Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.

CHAP. 13. Protestants, no part of the Church.

ARGUMENT.

1. How the Separation of Protestants from the Church was made. 2. Whe∣ther the Roman-Catholiques, or They, do imitate the Ten Tribes. 3. The Roman Doctrin concerning the Holy Ghosts Proceeding, &c. more antient then the Bishop pretends. 4. In what cases, Particular Churches may declare Articles of Faith. 5. The word Filioque when added to the Creed; and why. 6. No Particular Church hath power to reform, what is universally taught and receiv'd. 7. The Protestants Synod at London 1562. neither General, nor Free. 8. Gerson, and all his other proofs, fail the Bishop. 9. Protestants never yet had either true Church, or Council.

1. WE are again told, that Protestants did not depart from the Church of Rome, but were thrust out by her without cause. What the cause of their expulsion was we have already declar'd, and shall not refuse here again briefly to repeat. It was, because by their Heretical doctrine and Schismatical proceedings they had first separa∣ted themselves from the Church, and became both unworthy and un∣capable (any longer) of her Communion. They had raised a new, Separate, and mutinous Faction of pretended Christians, distinct from the one, Catholique, or general, Body of the Church; They had chosen to themselves new Pastors, independent of any ordinary and lawful Pastours of Christs Church, that were before them. They had instituted new Rites and Ceremonies of religion, fram'd new Liturgies, or Forms of Divine Service; They had schismatically con∣ven'd in several Synods, or Conventicles, and there broacht new He∣retical Confessions of Faith, contrary, not only to the true Catho∣lique Faith, but to the Faith of all particular Churches what ever, ex∣istent in the world immediately before they began. Thus, Prote∣stants of themselves first departed from the Churches Doctrine and Communion; and persisting obstinate in their evil opinions and pra∣ctises, the Church was forc'd to proceed against them according to the Canons, and by just censure cast them out of her bosom; lest otherwise by their scandalons division, high disobedience, and pe∣stilent

doctrine they might further infect the Flock of Christ, which was committed to her charge.

The Bishop denies he ever granted, that Protestants did first depart, otherwise than he had before expressed, §. 21. num. 6. But that is enough: he there acknowledges that an actual separation (at least) was made by Protestants: and A. C. here asserts no more. Whether this actual separation were upon a just cause preceding (as the Relatour pre∣tends) is a thing to be disputed between A. C. and him: although in∣deed it be of it self clear enough to any who duly considers it, that Protestants neither had, nor could have, any just cause for such a Se∣paration, as A. C. pag. 55, 56. and all Catholiques do charge them with. For it was a Separation not onely from the Church of Rome, but (as Calvin himself, Epist. 14. confesses) à toto mundo, from the whole Christian world: and such a Separation necessarily involves separation from the True Catholique Church; from which, as it hath been often urg'd already, even by the confession of Protestants them∣selves, 'tis impossible there should ever be just cause to separate.

The Bishop grants, that Corruption in manners onely is no just cause to make a separation from the Church of God, yet cannot forbear to have a fling at the corrupt manners of the Church of Rome, quoting for that purpose Dr. Stapleton. But I wonder our Adversaries take notice of such things. Are they themselves without blame? Is there no cor∣ruption of manners amongst them? Surely yes; but passion blindes them, and they are like those who being brought into a most plea∣sant garden, richly beautified with variety of usefull herbs and odo∣riferous flowers, should pass over all this, and onely entertain them∣selves with looking upon some few weeds, which their curious or ra∣ther malicious eyes had there spy'd. For they take no notice of the Sanctity and Good life, perspicuous in very many both of the Cler∣gy and Laiety, in the Roman Church. They will not see the great variety of Religious Orders, wherewith the garment of the Church is, as it were, embroidered, (Astitit Regina à dextris tuis in vestitu deau∣rato, circumdata varietate, Psal. 44. ver. 10.) in which so many thou∣sands of both Sexes tye themselves to the Service of God by perpe∣tual Vowes, never to be dissolv'd by their own seeking; praying, and singing divine Hymnes day and night; which is a strange un∣heard of thing amongst Protestants. They tell us of many Popes that have been wicked; but they never mention, how many of them have been (undeniably) men of most holy life and Saint-like conver∣sation; I mean, not onely those of the Primitive and golden ages, (wherein no less then thirty (or more) successively one after another, for three hundred years together and upwards, were either Martyrs, or glorious Confessors, for the Christian Faith) but even of late, and in this our Iron Age.

The discovery of some few motes darkens not the brightness of the Sun-shine. What if some few Catholique Authors are of opinion, that some of the Popes, as private Doctours, have fallen into Heresie; though Bellarmin and others deny it, and rather shew the contrary? What if some others have fallen into other foul Crimes? was there not, even in the Colledge of the Apostles, one that deny'd, and an∣other

that betray'd his Master? Besides, it may be worth the noting, that amongst Catholiques, though Sins be committed, yet they are seldome maintained; they are not defended, nor justified as Good Works: whereas among Protestants Darkness it self is called Light, and the greatest of all Sins, viz. Heresie, Scisme, Sacriledge, Rebellion, &c. together with all the bad spawn they leave behinde them, are cry'd up for perfect vertue, zeal, godly Reformation, and what not? Let our Adversaries therefore still bark, they shall never hinder Sanctity of life from being a mark of the True, that is, of the Roman Church: though our chief quarrel with them for the present, be for endea∣vouring to brand her with Doctrinal errours; upon which account they both separate from her Communion, and attempt that horrid work of their deformed Reformation. But in vain do they attempt to re∣form the Church, of what she can never be guilty. They ought rather to reform themselves, and disclaim those errours, which with Hereti∣cal and Schismatical obstinacy they have so long maintain'd against her.

2. But I return to his Lordship, who grounding himself upon the Separation of the ten Tribes, averres, that a particular Church may re∣form it self. But whether or no, or how this may be done, I referre my Reader to what shall be said hereafter. For the present I onely note, that his Lordship goes upon false grounds. Thus he discour∣ses. Was it not lawful (sayes he) for Juda to reform her self, when Israel would not joyn? Sure it was. First, by this Rhetorical Interrogati∣on and answer he supposes that Juda reform'd her self; which is false. For Juda being the Orthodox Church, united with her Head, the High Priest, and not tainted with any Doctrinal errours, what need, I pray, was there of her reformation? His Text out of Osee a, Though Israel transgress, yet let not Juda sin, by which he endeavours to prove that Juda reform'd her self, is rather against, then for him; because in any indifferent mans judgement these words, Though Is∣rael trangress, yet at least let not Juda sin, have rather this sense, Let not Juda at least fall into Schisme, though Israel does, then the sense following, Let Juda reform her self. Secondly, he supposes that Juda is the Protestant party; which is also false. For if you be Juda, who, I pray, are the revolted Ten Tribes? who are of Jeroboams Ca∣bal? But let us see what a pretty Parallel there is between Juda and you. Juda remain'd in Jerusalem: you left the Catholique Jeru∣salem, that is Rome, the City of peace, in whose bosom you were brought up. Juda never went to Dan nor Bethel, never made Priests of Baal, never adored golden Calves. You made new Synagogues, to which you resorted; new and unheard of b Priests, without Altar, or Sacri∣fice; and all this by your own authority. Juda was still united with her Spiritual Head, the High-Priest of Jerusalem; nay with her Tem∣poral Head also, King Roboam: you revolted first from your Spiritual Head, the Pope of Rome, and afterwards cast off also your Loyalty due to Temporal Princes; as appears in the lamentable Rebellions heretofore in Germany, the Low Countreys, and France. Is not his Lordships Parallel then between Juda and the Protestant party very pat, and much to the purpose?

He would have had far better success, had he compar'd his Schis∣matical party with the ten revolted Tribes of Israel: for this Pa∣rallel comes very home, not only in respect of the people misled, but also in regard of the misleaders, even in England. Jeroboam had no title at all to the Crown of Israel. Queen Elizabeth was declar'd Il∣lègitimate and uncapable to inherit her Fathers Crown by Act of Par∣liament. Jeroboam out of ungodly Policy, the better to secure his usurp'd Crown, caused the ten Tribes to desert the old and true reli∣gion of Juda, which they had ever since their being Gods people, most constantly and universally professed. Queen Elizabeth more out of Policy and Reason of State, then of Conscience, to fasten the Crown of England upon her head, made a Schisme from the Romane Church, abolished the Catholique and True Religion (which had been pro∣fessed in England for so many hundred years before) purposely to ingra∣tiate her self with the common people, which easily inclines to all li∣centiousness, and utterly disable that party from ever prevailing af∣terward in Parliament, which formerly had voted against her. Jero∣boam, to the end his rebellious party might never return to Jerusalem, and be united with the High-Priest in the true religion, set up a new Synagogue, new Priests, new Sacrifices and new Ceremonies. Queen Elizabeth, to the end her Schismatical party might never piece again with their Spirituall Head, the Pope of Rome, set on foot a new Church, new Bishops, new Pastours, new Liturgies, and new Cere∣monies. In fine, Jeroboam stretcht forth his hand against the true Prophet of Juda, and commanded him to be apprehended. Queen Elizabeth stretcht forth her hand not against one onely, but all Priests and all Catholiques; witness the bloody persecution rais'd against them in her dayes; when it was made Treason for Priests to come into England, to exercise any Priestly Function, to have any com∣merce with Rome; and a capital crime even to hear Mass, or but har∣bour a Priest. And what I pray, is true piety in Gods sight, if all these be capital offences? But enough of this Parallel.

His Lordship, even during the Schisme of Jeroboam, will yet needs have Israel a True Church. But I answer, They were no true Church, because they rejected the Authority of the High Priest, re∣fused to communicate in the Sacrifices and Worship of God at Jeru∣salem, and adored the golden Calves of Jeroboam. 'Tis true, there were many holy persons, inhabitants of the same Countrey with the rest, who kept themselves undefiled from those Idolatries and Divi∣sions; who though they were not (perhaps) suffered to go up to Jeru∣salem to worship, yet never consented to go to Dan or Bethel. These we acknowledge, remained parts of the True Church, notwith∣standing the Schisme; as many Catholiques do now continue true members of the Roman Church, though living dispersedly in Hereti∣cal Countreys. And the Prophets who were amongst them, were al∣so a part of the True Church at Jerusalem; for which reason, for the most part the Kings of Israel persecuted them, as Catholiques also now are commonly persecuted by Heathen, Mahumetan, and Heretical Princes. The having-Prophets therefore among them argues the Ten Tribes no more to be parts of the true Church, then it would argue the

Protestants in Holland to be parts of the Roman Church, if some Roman Catholique should be found among them having the spirit of Pro∣phesie.

But his Lordship will prove by some Texts of Scripture, that the ten Tribes continued a Church, notwithstanding their Schisme and Idolatry. But to that of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 9. 17. I answer first, this Prophet pro∣phesied both against Juda and Israel; and the word Israel being an Appellative, common to all the seed of Jacob, 'tis not certain, he al∣wayes means by it the ten Schismatical Tribes onely, and not some∣times the Tribe of Juda also. Secondly I say, the Relatours Gloss addes to the Text. God doth not there threaten to cast Israel away in non Ecclesiam, as the Bishop speaks, that is, to un-church them, as if (forsooth) before that threatning they had been a true Church: this is the Relatours own voluntary addition, or fiction rather; but he threatens, simply to deprive them of his wonted protection, to deli∣ver them into their enemies hands, and (as the very next words shew) to make them wanderers among the Nations, that should take them captive.

To that of 4. Reg. 9. 6. where they are called the people of the Lord, I answer, in a general sense all Abrahams seed according to the flesh are styled the people of God, by reason of that promise of God made to Abraham, Gen. 18. I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; but Abraham's seed only according to the spirit, that is, the faith∣ful, make the True Church.

To his last Argument, (which he advanceth as ad hominem) that Multitude is a note of the Church. I answer, we do not contend that of Christians the greater multitude is an infallible mark of the true Church. There was a time when the Arrians were reported to be more numerous then the Orthodox.

3. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father, was a Truth alwayes acknowledg'd in the Church of God, and receiv'd in General Councils, long before the Contro∣versie touching that point arose between the Latins and the Greeks. Witness that Epistle of St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, which he wrote (as Bellarmin tells us) from the Council of Alexandria to that of Ephesus, wherein are these words, Spiritus appellatus est veritatis; & veritas Christus est: unde & ab isto similiter, sicut & ex Patre pro∣cedit. The Holy Ghost (saith he) is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth; whence follows that he proceeds as well from him, as from the Father. Thus he. Now this Epistle of St. Cyril and the Council of Alexandria, as Bellarmin likewise shews, was receiv'd not only by the Council of Ephesus, which was about the year of our Lord 434. but also by four other General Councils held in Greece it self: and consequently the Doctrine of the Holy Ghosts Procession, was a Truth so anciently known in the Church, that it could not well seem a novelty to any, when the express confession of it came to be more frequent and publick in the Latin Church. It matters not much, in what capacity it was promulgated by the Church of Rome, whether as a particular Church, as the Bishop contends, or as Head of the Church Universal, as we think. For either way, it could not but

be very lawful for that Church to do it: nor can it help his Lord∣ships cause, which way foever it was done. For supppose a particu∣lar Church may (in some case) promulgate an Orthodox Truth, not as yet Catholiquely receiv'd or defined by the whole Church; doth it thence follow that a particular Church (or Churches) may repeal and reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholick∣ly and Definitively received? Surely no. Yet this is his Lordships, and the Protestants case.

4. Hence the Relatours egregious Fallacy is manifest, while from the adding of a Word onely, by some particular Church for Explica∣tion of a known, ancient, and generally received b Truth, (such as was the Procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father and Son) he pretends to inferre both these Propositions, viz. That a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick, where the whole Church is silent; and that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Ca∣tholique, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not. For though the former of these Propositions be not so enormious as the latter, because it supposes not any actual errour, contrary to Catholique Do∣ctrine, to be maintained by the whole Church, but onely a Non decla∣ration, or, at most, some negligence to promulgate a Catholick Truth, whereas the other supposes errour, of something uncatholick, to be taught or admitted by the whole Church; yet are they both utterly Paradoxical and False, and no way to be inferr'd from the example, or practise of the Roman Church in declaring the Holy Ghosts Pro∣ceeding from the Son: for that was of a point anciently and generally received in the Church. Much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can it justifie the Protestants proceedings; whose Declarations, Promulgations, Confessions, or what ever you will call them, made upon their several pretended re∣formations, were onely of new and unheard of Doctrines, directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholique Truths.

For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Re∣formations began, 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 Sa∣crifice of the Mass then generally believ'd? 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 re∣mission of their sins, generally used and practis'd by all Christians? Was not Freewill, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of good Works, and Justification by Cha∣rity, or Inherent Grace, and not by Faith onely, universally taught and believ'd 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 Catholique? this doth not justifie at all his reformation: he should prove, that it may not onely adde, but take away something that is Catholique from the do∣ctrine of the Church: for this the pretended Reformers did, as well in England, as elsewhere.

5. It is not a thing so evident in Antiquity, when or where the

word Filioque was added to the Creed, that his Lordship should so so easily take it for granted (without proof) that the Roman Church added it, in quality of a particular Church. All that can be gather∣ed from Authours (so far as I can yet learn) concerning this point is, that in the Councils of Toledo and Luca assembled against the Hereticks call'd Priscillianists, the word is found inserted in the Creed; which is suppos'd to have been done upon the Authority of an Epistle they had receiv'd from Pope Leo the first, wherein he affirms the Processi∣on of the Holy Ghost to be both from the Father and Son. I con∣fess a Hugo Eterianus, in his Book written upon this Subject about the year 1100, affirms that it was added by the Pope in a full Council at Rome: but he names not the Pope. Whether it were, because in his time 'twas generally known what Pope it was, I cannot certainly say: but of this I am sure, that by reason of his silence, we now know not with any certainty whom he meant. b Card. Perron di∣rectly affirms, that it was first added by an Assembly of French Bi∣shops. But perhaps that may be more probable which Stanislaus So∣colovius tells us, in his Latin Translation of the Answer of Hieremi∣as Patriarch of Constantinople to the Lutherans, pag. 8. viz. that the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople; (which is the second General) sending the Confession of their Faith to Pope Damasus and his Council at Rome, the Pope and Council at Rome approv'd of their said Confession, but yet added, by way of explication, the word Fi∣lioque to the Article which concern'd the Holy Ghost; and this they did, to signifie that the Holy Ghost, as True God proceeded from the Son, and was not made or created by him, as some Heretiques in those times began to teach. Neither doth he affirm this without citation of some credible Authority: adding withall, that this Definition, or Declaration of the Pope, was for some hundreds of years general∣ly admitted and embrac'd by the whole Church, neither Greeks nor Latins dissenting, or taking any exception at the word Filioque, till about the time of the Eighth Synod; where the Greeks first began publiquely to cavil against it, more out of pride and peevish emulati∣on against the Latins, then for any urgent Reasons, they had to con∣test it more then their predecessours before them. But of this I need not contend further with his Lordship.

6. To return therefore to our business of Reformation, we grant in effect as great power, as the Bishop himself does, to particular Churches, to National and Provincial Councils, in reforming er∣rours and abuses either of doctrine or practice onely we require, that they proceed with due respect to the chief Pastour of the Church, and have recourse to him in all matters and decrees of Faith, especi∣ally when they define, or declare, points not generally known and ac∣knowledg'd to be Catholique Truths. For this even Capellus him∣self, by the Relatour here cited, requires: and the practise of the Church is evident for it, in the examples of the Milevitan and Car∣thaginian Councils, which as St. Austin a witnesses, sent their de∣crees touching Grace, Original Sin in Infants, and other matters against Pelagius, to be confirm'd by the Pope: who was not esteem'd by St. Austin and those Fathers, the Disease of the Church, (a tearm very

unhandsome from an inferiour) but rather the Physician of it, to whose Care and Government it was committed.

Neither do I think it convenient, to stay for a General Council, when the errours and abuses to be redressed are such, as call for speedy remedy, and threaten greater mischief, if they be not timely prevented. When the Gangrene endangers life, we do well to betake our selves to the next Chyrurgeon, that is, a Provincial Council: This in such a case, with the Popes assistance, is acknowledg'd a Physician compe∣tent, and able to apply all due remedy to the Churches infirmities: although I confess the most proper Expedient, specially for all mat∣ters that concern the Church in general, is an Oecumenical Council. Such as the Council of Trent was; whatever the Bishop (without any reason given) sayes to the contrary: nor can any thing be ob∣jected against it, which upon due examination will not be found as easily applyable to all other approved Councils, which the Church hath yet had: so that by disowning this, we should in effect disown all others. But suppose it had not been General; yet sure it was for Number, Learning, and Authority, far surpassing any National Council, or Synod, which the Protestants, either of England or any other Nation ever had. Wherefore, if their Assemblies, or Synods, so inconsiderable as they were, are yet esteem'd of sufficient Authority to make reformation in matters of Faith, and correct what doctrine they imagin'd erroneous in the Catholique Church, shall not the Council of Trent be as sufficient to assure us, that the said pretended errours are indeed no errours at all, but Divine Truths, and the perpe∣tual universally receiv'd Traditions of Christs Church.

7. But it is yet more strange, that our Adversary should also ob∣ject want of Freedom to this Council; seeing that even by the rela∣tion of their own partial and malevolent a Historian, it sufficiently appears, that neither the Prelates wanted full liberty of Suffrage, nor the Divines of Disputation, and maintaining their several asser∣tions in the best manner they could. His Lordship had done well to have lookt nearer home, and consider'd how matters were carried in England, much about that time. If the Council of Trent were not a free Council, what was that Protestant Synod of London, Anno 1562. in which the thirty nine Articles, that is, the summe of the Protestant Faith and Religion in England, were fram'd? Was that a Free Synod? First, at Trent all the Prelates in Christendome, that could be invited and were concern'd in the Resolutions of that Coun∣cil, being solemnly call'd, did come, and assist (either in their persons or proxies) both at the Deliberations, and Determinations of the Assembly. I adde, that the Protestants themselves were likewise invited, with full security to come and go, if they had pleas'd; but of this we have spoken already. Whereas at London, to that Synod of English Protestants, not one of the lawfull English Prelates were call'd, or permitted to come; who yet of all others were most con∣cern'd and ought to have been there present, as well by reason of their Authority and Function, as of their just interest. What speak I of the Prelates? not so much as one of the English Catholiques (how numerous soever they were at that time) were call'd to that

Assembly, but all (both Pastours and people) were condemn'd to∣gether, without being heard, or allow'd to speak one word for themselves.

At Trent there were no Bishops illegally depriv'd of their Bi∣shopricks, purposely to cashier their Votes in Council, nor any others included into their places, contrary to the Canons of the Church, purposely to vote down the said Churches established Doctrine and Canons. In England it is notorious, that all the lawful Prelates of that Nation were most illegally and arbitrarily depriv'd of their Bi∣shopricks, for no other end, but to evacuate their Authority in the Nation; and Lay-Bishops thrust into their places, purposely to vote down and abolish Catholique Religion by some colour of Authori∣ty, and seigned shew of a pretended Ecclesiastical Synod. At Trent nothing had been done, or was done, in matter of Religion, by the Pope or any other person, in way of Determination, or New Decree, but by and upon the most unanimous and general resolutions of that Council. In England ('tis too notorious to be deny'd) Religion was already chang'd by the Queen and a few meer-lay-persons in Parlia∣ment, (scarce enough to make a legal vote, had the matter been pro∣per for them) and this Synod of London call'd apparently not to de∣bate matters of Religion, as they ought to be debated in a Free Ec∣clesiastical Synod, but to serve designs, and to boulster up by their pre∣tended, titular, and usurp'd Authority, what before-hand had most Uncanonically been resolv'd upon by the State. This his Lordship should have a little reflected on, when he objected want of Freedom to the Council of Trent. But it seems, he could more easily see a Mote in another man's eye, then a Beam in his own.

8. Our desire is not, that any man should rather be blinde, then open his owneyes: God forbid! we would have him onely clear them, to see that Catholiques approve of National, Provincial, and also Dio∣cesan Synods, and onely disapprove of such Assemblies, as Convene and Act contrary to the Canons, in opposition to the chief Pastour of the Church, universally receiv'd Doctrines, and General Coun∣cils. The Bishop therefore might very well have spar'd his pains of proving so industriously, that many Reformations have been made by particular Councils: for who denyes it? Bellarmin a had suffici∣ently shew'd it already; who also observes out of St. Austin, that for the Defining of easie things 'tis not convenient to trouble all Chri∣stian Provinces. b Non omnis Haeresis est talis, ut propter eam debeant vexari omnes provinciae. We deny not, but matters of less moment such as concern Rites and Ceremonies onely, or Abuses in Manners and Discipline, may be reform'd by particular Councils, and that without asking express leave of the Pope: for who knows not, that the Discipline of the Church allows this? Who knows not, that the Pope is so far from being a hinderance to such Assemblies, that it is no small part of his Apostolical vigilancy for the good of the Church, to encourage and stir up the Bishops of other Nations and Provinces to the frequent holding of them? But we affirm that in matters of greater moment, which concern the Faith and publique 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 Aposto∣lique, and the Popes consent either expresly granted, or justly pre∣sum'd.

The Bishop indeed all along pretends the contrary, viz. that Nati∣onal and Provincial Councils did reform in matters of Faith and Doctrine, both without and against the Popes consent: and it con∣cerns him so to do; for without this granted, his Lordship knew well enough, it would be impossible for him to justifie the pretended Re∣formation of his English Church. But let us examine his proofs. First, Gerson c speaks nothing expresly touch∣ing matters of Faith, but onely, that he would have all the States (or Degrees) of the Church reform'd; which may be understood as well of personal abuses or corruption in Manners and Dis∣cipline, as in matters of Faith: Besides writing his first-alledg'd Trea∣tise upon this subject de Concilio unius obedientiae, and pleading hard for such a General Council, as should acknowledge one Head, 'tis ma∣nifest he allow'd of no Schismatical Reformations, nor any thing to be done in that kinde, contrary to the Authority and good liking of the Churches Head. Secondly, the Bishop cites Concilium Romanum sub Sylvestro; but here the very title confutes his pretence: for the Council was held sub Sylvestro, under the Pope; therefore not with∣out, or against him. And at the Council of Gangres, Osius was Popes Sylvesters Legate, and the Canons of this Council, as Pope Symmachus, related by Baronius, affirms, were enacted by the Authority of the Sea Apostolique.

His third proof is Concilium Carthiginense primum, which was in∣deed assembled by Gratus Bishop of Carthage, but no new Article De∣fined in it; onely the perpetual Tradition of the Church, touching Non-rebaptization, was confirm'd therein, having been defined long before by sundry Popes, and also by the Council of Nice. For this Council therefore of Carthage no man can be so hardy as to deny, but that the Popes consent, if it were not expresly had, yet might be justly presum'd. In the Synod of Aquileia (which is his fourth proof) the Bishop himself findes nothing, but only that Palladius and Secundinus were therein condemn'd for embracing the Arian Heresie: which having been already condemn'd by the Council of Nice, and St. Ambrose with other Bishops of Italy being present at Aquileia, who can doubt, but every thing was there done by the Popes Autho∣rity and consent? His fifth proof is the second, otherwise call'd the third, Council of Carthage; which was so far from being held against the Popes consent, that in the forty eighth Canon 'tis expresly resolv'd by the Council, to consult Pope Syricius concerning the matter of that Decree. His sixth proof is the Council of Milevis in Africa, condemning the Heresie of Pelagius. But was not (I pray) the Sea Apostolique consulted in that grand affair? Sure it was. St. Austin above cited will avouch as much. His seventh proof, is the second Council of Aurange which was assembled by means of Felix Bishop of Rome: so far was it from being held without the Popes consent.

After this comes the third Council of Toledo; which was so devo∣ted to the Authority of the Sea of Rome, that in Recognition thereof it decreed, that all Constitutions of Councils, and all the Synodical Epistles of the Roman Bishops should remain in their ancient force and vi∣gour.

But what sayes his Reserve, his Master-Allegation, the Fourth Council of Toledo? just as much as the rest. It added (sayes the Bi∣shop) some things to the Creed, which were not expresly deliver'd in former Creeds. So they might well do, for fuller explication of what was implicitely deliver'd before, and in opposition to Heresies already con∣demn'd by the whole Church. Did it adde any thing contrary to to the common Faith of the Church, or of the Sea Apostolique? which is the question in hand, and which Protestants did in all their pretended National Pseudo-Synods? Neither needed the Prelates to ask express leave of the Sea of Rome to convene and determine matters concerning the whole Church, provided it were done with due Sub∣ordination to the Sea Apostolique. For that thus a National Synod may proceed, the Council of Milevis a little above cited doth suffici∣ently declare; which with the Authority of the Sea Apostolique concurring, condemn'd the Heresie of Pelagius. By such examples as these does our Adversary labour to justifie his Reformed English Church: Thus does he prove, that Provincial and Particular Coun∣cils may sometimes make Reformation in matters of Faith and Do∣ctrine, without, yea against the Authority of the Apostolique Sea. Hath he not worthily acquitted himself of his Province think you? when in all the instances he brings, there is not the least glance, or intimation of any thing done contrary to the Popes Authority, but express mention of it, and of due regard towards it. He urges again, that the Church of Rome added the word Filioque to the Creed: But can any man in his wits think it was done without and against the Popes consent? Surely the Relatour cannot be thought here to have well minded his matter, or peradventure he perswaded himself, the multitude of his Allegations would serve to hide the impertinency of them.

9. Yet, after so many lost proofs, with a confidence as great, as if they had been all Demonstrations, he asks us the question, And if this was practis'd so often, and in so many places, why may not a National Coun∣cil of the Church of England do the like? Truly I know no reason why it may not, provided it be a True National Council, and a True Church of England, (as those recited were true Churches and Coun∣cils) and provided also that it do no more. But seeing (as his follow∣ing words declare) by the Church of England, he menas the present Protestant Church there, and by National Council either that Pseudo-Synod above-mentioned in the year 1562. or some other like it, I must crave leave of his Lordship to deny his supposition, and tell him the Church of England in that sense, signifies no true Church, nei∣ther is such a National Council to be accounted a lawful Synod, duly re∣presentative of the true English Church. For is it not notorious, that the persons constituting that pretended Synod in the year 1562. were all manifest usurpers? Is it not manifest, that they all by force

intruded themselves both into the Seas of other lawful Bishops, and into the Cures of other lawful Pastours, quietly and Canonically possessed of them before their said Intrusion? Can those be account∣ed 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 English Nation?

But suppose they had been True Bishops and Pastors of the English Church, and their Assembly a lawful National Council, yet were they so far from doing the like to what the forementioned particular Churches and Councils did, that they acted directly contrary to them. Not one of those Councils condemned any point of Faith, that had been generally believ'd and practis'd in the Church before them, as this Synod of London did: Not one of them contradicted the do∣ctrine of the Roman Church, as this did: None of them convened a∣gainst the express will of the Bishop of Rome, as this Conventicle did. None of them deny'd the Popes Authority, or attempted to deprive him of it, as these did, so far as 'twas in their power. What Parallel then is there between the proceedings of the abovesaid Na∣tional Synods, or Councils, of Rome, Gangres, Carthage, Aquileia, &c. and the Bishops pretended Synod of Protestants at London in the year 1562.

What the Bishops in King Henry the eighths time did, is known and confess'd, not only by Bishop Gardiner afterward in Queen Maries reign, (who was the learnedst Prelat then in England) but even by Pro∣testant Authors, to have been extorted from them rather by threats & force, then otherwise, and consequently can be of no great advantage to the Bishop. And yet what they subscrib'd was far out-done by the Synod of 62. For though the Henry-Bishops (as we may call them for distinction) seemingly at least renounced the Popes Canonical and acquired Jurisdiction here in England, I mean, that Authority and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters, which the Pope exercis'd here by vertue of the Canons, Prescription, and other title of humane Right, and gave it to the King, yet they never renounc'd, or depriv'd him of that part of his Authority, which is far more intrinsecal to his office and absolutely of Divine Right; they never deny'd the Popes Sovereign Power to teach the universal Church, and determine all Controversies of Faith whatsoever with a General Council: nor did they dissent from him in any of those points of Faith, which that Synod of London condemned in the year 1562. That which the King aim'd at, was to get the Power into his hands, and to have those Authorities, Prerogatives, Immunities annexed to his Crown, which the Pope enjoyed, and had exercised here in England time out minde, in Ecclesiastical Causes, that is, in the Goverment and Disci∣pline of the English Church; and to this the Bishops yielded: but what concern'd the Popes Authority in relation to the whole Catho∣lique Church, for ought appears clearly to the contrary, both the Bi∣shops and the King too, left the Pope in possession of all that he could rightly challenge.

I have no more to say to this part of his Paragraph; onely I ob∣serve,

that though his Lordship will not acknowledge Heresie or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to have had place in his pretended Reformation, yet he does not deny but Sacriledge too often reforms Superstition; which yet he is ready to excuse, telling us it was the Crime of the Reformers, not of the Reformation. But we ask, What induc'd those Reformers to commit Sacriledge, but the novel and impious Maximes of their Reformati∣on? Was it for any thing else, that they sack't and demolisht so ma∣ny Monasteries and Religious Houses, alienating their Lands and Re∣venues, but because by the principles of Reformation they held it Superstition to be a Religious Person, or to live a Monastical life? Was it for any thing else, that they pluckt down Altars, burnt Ima∣ges, defac'd the Monuments of the Dead, brake the Church-win∣dows, threw down Crosses, tore the Holy Vestments in pieces, &c. but because they thought them all Instruments of Idolatry and false Worship, as they tearm it? was it for any thing else, that they pos∣sest themselves of Ecclesiastical Benefices, took upon them Spiri∣tual Jurisdictions and Pastoral Charges, by force of Secular Power and Authority, from those that were in lawful and quiet possession of them according to the Canons of the Church, but because according to the Maximes of their new Belief, they held the old Pastours of the Church to be False Teachers, and their Function neither lawful nor of use among Christians? 'Tis clear then, that the Sacrilegious works of the Reformers, and the wicked Tenets of the Reformation, differ onely as the Tree and its Fruit: they are not altogether the same, but yet the one springs connaturally from the other; the one begets and bears the other, as naturally, as a corrupt Tree bears bad fruit.

Nor can his Lordship so easily wash his hands of the guilt, as he seems willing to do, by saying, they are long since gone to God to answer it, as if none could be involv'd in this crime, but onely the first Actors. Are the Successors then Free? No such matter. Both the sin and the guilt too will be found entail'd upon all that succeed them in the Fruits of their Sacrilegious actings, since they have no better ground, nor title to enjoy them, then those who first acted. But I shall not prosecute this Theam any further.

Neither shall I say much to his Memorandum in the end of this Pa∣ragraph, where he pretends to minde us of the General Church forced for the most part under the Government of the Roman Sea. By what force I pray? Is it possible? or can it enter into the judgement of any reasonable man, in good earnest to believe, that a single Bishop, of no very large Diocess (if it reacht no further then most Protestants will have it) 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? Force im∣plies resistance of the contrary part, and something done against the will and good liking of the party forced. But can his Lordship shew any resistance made by any particular Church or Churches, against that Authority which the Bishop of Rome claim'd and exercis'd con∣fessedly over all the Western Provinces of Christendom, when the Reformers first began their resistances? Does any Classick Author of

present, or precedent times mention, or complain, of any such force 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rather doth not experience teach us, that, whensoever any Novel∣list started up and preacht any thing contrary to the Popes Authori∣ty, the Bishops of other Provinces were as ready to censure and for∣bid him, as the Pope himself? Are not all Eeclesiastical Monuments full of examples in this kinde? This therefore is as false a calumny, as any, and serves onely to lengthen the list of our Adversaries 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but false Pasquils.

Notes

• Ibidem.
• Ibid. §. 23.
• § 24. num. 1.
• a

  Si forni∣caris tu Isra∣el, non delin∣quat saltem Juda, Oseae 4. 15.
• b

  Sacerdotes de extremis populi, qui non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Levi. 3 〈◊〉〈◊〉 . 12. 13.
• 28. Hen. 8. cap. 7.
• 3. Reg. 13. 1.
• a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Chri∣sto, cap. 23. §. His ergo omissis.
• Ibid. num. 2.
• b

  See Bel∣larmin, ubi suprà.
• a

  Lib. 3. de Process. S. S. cap. 16.
• b

  La Re∣pliq. au Roy de la grand. Bre∣tagu. pag 818. cap. Des Tra∣ditioons.
• a

  D. Aug. Epist. 90, 91, 92, 93.
• Ibidem n. 3.
• Ibidem n. 4.
• a

  Paulus Suavius (the Venetian Fri∣er) his history of the Coun∣cill of Trent, twice printed here at London by publique Authority.
• Ibidem n. 5.
• a

  `Bellarm. lib. 2. de Chri∣sto, cap. 28.
• b

  D. Aug. epist. 4. ad Bo∣nifac. cap. 12.
• Ibid. num. 5.
• c

  Omnes Ecclesiae status aut in Ge∣nerali Concilio reformetis, aut in Conci∣llis Provincialibus reformari mandetis. Gerson. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Defectuum virorum Ec∣clesiasticorum par. 1. pag. 209 B.
• Baron. ad An∣num 319.
• Geunad. de Scrip. Eccl. cap. 86.
• Ibid. num. 5.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem n. 6.