PART that "it is confessed that the Papal power in ecclesiastical affairs was cast out of England in Henry the Eighth's days." I answer, that there was no mutation concerning Faith, nor concerning any legacy which Christ left to His Church, nor concerning the power of the Keys, or any jurisdiction 343 purely spiritual; but concerning coactive power in the exterior court, concerning the political or external regiment of the Church, concerning the patronage or civil sovereignty over the Church of England, and the legislative, judiciary, and dispensative power of the Pope in England over English subjects; which was no more than a "reinfranchisement" of ourselves from the upstart "usurpations" of the Court of Rome, of all which I have shewed him expressly the first source, who began them, when, and where'; before which he is not able to give one instance of any such practices attempted by the Bishop of Rome and admitted by the Church of England. Who it is that "looks asquint" or "awrya" upon the true case in controversy between us, let the ingenuous reader judge. I do not deny, nor ever did deny, but that there was a real separation made, yea, made by us from their usurpations; but I both did deny and do deny, that there was any separation made by us from "the institution of Christ," or from "the principles of Christian unity." This separation was made long since by themselves, when they first introduced those novelties into the Church; and this separation of theirs from the pure primitive doctrine and discipline of the Church doth acquit us, and render them guilty of the schism before God and man. And therefore it is a vain and impertinent allegation of him to tell us, that "governors may lawfully declare themselves publicly and solemnly against the renouncers of their authority" by "excommunication;" unless he could shew, that the Bishop of Rome hath such an absolute sovereignty over us as he imagineth, extending itself to all those acts which are in controversy between us; and that in the exercise of the power of the Keys, they proceeded duly in a legal IV. manner; and, especially, that they did not mistake their DISCOURSE own usurpation for the "institution of Christ," as we affirm and know they did. His whole discourse about "immediate tradition," is a An answer bundle of uncertain presumptions and vain suppositions. to Mr. Ser. jeant con immediate First, he supposeth, that his "rule of so vast a multitude cerning of eye-witnesses of visible things "," is uniform and universal: tradition. but he is quite mistaken; the practice was different. The Papalins made laws for their usurpations, and the three orders of the kingdom of England made laws against them. To whom in probability should our ancestors adhere, to their own patriots, or to strangers? Secondly, he presumeth, that this uniform practice of his ancestors was invariable without any shadow of change; but it was nothing less. First investitures were in the Crown, and an oath of fidelity made to the king without any scruple, even by Lanfranc and Anselm both strangers. Afterwards the investitures were decried as profane, and the oath of fidelity forbidden. Next a new oath of allegiance was devised, of clergymen to the Pope; first only for Archbishops, then for all prelates; and this oath at first was moderate"to observe the rules of the Holy Fathers," but shortly after more tyrannous-" to maintain the royalties of Saint Peter," as their own pontificals, the old and the new, do witness 1. First when they took away investitures from the Crown, they were all for "free elections," but shortly after there was nothing to be heard of but "provisions," and such simoniacal arts. It is as easy to shape a coat for the moon, which altereth every day, as to fit one constant tradition to all these diversified practices. Thirdly, he supposeth, that all parents have judgment, to understand aright what they see, and to penetrate into the secret cabals and practices of their times; and ingenuity, void of self-interest, to relate it rightly to their posterity: but herein also he will fall much short of his aim. Most parents know what is acted publicly; but they know little what is done in the retiring room. They know who is their Bishop; I. PART but who invested him, what oaths he hath made, they are to seek. Most parents see a Bishop sit in his consistory; but by what authority he sits, whether merely by the power of the Keys, or partly by concession of the sovereign prince, they know nothing. What do they understand of any distinction between jurisdiction spiritual and ecclesiastical and political? What leg[ions] of fopperies have been brought into the Church by this oral tradition and the credulity of parents! And if all parents had judgment to understand these things, yet who shall secure us that they are void of self-interest? The philosopher found, that all the people forsook him so soon as the market-bell began to ring. Imme Lastly, he supposeth one constant succession of truth upon 344 this "tenor" or "method"" throughout many ages. Why do we hear words, when we see deeds? We see them change daily; if they had not changed, we had had no need to leave their company. I have shewed him when, and where, and by whom, all these changes, wherein they and we differ concerning discipline, did come into the Church of England; at least all those, which made the breach between us. diate oral tradition, without any further corroboration, is but a toy perpetual and universal tradition is an undeniable evidence; or so universal for time and place, that the opposers have been censured in a manner universally for heretics or heterodox. In a chain, if one link be loose, or have a notorious crack or flaw, there is little trust to be reposed in it. Then what credit is to be given to the pretended chain of tradition, where the eleven first links are altogether divided from the rest, and fastened to the hand of the sovereign prince, beyond the Pope's reach? The four next links are full of cracks and flaws, the Pope pulling at the one end, and the prince holding at the other. The last link of all, in England, is put again into the hand of the prince. Where so many centuries are wanting, he is like but to maintain a poor tradition. All this while I speak only of the external regiment of the Church. But it is a wonder to me, why he of all others should so much magnify this medium of "immediate tradition," as an ["Legends" in all the editions.] [Schism Dispatched, sect. 1. p. 484.] : IV. infallible rule for if I be not misinformed by some friends, DISCOURSE his fathers chalked out another way to him by their examples and instructions, to hold himself in the communion of the Church of England m. But let that pass as not much material. If he reduce his argument into any form, he will quickly find that it halteth on both sides. 'Whatsoever we received by immediate tradition from our fathers as the legacy of Christ, is infallibly true; but we received those points of discipline, wherein we differ, by immediate tradition from our fathers as the legacies of Christ.' I deny both his propositions; my reasons he will find formerly at large. two rules I charged him for making two distinct rules of unity, And his whereas one would have served his turn; "that he might of unity. have more opportunity to shuffle the later usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church "." For this I am lashed, as a man that "cannot or will not write common sense "," with a deal of such poor stuff not worth repeating. Cannot a man abandon his religion, unless he abandon his civility also? He might remember that I had the honour to be a Doctor in the University, I think as soon as he was a school-boy in the country. The first part of my charge is confessed by himself, that his "first principle" doth "also include the truth of the second P." If his second principle be comprehended in the first, then it is no new distinct principle, but either an inference or a tautology. But let him carve and mince his principles into shreds if he please, rather than I will draw the saw of contention about the dream of a shadow.' To the second part of my charge he answereth, that neither I, nor “any man else, can instance of any usurpation which did ever come in, either in secular or ecclesiastical government, pretending that tenor, or could come in so long as men adhered to that method ." Doth not he "pretend to that tenor?" Or, indeed, taketh it for granted, and would make us believe they do "adhere to that method." If they do not, his demonstration doth not weigh a grain. PART Yet I have shewed him heaps of usurpations, more perhaps I. than he is desirous to see. Some men have made the Pope infallible in point of Faith formerly; but he is the first that ever made him uncapable of usurping, and I think will be the last if he can persuade us with reason to be thus mad, he deserveth to have his head stroked. Go, go, Mr. Serjeant, learn better; there are more ways of erring in point of tradition either real or supposed, than "the conspiracy of a world of fathers, to tell a world of children this lie, that ten years ago they practised that which all the world besides knoweth they did not practise." Of all men jugglers pretend most to perspicuous evidence. [Mr. Serjeant's indefinite generalities.] I was contented to admit both his rules in general, to try what use he could make of them against us; but whether I use sharpness or blandishments, he is still waspish ;-" See, reader, the right Protestant method, which is to bring the controversy from a determinate state to indetermination and confusion;" I fear he will rather dislike my being too 345 distinct and particular. I have shewed him expressly what branches of Papal power we have altogether rejected, and what we are not unwilling to acknowledge, for peace' sake, if that would content him; which is more than he hath done hitherto, as much as he will do, and I fear more than he dare do; they are not free from their jealousies and dissensions at home among themselves. Hitherto he hath not adventured to let us know, into what Church he himself resolveth his faith; whether the 'virtual' Church, that is, the Pope; or the 'representative' Church, that is, a general Council; or the 'essential' Church, that is, the whole multitude of believers, whose approbation is their reception. And in this very paragraph he hath one passage, that pointeth at the last opinion, making "the consent of Catholic fathers, immediately attesting that they received this doctrine from their forefathers," to be "the infallible voice of the Church '." At other times he maketh "the extent" of Papal power to be a matter of indifferency, wherein every Church is free to hold their own opinions". In his rule of discipline, he maketh St. Peter only to be "the head, the chief, the prince S. D. [ibid.,] p. 484. S. D. [ibid.,] p. 486. |