I.

[Lineal

succes

sion.]

PART these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone." This is an argument from the staff to the corner. I speak of a succession of Holy Orders, and he of a succession of opinions. And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom, he will be found at a default here also. Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we do.

Mixed ordination.

[Edward the Sixth's

In the next place, he excepts against "mixed ordination," as "partly Papistical, partly Protestantical'." He errs the whole heaven's breadth from my meaning. Before Austin preached to the Saxons, there were in Britain ancient British Bishops, and ancient Scottish Bishops, who had their several lines of succession, to which Austin added English Bishops, and so made a third succession. These three were distinct at first, but afterwards, in tract of time, they came to be mixed and united into one succession; so as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British, Scottish, and English Bishops. This is the great bug-bear of mixed ordination.

He tells us, that King Edward the Sixth was "a child".” childhood.] Ile mistakes. Kings are never children nor minors whilst they have good tutors and good councillors. Was he more a child than King Jehoash? and yet the Church was reformed during his minority. This was no childish act, thanks to Jehoiada, a good uncle and protector.

[2 Kings xi, xii.]

The
English
Church

tablished.

He demands, how that Church "was legally established in King Edward's days, which was established contrary to the lawfully es- liking of the most and best of the Bishops, whereof divers were cast in prison for not assenting to the erecting of it?" And I ask how it was not legally established, which was established by sovereign authority, according to the direction of the Convocation, with the confirmation of the Parliament? What other legal establishment can there be in England? By the laws of England a Bishop had but his single vote, either in Parliament or Convocation. Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed, but neither "the most" nor "the best" of the English Bishops; whether for not assenting, or for other reasons, will require further proof than his bare assertion.

This is certain, that every one of them had freely renounced DISCOURSE the Pope and Papacy in the reign of Henry the Eighth.

III.

,, fully sup

He saith I should have added, that Church which was Not law"suppressed by the last Parliament, under King Charles"." pressed. Why should I add a notorious untruth, as contrary to my conscience as to my affections? I might have said oppressed, I could not say suppressed. The external splendour was abated, when the baronies of the Bishops and their votes in Parliament were taken away, but the order was not extinguished. So far from it, that King Charles himself suffered as a martyr for the English Church. If his meaning be, that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royal, he cannot be so great a stranger in England, as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity.

English

Church not dead.

Yet he is pleased to style it a "dead" Church, and me The 'the advocate of a dead Church';'-even as the trees are dead in winter, when they want their leaves; or as the sun is set, when it is behind a cloud; or as the gold is destroyed, when it is melting in the furnace. When I see a seed cast into the ground, I do not ask where is the greenness of the leaves? where is the beauty of the flowers? where is the sweetness of the fruit? but I expect all these in their due season. Stay awhile, and behold the catastrophe. The rain 176 is fallen, the wind hath blown, and the floods have beaten, [Matt. vii. upon their Church; but it is not fallen, for it is founded 25.] upon a rock. The light is under a bushel, but it is not ex- [Matt. v. tinguished. And if God in justice should think fit to remove our candlestick, yet the Church of England is not dead, whilst the Catholic Church survives.

15.]

persecu

Lastly, he denies that the English Church is "under per- But under secution;" and though "some" of the Church do suffer, yet tion. it is "not for religion but matters of state"." What can a man expect in knotty questions from them, who are so much transported with prejudice, as to deny those things which are obvious to every eye. If it be but "some" that have suffered, it is such a "some" as their Church could never shew;

I.

PART wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed, may read the Martyrology of London, or the list of the Universities, and from that paw guess at the proportion of the lion. But perhaps all this was for "matters of state." No; our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of state, nor our ecclesiastical revenues exposed to sale for matters of state. The refusal of a schismatical covenant is no matter of state. How many of the orthodox clergy, without pretence of any other delinquency, have been beggared? How many necessitated to turn mechanics or day-labourers? How many starved? How many have had their hearts broken? How many have been imprisoned? How many banished from their native soil, and driven as vagabonds into the merciless world? no man is so blind, as he that will not see.

tine's

SECTION THE TENTH.

[Saint His tenth section is a summary or repetition of what he Augus- hath already said, wherein I find nothing of weight that is touchstone new, but only one authority out of St. Austin, that "Catholics licism.] are every where, and heretics every where; but Catholics are

of Catho

the same every where, and heretics different every where." If by "Catholics" he understand Roman Catholics, they are not every where; not in Russia, nor in Ethiopia, and, excepting some handfuls, for the most part upon toleration, not in any of the Eastern Churches. The words of St. Austin are these ;-"Ubicunque sunt isti, illic Catholica, sicut in Africa ubi et vos; non autem ubicunque Catholica est, aut vos estis, aut hæresis quælibet earum"-"Wheresoever they are, there is the Catholic Church, as in Africa where you are; but wheresoever the Catholic Church is, you are not, nor any of those heresies." St. Austin's scope is to shew, that the Catholic Church is more diffused, or rather universal, than any sect, or all sects put together. If you please, let this be the touchstone between you and us. But you will say, that

you are united every where, and we are different every where. DISCOURSE Nothing less. You are united in one pretended head, which some of you acknowledge more, some less. We are united in the same Creed, the same Sacraments, and for the most part the same discipline. Besides, of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place? Of the "Novatians, Arians, Patripassians, Valentinians, Patricians, Apellites, Marcionites, Ophites;" all which condemned all others but themselves, and thereby did separate themselves schismatically from the Catholic Church; as it is to be feared that you do. Our case is quite contrary. We reform ourselves, but condemn no others.

CHAP. III.

WHETHER PROTESTANTS WERE AUTHORS OF THE SEPARATION

FROM ROME.

SECTION THE FIRST.

not authors

We are now come from stating the question to proofs, Protestants where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the of the province which he hath undertaken. To shew, that Pro- schism. testants were not the authors of the separation from Rome, but Roman Catholics, I produced,-first, the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point, "that the Bishop of Rome had no greater jurisdiction within England 177 conferred upon him by God in the Scripture, than any other foreign Bishop ;" secondly, the decrees of two of our national synods; thirdly, six or seven statutes, or Acts of Parliament; fourthly, the attestation of the prime Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy, in their printed books, in their epistles, in their sermons, in their speeches, in their institutions; fifthly, the unanimous consent of the whole kingdom of England, testified by Bishop Gardiner; and of the kingdom of Ireland, proved out of the Council-Book; lastly, the [Seil. Bull. Pope's own book, wherein he interdicted and excommuni- Paul. 111. cated the whole Church of England, before the Reformation

III. A. D. 1538.]

I.

PART made by Protestants, so as apparently we were chased away from them. Hear the judgment of a stranger ;-"This year the Pope brake the wise patience, or rather dissimulation, which for four years together he had used towards England; and sent against the king a terrible thundering Bull, such as never was used by his predecessors, nor imitated by his successors." It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is. What doth he answer to all this? Not one word. And so I take my first ground 'pro confesso, that Protestants were not authors of the separation of the English Church from Rome.

[The authors of the

all other

SECTION THE SECOND.

Yet something he saith upon the by, which is to be separation examined first;-that they "who made the king Head of Romanists, the Church, were so far from being 'zealots of the Roman contro- religion,' that they were not then of the Roman religion, . . . that of the but schismatics and heretics outwardly, whatsoever they were Pope's supremacy.] inwardly." What a change is here! Even now, when they

versies but

opposed the Reformation, they were "the best Bishops :" and now, when they oppose the Pope's supremacy, they are "schismatics and heretics." Let them be what they were, or whatsoever he would have them to be, certainly they were no Protestants. And if they were not Roman Catholics, they were of no Christian communion. They professed to live Roman Catholics, and they died Roman Catholics. The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry, and the bonfires which they made of poor Protestants in the days of Queen Mary, do demonstrate, both that they were no Protestants, and that they were zealots of the Roman religion."

But (saith he) "the essence of the Roman religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope." If it be so, then, whereas the Christian religion hath twelve articles, the Roman religion hath but one article, and that none of the

f [Just Vindic., c. iii. vol. i. pp. 114 122, 129.]

[Pad. Paolo,] Hist. Concil. Trident., an. 1538. [bk. i. p. 86. ed. 1620.]

h [Just Vindic., as before quoted, p. 114.]

i

[Surv., c. iii. sect. 2. p. 43.]

Ibid.]