PART

I.

[1. The true question, not whether there is a breach between

us, but whether there is sufficient cause for

the breach which exists.]

[2. Arguments of the Just Vindica

tion con

who had taxed me in this Rejoinder of busying myself to answer an objection that was not addressed to me".

Yet, lest Mr. Serjeant should feign that I seek subterfuges, I will briefly and clearly declare my sense of his grounds as they are here proposed, that he may fight no more with his own shadow, as it is his common use; in hope I may recover his good opinion of my candour and ingenuity. And if it please him, he may borrow Diogenes his candle and lanthorn at noon-day, to search for "contradictions."

First, that there is "a breach" between them and us, is too evident and void of question. Whether they or we be guilty of making this breach, they by excommunicating us or obtruding unlawful conditions of their communion upon us, or we by separating from them without sufficient grounds, is a question between us. But that which changeth the whole state of the question is this,-if any Bishop or Church or Court whatsoever shall presume to change the ancient discipline of the Church and doctrine of Faith, either by addition or by substraction, either all at once or by degrees, and in so doing shall make a breach between them and the primitive Church, or between them and the present Catholic Church, to separate from him or them in those things wherein they had first separated from the ancient or present Catholic Church, is not schism but true piety. Now we affirm, that the later Bishops of Rome did alter the discipline of the Church and doctrine of Faith, by changing their "beginning of unity" into a plenitude and universality of sovereign jurisdiction, and by adding of new essentials of Faith to the Creed; and in so doing had made a former breach between themselves and all the rest of the Christian world. Here the hinge of the controversy is moved. Hitherwards all his supposed "demonstrations" ought to have looked. Neither will it avail him any thing to say, "there can be no sufficient cause of schismd;" for, in this case, the separation is not schism, but the cause is schism.

Secondly, if by "demonstrative and rigorous evidence" he 296 understand perfect demonstrations according to the exact rules of logic, neither is this cause capable of such demond [R. C.'s Survey, c. ii. sect. 1. p. 15.]

[Ibid., sect. 4.] p. 543.

с

[Ibid.]

IV.

vincing,

monstra

strations, nor can his mediums amount unto it; but if by DISCOURSE "demonstrative evidence" he understand only convincing proofs (as it seemeth by opposing it to "probable reasons"), although I have made it evident, that the Pope's authority, which he note did sometimes exercise in England before the Reformation, tive."] when they permitted him, and which he would have exercised always de futuro, if he could have had his own will, was a mere usurpation and innovation; never attempted in the British Churches for the first six hundred years; attempted, but not admitted by the Saxon Churches for the next five hundred years; and damned by the laws of the successive Norman kings ever since, as destructive to the rights of the English Crown and the liberties of the English Church: as shall be maintained wheresoever occasion offers itself. Yet all this while I meddle not with his "beginning of unity;" if he want that respect from me, it is his own fault.

Pope's

not pro

only.]

And this includeth an answer to his third ground,-that [3. The the Papal authority which we rejected, was "so strongly usurpations supported by long possession, and the universal delivery of palpable, forefathers as come from Christ." He had always some show bable of right for his "beginning of unity," but no pretence in the world for his sovereignty of power;-to make laws, to repeal laws, to dispense with the canons of the universal Church, to hold legantine courts, to dispose of ecclesiastical preferments, to call the subjects out of the kingdoms, to impose tributes at his pleasure; and the like. We will shew him such an usurpation as this; let him prove such a Papacy by universal tradition, and he "shall be great Apollo to me." We do not hold it "prudence to hazard a schism upon probabilities:" but trust me, such a multitude of palpable usurpations as we are able to reckon up, so contrary to the fundamental laws of England, which were grounded upon the ancient privileges of the British and Saxon Churches, together with the addition of twelve new articles or essentials to the Creed at once by Pius the Fourth (I say addition, not explication), are more than "probabilities." He converseth altogether in generals," a Papacy or no Papacy","—which is commonly

[Just Vindic., cc. iv. v. vol. i. pp. 129-164.] f [Virg., Bucol., iii. 104.]

[Schism Dispatched. The words do not occur.]

PART

I.

[Mr. Ser

jeant's

Derry.]

the method of deceivers: but if he dispute or treat with us, we must make bold to draw him down to particulars; particulars did make the breach.

I censured his light and ludicrous title of "Down-Derry" of Down-modestly in these words, "It were strange if he should throw a good cast, who soals his bowl upon an undersong";" alluding to that ordinary and elegant expression in our English tongue, 'soal your bowl well,' that is, be careful to begin your work well;—

"Dimidium facti, qui bene cœpit, habet."

The printer puts "seals" for "soals," which easy error of the press any rational man might have found out; but Mr. Serjeant's pen runs at random, telling the reader, that I am

mystically proverbial," that I am "far the better bowler1," -surely he did but dream it;-and that he himself "is so inexpert, as not to understand what is meant by 'sealing a bowl upon an undersongm." If he were such a stranger in his mother's tongue, yet he might have learned of some of his friends what "soaling a bowl" was, rather than burden the press and trouble the world with such empty and impertinent vanities. Neither did his pleasant humour rest here, but twice more in his short Rejoinder he is pursuing this innocent bowl. Afterwards he telleth us, that I was "beholden to the merry stationer for this title, . who without his knowledge or approbation would needs make it his postpast to his bill of fare"." This answer, if it be true, had excused himself; but it sheweth that the stationer was overscurrilously audacious, to make such antepasts and postpasts at his pleasure. Neither is it likely, that "the composer" was "such a perfect stranger to our language," as he intimateth in his Epistle, and the "merry stationer" so well versed in our "undersongs." But after all this he owneth it, by telling us, that "the jest was very proper and fatal.” Yes, as "fatal" as it is for his Rejoinder to contain six hundred

IV.

[Rev. xiii.

and sixty-six pages, which is just the number of the Beast. DISCOURSE His "merry stationer" might easily have contrived it otherwise, for fear of a fatality, by making one page more or less; 18.] 297 but his mind was otherwise taken up, how to cheat his customers with counterfeit bills of fare, which they will never find. I will endeavour to cure him of his opinion of 'fatality.'

SECTION I.

[OF MR. SERJEANT'S FORMAL ARGUMENT TO CONVICT THE

ENGLISH CHURCH OF SCHISM.]

CHAPTER THE FIRST.

jeant's pre

tences

BECAUSE Mr. Serjeant complaineth much of "wording," [Mr. Serand yet giveth his reader nothing but words; and calleth so leans to often for "rigorous demonstrations," yet produceth nothing "demonstration."] for his part which resembleth a strict demonstration; and because this first part of his discourse is the basis or groundwork of the whole building, whereof he boasteth that it "doth charge the guilt of schism upon our Church, not only with colour, but with undeniable evidence ;" I will reduce his discourse into a logical form, that the reader may see clearly where "the water sticks" between us. Whatsoever he prateth "of a rigorous demonstrative way as being only conclusive'," it is but a copy of his countenance. He cannot be ignorant, or if he be, he will find by experience, that his glittering principles will fail him in his greatest need, and leave him in the dirt. I have known sundry fantastic persons who have been great pretenders to "demonstration," but always successless, and for the most part ridiculous. They are so conceitedly curious about the premisses, that commonly they quite mistake their conclusion. Causes encumbered with circumstances, and those left to the election of free agents, are not very capable of" demonstration."

PART

I.

[The case stated be

tween Mr.

Serjeant and the author.]

The case in difference between us is this, as it is stated by me,-Whether the Church of England have "withdrawn themselves from obedience to the Vicar of Christ and separated from the communion of the Catholic Church."

And upon those terms it is undertaken by him in the words immediately following, "And that this crime is justly charged upon his Church not only with colour, but with undeniable evidence of fact, will appear by the position of the case, and the nature of his exceptions "."

We have the state of the controversy agreed upon between us. Now let us see how he goeth about to prove his intention.

[Mr. Ser- "What Church soever did upon probable reasons without jeant's argument.] any necessary or convincing grounds break the bonds of unity ordained by Christ in the Gospel and agreed upon by all true Churches, is guilty of schism; but the Church of England in Henry the Eighth's days did upon probable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds break the bonds of unity ordained by Christ in the Gospel and agreed upon by all true Churches; therefore the Church of England is guilty of schism "."

I do readily assent to his major proposition; and am ready to grant him more if he had pleased to insert it,—that that Church is schismatical which doth break the bonds of unity ordained by Christ in His Gospel, whatsoever their reasons be, whether convincing or probable, and whosoever do either consent to them or dissent from them. But I deny his minor; which he endeavoureth to prove thus.—

"Whatsoever Church did renounce or reject these two following rules or principles,-first, that 'the doctrines which had been inherited from their forefathers as the legacies of Christ and His Apostles were solely to be acknowledged for obligatory, and nothing in them to be changed;' secondly, that ‘Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or prince of His Apostles, who was to be the first mover under Him in the Church after His departure out of this world, and to whom all others in

[Down-Derry, at the end of] Schism Disarmed, p. 306. [from Just Vindic., c. i. vol. i. p. 101.]

[Down-Derry, ibid.-Schism Dispatched, sect. 1. p. 477.]

[Down-Derry, pp. 307, 308; and Schism Dispatched, sect. 1. pp. 480, 481: reduced into syllogistic form by Bramhall.]