The Definition of Schism.

Schism is a Voluntary Separation of One Part from the Whole, True, Visible, [Hierarchical] CHURCH of CHRIST.

The First Argument.

WHosoever make a voluntary separation of them∣selves from the whole, true, visible Church of Christ, are Schismatiques;

But all those of the English Protestant party, make a vo∣luntary separation of themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ:

Therefore all those of the English Protestant party are Schismatiques.

The first Proposition is evident, and granted by our Ad∣versaries when they allowed our Definition to be a true Proposition. We prove the second Proposition.

Whosoever voluntarily separate themselves from all par∣ticular visible Christian Churches in the world of the same time with them, make a voluntary separation of themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ;

But all those who are of the English Protestant party, vo∣luntarily, separate themselves from all the particular visible Christian Churches in the world of the same time with them:

Therefore all those of the English Protestant party make a voluntary separation from the whole true visible Church of Christ.

The first Proposition is manifest: For in the extent of all the true visible Christian Churches in the world, must Page  2 be contained the whole true visible Church of Christ. The second Proposition we prove:

Whosoever voluntarily separate themselves from the present Eastern and Western Churches, and all Churches in their Com∣munion, voluntarily separate themselves from all the par∣ticular Christian visible Churches in the world, of the same time with them;

But all those of the English Protestant Party voluntarily separate themselves from the present Eastern and Western Churches, and all Churches in their Communion:

Therefore all those of the English Protestant party volun∣tarily separate themselves from all the particular visible Chri∣stian Churches in the world, of the same time with them.

The first Proposition is certainly true. For no Assembly or Congregation of Christians can be named (which is not ma∣nifestly Heretical) that is not contained in this Proposition. We prove the second by enumeration:

If they do not so separate themselves, let that Church be nominated amongst the forementioned, from which they do not voluntarily separate themselves. It is not (confessedly) the Roman; for they all profess themselves not to be of her Communion: Nor the Greek, under obedience to the Patri∣arch of Constantinople; for they have as little dependance, or agreement with that, either in Doctrine, Subjection, Disci∣pline, Rites, or Communion, as they have with the Roman; our Adversaries producing but four Points wherein they seemed to agree with Protestants against us; and those either not of Faith, or clearly mistaken, or not as they are contro∣verted betwixt us. And the same reason proceeds of all Churches in actual Communion with them. Ergo, The se∣cond Proposition is true.

It will avail nothing to alledge here, that English Protestants communicate with many other Reformed Churches beyond Sea; for all those are comprehended under our terms the English Protestant Party; and it is as evident, that each of Page  3 those voluntarily separate themselves from all other Chur∣ches, as it is that these of England separate.

Neither will it excuse them to say, that they only refined that Church, which they found corrupted and defiled; which notwithstanding remains still amongst them the very same in substance that it was before. For it is evident, that all of them, whether English or others, separated themselves from all those National Churches and the Pastors of them, who were in quiet possession of Church-government immediately be∣fore they begun; rejected in all Countries respectively, where they entred, their Authority, dispossessing them of their Sees and Cures, intruding themselves into their places, and ga∣thering tumultuously among themselves particular Congre∣gations and Conventicles, instituting new and unheard of Rites and Ceremonies, without dependance of any, who were in possession of Church-government immediately be∣fore them through the whole world: and all this as noto∣riously, and undeniably, as any Schismatiques ever did be∣fore their time: In all which particulars we appeal to the Historians on both parts, who have writ the Records of these two last Ages.

The Second Argument.

Whosoever adhere to Schismatical Pastors (as Schismati∣cal is understood in our Definition) are Schismatiques.

But all English Protestants adhere to Schismatical Pastors, as Schismatical is understood in our Definition:

Therefore all English Protestants are Schismatiques.

The first proposition is evident. For those being only such as separate themselves from the whole true visible Church of Christ, all who adhere to them, must also separate with them, and thereby become Schismatiques. The second proposition we prove.

Whosoever adhere to those, who are successively Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors, maintaining the same cause Page  4 which they begun, adhere to Schismatical Pastors, as Schis∣matical is understood in our Definition;

But all English Protestants adhere to those, who were suc∣cessively Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors, maintaining the same cause which they begun:

Therefore all English Protestants adhere to Schismatical Pastours, as schismatical, is understood in our Definition.

The first Proposition needs no proof, as being clear ex terminis: The second, viz. that those, whom we say were so Ordained, maintain the same cause, which was begun by those who Ordained them, is also clear: it remains therefore only to prove, that they were Ordained successively by Schisma∣tiques, understood in the sense of our Definition: which we thus prove:

Whosoever adhere to those, who were successively Or∣dained by Matthew Parker, and the other first Protestant Bishops of his time, adhere to those, who were successively Ordained by such Schismatical Pastors;

But all English Protestants adhere to such, as were suc∣cessively Ordained by Matthew Parker, and the first Protestant Bishops of his time:

Therefore all English Protestants adhere to those, who were successively Ordained by such schismatical Pastors.

The second Proposition is clear, and confessed by all: We thus prove the first:

If Matthew Parker, and the rest were such schismatical Pa∣stors, then whosoever adhere to those, who were Ordained by them, adhere to those who were Ordained successively by such Schismatical Pastors;

But Matthew Parker, and the rest were such Schismatical Pastors.

Therefore all those, who adhere to those, who were suc∣cessively Ordained by them, adhere to those who were Or∣dained by such Schismatical Pastors.

The first proposition is clear: we prove the second.

Whosoever either Possess the Sees and Offices of lawful Page  5 Bishops, those lawful Bishops yet living, or unite themselves to such as possess them, are such schismatical Pastors;

But Matthew Parker, and other first Protestant Bishops of his time, either possest the Sees and Offices of lawful Bishops, those lawful Bishops yet living, or united themselves to such as possest them:

Therefore Matthew Parker, and all the first Protestant Bishops of his time, were such schismatical Pastors.

The first proposition is evident of it self. The first part of the second proposition, That the Sees, &c. of living Bi∣shops were possest, and that others of these new Bishops united themselves to such as possest them, is also clear, as matter of fact, out of Stow, Speed, Cambden, Mason, Good∣win, Fern, &c. The second part, viz. that those living Bi∣shops were lawful Bishops, even when they were deprived, we prove thus:

Whosoever were once lawful Bishops, and never did any thing after, whereby they became unlawful, remained still lawful Bishops;

But those deprived Bishops were once lawful Bishops, and never did any thing after, whereby they became unlawful:

Therefore those Bishops remained still lawful Bishops.

The first proposition is evident. The first part of the se∣cond proposition, viz. that they were once lawful Bishops, we prove thus:

No National Church can be a true particular Church of Christ, unless those who have the place of Bishops in it be lawful Bishops;

But the National Church of England in Queen Maries time was a true particular Church of Christ:

Therefore those, who had the place of Bishops in it, were lawful Bishops. Now I subsume. But those, who had then the place of Bishops in that National Church, were those deprived Bishops: Ergo.

The first proposition is clear. For no true Church can unite it self to unlawful Pastors. The second proposition is also Page  6 clear from the confession of our Adversaries, who grant, That the Church of Rome, and all those of her Communion are true Churches of Christ. See Bramhall and Fern upon this Subject.

We prove now the second part of the second Proposi∣tion, That those Bishops did nothing, whereby they be∣came unlawful Bishops.

If those lawful Bishops did any thing, whereby they be∣came unlawful Bishops, it must be supposed to be that for which they were deprived;

But that for which they were deprived, did not make them unlawful Bishops:

Therefore they did nothing, whereby they became un∣lawful Bishops.

The first proposition seems evident. For no prudent man can suppose, that they would deprive them for that which made them not unlawful Bishops, if they had been convinced to have done any other thing which might make them un∣lawful Bishops. The second we prove:

All the reasons, for which they were deprived, was resist∣ing the pretended Reformation, and refusing the Oath of Su∣premacy;

But those could not make them unlawful Bishops: There∣fore the causes, for which they were deprived, could not make them unlawful Bishops.

The first proposition being matter of fact, is witnessed by Cambden, Goodwin, and others. The second proposition we prove thus:

No proceeding in practice, according to the common Tenets, the holding whereof made them not unlawful Bishops, can make them unlawful Bishops;

But resisting the pretended Reformation, and refusing the Oath of Supremacy, was only a proceeding according to the common Tenets, the holding whereof made them not unlawful Bishops:

Page  7 Therefore resisting that Reformation, and refusing that Oath could not make them unlawful Bishops.

The first proposition is clear in it self: For no man can be thought to become an unlawful Bishop, v. g. by praying for the souls in Purgatory, if the holding that such prayers are lawful, make him not an unlawful Bishop; and so of the rest.

The second proposition is also evident. For whilst they were lawful Bishops in Queen Maries time, they held it a common necessary point of Religion to resist that Reforma∣tion, and refuse that Oath of Supremacy.

If it should be replied, that as the Queen had power to de∣prive lawful temporal Officers at her pleasure, so might she also deprive at her pleasure lawful Ecclesiastical Officers and Bishops, as being no less chief Governour of the Church then of the Commonwealth; we answer, even that admitted (not granted) yet this second she could not do: For the Kings and Queens of England pretended only to succeed into those prerogatives of Church-government, which the Pope had before them, as is clear in King Henry the 8th. But the Pope himself had no power to dispossess a lawful Bishop remaining a lawful Bishop at his pleasure. Therefore neither had the Queen any such power.

The Third Argument.

We prove in this Argument, by another medium, that Matthew Parker and his Associates, and consequently all who adhered to them, or adhere to their Successors were and are Schismatiques, separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ.

Matthew Parker was a Shismatique, voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ:

Therefore all those, who were willingly consecrated by him, and all their Successors and Adherents, were such Schisma∣tiques.

Page  8 The Consequence is clear, as appears in the former Ar∣gument: The Antecedent we prove.

Whosoever was willingly consecrated by Schismatiques, voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ, is himself a Schismatique, voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ;

But Matthew Parker was willingly consecrated by Schis∣matiques, voluntarily separate from the whole true visible Church of Christ:

Therefore Matthew Parker was a Schismatique, volunta∣rily separated from the whole true visible Church of Christ.

The first proposition is already proved. For to be wil∣lingly consecrated by such Schismatiques is schismatical, and therefore separating from the whole true visible Church of Christ.

The second proposition we prove, as matter of fact.

Goodwin in the different lives of Barlow, Coverdale, Scory, and Hodgkins, who were the Consecrators of Parker, ac∣knowledges, that the three first were possest of the Sees and Offices of other Catholick Bishops living. Barlow was intruded into the place of Christopherson, Bishop of Chicester, Dec. 20. 1559, and elect to it, before he consecrated Par∣ker, as appears by the Queens Letters, Gulielmo Barlow, nunc Cicestriensi electo. Scory was put by King Edward the 6th into Day's place, then being Bishop of Chicester. Cover∣dale into Vecey's place, by King Edward the 6th, Aug. 30. 1551, which B. Vecey was forced to resign, as appears by his being willing to be restor'd (as he was afterwards) by Queen Mary. Hodgkins was only a Suffragan; but commu∣nicated with these three in this Consecration; and there∣by became Schismatique.

The Fourth Argument.

Whosoever subject themselves unto these, as to their law∣ful Pastors, who have no true jurisdiction over them, are Page  9 Schismatiques; But English Protestants, ever since Qu. Eli∣zebeth's time, have subjected themselves to those, as to their lawful Pastors, who have no true jurisdiction over them: Therefore English Protestants, ever since Qu. Elizabeth's time, are Schismatiques.

The first proposition is clear, from 1 Tim. 4. 3. where de∣scribing Heretiques, &c. S. Paul says, Ad sua desideria coacerva∣bant sibi Magistros, &c. according to their own fancies they shall heap up Teachers, or Masters, that is, confusedly and tu∣multuously, without power or authority. And from Ro. 10. 15. Quomodo praedicabunt, nisi mittantur? How shall they preach, unless they be sent? Eor their adhering to such, supposes the rejection of all those who are legally authorized to go∣vern them, which is formal Schism.

The second proposition we prove by Enumeration.

They could not have true Jurisdiction over the particular Bishopricks and Cures of England; neither by the force of Orders which they receiv'd, (if they had any such) for one may have true Order without any true Jurisdiction, as ap∣pears in the Act of K. Henry 8th, concerning Suffragans, who had true Episcopal Order, and yet had not Episcopal Jurisdi∣ction, as the Act expresly says; and many are made Ministers in the Universities, before they have any Jurisdiction over any particular Parishes. Neither could they have it from those who consecrated them; for never a one of them had any themselves, as being either Suffragans, or not design•d to any See, or elected, and not invested. Neither was there then any Primate in England to give it them. Neither had they it by general consent of the Bishops of England; for they all resisted. Neither would they have it from the Pope, or Patriarch of Constantinople; nor would either of them give it them: Much less had they either from a General Coun∣cil; for that was against them: Nor from the general Con∣sent of Catholick Bishops, either of the Eastern or Western Church; for all oppos d them. Neither did their fellow∣superintendents beyond Sea, or could they confer Jurisdicti∣on Page  10 upon them; for they were all as void of Jurisdiction as these themselves were. Neither could they have it from the Queen or Parliament; for that had been an heaping up of Teachers to themselves, 2 Tim. 4. 3. now cited. And Ec∣clesiastical Jurisdiction being a Spiritual Government, is de∣clared 1 Cor. 12. 28. to be a supernatural gift, and Institution of God in his Church; and ver. 6. Prophesying, that is, the Power of Preaching, is declared to be a Gift of the Holy Ghost; and therefore are above the politick power of Magi∣strates of any Commonwealth. And Act. 20. 28. the Holy Ghost is said to appoint Bishops to govern the Church of God; and so the giving Jurisdiction to them must be super∣natural, coming from the Holy Ghost, and above the reach of politick Governors. And if Kings, Queens, or Parlia∣ments, who are under the number of Scholars and Subjects in matters of Religion, could communicate Ecclesiastical Ju∣risdiction to their Prelates, they would be Governors of their Governors, and Masters of their Masters, which is quite contrary to Mat. 10. 24. Non est Discipulus supra Ma∣gistrum, The Disciple is not above his Master, i. e. in those things wherein he is his Master, which is here in Church-government. As therefore our Saviour Joh. 20. and Mat. 28. sent his Apostles with power of Governing and Preaching, and the Apostles gave that Spiritual Jurisdiction to others, whom they sent to divers particular Provinces, and those Ec∣clesiastical Persons only amongst all Orthodox Christians, still communicated the like Jurisdiction to others, both in the primitive and after ages; and never did any Catholick Prince, or State, pretend to confer Jurisdiction upon their own Bishops, or Pastors: It is most manifest, that neither Qu. Elizabeth, nor her Parliament, had any such power: And consequently it follows from this Enumeration of parts that those Elizabeth Bishops and Pastors had no Jurisdiction at all, or any of their Successors; and therefore, That all English Protestants, attributing such Jurisdiction to them and adhering to them as their lawful Bishops and Pastors are Formal Schismatiques.