PART I. [Protestants not in notorious accuser, witness, guilty person, and judge; thirdly, because the Protestants were condemned before they were heard'. To this he answereth, first, that Trent is in Germany" :' wherein he is much mistaken. For proof whereof I produce, first, the public protestation of the German Protestants,that to 'promise a Council in Germany and to choose Trent was to mock the world,' that Trent "cannot be said to be in Germany, but only because the Bishop is a Prince of the Empire, otherwise that for security it is as well and as much in Italy and in the Pope's power as Rome itself;" to which the Pope himself giveth testimony in his answer to the "Cardinal, Bishop, and Lord of Trent," when he desired maintenance for a garrison from the Pope to secure the Council, that "there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent," and engageth himself to secure it. The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany, the redress which they sought was in Germany. Germany, not Italy, had been the proper place for the Council. R. C. proceedeth, 'the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope'.' It may be so, but not in a legal or judiciary way. rebellion.] He confesseth, that "in doubtful cases" there "ought to be four distinct persons, the accuser, the witness, the person accused, and the judge," but "not in notorious rebellion," in which case there needs neither witness nor accusera." And doth not this merit the reputation of a "doubtful case," wherein so great a part of the Occidental Church are engaged? who are ready to prove evidently, that he who is their accuser, and usurps the office of their judge, is the notorious rebel himself. I confess, that in some cases the notoriety of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses; but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the law to be rebellion, or heresy, or the like. The Pope's rebellion hath been already condemned in the Council of Constance, and his heretical maintaining of it in the Council of Basle; but the Protestants' renouncing of his usurped authority hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other. 251 Yet he saith, the Protestants " were condemned not only Discourse by the Council of Trent, but by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom they appealed "." III. The Protestants not condemn of Constan but the One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise, would ed by the believe, that the Protestants in general had appealed from Patriarch the Council of Trent and were juridically condemned by the tinople, Patriarch of Constantinople. Who gave the appellants pro- Romanists. curation to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general? Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the appeal? Where is the condemnation? Is the English Church included therein? No such thing. The case was this. One or two foreign particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them, and he delivered his opinion, it should seem, as R. C. conceiveth, more to the advantage of the Romanists than of the Protestants". This he calleth an appeal and a condemnation. I crave pardon of the reader, if I do not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarch's answer. It is thirty years since I see it; neither do I know how to procure it. Thus far I will charge my memory, that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated, and the Patriarch's answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome than of the Church of England. The right stating of the question is all in all. When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way, they will make them more apposite, and more to the purpose. But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Con- [Cyril Lucar. ] stantinople, to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him go. I mean Cyrillus, since the time of Hieremy, whom that learned gentleman Sir Thomas Roe, then ambassador for our late king at Constantinople, had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church. He published a treatise of his own, much about the year 1630, which he I. PART called “Ομολογία τῆς Χριστιανικῆς πίστεως,” οι a Confession of the Christian Faith," so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England, that it might seem rather to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury than by the Patriarch of Constantinople. I will cull out a few flowers and make a posy for him, to let him see whether the Patriarchs of Constantinople do condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome. In the second chapter he declareth, ["μapTu- that "the authority of the Scripture is above the authority ρίαν"] of the Church,”—“ Où yáp ẻoтìv loov," &c.-" for it is not ἐστὶν equal" (or alike) "to be taught of the Holy Ghost and to be taught of man"." In his tenth chapter he declareth, that Θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος”“ mortal man can by no means be the Head of the Church," and that "our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the Head of it." In the thirteenth chapter he asserteth justification by Faith alone", just according to the doctrine of the Church of England. In the fifteenth chapter he acknowledgeth but two Sacraments". In the seventeenth ["anon chapter he professeth a "true real Presence of Christ the kal BeBalav Lord" in the Eucharist, just as we do; and rejecteth the new "device of Transubstantiationi." In the eighteenth chapter be disclaimeth Purgatory, &c. All this he declareth to be the Faith, "which Christ taught, the Apostles preached, and the orthodox Church ever held ;" and undertaketh to make it good to the world'. And after, in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him, he excludeth the Apocryphal books out of the Canon of Holy Scripture, and condemneth the worship of Images". In a word, he is wholly ours. And to declare to the world that he was so, he resolved to dedicate his Confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England". παρου σίαν] k When this treatise was first published, it is no marvel, if the Court of Rome and the Congregation for Propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it, and use their uttermost endeavour to ruin him. e But he justified it before [Id., ibid, kep. in. pp. 42, 44.] k f [Id. ibid., Kep. 1. p. 24.] 8 Id., ibid., Kep. 17. pp. 28-30.] [Id., ibid., Kep. I. p. 38.] 1 m [Id., ibid. in Conclus. p. 46.] [Id., ibid. Respons. ad Interr. iii. p. 54; et ad Interr. iv. pp. 56, 58.] n Knolles, Turk. Hist., in the life of Amurath IV., p. [1492. ed. 1638.] III. the ambassadors of Roman-Catholic princes then remaining DISCOURSE at Constantinople, and came off fairly, in despite of all those who did calumniate him and cast false aspersions upon him. Besides his own autograph, and the testimonies of the ambassadors then present, if there had been nothing else to justify this truth, the instructions, given by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope, alone had been sufficient proof, and the plots which they contrived against him, either to have him taken away by death or deposition for at the same time they decried the treatise here as supposititious, and accused him there as criminous, for being the author of it. But God delivered him out of their hands". He pleadeth moreover, that the Bishops assembled in [The Trent were not "the Pope's ministers P." Bishops at Yet he knoweth right well, that they had all taken an Pope's ministers.] oath of obedience to the Pope for maintenance of the Papacy. Were these equal judges? I confess there were many noble souls amongst them, who did limit their oath according to the canons of the Church. But they could do nothing, being over-voted by the Pope's clients and pensioners. lish Par He asketh, "who were the accusers, witnesses, and judges [The Engof the Pope in the parliament 1534," but "King Henry liament of himself and his ministers'?" 1534 not Henry ministers.] I answer, that they were not King Henry's ministers, but VIII's the trustees of the kingdom; they were not sworn to maintain King Henry's usurpations; they acted not by a judiciary, but by a legislative power; neither did they make any new law, but only declare the ancient law of the land. Otherwise they meddled not with the person of the Pope or his office. If Luther proceeded not in form of law against the Pope, it is no marvel. I remember no process in law that was between them. He challenged only verbum informans,' not 'virgam reformantem.' Do you think, that if he or any other had cited the Pope to have appeared in Germany or England, he would have obeyed the summons? 252 They might as well have called again yesterday. Howsoever, Luther's acts concern not us. [Id.,] ibid., pp. [1487, &c.] Trente, par Couray., liv. viii. § 22. an. г [Surv., c. ix. sect. 3. pp. 118, 119.] PART I. SECTION THE FOURTH. Their third objection is, that we have quitted our lawful Why R. C. Patriarch, which argument he saith he "will omit, because not willing we have spoken enough of that before." to argue of objection, concern [the third Either I am mistaken, or this is a fallacy of 'no cause for a cause.' The true cause why he omitteth it being not, ing] the "because we have spoken enough" of it (for he hath conPope's Patriarchal tinually declined it), but rather because he seeth that it is incompatible with that sovereignty and universality of power which the Roman Bishops do challenge at this day. Let them lose the substance, whilst they catch at the shadow. power. [The objection which he in its place al ready answered.] But in the place of this he proposeth another objection, which he calleth their "most forcible argument against ust;" proposeth which in brief is this,- No Church is to be left in which salvation is to be had, but we confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance, the true Church",' &c. I cannot but observe what difference there is in the judg ments of men, for of all their objections I take this to be the weakest. And so would he also, if he would cease to confound the Catholic Church with a Catholic Church, that is, the universal Church with a particular Church, and distinguish the essentials of a Church from the corruptions of a Church, and make a difference between a just reformation of ourselves and a causeless separation from others. But be the argument what it will, forcible or weak, it hath been answered abundantly in this treatise over and over again. And therefore, though he pleased (I use his own expressions) to "say it often," to "repeat it often," to "inculcate" it; yet I dare not abuse the patience of the reader with so many needless tautologies. [His other books.] He taxeth me for not answering some testimonies which he hath collected in a book of his, called the Protestants' Plain Confession, which he saith I "have read," and therefore I "ought not to have dissembled" them, but "perhaps I thought them too hard to be answered"." I confess I have read some of his books formerly, but I |