not convinced of any error in them and surely the bare damning of us is not any such matter of conviction so there is a double uncharitableness 1. of being angry without cause and expressing that anger in very ill language of which that of Heretick and Schismatick is the mildest and each of those causlesse too if they be affixt to any particular man much more to a whole Church before either of them be sufficiently proved against us For certainly as the Romanist's judgment concerning us if it be false may yet be but error not malice by which this Gentleman here justifies himself from want of charity so our opinions and perswasions of the erroneousness of their doctrines and sinfulness of their practices if possibly they be not true also are still as justly and equitably capable of the same excuse that they are involuntary errors and then by their own rule cannot justly fall under such their rigid censures which belong to none but voluntary offenders Num. 4 Secondly the indevouring to insnare and pervert fearful or feeble minds using these terrors as the Lyon doth his roaring to intimidate the prey and make it not rationally but astonishtly fall down before them And as the offering due grounds of conviction to him that is in error may justly be deemed charity so this tender of nothing but frights without offer of such grounds of conviction is but leading men into temptation to sin against conscience to dissimulation c. and so the hating the brother in the heart Lev. 19. the more than suffering sin upon him Num. 5 To these might be not unseasonably added a farther consideration which hath carried weight with the Fathers of the Church in all times that seeing the Censures of the Church were left there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for edification not for destruction and are onely designed to charitative ends must never be used to any other purpose therefore when obedience it utterly cast off the band be it of subordination or co-ordination so broken that the issuing out of Censures cannot expect to compose but onely to widen the breach not to mollifie but exasperate there Christian prudence is to indevour by milder waies what severity is not likely to effect and so the thunderbolts to be laid up till there may be some probability of doing good by them Num. 6 But this is not the case as it really lies betwixt Rome and us save onely as à majori it may be accommodated to us we have cast off neither obedience to any to whom it was due nor charity to those who have least to us nor truth to the utmost of our understandings and yet we must be cast out and anathematized and after all that condemned as wilful schismaticks i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dividers and condemners of our selves because we quietly submit to that fate which will cost us too dear the wounding and disquiet of our conscience to qualifie our selves for a capacity of getting out of it Num. 7 What he adds of their highest tribunal the Churches voice which hath passed this judgment against us belongs I suppose to those Bishops of Rome which have sent out their Bulls against us and therefore I must in reason adde that those are principally guilty of this schisme and so their successors principally obliged to retract and reform the sin of it and after them all others in the order and measure that they have partaked in this guilt with them Num. 8 And there can be no greater charity than to beseech all in the bowels of Christ to return to the practice of that charity which hath too long been exiled from among Christian Professors CHAP. XI An Answer to the Exceptions made to the last Chapter Sect. I. Of the present state of the Church of England The Catholicks promise for eternity to his Church Roma aeterna Particular Churches perishable Mr. Hooker's prediction of the Church The power of the secular Magistrate to remove Bishops Sees not to make Bishops The Councel of Florence concerning the Popes supremacy c. Marcus's opinion of it Joseph Methonens his answer briefly examined Num. 1 THE last part of this Gentleman's indevour is to perswade men that the Church of England is not onely persecuted but destroyed and of that he means to make his advantage to fetch in Proselytes being out of his great charity very sensible of their estate unwilling they should sit any longer in the vault or charnel house to communicate with shades when they are invited to a fairer sunshine in a vital and very flourishing society Thus then he begins his reply to the 11th Chapter Num. 2 In the last Chapter he complaineth of the Catholicks for reproaching them with the losse of their Church and arguing with their disciples in this sort Communion in some Church even externally is necessary but you cannot now communicate with your late Church for that hath no subsistence therefore you ought to return to the Church from whence you went out truly in this case I think they ought to pardon the Catholick who hath or undoubtedly is perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church and experience in the execution of that promise for 16 Ages in which none other can compare with him and sees another Church judged by one of the learnedst and most prudent persons confessedly that ever was among them to be a building likely to last but 80 years and to be now torn up by the roots and this done by the same means by which it was setled I say if this Catholick believe his eyes he is at least to be excused and though I know the Doctor will reply his Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained yet let him remember how inconsequent this is to what be hath said before for ask him how it doth remain in being if there be no such Bishops or Presbyters among them for his defense against the Church of Rome is that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters from whence it will follow that as they were set up by a secular authority so are they pulled down and unbishoped by another secular authority if it be said the Parliament that pulled them down had not the three bodies requisite to make a Parliament no more had that which set them up for the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation so that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up but it will be replied that though they are pulled down yet are they still Bishops viz the character remains upon them Alas what is their Character if their mission of Preaching and Teaching be extinguished which follows their jurisdiction which jurisdiction the Doctor makes subject to the secular authority so that whatsoever characters their Bishops and Presbyters pretend to have they have according to his principles no power over the laity and so no character can
to give Lawes and those Lawes oblige Subjects to obedience and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Lawes And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to binde belief c. Num. 12 As for the Catholick or Roman Church 1. that is a misprision the Catholick is not the single Roman Church nor the Roman the Catholick 2. There no where appears any such definition either of the Catholick i. e. Vniversall Church of God or particularly of the Roman Church no act of Councell representative of that Church no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility 3. If any such definition did appear it could no way be foundation of belief to us who doe not believe that Church or any definition thereof as such to be infallible Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the termes 1. what is meant by can lie 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no 3. By power to binde 4 By belief as every of these have a latitude of signification and may be easily mistaken till they are duly limited It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Churches affirmation nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth which shall be found in it Num. 14 1. The phrase can lie may denote no more than such a possibility of erring as yet is joyned neither with actuall error nor with any principle whether of deficiency on one side nor of malignity on the other which shall be sure to betray it into error Thus that particular Church that is at the present in the right in all matters of faith and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions together with the traditions and doctrines of the antient and Primitive Church and having skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture and ability to inquire into the antient path and to compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Vniversall Church and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble and ardent and continuall prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth This Church I say is yet fallible may affirm and teach false i. e. this is naturally possible that it may but it is not strongly probable that it will as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining Num. 15 2. That Churches knowledge whether it define truly or no in any proposition may signifie no more than a full perswasion or belief cui non subest dubium wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is the very truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Num. 16 3. By power to binde may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions when difficulties arise to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church which we may doe without thinking them simply or by any promise of God inerrable or infallible as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning and giving unreasonable commands and such as wherein it is unlawfull to yeild obedience to them Num. 17 Beside this there may farther be meant by it a generall obligation that lies on all men to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy and this obligation is again the greater when that which is thus convincingly proposed is proposed by our superiors from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will Num. 18 Lastly Believing may signifie not an implicite irrational blinde but a well-grounded rationall explicite belief of that which as the truth of God is duely proposed to us or again where there is not that degree of manifestation yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable on the grounds afforded to judge by or when the person is not competent to search grounds a bare yeilding to the judgment of superiours and deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to their own judgment a believing so farre as not to disbelieve And this again may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the Rulers and Governors of it without deeming them inerrable or infallible Num. 19 Nay where the proposition defined is such that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yeild any such degree of belief unto it yet he that believes it not may behave himself peaceably and reverently either duely representing his grounds why he cannot consent to it or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him quietly enjoy his contrary opinion And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church as the perswasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to doe Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms and the limitations they are capable of it is now not so difficult to discern in what sense the proposition under consideration is false and in what sense it is true and by us acknowledged to be so Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions c. and to require inferiors so farre to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent that no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place in what sense it is true which in the following words is suggested of Protestants that they binde men to a Profession of Faith and how injustly it is added that supposing them not to be infallibe it is unjust tyrannical and self-condemnation to the binders The contrary whereto is most evident understanding the obligation with that temper and the infallibity in that notion wherein it is evident we understand
of schisme and such as all times were capable of and inlarged not to those other of accidentall emergencies 3. Because they are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many communions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should be regularly assembled Num. 13 As for those that are already past and are on due grounds to be acknowledged truly Oecumenicall the communion which is possible to be had or broken with them is that of compliance with or recession from their definitions and our innocence in that respect is avowed p. 160. as the congregating of the like when possible and probable toward the end is recommended p. 158. as a supply when there should be need of extraordinary remedies Num. 14 Lastly If none of this had been done or if this had not been undertaken so solemnly and formally as some other supposed branches of schism were in that Tract yet the account of that is visible to any because the principal sort of schisme charged by the Romanist on the Church of England is that of casting out the Bishop of Rome not contemning the authority of Councels and therefore I was in reason to apply my discourse most largely and particularly to that head to which their objections not my own choice directed me So evidently contrary to the notoriety of the fact is this complaint of this Gentleman that my division of schism was insufficient and that I took no notice of this as he pleases to call it conciliatory authority Num. 15 That to make his suggestion seem more probable he advisedly chose to change the tearms of my division from that which was against Paternal to that which is against Monarchical power upon this apprehension that Paternal power would visibly include that of the Fathers in Councel assembled as well as in several but Monarchical power could not so fitly bear it I shall not enter into his secrets to divine This I am sure of that the unanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches cannot with any propriety as by him it is be defined a branch of Conciliatory authority for certainly the Churches dispersed are not met together the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dispersion of the Jewes differed much from the Councel assembled at Jerusalem and the Christian Church at this day is without question no Oecumenical Councel Num. 16 And then what authority scattered members can have which never legally command or exercise authority but when they are in conjunction I shall not here make stay to demonstrate whatsoever there is of this nature will most properly be comprised under the head of communion or unity Fraternal and the schisme which is a transgression of that being at large handled also Chap. 8. 9 10. there was no insufficiency in any justice to be charged on this division Sect. II. Of the extent of the Roman Province The Bishops of Italy distinct from those that belong to Rome The Ecclesiastical distributions agreeable with the Civil Ruffinus vindicated Num. 1 THe second charge on this Chapter is about the extent of the Roman Patriarchie in these words Num. 2 In this Chap he telleth us many things some true some not so but all either common to us both or not appertaining to the controversie untill he concludes that certainly the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it self to all Italy and this he does out of a word in Ruffinus which he supposeth to be taken in a speciall propriety of law whereas indeed that author's knowledge in Grammar was not such as should necessarily exact any such belief especially learned men saying the contrary Num. 3 The place to which this exception belongs is not set down by this Gentleman but by annexing the testimony out of Ruffinus I discern it to be that of pag. 52. where speaking of the Picenum suburbicarium and Annonarium I say the former belonged to the Praefecture of Rome the latter with the seven Provinces in the broader part of Italy belonged to the Diocese as it was antiently called of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Num. 4 This being the affirmation which he excepteth against I did not nor yet doe make any question of vindicating and defending it against any objection Num. 5 That learned men say the contrary is here suggested in the close but as there is not one learned man named nor testimony produced which therefore amounts no higher than the bare opinion or affirmation of this one Gentleman without any one reason or authority to support it so when any such learned mens names and testimonies shall be produced it will be easie to shew that there is very little of their learning exprest in so saying Num. 6 On the other side I had pag. 50. in the margent referred to some testimonies whereon my assertion was founded viz those which manifestly distinguisht the Province of the Bishop of Rome from the Province of Italy which could not have had truth in them if the Province of the Patriarch of Rome extended to all Italy Num. 7 Such was that of Eusebius distinctly mentioning the Bishops of the Cities of Italy and the Bishops that belong to the City of the Romans The testimony out of the Edict of the Emperor Aurelian in the controversie betwixt Paulus Samosatenus and Domnus where it is decreed that the house about which they contended should be delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those to whom the Bishops through Italy and the City of the Romans should decree it Num. 8 The like was that of the Councel of Sardice set down in Athanasius in the title of their Epistle to the Alexandrians Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Synod by God's grace assembled at Sardice from Rome and Spain France Italy c. Num. 9 So in Athanasius's declaration of his own affairs and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreement of many Bishops with him he specifies who and how many they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were more than four hundred both from great Rome and from all Italy and from Calabria c. Where the Bishops of the Roman Province are distinguisht from the Bishops of Italy as those again from the Bishops of Calabria c. Num. 10 So among the names prefixt to the first Councel of Arles we have ex provinciâ Italiae civitate Mediclanensi c. ex urbe Româ quos Sylvester Episcopus misit ex Provinciâ Romanâ civitate Portuensi c. of the Province of Italy from the city of Milan c. from the city of Rome those Whom Bishop Sylvester sent of the Province of Rome from the City of Porta c. such and such were assembled at that Councel where again the matter is clear as to the distinction of those Provinces of Rome and Italy the former under the presidency of the Bishop of Rome the later of the Bishop of Milan Num. 11 By
this it might have appeared to this Gentleman if as he pleased to mention the much Greek in his Preface so he had been at leisure to consider the importance of it that beside the testimony which he will call a word of Ruffinus I had made use of other waies of proof that the presidency of the Bishop of Rome I suppose that he must mean by the Roman Patriarchie did not extend it self to all Italy Num. 12 Again after the testimony of Ruffinus I mentioned another evidence from the proportioning Ecclesiastical jurisdictions to the Temporal of the Lieutenants This may appear in thesi by the words of Origen of which I shall now because I did not there take notice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is fit that the Prefect of the Church of each City should correspond to the Governour of those which are in the City And that so it was appears by the second Canon of the Councel of Constantinople where the jurisdictions of the Bishops are still proportioned to the condition of the Cities where they were the Bishop of Alexandria to have power over all Aegypt the Metropolis whereof was Alexandria and so in the rest And this is in the Tract of Schism largely deduced and cleared also p. 54 55 c. and need not be here again repeated And so here was more again than the word of Ruffinus for what I said Num. 13 Lastly that for which Ruffinus was cited being but this that the Bishop of Rome was authorized by the Nicene Canon to take care of the suburbicarian regions I could not sure be mistaken in thinking that he took the word suburbicarian in such a propriety I say not of law but of common language as will conclude the Picenum suburbicarium to belong to the Roman Prefecture as the Annonarium did to the Diocese of Italy Num. 14 And certainly Ruffinus that lived so neer after the Councel of Nice and that in Italy a Presbyter of Aquileia knew how that was distributed in his time better than this Gentleman at this distance can pretend to doe may also be allowed to know so much of Grammar as to expresse his own sense in a Paraphrase of that Nicene Canon Num. 15 In a matter so clear I shall adde no more but the words of a most excellent person Jac Leschasserius in his Consultatio ad Claris Venet Ruffino bellum indicunt scriptores Romani hujus temporis c. The Romanists of this time are displeased with Ruffinus not knowing what Churches they were which the Nicene Canon understands to be under the first and ordinary power of the Pope Whereas Ruffinus understood it of the Churches of the suburbicarian Provinces and regions which are four the first the Roman with the bounds of the Prefecture of the City and three other with which that is incompast All Campania Picenum suburbicarium and Tuscia suburbicaria of which there is frequent mention in the Notitiae of the Roman Empire And of this the same Authour hath written a learned Tract And so here is a distinct testimony of a very learned man and this is a sufficient answer to his bare indefinite affirmation that learned men say the contrary Sect. III. The identity of the office of Primates and Patriarchs the authorities of Gratian and Anacletus and Anicetus Num. 1 THe third charge wherein this third Chapter is concerned remains about the identity of the office of Primates and Pâ—triarchs in these words Num. 2 Then he telleth you that the office of Primates and Patriarchs was the same onely authorising that affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus the which as soon as occasion serveth he will tell you is of no authority but fictitious Num. 3 What I said of Primates and Patriarchs that though the Patriarchs had the precedence in Councels the deference in respect of place yet the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs and the office the same I thought had sufficiently been evidenced to the Romanist p. 58. For as one manifest indication of it was there mentioned viz that in Authors the very titles are confounded witness Justinian who commonly gives Primates the name of Patriarchs of the Dioceses so the reference to those two authorities so acknowledged and owned by the Romanists the Epistle of Anacletus and the Decree of Gratian seemed to me to put it out of all question Num. 4 For in the body of their Canon Law corrected and set out by Pope Gregory XIII as Gratian's decree makes up the first and principall part so in that par 1. distinct 99. we have these words De Primatibus autem quaeritur quem gradum in Ecclesiâ tenuerint an in aliquo à Patriarchis differant The question is made concerning Primates what degree they have in the Church and whether in any thing they differ from Patriarchs And the answer is Primates Patriarchae diversorum sunt nominum sed ejusdem officii Primates and Patriarchs are of different names but of the same office Num. 5 What could have been said more punctually and expresly to the business in hand What more authentick and dilucid testimony could have been produced to any Romanist with whom I had to doe And 't is a little strange that this Gentleman should say that I onely authorize my affirmation from an Epistle of Anacletus and then either he or some Supervisor for him put in as a marginal note He urgeth Gratian too When 1. if I urged Gratian I did not urge Anacletus onely and 2. it is evident I did urge Gratian as punctually as Anacletus and 3. Gratian's words are so expresse as nothing can be more and 4. Gratian's authority with them is as great as any could have been produced and 5. there is not one word offered to avoid the force of Gratian's testimony as to that other of Anacletus there is which argues that this Gentleman was concluded by Gratian yet would not consent to the proposition unanswerably inferred from him And this may suffice to be noted concerning that testimony Num. 6 Then for Anacletus 1. his words are these Provinciarum divisio ab Apostolis est renovata The division of Provinces was renued by the Apostles Et in capite Provinciarum Patriarchas vel Primates qui unam formam tenent licèt diversa sint nomine leges divinae Ecclesiasticae poni esse jusserunt ad quos Episcopi si necesse fuerit confugerent eosque appellarent And in the head of the Province Patriarchs or Primates who hold the same form are of the same nature though they be divers names are placed by divine and Ecclesiasticall laws so that to them the Bishops when 't is needfull may resort and make their appeals This testimony again as punctuall to the purpose as could have been devised Num. 7 And then secondly this being by the Romanists received as a Decretall Epistle of that Pope and antient Bishop of Rome was in reason whatsoever
the future you will not easily admit those who have come to you from hence and that you will not receive to your communion those who are excommunicate by us seeing the Councell of Nice hath thus defined as you may easily discern Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene and by the Nicene out of the Apostolick Canon it is evident that the Bishop of Rome hath not power to absolve any person excommunicate by any Bishop of another Province and that 't is unlawfull for any such to make appeal to him which certainly will conclude against every the most inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Vniversal Church Num. 9 If this be not enough then adde the 34 Apostolick Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops of every nation must know him that is the first among them i. e. their Primate and account him as their head Which sure inferres that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely head of all Bishops The same is afterward transcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris so again Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The Pope of Rome is not to be called Vniversal Bishop citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur quia si unus Patriarcha unversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur No Patriarch must ever use the title of Vniversal for if one be called universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest And more to the same purpose the very thing that I was here to prove Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria where refusing the title of Vniversalis Papa Vniversal Pope or Father or Patriarch and calling it superbae appellaetionis verbum a proud title he addes si enim Vniversalem me Papam vestra Sanctit as dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur Vniversum If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope universal Father he doth thereby deny himself to be that which he affirms the Pope to be universally The meaning is clear If the Pope be universal Patriarch then is he Patriarch of Aegypt for sure that is a part of the Vniverse and then as there cannot be two supremes so the Bishop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Aegypt which yet from S. Mark 's time was generally resolved to belong to him and the words of the Nicene Canon are expresse to it that according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original Primitive customes the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seeing this is also customary with the Bishop of Rome of Antioch c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the privileges should be preserved to the Churches Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope yea and that great Councel were perfectly unconcluding inconsequent as mine was said to be if the Bishop of Rome or any other had power over Patriarchs or authority over the universal Church which here this Gentleman is pleased to affirm and so sure must think Gregory more than fallible when he thus protested and disputed the contrary Num. 13 How much higher than this the same Gregory ascended in expressing his detestation of that title is sufficiently known from his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor In regist 1. 4. Ep 30. I shall not here trouble him with the recitation of it Num. 14 What is after these passages set down in their body of the Law shews indeed that the Popes continued not alwaies of this minde Neither was I of opinion that they did the story being known to all how Boniface III. with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome see Paul Diac de Gest is Romanorum l. 18. which yet is an argument that till then it had no foundation Num. 15 Whether there were antiently any such higher than Patriarchs and whether now there ought to be was the question before me and both those I must think concluded by what I have here set down as farre as relates to any true i. e. original right from any appointment of â—hrist or title of succession to S. Peter Num. 16 Much more might be easily added to this head if it were not evident that this is much more than was necessary to be replied to a bare suggestion without any specifying what that power is which may belong to the Pope over the Vniversal Church though convoking of Councels did not belong to him and without any offer of proof that any such did really belong to him CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists pretensions founded in S. Peters universal Pastership Of Possession without debating of Right What Power the Pope was possest of here Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap his objections begin to grow to some height they are reducible to three heads the first is by way of Preface a charge of a very considerable default in the whole discourse that I remember not what matters I handle the other two are refutations of the two evidences I use to disprove the Popes claim of universal Trimacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter The first of the three is set down in these words Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more than to any King who received his Kingdome from his Ancestors time out of minde to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof untill the contrary be convinced as who should rebell against such a King were a Rebell untill he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may be prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such authority from Christ lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and will doe so untill the very last Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap 4. is visibly this The Church of England being by the Romanist charged of schism in departing from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and this upon pretense that
the twelve Apostles also And so considering what I had already done my self and what others had done much more largely there remained little appearance of force in those texts which might suggest to me a more diligent survey of them And all these together if not two of them alone were a competent reason of passing lightly over them in that fift Chapter where I was ingaged in a new stage i. e. of not returning afresh and loco non suo to a yet larger consideration of them Num. 8 I should now from this notice of his displeasure indevour to pacifie him by reforming my former omission and enter upon a yet more solemn survey of these two texts but that I see him already resolved not to trust his cause to the support which those texts can afford him telling me in the close that he relies not onely on such places of Scripture and if I should dwell longer upon them I should be thought impertinent and again reprehended as forgetting what matter I handle And therefore till he please to tell me how farre he relies on them and shew me that I have not yet removed them from being a foundation so farre to be relied on I shall spare mine own and the Readers pains and flatter my self that I have said much more to invalidate any conclusion which he shall inferre to his advantage from these two places than he hath yet said in my hearing to confirm his pretensions from both or either of them Sect. II. The Bishop of Antioch's title from succession to S. Peter equal to the Bishops of Rome Peter formed a Church there His dying at Rome no argument Num. 1 AFter his velitation he now proceeds to the weightier impression excepting first to an argument taken from the Primogeniture of Antioch Thus Num. 2 Next he urgeth that if the succession to S. Peter were the base of the Popes supremacy Antioch should be the chief See because S. Peter sat there wherein to omit his first and second question whereof the first is untrue I answer to the third negatively that the constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before at Rome did conferre no privilege extraordinary on that Church and the reason is clearly deduced out of his second Quaere because it was before Rome for he could not give any such authority but by divesting himself since there cannot be two heads to one body and therefore this authority and privilege of S. Peter can rest and be no where but where he died Num. 3 In this matter I must first premise what I had warned the Reader of in that 5 Chap. § 2. that what I there produced against the power of the Bishop of Rome under the notion of successour to S. Peter was perfectly ex abundanti more than needed the whole matter being sufficiently concluded in the former Chapter which concerned S. Peter's person and had shewed that S. Peter himself had no Vniversal Pastorship belonging to him or supremacy over any other Apostle from whence it was evidently consequent that to his successour as such no such power pertained Num. 4 This being premised I did not pretend that what should then follow should proceed with that evidence as to demonstrate again what was so sufficiently cleared already Onely to those whose curiosity was not satisfied when their reason was I proposed some considerations which pretended to no more than this that beside that Peter had no supremacy there were also other defects in the Bishop of Rome's tenure particularly this that he did no more succeed S. Peter than the Bishop of Antioch did nay that S. Peter having left a successour Bishop at Antioch before he did at Rome the Bishop of Antioch had in a manner the Primogeniture and by that as good if not a better title to praeeminence as any the Bishop of Rome had upon that tenure of succession from S. Peter Num. 5 Now to this part of discourse which pretended but to probability there can lie no exception unlesse it appear either to be untrue in any part or in the whole lesse probable than what is offered by the Romanist for the other side And this is now to be examined Num. 6 And 1. saith he the first question is untrue But he is so reserved as not to expresse his reason for so saying I shall therefore give my reasons to the contrary 1. because a question cannot be untrue all truth and falshood being in affirmations and negations and asking a question or proposing a thing to consideration whether it be so or no is neither of those in answering not in asking of questions Num. 7 Secondly Because this question being resolved into an affirmation viz that Peter as truely planted a Church at Antioch and left a successour Bishop there as he is or can be supposed to have done at Rome it relies on the uncontradicted Testification of antient writers Num. 8 By planting a Church I mean not that he was the first that preacht the Gospel at Antioch though Leo the Great seems to affirm it in Antiochenà Ecclesiâ primùm praedicante beato Apostolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est Ep 53. and from thence pleads the right of precedence to belong to that Church in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret against Anatholius Bishop of Constantinople for that seems by S. Luke to be attributed to those that were scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about S. Stephen Act. 11. 19. but his forming them into a Church or regular assembly And that so he did and left Euodius Bishop there and after his death Ignatius the Martyr is elsewhere manifested at large and I shall not repeat it but onely adde one Testimony which I suppose will be authentick with him of Leo the Great Bishop of Rome Ep 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch bidding him be mindfull of that doctrine quam praecipuus Apostolorum omnium beatissimus Petrus per totum mundum quidem uniformi praedicatione sed speciali Magisterio in Antiochenâ Romanâ urbe fundavit Where it is the clear affirmation of that Pope that S. Peter founded the doctrine of Christ first in Antioch then in Rome by a special authority or power or magisterie which he had in those two cities more than in the rest of the world And so I cannot guesse what untruth there could be in that affirmation if it had been such which was but a consideration or question as he calls it Num. 9 Next he saith that S. Peter's constituting a Church and Bishop at Antioch before he did the like at Rome is a proof that he conferred no extraordinary privilege on Antioch and renders the reason for it because he could not doe it without divesting himself and consequently this privilege must rest no where but where he died and consequently at Rome onely because he died there Num. 10 That he left any extraordinary privilege at Antioch I doe not believe any more than he did so at Rome and therefore
be made of any Bishop as head and Pastor and of the People as body and flock and consequently their Church is gone But we account our selves Bishops and Priests not from an authority dependent upon Princes or inherited from Augustus or Nero but from Peter and Paul and so shall stand and continue whatsoever Princes or secular powers decree when they according to their doctrines and arguments are not to wonder if they be thrown down by the same authority that set them up and as the Synagogue was a Church to have an end so is this with this difference that the Synagogue was a true Church in reference to a better but this is a counterfeit tyranical one to punish a better As concerning the Doctors prayer for Peace and Communion all good people will joyne with him if he produce Fructus dignos poenitentiae especially i he acknowledge the infallibility of the Church and supremacy of the Pope the former is explicated sufficiently in divers Books the latter is expressed in the Councel of Florence in these words viz. we define that the Holy Apostolical See and the Bishop of Rome have the primacy over all the world and that the Bishop of Rome is successor to S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and truly Christs Vicar and head of the whole Church and the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that there was given him in Saint Peter from Christ a full power to feed direct and governe the Catholike Church So farre the Councel Without obeying this the Doctor is a Schismatick and without confessing the other an Heretick but let him joyne with us in these all the rest will follow Num. 3 I shall not here repeat my complaint if it were indeed such and not rather a bare proposing of a last foreseen objection against us knowing how little compassion any sufferings of ours may expect to receive from this Gentleman I shall onely joyne issue with his tenders of proof that our Church hath now no subsistence but yet before I doe so take notice of one part of his arguing viz. that the Catholike hath or is undoubtedly perswaded he hath a promise for eternity to his Church Where certainly the fallacie is very visible and sufficient to supersede if he shall advert to it his undoubted perswasion For what promise of eternity can this Gentleman here reflect on undoubtedly that of the Church of Christ indefinitely that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Mat. 16. 18. Num. 4 What is the full importance of that phrase is elsewhere largely shewed and need not be here any farther repeated than that the promise infallibly belongs not to any particular Church of any one denomination but to the whole body Christ will preserve to himselfe a Church in this world as long as this world lasteth in despight of all the malice cunning or force of men and devills Num. 5 Now that this is no security or promise of eternity to any particular Church whether of Rome or England any more than of Thyatira or Laodicea which contrary to any such promise is threatned to be Spued out Rev. 3. 16. is in it self most evident because the destroying any one particular Church is reconcileable with Christs preserving some other as the Species of mankinde is preserved though the Gentleman and I should be supposed to perish and because the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Church which is there the subject of the discourse is not the Romanist or in that sense the Catholike his Church as is here suggested but the Church of Christ built upon the foundation of the Apostles of which Simon is there said to be one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e stone or foundation-stone so as he was of other Churches beside that of Rome and so as others were of other Churches which he never came neere and even of this of Rome Saint Paul as well as he Num. 6 From hence therefore by force of this promise which as truly belongs to every Church as it doth to Rome but indeed belongs to no particular but to the Christian Church to conclude that the Church of Rome is eternall is a first ungrounded perswasion in this Gentleman the very same as to conclude a particular is an universal or that the destruction of one part is the utter dissolution of the whole and the proof from experience of 16. ages which is here added is a strange way of argumentation such as that Methusalem might have used the very day before his death to prove that he should never dye and the very same that Heathen Rome did use at the time of their approaching destruction calling her selfe Vrbem aeternam the eternali City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome the Heaven-City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rome a Goddesse which accordingly had by Adrian a Temple erected to it and the Emperors thereof and the very name of the place worshipt as a deity More Deae nomenque loci seu numen adorant and all this upon this one score that it had stood and prospered so long Num. 7 The like may be affirmed of the Church of the Jewes built upon a promise which had more of peculiarity to the seed of Abraham than this of Mat. 16. can be imagined to have to the Church of Rome and yet that Church was destroyed and nothing more contributed to the provocation and merit of that destruction than their owne confidence of being unperishable The best admonition in this respect is that of the Apostle Be ye not high minded but feare and if God spared not the Natural branches take heed also lest he spare not you and this Gentleman cannot be ignorant what Church it was that was then capable of this exhortation And the very making this matter of argument and in this respect not of purity but of duration exalting the Romanist's Church above all other Churches in these words none other can compare with him as it is one character which determines the speech to the particular Church of Rome for else how can he speak of others and affirme that they cannot compare so it is no very humble or consequently Christian expression in this Gentleman Num. 8 What he addes out of Master Hooker and applies as the judgement of that learned man concerning the Church of England yeilds us these farther observations 1. That in all reason this Gentleman must in his former words speak of his Church of Rome as that is a particular Church for else how can he after his Church name another Church meaning this of England of which saith he Mr. Hooker speaks and that will conclude the evident falsity of his assumption that by Christ's promise eternity belonged to it for that it cannot doe to any particular Church because the Vniversal may be preserved when that is destroyed and the promise being made indefinitely to the Church may be performed in any part of it Num. 9 Secondly That a
very small matter will serve turne with this Gentleman to support a con lusion which he hath a mind to inferre otherwise Master Hookers Testimony had never been produced to this matter The words of that truly most learned and prudent person are to be found in his fifth Book Num. 79. in the Conclusion The subject of that whole Paragraph beginning pag. 424. is of Oblations Foundations Endowments Tithes all intended for the perpetuity of Religion which was in his opinion sure to be frustrated by alienation of Church livings and this being largely handled by him throughout that Paragraph at length he observes 1. what waste Covetousnesse had made in the Church by such Commutations as were proportionable to Glaucus's change giving the Church flanel for Gold and 2. how Religion it self was made a Sollicitor and perswader of Sacrilege signifying that to give to God is error and to take it away againe Reformation of error concluding in these words By these or the like suggestions received with all joy and with like sedulity practised in certain parts of the Christian world they have brought to passe that as David doth say of Man so it is in danger to be verified concerning the whole Religion and service of God the time thereof may peradventure fall out to be threescore and ten yeers or if strength doe serve unto fourescore what followeth is likely to be small joy for them whosoever they be that behold it Thus have the best things been overthrowne not so much by puissance and might of a versaries as through defect of Councel in them that should have upheld and defended the same Num. 10 This is the first importance of that place which the Gentleman hath so disguised in his abbreviation Mr. Hooker foretells what a destructive influence Sacrilege may have on the whole Religion and Service of God observes in certain parts of the Christian world without naming any that sacrilegious suggestions are received with all joy and putting these two together presageth sad events to the whole Religion and service of God within threescore and ten or fourescore yeares and from hence this Gentleman concludes it Master Hooker's judgement that the Church of England was a building likely to last but fourescore yeares Num. 11 In what mode and figure this conclusion is thus made from the premisses he leaves us to divine who have not sagacity enough to discern it The conclusion to all mens understanding will most regularly follow thus that the Church of England was so constituted that all the enemies thereof on either side were never likely to destroy it by arguments and consequent'y that the most probable way remaining to Satan to accomplish his designe was by sacrilegious violations to impoverish and subdue the maintainers of it which as he foresaw very likely to come to passe within the age of a man so it would be no joyfull sight when it should come he was not so unkinde to any part of the Church of God as to be willing to live to see it Num. 12 And if this Gentleman's inclinations have qualified him for the receiving pleasure or joy in such a spectacle I shall as little envy him the prosperity which hath thus petrified his bowels as he shall think fit to envy me the honour of being a member of the purest being withall the most persecuted Church Num. 13 Thirdly That these words of Mr. Hooker thus pitifully distorted are the onely proof he hath for his assertion that this Church of ours hath now no subsistence and that it is now torn up by the roots A way of arguing very conformable to his characters of a true Church of which external glory and prosperity must never misse to be one but very unlike the image of Christ the head to which his Church the body may be allowed to hold some proportion of conformity for of him we can give no livelier pourtraiture than as we finde him crucified between two thieves whilst the souldiers divide his garments though they were not over-sumptuous and cast lots who shall have his vesture Num. 14 What next follows is an answer to a supposed objection of ours and that is a farther evidence of what I said that Mr. Hooker's distorted speech is the onely proof of his proposition The objection is that our Church is still in being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained and to this objection he will make some answer from our own principles of which he supposeth this to be one that the secular authority hath power to make and change Bishops and Presbyters and saith without any regrets that this is my defence against the Bishop of Rome Num. 15 Many replies might be made to take off all appearance of force from this answer As 1. that this to which the answer is accommodated is not my objection The truth is I took not on me the objectors part in that place but evidenced it by clear demonstration that if twenty years agoe the Church of England was a Church it must needs be so now being the very same that then it was except these bands as the Apostle once said who I hope did not cease to be an Apostle by being imprisoned And when I mentioned the Church of Englands being preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained together with multitudes rightly baptized which sure are all the necessary ingredients in constituting a visible Church I added none of which have fallen off from their profession and then foreseeing the onely possible objection to inferre the Church guilty of schisme I answered that by remembring the Primitive persecutions and night-meetings and the very manner of the Romanists serving God in this Kingdome for these many years Num. 16 And all this is pulled off from the clue and fumbled together into an objection of mine supposed to be made against that which the Romanist without either tender of proof or reason had crudely affirmed But truly I may be believed that I meant not that affirmation so much respect as to offer objection against it And then that is one speedy way of concluding this matter Num. 17 But then secondly for that saying of mine on which he will form his answer to this imaginary objection 't is certain I never said any such thing as is here suggested That the supreme Magistrate hath power to erect and translate Patriarchates and the like I had affirmed indeed i. e. to make that a Patriarchal See which had not formerly been such so to ennoble a town or city that according to the Canons of the Church it should become an Episcopal or Archiepiscopal or Chief or Patriarchal See and my meaning is evident and not possible to be mistaken by any that understands the Language and adverts to what he reads Num. 18 But sure I never said that the secular authority hath power to make Bishops and Presbyters and there is no question but this Gentleman knows if he hath read what he answers that in the Tract of Schisme
it were to us to stand with the Romanist in full authority Num. 8 Thirdly This being in perfect concord with the decree of Gratian is in the aforesaid body of their Canon law approved and set out by Pope Gregory XIII annext to that decree of Gratian Distinct 99. C. 1. Num. 9 And fourthly whereas this Gentleman saith that as soon as occasion serves I will tell you this Epistle of Anacletus is of no authority I must say 1. that I have no where that I remember ever said so 2. That this Gentleman cannot without divining tell me now what I shall doe hereafter 3. That occasion not yet requiring it of me but Anacletus affirming what I affirm I have no temptation to doe so and so as yet he can have no pretence to make use of this subterfuge 4. That there are things called argumenta ad homines arguments that may binde him who acknowledges the authority from which they are drawn though they conclude not him that allows not those authorities and such is this of Anacletus his Epistle to a Romanist Num. 10 And by the same Logick that he can inferre that Anacletus's authority was unduely produced by me who as he but thinks will not stand to Anacletus's authority I may sure conclude that Anacletus's authority was duly produced by me because against him who I have reason to presume must stand to Anacletus's authority Num. 11 A third testimony of the same nature I shall now adde which must again have force with a Romanist that of Anicetus ad Episcopos Galliae which follows there in the Corpus Juris Canonici Primarum civitatum Episcopos Apostoli successores Apostolorum regulariter Patriarchas Primates esse constituerunt The Apostles and their successors regularly appointed that the Bishops of the Prime Cities should be Primates and Patriarchs And till somewhat be produced to the contrary as 't is sure here is nothing offered by this Gentleman this may at the present suffice in this place Sect. IV. The supreme Ecclesiasticall power of Patriarchs The power of convoking Councells a prerogative of Supremacy That the Bishop of Rome is not over Patriarchs Proofs from the Councells and Canons Apostolick and the Corpus Juris and Pope Gregorys arguing Num. 1 THe last exception concerns the supreme Power of Patriarchs or the no superiority of any Ecclesiasticall power over them Thus. Num. 2 Then he saith there was no power over the Patriarchs his proof is because the Emperour used his secular authority in gathering of Councels concluding that because the Pope did not gather general Councels therefore he had no authority over the Universal Church which how unconsequent that is I leave to your judgment Num. 3 That there was no supreme power in the Bishop of Rome nor in any other above that of Primates and Patriarchs but onely that of the Emperour in the whole Christian world as of every soveraign Prince in his dominions I thought sufficiently proved by this that the power of convoking Councels did not belong to the Bishop of Rome but to the Prince in every nation and the Emperour in the whole world And I deemed this a sufficient proof not because there are no other branches of a supreme authority imaginable or which are claimed by the Bishop of Rome save onely this but I. because this of convoking Councels is certainly one such prerogative of the supreme power inseparable from it and he that hath not that hath not the supreme power as in any nation some prerogatives there are which alwaies are annext to the Imperial Majesty and wherever any one of them truely is there is the supreme power and 't is treason for any but the supreme to assume any one of them and one of that number is calling of national Assemblies And secondly because the Bishop of Rome doth as avowedly challenge this power of convoking General Councels as any other I could have named or insisted on And truely that was the onely reason why I specified in this because this of all others is most eminent in it self most characteristical of the supreme power and most challenged by the Bishop of Rome and most due to him in case he be the Vniversal Pastor Num. 4 And then where there be several branches of a power all resident in the same subject inseparably from the absence of one to collect the absence of all I must still think a solid way of probation and cannot discern the infirm part or inconsequence of it If I could it would be no difficult matter to repair it and supply the imperfectnesse of the proof by what is put together in the Corpus Juris Canonici even now cited Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 3 4 5. Num. 5 The thing that I had to prove was that there was not antiently any summum genus any supreme either of or over Patriarchs beside the Prince or Emperour To this as farre as concerns the negative part that the Bishop of Rome is not this summum genus I now cite from that third Chap. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum vel summus sacerdos The Bishop of the first seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or supreme Priest And this testified out of the African Councel Can 6. where the very words are recited with this addition of aut aliquid hujusmodi he is not to be called by any other title of the same kinde sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus but onely Bishop of the first See and there were three such at that time those named in the Nicene Canon Alexandria Rome Antioch as is sufficiently known Num. 6 And that he may see the practice of the Church was perfectly concordant with that definition I referre this Gentleman to the Milevitan Councell cap. 22. where speaking of appeals from their Bishops the rule is non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum They must appeal to none but the African Councels or the Primates of their own Provinces Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur But if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine forreign judicature they are not to be admitted to communion by any within Africa And indeed the same had been before defined by the first Nicene Councel Num. 7 c. 5. where the sentence pronounced against any by the Bishops in each Province was to stand good according to the Canon I suppose the 12 Apostolick which pronounces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others And accordingly in the Synodical Epistle of the African Councel to Pope Caelestine which is in the Book of Canons of the Roman Church and in the Greek collection of the Canons of the African Church we finde these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We intreat you the style of one Church to another that for
I cannot be required to prove any more than this that it is as reasonable for me to affirm it of Antioch upon the title of succession as for him to assume it of Rome upon the same title Num. 11 From Christ there is nothing that will fix it at Rome rather than at Antioch and in the Law of Nations concerning inheritances nothing is or can be applied to this purpose It must needs be then from the free act of S. Peter's will whatsoever is pretended to And in respect of that 't is sure as reasonable to believe that he which planted a Church and placed a Bishop first in one after in another city should delegate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double portion the greater dignity and privileges to the former as to the latter If the right of Primogeniture be no right in this matter yet sure the younger sister hath neither law nor custome that the inheritance should belong to her Num. 12 And for his own reason here offered that it cannot belong to the Elder that is no reason For S. Peter might doe as Christ did make an assignation of power in his life time fix it by promise yet not devest himself of it till his death And if S. Peter had done so if at his planting a Bishop at Antioch on consideration that in that city they were first called Christians he had decreed that after his own death that Bishop should succeed to all that authority which he had received from Christ with power to communicate it to any I shall ask this Gentleman whether he might not have done it without either devesting himself whilst he lived or making two heads to one body or whether his bare dying at Rome would have invalidated any such former act of his in case he had done so If it would there must then be more owing to his death than to his life to his martyrdome than to his preaching or ordaining of Bishops that this privilege belongs to Rome And then again Jerusalem where Christ himself died will by that title of his blood shed there have a more unquestionable right than that city where Peter did but faintly transcribe that copie which had in a more eminent manner been set him by Christ Num. 13 Lastly if by this argument of Rome's being the place where Peter died the supremacy had belonged to that See precisely or peculiarly how could it be transferred to Avenion as we know it was and there continued for some time But I shall no longer insist on such fiction of case as this if that had been which never was what then would certainly have followed whether if S. Peter had been Vniversal Pastor it must eo ipso be concluded that his successour of Rome and not at Antioch was such after him when it hath been rendred evident in the former Chapter that S. Peter had no such supremacy Sect. III. The Act of the Councell of Chalcedon of the ground of Rome's precedence The safety of the Church reconcileable with removing the chief See Of the Bishop of Constantinople being ashamed of that act No tumult in the Councell The story of it Num. 1 THe next dislike is to my deriving the original of that precedence which belongs to Rome as the Councel of Chalcedon had derived it Thus Num. 2 Then he tells you that the dignity or precedence of the Bishop of Rome is surely much more fitly deduced by the Councel of Chalcedon from this that Rome was then the Imperial city or ordinary residence of the Emperour a very wise judgment that the quality upon which the unity that is the safety of the Church Vniversal relies should be planted upon a bottome fallible and subject to fail but the resolution was so shamefull that the very Patriarch was ashamed and imputed it to his ambitious clergie who how tumultuary and unruly they were is to be seen in the Acts of the Councel Num. 3 Here two objections are made to the wisdome of that Act or judgment of that Councel and I that foresaw it would be thus rejected by him and from thence observed how little Councels are considered by them when they define not as they would have them and therefore laid no more weight on that Canon than the Romanists very rejecting it allowed me might now spare the pains of defending the judgment of that Councel Yet it is so easie to return answer in few words to his two objections that I shall not decline doing it Num. 4 To the first that the precedence of Rome which there I speak of being a Primacy onely of dignity and order and not of Power is no such quality on which the unity and safety of the Church relies For how can that be concerned what Bishop sits uppermost gives the first or last suffrage in a Councel This Gentleman thinks of a supremacy of power when he thus speaks but that he cannot but know is denied by us to be placed in any one Bishop and therefore must not imagine me to assigne the original of that to which I deny a being And it matters not though he say I am injurious in denying it for besides that that is petitio principii on his side to say so t is also certain that the question now betwixt us in this Paragraph is not whether I am just in denying that supremacy but whether it be more than a Primacy of order which I divolve to this original Num. 5 Nay if I had spoken of the supremacy it self and fixed it on a bottome so farre fallible as that it might be removed by the change of Empires from one city to another if it were but resolved that the supreme Ecclesiastical power and so the fountain of unity should follow the Imperial seat I see not why the safety of the Church might not by this means be provided for Num. 6 Let it but be judged of in little first as it is easily supposeable Suppose the Church of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay for argument's sake suppose there were no other Church but that of England and suppose there were a supremacy in one Bishop in him whosoever were the Bishop of that city where the royal throne were placed and suppose that that were for the present removed to Yorke and so that the Bishop of Yorke were the supreme Bishop and by that means the unity and safety of the Church competently provided for I shall then demand in case the royall seat should be removed to Winchester could there be any question but the supreme Episcopal See would be removed so too and might not all appeals be made from thenceforth to Winchester and the safety of the Church be as well provided for by this way as by it's being fixt unmoveably at Yorke Num. 7 The Primacy we know hath oft thus been removed and never more inconvenience come of it than by S. Peter's See being removed to Avenion And if any supremacy belonged to any succession of Bishops over
of that Councel Num. 7 And therefore according to that saying of S. Hierome put into their Canon Law si authoritas quaeritur orbis major est urbe if authority be looked for the whole world is more than the one city of Rome it is the resolution of Almain merito Concilium Chalcedonense Leoni resistenti praevaluisse that the Councel of Chalcedon did well in standing out against Pope Leo and did justly prevail against him Num. 8 This amulet it seems had not virtue to stand him in so much stead as Baronius is pleased to phansie setting out the power and greatness of Pope Leo by this that he did alone cassate what this Councel had decreed by the suffrages of 600 Bishops Which how well it consists with his former affirmation that this Canon was spurious and clandestine and stollen in by Anatolius I shall not here examine 'T is sure if the Popes authority were so soveraign the act needed not have been made spurious first to qualifie it for the cassation But this of the power or superiority of a Pope over an OEcumenical Councel is a question not so necessary here to be debated unlesse what this Gentleman was pleased to mention of the privilege of supreme Magistracy had been indevoured some way to be proved by him Num. 9 Next he quarrels my saying that Antioch was equall to Rome and that Constantinople desired but the same privileges and this he saith is against the very nature of the story Num. 10 That Antioch had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome so farre as to the dignity of a Patriarchate c. allowing to Rome the Primacy of order and dignity I thought was competently concluded from the Pope's pretensions against that Canon of Chalcedon making it an invasion of the rights of Antioch and as derogatory to that as to Rome And so still it seems to me For if Antioch had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome how could Constantinople's aspiring to equal privileges with Rome be as derogatory to Antioch as to Rome But I need not this help from Leo's argument the thing asserted by me is not denied that I know of by any Romanist viz that Antioch had the dignity of a Patriarchate for that is all that I expresse my self to mean by Antioch's having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome and I that maintain as this Gentleman truely saith I doe that all Patriarchs are equal in respect of Power differing onely in order or precedence cannot be imagined to mean any thing else by it Num. 11 So again that Constantinople desired no more but the privileges of a Patriarch and that that is the meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges is by me said in opposition to acquiring any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches and this instead of being contrary to the nature of the story is directly agreeable to the whole course of it and to the expresse words of the Canon which defines that as the city of Constantinople was honoured with the Empire and Senate and injoyed equal privileges with old Imperial Rome so the Church of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be exalted to the same height with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the next place after it adding that the Metropolitans and none else of Asia Pontus and Thraeia c. should be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople the Bishops of each of those Provinces being left to be ordained by their respective Metropolitans This is so plain that there can be no need of farther proof of it Num. 12 And for this Gentleman's objection by way of Question that Constantinople being then a Patriarchy if that made it equal with Rome for what did it pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer 1. that Constantinople being by custome and by Act of the Councel held in that city a Patriachate already it sought not to acquire any new advantage or increase by this Canon of Chalcedon but onely to continue what already it had Num. 13 This again appears by the story where that Canon of Constantinople was produced and read as the foundation on which this new Canon was built and so by the expresse words in the beginning of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. following constantly the definitions of the Holy Fathers and knowing the Canon newly read of the 150 Bishops assembled in the reign of the Emperour Theodosius at the Imperial city Constantinople or new Rome And agreeably Euagrius sets down the story that in this Councel of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was thought just or determined that the Constantinopolitan See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rightly and duly placed next after Rome Num. 14 And when this Gentleman assumes that if this were so the neither Rome it self and lesse Antioch had cause to complain I shall most willingly joyn with him in it being no way obliged by my pretensions to justifie the Pope or his Legates dislike to that Canon And for Antioch I am sure enough that the Bishop thereof Maximus though he had received an Epistle from the Pope to exasperate and perswade him to stand upon his right did very readily subscribe it setting his name and consent next after the Bishop of Constantinople as hath formerly been set down out of the story Num. 15 And if Antioch did so who was the loser by it if precedence signifie any thing I confesse I can render no cause unlesse it be the Pompejúsve parem impatience of any equal why the Bishop of Rome who lost not so much as precedence by this advancement or confirmation of dignity to the Bishop of Constantinople should be so obstinately and implacably offended at it Num. 16 Thus have I answered every attempt and tittle of exception offered by this Gentleman in this matter and have now leisure to complain that the one thing that I desired to be taken notice of from this Canon is not so much as considered or at all replied to by him viz that the Dignity that old Rome had by antient Canons in oyed was given it upon this account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the Imperial seat which as it is the proof of my whole pretension that the Pope was not Vniversal Pastor upon title of his succession from S. Peter for if whatsoever he had the Councels gave it him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Canon and gave it him as Bishop of the Imperial See then sure 't was no inheritance from S. Peter so it was truely observed out of the story of the Councel of Chalcedon and may be seen both in the Legate's complaint to the Judges and in the Epistles of Leo to the Emperour Martianus the Empresse Pulcheria Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch and his instructions to his Legates that he never made any exception to that branch of the Canon that thus derived the original of his
greatnesse from the Imperial dignity of the city never thought himself injured by this way of setting down his title Sect. V. Of the Canon of Ephesus The power of Metropolitans of Primates The case of the Archbishop of Cyprus no peculiar case The deduction thence against the Popes Vniversal Pastorship Of the Popes tenure by the institution of Christ Num. 1 THE next exception concerns the Canon of the Councel of Ephesus thus Num. 2 As for the Canon of Ephesus touching the Archbishop of Cyprus it plainly sheweth that the Metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarchs seeing this case of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case the reason given doth shew that the superiority of Patriarchs was by custome received from their Ancestors contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed however it is still nothing to the purpose because the authority which we say belongs to the Pope is neither Patriarchal nor derived from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ Num. 3 This Canon of Ephesus saith he plainly shews that Metropolitans were subordinate to Patriarchs seeing this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case To this I see not how any pretensions of ours oblige me to make any return yet because it may be subject to some mistake for want of explicating I shall clear that whole matter by these three Propositions Num. 4 First that the controversie which occasioned that Canon was this Whether the Bishop of Constance Metropolitan of the Province of Cyprus was to be ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch or without seeking abroad by his own Synod the Bishops of Cyprus Thus is the state of the question set down in the Councels Tom. 2. p. 670. at the beginning of the 7 Action Discussa est controversia inter Rheginum Episcopum Constantiae Cypri Johannem Antiochenum qui sibi Cyprias Ecclesias subdere moliebatur The controversie was discussed between Rheginus Bishop of Constance of Cyprus and John of Antioch who endevoured to bring the Cypriotes Churches into subjection to himself Num. 5 Secondly that the antient custome had been favourable to Rheginus his pretension and so the claim of Antioch is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing innovated against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which by the example or president would concern the liberty of all Churches Cod Can Eccl Un 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 6 Thirdly that the Councel defined on the Cypriots side that according to the Canous and antient custome the Bishops of Cyprus should retein their previlege inviolable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaining their Bishops within and by themselves and consequently that it was an act of assuming and invasion in the Bishop of Antioch to claim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make any Ordinations within Cyprus And what was thus adjudged in the case of the Cypriots was by that Councel in the same Canon thought fit to be extended in like manner to all other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same shall be observed also through all Dioceses and Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him i. e. under his predecessors power And so there is no truth in what is here suggested that this of Cyprus was a peculiar excepted case It certainly by the expresse words of the Canon belonged to all other Metropolitans and their Provinces over all the world that neither Bishop of Antioch nor of Rome was to meddle with any ordinations except in their own particular Provinces but the Synod of the Bishops of each Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make the ordinations of their Bishops by themselves Num. 7 What he adds of the superiority of Patriarchs by custome received from their Ancestors First that the reason given in that Ephesine Canon doth shew it Secondly that it is contrary to that which the Doctor before affirmed Thirdly that it is still nothing to the purpose in hand of the authority of the Pope hath not that I can discern any truth in any part of it For as to the first whatsoever superiority Patriarchs be acknowledged to have there is no word of mention concerning it in that Canon neither was there any occasion to define any thing of it It was the Synod and Bishops of Cyprus their right that was invaded and of that onely that Canon speaks devolving it to original custome and Canons and so for all other Metropolitans But that is not the superiority of Patriarchs Secondly for my affirmation certainly it was never such as could be deemed contrary either to that Ephesine Canon about ordination of their Metropolitans or that due superiority which by Canons or customes doth belong to Primates or Patriarchs what this is I have often set down and need not again repeat it Num. 8 Lastly for the application of this Canon to the present affair of the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome thus much is evident First that all Provinces every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were concluded by this Canon that they should ordain their Bishops within themselves and then I pray how can the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power of ordaining all belong to the Bishop of Rome and ordination and jurisdiction going together how can he have the Vniversal Jurisdiction or which is all one the Vniversal Pastorship Num. 9 Secondly if the Pope his authority be not Patriarchal as this Gentleman here saith then till he hath proved that it is more than Patriarchal and answered all that is said to the contrary in that Tract of Schisme that which is by the Ephesiue Canon judged in order to the Patriarch of Antioch will also conclude him Num. 10 And thirdly that which is held by the institution of Christ being certainly derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning must needs be included in the words of this Canon which requires that all should remain as by custome immemorial from the beginning it had been to which therefore we appeal and inquire whether Cyprus was not as Independent from Rome at that time as from Antioch if not how any such dependance at that time appears or how is it imaginable there should be any such when all Provinces every where were to be ruled and ordered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own Synod and Bishops Num. 11 As for the tenure by which the Pope is now in the close of this Paragraph clearly said to stand not from any institution or custome of the Church but from the institution of Christ First this is more than ever this Gentleman would acknowledge before telling us p. 14. that who understands the Principles of the Catholick faith knows they relie not onely upon such places of Scripture as Thou art Peter and Feed my sheep From whence I thought my self obliged to conclude they relied not onely on Christ his institution for that I suppose must
soon appear to bring him little advantage For Num. 17 1. The Bishop's I suppose he means the Bishop of Rome his consent was not asked One part of the story is that when the Bishop of Ravenna being fain to flie to the Bishop of Rome for support against the Longobards submitted himself to him the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured thereby And 2. it is not truly said that it was praeordered and the Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon cannot be brought to that purpose this act of Valentinians dated Anno 432. being 19 years before the Councel of Chalcedon which was assembled Anno 451. and so sure not praeordained by that which was subsequent And indeed the Canon of that Councel mentioning Cities and Churches in the plural which had been before their Session made Metropoles by several Kings is a clear evidence that there were other such beside that of Ravenna and Balsamon expresseth them by the name of Madyta and Abydus c. Num. 18 Thirdly If this be acknowledged an act of Councel confirming the lawfulness of what the Emperours had thus done and decreeing as clearly the Councel of Chalcedon and that other in Trullo did that generally it should be thus that as the Prince made an ordinary City a Metropolis the Church of that City should be a Metropolitical Church then still this is the fuller evidence that it was lawfull for Princes thus to doe and that as oft as they did such changes in the Churches followed for sure a King was not obliged to ask the Churches leave to repair or build a city Num. 19 Lastly What out of Balsamon was cited by me that what the Emperors did in this matter they did according to the power that was given them was it seems either an occasion of stumbling to this Gentleman or an excuse of it For from hence he concludes that this power was given them by the Church This if it be true is the thing that I would demand and so farre from answering mine instance for if the Church have given Princes this power then they may freely and lawfully make use of it and Justinian's doing so could be no tyrannical act against the Church But let us view Balsamon's words They are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such definitions are made by Kings according to the power given them from above That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from above sometimes signifies in respect of time sometimes also in respect of place In the first respect it signifies from of old and is oft joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning and if it be so taken here as Gentianus Hervetus interprets it olim it must then signifie that this power was yeilded to Kings either by the Apostles or by the Primitive Canons of the Church and if it were thus given them by the Church then sure they might justly challenge and exercise it freely But in the second sense it is as certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies from above i. e. from heaven so Joh. 19. 11. Christ tells Pilate thou couldst have no power over me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse it were given thee from above i. e. sure from heaven from God by whom Kings reign and have their power and so it very frequently signifies in the Scripture And if that be the the meaning then this Gentleman sees how well he hath inferred his conclusion from this passage Num. 20 By all this it already appears what truth there is in this suggestion that the examples produced are but few and those of tyrannical Princes and no way excluding the Church just as much and no more as was in the premisses which induced it and those being discovered already it is superfluous to make repetitions so soon in this place Num. 21 In the close he thinks sit to retire again to his old fortresse that the Popes power is not Patriarchal and so that he is still safe from all that hath been said on that head But it hath now appeared that if any other be made a Patriarch or Primate or whatever the style be a Bishop without any dependence on the Pope this is a prejudice sufficient to his Vniversal Pastorship and other disadvantages he is rather in reason to expect by disclaiming the Patriarchal authority which the Canons have allowed him than hope to gain any thing by contemning his inheritance CHAP. VII An Answer to the Exceptions made to the seventh Chapter Sect. I. King Henry's desire of Reconciliation to Rome The sacriledge c. no argument against Regal power to remove Patriarchies Possession in the belief of the Popes supremacy Prescribing for errour Napier's testimony Possession if granted from Augustine's coming into England no argument of truth Confessions of Popes Augustine required it not Pope Gregory's testimony Many evidences that this belief was not received after Augustine's time Num. 1 WHat in the next place is replied to that part of Chapter 7. which concerned Henry VIII his act of ejecting the Power of the Pope will be full matter for a first section of this Chapter He begins thus Num. 2 In his seventh Chapter he intends a justification of the breach whereof as he doth not teach the infamous occasion and how to his dying day the same King desired to be reconciled as also that it was but the coming two daies short of a Post to Rome which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made as may be seen in my Lord of Cherbery's Book fol. 368. and that the moderate Protestants curse the day wherein it was made so the very naming of Hen. VIII is enough to confute all his discourse one of the darlings of his daughter having given him such a character as hath stamped him for England's Nero to future posterity and as it was said of Nero in respect of Christian religion so might it be of him respecting the unity of the Church viz it must be a great good that he began to persecute and abolish and as for the Acts passed in the Vniversities Convocation or Parliament let the blood shed by that Tyrant bear witnesse what voluntary and free Acts they were especially those two upon his Seneca and Burrhus Bishop Fisher and the Chancellor More that he might want nothing of being throughly paraâ—eld to Nero. But methinks the Doctor differs not much in this seeming tacitly to grant the Bishops were forced awed by that noted sword in a slender thread the praemunire which did hang over their heads though in the conclusion of that Sect he saies we ought to judge charitably viz that they did not judge for fear nor temporal Interests yet after waves the advantage of that charitable judgment and saith That if what was determined were falsly determined by the King and Bishops then the voluntary and free doing it will not justifie and if it were not then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was
matter still divolves as it did in the tract of Schisme to that one question whether the Bishop of Rome had at that time any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and must be decided as there it is by the view of Evidences whether that pretended from Peters Vniversal Pastorship or that from Augustines planting Christianity here or that from the voluntary conâ—ession of some Kings and each of them is so disproved there that till some competent answer be rendered to those particulars which certainly is not yet done by this Gentleman who onely here tells us the manner how he relyes on each of these and the possession they had of the beliefe that the Pope was head of the Vniversal Church 't is perfectly unnecessary farther to consider what is here added onely to inflame passions but not to satisfie Conscience to exasperate not to argue Num. 9 For what if moderate Protestants should truly curse the day c. or in a more Christian dialect expresse their dislike to the great Sacrilege and some other enormities which were committed in that Princes reigne what prejudice will this be to any lawful exercise of that regal power 'T is certaine that all the Acts of a bad Prince are not invalid or null and much more evident still that he that hath not offended in assuming the power which really belongs to him may by being denyed that be inraged and laid open to importune Temptations and if he be not a through Christian constant and masterly fall and that foulely under those temptations And if Henry VIII did so still this is very extrinsecall to the present inquiry whether he as King had power to remove a Patriarchy and by that to remove all forraigne jurisdiction or authority out of this Church Num. 10 All that remaines in this Section farther to be spoken to is the possession that is here pleaded not in the power it selfe if it were that hath formerly been spoken to but in the beliefe that the Pope as successor to S. Peter is head and Governour of the Vniversal Church This beliefe saith he they have been in possession of ever since the Conversion of our English Ancestors till King Henry and for this beside his own bare affirmation he brings no other proofe than one testimony of Naâ—ier on the Revelation confessing that the Church of Rome hath borne a sway over the Christian world above 1200. yeares Num. 11 And 1. for this kinde of Possession possession in the beliefe of any thing any farther than that which is believed is true and that appeare some other way than by our having so long believed it certainly this is no matter of any deep consideration to us If it still appeare to be true upon grounds of reason those grounds are the considerable and not the beliefe And if the grounds be discovered to be fallacious and the contrary to be more reasonable to be believed then sure this hath but the advantage of an Antient error and the older it is the fitter not to be longer continued in it must be immediately deposited And against this or instead of doing thus to talke of possession is unnatural and irrational the same plea that may serve for any sinne that hath had the luck to get the first hold in us the same that would certainly have held for all the Idolatry of the Heathens when Christ came into the world And he that hath long lived in obscurity and misery he and his Ancestors for many years together and were now offered an advancement out of that sad condition would he ever be so unkinde to himselfe as to refuse that offer upon this one account because it is the turning him out of a possession This prescribing for Error and prescribing for Sin and prescribing for Misery are in effect the same equally unnatural and irrational supposing it to be truly Error and Sinne and Misery which we treat of Num. 13 But then secondly waving this and applying our selves to the particular before us how doth it appeare that the Romanist hath been in possession in this beliefe so long as he pretends He here brings but one Testimony to confirme it that of Napier But for this testimony the answer is easie that the affirmations or confessions of such as Napier was and is by this Gentleman acknowledged to be in their arguing against the credit of Antiquity or to make good other hypotheses of theirs are of as little authority with us as I suppose they will be with them when they are contrary to their pretensions or interests Secondly that the Popes bearing a sway over the Christian world is not interpretable to signifie his Vniversal Pastorship The Bishop of the Prime imperial See may justly be very considerable and so beare a sway but it follows not thence that his ordinary jurisdiction hath been thus extended to the whole Christian world Num. 14 Nay thirdly the contrary to this hath been sufficiently evidenced Chap 4. and 5. both as concernes Saint Peter himselfe and the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter and till those evidences are refuted the affirmation of Napier being so imperfect and infirme both in respect of the testifier and the matter of the testimony will be very unfit to bear sway with any rational man Num. 15 And so the whole weight of this argument prest with so much confidence is resolved into the bare authority of the Speaker this Gentleman who saith it that ever since the conversion of the English Nation the Romanists have had possession of this beliefe that the Pope as successor to Saint Peter is Governour of the Vniversal Church Num. 16 And that I may apply some answer yet more particularly to this I shall premise one thing that if indeed this were granted which is suggested it would not be of any great force toward the inducing of this conclusion that the Pope really was and is Vniversal Pastor For supposing the Pope to have assumed that authority at the time of Augustine the Monke his coming into England and making his plantation and supposing him to have preacht this to King Ethelbert and the rest of his Proselites with the same gravity and confidence that he used in imparting all the Doctrines of Christian Faith in the same manner as Xaverius the Apostle of the Indics imparted to them two Gospels the one of Christ the other of Saint Peter I shall not doubt but upon these grounds it would be very consequent that all that willingly imbraced the preaching of Augustine and had no other Doctrine to compare it with or examine it by should probably receive this branch of beliefe and so all others from and after them that insisted firmely and punctually on Augustine's way and thus 't is possible the possession of that belief might be continued till the dayes of Hen. VIII Num. 17 But then this is no proofe that what in this particular Augustine
the particular advantages he had in his intuition but suppose them latent and reserved For to his special discovery that he means to make by asking and supposing answers to many questions proportionable to the several links in the subordination the account will be easie enough that as long as any particular Bishop remains in the due subordination to his Canonical superiors so long the departure of any clergie man that is under his jurisdiction from that obedience which Canonically he owes him is in him that is thus guilty of it an act of schisme Num. 6 But then I when instead of departure he puts dissent which may belong to light matters wherein liberty of dissent from Superiors is yeilded to all men or to greater matters without departing from obedience or Communion this is not fairly done this difference having a visible influence on the matter Num. 7 Secondly when of the clergie-man's dissent from his own Bishop he makes me answer that it is not schisme if it be not from his Metropolitan I never gave him my letter of Proxie to doe so But on the other side if the dissent be supposed to be improved into a departure which alone makes schisme I shall not doubt to pronounce it schisme unlesse he have first made his appeal from his Bishop to his Metropolitan and by him and his Councel of Bishops be adjudged to be in the right and then if his Bishop by that judgment be reduced to order he may not he cannot again without schisme depart from him Num. 8 Thirdly when from Primates he ascends to Patriarchs as if that latter had a power superiour to the former and again from the l'atriarchs to the first Patriarch i. e. the Bishop of Rome this he knows hath no place with us who acknowledge no power of any Patriarch above a Primate no supremacie over all in the Bishop of Rome but yet allow them and him proportionably to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that will content him that Primacie of order which by the antient Canons is allowed them Num. 9 Fourthly whatsoever concerning these several steps from the lowest Clergie man to the first of Patriarchs he phansies to be answered by us and from thence concludes that then schism is no way provided against is visibly much more true of any Romanist For certainly if he dissent not from the Bishop of Rome it must be no schisme in him though he dissent from his own Bishop his own Archbishop Primate and Patriarch and if he doe dissent from him 't is not his consenting with all his inferior Governors that will stand him in stead for his vindication Num. 10 And therefore if what he hath formed against me by his making answer himself to his own questions be found really to conclude as he saith it doth against all subordination 't is now evident who is most blameable for it he doubtlesse that hath divolved all into the Monarchike supremacy of the Pope and permits us not to consider what any other our immediate superiors require of us Num. 11 Lastly what he puts into my mouth by way of answer concerning subordination to a General Councel that if a nation or Bishop dissent from the rest of a General Councel still it is not schisme unlesse as I said there be deceit in substituting the word Dissent for Departure or Recession I shall no way acknowledge the answer which he believes I will make For certainly I acknowledge as much as he or any man the authority of a General Councel against the dissents of a nation much more of a particular Bishop And these were misadventures enough to be noted in one Paragraph Sect. II. The sufficiency of the few heads resolved on by the Apostles The notion of Fundamentals The Canon of Ephesus concerning it The definition of the Councel of Florence Many Churches have not betrayed this trust Christian practice to be super-added The few things preserved by Tradition Num. 1 NExt he proceeds to another part of the discourse of that Chapter concerning the heads resolved on by the Apostles in order to planting Christian life and to that he thus offers his exceptions Num. 2 But saith the Doctor the Apostles resolved 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 Truly I doe not know what a Catholick professeth more so that by the word few he meaneth enough to forme a Religion and Christian life and will shew us a Church which hath not betrayed the trust deposited for if there be none what availeth this depositing if there be any cleare it is that it preserved it by Tradition if there be a question whether it hath or no againe I demand to what purpose was the depositing so that if the Doctor would speak aloud I doubt he would be subject to as much jealousie as he saith Grotius was Num. 3 That what I affirme as he confesseth conformably to the Catholikes profession may be as full and explicite as he can desire I doubt not to expresse my meaning to be that the few heads that the Apostles resolved on were sufficient both for number and efficacy or in Athanasius his language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient for the averting all impiety and establishment of all piety in Christ And for his satisfaction therein I referre him to the Treatise of Fundamentals printed since that of Schisme of which the onely designe was to insist on this as the grand notion of Fundamentals such as were by the Apostles and Christ himselfe deemed most proper and effectual to plant Christian life in a world of Jewes and Gentiles and briefly to set downe and enumerate all those that the Apostles thought thus necessary Num. 4 To which I shall now adde one observation that this sufficiency of the foundation by them laid and somewhat explained on occasion of Heretical opposers by the Councel of Nice c. was such that the Ephesine Councel following that of Nice 106. yeares made a decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that it should not be lawfull for any man to produce write 〈◊〉 compose any beliefe beside that which was establisht by the Fathers at Nice and that they which should dare to compose or offer any such to any that would from Gentilisme Judaisme or whatever Heresie convert to the ackcowledgment of the truth if they were Bishops should be deposed from their Bishopricks if Laymen anathematised c. Can. 7. Num. 5 And this authority being prest by the Greeks to the Latines in the Council of Florence and that with this smart expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man will accuse the Faith that which those Fathers had profest or charge it of imperfection unlesse he be mad Concil l. 7. p. 642. A. The Latines answer is but this that that Canon did not forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another explication agreeable to the truth
I never said it Num. 19 So again it is of daily practice in this Church as in all others for the supreme power to change as that signifies to remove Bishops from one See to another and so for every lay-Patron in the same sense to change Presbyters But what is that to the making of Bishops or Presbyters did ever King or lay-Patron pretend to that This is too visible to need insisting on Num. 20 Thirdly when he saith there was as much authority to pull down Bishops and Presbyters in this nation as to set them up I might demand 1. Whether he hath any reason to pretend that Presbyters are now pulled down in this nation for this is by him supposed who inquires by what authority they are pulled down 2. Whether he can either upon mine or his own principles assume with any colour of truth that none had any hand in setting up the Bishops in this Kingdome but those whom here he affirms to have consented to the pulling them down and consequently affirm that there was as much authority to pull them down as to set them up 3. Whether it have any truth in it whether he speak of what was done in Parliament in King Henry's or King Edward's or Queen Elizabeth's daies that the Lords Spiritual were wanting both in Parliament and Convocation 4. What he hath said to make it in the least degree probable that the Bishops and Presbyters mission of preaching and teaching is extinguished among us any more than it was in the Primitive Church when the Emperour was not favourable to the profession and when the Jewes called it heresie And lastly whether if no one of these can with any degree of verity be answered in the affirmative this be not very immoderate liberty which this Gentleman hath given himself in affirming or supposing all these and then adding that our portion is to be lookt for with the Jewish Synagogue as one so the other to have an end not considering that he hath as little skill in revealing secrets as even now in interpreting Mr. Hooker's prophecy that he cannot yet tell what God hath within his veil decreed concerning our Church and which may yet make the greatest speed to follow the Synagogue's fate they which are cast down but not destroyed or they which to say no worse stand by and rejoice at it Num. 21 The Treatise of Schisme concludes with a Prayer for Peace and Communion and for the matter of it we have his seeming confession that all good people will joyne in it But even in such a Prayer wherein all good people will joyne this Gentleman will not joyne with me but upon such termes which I shall not undertake to qualifie me for his favour I meane not the fructus dignos poenitentiae such as John Baptist would prescribe but the penances of this severer confessor to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in his notion of the Church Supremacy of the Pope c. Num. 22 And all that I shall need to reply is to beseech him that he will then without joyning with me pray in secret what I began to him and endeavour so to qualifie himselfe with charity and other graces which may wing his prayers unto that holy place where all humble Christians supplications daily meet and then I shall againe pray God that I may be found in the number of those that so I may be secured to meet and joyne with him at that common throne of grace Num. 23 He is pleased to shut up all with an expression of the Councel of Florence to the businesse of the Popes supremacy To this I might reply that this definition is there visibly subscribed as the act of the Bishop of Rome Eugeni Pp. IV. who was a liberall carver and definer for himselfe as may be seen in that very page where the words cited will be found both by the Seale of his Pontificate there imprest Saint Peter on the left hand Saint Paul on the right and Eugenius Pp. IV. under it and by the last part of the date in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ninth year of our Pontificate which though I shall suppose to be the mode the Pope to pronounce the definition of the Councel yet this was much varied from the old form and the Councel being dated at Florence in the year of our Lord 1439. so near Rome and so farre from the first times where more simplicity and just distribution of rights might be expected this might be a competent answer to this testimony and a vindicating my self from all schisme or heresie that my want of the obedience or confession which he requires might fix on me Num. 24 But I shall for this once choose somewhat the longer way and transcribe part of Marcus the Metropolitan of Ephesus his answer wherein he expresseth his opinion and others of that definition of the Councel as it lies in the Apologie of Joseph Methonensis for that Councel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We also account the Pope as one of the Patriarchs But these doe with great gravity pronounce him Vicar of Christ and Father and Teacher of all Christians and this both to them and us is matter of some wonder how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with so much gravity they could thus pronounce what had so little of truth in it Num. 25 And it is worth recounting here what for the justifying of that definition Joseph Methonensis was able to reply there to that Bishop and that reply thought worthy to be inserted into the Acts of the Councel 1. That he doth not say that the Pope is two or three but onely one of the Patriarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having praeeminence among those of the same Order with him Num. 26 For this he hath 1. Chrysostome's authority in his 17 Homilie on the Acts where he saith that among the seven there was one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one above the rest and the seven there were the seven Deacons and the same praeeminence that Stephen then had over them and all the rest of the world we shall not deny the Bishop of Rome especially if as it follows there he have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more grace than all the other Bishops and will acknowledge as it is there also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same ordination of him and all other Bishops Num. 27 Secondly the saying of Christ that He that heareth you heareth me and the common maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every Bishop is the successor of Christ But then how came the Bishop of Rome to impropriate that title to be the onely one that all are obliged to hear when as he confesses there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was said in common to them all Num. 28 Thirdly the words of Theodorus Studita one by the way that had been imprisoned for opposing the Bishop of Constantinople and who did not communicate with that Church see Zonaras tom 3. p. 9.
the Pope And this is generally the result of other Authors narrations of this matter So Balaeus speaking of that convention Dinotus omnium primuâ— graviter docte de non approbandà apud eos Romanorum authoritate disputabat Dinoth in the first place gravely and learnedly disputed against the Authority of the Bishops of Rome among them adding Fortiter praeterea tuebatur Menevensis Archiepiscopi in Ecclesiarum suarum rebus ratam jurisdictionem that he moreover strongly and couragiously defended the validity of the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of S. Davids the same that in the Abbots answer is called the Bishop of Caerleon in the affairs of his own churches So Geffrey of Monmouth Edelbertus Rex Kantiorum ut vidit Britones dedignantes subjectionem Augustino facere Northumbrorum cateros Saxonum regulos instimulavit ut collecto grandi exercitu in civitatem Bangor Abbatem Dinoth caeteros clericos qui eos spreverunt perditum irent King Ethelbert seeing the Britains disdain to yeild their subjection to Augustine stirred up the King of Northumberland and other Saxon Kings to gather a great army against the city Bangor to destory Dinoth the Abbot and the other Clerks of that Monasterie who had scorned Augustine and the Saxons So Sigebert in Anno 602. Augustinus habita Synodo cum Britonum Scotorum Episcopis quâ sacerdotes Monachos invenit adversarios aequitatis Augustine had a meeting with the British and Scotish Bishops and there found an opposition from the Priests and Monks and terrified them by prediction of a calamity that should fall on them Other evidences to the same purpose are set down in the Collection of the Anglicane Councels and Mr. Whelock's Notes on his edition of the Saxon Bede p. 115. if there could now remain any question of it And that this was discerned by the Author of this Appendix if it had been for his Interest to have taken notice of it is evident by his mention of the miracle and divine vengeance as of proofs that Augustine was in the right against these refusers who yet continued saith he still refractory to his proposals And this was all I concluded from the Abbot's answer and this stands firm in this Romanist's own confession though the words of the Abbot's answer had not been preserved to us And therefore being now wholly unconcerned in the validity of this testimony and so secured from all danger of being bribed by interests to judge more favourably of it than the matter requires I shall now proceed calmly to consider whether there be that clearness and evidence in this Author's arguments for the invalidating this testimony which he assures us we shall finde in them His first argument is negative from the not least scrap of Antiquity so much as pretended to prove that the Cambrian i. e. Welch lines cited were the Abbot of Bangor's answer to Augustine upon the occasion specified nor that the renouned Dinoth was that Abbot nor that the old Manuser whence Sir Henry Spel extracts the testimony was copied out of any more antient What other proof from antiquity should be expected from Sir Henry Spelman to give authority to these lines than what readily offers it self in this matter I doe not understand That the British particularly those of Bangor and yet more peculiarly Dinoth the famous Abbot of that Monasterie disputed against Augustine's pretensions for the authority of the Bishop of Rome and asserted their own subjection to their Metropolitane hath already appeared to be the affirmation of those who are most competent witnesses of it and the Manuscript passage in Welch and English which Sir H. Spel had transcribed from Mr. Moston's Copie and directs the Reader to Sir Cotton's Library to satisfie himself in that matter is directly agreeable to this for the matter of it and so gave that very judicious Knight just reason both to set some value on it himself and to communicate it to others as that which might gratifie their curiosity and approve it self by its own light to any judicious Reader to be if not the very words of that Abbot's answer yet the sense and substance of it and whether of these it should be judged to be it matters not Had the contents of this Testimony been any way contrary to other undoubted records of those times or indeed any disparate new relation that had not formerly been taken notice of and was now to owe the whole credit and support to this Testimonie some reason there might have been for an Aristarchus to proceed with more caution than here was used and to yeild nothing to bare groundlesse conjectures and the Romanist hath as much reason as any man to lay this to heart to act with this caution in other Testimonies but when the matter is agreed on among the Antients and an old record offers it self to our view in perfect concord with that which we had formerly all reason to believe and onely affirms that more legibly and distinctly which was in substance before but not so punctually delivered to us I cannot think the severest Critick supposing him unconcerned and impartial without any hypothesis of his own to be defended or tended by him would have any aversion or dislike to a testimony thus produced though for some circumstances of it such as are here mentioned the producer have nothing of authority to back his own conjectures This one thing I am sure is most unjust not to give credit to a Manuscript that it is what it pretends to be unlesse I have some expresse affirmation of Antiquity concerning that particular Manuscript should such rules of severity be now imposed on the presse the Vatican must never bring forth more rarities the wealth of all the Archives in the world must lie dead like a Miser's treasure no one volume being able to testifie for the veracity of its neighbour or if it were it self must also bring its voucher along with it and so on in infinitum or else it would not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a competent testification in this matter and when it is remembred that all which is now made publick by the help of Printing lay once in single Manuscripts and those multipliable onely by transcribing and neither the originals nor Copies any other way testified to be what they pretended to be than as these Cambrian lines are delivered to us by Sir Henry I hope this will be deemed a competent proof that this first argument is not so clearly demonstrative as was promised Another branch there is of this first argument in these words And certainly if his Manuscript be no elder than the interlined English he hath grossly wronged himself and his Reader by honouring it with the style of Antient For as every one sees the English is purely modern and cannot be so old by many years as Henry the Eighthâ—s cashiering the Pope's authority and arrogating the supremacy in Ecclesiasticall matters to himself for maintenance whereof
it is alledged and was certainly forged To this I answer briefly that it is not pretended by Sir Henry that the English is as antient as the times of Dinoth no nor the Welch neither but that those two Languages were made use of by some whose ages he pretends not to know to conveigh to us intelligibly the answer of that Abbot in what language soever it were delivered by him And if it shall now be granted to this Author that the English idiome evidenceth it to be written within these last 100 years this can be no prejudice or ground of suspition much lesse a proof of forgery against this Manuscript as long as the Welch is allowed to be more antient to which the English may upon a latter transcribing have been annext as fitly as old Greek MSS. are daily printed with the Latine translations of a later date in the same or several pages His second argument is deduced from the Cambrian lines in which he pretends to discover many un-Cambrian mixtures of English words helpio and gleimio for help and claim want of Orthographie and the like To which being utterly unskilfull in the Welch language I acknowledge my self incompetent to give any very particular reply yet shall give my reason why I cannot think that this second argument of his is any more demonstrative against the validity of the testimony than the former For 1. supposing this Copie of Mr. Mostonâ—s to be a transcript not the original as it is evident S. H. Spelman supposeth what difficulty is there to imagine that that Copie was transcribed by one unskilful in the Orthographie of that language especially when it is known how ordinary this is to be found not only among the vulgar but among learned Church-men of that nation who are fain by study to acquire skill of reading before they can officiate in that language Secondly I shall readily grant or if he please yeild to the force of his arguments that the Welch lines are not the words or language wherein Dinoth delivered his answer but as this Gentleman after contends that Dinoth a writer of Latine Books being to speak to Augustine that understood not the British language gave his answer in Latine What hinders now but that this Latine answer being conserved among the Britans might in later times before Henry the eight in any age to which the idiome of the Welch lines shall direct a Critick in that language to affix them be translated into imperfect I mean more modern yet intelligible Welch either by a native of that Countrey or by any other who had acquired so much of that language as was sufficient for no weightier an enterprise I discern not what disadvantage I can receive by this concession and then sure there will be small difficulty in vindicating Sir Henry's integrity if this shall be supposed For he no where pretends that the Cambrian lines in the form here presented were the language or words of the answer of Dinoth but that the matter of his answer in what language soever delivered by him is communicated to us by that MS. And that it was not here is no word of so much as probable argument much lesse of clear demonstration tenderd by the Author of this Appendix Lastly for the two words which occasioned his charge of the English mixtures I am by those which have skill in the language enabled to return him some answer that the word help from whence is the infinitive helpio or helpu is found used by Tudor Aled who wrote an 1490. and by Lluellyn who is thought to be more antient and that gleimio or cleimio is by the Latine and Welch Dictionary set down in the word vendico in the first place and after that holi as the most proper Welch word for it not borrowed from the English From whence as I shall not conclude that these Welch lines were the original of Dinoth's answer that were to retract my former concession so I may safely assume that these two words his onely instances of English mixtures doe no way demonstrate this Welch translation to be later than Henry the Eight's cashiering the Pope's authority as of the English it was granted nor consequently leave it under suspition of being forged by any Protestant His third argument is of more seeming force taken from the mention of this Abbot's subjection to the Bishop of Caerleon upon Vske in which he findes two absurdities 1. saith he ofâ—han â—han Elwy now commonly called S. Assaph 2. all Histories testifie that the Archiepiscopal Seat was removed from Caerleon to S. David 's in King Arthur 's time who died about the year 544. i. e. 50 years before Augustine 's first entrance into Britain To these two branches of probation certainly the answer is very obvious to the first that acknowledging and supposing that the Monasterie of Banchor situate in Flintshire though within the confines of Chestshire was under the diocesan Bishop either of S. Asaph or of Chester the Episcopal See of Bangor lying in the County of Caernarven yet this can be of no manner of force against this testimony for he that was under the Bishop of S. Asaph as his immediate superior or diocesan may yet be under the Bishop of Caerleon as his Metropolitan as he that is under the Bishop of Rochester in one respect is under the Bishop of Canterbury in another And so that is a full answer to his first difficulty For the second it is acknowledged that before this time of Dinoth's answer to Augustine the Archiepiscopal See had been by authority of Synod removed first from Caerleon to Landaffe by Dubritius Anno 512. and so it is affirmed by Sir Hen Spelman in his Apparat p. 25. where by the way lin 5. the Printer hath mistaken ad Meneviam for ad Landaviam and in like manner by his successor S. David Anno 516. by licence from King Arthur from Landaff to Menevia which from that eminent Bishop under whom that change was made was after called S. Davids But this removal of the Metropolitical See from one city to another was not of such weight or consideration but that the Metropolitical dignity having been so long fixt at Caerleon might still retain that title after the translation Besides the Abbot of Bangor making answer to Augustineâ—s claim which was founded in some old right which he pretended the Pope to have over all Churches it was most proper to contest this by former practice not onely how it stood at that present but especially how it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old or from the beginning by custome immemorial and herein not to consider such immaterial changes as were the removing of the Primate's See from one city to another but to look on it as it had alwaies layn in opposition to all forreign jurisdiction And it being certain that Caerleon was antiently this Prime See nothing was more agreeable to this contest as it is supposed to
acquire any Dominion to Rome which S. Paul had never seen at that time and which was it self converted after those and that was it which I was proving Num. 6 But he bethinketh himself at last and confesseth that this of conversion is not the Pope's title to England And having done so before why might he not have permitted me to bring undeniable evidences for the proof of it Sect. IV. The concernments of Rome in the Princes power to remove Patriarchates The examples of it Justiniana the Canon of Chalcedon and the 6 t Councel Valentinian making Ravenna a Patriarchate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 1 TO put this whole matter out of controversie viz that the Church of England is not bound to be subject to that Church from which it first received the Faith one head of argument I pitcht on the power of Kings to remove or erect Primacies and Patriarchates which if it have truth in it evidently proves that in case we were once under the See of Rome as our Patriarchate or Prime See supposing that of Vniversal Pastorship disproved before and not reconcileable with this title to England by having converted yet it was in the power of our Kings to remove that from Rome to Canterbury For the proof of this evidences were brought both from the Councel and that OEcumenical of Chalcedon and from the practice of Princes particularly Justinian in an eminent instance and Valentinian and others before the Councel of Chalcedon and many the like examples in the Records of this Kingdome and of others as is shewed at large and the ground of all insisted on the supreme power of Kings in Ecclesiastical affairs and this is done in 16 sections from the 9th to the end of that Chapter Against all which that we may see how true the title of this Gentleman's Book is An Answer to the most material parts c. that which is confronted is contained in these words Num. 2 Thirdly He saith it was in the Emperors power to constitute Patriarchs whether that be so or not it will not be much to our purpose to dispute here onely this I say that he seems neither to understand the question nor proves what he would he understands not the question which hath no dependency on the nature of Patriarchs or terms of gratitude but on the donation of Christ he proves not what he would for he produceth onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannical towards the Church without proof and discussion whether it was well or ill done which was requisite to make good his proof neither doth he say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian the third for giving of privileges purely Ecclesiastical to the Bishop of Ravenna which out of his liberality he makes a Patriarch but on the whole matter this is to be observed that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Council of Chalcedon Can. 7. it is ordered that the Church should translate their Bishoprick◠according to the Emperours changing of his City and when the Emperours did it it is said they did it according to the power given them to wit by the Church so that a few examples to the contrary produced in the reigns of head-strong and Tyrannical Princes as the most of those are noted to be under whom they are urged prove nothing and if they did yet cannot they be taken as testimonies when these matters of fact are onely so attributed to Princes as no way to exclude the Church but whatsoever it was it doth not at all appertaine to the question since the Popes authority in the sense he calls him Pope is not properly Patriarchal nor hath any dependency upon or from change of places made by the command of Princes Num. 3 The first thing here answered is that it is not much to the Romanists purpose to dispute whether or no the Emperour hath power to constitute Patriarchs He ought to have added or to translate them from one City to another for that is in that Tract also expresly proved but this I suppose not without reason omitted because the power to erect or constitute supposes and implies the power to translate them And if this be not this Gentleman's interest to dispute I shall then by his good leave suppose it yeilded me and observe what the consequences will be Num. 4 And 1. In case the power of the Pope be a Patriarchal power and no more and that appear to be all that the antient Councils ever allowed it to be then it immediately followes that it is in the power of the Emperour to translate and remove it from that to any other See and in that case what befell Constantinople by way of advancement from the title of an ordinary Suffragan Bishops See it ascended to equal dignity and privileges with Rome it self will in the reverse be the condition of Rome from the first Patriarchal See in the whole world nothing hinders but that it may become the See of the most ordinary Bishop And sure 't will be the Romanists concernment to dispute that principle from which this may possibly be the undeniable conclusion Num. 5 But if as here it seems to be interposed the power of Rome be that of Vniversal Pastorship no way dependant on the nature of Patriarchs or on any other tenure but the donation of Christ to Saint Peter then 1. it must be remembred that after the refuting of any such right from Christs donation in the former Chapters the removal also of this was in all reason to prove of some interest to the Romanist and so it must all the proofes of those Chapters be perfectly answered which yet hath not been done in any degree as this reply to the few answers applyed to those Chapters hath shewed Num. 6 Secondly This adhering thus wholly to this donation of Christ and the Vniversall Pastorship deduced from thence is the direct disclaiming of all the Canonical Privileges belonging to Rome on the score of Patriarchy and so in case that first tenure shall faile it is the degrading of Rome from that dignity which by antient Canon belong'd to it that of the Prime Patriarchy and so cuts the Romanist off from all the advantage he can reape either from the affirmation of Fathers or Councels any farther than they are founded in and referre to Christs donation of Vniversal Pastorship to Saint Peter which whether it will prove to be the interest of this Gentleman I must leave him to judge for himselfe and onely adde in the last place that against him that asserts the Bishop of Romes Vniversal Pastorship upon what title soever this will necessarily be a shrewd prejudice if it be not disputed but yeilded that it is in the power of Princes to erect or translate Patriarchies by Patriarchies understanding as it is evident I doe in that discourse chiefe
Independent authorities over other Churches such as was by Justinian conferred on Justiniana Prima and Carthage by Valentinian on Ravenna without any subordination to or dependence on any other particularly on the See of Rome Num. 7 Can any thing be more prejudicial to the Vniversall Pastorship of Rome than this Can Rome be Pastor of those who have no dependance on her or can that be Vniversal from which some particulars are exempt Num. 8 This made it but necessary for this Gentleman to undertake two things in the following words that I neither understand the question nor prove what I would for if I shall yet appear to judge aright of the question even as it is by this Gentleman brought back to that which had been debated in the former Chapters whether the Bishop of Rome be Vniversal Pastor by Christs donation to Saint Peter and if I have really proved that it is in the power of Emperours and Princes to constitute and remove Patriarchies It will certainly follow that I have done all that I undertook to doe evinced the matter of the question and shewd that it is in the power of Princes to exempt some Churches from the Popes dominion and so superseded the Vniversality of his Pastorship Num. 9 As for the validity of my proofes that must be judged by the view of the Answers applyed to them 1. that I produce onely the act of an Emperour accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church To this I answer 1. that the word onely excluding all others the proposition can have no truth in it it being evident that I produce many other acts of the same Imperial power as the Reader may finde by casting his eye on the place the latter part of that 6. Chap and this Gentleman himselfe shall be my witnesse who saith of me he addeth an Apocryphal decree of Valentinian which though it be not a recitation of all that are by me added yet is sufficient to tefie the contrary to what the onely had affirmed Num. 10 Secondly The character that is given that Emperour whose act I first produced that he is accounted Tyrannicall towards the Church will I suppose signifie but this that he that did any thing derogatory to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome is by this prejudged from yeilding us any competent testimony in this dispute which is in effect that this Gentleman is in the right and all that is or shall or can be brought against him must signifie nothing which sure is not the way of answering arguments but adhering to conclusions without weighing what is or can be brought against them Num. 11 Thirdly For that particular act and the Emperor which is thus censured It is Justinian that great and famous Emperour his making the Bishop of Justiniana Prima the head of all Daciae c. of which this Gentleman had past a very different judgement when it came under his view in the former Chapter Num. 12 There his answer was the Emperour exempted it not from the Popes subjection pag 15. and yet now when the very same passage comes in his way againe he hath forgotten himselfe and the Emperour that just now had as great care of the Popes spiritual power as of his owne civill is in a moment become Tyrannicall towards the Church I desire one of these answers being thus engaged may make good the contest against the other Num. 13 But then 4. whatsoever can be said of that Emperor in other respects 't is certaine that this erecting of Justiniana was no act of tyranny against the Church but the very thing that is authorised by the 17 Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon which is one of those that the Pope at his consecration solemnly vows to observe and all the Ordinances made in them for that resolves that if any City be built or restored by the Kings power the Ecclesiastical order must follow the Political 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast the Imperial decrees concerning that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the dignity of an Episcopal or Metropolitical See And the same againe in the same words was decreed by the 6. Council in Trullo Can. 38. from whence certainly Balsamon's conclusion is irrefragable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is lawfull and so sure not Tyrannical for a Prince to take away or remove the privileges of the Church of any City and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine as he shall please concerning the Privileges of Bishops Num. 14 His second answer is that I doe not say whether the thing were done or no by the consent of Bishops especially since the Pope was an Actor in the businesse To which I answer that when I have made it appear to be the act of the Emperour and that by the Canons of Councels it was acknowledged fully lawfull for the Emperour and so for other Princes to doe so I need neither inquire whether the consent of Bishops or of the Pope himself were added to it such formalities of consent may be had or omitted without any disturbance to or influence on the matter Num. 15 His third answer is applied to that Act of Valentinian which made Ravenna a Patriarchate and first he calls the Decree of that Emperour an Apocryphall decree 2. He saith that it was giving to the Bishop privileges purely Ecclesiastical reproving me for making him a Patriarch For the first I answer that as I never thought it any piece of the Canon of Scripture by which Valentinian did this or any more than a Rescript of an Emperour which if such is certainly sufficient to expresse it an Imperial Act so the authorities for this may rescue it from farther question for though it were not Baronius's interest to believe it and so it is by him suspected of forgery An. 432. n. 93. yet even he acknowledgeth it to be very antient and owned by several Writers n. 92. and afterwards when the same authorities which are produced for this Hier Rubeus and the Records of Ravenna seem to favour his grand design i. e. make for Rome he can then very fairly make use of them though it be but a narration of a vision An. 433. n. 24. But I need not lay more weight on this than the Apocryphal as he calls it Decree will be able to support this is no singular president many examples there are of the like which are there mentioned in the Tract of Schisme Num. 16 For the second Patriarchal power Ravenna had without any dependance on the Bishop of Rome and I pretend no more for the Bishop of Canterbury and therein also shall bate bim the title of Patriarch What he adds by way of observation on the whole matter 1. that generally the Bishops consents were praedemanded or praeordered as in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 17. Secondly that what the Emperours did they did by the power given them by the Church will