I. PART Christ in the use of the Sacrament, to which we do readily assent, but to adore the Sacrament itself"; and, lastly, as their double matter and form in the ordination of a Priest, never known in the Church for above a thousand years after Christ. These and such like abuses were the only things 149 which we did forsake; so as I may truly say, "Non tellus cymbam, tellurem cymba, reliquit,”— it was not we that did forsake them in the communion of their Sacraments, but it was their Sacraments that did forsake us. And yet we do not censure them for these innovations in the use of the Sacraments or the like, nor thrust them out of the communion of the Catholic Church, but provide for ourselves, advise them as brethren, and so leave them to stand or fall to their own Master. So on our parts there is a reformation, but no separation. [3. The third point R. C.'s The true cause of tion of some Pro- SECTION THE THIRD. His "third point is, that Protestants vary in giving the pretended just cause of their separation from the Roman Church for at the first their only cause was the abuse of some that preached indulgences; since, some others give the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, or Communion in one kind; others give the oath made by Pius the Fourth, which they call a new creed; others other causes : .. which variety is a certain sign of their uncertainty of any true just cause of their separation "." That the pardoners and preachers of indulgences, and the the separa envy of other orders, and the passionate heat of the Court of Rome ("tange montes et fumigabunt"—" touch the high mountains and they will smoke,") did contribute much to the breach of this part of Christendom, is confessedly true. But it is not only the abuse of some preachers of indulgences, but much more the abuse of indulgences themselves, which we complain of;-that a treasury should be composed of the Blood P [Concil. Trident., Sess. xiii. cap. 5. et can. 6.] a [See Courayer, Déf. de la Diss. sur la Valid. des Ord. Angl., tom. ii. P. i. liv. iv. c. 3. pp. 96, &c.] r [Surv., Pref., p. 6.] III. of Christ and the sufferings and supererogatory works of the DISCOURSE Saints, to be disposed by the Pope for money. What is this, but to mingle Heaven and earth together; the imperfect works of man with the Sacrificed Blood of Christ? Neither was it the doctrine and abuse of indulgences alone, but the injunction to adore the Sacrament also, and Communion in one kind, and the new Creed of Pius the Fourth, or the new articles since comprised in that Creed, and the monarchy of the Pope by Divine right, and sundry other abuses and innovations all put together, which gave just cause to some Protestants to separate themselves, so far as they were active in the separation. But we in England were first chased away by the Pope's Bulls. If these abuses were perhaps not discovered, or at least not pleaded, all at once, what wonder is it? "Dies diei eructat verbum, et nox nocti indicat scientiam" Psalm. [xviii. 3. -"day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night Vulg.] sheweth knowledge." fourth Preface.] His fourth point, which he saith is "much to be noted "," [4. The is reduced by himself to a syllogism;-"Whosoever separate point noted themselves" in substance (that is, in essentials) "from the in R. C.'s substance of a Catholic and true Church in substance, are true schismatics; but Protestants have separated themselves" in substance "from the Roman Church, which is a Catholic and true Church in substance; therefore Protestants are true schismatics." His proposition is proved by him, because the "substances of things do consist in indivisibili," and the changing of them either by addition or by subtraction is not a reformation, but a destruction, of them;' and therefore it is "a contradiction" to say that a Church, which hath the substance or the essence of a Church, can give just cause to depart from her in her essentials; and not only a contradiction, but "plain blasphemy," to say that the true Church. of Christ in essence, "His mystical Body, His kingdom," can give just cause to forsake it in essentials ". The assumption is proved by him, because we "confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance," and yet have forsaken it in the essentials of a true Church, namely, "the Sacraments, and the public worship of God *." PART Essences of indivisible, and de stroyed by addition as traction. His proposition admits little dispute. I do acknowledge, I. that no Church, true or false, no society of men or Angels, things are good or bad, can give just or sufficient cause to forsake the essentials of Christian religion, or any of them, and that whosoever do so, are either heretics or schismatics, or both, or, well as sub- which is worse than both, downright infidels and apostates. For in forsaking any essential of Christian religion they forsake Christ, and their hopes of salvation in an ordinary way. But here is one thing which it behoveth R. C. himself to take notice of, that, if the essences of all things be indivisible, and are destroyed as well by the addition as by the subtraction of any essential part,' how will the Roman Church or Court make answer to Christ for their addition of so many (not explications of old articles, but) new pretended neces-150 sary essential articles of Faith, under pain of damnation (which by his own rule is to destroy the Christian Faith); who have coined new Sacraments, and added new matter and form, that is, essentials, to old Sacraments; who have multiplied sacred Orders, and added new links to the chain of the Hierarchy. This will concern him and his Church more nearly, than all his notes and points do concern us. How the Concerning his assumption, two questions come to be debated; first, whether the Church of Rome be a true Church, or not; secondly, whether we have departed from it in essentials. Touching the former point, a Church may be said to be a true Church two ways; metaphysically and morally. Every and is not Church which hath the essentials of a Church, how tainted a true Church. or corrupted soever it be in other things, is metaphysically a true Church, for ens et verum convertuntur.' So we say a thief is a true man, that is, a reasonable creature consisting of a human body and reasonable soul; but speaking morally he is a faulty, filching, vicious person, and so no true man. So the Church of Rome is metaphysically a true Church, that is to say, hath all the essentials of a Christian Church, but morally it is no true Church, because erroneous. Contraries, as truth and error, may be predicated of the same subject, so it be not ad idem, secundum idem, et eodem tempore. Truth in fundamentals, and error in superstructures, may consist together. The "foundation" is right, but they 1 Cor. iii. have builded much hay and stubble upon it;' and in respect 12. 1 not left the essentials. of this foundation she may, and doubtless doth, bring forth DISCOURSE many true" members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven." The Church of the Jews was most erroneous and corrupted in the days of our Saviour; yet he doubted not to say, "Salvation is of the Jews." John iv. 22. I know it is said, that 'Christ hath given Himself for His Eph. v. Church to sanctify it, and cleanse it, and present it to Himself 25-27. a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle.' But that is to be understood inchoatively in this life; the perfection and consummation thereof is to be expected in the life to come. To the second question, whether the Church of England in we have the Reformation have forsaken the essentials of the Roman Reman Church, I answer negatively; we have not. If weeds be Church in of the essence of a garden, or corrupt humours or botches or wens and excrescences be of the essence of man; if errors and innovations and superstitions and superfluous rites and pecuniary arts be of the essence of a Church; then indeed we have forsaken the Roman Church in its essentials: otherwise not. We retain the same Creed to a word, and in the same sense, by which all the primitive Fathers were saved; which they held to be so sufficient, that in a general Council they did forbid all persons (under pain of deposition to Bishops and clerks, and anathematisation to laymen) to compose or obtrude any other upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism". We retain the same Sacraments and discipline which they retained; we derive our Holy Orders by lineal succession from them; we make their doctrine and their practice (under the Holy Scriptures, and as best expositors thereof) a standard and seal of truth between the Romanists and us. It is not we, who have forsaken the essence of the modern Roman Church by substraction; but they, who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by addition. Can we not forsake their new Creed unless we forsake their old Faith? Can we not reduce the Liturgy into a known tongue, but presently we forsake the public worship of God? Can we not take away their tradi tion of the patine and chalice, and reform their new matter and form in Presbyterian Ordination (which antiquity did Concil. Ephes. [A. D. 431.] P. ii. Act. vi. c. 7. [ap. Labb., Concil., tom. iii. p. 689. A.] I. PART never know, which no Church in the world besides themselves did ever use), but presently we forsake Holy Orders? The truth is, their errors are in the excess, and these excesses they themselves have determined to be essentials of true religion. And so, upon pretence of interpreting, they intrude into the legislative office of Christ; and being but a Patriarchal Church, do usurp a power which the Universal Church did never own, that is, to constitute new essentials of Christian religion. Before the determination their excesses might have passed for probable opinions or indifferent practices; but after the determination of them as articles of Faith, 'extra quam non est salus'—' without which there is no salvation' (they are the words of the Bull), they became inexcusable errors. So both the pretended "contradiction" and the pretended "blasphemy" are vanished in an instant. It is no contradiction to say, that a true human body in 151 substance may require purgation; nor blasphemy to say, that a particular Church (as Church of Rome is) may err, and (which is more than we charge them withal) may apostate from Christ. In the mean time we preserve all due respect to the Universal Church, and doubt not to say with St. Austin, that "to dispute" against the sense thereof, "is most insolent madness"." The [5. The noted in R. C.'s His "fifth point" to be noted hath little new worth noting ith point in it, but tautologies and repetitions of the same things over "Some Protestants," saith he, do "impudently deny that they are substantially separated from the Roman Church c." Preface.] [We do] not differ the Roman and over. If this be impudence, what is ingenuity? If this be such in sub- a gross error for man to be ashamed of, what is evident truth? stance from We expected thanks for our moderation, and behold reviling Church. for our good will. He might have been pleased to remember what himself hath cited so often out of my Vindication, that our Church since the Reformation is "the same in substance" that it was before. If "the same in substance," then not 2 [See p. 36. note q.] a["Extra quam" (fidem) " nemo salvus esse potest." Bull. Pii IV., in Act. Concil. Trident., ap. Labb., Concil., tom. xiv. p. 946. B.] b August., Ep. 118. [editt. before Bencd.-54. Ad Januar., c. 5. § 6. tom. p. 126. C. ed. Bened.] ii. c Surv., Pref., p. 10.] [Just Vindic., c. vi. (vol. i. p. 199), Disc. ii. Pt. i.] |