VII. tion of that queen's reign concerning religion, only an offer CHA P. of a disputation betwixt eight clergymen on each side, which came to nothing, but all done by the parliament's restoring what had been debated and concluded by former synods in the reigns of King Henry VIII. and Edward VI., without any new deliberation in any present synod. By this means were revived the statutes for the regal supremacy, as also of the Book of Common Prayer, as it was in the time of Edward VI., with few alterations, which included the abolition of the Romish missals. And so all this again, as far as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the reformation, is regularly superstructed on the forementioned foundation of regal supremacy, with the concurrence and advice of synods, which hath been in the former part of this discourse, I hope, sufficiently vindicated. 20. And that being granted, it cannot be here necessary or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the change thus wrought in this Church, either as branches of the reformation, or under the name or title of it. For our present enquiry being no further extended than this, whether the true Church of England, as it stands by laws established, have in reforming been guilty of schism, as that signifies in the first place a recession and departure from the obedience of our lawful superiors, and this being cleared in the negative, by this one evidence, that all was done by those to whom, and to whom only, the rightful power legally pertained, viz., the king and bishops of this nation, supposing, as now regularly we may, having competently proved it, and answered all the colours that have been offered against it, that the pope had no right to our obedience, and consequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our superiors, it is presently visible that all other matters will belong to some other heads of discourse, and consequently must be debated upon other principles; all variation from the Church of Rome in point of doctrine if it should, as I believe it will never, be proved to be unjust, falling under the head of heresy, not of schism; and for acts of sacrilege, and the like impieties, as certainly Henry VIII. and some others cannot be freed from such, they are by us as freely charged upon the actors as by any Romanist they VII. CHAP. can be; but yet sacrilege is no more schism than it is adultery, and the Church, on which one sin hath been committed, cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other. CHAP. VIII. OF THE SECOND SORT OF SCHISM, AS THAT IS AN OFFENCE AGAINST MUTUAL Three branches of the 1. But beside that first species of schism, as it is an offence against the subordination which Christ hath by Himself and His apostles settled in the Church, from the guilt of which I have hitherto endeavoured to vindicate our Church, another was taken notice of as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity, and peace, and charity which Christ left among His disciples and to that I must now proceed as far as the accusations of the Romanist give us occasion to vindicate our innocence. : 2. And for method's sake this branch of schism may be subdivided into three species. The first is a breach in the second sort doctrines or traditions, a departure from the unity of the of schism. faith which was once delivered to the saints; under that head also comprehending the institutions of Christ, of His apostles, and of the universal Church of the first and purest ages, whether in government or other the like observances and practices. The second is an offence against external peace and communion ecclesiastical. The third and last is the want of that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian. Beside these I cannot foresee any other species of schism, and therefore the vindicating our reformation from all grounds of charge of any of these three will be the absolving the whole task undertaken in these sheets. 1. A departure from the unity of doc trines, or 3. For the first it may be considered either in the bullion or in the coin, in the gross or in the retail, either as it is a departure from those rules appointed by Christ for the foundtraditions ing and upholding His truth in the Church, this unity of docapostoli- trine, &c., or else as it is the asserting any particular branch of doctrine contrary to Christ's and the apostolical, pure Church's establishment. cal. VIII. from this, branches. In the first, 4. And here it is first suggested by the Romanist, that by CHA P. casting out the authority of the bishop of Rome, we have cast Our off the head of all Christian unity, and so must needs be Church guilty of schism in this first respect. To which the answer is vindicated obvious, 1. that the bishop of Rome was never appointed by in two Christ to be the head of all Christian unity, or that Church to be the conservatory for ever of all Christian truth, any Christ's more than any other bishop or Church of the Apostles' ordain- upholding ing or planting, and whatever can be pretended for the con- the truth." trary will be easily answered from the grounds already laid and cleared in the former part of this discourse concerning the universal pastorship of St. Peter's successors, which must not be here so unnecessarily repeated. rules for 5. Secondly, that the way provided by Christ and His Apostles for the preserving the unity of the faith, &c., in the Church, is fully acknowledged by us, and no way supplanted by our reformation. That way is made up of two acts of apostolical providence; first, their resolving upon some few heads of special force and efficacy to the planting of Christian life through the world, and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation; 2ndly, their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior officers of the Church to the bishop of the city; of the bishops in every province to their metropolitans; of the metropolitans in every region or Stormous to patriarchs, or primates; allowing also among these such a primacy of order or dignity as might be proportionable to the potos Sluwv in the Scrip- [Matt. x, ture, and agreeable to what is by the ancient canons allowed 2.] to the bishop of Rome. And this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses, and when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating councils, provincial, patriarchal, general, as hath formerly been shewed. And all this, it is most certain, asserted and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England, as zealously as is pretended by any Romanist. And from hence, by the way, that speech of the learned and excellent Hugo Grotius, which I discern to be made use of by the Romanists, and looked on with jealousy by others, will I suppose receive its due importance and interpretation in his Rivet. Apologet. Dis CHAP. cuss., p. 255, Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque corpus, &c. VIII. 6. As for the subjection and dependence of this Church to the monarchic power of the bishop of Rome, this will never be likely to tend to the unity of the whole body, unless first all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too, and were obliged, and so by duty morally ascertained always to continue it,-which it is evident the eastern Churches had not done long before the time of our pretended departure, and 2, unless the bishop of Rome were in all probability able to administer that vast province, so as would be most to the advantage of the whole body; for which, whether he be fitly qualified or no, as it is not demonstrable in Ex [This book was originally published anonymously, with the title, "Rivetiani Apologetici pro Schismate contra votum pacis facti, discussio," 8vo. Irenop. 1645, and may be found in the fourth volume of the collected works of Grotius, pp. 677-745. The passage referred to is at the conclusion of the treatise, and is as follows: Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque corpus, semper optatam a Grotio, sciunt, qui eum norunt. istimavit autem aliquando, etiam postquam innotuerat illustrissimo D. Vairio, incipi posse a Protestantium inter se conjunctione. Postea vidit id plane fieri nequire; quia, præterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia ferme omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima, Protestantes nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur: quæ causæ sunt, cur factæ partes in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant; imo et cur partes aliæ atque aliæ sint exsurrecturæ. Quare nunc plane ita sentit Grotius, et multi cum ipso, non posse Protestantes inter se jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum iis, qui sedi Romanæ cohærent; sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen. Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio quæ evenit, et causæ divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas causas non est primatus Episcopi Romani secundum canonas, fatente Melanchthone, qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem. Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere pontificis libidini, sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum. Quæ deinde ex epistola Vairii infert D. Rivetus, nec veri quic quam habent, nec veri speciem, sed, si D. Riveti vocibus apud ipsum uti licet, sine fronte malitiam. Nam si Grotius, tanto viro invitante, id voluisset promittere, quod eum promisisse fingit D. Rivetus, poterat ille, per malos Calvinistas exutus patria, exutus bonis, ampla illa honorum et commodorum promissa adipisci, quæ a Rege Galliæ nunquam aut habuit aut speravit; neque illi opus fuisset exire Gallia et regni alterius rebus operam suam addicere. Et nunc quoque, cum omnia adferat ad pacem Ecclesiæ restituendam quæ potest, nihil illi dat Gallia, et si dare velit, nihil ille accipiat. Sed viles venalesque animæ alios de se æstimant: neque oculos habent quibus propositi tam honesti, quam privatim inutilis, pulchritudinem conspiciant. Quod Cassandro licuit etiam antequam ab imperatorum ullo ad id excitaretur, sponte sua ad publicum incendium restinguendum aquas adferre, cur Grotio non licuit? Mornæus Plessiacus, cum maximos a Rege, jam Catholico, honores haberet, contra Catholicos scripsit, et quidem acerbissime, ad fovendas partes: et ob id laudatur a D. Riveto, ejusque similibus. Grotius, quod ei de publicis negotiis restat temporis, in id impendit, ut Catholici intelligant, eos qui confessionem Augustanam sequuntur, non ita longe ab illis abesse, quin in corpus unum redire cum ipsis possint: et ob id impetitur calumniis. Sed Deus pacis et pacificos amabit animos, et eorum votis implendis vias reperiet, quas nos pervidere nondum possumus.] ... VIII. the causes, so is it to be looked on as a politic problem, the CHAP. \truth of which belongs to prudent persons, and such as are by God entrusted with the flock to judge of, i. e. to the princes, the nursing-fathers of every Church, who are prudentially and fatherly to determine for themselves and those that are under them what is most ordinable to that end, and cannot be obliged to conclude further than the motives or premises will bear, to decree what they do not reasonably and cordially believe. second, Church of particular 7. Lastly, for the particular doctrines wherein we are In the affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the unity of the particular faith, and so by departing from the unity to be schismatical, doctrines. as heretical by departing from the faith, this must be contested by a strict survey of the particular doctrines, wherein as we make no doubt to approve ourselves to any that will judge of the apostolical doctrines and traditions by the Scriptures, and consent of the first three hundred years, or the four general councils,—the most competent witnesses of apo- The stolical traditions, so we shall secure ourselves of our inno- England's cence in this behalf, by that principle acknowledged in our temper in Church, and owned as the rule by which we are concluded respect of in any debate or controversy: that whatever is contrary to doctrines. the doctrine or practices of those first and purest ages shall by us, as soon as it thus appears, be renounced and disclaimed also. Which resolution of ruliness and obedience will I suppose conserve us in the unity of the faith, and render us approvable to God, though our ignorance, thus unaffected, should betray us to some misunderstandings of those first times, and be an instrument much more probable to "lead us into all truth" than the supposed infallibility of the Church of Rome can be imagined to be, which as it leaves the proudest presumer really as liable to error as him that acknowledgeth himself most fallible, so it ascertains him to persevere incorrigible whether in the least or greatest error, which by fault or frailty he shall be guilty of. 8. This consideration of the humble, docile temper of our Church, together with our professed appeal to those first and purest times to stand or fall, as by those evidences we shall be adjudged,—as it necessarily renders it our infelicity, not our crime, if in judging of Christ's truth we should be |