their own communions, as the law of the Six Articles was; DISCOURSE or persecute them with fire and faggot, as Bonner did.

He urgeth, that "between every species of colour which we have names for, there are hundreds of middle degrees for which we have no namesa."

Well argued against himself; wit, whither wilt thou? Then why doth he call them Protestants, and give them a name? There are indeed between every species of colours many middle degrees which have no distinct names; but therefore we give them the names of those colours which they come nearest to; either with a distinction if the difference be easily expressed, as grass-green, sea-green, willowgreen, &c.; or without any distinction,-the white of an egg is not so white as snow, yet both white. If he would pursue his own instance, this controversy were ended.

He prateth of "the subordinate sects" of Protestants, and 'how changeable they are every day b.'

He loveth to have a vagare out of his lists. It is his spiritual Mother, the Church of England, that gave him his Christian being, which he hath undertaken to combat; let him "adorn that Spartac" as he is able: and if he did it with more modesty, he were less to be blamed than he is. If she had been but his old friend, yet "friendship ought to be unstitched by degrees, not torn asunder suddenlyd." But to cast dirt in the face of his own Mother, is a shrewd sign of an ill nature. As the fool said to a favourite, If I fall I can rise again, but if thou fall thou willst never rise again;' so, if we change, there is no great danger in it, because we keep ourselves firmly to our old essentials, that is, the Apostles' Creed; but their change is dangerous, who change their Creed, and presume to add new essentials to the old.

IV.

He beareth such a perfect hatred against “Reformation,” [Mr. Serbecause it is destructive to his foundation of "immediate jeant's hatradition," that he maketh "No Papist" and a to be the character of a Protestante. Popes and Cardinals,

tred of ""Reformation."]

"Reformer"

d["Dissuenda, non dissecanda est amicitia." See Cic., De Offic., i. 12.] e [Schism Dispatched, sect. 2. p.

520.]

I.

66

PART emperors and kingdoms, Churches and Councils, have all acknowledged both the lawfulness and necessity of reformation. What doth he think of the Council of Trent, or hath he peradventure never read it? But what doth he think of the Councils of Constance and Basle, who profess themselves every where to be qualified to reform the Church, “ tam in capite quam in membris"—" as well in the head as in the members?" They escape fairly if he do not censure them as Protestants; for they were great "reformers," and they were no great "Papists," placing the sovereign power under Christ in the Church and not in the "first mover." I might well call the Reformation in Henry the Eighth's time "their Reformation," the Papists' Reformation rather than ours, if the Reformers were more Papists than Protestants, as is most evident.

[The Papal Headship,

as main

tained by

Mr. Serjeant, rejected by the primitive Fathers.]

[By all the Eastern,

Southern,

I pressed him that if the "renunciation" of the Bishop of Rome's "absolute universal monarchy" by "Christ's own ordination" be the essence of a Protestant, then "the primitive Church were all Protestants." He answereth, it is "flatly false."

I am contented to be silent for the present, but when time serveth, it may be made appear, to be "flatly" true; and that all that the primitive Fathers did attribute to the Bishop of Rome, was no more than a 'primacy of order' or 'beginning of unity;' and that an absolute monarchy by Christ ['s] ordination is absolutely repugnant to the primitive discipline.

I proceeded, "Then all the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssene Christians are Protestants this day1." He answerand North- eth, that "it is partly true and partly false," and serveth tians.] only to prove "that the Protestants have fellow schismaticsm."

ern Chris

And why "partly true and partly false?" when all the world seeth, that all these Churches do disown and disclaim

IV.

the Pope's monarchy. This is just the old condemned tenet DISCOURSE of the schismatical Donatists, who did most uncharitably limit the Catholic Church to their own party, excluding all others from hope of salvation; as the Romanists do now. The best is, we must stand or fall to our own Master. But by this means they have lost one of the notes of their Church, that is, "multitude;" for they exclude three or four times more Christians out of the communion of the Catholic Church, than they admit into it.

of the

Catholics

I proceeded yet higher,—" Then we want not store of Pro- [By many testants, even in the bosom of the Roman Church itself"." RomanHis answer is, that "to speak moderately, it is an impu- themdent falshood, and a plain impossibility, for whosoever re- selves.] 364 nounceth the substance of the Pope's authority, and his being Head of the Church, . . becomes totally disunited from the Church"."

Good words! His ground work is too weak to support the weight of such a heavy accusation. A primacy of order implieth a Headship, as well as [a] supremacy of power; neither is it destitute of all power. It hath some power essentially annexed to it; to congregate sub pœná purè spirituali,' to propose, to give sentence according to the votes of the College; it may have an accessary power, to execute the canons according to the constitutions of Councils, and imperial sanctions, and confirmations.

But all this cometh far short of that Headship which he asserteth, a sovereign monarchical Headship of absolute power above the whole Church by Christ's ordination". This is that Headship, which he maintaineth against me every where; this is that Headship, which the primitive Church never acknowledged; this is that Headship, which the Grecians, Russians, Armenians, Abyssenes, and the Church of England, renounce at this day; this is that Headship, which many of his own communion, who live in the bosom of the Roman Church, do not believe,-as the Councils of Constance, and Basle, and Pisa, the School of Sorbonne, and very many others every where, who do

PART

I.

all reject it, some more, some less. The main difference, and almost the whole difference, between him and me, is concerning coactive power in the exterior court over the subjects of other princes against their wills; this is so far from being universally believed throughout all places of the Roman communion, that it is practically received in few or no places further than it seemeth expedient to sovereign princes. If the Pope himself did believe, that he had such an absolute sovereignty of monarchical power in the exterior court by Christ's own ordination to him and his successors, how could he alienate it from his successors almost wholly to the princes of Sicily, and to their heirs for ever, within that kingdom? Or how could the princes retain it? If the king and kingdom of France did believe, that the Pope had such an absolute monarchical power in the exterior court by Christ's own ordination, how could the king of France forbid the Pope's legates without his license? or restrain their legantine commissions by his Parliaments? or swear them to act nothing contrary to the liberties of the Gallican Church, and to cease to execute their commissions whensoever the king and kingdom should prohibit them? or reject Papal decrees further than they are received in that kingdom? Or if the Council of Brabant did believe it, how could they forbid the subjects to repair to Rome out of their own country upon the Pope's summons? All men know, that there is no privilege or prescription against "Christ's own ordination." 'Qui pauca desiderat, facile pronunciat.' This is ever the end of his "contradictions."

Lastly, he chargeth me for omitting to answer to his reason, that "the renouncing the Pope is essential to Protestantism."

Truly I neither did nor do hold it worth answering. Cannot he distinguish between the whole essence of any thing, and one essential? He might as well affirm, that he who believeth but one article of his Creed is a Christian. This requireth no great "skill to explicate" it". But I have

remitted this controversy to "the reader" as fittest for his Discourse determination*.

IV.

SECTION III.

THAT HENRY THE EIGHTH MADE NO NEW LAW, BUT ONLY VINDICATED
THE ANCIENT LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND.

jeant's

CHRISTIAN reader, thou hast seen hitherto, how Mr. Ser- [Mr. Serjeant hath failed altogether to make good his pretensions; boasting.] and instead of those great mountains of "absurdities," and "falsifications," and "contradictions," which he promised, hath produced nothing worthy of so weighty a cause, or an ingenious scholar, but his own wilful ridiculous mistakes. We are now come to his third section, wherein thou mayest see this young Phaeton mounted in his triumphant chariot, driving the poor Bishop as a captive before him; now expect to see him tumbling down headlong, with a fall answerable to his height of pride and insolence. He professeth himself "willing to stand to the award of the most partial Protestant 365 living, who hath so much sincerity as to acknowledge the sun's shining at noon-day, or that the same thing cannot both be and not be at once"." If after this loud confident brag he be not able to make any thing good that is of weight against me, he hath forfeited either his judgment or his ingenuity, and deserveth not to be a writer of controversies. I need no "partial" judges, but appeal to the indifferent reader of what communion soever he be: he needeth but to compare my Vindication, his Answer, my Reply, his Rejoinder, and my Surrejoinder together in this one short section, and give sentence readily who is the "mountebank" and "prevaricator."

And, first, I challenge this great champion of downright [Yet to the proofs cowardice, as great as ever his predecessor Thraso shewed in brought the comedya; in smothering and concealing palpably and forward he shamefully his adversary's reasons, and declining the heat of nothing.]

answereth