And doubtless it never enter'd into the Heads of the Fathers, that any would ever be fo audacious as to attempt any fuch thing against Christ's own Inftitution; efpecially if we confider, that the vertue of the Sacrament depends upon Chrift's Inftitution, and to make it another thing than he inftituted feems to destroy the very Sacrament. In things of this nature, if we expect the Benefit, we must stick close to the Inftitution; I fear they will find but small Comfort, who frame concomitancies by violating the Command, and it will puzzle him to prove it not to be a better Confequence, than an half Sacrament is no Sacrament. But I forbear to proceed farther, that I may come to his Third Question.

By what Authority was fhe (the Church of Rome) otherwife reproved?

Refp. Confidering what hath been already faid, I think this Question might be neglected as needlefs, but least he fhould think we are quite deftitute of Authority, I will tell him who reproved her. The Church of Rome stands by the Council of Trent, and as foon as it was discover'd how that tricking Council proceeded, it alarm'd almost all the Nations and Churches in Europe; the Spanish Bishops, epecially the brave Archbishop of Granata, complain'd of foul Play, and being overuled in the Council, though otherwife ftrong Papifts, and were countenanc'd by their King. Be pleas'd to read the Letter of Andreas Dudithius, Bishop of Five Churches, to the Emperor Maximilian the 2d. and there he will tell you what cause there was to reprove them, and amongst other things he fignifies to this effect, That though the force of the Council was at Trent, yet their Determinations were made in the Conclave, and if the Waters happen'd to be up, they were forc'd to wait till the Holy Ghoft was fent them from Rome in a CloakBag. Monfieur de Lanfac, the French Ambaffador,

then Refident in the Council, writes to the King his Master, That the Pope was fo much Master of the Council, that his Penfioners, whatsoever the Emperor's Ambaffadors or he did remonftrate unto them, they would do what they lift. The Emperor Charles the 5th, was once fo enraged against them that he threatned to have the Cardinal Legate, Croce, thrown into the River. The Proteftants Santa were indeed invited by a mock fafe Conduct, but they were fore-judg'd unheard; for they would not admit them as Parties, but Criminals; they were not fuffer'd to debate, but to reconcile, and that upon unconscionable Terms. The whole Gallican Church expreffed their Diffatisfaction as to that Council, and whatever they have done fince did refuse to admit it, faving in that one Article of Clandeftine Marriages. When Seignior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, by Letter, ask'd Bishop Jewel why England alone neither fent any Ambaffadour to the Council, or by any Meffage excus'd her abfence; he lets him know his Mistake by another Question, asking him, Where were the Ambaffadors of the King of Denmark, of the Princes of Germany, of the King of Sweden, of the Switzers, of the Grifons, of the Hanfe-Towns, of the Realm of Scotland, of the Dukedom of Pruffia? Here is a fine Company (befides others which he mentions) who either flatly rejected it, or refolv'd to take no notice of it. And when you can make all thefe to fignifie nothing, then you may perfuade me that they were not reproved by any Authority otherwife. As to what you fay, of her being condemn'd by every one that hath a mind to condemn her, we neither approve of Bufy-Bodies nor Cenforioufuefs; but if in vindication of our own Church we are forc'd to condemn yours, you may thank your felves, who give us the juft Provocation: And if fome Men are too forward that way, you of all Men have leaft reafon to complain, be

caufe

caufe every little pragmatical Member of your Church, without Provocation, will condemn others in a more petulant, violent, and indecent manner than any of ours do fo by you. I come now to the Third and last Branch, which he fets down thus.

Schifm is a departure or divifion from the Unity of the Church, whereby the Bond and Communion held with fome former Church is broken and diffolved.

If the Church of Rome divided her felf by Schifm from any other Body of faithful Chriftians, or brake Communion, or went forth from the Society of any elder Church: Ipray fatisfy me as to these particulars. 1. Whofe Company did fhe leave?

2. From what Body did he go forth?

3. Where was the true Church which fhe forfook? It appears ftrange that a Church fhould be accounted Schifmatical, when there cannot be affigned any other Church different from her, which from Age to Age, fince Chrift's time; hath continued visible, from whence The departed?

Refp. I fhall not concern my felf about his Defcription of Schifm, but I cannot but observe, that thefe Men will not forbear their captious Terms; for why should he require us to prove, that the went forth from the Society of an Elder Church? For be the Church Elder or Younger, if the be True and Orthodox, if you renounce her Communion without juft caufe, it will make you guilty of Schifm: But if that will do him any kindness I think it no hard matter to prove, that she went off from an Elder Church: In order to which I fhall answer his first Question, which in effect anfwer all the Three.

Whofe Company did fhe leave?

Refp. She not only leaves, but infolently condemns, and what in her lies, damns all the Chriftian Churches in the World, except thofe of her own Communion; and even fome of thofe fhe bath no great love for, but is forc'd to connive at their

M 3

maintain

maintaining fome honeft doctrinal Points which fhe is highly difpleas'd with, but dares not put them under Cenfure for fear a Revolt fhould overturn her Grandeur. And indeed the Matters wherein The differs from us are generally fuch as make for the Support of her Pride, Profit and Ambition, to the great Dishonour and Damage of the Christian Caufe. Doth fhe leave no Company when she condemns no less than the Three great Patriarchates of Conftantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, of which Antioch was most certainly a Church before her? Muft the Grecian, Armenian, Egyptian, Indian and Habaffinian Churches pafs for no Company, becaufe fhe will fuffer them to be no Company for her? And indeed the Habaffinian Church, according to the account we have of it, hath Ten times more of Chrstian Simplicity in it than the Church of Rome can pretend to. But to leave other Churches to take care of themselves, it was the Church of Rome, which not only left us, but unjustly condemn'd us, and forbad all Communion with us; when Pius V. by his Bull, as infolently as falfly declar'd us to be à Chrifti Corporis unitate præcifos, i. e. cut off from the Unity of the Body of Christ. In which Bull, if you please to obferve the unlimited Power and prodigious Titles he affumes to himself, you must think that either he thought himfelf little less than a God, or that he was madder than ever Man was in Bedlam.

Any impartial indifferent Perfon would now think it needless to say any thing to the other two Questions; but because they are apt to make a great Matter of nothing, and Triumph if every Trifle be not taken notice of, I fhall briefly answer them; the first of which is this,

From what Body did she go forth?

Refp. To go forth from a Body is not properly faid of every Schifm, where a particular Church breaks in pieces, and one part feparates from the

other,

other, there the Criminal part may be faid to go out from the Sound; but where Two particular Churches fall off from Communion with each other, there they being Two diftinct Bodies, the one cannot be faid properly to go forth from the other Body, but the Schifm is made by refusing Communion to and with each other; and that Church is the guilty Party, and properly the Schifmatick, which was the Caufe of the Breach. And this is the present Cafe, and the Church of Rome is the guilty Party, not only for condemning as unjustly, but for requiring fuch Terms of, and Qualifications for Communion, as are inconfiftent with our Christian Duty, which hath been in a good measure proved, and might be farther in many more inftances. His laft Question is this.

Where was the true Church which fhe forfook?

Refp. Ours was a true Church, which the forfook, and it is a Church founded on Catholick Principles, and fo far is in Communion with all the Catholick Churches that are, or ever were. And have I not already named many other Churches which he hath forfaken? Are none of them true Churches? Are none of them baptized in Chrift's Name? Do not they profefs themselves Christians? Have they not Bishops for the Governors of their Churches? And all these are neither Phantoms nor Goblins, but visible Chriftians; and I think make as vifible Churches as any others. And though the matter depends not upon the long continuance, but the Orthodoxy of Churches, yet fome of them have continued as long, and others longer than fhe. And as for this Island, there hath been all along a Church in it, and if it was planted by any of the Apostles, as fome of their own Authors endeavour to prove, by the Britains Obfervation of Eafter, it feems to be of earlier Converfion than the Church of Rome. And thus you may fee it is a vain brag, when he faith, That there can