257

III.

tians to salvation, it were great folly and ingratitude in us DISCOURSE to wrangle about circumstances, or about some substantial points of lesser concernment, whether they be so necessary as others. This is sufficient to let us know, who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church in point of Faith; even all those Churches which hold the Apostles' Creed as it is expounded in the four first general Councils.

vealed

His third and last objection followeth; "All points of All reFaith sufficiently proposed are essential and fundamental,. nor can any such point be disbelieved without infidelity, and essentials. giving the lie to God, as Protestants sometimes confess"."

If by sufficient proposal' he understand the proposal of the Church of Rome, I deny both parts of his assertion. Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome, which are neither fundamental truths, nor inferior truths, but errors, which may be disbelieved without either infidelity or sin. Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent, than they satisfy one another what this infallible proponent is. If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent, or be not assured who this infallible proponent is, the proposition may be disbelieved without "giving God the lie." But if by sufficient proposal he understand God's actual revelation of the truth, and the conviction of the conscience, then this third objection. is like the first, partly true and partly false. The latter part of it is true, that whosoever is convinced that God hath revealed any thing, and doth not believe it, "giveth God the lie;" and this the Protestants do always affirm. But the former part of it is still false. All truths that are revealed, are not therefore presently fundamentals or essentials of Faith; no more than it is a fundamental point of Faith that St. Paul [2 Tim. iv. 13.] had a cloak. That which was once an essential part of the Christian Faith, is always an essential part of the Christian Faith; that which was once no essential, is never an essential. How is that an essential part of saving Faith, without which Christians may ordinarily be saved? But many inferior truths are revealed to particular persons, without the actual knowledge whereof many others have been saved; and they themselves might have been saved, though those truths had t [Ibid., p. 136.]

PART never been proposed or revealed to them. Those things which may adesse or abesse-be present or absent, known or not known, believed or not believed, without the destruction of saving Faith, are no essentials of saving Faith. In a word, some things are necessary to be believed when they are known, only because they are revealed, otherwise conducing little, or it may be nothing, to salvation; some other things are necessary to be believed, not only because they are revealed, but because belief of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation. These are, those are not, essentials or fundamentals of saving Faith.

[Of another means of reunion

there proposed.]

Ancient Popes

challenged not sove

reignty jure Divino.

Another means of reunion proposed by me in the Vindication, was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of sovereign jurisdiction jure Divino to his 'exordium unitatis,' and to have his Court regulated by the canons of the Fathers, which was the sense of the Councils of Constance and Basle".

Against this he pleadeth;—

First, that "ancient Popes practised or challenged . . Episcopal or pastoral authority over all Christians, jure Divino, in greater ecclesiastical causes;" and for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine.

To which I answer, first, that the pastors of Apostolical Churches had ever great authority among all Christians, and great influence upon the Church, as honourable arbitrators, and faithful depositaries of the genuine Apostolical Tradition ; but none of them ever exercised sovereign jurisdiction over all Christians. Secondly, I answer, that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes, upon which their claim of universal sovereignty jure Divino is principally grounded, are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits. Thirdly, I answer, that ancient Popes in their genuine writings do not claim nor did practise monarchical power over the Catholic Church, much less did they claim it jure Divino; but what power they held, they held by prescription, and by the canons of the Fathers, who granted sundry privileges to the Church of Rome in honour to the memory of St. Peter and the imperial city of Rome. And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their

III.

authority from the Council of Nice (though without ground), DISCOURSE which they would never have done, if they had held it jure Divino. And for answer to Bellarmine, whom he only mentioneth in general, I refer him to Dr. Field2.

In the next place he citeth St. Hierome, that "Christ [St. Hierome.] made one Head among the twelve to avoid schism"." " And "how much more necessary" (saith R. C.) "is such a Head in the universal Church?"

It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierome :-" But thou sayest the Church is founded upon St. Peter; the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles; they all receive the 258 keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all." I have shewed him formerly in answer to this place, that in a body endowed with power, as the Church is, a Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against schism". His "how much more" should be how much less. A single person is more capable of the government of a small society, than of the whole world.

After this, he citeth Melancthon,-" As there are some [Melancthon.] Bishops who govern divers Churches, the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops, and this canonical policy I think no wise man doth disallow"."

I cannot in present procure that Century of Theological Epistles, but I have perused Melancthon's Epistles published by Caspar Pucerus, wherein I find no such epistle. I examine not, whether this epistle, by him cited, be genuine or counterfeit; and if genuine, whether Melancthon's words be rightly rehearsed; and if rightly rehearsed, at what time it was written, whether before he was a formed Protestant or after. It appeareth plainly in the words here cited, that

[See Schism Guarded, sect. i. c. 1. (below pp. 374, 375) Disc. iv. Pt. i;Field, Of the Church, bk. v. cc. 33, 34. 39.]

* Of the Church, lib. v. à c. 31. ad c.36. a Cont. Jovinian., lib. ii. [as quoted by R. C. Surv., c. ix. sect. 7. p. 138. The passage is in lib. i., Op. tom. iv. P. ii. p. 168. ed. Bened.]

P

[Surv., ibid.]

[Hieron., as before quoted.]

I.

PART Melancthon was willing to acknowledge the Papacy only as a "canonical policy." And so we do not condemn it, whilst it is bounded by the canons of the Fathers. But then where is their jus Divinum, or the institution of Christ? Where is their absolute or universal sovereignty of power and jurisdiction? In all probability, if these be the words of Melancthon, his meaning was confined to the Roman Patriarchate, which was all the Church that he was much acquainted with. And that either these are none of his words, or that they were written before he was a formed Protestant, or that he intended only the Roman Patriarchate, is most evident from his later and undoubted writings, wherein he doth utterly and constantly condemn the Papal universal monarchy of the Roman Bishop. And, lastly, what Melancthon saith, is only in point of prudence or discretion,-"he thinks no wise man ought to dislike it."

A moderate Papacy might

prove useful, but

We are not so stupid as not to see but that some good use might be made of an exordium unitatis ecclesiasticæ,' especially at this time when the civil power is so much divided dangerous. and distracted. But the quere is, even in point of prudence, whether more good or hurt might proceed from it. We have been taught by experience to fear three dangers: first, when we give an inch, they are apt to take an ell; tyrants are not often born with their teeth, as Richard the Third was, but grow up to their excess in process of time; secondly, when we give a free alms (as Peter-pence were of old), they straightway interpret it to be a tribute and duty; thirdly, what we give by human right, they challenge by Divine right to the See of Rome; and so will not leave us free to move our rudder according to the variable face of the heavens and the vicissitude of human affairs.

[R. C.'s other testi

These are all the testimonies which he citeth, but he premonies.] senteth unto us another dumb show of English authors in the margin, Whitakerf, Laud®, Potter, Chillingworth', Mon

i.

[Controv. ii. qu. 6. c. 2. (Op. tom. pp. 558-561); cited by R. C., Surv., c. ix. sect. 7. p. 138. There certainly is not, in this and the three next authors, as quoted, "one word to the purpose;" nor in the foreigners quoted in note 1, excepting Huss.]

[Relat. (of Conference with Fisher), § 38; cited by R. C., ibid.]

[(Answ. to Knott's Charity Mistaken,) sect. (2). p. 38; cited by R. C., ibid.]

i [(Relig. of Protest.,) c. v. p. 279. (§ 62-64); cited by R. C., ibid.]

III.

tague, besides some foreigners'. But if the reader do put DISCOURSE himself to the trouble to search the several places, notwithstanding these titles or superscriptions, he will find the boxes all empty, without one word to the purpose, as if they had been cited by chance and not by choice. And if he should take in all the other writings of these several authors, they would not advantage his cause at all. Bishop Montague is esteemed one of the most indulgent to him among them (though in truth one of his saddest adversaries), yet I am confident he dare not stand to his verdict. "Habeat potestatem ordinis, directionis, consilii, consultationis, conclusionis, executionis, delegatam; subsit autem illa potestas Ecclesiæ, auferibilis sit per Ecclesiam, cum non sit in Divinis Scripturis instituta, non Petro personaliter addicta"—" Let the Bishop of Rome have delegated unto him" (that is, by the Church) "a power of order, direction, counsel, consultation, conclusion" (or pronouncing sentence), "and putting in execution; but let that power be subject to the Church, let it be in the Church's power to take it away, seeing it is not instituted in the Holy Scriptures, nor tied personally unto Peter"."

clusion.

Micah iv.

To conclude; the same advice which he giveth unto me, The conI return unto himself. "Attendite ad petram unde excisi estis" 259—“Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn." Look unto [Isai. li. 1.] the Church of Hierusalem, and remember, that "the Law [Isai. ii. 2. came out of Zion, and the Word of the Lord out of Hieru2.] salem." Look unto the Church of Antioch, where "the [Acts xi. disciples were first called Christians." Look unto the other 26.] Eastern Churches, in whose regions the Sun of Righteousness did shine, when the Day of Christianity did but begin to dawn in your coasts. Look to the primitive Church of Rome itself, whose "Faith was spoken of throughout the whole [Rom. i. world," and needed not the supplemental articles of Pius the 8.] Fourth. Lastly, look unto the true Catholic ecumenical Church, whose privileges you have usurped, and seek not to exclude so many millions of Christians from the hope of