I. [Gen. xxii. 18.] 284 A REPLICATION TO THE BISHOP OF CHALCEDON. PART Salvation and the benefit of Christ's Passion, in whom "all the nations of the world" were "to be blessed." This indeed is the only secure way both to unity and salvation, to keep that [2 Tim. i. entire 'form of doctrine,' without addition or diminution, 13.] which was sufficient to save the holy Apostles; which was by them contracted into a summary, and deposited with the Churches, to be the true badge and cognizance of all Christians in all succeeding ages; more than which the primitive Fathers, or rather the representative Church of Christ, did forbid to be exacted of any person that was converted from Jewism or Paganism to Christianity". "And as many as walk according to this rule" (of Faith), "peace be upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." [Gal. vi. 16.] III. THE most of S. W.'s exceptions have been already largely Discourse and particularly satisfied in the former Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon. Yet, lest any thing of moment might escape an answer, I will review them, and answer them generally and succinctly, as they are proposed by him. To his title of Down-Derry, I have nothing to say, but that it were strange if he should throw a good cast, who soals his bowl upon an undersong. a SECTION THE FIRST. [Of the First and Second Chapters of the Vindication.] case be In the first place, he professeth to shew the impertinency [The of my grounds, and to stick the guilt of schism "not only tween the with colour, but with undeniable evidence "," upon the Churches English Church, "by the very position of the case" or and Rome of England as stated by "Schism Disarm'd of the Offensive S. W.] Weapons lent it by Dr. Hammond and the Bishop of Derry." 12mo. Paris 1655. See Schism Guarded, Prelim, Chap. (below p. 358), note j.] [Ibid., p. 307.] с PART stating of the question between us; and this he calleth a little after their "chief objectiond" against us. [Of the principles laid down by S. W.] What then? Is stating of the question and objecting all one? I confess, the right position of a case may dispel umbrages, and reconcile controversies, and bring much light to the truth. But as the lion asked the man in the fable, "who made the picture," we may crave leave to demand, who shall put this case? Surely he meaneth a Roman Catholic. For if a Protestant state it, it will not be so much for their advantage, nor the bare proposition of it bear such undeniable evidence in it. I hope a man may view this engine without danger. In "the beginning of Henry the Eighth's reign," and immediately before his substraction of obedience from the See of Rome, "the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome and all the rest of her communion in two points, which were then and still are the bonds of unity betwixt all her members; the one concerning Faith, the other government. For Faith, her rule was, that the doctrines, which had been inherited from their forefathers as the legacies of Christ and His Apostles, were solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed. For government, her principle was, that Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or prince of His Apostles, who was to be the first mover under Him in the Church after His departure out of this world, and that the Bishops of Rome as successors of St. Peter inherited from him this privilege," &c. A little after he acknowledgeth, that the first principle "includeth the truth of the second;" and that there is "this manifest evidence" for it, "that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed, and that, as long as it adhered to that method, nothing could be altered in it «.” Before we come to his application of this to the Church of England, or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome, it will not be amiss to examine his two principles, and shew what truth there is in them, and how falsehood is hidden under the vizard of truth. In the first place, I desire the reader to observe with what [Down-Derry, p. 308.] е [Avieni Fab. xxiv.] [Down-Derry, p. 307.] III. [1. The Rome not with the 261 subtilty this case is proposed;-that "the Church of England DISCOURSE agreed with the Church of Rome and all the rest of her communion ;" and again, that the Bishop of Rome "exer- Church of cised this power in all those countries which kept communion identical with the Church of Rome h;"-so seeking to obtrude upon Catholic us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholic Church. ] Church. We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church, but we owe not that conformity and subjection to it, which we owe to the Catholic Church of Christ. Before this pretended separation, the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholic Church from their communion, and thereby had made themselves schismatical. The world is greater than the city; all these Christian Churches, which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome, only because they would never (no more than their ancestors) acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome, did inherit the doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers, as the legacy of Christ and His Apostles, and have been as faithful depositaries of it as they. And their testimony what this legacy was, is as much to be regarded as the testimony of the Church of Rome; and so much more, by how much they are a greater part of the Catholic Church. cient doc changed by Secondly, I observe, how he makes two principles, the one 2. [Anin doctrine, the other in discipline; though he confess, that trine and the truth of the latter is included in the former, and discipline borroweth its evidence from it; only that he might gain the them, not by us.] more opportunity to shuffle the later usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church, and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient legacy. 'Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora'—' It is in vain to make two rules, where one will serve the turn.' I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent form;-that those doctrines and that discipline, which we "inherited from our forefathers as the legacy of Christ and His Apostles," ought "solely to be acknowledged for obligatory; and nothing in them to be changed," that is substantial or essential. [Ibid., p. 307.] PART 3. [The true ques tion is, what are the right limits of Papal power.] So the Church of England maintains this rule now as well as they. The question only is, who have changed that doctrine or this discipline, we or they? We by substraction, or they by addition? The case is clear. The Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary, that is, the Creed; the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication; the general Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismal profession. Into this Faith were we baptized, unto this Faith do we adhere; whereas they have changed and enlarged their Creed by the addition of new articles, as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the Fourth. So for doctrine. Then for discipline. We profess and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years, and all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches until this day. They have changed the "beginning of unity" into an universality of jurisdiction, and sovereignty of power above general Councils, which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know, nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day. Let St. Peter be the "first or chief," or in a right sense the "prince of the Apostles i," or "the first mover in the Church;" all this extends but to a primacy of order. The sovereignty of ecclesiastical power was in the Apostolical College, to which a general Council now succeedeth. It is evident enough whether they or we do hold ourselves better to "the legacy of Christ and His Apostles." Thirdly, whereas he addeth, that "the Bishops of Rome as successors of St. Peter inherited" his "privileges," and actually exercised this power in all those countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome, that very year wherein this unhappy separation began ;" as it cometh much short of the truth in one respect, for the Popes "exercised" much more power in those countries which gave them leave, than ever St. Peter pretended unto; so it is much more short of that universal monarchy, which the [See above in the Replic., c. V. sect. 1. p. 154. note k.] [Down-Derry, p. 307.] |