 159. That the separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome, but (as Calvin confesseth) à toto mundo, from the whole Christian world, and such a separation necessarily involves separation from the true Catholick Church. Now to this, we answer two things. 1. That we have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed; but to disagree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in such things wherein those Churches differ among themselves, is not to separate from the Christian World, but to disagree in some things from such particular Churches. As I hope you will not say, That man is divided from all mankind, who doth in some feature or other differ from any one particular man; but, although he doth so, he doth not differ from any in those things, which are common to all; for that were to differ from all; but when he only differs from one in the colour of his eyes, from another in his complexion, another in the air of his countenance, and so in other things; this man, though he should differ from every particular man in the world in something or other, yet is a man still as well as any, because he agrees with them in that in which they all agree, which is, Humane nature, and differs only in those things wherein they differ from each other. And therefore from the disagreement of the Protestants from any one particular p. 358Church, it by no means follows, that they separated from the whole Christian World, and therefore from the true Catholick Church. 2. The Communion of the Catholick Church is not to be measured by the particular opinions and practices of all, or any particular Churches, but by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church. For there can be no separation from the true Catholick Church, but in such things wherein it is Catholick; now it is not Catholick in any thing, but what properly relates to its Being and Constitution. For whatever else there is, however universal it may be, is extrinsecal to the nature and notion of the Catholick Church, and therefore supposing a separation from the Church, in what is so extrinsecal and accidental, it is no proper separation from the Catholick Church. As for Instance; supposing all men were agreed, that some particular habit should be worn all over the world, will you say, That any number of men who found this habit extremely inconvenient for them, and therefore should disuse it, did on that account separate from humane nature, and ceased to be men by it? Such is the case of any particular Churches laying aside some customes or ceremonies, which in some one age of the Church, or more, the greatest part of Christian Churches were agreed in the practice of; for, although this general practice should make men more diligent in enquiry, and careful in what they did; yet if such a Church having power to govern it self, see reason to alter it, it doth not separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church therein, and therefore doth not cease to be a Church. For there is no culpable separation from the Church Catholick, but what relates to it properly as Catholick; now that doth not relate to it as Catholick, which it may be Catholick without, now certainly you cannot have so little reason as to assert, that the Church cannot be Catholick without such extrinsecal and accidental agreements. And from hence it follows, That no Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church, but what may be proved to separate it self in some thing necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church; and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials, it cannot cease to be a true member of the Catholick Church. If you would therefore prove, that the Church of England, upon the Reformation, is separated from the true Catholick Church; you must not think it enough to say, (which as weakly as commonly is said) That no one particular Church can be named, which in all things agreed with it; for that only proves, that she differed from particular Churches in such things wherein they differed from each other, but that she is divided from all Christian Churches in such things wherein they are all agreed, and which are essential to the Being of the Catholick Church; when you have proved this, you may expect a further Answer.

This then can be no cause why your Church should expel the Protestants out of her Communion,§. 3. but it shews us sufficient cause to believe that your Church had separated her self from the Communion of the Catholick. For which we must further consider, that although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick, but what is contrary to the Being of it; yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick, by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion, which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church. As for Instance, Though we should grant, Adoration of the Eucharist, Invocation of Saints, and Veneration of Images to be only superstitious practices taken up without sufficient grounds in the Church, p. 359yet since it appears, that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years, without approving or using these things; that Church which shall not only publickly use, but enjoyn such things upon pain of excommunication from the Church, doth, as much as in her lyes, draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within her self, and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church. For, whatever confines, must likewise divide the Church; for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined, and the other, which separation must be made by the party so limiting Christian Communion. As it was in the case of the Donatists, who were therefore justly charged with Schism, because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds: And if any other Church doth the same which they did, it must be liable to the same charge which they were. The summ then of this discourse is, That the Being of the Catholick Church lyes in Essentials, that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsecal and accidental things, is not to separate from the Catholick Church, so as to cease to be a Church; but still, whatever Church makes such extrinsecal things the necessary conditions of Communion, so as to cast men out of the Church, who yield not to them, is Schismatical in so doing; for it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church: and the separation from it, is so far from being Schism, that being cast out of that Church on those terms only, returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church. On which grounds it will appear, that yours is the Schismatical Church, and not ours. For, although before this imposing humour came into particular Churches, Schism was defined by the Fathers, and others, to be a voluntary departure out of the Church, yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular, but the true Catholick Church; for not only persons, but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church; and in such cases, not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches, but those Churches, which departed from the Catholick, are guilty of the Schism.

These things I thought necessary to be further explained, not only to shew, how false that imputation is, of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church, but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the Communion of it; and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion, but your Church so thrusting them out, is apparently guilty of the present Schism.

But still you say, Your Church had sufficient cause for the expulsion of Protestants out of her Communion;P. 158 n. 1. and for this you barely repeat your former assertions, and offer not at the proof of one of them; as though you intended to carry your cause, by the frequent repeating your Declaration. But, Sir, it is the proof of what you say, that we expect from you, and not the bare telling us, That Protestants are Schismaticks, because they are Schismacicks. When you will be at leisure to prove that the Protestants were guilty of Heretical Doctrine, or Schismatical proceedings; that they raised a new, separate, and mutinous faction of pretended Christians distinct from the one Catholick body of the Church; by chusing new Pastors, instituting new rites and ceremonies not in their power to do, by Schismatical convening in several Synods, and there broaching new heretical Confessions of Faith; when I say, You shall think good to prove all, or any one of these, you shall receive so full an Answer as will make it evident, that the Protestants did not depart from the Catholick Churches Doctrine and Communion; but that the Church of Rome is departed thence, first, by imposing erroneous p. 360Doctrines, and superstitious practices, as conditions of Communion, and then by thrusting out all such as would not consent to them.

His Lordship disputing the terms on which a Separation in the Church may be lawful,§. 4. P. 146. n. 22.saith, That corruption in manners only, is no sufficient cause to make a separation in the Church. And, saith he, This is as ingenuously confessed for you, as by me. For if corruption in manners were a just cause of actual separation of one Church from another, in that Catholick body of Christ, the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any, since (as Stapleton grants) there is scarce any sin that can be thought on by man (Heresie only excepted) with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained, especially from eight hundred years after Christ. And he need not except Heresie, into which Biel grants it possible, the Bishops of the Sea may fall. And Stella and Almain grant it freely, that some of them did fall, and so ceased to be Heads of the Church, and left Christ (God be thanked) at that time of his Vicars defection, to look to his Cure himself. But you tell us, The discovery of some few motes, P. 159.darkens not the brightness of the Sunshine; I wonder what you account Beams, if the Sins of your Popes and others be but motes with you? We grant, that the Sun himself hath his Maculae, but they are such as do not Eclipse his Light; we find the Maculae in your Church, but we are to seek for the bright Sunshine: Or, Doth it lye in the service of your Religious Votaries? For that is the great part of the conspicuous Piety of your Church, which you instance in. But, Is this indeed the bright Sunshine of your Church, that there are so many thousand of both Sexes (you do well to joyn them together) who tye themselves by perpetual vows, never to be dissolved by their own seeking (and therefore doubtless pleasing to God, whether they are able to keep them or no) and these pray (if they understand what they say) and sing Divine Hymns day and night (which makes the Sunshine the brighter) which you say is a strange and unheard of thing among Protestants. What, that men and women (though not in Cloysters) pray and sing Hymns to God? no surely. For as the Devotion of our Churches is more grave and solemn, so it is likewise more pious and intelligible. You pray and sing, but how? Let Erasmus speak, who understood your praying and singing well. Cantiuncularum, clamorum, Erasm. in Mat. 6.7.Matt 6:7murmurum ac bomborum ubi que plus satis est, si quid ista delectant Superos. Do you think those Prayers and Hymns are pleasing to God, which lye more in the throat than the heart? And such who have been wise and devout men among your selves have been the least admirers of your mimical, uncouth, and superstitious devotions; but have rather condemned them as vain, ludicrous things; and wondered (as Erasmus said) what they thought of Christ,Hodie videmus Sacerdotes, nihil dicam qualibus sed certè nimium prolixis precibus, his que praescriptis, aliquoties ineptis ac ridiculis, nè dicam impiis, oneratos. Erasm. in Mat. 6.7. Ad haec qui modestè pii sunt taciti secum ingemiscunt: qui populi malis aluntur, & quorum interest Christi gregem, quem ille suo sanguine liberum reddidit, quam maximè servum esse & ebnoxium, adeò non reclamant ut modis omnibus exaggerent. Accedunt iis qui vel ambiunt praemium aliquod obsequii vel timent poenam libertatis. Ita dum nemo succurrit, re… p…atim eò prolabitur ut penè nihil jam pudeat. Id. in Mat. 11.30.Matt 6:7Matt 11:30 who imagined he could be pleased with them. (Quid sentiunt obsecro de Christo qui putant eum ejusmodi cantiunculis delectari?) Are these then the glorious parts of your Devotions, your Prayers and Hymns? But they pray and sing Divine Hymns day and night: If this be the only excellency of your Devotion▪ How much are you out-done by the ancient Psalliani and Euchitae, that spent all their time in prayer, and yet were accounted Hereticks for their pains. Still you pray and sing, but to whom? to Saints and Angels often, to the Virgin Mary with great devotion, and most solemn invocations; but to God himself, very sparingly in comparison. If this p. 361then be the warm Sunshine of your Devotions, we had rather use such, wherein we may be sure of Gods blessing; which we cannot be in such Prayers and Hymns which attribute those honours to his creatures, which belong wholly to himself, But you not only sing and pray, but can be very idle too; and the number of those men must be called Religious Orders, and the Garment of the Church is said by you to be imbroidered by the variety of them; and for this, Psalm 44.10. is very luckily quoted. And are those indeed the ornaments of your Church, which were become such sinks of wickedness, that those of your Church, who had any modesty left were ashamed of them, and call'd loud for a Reformation. Those were indeed such Gardens wherein it were more worth looking for useful or odoriferous flowers (as you express it) than for Diogenes to find out an honest man in his croud of Citizens. Therefore not to dispute with you the first Institutions of Monastick life, nor how commendable the nature of it is, nor the conveniencies of it, where there are no indispensable vows; the main things we blame in them, are, the restraints of mens liberties, whatever circumstances they are in, the great degeneracy of them in all respects from their Primitive Institutions, the great snares which the consciences of such as are engaged in them, are almost continually exposed to, the unusefulness of them in their multitudes to the Christian world, the general unserviceableness of the persons who live in them, the great debaucheries which they are subject to, and often over-run with; and if these then be the greatest Ornaments of your Churches Garments, it is an easie matter to espy the spots which she hath upon her. What you add concerning the good lives of Papists, and bad of Protestants, if taken universally, i… as unjust as uncharitable; if indefinitely, it shews only that not th… particular lives of men on either side, but the tendency of the Doctrine, to promote or hinder the sanctity of them, is here to be regarded. And to that you speak afterwards, but in a most false and virulent manner, when you say, That though sins be committed among you, they are not defended or justified as good works; whereas, among Protestants, P. 160.Darkness it self is called Light, and the greatest of all sins, viz. Heresie, Schism, Sacriledge, Rebellion, &c. together with all the bad spawn they leave behind them, are cryed up for perfect Virtue, Zeal, good Reformation, and what not? I doubt not but you would be ready to defend and justifie this open Raillery of yours, and call it a good work, notwithstanding what you said before. If we had a mind to follow you in such things, How easie a matter were it to rip up all the frauds, impostures, villanies of all sorts and kinds which have been committed by those who have sate in your Infallible Chair, and charge them all on your Church, with much more justice than you do the miscarriages of any under the name of Protestants. For the Protestant Churches disown such persons, and condemn those practices with the greatest indignation; whereas you excuse, palliate, and plead for the lives of the Popes, as much as you dare, and not out-face the Sun at Noon, which hath laid open their Villanies. Where do the Principles of Protestants incourage or plead for, Heresie, Schism, Sacriledge, Rebellion, &c. much less cry them up as Heroicall actions? Doth not the Church of England disown and disclaim such things to the uttermost? Have not her sufferings made it appear, how great a hater she is of Heresies, Schisms, Sacriledge, and Rebellion? Did she ever cry up those for Martyrs, who died in Gun-powder treasons? Did she ever teach it lawful to disobey Heretical Princes, and to take away their lives? Yet these things have been done by you, and the doers of them p. 362not condemned, but rather fomented and incouraged, as zealous promoters of the Holy See, and most devout Sons of the Church of Rome. Cease therefore to charge the guilt of persons disowned by the Church of England upon her; when you are unwilling to hear of the faults of those persons among your selves, whom you dare not disown, I mean your Popes and Jesuits.

§. 5.Leaving therefore these unbecoming Railleries of yours, and that which occasioneth them, viz. corruption of manners; we come to consider that, which is more pertinent to our purpose, viz. errours in Doctrine; which his Lordship truly assigned as the ground of the Reformation, and not only that there were doctrinal errours in your Church, P. 147. n. 2.but that some of the errours of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation. For it is not every light errour in disputable Doctrine and points of curious speculation, that can be a just cause of separation, in that admirable body of Christ, which is his Church, or of one member of it from another. But, that there are errours in Doctrine, and some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation in the Church of Rome, is evident to them that will not shut their eyes. The proof (his Lordship saith) runs through the particular points, and so is too long for this discourse. Now to this you manfully answer, That in vain do they attempt to reform the Church of what she can never be guilty. P. 160.Which, if it depends on your Churches Infallibility (which is largely disproved already) must needs fall to the ground with it. And it is an excellent Answer when a Church is charged actually with erring, to say, She doth not erre, because she cannot: Which is all that you give us here. But if you prove it no better than you have done, the Heretical and Schismatical obstinacy is like to be found in that Church which in her errours challenges Infallibility.

The Question now comes to this, Whether, errours being supposed in the Doctrine, and corruptions in the Communion of a Church, when the General Church would not reform, it was not lawful for particular Churches to reform themselves? To this his Lordship answers affirmatively, in these words. Is it then such a strange thing, that a particular Church may reform it self, if the general will not? P. 149. sect. 24.I had thought, and do so still, that in point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine, it is lawful for the Church, since Christ, to do as the Church before Christ did, and might do. The Church before Christ consisted of Jews and Proselytes: This Church came to have a separation, upon a most ungodly Policy of Jeroboams, so that it never pieced together again. To a Common Council to reform all, they would not come. Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self, when Israel would not joyn? Sure it was, or else the Prophet deceives me, that sayes expresly, Though Israel transgress, yet let not Judah sin. Hos. 4.15.Hos 4:15And S. Hierom expounds it of this very particular sin of Heresie and Errour in Religion. After which he proves, That Israel, during this Separation, was a true Church, which we shall insist on, when we have considered what Answer you return to his Lordships Argument; which lyes in these two things; First, That Judah did not reform her self. Secondly, That Judah is not the Protestant party, P. 160. n. 2.as his Lordship supposeth it to be. First, You say, Judah did not reform her self. For Juda being the orthodox Church, united with her Head the High Priest, and not tainted with any Doctrinal errours, What need was there of her Reformation? And so the meaning of that place, Though Israel transgress, yet let not Juda sin, is rather against, than for him, because the sense is rather, Let not Juda fall into Schism, though Israel does, than, let Judah reform her self. But if it appears that Judah had corruptions crept into her, as well as Israel had, though not so great, and p. 363universal, then it follows, that by these words Judah had power to reform her self. And the antecedent is clear to any one who takes the pains to read the Scripture, and compare the places in it, more than it seems you do. For,Hos. 6.4.7.Hos 6:4Hos 6:7 Doth not this very Prophet check Judah as well as Israel for transgressing Gods Covenant? Doth he not say,Hos. 12.2.Hos 12:2 That God had a Controversie with Judah, and would punish Jacob according to his waies? And for all this, Was there no need of Reformation in the Church of Judah? Indeed in one place it is said, That Judah ruleth with God, Hos. 11.12.Hos 11:12and is faithful with his Saints; but then that is to be understood of Judah, when she had reformed her self in the daies of Hezekiah: for surely you will not say, That Judah did not stand in need of Reformation, when Hezekiah began his Reign; for it is said of him, That he removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut down the groves. And were not these,2 King 18.4.2 Kgs 18:4 things which wanted Reformation, think you? If we consider the times of those three Kings before Hezekiah, in which Hosea prophesied; we shall see,Hos. 1.1.Hos 1:1 what need there was of Reformation among them, and those were Vzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; of the time of Vzziah called Azariah, in the Book of Kings it is said, That the high places were not removed, but the people sacrificed and burnt Incense still on the high places;2 King. 15.4. v. 35.2 Kgs 15:4 the same is affirmed of the time of Jotham in the same Chapter; so that though these Princes were good themselves, yet there were many corruptions still among the people. But of Ahaz it is said expresly, That he walked in the way of the Kings of Israel; and he sacrificed and burnt Incense in the high places, and on the hills, 2 King. 16.3, 42 Kgs 16:32 Kgs 16:4and under everygreen tree. Chuse now which of these three you please (for it is most improbable those words, considering the long time of Hosea's Prophecy, should be spoken in the time of Hezekiah the last of the four Kings he prophesied under) And will you tell us again, That the Church of Judah needed no Reformation? But you offer at a reason for it, Because she was united with her Head the High-Priest at Hierusalem. So then, belike as long as Judah and the High-Priest were united, she could be guilty of no Doctrinal Errours: No, not although she should pronounce Christ a blasphemer, and condemn him to be crucified as a malefactor; for then certainly Judah and the High-Priest were united. But, I know you will say, You spake this of the time before the Messias was come. And was it then true,2 King. 16.10, 11.2 Kgs 16:102 Kgs 16:11 that as long as Judah was united with her Head, the High-Priest, there was no need of Reformation? What think you then of the time of Ahaz, when Vzziah the Priest built an Altar at the command of Ahaz, according to the pattern of the Altar of Damascus, contrary to Gods express Law: yet, according to you, as long as Judah was united with her Head, the High-Priest, there was nothing which needed Reformation. And, although it be plainly affirmed, that Judah kept not the commands of the Lord their God, 2 King. 17.19.2 Kgs 17:19but walked in the statutes of Israel which they had made; yet you, who, it seems, knew Judah's Innocency better than God, or the Prophets did, say very magisterially, That as long as she was united with her Head the High-Priest, What need, I pray, was there of her Reformation? And this being the case of Judah, I may easily grant you, That Judah is not the Protestant party, but that of the Roman Church, i. e. while Judah was under her corruptions; and yet, you say, She needed no Reformation, she is the fittest parallel you could think of for your Church; but we pretend to no parallel between Judah and the Protestant party, in not needing a Reformation, but in her power to reform her self. Which we say still, that she had, though Israel would not joyn with her, by virtue of these words of the Prophet, Though Israel transgress, p. 364yet let not Judah sin: thereby manifesting, that though the greatest part was degenerated in the ten Tribes, yet Judah might prevent the same in her self, by reforming those abuses which were crept among them; And therefore the sense of those words, Let not Judah sin, must in this case imply a power to reform her self. If therefore we speak of Judah degenerated, we grant the parallel lyes wholly between Judah and the Church of Rome; for, although there were great corruptions in Judah, and as great in your Church, yet with the same reason you say, That neither needed Reformation: But if we speak of Judah reforming her self under Hezekiah, then we say, The parallel lyes between Judah, and the Protestant party; whatever you say to the contrary. But you shrewdly ask,Ibid. If you be Judah, Who, I pray, are the revolted ten Tribes? Who are of Jeroboams Cabal? Even they who set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel: Such who worship Images instead of the true God; though they intend them only as Symbols of the Divine Presence; for no more did Jeroboam and the Israelites intend by their Calves, and there is no pretence which you use to justifie your selves from Idolatry, but will excuse Jeroboam, and the ten Tribes from it. If the Protestant party then be Judah; it is easie finding out the revolted ten Tribes, and Jeroboams Cabal, the Court of Rome answering to this, as the Church of Rome doth to the other. But we cannot be Judah, because we left the Catholick Jerusalem, that is Rome the City of Peace: By whom, I pray, was Rome christened, The Catholick Jerusalem? For if we consider the worship there used, and the politick ends of it, it much more looks like Samaria, or Dan, and Bethel. If Rome be our Catholick Jerusalem, shew us, When God made choice of that, for the peculiar place of his Worship? Where we are commanded to resort thither for Divine Worship? When God placed his Name there, as he did of old in Jerusalem? When you have shewed us these things, we may think the worse of our selves for leaving Rome, but not before. And, let the world judge, Whether it be more likely one should meet with the worship of Golden Calves at Rome, or among the Protestants? It is you who have found out new Sacrifices, new Objects of Worship, new Rites and Ceremonies in it, new Altars, and consequently new Priests too; and yet for all this, you must be orthodox Judah, which needed no Reformation? And who, I pray, do in point of obedience most resemble the ten Tribes? Have not you set up a spiritual Jeroboam, as a new Head of the Church, in opposition to the Son of David? And that you may advance the Interest of this spiritual Head, you raise his authority far above that of Kings, and Temporal Princes, whom you ought to be subject to; declaring it in his power to excommunicate, depose, and absolve subjects from obedience to them. And therefore is not the parallel between the ten Tribes, and the Church of Rome, very pat, and much to the purpose? But when you would seem to return this upon us by a false and scurrilous parallel between Jeroboam, P. 161:and that excellent Princess Queen Elizabeth in the Reformation of the Church of England, you only betray the badness of your cause, which makes detractions so necessary to maintain it: For as her title to the Crown was undoubted, so her proceedings in the Reformation were such as are warranted by the Law of God, and the Nation; and her carriage in her reign towards Jesuits and Priests, no other than what the apparent necessity of her own and her Kingdoms preservation put her upon. But if she must be accounted like Jeroboam, for banishing Priests and Jesuits often convicted of treasonable practices, upon pain of death if they p. 365were found in England; What must we think of the Catholick Jerusalem the City of Peace, that sweet and gentle Mother the Church of Rome, that hath carried her self so peaceably towards those who have dissented from her? Witness the blood of so many hundred thousands which she hath imbrued her hands in, meerly for opposing her doctrines and superstitions; witness that excellent School of Humanity the Inquisition, and the easie Lessons she teaches those who come under her discipline there; witness the proceedings in England in the daies of Queen Mary; and then let any judge if the parallel must be carried by cruelty towards dissenters, which of their two Reigns came the nearest that of Jeroboam. The only true words then that you say, are, but enough of this parallel; and more than enough too of such impudent slanders against the memory of that famous Queen: But your Church would have been more unlike the ten Tribes, if there had not been a lying Prophet there.

You dispute very manfully against his Lordship, for asserting, That Israel remained a Church after the separation between Judah and the ten Tribes;Ibid. and yet, after you have spent many words about it, you yield all that he asserts; when you say,P. 162. That in a general sense they were called the people of God, as they were Abrahams seed, according to the flesh, by reason of the promise made to Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And what is there more than this, that his Lordship contends for? for he never dreamt that the ten Tribes were Abraham's seed according to the Spirit; but only sayes, That there was salvation for those thousands that had not bowed their knees to Baal, which cannot be in the ordinary way where there is no Church. And if, as you say, Abrahams seed only according to the Spirit, i. e. the faithful make the true Church; then it follows, Where there were so many faithful, there must needs be a true Church. And thus for any thing you have said to the contrary, his Lordships argument from the case of Judah holds for every particular Churches power to reform it self, when the General will not reform.

His Lordship further argues,§. 6. That to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners, is as lawful for a particular Church, P. 150. n. 2.as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholick in either. And your Question, Quô judice? lies alike against both. And yet, I think, saith he, It may be proved, that the Church of Rome, and that as a particular Church, did promulgate an orthodox truth, which was not then Catholickly admitted in the Church; namely, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. If she erred in this fact, confess her errour; if she erred not, Why may not another particular Church do as she did? From whence he inferrs, That if a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent; it may reform any thing that is not Catholick, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not. P. 162▪ n. 3.Now to this you answer, 1. That this procession from the Son, was a truth alwaies acknowledged in the Church; but what concerns that,P. 164. and the time of this Article being inserted into the Creed, have been so amply discussed already, that I shall not cloy the reader with any repetition, having fully considered whatever you here say concerning the Article it self▪ P. 163.or its addition to the Creed. 2. You answer, That the consequence will not hold, that if a particular Church may in some case promulgate an orthodox truth, not as yet Catholickly received by the Church, then a particular Church may repeal, or reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and definitively received? Surely no. Yet this (say you) is his Lordships, and the Protestants case. You do well to mention an egregious fallacy presently after p. 366these words; for surely this is so. For doth his Lordship parallel the promulgating something Catholick, and repealing something Catholick together? Surely no. But the promulgating something true, but not Catholickly received with the reforming something not Catholick. Either therefore you had a mind to abuse his Lordships words, or to deceive the reader by beging the thing in Question, viz. that all those which we call for a Reformation of, were things Catholickly and definitively received by the whole Church: which you know we utterly deny. But you go on, and say, That thence it follows not, that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholick, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not, because this would suppose errour, or something uncatholick, to be taught or admitted by the whole Church. To put this case a little more plainly by the former Instance; Suppose then that the Worship of God under the symbols of the Calves at Dan and Bethel, had been received generally as the visible worship of the Tribes of Judah, and Benjamin, as well as the rest; Doth not this Answer of yours make it impossible that ever they should return to the true Worship of God? For this were to call in question the truth of Gods Promise to his Church; and to suppose something not Catholick to be received by the whole Church. And so the greater the corruptions are, the more impossible it is to cure them; and in case they spread generally, no attempts of Reformation can be lawful: which is a more false and paradoxical Doctrine than either of those which you call so. And the truth is, such pretences as these are, are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed; for if something not good in it self, should happen in any one age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches, this only makes a Reformation the more necessary; so far is it from making it the more disputable. For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous, and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general Infection. And if any other Churches neglect themselves, What reason is it that the rest should? For, any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty, is no more an argument, that no particular Church should reform it self, than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague, then I am bound to neglect it too. But you answer, 3. That all this doth not justifie the Protestants proceedings, because they promulged only new and unheard of Doctrines, directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholick Truths. This is the great thing in Question; but I see, you love best the lazy trade of begging things, which are impossible to be rationally proved.

But yet you would seem here to do something towards it in the subsequent words;§. 7. For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began, Ibid.was not the real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist, by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine, generally held by the whole Church? Was not the real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believed? Was not Veneration of Holy Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Praying for the dead, that they might be eased of their pains, and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practised by all Christians? Was not Free will, Merit of good works, and Justification by Charity, or inherent Grace, and not by Faith only, universally taught and believed in all Churches of Christendom? Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope, and the Latin Church? To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge, that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick? This p. 367doth not justifie at all his Reformation; he should prove that it may not only add, but take away something that is Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church; for this the pretended Reformers did, as well in England as elsewhere. His Lordship never pretends, much less disputes, that any particular Church hath a power to take away any thing that is truly Catholick; but the ground why he supposeth, such things as those mentioned by you, might be taken away, is, because they are not Catholick; the Question then is between us, Whether they were Catholick Doctrines or not: this you attempt to prove by this medium, Because they were generally held by the whole Church at the time of the Reformation. To which I answer, 1. If this be a certain measure to judge by, what was Catholick and what not; then what doth not appear to have been Catholick in this sense, it was in our Churches power to reject, and so it was lawful to reform our selves as to all such things which were not at the time of the Reformation received by the whole Church. And what think you now of the Popes Supremacy, your Churches Infallibility, the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy, Communion in one kind, Prayer in an unknown tongue, Indulgences, &c. Will you say, That those were generally received by the Church at the time of the Reformation? If you could have said so, no doubt you would not have omitted such necessary points, and some of which gave the first occasion to the Reformation. If then these were not Catholickly received, a particular Church might without Schism reject them, and so the Church of England is sufficiently vindicated from Schism by your self, as to these points here mentioned; which you willingly omitted, because you could not but know how far they were from being universally received in all Churches in Christendom?

2. As to those things which you insist on, you give no sufficient evidence at all, that they were received by the whole Church as Catholick Doctrines. For, so far it is from appearing, that these were held as Catholick Doctrines by all Churches in the Christian world (for then you do most unreasonably condemn the Greek, and Abyssine Churches, &c. for Heresie or Schism, if they owned all Catholick Doctrines; and they must do so, if they agreed with your Church in all these things which are the only Doctrines you mention as Catholick, in opposition to such whom you condemn for Heresie or Schism; and if the agreement of all Churches be the measure of what is Catholick, then those Doctrines cannot be so, which those great Churches differ from you in, by your own argument) but, so far is it, I say, from appearing, that these were held so by all Churches in Christendom, that you cannot prove they were so held in the Church of Rome her self, before the Reformation. The Church of Rome I take here in the largest sense, as it takes in all such who were the visible members of her Communion. Now, I hope you will not say, that such Doctrines are received as Catholick Doctrines, which are imbraced only by a party in your Church, another party opposing it, both which still remain members of your Communion; for whatever is received as a Catholick Doctrine (according to you) is so received, that those who deny or doubt of it, do thereby become no members of the visible Communion of that Church; which is by the Churches so declaring her self in those points, that she admits none to her Communion, but upon the acknowledgement of them. Now, Will you say, This was the case of your Church, as to these Doctrines at the beginning of the Reformation? Were Transubstantiation, real Sacrifice of the Mass, Veneration of Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, &c. so defined p. 368then by your Church to be Articles of Faith, that whoever did not assent to them, was declared excommunicate, and cast out of your Church? If not, it is impossible, upon your own grounds, to prove, that these were universally held and believed as Catholick Doctrines of your Church. I do not say, As truly Catholick Doctrines in themselves; for, whatever your Church defines concerning them, they are not more or less so in themselves for your Churches definition; but, I say, you cannot assert that these were held by your Church to be Catholick Doctrines, till they were defined to be such. For, according to your principles, that which differenceth a Catholick Doctrine from a particular Opinion, is the Churches Definition; before then the Church had passed a definition in these points, they could not be held as Catholick Doctrines. To make this somewhat clearer, because it is necessary for undeceiving those who are told, as you tell us here, That at the Reformation we rejected such things which were universally owned for Catholick Doctrines, which is so far from being true, that it is impossible they should be owned for such by the Church of Rome upon your own principles. For, I pray, tell us, Are there not several sorts of Opinions among you at this day, none of which are pretended to be Catholick Doctrines? and this you constantly tell us, when we object to you your dissentions about them. As for Instance, the Popes personal Infallibility, the Superiority of Pope over General Councils, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the Disputes about Praedestination, &c. when we tell you of your differences in these points, you answer, That these hinder not the Vnity of the Church, because these are only in matters of Opinion; and that it is not de fide, that men should hold either way. When we demand the reason of this difference concerning these things, your Answer is, That the Church hath defined some things to be believed, and not others; that what the Church hath defined, is to be looked on as Catholick Doctrine, and the denyers of it are guilty of Heresie; but where the Church hath not defined, those are not Catholick Doctrines, but only at best but pious Opinions, and men may be good Catholicks, and yet differ about them. I pray, tell me, Is this your Doctrine, or, is it not? If not, there may be Hereticks within your Church, as well as without: if it be your Doctrine, apply it to the matters in hand. Were these things defined by the Church at the beginning of the Reformation? If they were, produce those Definitions for all those things which you say were owned as Catholick Doctrines then: that we may see, that at least in the judgement of your Church they were accounted so. Tell us, when and where those Doctrines were defined before the Council of Trent? and, I hope you will not say, that was before the beginning of the Reformation. If then there were no such definitions concerning them, they could not by your Church be accounted as Catholick Doctrines; at the most, they could be but only pious Opinions, as that of the Popes Infallibility among you is, and consequently men might be Catholicks still, though they disputed or denied them. And how then come the Protestants to be accounted Hereticks in their Reformation, if upon your own principles, those things which they denied were then no Catholick Doctrines: Though you should therefore prove more than you have done, That these points of Doctrine were generally received at the time of the Reformation, yet that by no means proves that they were Catholick Doctrines, unless you make it impossible that meer Opinions should be generally received in your Church. For, if any thing may be generally received in the nature of an Opinion, you cannot prove from the bare general reception, that it was a Catholick p. 369Doctrine: unless you would attempt to prove it by the notion under which it was received, Whether as an Opinion, or a Catholick Doctrine.

But then you must remember to prove these things, 1. That all those who did receive it, received it under that notion; as for instance,§. 8. In any one of those Articles by you mentioned, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, &c. you must first prove, That all who were in your Churche's Communion did believe those things; which it is impossible for you to do, unless you could prove, that none could be of your Church, unless they believed them; which is again impossible to be done, unless your Church had so defined those things, that they ceased to be members of it who did not believe them. Thus, we see, your first task is rendred impossible, viz. to know, Whether all in your Church held these Doctrines or no; but, suppose you knew this, it falls short of your purpose, unless you can prove, that all those who held these things, did not hold them as bare Opinions, but as Catholick Doctrines; and this is again as impossible as the former; for, How can you tell, whether they judged these things to be so, unless you knew what their Rule was whereby they judged of Catholick Doctrines? If you knew their Rule, How can you tell, Whether they made a right Vse of it or no? or, Whether they made any Use at all of it? or, Whether they did not take up such Opinions by prejudice, education, the judgement of others, and several other waies, without examining of what nature or importance the things were. If you think you have a certain Rule to judge of Catholick Doctrines by, you must prove that they had the same Rule, and looked upon it as such too: otherwise they might not use it for those ends, nor be governed at all by it. When you will therefore prove any Doctrines to be Catholick, by being generally received, you must remember what brave impossibilities you have undertaken. But, suppose you could master this too, and prove, that men generally received these as Catholick Doctrines; yet, before you can prove, that these are Catholick Doctrines from thence, you have a further task yet upon you, which is, to prove it impossible that these men should be out in their judgement concerning the nature of an Opinion, and that they could not look on any thing as a Catholick Doctrine, but what was really so. For, if they may be mistaken in their judgement, we are as far to seek as ever, for knowing what are Catholick Doctrines, and what not. You must therefore prove the judgement of all these persons infallible concerning what are Catholick Doctrines, and what not: And by that time, the Pope will return you little thanks for your pains, in making every member of your Church as infallible as himself. If it be then so impossible to prove, that these were received as Catholick Doctrines, either from any definition of your Church, or from the general reception of them among the members of it, you see, what little reason you had to say, That the Protestants at the beginning of the Reformation, did take away something that was Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church. Which is notoriously false and inconsistent with your own principles. If we should therefore grant, that Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. were generally owned in your Church at the time of the Reformation, the utmost you can prove, is, only that they were owned as particular Doctrines by particular men, but not that they were owned as the Catholick Doctrines of your Church. And therefore we deny not, but that party and faction in your Church which owned and contended for these, had got the upper-hand of the other, before the time of the Reformation, so that those who doubted of, or denied them, durst not appear so publickly as p. 370their adversaries did; but they were but a party, and a faction still, and there were many outward members of your Church, who groaned under the abuses and tyrannies of the prevailing faction, and call'd loud for a Reformation. As appeared not only by the open testimonies of some against such Doctrines; the sad complaint of others for want of Reformation; but by the general sense of the necessity of it, at the time when it was set upon, the great applause it met with among all persons who allowed themselves liberty to enquire into things, the general consent of the main bodies of those who set about reforming themselves in the main Articles of Christian Doctrine, and unanimous opposition to those erroneous Opinions which you call Catholick Doctrines. So that these were not at the time of the Reformation, so much as the owned Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church; but the Opinions of a prevailing Faction in it: and therefore the disowning them, is no rejecting any thing Catholick, but rejecting the opinions and practices of a tyrannical and usurping Faction. There must be then a great deal of difference put between the State and Doctrine of the Church of Rome, before the beginning of the Reformation, and since, especially since the Council of Trent. For then these Doctrines were owned by a Faction, but yet there might have been communion with that Church, without believing them to be Catholick Doctrines; and no doubt, many pious souls went to Heaven without believing any of these things, (viz. such who believed and improved the common principles of Christianity, without regarding the erroneous Doctrines, or superstitious Practices of those among whom they lived) but upon the first stirrings towards a Reformation, the Court of Rome was so far from reforming the abuses which were complained of, that they sought to inforce them with the greatest severity upon all persons, thundering out Excommunications against all such who should question or dispute them. By which means those who might have lived peaceably before within the external Communion of that Church, without consenting to the errours of it, are now forced out of it, unless they would approve of such things which their consciences detested; in comparison with the peace of which, they accounted not their lives to be dear to them, as many thousands of them made it appear in several Countries. This is the true and just account of the state of things at the beginning of the Reformation; but afterwards, when, through the necessity of the Pope's affairs, a Council was summoned, and all the arts imaginable were made use of, to steer that grand affair for the Interess of the Court of Rome; a new scene of affairs appears in the Christian world: those Doctrines which before were owned only by particular men, are defined by Pope and Council, to be the Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church, and all those Anathematized who will not own them. By which means the Roman Church is become it self that party and faction, which only prevailed in it before but with reluctancy and opposition; and now, none are looked on as members of that Church, but such as own the definitions of that Council in point of Doctrine. Which makes it vastly to differ from what it was before, as to the terms of its Communion, and the state of the persons who remain in it; who can neither enjoy that freedom in judgement which they might use before, nor yet can pretend those excuses for not knowing the errours and corruptions of that Church, which might have prevented obstinacy in them before. So that upon the whole it appears, that the Protestants in the beginning of the Reformation, were so far from taking away any thing that was received as a Catholick Doctrine, p. 371by all Christian Churches, that they did not reject any thing which could be looked on as the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and consequently that the Protestants were so far from a wilful separation from the Church of Rome, that they were driven out by a prevalent Faction, which imposed those things which had been before only the errours of particular persons, as the Catholick Doctrines of that Church, and the necessary conditions of Communion with her.

3. I may answer yet further, That it is not enough to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick, that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one Age; but it must be made appear, to have been so received from the Apostles times. So that if we should grant, that these Doctrines were owned for Catholick, not only by the Church of Rome, but all other Christian Churches (so far as it can be discerned by their Communion) yet this doth not prove these Doctrines so owned to be truly Catholick, unless you can first prove, that all the Christian Churches of one Age can never believe a Doctrine to be Catholick, which is not so. You see therefore your task increases further upon you: for, it is not enough to say, That A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick, and therefore they were so; but that for 1517. years, successively from the Apostles to that time, they were judged to be so, and then we shall more easily believe you. When you will therefore prove Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Image-worship, Invocation of Saints, or any other of the good Doctrines mentioned by you, in a constant tradition from the Apostles times to have been looked on as Catholick Doctrines, you may then say, That Protestants in denying these, did take away something Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church; but, till that time, these Answers may abundantly suffice.

We now come closer to the business of the Reformation; but,§. 9. before we examine the particulars of it, the general grounds on which it proceeded, must somewhat further be cleared, which his Lordship tells you, are built upon the power of particular Churches reforming themselves, in case the whole Church is negligent, or will not; to which you say,P. 164. n. 6. That you grant in effect as great power as the Bishop himself does, to particular Churches, to National and Provincial Councils, in reforming errours and abuses either of doctrine or practice: only we require that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastor of the Church, and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith, especially when they define or declare points not generally known and acknowledged to be Catholick Truths. What you grant in effect at first, you in effect deny again afterwards. For the Question is about Reformation of such errours and abuses as may come from the Church of Rome; and when you grant a power to reform only, in case the Pope consent, you grant no power to reform at all. For the experience of the world hath sufficiently taught us, How little his consent is to be expected in any thing of Reformation. For his Lordship truly saith, in Answer to Capellus, who denies particular Churches any power of making Canons of Faith, without consulting the Roman See, P. 151. n. 3.That as Capellus can never prove that the Roman See must be consulted with before any Reformation be made: So it is as certain, that, were it proved and practised, we should have no Reformation. For it would be long enough before the Church should be cured, if that See alone should be her Physitian, which in truth is her disease. Now to this you say, That even Capellus himself requires this: as though Capellus were not the man whom his Lordship answers as to this very thing. But besides you say, p. 372The practise of the Church is evident for it, in the examples of the Milevitan and Carthaginian Councils, which, as St. Austin witnesseth, sent their decrees touching Grace, Original sin in Infants, and other matters against Pelagius, to be confirmed by the Pope: but what is all this to the business of Reformation, that nothing of that nature is to be attempted without the Popes consent? That these Councils did by Julius an African Bishop communicate their decrees to Pope Innocent, Who denyes? but, what is it you would thence infer to your purpose? for the utmost which can be drawn hence, is, that they desired the Pope to contribute his assistance in condemning Pelagius and Coelestius; by adding the authority of the Apostolical See to their decrees: that so by the consent of the Church that growing Heresie might the more easily be suppressed. And who denyes but at that time the Roman Church had great reputation, (which is all that Authority implyes) and by that means might be more serviceable in preventing the growth of Pelagianism, if it did concur with the African Councils in condemning that Doctrine. But because they communicated their decrees to Pope Innocent desiring his consent with them, that therefore no reformation should be attempted in the Church without the consent of the Pope is a very far-fetched inference; and unhappily drawn from those African Fathers, who so stoutly opposed Zosimus, Innocents Successour, in the case of Appeals about the business of Apiarius. Did they, think you, look on themselves as obliged to do nothing in the reforming the Church without the Popes authority, who would by no means yield to those encroachments of power, which Zosimus would have usurped over them? Nay it appears, that, till the African Fathers had better informed him, Zosimus did not a little favour Coelestius himself, and in case he had gone on so to do, do you think they would have thought themselves ever the less obliged to reform their Churches from the Pelagian Heresie which began to spread among them? And in this time of the Controversie between Zosimus and them, though they carried it with all fairness towards the Roman See, yet they were still careful to preserve and defend their own priviledges; and in case the Pope should then have challenged that power over them, which he hath done since, no doubt they would not have struck at calling such incroachments The disease of the Church, (without any unhandsomness or incivility) and would have been far from looking on him as the only Physitian of it.

To that pretence, That things should have been born with, till the time of a General Council, §. 10.his Lordship answers: First, 'tis true, a General Council, free and entire, P. 152. n. 4.would have been the best remedy, and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so far, and eaten so deep into Christianity. But what? should we have suffered this Gangrene to endanger life and all, rather then be cured in time by a Physitian of weaker knowledge, and a less able hand? Secondly we live to see since, if we had stayed and expected a General Council, what manner of one we should have had if any. For that at Trent was neither General nor free. And for the errours which Rome had contracted, it confirmed them, it cured them not. And yet I much doubt, whether ever that Council (such as it was) would have been call'd, if some Provincial and National Synods under Supreme and Regal power, had not first set upon this great work of Reformation; which I heartily wish had been as orderly and happily pursued as the work was right Christian and good in it self. But humane frailty and the heats and distempers of men, as well as the cunning of the Devil would not suffer that. For even in this sense also the wrath of man doth not accomplish p. 373the will of God, St. James 1.20. but I have learnt not to reject the good, which God hath wrought, for any evil which men may fasten upon it. Now to this you answer, 1. By a fair Concession again, that a Provincial Council is the next Chirurgion, when a Gangrene endangers life, P. 165.but still the Popes assistance is required: For fear the Chirurgion should do too much good of himself, you would be sure to have the Pope as Physitian to stand by, whom you know too much concerned in the maladies of the Church, to give way to an effectual cure. 2. But you say further, That the most proper expedient is an Oecumenical Council; and this you spoil again, with saying; Such as the Council of Trent was. For what you say in vindication of that being General and free, we shall consider in the Chapter designed for that purpose. What you object against our National Synod 1562. will be fully answered before the end of this; which that we may make way for, we must proceed to the remainder of these general grounds; in which his Lordship proves, That when the Vniversal Church will not, or for the iniquity of the times cannot obtain and settle a free General Council, 'tis lawful, P. 152. n. 5.nay sometimes necessary to reform gross abuses by a National or a Provincial. To this you answer in General,P. 166. n. 8. That you deny not but matters of less moment as concerning rites and ceremonies, abuses in manners and discipline, may be reformed by particular Councils, without express leave of the Pope; but that in matters of great moment concerning the Faith and publick Doctrine of the Church, Sacraments, and whatever else is of Divine Institution, or universal obligation, particular Councils, (if they duly proceed) attempt nothing without recourse to the Sea Apostolick, and the Pope's consent either expresly granted or justly presumed. Fair hopes then there are of a cure when the Imposthume gathers in the Head! we are indeed by this put into a very good condition; for if a small matter hurts a Church she hath her hands at liberty to help her self; but if one comes to ravish her, her hands are tyed, and by no means must she defend her self. For in case, say you, it be any matter of great moment, it must be left to the Pope, and nothing to be done without his consent; no not although the main of the distempers come through him. But thanks be to God, our Church is not committed to the hands of such a merciless Physitian, who first causeth the malady and then forbids the cure: we know of no such obligation we have, to sleep in St. Peters Church, as of old they did in the Temple of Aesculapius in hopes of a cure. God hath entrusted every National Church with the care of her own safety, and will require of her an account of that power he hath given to that end. It will be little comfort to a Church whose members rot for want of a remedy, to say, The Pope will not give leave or else it might have been cured. I wonder where it is that any Christian Church is commanded to wait the Popes good leasure for reforming her self? Whence doth he derive this Authority and sole power of reforming Churches? But that must be afterwards examined. But is it reasonable to suppose that there should be Christian Magistrates, and Christian Bishops in Churches, and yet these so tyed up that they can do nothing in order to the Churches recovery though the distempers be never so great and dangerous? Do we not read in the Apostolical Churches that the Government of them was in themselves, without any the least mention of any Oecumenical Pastour over all? if any abuses were among them, the particular Governours of those Churches are checked and rebuked for it, and commanded to exercise their power over offenders? and must the encroachments of an usurped and arbitrary power in the Church hinder particular Churches from the exercise of that p. 374full power which is committed to the Governours of them? Neither is this only a Right granted to a Church as such, but we find this power practised and asserted in the history of the Christian Churches from the Apostles times. For no sooner did the Bishops of Rome begin to encroach, but other Bishops were so mindful of their own priviledges and the Interess of their Churches, that they did not yield themselves his Vassals, but disputed their rights and withstood his usurpations. As hath partly appeared already, and will do more afterwards.

§. 11.And that particular Churches may reform themselves, his Lordship produceth several Testimonies; The first is of Gerson, who tells us plainly, That he will not deny, P. 153.but that the Church may be reformed by parts. And that this is necessary; and, that to effect it, Provincial Councils may suffice, and in some things Diocesan. And again, Either you should reform all estates of the Church in a General Council, or command them to be reformed in Provincial Councils: P. 167.But all this, you say, doth not concern matters of Faith, but only personal abuses; But I pray what ground is there that one should be reformed and not the other? Is it not the reason why any reformation is necessary, that the Churches purity and safety should be preserved? and is not that as much or more endangered by erroneous doctrines then by personal abuses? Will not then the parity of reason hold proportionably for one as well as the other? that if the Church may be reformed by parts as to lesser abuses, then much more certainly as to greater. Besides, you say, Gerson allowed no Schismatical Reformations against the Churches head; neither do we plead for any such; but then you must shew, Who the Churches head is, and, By what right he comes to be so; otherwise the cause of the Schism will fall upon him who pretends to be the head to direct others, and is as corrupt a member as any in the body. But his Lordship adds,Ibid. This right of Provincial Synods, that they might decree in causes of Faith, and in cases of Reformation, where corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ, was practised much above a thousand years ago by many, both National and Provincial Synods. For which he first instanceth in the Council at Rome under Pope Sylvester An. 324. condemning Photinus and Sabellius, whose heresies were of a high nature against the Faith; but here you say, The very title confutes his pretence, for it was held under the Pope and therefore not against him. Ibid.But however, whether with the Pope or against him, it was no more then a Provincial Synod; and this decreed something in matters of Faith, though according to your own Doctrine the Pope could not be Infallible there: for you restrain his Infallibility to a General Council, and do not assert that it belongs to the particular Church of Rome. As well then may any other Provincial Synod determine matters of Faith, as that of Rome, since that hath no more Infallibility belonging to it as such then any other particular Church hath; and the Pope himself you say may erre when he doth not define matters of Faith in a General Council. To his Lordships second instance of the Council of Gangra about the same time condemning Eustathius for his condemning marriage as unlawful; you answer to the same purpose, That Osius was there Pope Sylvester's Legat; but what then? if the Pope had been there himself he had not been Infallible, much less certainly his Legat who could have only a Second-hand Infallibility. To the third of the Council of Carthage condemning rebaptization about 348. you grant, That it was assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage, but that no new Article was defined in it, but only the perpetual tradition of the Church was confirmed therein. Neither do we p. 375plead for any power in Provincial Councils to define any new Articles of Faith, but only to revive the old, and to confirm them in opposition to any Innovations in point of Doctrine; and as to this we profess to be guided by the sense of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils. To the fourth of the Council of Aquileia A. D. 381. condemning Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the Arrian Heresie, St. Ambrose being present; you answer, That they only condemned those who had been condemned already by the Nicene Council; and, St. Ambrose and other Bishops of Italy being present, Who can doubt but every thing was done there by the Popes authority and consent? But if they only enforced the decrees of the Council of Nice, What need of the Pope's authority to do that? And do you think that there were no Provincial Councils in that part of Italy which was particularly distinguished from the suburbicarian Churches under the Bishop of Rome, wherein the Pope was not present either by himself or Legats? If you think so, your thoughts have more of your will then understanding in them. But if this Council proceeded according to that of Nice, Will it not be as lawful for other Provincial Councils to reform particular Churches, as long as they keep to the Decrees not barely of Nice, but of the four General Councils, which the Church of England looks on, as her duty to do. In the two following Instances of the second Council of Carthage declaring in behalf of the Trinity, and the Milevitan Council about the Pelagian Heresie; you say, The Bishops of Rome were consulted: But what then? Were they consulted as the Heads of the Church, or only as eminent members of it in regard of their Faith and Piety? Prove the former when you are able; and as to the latter it depends upon the continuance of that Faith and Piety in them; and when once the reason is taken away, there can be no necessity of continuing the same resort. The same answer will serve for what you say concerning the second Council of Aurange, determining the Controversies about Grace and Free-will, supposing we grant it assembled by the means of Felix 4. Bishop of Rome; as likewise to the third of Toledo. We come therefore to that which you call his Lordships reserve, and Master-allegation the fourth Council of Toledo; which, saith he,P. 154. did not only handle matters of Faith for the reformation of that people, but even added also something to the Creed, which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds. Nay, the Bishops did not only practise this, to condemn Heresies in National and Provincial Synods, and so to reform those several places and the Church it self by parts; but they did openly challenge this as their right and due, and that without any leave asked of the See of Rome.Council. Toles ▪ 4. Can. 3. For in this fourth Council of Toledo they decree, that, If there happen a cause of Faith to be setled, a general that is a National Synod of all Spain and Gallicia shall be held thereon. And this in the year 643. where you see it was then Catholick Doctrine in all Spain, that a National Synod might be a competent Judge in a cause of Faith. But here still we meet with the same Answer,P. 168. That all this might be done with a due subordination to the See Apostolick, but that it doth not hence follow that any thing may be done in Provincial Councils against the authority of it. Neither do we plead that any thing may be done against the just authority of the Bishop of Rome, or any other Bishop; but then you must prove that he had a just authority over the Church of England, and that he exercised no power here at the Reformation but what did of right belong to him. But the fuller debate of these things must be left to that place where you designedly assert and vindicate the Pope's Authority.

p. 376§. 12.These things being thus in the general cleared, we come to the particular application of them to the case of the Church of England. As to which,Ibid. his Lordship say's; And if this were practised so often and in so many places, Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like? As she did. P. 155.For she cast off the Pope's usurpation, and as much as in her lay restored the King to his right. The institution of a Christian man. A. 1534. In Synodo Lond…n. Sess. 8. die Veneris Jan. An. 1562.That appears by a Book subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eighths time. And by the Records in the Archbishops office, orderly kept and to be seen. In the Reformation which came after, our Princes had their parts, and the Clergy theirs. And to these two principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs. That our Princes had their parts, is manifest by their calling together of the Bishops, and others of the Clergy, to consider of that which might seem worthy Reformation. And the Clergy did their part: for, being thus call'd together by Regal power, they met in the National Synod of sixty two. And the Articles there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of State, and the Royal assent. In this Synod, the Positive truths which are delivered are more then the Polemicks. So that a meer calumny it is, that we profess only a Negative Religion. True it is, and we must thank Rome for it, our Confession must needs contain some Negatives. For we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored. Nor can we admit maimed Sacraments. Nor grant Prayers in an unknown tongue. And in a corrupt time or place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falshood, as to assert and vindicate Truth. Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the former, an Affirmative verity being ever included in the Negative to a falshood. As for any errour which might fall into this (as any other Reformation) if any such can be found; then I say, and 'tis most true, Reformation, especially in cases of Religion, is so difficult a work, and subject to so many Pretensions, that 'tis almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far, or fall too short in some smaller things or other, which in regard of the far greater benefit coming by the Reformation it self, may well be passed over and born withall. But if there have been any wilfull and gross errours, not so much in opinion as in Fact (Sacriledge too often pretending to Reform Superstition) that's the crime of the Reformers, not of the Reformation; and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them.

This is his Lordships full and just account of the proceedings of the Reformation in the Church of England, to which we must consider what Answer you return. To his Lordships Question, Why may not a National Council of the Church of England do the like; you give this answer, Truly I know no reason why it may not, P. 168. n. 9.provided it be a true National Council and a true Church of England, (as those recited were true Churches and Councils) and provided also that it do no more. We are contended to put the issue of this business upon these three things, viz. That our Church is a true Church, That the power which reformed it was sufficient for that purpose, and, That no more was done by them then was in their power to do. But for the first you tell us, That seeing by the Church of England he means the present Protestant Church there, Ibid.you must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition, and tell him the Church of England in that sense, signifies no true Church. Were it not an easie matter to requite you by telling you, It is impossible we should be guilty of Schism in any separation from your Communion, because we must crave leave of you to say that the Church of Rome is no true Church; and where there is Schism that must be a true Church which men are guilty of it in separating from. Not as though I sought only to return a blow on you which I could not defend p. 377our Church from; but to let you see, that by whatever way you would prove your Church to be true, by the same we may prove ours to be so too. If you own and believe the Christian Doctrine to be the way to salvation, so do we. If you embrace the ancient Creeds, so do we. If you acknowledge the Scriptures to be Gods Word, so do we. If you joyn together in participation of the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, so do we. If you have a constant succession of Bishops, so have we. Name then What it is, which is Fundamental to the Being of a Church, which our Protestant Church doth want? You grant the Church of England was a true Church before the Reformation, Wherein was it altered from it self by it, that it ceased to be a true Church? Was it, in denying the Pope's Supremacy in Henry the eighth's time? That cannot be: for you very remarkably grant afterwards, That the Bishops, and the King too, P. 169.left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge. (Which is a concession we shall make more use of afterwards.) Surely then this could not unchurch them. Or, Was it the proceedings of the Reformation in Queen Elizabeth's time? The Supremacy could not be it neither now; for that was asserted under a more moderate title in her time, than in her Fathers. Was it the Vse of the Liturgy in the English tongue? Surely not; when Pius the fourth offered to confirm it, as is credibly reported from Vincentius Parpalia, whom that Pope imployed on a Message to Queen Elizabeth, with terms of Accommodation. But, What was it which did unchurch us? Were they the Articles of Religion agreed on in the Convocation, 1562? If they were these, Were they either the positive or negative Articles? If the positive, Were they the asserting the Articles contained in the three Creeds, the sufficiency of Scriptures, the necessity of Divine Grace? or, What else? If the negative, Was it the denying Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Vnlawfulness of Priests Marriage, Communion in one kind? or, Which of them else was it, which made the Protestant Church to be no true Church? Or, Is it lastly the asserting, That as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their livings, A…t 19.and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith? Is this it which hath done us all the mischief to unchurch us, viz. the denying your Churches Infallibility? If this be it, it is our comfort yet, that our Church will remain a true Church, till yours be proved to be Infallible; which I dare say, will be long enough. But, as though it were in your absolute power to church and unchurch whom, and when you please, you offer at no proof at all of this assertion, but only very fairly crave his Lordships leave to call the Protestant Church no true Church: Which indeed is a more civil way of begging the Question. And if it will not be granted, you cannot help it; for you have done your utmost, in craving his leave for it, and you have no more to say to it.

But, you seem to say much more to the second,§. 13. That the Reformation was not managed by a lawful power, nor carried on in a due manner; for you offer to prove, that the National Synod 1562. was no lawful Synod, in these words. For is it not notorious, that pretended Synod A. D. 1562. were all manifest usurpers? Is it not manifest, 168, 169.that they all by force intruded themselves, both into the Sees of other lawful Bishops, and into the cures of other lawful Pastors, quietly and Canonically possessed of them before the said intrusion? Can those be accounted a lawful National Council of England, or lawfully to represent the English Church, who never had any lawful, that is, Canonical and just Vocation, Mission, or Jurisdiction given them to, and over the p. 378English Nation? Two things you object as the great reasons why those persons who sate in the Convocation, A. 1562. could make no lawful Synod, and those are Intrusion, and want of a lawful Mission: which shall be particularly examined. The first charge is of Intrusion, which you would seem to aggravate by several circumstances, that they intruded themselves, and that by force; and not some, but all; and that into the Sees of other lawful Bishops, and cures of lawful Pastors. But how true these circumstances are, must appear by a true account of the matters of fact relating to these things in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. How false that is, That all intruded themselves, is notorious to any one who understands any thing of those times; For this Convocation was held in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth, and in the fifth of her Reign: Of 26 Cathedral Churches, there were but fourteen or fifteen Bishops then living in England. For the Sees of Salisbury and Oxford fell vacant A. 1557. and were not supplied in the time of Queen Mary. Hereford, Bristow, Bangor, were vacant by the death of the several Bishops some weeks before Queen Mary. Canterbury by the death of Cardinal Pool, the same day with the Queen. Norwich and Gloucester a few weeks after her; and so likewise Rochester, Worcester, and S. Asaph became vacant by the voluntary exile of Pates and Goldwell, the Bishops thereof; so that but fifteen Bishops were then living and remaining in England. And, Were all those who supplied these vacant Sees, Intruders? A strange kind of Intrusion into dead mens places! So then, this circumstance is notoriously false, That they All by force intruded themselves into the Sees of other lawful Bishops. But let us see, Whether the other are more justly charged with a forcible Intrusion into the Sees of the other Bishops. For which we must consider what the proceedings were in reference to them: It appears then, that in the first year of the Queen, the Oath of Supremacy, formed and enjoyned in the time of Henry 8. was in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth revived for the better securing the Queen of the Fidelity of her subjects; but yet it was so revived, that several considerable passages in the Act concerning it, were upon mature deliberation mitigated, both as to the Queens title which was not Supreme Head, but Supreme Governour; a title which Queen Mary had used before, as appears by an Act passed in the third Session of Parliament in her time: and likewise as to the penalty; for, whereas the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. c. 10. was so very severe, That whosoever did extol the authority of the Bishop of Rome, was, for the first offence, within the compass of a Praemunire, and for refusing to take the Oath, was guilty of Treason; it passed now in Queen Elizabeth's time, only with this penalty, That such who refused it, should be excluded such places of honour and profit, as they held in the Church or Common-wealth; and that such as should maintain or defend the authority, preheminence, power, or jurisdiction, Spiritual or Ecclesiastical of any forein Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate whatsoever, should be three times convicted before he suffered the pains of death. Upon the expiring of the Parliament, Commissioners were appointed to require the Bishops to take the Oath of Supremacy, according to the Law made to that purpose, which being tendred to them, they all (Kitchin of Landaffe only excepted) unanimously refused it, although they had taken it before as Priests or Bishops, in the Reign of Henry 8. or Edward 6. But whether by some secret intimations from Rome, or their own obstinacy, they were resolved rather to undergo the penalty of the Law, than to take it now; and accordingly before the end of that year they were deprived of p. 379their Bishopricks. So that the Question about the Intrusion of those Bishops, who came into their Sees, depends upon the legality of the deprivation of these. And certainly, whosoever considers their former carriage towards the Queen, in refusing to assist at her Coronation, White and Watson.and some of them threatning to excommunicate her instead of disputing at Westminster, as they had solemnly engaged to do, joyned with this contumacy in refusing the Oath, will find that these persons did not unjustly suffer this deprivation. For which I need not run out into the Princes power over Ecclesiastical persons; for you have given a sufficient reason for it your self in that acknowledgement of yours, That the Bishops, and the King too (meaning King Henry) left the Pope in possession of all he could rightly challenge. If this be true, that notwithstanding the Stat. 28. Hen. 8. notwithstanding the Oath of Supremacy then taken, the Pope might injoy all that belonged to him of Divine Right, he might then do the same, notwithstanding this Oath in Queen Elizabeth's time, which was only reviving the former with some mitigation; and what could it be then else but obstinacy and contumacy in them to refuse it? And therefore the plea which you make for those whom you call the Henry-Bishops, will sufficiently condemn these present Bishops, whom we now speak of. For if those Bishops only renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England, as you say, i. e. that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters, which the Pope exercised here by virtue of the Canons, Prescription, and other titles of humane right, and gave it to the King; yet they never renounced or deprived him of that part of his authority, which is far more intrinsecal to his office, and of Divine Right; they never denied the Popes Soveraign Power to teach the Vniversal Church, and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever in a General Council. If these things, I say, be true, which you confidently assert, the more inexcusable were these Bishops for refusing that Oath of Supremacy which they had not only taken in King Henry's time, but which, by your own confession, takes away nothing of the Pope's Authority, in relation to the whole Catholick Church. And by this means their obstinacy appeared so great, as might justly deserve a deprivation. It being certainly in the Power of the King and Bishops to assert their own rights in opposition to any Canons or Prescriptions whatsoever of meerly humane right. So that by your own confession, the more excusable the Henry-Bishops were, as you call them, the less excusable the Mary-Bishops were (as, to follow you, we must call them) in refusing the Oath of Supremacy, when tendred to them. Was it lawful then in King Henry's time, to take this Oath or not? If not, then King Henry's Bishops are infinitely to blame for taking it, and you for defending them: If it was lawful then, why not in Queen Elizabeth's time? Had she not as much reason to impose it as her Father? Had she not as much power to do it? When one of the chief refusers, Heath, Arch-Bishop of York, and then L. Chancellour of England, did, upon the first notice of the death of Queen Mary, declare to the House of Commons, That the succession of the Crown did of right belong to the Princess Elizabeth, whose title they conceived to be free from all legal Questions; this could be then no plea at all for them. So that if any persons through the greatest obstinacy, might be deprived by a Prince of their Ecclesiastical preferments, these might; and when you can prove, that in no case a Prince hath power to deprive Ecclesiastical persons, you will say more to your purpose than yet you have done. But till you have done that, it remains clear, that these Bishops were justly deprived; and if so, p. 380What was to be done with their vacant Sees? Must they be kept vacant still? or such be put into them who were guilty of the same fault with themselves, in refusing the Oath, when tendred to them? If not such, then it was necessary that other fit persons should be legally consecrated and invested in them: And so they were, the places being supplied by worthy persons; the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury being consecrated by a Canonical number of Edward-Bishops, and the rest duly consecrated by other hands. And for all this, Must all these persons be intruders, and intrude themselves by force, and that into the places of other lawful Bishops? When so many Sees were actually vacant, and the rest by due form of Law, into which other Bishops were elected, and legally consecrated, notwithstanding the putid Fable of the Nags-Head ordination, which hath so often and so evidently been disproved, that I am glad to find you have so much modesty, as not to mention it. These Bishops being thus legally invested in their places, To whom did the care and Government of the English Church belong? to these, or to those who were justly deprived? If to these, Were not they then the due representatives of the English Church in a National Synod, who with those of the lower House of Convocation, make up a true National Council? And if so, it belonged to them as such, to consider what appertained to the Faith and Government of the Church of England. For they undertook not to prescribe to the whole world, that they leave to the Bishop and Church of Rome (not as legally belonging to them, but arrogantly usurped by them) but to draw up Articles of Religion, which should be owned by all such who enjoyed any place of Trust in the Church of England. So that in all this they were neither intruders, neither did they act any thing beyond their place and authority. But you would seem to quarrel with their Vocation, Mission, and Jurisdiction, as though it were not lawful, i. e. Canonical and Just; all these are your own words, and they are but words; for not one syllable like a proof is suggested. I tell you then (not to spend time in a needless vindication of the Vocation of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church of England, when you give us no reason to question it) that by the same arguments that you can prove that you have any lawful Bishops and Pastors in your Church, it will appear that we have too. And that our Vocation and Mission is far more consonant to the Apostolical and Primitive Church than yours is.

§. 14.But, the main quarrel is still behind, which is, that, Supposing they had been true Bishops, P. 196.and Pastors of the English Church, and their Assembly a lawful National Council, yet, you say, They were so far from doing the like (that other Provincial Councils had done) that they acted directly contrary to them, which charge lyes in these things. 1. Condemning points of Faith that had been generally believed and practised in the Church before them. This you know we deny, and you barely affirm it, and I have shewed some reason of our denial already, and shall do more when we come to particulars. 2. In contradicting the Doctrine of the Roman Church: A great Heresie indeed, but never yet condemned in any General Council. 3. In convening against the express Will of the Church of Rome: We shall then think that a fault, when you prove it belongs to that only, to summon all Councils, General, National, and Provincial. 4. In denying the Popes Authority, or attempting to deprive him of it: if you speak of his usurped Authority, you must prove it a fault to deprive him of it, i. e. to withdraw our selves from obedience to it, for that is all the deprivation can be here understood. If you mean Just Authority, shew wherein it lyes, whence he had it, by what means he p. 381came into it in the Church of England, and if you can make it appear that he had a just claim, it will be easie proving them guilty of a fault who disowned it. But, Whether it were a fault in them or no, I am sure it is one in you, to lay such things, and so many to our charge, and not offering to give evidence for one of them. But I must consider the Infallibility of your Church lyes in dictating, and not proving. Thus then, for any thing which you so much as seem to say to the contrary, the proceedings of the Reformation were very regular and just, being built on sufficient grounds, managed in a legal manner, and carried on with due moderation. Which are the highest commendations can be given to a work of Reformation; and do with the greatest right belong to the Church of England, of any Church in the Christian world. There remains nothing now which you object against our Reformation, but some faults of the Reformers; as to which his Lordship had already said, If any such be found, they are the crimes of the persons, and not of the Reformation, P. 170.and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them. Which Answer so full of justice and modesty, one would have thought, should have been sufficient for any reasonable man; but you are not satisfied with it. For you will have those faults to come from the principles of the Reformation, and that they did not belong to the persons of the Reformers, but are entailed on their Successors. But a short Answer will suffice for both these: shew us, What avowed principles of the Church of England tend to any real Sacriledge, before you charge any thing of that nature, as flowing from the Maxims of the Reformation. And if you can prove the Successors of the Reformers to continue in any Sacrilegious Actions, let those plead for them who will, I shall not; but leave them, as his Lordship did, to answer such things to God.

As to the Memorandum, which his Lordship concludes this discourse with, That he spake at that time of the General Church, as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Roman See: not doubting, P. 156. n. 6.but that as the Vniversal Catholick Church would have reformed her self, had she been in all parts freed of the Roman Yoke; so, while she was for the most in these Western parts under that Yoke, the Church of Rome was, if not the only, yet the chief hinderance of Reformation: You answer with some stomach; By what force I pray? Is it possible? or, Ibid.Can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man, that a single Bishop, of no very large Diocese, should be able by force, to bring into subjection so many large Provinces of Christendom, as confessedly did acknowledge the Popes Power, when the pretended Reformation began? But, What reasonable man can imagine, that a single Bishop indeed of no very large Diocese (if kept within his bounds) should, in progress of time, extend his power so far as the Pope did, but by one of these two means, force, or fraud? And since, you seem to be so much displeased at the former, I pray take the latter; or rather, the conjunction of both together. For that there was force used, appears by the manifold resistance which was made to the encroachments of the Popes power; and the sad complaints of the usurpations and abuses which were in it; and these abundantly delivered by Classical Authors of both the present and precedent times: and (to use more of your own words) all Ecclesiastical Monuments are full of them; so that this is no false calumny, or bitter Pasquil (as you call it) but a very plain and evident truth. But that there was likewise a great deal of art, subtilty and fraud used in the getting, keeping, and managing the Popes power, he hath but a small measure of wit who doth not understand, and they as little of honesty, who dare not confess it.