III.

corrected, but if he be incorrigible be deposed." So a DISCOURSE Council may correct the Pope, and if they please continue him, or if they find him incorrigible depose him. Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles, but for faults in Faith or manners. Neither can they be said to be deposed, who are only declared to have been usurpers. Secondly, I confuted this answer by the execution of the decree. The Council did not only declare who was the right Pope, which is a judiciary act, and may be done by an inferior towards his superior, but they turned out three Popes together, whereof one without controversy was the right Pope; and so made right to be no right for the public good of the Church, which is a badge of sovereign and legislative authority'.

cree con

His second answer is, that 'this decree was not conciliarly [This demade, and consequently not confirmed by Martin the ciliarly Fifth.'

made, and therefore

ed.]

This answer was likewise taken away in the Vindication. confirmFirst, because the Pope's confirmation is but a novelty, never practised in the ancient Church, and signifieth nothing. The Pope and his legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their legates did; and that was all. Secondly, because Pope Martin's title to the Papacy did depend merely upon the authority of the decree. If this decree were not a lawful decree of a lawful general Council, and such a Council as had power to depose the former Pope, then Pope Martin was no Pope but an usurper, and then his confirmation signified nothing also in that respect. Last, I shewed that it was "conciliarly made," and what the word "conciliarly" there signifieth, out of the Acts of the Council. And that passage was not intended for a confirmation, but an occasional speech after the end of the Council, after the Fathers were dismissed, in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope by the ambassadors of Polonia and Lithuania about a seditious book, which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations, but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the public Acts of the Session, the Pope answered, that he approved

e

* [See Just Vindic., c. viii. vol. i. p. 250. note e. Bramhall has abridged the decree in his own words, but his gloss is

fully borne out by the original.]

f

[See Just Vindic., ibid. P. 252.]
[Surv., c. viii. sect. 4.]

I.

PART what had been conciliarly done". To all this he answereth nothing, but that "the word 'conciliariter' or 'conciliarly' signifieth rather the manner of a Council, than of a Council." Let it be so. Is not the decreeing of any thing publicly in the Session the manner of the Council's acting?' The Deputies of the Nations were like a committee of Parliament; who have no power to decree, though they be a committee of the whole House, but only to prepare things for the House. Now suppose the king at the close of the Parliament, being requested to confirm some acts of a committee, should use the very same expression which Martin the Fifth did, that he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that parliament parliamentariter or parliamentarily. Doth not this evidently confirm all the acts and conclusions of the parliament? Or what can this in reason exclude but only the acts of the committees ? To say, as R. C. saith, that he confirmeth only those acts which were done with due deliberation,' is as much as to say, that he confirmeth just nothing at all. How shall it be known, or who shall be judge, what was done with due deliberation, and what was not? Neither doth it weigh any thing at all to say (as he doth), that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations without adding conciliariter: for, first, it is a rule in law that abundans non vitiat -'a word or two too much do no hurt ;' secondly, the Deputies of the Nations did sit and act by the authority of the Council, and consequently their acts were mediately and 245 in some sort the acts of the Council.

[Of no

conse

quence whether

it be confirmed or

not.]

Lastly, whether the decree of the Council were confirmed or not, to me seemeth all one. The end of convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those respective Churches from which they are sent, and to witness the received belief. We see by their votes, what was the received opinion of the Occidental Church. And we see otherwise sufficiently what was the received opinion of the Eastern, Southern, and Northern Churches. So as the Roman Court will not be able to find one national Church

of that age throughout the world to maintain their exor- DISCOURSE bitant claims.

III.

[SECTION THE FIFTH.]

thor's

two addi

To my fourth argument, drawn from the Pope's challenge [The auof all Episcopal jurisdiction and consequently the breaking fourth and of all the lines of Apostolical succession except his own, and tional arguto my two additional arguments concerning the infallibility ments unnoticed by of the Pope's judgment and his power over princes ", he an- R. C.] swereth nothing, but that they are not "defined by the Roman Church," and therefore cannot be "a cause of departing from her communion "." Neither have I endeavoured to charge the crime of schism upon the Roman Church in general, but upon the Roman Court, and the violent propugners thereof, whose tenets these are. I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendour of an Apostolical Church, and the principal Protopatriarchate, and its 'beginning of unity.'

wrongly

continued.]

Notwithstanding the weakness of his answers, yet he lays [What is down this for a conclusion, that, "whatsoever I now pre- begun, may tend," our separation was "schismatically begun ;" and be rightly thence infers upon a ground brought by me-" Quod ab initio fuit invalidum, tractu temporis non convalescit,”—that it is "schismatical still P."

First, I deny his ground; the separation was not made by us, but by them. What we did was not schismatical, but just and necessary. Secondly, his inference is grossly mistaken, and the rule which I brought altogether misapplied. "That which was invalid from the beginning, cannot become valid by" prescription or "tract of time," but it may become valid by subsequent acts of parties interessed. And that which was uncharitably begun and schismatically, may be charitably, piously, and necessarily continued; as by many reasons and instances may be made appear, but that it is besides our question.

PART
I.

Some

Roman

Catholics

formal schisina

tics.

CHAP. IX.

A DEFENCE OF OUR ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ROMANISTS.

SECTION THE FIRST.

In the first place he observeth a difference between Protestants and Roman-Catholics, that "Protestants do not charge Roman Catholics with formal schism," but only with causal schism,' whereas Roman "Catholics do charge Protestants with formal schism 9."

To which I give three answers.

First, if Protestants do not charge them with formal schism, their charity is the greater, and the Roman Catholics are the more obliged to them. Certainly we have better grounds to charge them with formal schism, than they have to charge us. But indeed Protestants do charge the Roman Court, and all Roman Catholics who maintain it, and adhere unto it, out of ambitious, avaritious, or other sinister ends, and not out of simplicity of heart and invincible or at least probable ignorance, with "formal schism."

Secondly, causal schism may be, and in this case of the Romanists is, as well formal, nay, sometimes more formal than actual schism, or to speak more properly than actual separation. Whosoever give just cause of separation to others, contrary to the light of their knowledge, out of uncharitable or other sinister ends, are causal and formal schismatics. Whereas they who separate actually and locally upon just cause, are no criminous schismatics at all; and they who separate actually without just cause, may do it out of invincible ignorance, and consequently they are not formal 246 but only material schismatics.

Thirdly, when the case comes to be exactly weighed, it is here just as it is in the case of possibility of salvation, that is Protestants do not charge all Roman

to

say, the very same.

[Surv., c. ix. sect. 1.

Protestants commonly do not charge" &c.]

III.

Catholics with formal schism, but only such as break the DISCOURSE bond of unity sinfully, whether it be by separating themselves, or others, unduly from the Catholic communion, or giving just cause of separation to others. Nor doth R. C. himself charge all Protestants with formal schism. For he confesseth, that all those Protestants who err invincibly do 'want neither Church nor salvation Formal schismatics, whilst they continue formal schismatics, want both Church and salvation; therefore whosoever want neither Church nor salvation,' are no formal schismatics.

66

The reason of his former assertion is this, because Protestants can name no Church" out of whose communion the present Church of Rome " departed "." His reason shews that he confounds material and formal schism with causal and actual schism. Whereas actual schism may sometimes be only material, and causal schism may also sometimes be formal.

To his reason I give two clear answers.

sent Roman

of the an

First, Protestants can name a particular Church out of The prewhose communion the present Roman Church departed, even Church dethe pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome, which was before parted out it, by introducing errors, abuses, and corruptions into it. cient RoThere is a moral departure out of a Church as well as a local, Church; and acknowledged by themselves to be culpable and criminous schism.

man

is worse,

Catholic

Church.

Secondly, that Church which departs out of the commu- And, which nion of the Catholic or Universal Church, is more schisma- out of the tical than that which departs only out of the communion of a particular Church; both because our obligation is greater to the Catholic Church than to any particular Church, and because the Catholic or Universal Church doth comprehend all particular Churches of one denomination in it. When the Court of Rome by their censures did separate three or four parts of the Christian world, who were as Catholic or more Catholic than themselves, then they departed out of the communion of the Catholic Church, as the Donatists did of old.

There is but this difference between the Donatists and them, that the Donatists did it only by their uncharitable [See Just Vindic., c. vi. vol. i. pp. [Surv., c. ix. sect. 1.] 198, 199.]